demand a reason of that his expression 2. Why he so expresseth it as if the first Act viz. of Impetration or merit was in Scripture Phrase as done in his body when the Scripture saith the second Act viz. of Application is done In that body of his flesh Col. 1.20 Which place evidently treateth of the application of his Death and Reconciliation of their hearts to God by being brought in to beleeve who were strangers and enemies in heart to God before yet notwithstanding this is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that body of his flesh I rather wonder why our Author should produce such an expression making it the seat of Controversie without further explanation when it so easily might be explained Let him tell me how that Reconciliation was wrought in Christs Body Reconciliation is a thing subjectated in God Xanchy in locum existing only in mente divina not in Christs Body Expositours to cleare this unanimously say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In for by as is most frequent in Scripture as one saith Quasi dicat reconciliavit per oblationem Corporis sui And therefore said to be In his Body because it was done by those sufferings which were subjectated in his Body in which regard he was said to beare our sins in his Body that is the punishment of our sins but our Reconciliation properly is not said to be in his Body That indeed whereby he merited it was in his Body The meanes of our Reconciliation are twofold in Scripture His Body and His Bloud the one broken the other shed but of this latter it is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his Bloud as it were to expound the other that though it be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet to be meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his Body Col. 1.20 If this be so then not the first Redemption or procuring of Salvation or Reconciliation only but the second also even the application of it is said and also truly is In that is by his Body Seeing that we are said to be redeemed by his Bloud Rev. 5.9 Which place our Author averreth to be meant of the application of Christs Death therefore the circumscribing that first Redemption with this Phrase In his Body is groundlesse 3. We shall view the expressions wherewith this is clothed that so we may Judge how pertinent his alleadged Scriptures are it being his boast that he hath so many plain Texts First It is said to be an Act of Christ as Mediator distinct from God the offended Party Secondly to be done in his body as opposed to be done by his spirit Thirdly With God for men as opposed to of God upon man Fourthly A reconciling of God to man as opposed to reconciling man to God Fifthly This is said to be for every man Now our next taske is to consider how pertinent his Texts are to make out this Joh. 4.42 We know that this is indeed Christ the Saviour of the World The meaning of Which place if our Author Divine right must be this We know now that this is Christ that worketh out Salvation for the world and this exclusively and confining the word Saviour to woâ—â—ing it with God and that opposed to a working a Reconciliation in the hearts of men an empty exposition very improbable to the meaning of them that so said upon their being brought in to beleeve as they were 39. And so had the worke of God on their hearts by his Ministry certainly in such a time if they say his is the Saviour of the World they meane such a Salvation as is by faith in Christ Now what that is let the Authour judge And he said to be the Saviour of the world because they knew he it was that came to merit Salvation so as it should be applyed in time by Faith Shall we take the liberty thus to expound Scripture and say Math. 1.21 He shall save his people from their sins That is he shall worke out with God a Salvation which yet may not be applyed And Luk. 1.47 My Spirit rejoyceth in God my Saviour thus meant in him that worketh out Salvation with God for me notwithstanding which I may perish How shall we herein perplexe the Word of God Let the Author shew me where Christ or God is called Saviours and respect not had to the Application of Salvation either present or to come Acts 5.37 He is a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance and forgivenesse of sins Saviour there looketh at the actuall bestowing of Salvation he then is said to be a Saviour from sins when he giveth Repentance and Remission And the nature of a Saviour is clearely set downe Neh. 9.27 Gavest them Saviours that saved them Now that Christ in procuring life may be called a Saviour I grant but then it is with reference to the actuall application of it in time to them for whom he procured it Indeed Corvinus attempts to prove the word Saviour in 1 Tim. 4.10 In Molin c. 29. 468. He is the Saviour of all men to be thus meant Quia quantum in se paratus est omnes salvare but he giveth to me but little satisfaction for he proveth not that this is meant of any other Salvation than what is actually applyed And that expression He is ready to save as much as in him lyeth is no congruous exposition of this word Saviour for in his Judgement He may be ready to save and yet none be saved but if none be saved how Christ should be called a Saviour I cannot comprehend But to close I say to this Text Joh. 4.42 If he meane that this Text includeth and taketh in the Act of Christ in procuring salvation for the world this I deny not but this I affirme also it taketh in and hath an eye to the application of it to the world that is Men living in the world and then it favours him not for his first Redemption is such as hath no eye to the certaine and infallible application of it 1 Joh. 2.2 He is the Propitiation c. The sense of which place he maketh to stand thus He hath wrought out remission and reconsiliation for our sins with God and so for the sins of the whole world and that in distinction from the application but this very short of the meaning of that place that the word propitiation hath more in it then a solitary procuring of remission as distinct from application is plaine from the word it self and other Scriptures The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cometh from a word which signifieth to be actually appeased placated reconciled actually to remit the fault when the Publican prayed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did he desire only that God might be in a capacity or possibility to pardon or that pardon and remission might be wrought out for him with God notwithstanding which he might want it certainly he was not content with such
thus Ver. 14. For the Condition of Man constraineth us and layeth a necessity on us and others to live to God and not as they do The love of Christ constraineth us And if the Argument be drawne from the effect of Christs Death Then it is cleare the meaning is this Then are all dead all for whom he dyed for are dead have their old man crucified with him and so are or shall certainly have sin weakened and killed and live to God because he dyed for that end 2. From the Apostles expresses in the foregoing Chapter where he mentioneth that Life which he here inserts and may herein be his own Expositour Cap. 4.10 11 12. That the Life of Jesus Christ might be manifest in our Bodies c. Where life is undoubtedly taken for a Spirituall Life which he speakes of Cap. 5.7 We walke by Faith is nothing but we live by Faith as Gal. 2.20 And these may expound Ver. 5. where he saith That those that live must not live to themselves Where it is thus meant that those that live the life of Christ c. 3. From the usuall Phrase of the Apostles in other places when he perswadeth Beleevers to the same duties and useth the same Argument as Rom. 6. the twelve first verses where from Christs Death he exhorts them to death to Sin and a life in Righteousnesse but more particularly Ver. 10 11. Likewise thinke ye also that ye are dead to Sin but alive to God in Jesus Christ our Lord. So Cap. 7.4 Ye are dead to the Law by the Body of Christ that ye should live to another even to him that raised him from the dead Now is not this all one and nothing differing from the Text in hand yet here is meant a death to Sin and the Law and Life to God in the Spirit 4. From the Insatisfactory replies of the Remonst who have endeavoured to remove this Exposition 1. They say glossema istud peccato scilicet non est in Textu That is that glosse to sin is not in the Text True it is not neither was it affirmed to be in the Text but to be the meaning of the Text and this they produce no Argument to evert 〈◊〉 Hag. 170. 2. Sententia est quod ii pro quibus Christus mortuus est in peccato mortui erant That is this is the sense That all those for whom Christ died were dead in Sin as Eph. 2.1.5 That place in Eph. 2.1.5 is not to the Apostles purpose in 2 Cor. 5. therefore cannot be expected to be in the same sense Besides in Eph. 2. the Text affirmeth that they were dead in Sin and by sin which this place 2 Cor. 5 mentioneth not that is a glosse that is not in the Text we may also affirme with them 3. Verba illa omnes qui vivunt possunt accipi ut omnes homines viventes That is those words Those that live may be taken for all men living True and we are where we were we grant that it was that all men living the life of Christ and Grace might not live to themselves But this doth not yet please them they meane all men living the life of Nature but this is not proved we find not that every Son of Adam is bound to live to Christ or that it was his end and intention They would faine prove it in Acts 3.26 To turne every one of you from your Sins but from every one of you meaning Israel to every Son of Adam one and other the Argument is invalid So that by all these particulars it may appeare that by are dead is meant dead to Sin And by They that live is meant life of Christ Then how this maketh for him let any judge and thus we may argue That all for whom Christ died are dead to Sin but every Son of Adam neither is nor shall be so dead therefore that All doth not take in every Son of Adam A more cleare sense of the place I shall beglad to receive 7. Having thus suffered and died for our sinnes he rose againe the third day and rose acquitted of all the Sins imputed to him and a Triumphant over all the Enemies of our Salvation That he did so no man denyeth he had no Sins imputed to him but over them he became a Victor and this is true though we say he suffered for the Sins of the Elect only unlesse he prove that he was acquitted from the Sins of every Son of Adam and so a Triumphant over all the Enemies of the Salvation of every Son of Adam which is his taske to prove and that which he holds but this he doth not so much as affirme much lesse prove and this is his weakenesse 8. All this Oblation of this his Sacrifice he did dignifie through the onenesse of his will with his Fathers c. which is more then if every man had suffered and accepted of God as if all had suffered Herein we agree that it was with God as if all for whom he dyed had suffered but herein still is he deficient he proves not that it was as if every Son of Adam had suffered Certainly then no man should suffer againe for Justice it selfe requireth not a double suffering for the same Sins So that now to reasume these particulars I say againe That his being made flesh his comming into the world being made in the nature of mankind standing in the roome of mankind made under the Law having the Sins of men imputed to him and enduring the punishment that was due to them and standing acquited of them and that in all these his will to be one with his Fathers all these are requisite to his procuring of life Herein we agree and herein the Controversie not touched but that any of these or all of these were done for every Son of Adam to procure life Eternall for them he doth not yet prove and therefore comes short of his generall Doctrine Having spoke of his generall Redemption he comes to speake of his speciall the particulars whereof though lyable to exception yet are not pertinent to the Controversie yet some I shall insert of greatest concernment He to prove the Application of the Death of Christ by the Spirit of God in the hearts of men he produceth Rev. 5.9 Thou wast slaine and hast redemed us by thy Bloud out of every tongue and Nation Now The Reader must understand that this Text is produced by us against his generall Redemption and thus we urge that if he redeemed them out of tongues and nations then all were not so redeemed for some there are must be out of whom they are said to be so redeemed Now upon this ground the Author cunningly shuffles this Text in among others treating of the Application of Christs Death that so it might unsuspectedly be taken in the same sense but this a foule perversion Now that the Text speaketh of the Act of Christ in procuring Life and Redemption and that
words in a threefold relation viz. to the Author whom he citeth to the former stating which he rejecteth to the Question of which he pretendeth it is a state As they relate to the Author cited by him I answer these two particulars 1. It cannot be either proved or expected that these words should be the state of this Question about Redemption because that was not his Theame he treateth there of Reprobation and therefore no rationall man will expect to find in that Discourse a full state of this Question 2. Our Author hath got the words of that learned man but hath left us doubtfull of his meaning for that Phrase He obtained a way of Salvation for every man may have a double meaning First That Christ hath obtained a way viz. faith in which every man that walketh shall and may through it come to life intimating thus much only that Salvation is not attainable but by Faith and Repentance Secondly That Christ made that a way with a purpose that every man should walk in it and through it have life Our Author taketh the words in this second sense else the words of Dr Davenant serve him not but thus the words are not taken by him whose words they are and that for these two Reasons Dr. Davenant on Heard Pag 198. 1. He expresly saith thus The way that he opened for every one of us to partake the fruit of our Redemption is by Repentance and Faith which saith no more but this that the way whereby every man partaketh of Salvation is Faith and Repentance or that every man that doth beleeve and repent shall come to life and to this tends his after words The Decrees of Election and Reprobation are no obstacles against any that do this 2. Because he saith Election and Reprobation crosseth not that Now let us consider the Decrees of Election and Reprobation he maketh Reprobation to be a denying from Eternity Grace and Glory to the most men And these two viz. That God decreed from Eternity to deny both Grace and Glory to the most men And that Christ opens a way for every man and so for them as that he intendeth to bring them into life by that way or that they might be so are in my thoughts inconsistent Thus as these words relate to the Author of them Secondly I shall consider them as they stand compared with the former statings which he rejecteth And then I demand what difference there is betwixt this which he receiveth and the third which he rejecteth The third state saith thus He dyed for all that all might be saved if they beleeve yet they shall not if they beleeve not And is not this one and the same with his last state I cannot see any momentous difference For between these two Christ by his Death impetrated and procured that all men have life if they beleeve yet so as none but them that beleeve should partake of it And this Christ by his Bloud redeemed mankind and obtained a way of Salvation for every man which way is Faith and yet this puts not any man presently into the possession of Salvation unlesse they beleeve I need a more piercing Judgement then I have to find any difference I shall expect to find one in the Authors next Againe What difference between this which he receiveth and the first which he rejecteth For that saith that the Death of Christ is applicable to all Now when this word applicable is expressed without Sophistry it is meant only applicable and so in an indifferency either to be applyed or not applyed as the condition is performed So applicable is applicandum si crederent non applicandum si non crederent That which is only applicable is not to be applied but on condition and then it is hence Corvinus maketh these two Deus est placabilis and placandus si crederent to be equipollent tearmes and this is the true meaning of the word applicable Now betwixt these two Christ by his Death hath made his life applicable to all that is to be applyed if they beleeve and not applyed if they beleeve not And this Christ by his bloudshed hath obtained a way of Salvation for every man but God never intended that the outward Act put any man into possession unlesse they beleeve I cannot see any momentous difference and the rather I am enduced to thinke so because the result of the eighth State which he receiveth is but this that all men are salvable Pag. 36. which is one and the same with applicable which he rejecteth Againe I would know what this last state of the Question which he receiveth differeth from the seventh State which he neglecteth as not the whole truth Doth not the first part of the seaventh viz. That Christ dyed for all men that they might be saved equallize and speake as much as this viz Christ by his Bloud obtained a way to Salvation for every man And what is there in the last that is not in the first To obtain a way to salvation for every man which way is Faith is no more then to say Christ dyed for all men that they might be saved by Faith And doth not the second Branch in the seventh viz. And for the Elect that they should undoubtedly be saved equallize and speake as much as the second part in the eighth State viz. None but them that enter into that way of Faith and Repentance shall possesse it And what is there in this last that was not couched in that first particular He pretendeth a Plea which is this The distinction betwixt the Redemption wrought by Christ in himself by bloudshed and that which he worketh in men by application of his Bloud is not expressed But this is empty and groundlesse because that distinction is not in expresse termes in the eighth State and by as good consequence in the seventh herein he appeares not so quicke sighted as he pretendeth Diruit edificat mutat quadrata rotundis Thus I have examined the last State given and received by him in comparison with the former which he neglecteth and I can see no cause why the last should be entertained when severall others are rejected Thirdly Let us see this State which he so eagerly fastneth on how it relateth to or looketh on the Question of which it is a State the result of it is thus So that Jesus Christ hath so dyed and given himselfe a Ransome to God for all men c. That in and by himselfe he hath so redeemed and saved all men that they are given to his dispose and he will raise them out of the death he dyed for them and make them alive before him That they shall acknowledge him Lord and come before his judgement Rom. 14.9 12. c. And he is so filled with Spirit for them to make it so knowne and with such tendernesse that they might be saved so all are made savable When this is embowelled we shall see little
by bloudshed I am enduced to conclude from these grounds 1. From the word in the Text which though we read it Thou hast redeemed which word may be distorted to that sense yet the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou hast bought us which word plainly relateth to the price paying which was his Bloud as shed which word I conceive cannot be produced in the whole Scripture in any other sense and is not this word pressed by our Adversaries in that sense in 2 Pet. 2.1 denying the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that bought them but surely those were not redeemed by Bloudsprinkling and why they should put any other sense upon the word then in that place they themselves plead for I cannot see 2. From circumstantiating expressions in the Text as that he is said to redeeme by Bloud Now the Application of the Bloud of Christ to the hearts of men is done by Spirit But between Spirit and Bloud there is a wide difference the one is the efficient the other the meritorious cause of the Application But he saith True it is by Bloud but it is Bloudsprinkling but this glosse is not in the Text and should we say so he would presently aske us what belongs to them that adde to the Scripture but he doth not only say that which the Word saith not but that which it explodes As for his expression by Bloudsprinkling it is a quite distinct thing from Bloud because the sprinkling of Bloud is the Act of the Spirit and the Text saith Thou wast slaine and hast redeemed by Bloud which referreth that Redemption by Bloud to his Death and Bloudshed 3. Because the Act of Application by Bloudsprinkling is so the Act of the Son as that it is also the Act of the Father and the holy Spirit but that which is here said The Lambe thou art worthy c. because thou was killed and hast redeemed us by thy Bloud c. Cannot be said of any but Christ and that as by his Bloudshed procured life for us The Authors reply may draw more from me but herein he savours strong of an Arminian thus they envade the Text as if it spake o◠such to whom the Bloud of Christ was Applyed Acta Synod 360. and in whom it had its full efficacy Quis non videt hic agi de illis quibus non tantum impetravit sed per sidem applicavit c But this solves it not the Application is inserted in the next verse but the Impetration only in the 9. verse which impetration did tend to a further Act. Againe as he did set downe divers particulars that conduced to the effecting of the first so he doth now some that conduce to this second and thus goeth on For effecting of which Redemption Jesus Christ was exalted at his Fathers right hand Acts 2.33 Act 5.31 But herein I am unsatisfied why his exalting to his Fathers right hand is made an Act of Application more then his Resurrection from Death I thinke he hath no ground to disjoyne them they are conjoyned by the Apostle Rom. 8.34 Certainly all the Acts of his Exaltation tend the same way 2. I conceive as I have formerly hinted that all the Acts of Christ mentioned Rom. 8.34 Tend to perfect his Impetration and procurement of Salvation For if he had not Risen Ascended Interceded the Purchase had not been made or Salvation impetrated for men though nothing else was to be paid as Price but Bloud yet something else was to be done there was to be Ascensio Sacerdotis ostensio sanguinis The Priest was to ascend into the veile and shew the Bloud else no Atonement procured by the Priest Therefore this is not well divided from the other in the first Redemption or procuring of Salvation And why may not he as well say that he dyed to effect that Redemption as he was exalted to his Fathers right hand For both came under the same Notion of effecting that Reconciliation And the cited place Act. 2.33 speaketh no more then this that he was not only to dye but to be raised againe and exalted else could he not as God give them Repentance and Remission of Sins All this proveth not that his Session at his Fathers right hand is an Act of Application or tended more to it than his Death and Passion As for his subdivided particulars in Pag 6. I grant them as being nothing to the Controversie untill he come in the 7. Pag. wherein he delivereth something that deserveth examination which is this In some sort interceding and putting in for Transgressors even the Sons of men yet in and of the world Isa 53.12 Joh. 17.21.23 That so the men of the world might be convinced and allured c. But in a speciall manner doth he intercede being Advocate for his chosen ones c. and presenteth them to his Father holy and spotlesse Eph. 5.22 Wherein are sublime discoveries worth our notice 1. Whereas he saith Puting in for Transgressors c. but in a speciall manner interceding for his chosen ones seemes to intimate that Transgressors and chosen ones are not coincident which is not only contrary to the truth but himselfe in Pag. 120. And what speciall favour interceded for or manner of interceding that he doth not use for Transgressors This is a nicity beyond my reason and I feare his owne too 2. Why should Intercession be so ranged as to make a part of his Application He seemeth to be touched with Arminius his Magneticke who saith Sacrificatio pertinet ad meritum intercessio ad applicationem meritum acquisivit sacrificio pro applicatione intercedit In Perk 70. But it is against reason for if he Intercede it must be with God and for men And doth not Reason and his owne Principles tell us that this must appertaine to his Impetration Nay doth not he say Pag. 8. By this he procureth the grant of Dispensation And why should that which the Author pleades Is for all be produced as an ingredient into that Redemption which is proper only to Beleevers 3. I demand one place or places of Scripture that hold forth the distinction of generall and speciall Intercession especially now he is at his Fathers right hand for so he urgeth both kinds nay at any time this is a streame from the Arminian fountaine but not from the Sacred Fountaine of Gods word those Texts alleadged come short as not proving that he Interceded for all and every Transgressor or Crucifier 4. Why doth he Connexe Allure and Convince As if alwaies and whom God intendeth to convince he intendeth to allure The World Joh. 17.21.23 he would have convinced that Christ was the true Messiah but that he would have them allured to come to him is a presuming on the Text to affirme The Devills beleeve that and are convinced Mark 3.11 But he never intended to allure them Many souls are not convinced that Jehovah is God till and by their destruction Ps 83. last But then
That by the grace of God he might taste death for every man The whole verse is thus being directly rendred from the Originall We see Jesus made little lower then the Angels through the suffering of death crowned with honour and glory that by the grace of God c. Now here are two things affirmed of Christ First that he was made a little lower then the Angels Secondly that through death he was crowned with honour and glory now it would give some light into the after words if we could tell on which of these two they depend or to which they relate I must confesse it very obscure The Author page 65. seemes to make them relate to both as if he was made little lowet then the Angels that he might taste death and also crowned with honour and glory because he tasted death for every man but this least probable for then the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie both ut and quia both that and because which is not likely but let the dependance be what it will for the words themselves I propound these following Queries First whether these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be well rendred thus That by the grace of God he might taste death for every man And whether it may not beare this reading That by the grace of God he might taste of every death or de tota morte of all or whole death That he might taste 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This reading I shall cleare to be no way contrary to the Scripture or Grammaticall construction then that the context clearely leadeth to it the most forcible objection from Grammer is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a verbe of sense governeth a genitive case without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But although this be true yet it is well knowne that this language delights in such pleonasmes and redundancy of prepositions is the elegancy of this language when yet the word will governe the genetive case without them But some may say that if it had been so meant the words would have been thus placed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to this I answer that in the chapter there are two and in the verse one president for placing the verbe between the adjective or relative and the substantive And the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often for totus not omnis as Ephes 4.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole body so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whole death so that here is not one word rendred but justifiably by Scripture Secondly this is most agreeing with the context for if the Author will have these words to relate to his being made lower then the Angels and suffering death it very well agreeth thereto for if it be asked why he suffered such a death which death is not confined to the perfective act when his soule was separated from his body but extendeth to all the acts of his humiliation from his incarnation to his expiration for so all this was the death for which he was crowned as appeareth Phil 2.7.8 9. His taking on him the forme of a servant as well as his submitting to the crosse was that which got him that name now if it be asked why he suffered such a death of such latitude and extent it was that he might taste 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of whole death both top and dregs no part of that death we lie under shall be untasted off Or if we will have them relate to those words He was crowned with honour it well agreeth with them for if the question be asked how he came to be crowned with honour and glory as he now is the answer is not to be given or the cause fetched from the latitude of the persons for whom he was humbled because his first act of humiliation viz. his taking our nature upon him was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for every man for whom he afterward died and if the ground of his glory was drawne from the latitude of persons for whom he suffered his Father had as good ground to glorifie him at his Incarnation as at his expiration but that he did not but the ground is fetched from the latitude of sufferings when he had taken our nature on him and undergone a series and method of sufferings in his life and the dregs of all at his death and so drunke his potion and done his worke by tasting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all or whole death then and therefore he was crowned having so much suffered he entred into glory and so we see it well agreeing with the words foregoing And it well agreeth with the words that follow For it behooved him c. to make the Captaine of their salvation perfect through sufferings Now that word For sheweth that this 10. verse relateth to the 9. and that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he might be perfect through sufferings now when is Christ perfect through sufferings whether when he hath suffered for all men or when he hath tasted of all sufferings or whole death certainely if the former then he might in his very incarnation be said to be perfect through sufferings for that he was for all for whom he died but this neither reason nor Scripture teacheth and it is most congruous to both to affirme the latter and so Heb. 5.9 saith and seemeth to refer this perfection to the ultimate act and then he was made the author of salvation Nay further we finde verse 17. that it behooved him to be like unto us in all things still expounding his being perfect in sufferings that is when he hath sufferings that we were lyable to and so might know how to helpe us in all afflictions he being like to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every death or affliction then is he perfect through sufferings This I determine not but desire the Author to transmit it to his oracle and I leave it to the judgment of the learned and if it be found congruous then this Text maketh but little for him Query 2 Wave the former sense how can the Author fetch his generall expression from these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it was to be read for every man the substantive is not expressed but left so as indifferent to be rendred every beleever or son of God as every man or sonne of Adam the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or any word from it when set alone is not alwayes to be rendred All men or every man as John 12.32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not I will draw all men that is not verified but plainely from Iohn 3.15 where it saith the sonne of man is lift up that whoever beleeveth might have eternall life appeareth to be meant of every one that beleeveth and so 1 Cor. 4.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praise shall be given is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to every man but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to every faithfull man as verse 2. So
sense to enquiry and where is the injustice in this 3. He saith in the beginning that it is unjust to say that these words I am a doore a vine doe not mean as the words import yet now he saith these being paâ—bolicall are to be explained by plainer Texts but what needs that if they be meant as the words import this is not to evince us but to contradict himselfe He prooveth it absurd and grosse thus It is grosse intimating as if the sense of the words seeme to import that Christ was a doore of wood or as if the bread was transubstantiate into the naturall body of Christ whereas there is no words importing such a sense But it is not halfe so grosse as the Authors understanding that knoweth not how to distinguish betwixt the words and sense of the words we say the words mean not as they seem to import And he saith it is grosse intimating that the sense of the words import Christ a materiall doore grosse indeed but this is not the sense of our assertion But this we may say that the words may seeme to import some such thing though it be but a grosse conceit true it is that any that is acquainted with Scripture language may be able to explode such a sense but those that are not so well acquainted with it may as well by the import of the words thinke Christ to be a materiall doore as Nicodemus of a naturall birth his Disciples of a materiall leaven of bread when he spake of the leaven of heresie and hypocrisie and the Jewes of the materiall Temple when he spake of the Temple of his Body yet in in all these how grosse soever they followed the naturall import of the words But he illustrateth himself in this manner If a man say to his servant reach me my cloth in the presse and a Dame to her maide turne the cheese in the presse the child cries to his mother the pot runneth over cannot these be understood in the sense that the words import Certainely Animus fuit in patinis his minde was in his dishes or in the potridge pot but if his understanding had not runne over with the pot he might have seen a wide difference between a Metonymy and a Metaphor the instances that he produceth are no way opposite to the case in hand for if they had they should have run thus If a man should lay to his servant I am a presse oâ— the child to his mother I am a pot let the Author tell may such sayings be understood in the sense they seeme to import I am necessitated to traverse his exotricke examples He proveth it false thus It is false for Christ is the doore and way of entrance into peace with God and he is the true Vine indeed John 15.1 Be it so yet as he intendeth his owne meaning the naturall import of the words doth not afford it we say not that he is not the doore of entrance into God and peace but that by the naturall import of the words themselves such a meaning cannot be deduced besides Christ is no more a doore or a Vine then he is said to be the seeds man the field the World the good seed the Children of the Kingdome the Tares the children of the wicked one the harvest the end of the World the reapers the Angels Mat. 13.37.38 39 but these have not a reall identity but a similitude as verse 24. The Kingdome of Heaven is like to a man that sowed so in the rest so in this it meaneth but thus Christ is like a doore and like a Vine beareth an analogy with them therefore the Text saith he spake to them this parable Iohn 10.6 relating to the same businesse yet if any shall thinke him a materiall doore they shall be deceived though he say I am the doore As for that phrase This is is my body he thus answerâ—th He saith not this bread is my body nor any word to colour such a grosse conceit as transubstantiation Whereas he saith it saith not this bread is my body he must meane as if Christ should say this meaning his owne body he being there present is my body but this is weake and absurd not to insist upon those reasons deduced from the Sacramentall use and relation betwixt his body and that which he spake of but it could not be Sacramentall if he meant his body for it could not be both the signe and thing signified Not to insist on reasons deduced from our shewing Christs death till he come in breaking of bread as 1 Cor. 11. which cannot be if the bread broken and given was not the signe of the body of Christ Nor yet to insist upon frequent use of Scriptures wherein such expressions are used to call a thing by that which they only represent as Gen. 41.26 The seven leane Kine are seven yeares c. But this argument I chiefely propound when he took the cup and said this is my blood what did he shew them some drops of his blood certainely he meant not his blood but the wine that he took let him decide himselfe Luke 22.20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this cup is my blood then it is absurd to say or thinke that the other should not be this bread is my body and was not the Author ambitious of confuting a Papist after the new fashion he could not but see that that word This relateth to bread which he tooke now the words being thus following the import of the word Is may wee not runne into the error of transubstantiation let but the Author grant the Papist that the bread is the body of Christ as they take the word according to its naturall import that is really identically corporeally and they will not be beholden to him to grant it transubstantiate for if it be what it was not it must be transubstantiate into what it is so that now what injury injustice absurdity falsity there is in our first reason let any judge and clear it is that the Scripture doth not alwayes mean as the words import no not in those Texts mentioned therefore those Texts 1 Tim. 2.6 Heb. 2 9. may not be understood as the words seeme to import Reason 2. The second reason by which we prove that all Scripture is not understood as the words seeme to import is this because the phrases All men every man c. seems to import no lesse then every sonne of Adam else the Author would not so confidently fasten that large sense upon them but in many Texts such phrases meane but some of Adams sonnes therefore not to be understood as the words seeme to import to this he answers This reason is already answered and proved vaine and fraudulent in Cap. 5. In this reason there are two things the Antecedent and Consequent the Antecedent is of two branches First that All men every man seeme to import no lesse then every sonne of Adam Secondly that in many places it is
should put God to his purgatories to clear his justice but it is an easie thing to cleare his justice in that his people have both sinnes and sufferings when yet it would be too cleare if they should not have eternall life because Christ did not procure that they should be taken out of an estate of sinne presently or freed from all temporall afflictions to correct reduce warne themselves and others but that they should be in part renewed and at last come to life but he in satisfying Gods justice for them did actually free them from the curse due to sin which is eternall death therefore to punish any such with eternall death would entrench on his justice I say not that temporall sufferings is indured as satisfactions for sinnes I leave that soppery to the Authors neither doe I say they are no punishments but corrections but I say they are castigatory punishments not satisfactions and thus to say is no way contradictory to any of those Texts quoted page 98. all which shew as they were punishments so they were for castigation and correction onely not satisfaction as the eternall torments of them that perish are but so weakely are his Texts quoted all along as if he intended to make the word of God seeme vile The text by which we prove the proposition is Rom. 5.9 If whilst enemies wee were reconciled by the death of his Sonne much more being reconciled shall wee be saved by his life To this he thus answereth It saith not that all Christ died for c. shall be saved by his life but speaking of Beleevers c. they should much more be saved by his life Which is a meere shift and no handsome one neither For let us but seriously consider he makes reconciliation and his death is of equall extent if we were reconciled by his death and so doth the Author Secondly he maketh reconciliation and salvation of equall extent nay with a much more meaning that is not so great an absurdity to say we are not reconciled by his death as to say that being reconciled we shall not be saved then let him consider doth it not strongly intimate that all that he died for and so reconciled shall be saved by his life as for that glosse But speaking of Beleevers he saith that much more they shall be saved It is a perversion of a cleare Text for it saith not Much more shall we beleevers be saved which it would have been if his perversion had beene right but it is much more we being reconciled not wee beleevers but we reconciled their confidence of salvation was deduced not from their condition of beleeving but what Christ hath done by dying viz. reconciled them and this drawne from the connexion betwixt his death and reconciliation and our reconciliation and salvation which cleareth the proposition The second thing which he chargeth the reason annexed to the proposition with is Grosse ignorance in the end of Christs death as the price Of which he saith thus It was not that by that act without any more done by him men should be presently possessed of all that justification freedome from death enjoyment of life in him How he discovereth his owne ignorance to make the ignorance of his advantage knowne he discovers ignorance 1. Of the nature of justification for that expression Be possessed of all that justification implieth that justification is successive and reteined by degrees which is false 2. Of his adversaries meaning which is not that presently they should enjoy life without any more done but that in time they shall have life and that spirituall worke which leadeth to it therefore he is either ignorant or perverse thus to say 3. If we be ignorant in the end of Christs death I beleeve he will not informe us he saith thus That he might be the Lord of all men that he might have all released to him and have pardon in his hands and spirit and life to bestow as he thinketh fit that he hight justifie them that beleeve and harden and adjudge the residue to a second death In which discovery he savours more of Arminian scripture then of sacred Scriptures thus they define the impetration by the death of Christ Est restitutio in talem statum quo non obstante justitia deus de novo beneficia communicare potest vult eâ lege modo quo ipsi videtur 2. If Christ came to save them that beleeve and condemne them that beleeve not then a joynt end of his death was to condemne contrary to John 3.17 I came not to condemne 3. Herein is not mentioned that end Tit. 2.14 viz. to purchase holinesse that we may be fitted for glory if he know it not he is ignorant if he willfully leave it out worse 4. This discription excludes all purpose to have any saved but if they either be saved by faith or condemned for unbeleife Christ hath his end though all perish 5. That phrase as he thinketh fit importeth that Christ in his death did not pitch upon a way by which he would save but left it indifferent whether by faith or any other way if he hold that Christ by death procured life by faith in Christ then he is too remisse in that expression as he thinketh fit how many exceptions are his words herein liable to and discover little knowledge in the Author in this businesse I have showne Chapter 3. that the maine end so farre as it relateth to man is to give eternall life and all those are but intermediate ends as to become their Lord c. As for that which he produceth as one end viz. satisfaction of his Fathers justice it is not intended for it selfe but for something further now what can he intend lesse in satisfying his Fathers justice then that they for whom he so did should not answer or suffer for any of those sinnes doth then to say that all those for whom he so satiâ—fied shall be free from suffering for those sins argue any ignorance in the ends of Christs death or he that denyeth it it discovers more let any judge But he cometh to answer the objection page 10. it seemes he hath done nothing all this while but how If Christ strive in the meanes and they be found hardning themselves it increaseth their debt and if he punish he is just True because Christs death never procured an immunity from temporall punishments but rather that we should have them to correct and reduce us And if he still strive and they refuse if he give them over to destruction is he not just If he have received satisfaction for that unbeleife as he hath if that be true which the Author saith page 4. that he was charged with all the sinnes the law could charge man with certainely then with all the Gospel could then his justice seemeth blemisht in damning them for it eternall death is not correctory but satisfactory Unbeliefe is the maine sinne c. and this is the
the maine end of laying the foundation and perfecting the outside of my house because there is something more requisite to my dwelling in it as cleansing adorning furnishing this would he weake reasoning The Scripture saith he died c. that he might be Lord of quick and dead Admit it yet Scripture nowhere saith that that is the maine end of his death nay his Lordship and power is but subservient to a further end viz. to bring them to glory John 17.2 He gave him power over all flesh that be might give eternall life c. So that hitherto whether the objection deserve abhorring or his answers hissing let any judge But he proceeds to examine those Texts that are by himselfe produced as proving the proposition as Rom. 8.28.29.30 Ephs 1.3 to 11. which places I have not observed to be applied to this article of Redemption but in Election there we shall finde this golden chaine used therefore I am not engaged to justifie them as holding forth the strength of the proposition yet if any have to that end quoted them I shall guesse at their drift herein and free them from his responsory cavils Rom. 8.28.29.30 Their thoughts on this place I conceive to be these Gods foreknowledge praedestination vocation justification glorification yea redemption are connected in the same persons as in a chaine and of equall latitude and extent the top of that chain is his foreknowledge and praedestination and all the rest runnes in equipage with them Christ is so one in will with his Father that he would not redeem any but whom his Father foreknew and praedestinated to it his Father so constant to himself that he calleth justifieth glorifieth those and only those whom he fore knew and praedestinated he worketh according to his purpose That we may understand this more fully we must consider that the businesse which the Apostle is to make cleare is this That all things even afflictions shall worke together for good to them that are called of his purpose this he layeth downe ver 28. now the words that follow are to make this good as appeares by the word For ver 29 now that which worketh this good is this Such shall be glorified such as are called shall come to glory that all afflictions that are to them in Serie mediorum a series of meanes to that end shall further not impede their glorification therefore shall worke together for good But this then is to be proved that those that are called shall be glorified and he proveth it by this such were foreknown and predestinated to glory so that they that are called may looke backward to Gods predestination and foreward to their glorification such as were predestinated such shall be glorified but then further this must be proved that those that were predestinated shall be glorified this he proveth by the contiguity and connexion of all those linkes in that golden chain whom he foreknew he predestinated whom predestinated them he called whom he called them he justiâ—fied whom he justified them he glorified so they that love God and are called may conclude they were predestinated they shall be glorified and hence conclude all things shall worke together for good and therefore they conclude for many priviledges to themselves v. 31.32.33.34.35 some whereof are he gave him for us to death ver 33. It is Christ that is dead ver 34. all which they had by vertue of Gods predestination or election ver 33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods chosen I should willing imbrace a better coherence and sense of the place and if this be the right it doth strengthen the proposition That seeing all things that are in Serie mediorum as meanes conducing to salvation beare an equipage to his election the redemption of Christ is not to exceede it And so for Eph. 1.3 to 11. there is an ennumeration of priviledges from election ver 3. to glorification ver 11. but election leadeth the way and bounds all the rest Now to examine what he answers to these This is a far fetched inference evading the businesse in hand for the businesse opposed in the inference is the redemption made by Christ in his own body for men and those places mentioned speak of the benefits thereof c. yea such as many beleevers want First here is a falsity because it is cleare Rom. 8.32 speaketh of the ransome of Christ and of what he did for men in his body He was delivered up for us and died for us ver 34. and whether doth the expression denote his death or the benefits thereof Secondly suppose it doe yet cleare it is that all there mentioned and so all that tend to salvation are but equall with his election which confirmeth the proposition and this is rather a cavill then satisfaction Againe he saith thus Neither it is said doth and will justifie and glorifie but did and hath predestinated called glorified which I hope none will affirme of all the elect much lesse of all Christ died for Wherein he discovereth but a grosse understanding of the Text I hope he will not so limit the sense of it as that it shall come short of truth for all whom he hath predestinated he hath not yet called all whom he hath called he hath not yet glorified them Let the Author speake hath he called and glorified all whom he hath foreknowne or predestinated or much more had he glorified all that he had predestinated when the Apostle spake these words he himselfe granteth that it cannot be affirmed of all the elect but how then shall the truth of the Text appeare if he confine the Text to that sense certainely he hath missed the marke herein for though it be in such a sense as may be wâ—ll translated hath yet is used in such a Text as will not suffer it to be confined to that sense but to be understood Hath doth will and if this cavill had carried any weight in it the Remonstrants certainely would gladly have imbraced it but they conclude the contrary Nota vocavit i. e. vocat vocavit aut vocabit Cornel. A lapid in locum Act. Syn. in locum Iustificavit i. e. Iustificavit justificat aut Iustificabit praeterita enim more Haebreo ponuntur pro quolibet tempore and the Remonstrants joyntly agree herein Justificavit i. e. approbavit vel approbaturus remittit vel remissurus est glorificavit id est gloriae praemia donabit all arising to this whom he hath called that is hath doth or will so in the rest Now the reason why all the words are in the perfect tense hath is because the two first praenotion and praedestination are acts that are past and the rest shall as infallibly follow as if they were past already to some they are all past to al the predestinated they shall all be so that the sense is this whom he hath predestinated he hath or will call whom he hath called he hath or
salvabiles in a possibility of Salvation Againe to be but salvable argues that those are equally damnable for salvable is and must be taken to be saved if they beleeve and damned if they beleeve not Now to say that Christ came to make men salvable only argues that Condemnation had equall share and interest in his comming with Salvation but this is not Scripture Language Joh. 16.17 Againe to be Ransomed Redeemed Saved as Christ came to Ransome Redeeme Save require the worke of the Spirit of God upon the heart But to be in a salvable condition doth not Longer might I insist on these but by this it appeares that no one of those particulars mentioned nor all of them joyntly do equall those termes of Ransome and Redemption and therefore not well produced as their definition and hath the Author ever observed in all his judicious perusall of other mens workes that when it hath been controverted Whether Christ hath ransomed and redeemed every man this hath been the result of their litigations Whether all are in his dispose shall be raised at the last day acknowledge him Lord appeare before his judgement seat And doth the Author thinke that this was the judgement of that Learned man whom he eiteth to authorize the last State of the Question Or doth he thinke that when the Question is propounded whether Christ hath dyed for every man that these should be the result and the hinge on which Controversies turne I thinke he cannot be so senselesse But he herein discovers that he puts the state of the Question in that which the word Ransome Redemption and dye for cannot in Scripture Language admit And as it was never yet by any controverted to this day therefore how faithfully and learnedly he hath addressed himselfe to this taske I leave to any to judge These might have been passed by as short of the businesse yet being thus discovered they let us see some things concerning the Author 1. His ambitious affectation in stuffing his Discourse with seeming variety of stastings of the Questions thereby to magnifie his vast reading when indeed he cannot produce them from any Pen and his peircing judgement in casting out as by an Index expurgatorius that which is Heterodoxall when every State is abused by himselfe for his owne ends 2. His grosse and dishonest perversion of mens words producing them in such Formes as may render them ridiculous and subject to his rejection and correction 3. His great indiscretion in troubling the world with an Elaborate Discourse wherein he commeth not at all to the true state of the Question nor fully discovers to his Readers what he would have as if he intended nothing else but to let the world know how much he can write to no purpose But to come to some more perspicuous state of the Question as hath been alwaies given that so we may see the pertinency and validity of his whole Discourse I could produce many expressions from many Authors about this businesse who grant an Universality but not in favour to his Tenet but I will not multiply words lest I run upon the same Rocke on which the Author hath split himselfe neither shall I insert what I find delivered in a dogmaticall way â—ta Synod â— â— iv Mol. 〈◊〉 Sect. 1. â—4 〈◊〉 Hag p. 9. nor what is every particular mans judgement for the full state is seldome deduced from such But I shall rather addresse my selfe to Controversall Discourses and that to Conferences and Conventions of many and those of both sides where we may presume the Question is stated to the greatest advantage on both sides and so I give it in these particulars â—â—s Coron â—oll p. 116 â—es Anty â—0 Sect. 6. First The Question was never propounded or the State given in these tearmes An Christus mortuus est pro omnibus Whether Christ hath dyed for All the World the whole World but thus pro omnibus singulis as may be seene in all Controversies in this point and that upon this ground because All men nemine negante is taken for all sorts of men or for every individuall Twisse vind grat lib. 1. Part 2 Sect. 22. p. 255â— the first whereof is granted on all hands the second in question therefore men of any ingenuity have waved such equivocall state of the Question As to say Christ hath dyed for all men So that that Discourse or that proposition that saith no more then this that he hath ransomed all men the world the whole world commeth short of the Question Secondly The Question hath not been propounded or stated in an unlimited or indefinite sense as An Christus mortu us est pro omnibus singulis and no more Whether Christ dyed for all and every man in any kind or to procure any good but these controversies have been restrained to eternall life and pardon of sin its inseparable prognosticke And the assertion of the Defendants on his side hath been this Christus pro omnibus singulis inpetravit peccatorum remissionem Corv. in Mol. Cap. 27. Sect. 1. 424. salutem as see may any see in the Arminian Tracts The Testimony of that great and acute Remost hath it thus Morte Christi omnibus singulis reconciliationem peccatorum remissionem ac salutem aeternam esse partam sententia nostra est That is That by Christ his Death there is procured for every man reconciliation pardon of sin and eternall Salvation it is our judgement Therefore that Discourse and that Proposition that hold forth no more but this that he dyed for all and every man and not signifying the determinate end and good that he impetrated for them comes short of the genuine state of the Question and that Question is Equivocally propounded and the words spoken in pursuance of it are vainly and impertinently produced That I may a little cleare this businesse and prove to any understanding that this state of the Question is to be heeded in these Controversies The word Redemption is to take its denomination from the misery which we are redeemed from according to a Temporall Spirituall Eternall misery and Thraledome there is a Temporall Spirituall Eternall Redemption if spoken of such a misery from which all are redeemed then it is an universall Redemption if of such from which some only are redeemed then it is a speciall Redemption Now the misery which man in generall and every individuall lay under was graduall and a complication of more deaths then one as our Author confesseth Pag. 99. where he giveth it the name of deaths in the plurall number and it is apparant from Scripture that all kinds of deaths mentioned there are the fruit of sin Rom. 5.12 By sin death passed all death but we find in Scripture a death Temporall Spirituall Eternall as Joh. 11.4 Eph. 2.11 1 Joh. 1.16 Rev. 2.11 By Temporall death we were to lose our naturall life a separation of the Soule from the Body and in that
death to lose all naturall comforts which tended to our comfortable living and so the whole Creation made for our use to be reduced to its first nothing By Spirituall death we were to lose our Spirituall good the Image of God and his graces to become dead in sins alienated from the life of God and so to be denyed his glorious presence for ever which makes up the greatest part of Eternall death this third not being different from the second specifically but only gradu duratione And to all this there was one degree of misery more all this was remedilesly without a Saviour and incontinently without delay to fall upon man In the day thou eatest thou shalt dye the death Now had not Christ intervened and interposed the Justice of God could not have brooked one moments respite Now here is a great latitude left for Christ by his Death to procure some good for every Creature for every man and yet the freedome from Eternall death and procurement of Eternall life not to be so generall as to reach to all men Yea in this case Christ did interpose and every man hath benefit by it Every man is freed from the present incumbency of the misery and so to a life of nature and so to the use of the Creatures they being given to man not quâ integer but quâ homo and that every man is thus farre redeemed from the incumbency of the misery none hath denyed common experience shewes But then whether or no those are such as Christ in Scripture Phrase is said to dye for and to ransome Or whether to all so and in such a measure freed He is said in Scripture to intend Eternall life it is very questionable and never yet proved The end of God and Christ in giving so much to every man I will not now either examine or determine But one we may be furnished with from the Author That though mans condition was such as deserved the present incumbency of the Curse yet that and the execution of many of Gods Eternall purposes concerning his Son and his Elect could not both have their accomplishment God having elected his Son Christ to union Hypostaticall and office of a Mediatour to give and bestow life to such a number of men whom he had elected to bring infallibly to Grace and Glory and that absolutely without any foresight of faith or any good as he granteth Pag. 118 119. 120. Which Decrees could not have been accomplished had the Curse been speedily and presently executed then had not Christ been borne he being to come through the multiplication of such a long Genealogie nor his Elect had any being to have been the Subjects either of Grace or Glory many of them being to issue from the Loynes of those to whom God had decreed to deny both Grace and Glory That this was only the sole and chiefe end of Christ in interposing yea for them that never come to have Eternall life I will not determine but leave it to the Author to consider whether there was not ground enough for him to intend some good to every man by his Death and yet not intend eternall life for them Therefore to let this passe for granted that Christ did so far interpose himselfe for every man as to keepe off from him the present imcumbency of the misery so to continue to him his forfeited being a roome in the world and the Creatures for his subsistence And could he make it good from Col. 1.20 that in this sense he hath reconciled the world of Creatures wherewith God was angry for mans delinquency so far as to have them continued in their borrowed and created being it could not any thing intrench upon the Question By vertue of which interposall he hath procured and every man enjoyeth many benefits I will not undertake to make a full enumeration of them but let it go thus far that every good that any man enjoyeth it is a streame flowing from that bloudy side of our Saviour And were it so that by vertue of this he might be said to taste of death for every man as Heb. 2.9 To be the Saviour of all men as 1 Tim. 4.10 To have bought them that perish with a swift destruction as 2 Pet. 2.1 And that not only quodammodo liberati as the contra Remonst would supply that Text Coll. Hag. 143. but that this they have by the vertue of Christs Bloud Were all this proved and stood firme I should embrace it I deny it not Nay my thoughts are that if Christ had not procured it no man should have had any good it being as well against justice to give the least mercy as Eternall life without a Saviour for Justitia constat in minimis And were the expression such as the Remonst through the great croud of Notions sometimes let slip in too rude a drought Acta Synod P. â—83 Effectum Christi mortis est restitutio in talem statum in quo Deus nobis beneficia sua communicare potest vult That is The effect of Christs Death is such that God may bestow his benefits as he seeth good leaving the words in such a latitude that they may admit of a diversity of good to divers persons some good to every man some good only to some men Herein few Adversaries would appeare He may give many good things that never intendeth to give Eternall life But then all this would not satisfie in all this there would be a double deficiencie 1. All this wants proofe to be meant when Christ is said to dye for and to Ransome and to Redeeme As if he is said in Scripture Phrase to dye for them for whom he procured some good I thinke Scripture doth not say Christ to have dyed for such but rather for them that were the chiefe end and for whose fake he gives such mercies to them that never come to have life as to instance He dyed not for them to whom he gives any outward priviledge but rather for them for whose sakes they were so that so by that they might come to be and be brought to repentance and so to life And I would entreat the Author to furnish me with some Arguments to prove that all the good he sheweth to those men that never come to life is not shewne them for the Elects sake chiefly and that the end why the world is not consumed is not chiefly that the Elect might in their times and seasons be brought to Repentance 2. Herein is not the state of the Question but we are yet besides the Controversies all things have been quiet till they came to say That Christ procured life and Salvation for every man and in the hottest Disputes about this Point I find such expressions as puts the case out of all doubt Amos Anty Synod p. 176. Si vago sensu quaeratur an Christus pro Electis aliquo modo mortuus sit an pro omnibus aliquo modo
Reconciliation except there be some that are reconciled and if they be in the first Act reconciled or saved in any of the forementioned degrees the second Act is frustaneous in respect of that degree And the Remonst though they gave it the name of Reconciliation Redemption Satisfaction yet they carefully exprest themselves how they meant Acta Synod 289 Corv in Mol. cap 28. Sect 11. pag 437. Not that any Salvation or Reconciliation were actually wrought for men or acted upon the Creature but that they were in such a condition that God would be reconciled upon such and such conditions therfore called Salvation because there may be a Salvation Reconciliation but not that there is one actually therefore that Discourse that confidently tearmes that first act done in Christ a salvation Reconciliation Redemption without further explanation evidenceth that the Author is willing to lye under the censure of an Impropriety that he may lye hid in obscure expressions § 3. That those two Actions viz. Impetration or Merit and actuall conferring or applying any of those forementioned salvations belong not both to the same party to do The first is Christs and so his as none else he alone as Mediatour satisfied and merited because he only dyed But the actuall conferring of any Salvation is so Christs as it is also the worke of the Father and so not of Christ as Mediatour but then his as having a share in the offended Deity And for this the frequent Testimonies of the Remonst are sufficient Testimonies to them that adhere to there principles as Christus impetravit ut Deus possit sua beneficia communicare Acta Synod 283. Corv. in Mol. c. 28. Sect. 11. p. 437. and per mortem Christi via est aperta ut Deus vult nobis reconciliari Where there is a manifest difference betwixt the Agent in Impetration and the Agent in Communication but had we no such Testimonies the Scriptures would plainly evince it which attributes the active and bestowing the good merited by Christs Death to God the offended Party and that in distinction from Christ the Mediating Party that merited them As 1 Cor. 5.19 Rom. 3.22.23 Rom 8.33 34. 2 Thes 2.13 1 Joh. 3.1 Eph. 1 5. Wherein we shall find Reconciliation Justification Sanctification Adoption c. to be done by God as the efficient in distinction from Christ the Meritorious Cause Col. 19 20. This the Author seemes to grant in his first Discourse wherein he saith the first Act is done by Christ the second is done by his Spirit which second is not so his but it is also the Act of the Spirit and of the Father also And the Apostle takes in all in one place Pater nobis benedixit omni benedictione in Christo The Father of Jesus Christ blessed us with all spirituall blessings in Christ By which it is plaine that Impetration belongs to Christ as Mediatour Application to God the offended Party and to Christ as he makes one in that Essentiall Paternity that gives all good And therefore that Discourse that treates of both Acts as done by the same Person in the same respects is erroneus as doth his § 4. That the difference was never yet about the distinction of these two Acts Whether they are Acts distinct or no none ever yet attempted to confound them neither was there ever any need so to do but the difference hath been about the division of them Whether they may be divided one from the other or no That is Whether Christ Impetrated any Salvation for any man to whom it shall not in time be infallibly applyed Amesiuâ— Anty Synod â—69 And this may appeare by the decision of Amesius Distinctio inter impetrationem applicationem facile appareat sed haec decerptio aut seperatio eorum quâ boni impetratio tatis fingitur ut illa posita fieri possit ut bonum illud nemini communicetur aut applicetur est planè Antechristiana And therefore that Discourse that is spent in proving these only distinct which was never denyed is labour vainely expended as is his § 5. That to the Act of Christ in purchasing meriting or impetrating any Salvation for us or any man there is requisite not only his Death but his Resurrection also his Ascention his Session and Intercession all the Acts of his Mediatorship concurre to make up that one Act of Impetration without all which it had been imperfect The Remonst not being willing to acknowledge it have been at great variance about the sharing the Impetration and Application their due share in the stock of Christs Mediatorship Coll Hag. 147. and have said and unsaid They of the Conference at Hague adjudged the Death of Christ to belong to all as to the Impetration and his Resurrection to Beleevers only so by consequence to the applicatory Part Seeing that is only to Beleevers But yet not trusting to that one of that Conference afterward thus saith Corv. in Mol. c. 28. Sect. 12 437 438. FructuÌ„ nullum nullamque mortis efficaciaÌ„ esse citra ResurrectioneÌ„ verum est non dicimus Christum pro omnibus mortuum esse tantum non pro omnibus resurrexisse So that in their Judgement his Death brought forth no fruit without his Resurrection and if his Resurrection did concurre to the Impetration of Salvation why all the rest of the Acts of his Life should not I would be informed And in reason it will follow that if it be Christs taske as Mediatour only to Impetrate then all his Acts as Mediatour must go to the perfecting the Impetration It was not Death barely that did merit Salvation but the death of such a one as must overcome Death and so present himselfe before God in Heaven that could effect that businesse As in the Law there was Mactatio Sacrificii and Ostensio Sunguinis The killing of the Sacrifice and shewing the Bloud within the veile Lev. 16.11 15. Without which no Atonement made no not so much as appertained to the Priest So no Atonement purchased or merited without the Mactation of the Lambe on the Crosse and the Ostension of his Bloud within the veile in Heaven in his Ascention which is called his appearing in Heaven for us Heb. 9.12 24. And that appearing for it must needs be part of his Impetration else should he not answer his Type the Priest in the Law was to offer a Sacrifice and to offer Prayers for the People so Christ also out High Priest Hence is it that Christ makes this an end of leaving the World viz. To prepare a place Joh. 14.2 3. He saith not to bestow a place but to prepare without which ascending to Heaven and shewing himselfe there that he had shaken off mans sins and overcommed death the Kingdome had not been sufficiently prepared And hence is it as I conceive that he saith If I goe not away the Comforter cannot come either in the powerfull operations of his Grace or comfortable
perswasions of his Spirit that he could not scale any comfortable tidings to their hearts that Christ had done for them if he had not ascended that finishing his Impetration he ascending sent him to them Thus the Author grants Pag. 7. 8. He appeares and Advocates for us to procure pardon of sins c. And to present himself and the Covenant of precious Promises therefore his ascending and Advocation belongs to the impetration or procuring life Hence that Discourse that divideth the Acts of Christ about our Salvation and that as Mediatour some to Impetration others to Application as he doth is not sound and Orthodox Which generals being well considered will make way to the methodicall examining of the Authors distinction and his Discourse upon it The distinction followeth First A Salvation Redemption Reconciliation which Christ hath wrought in his body with God for men Secondly A Salvation Redemption Reconciliation which Christ hath effected by his Spirit in men to God Which distinction the Author excudes to that end it might be both heeded and understood which if he had as really intended as he spake he would have made it to bring pertinency and perspicuity along with it pertinency that it might deserve to have been heeded and perspicuity with it that it might be in a capacity of being understood but so wild are his expressions herein that his Reader is put to a double taske both to search out his intricate meaning and also to refell it the first being of farre greater difficulty which savours not of Controversall ingenuity And that which by his other expresses we may conjecture to be his meaning being granted in its latitude affords no cleare decision to the Controverted truth as in the close of this Chapter I shall shew It is not easie to determine whether by this distinction our Author intends to discover two distinct Salvations wrought by Christ or two distinct Acts in Christ working and effecting one and the same Salvation which if our Author had heeded to discover his Discourse had more tended to satisfaction and been better understood If he meane distinct Salvations then he should have discovered what they are and how distinct for truth we may grant in this thus taken That there is a Salvation from the present Incumbency of the misery wrought out and effected by Christ for all men And there is a Salvation from enmity of heart by effectuall calling wrought by the Spirit of Christ and this is to none but Beleevers But what clearenesse this bringeth to the Controversie in hand is not yet cleare to me Besides if he thus meane though these Salvations be distinct yet as his distinction is cloathed with circumstances it falleth to the ground for his first Salvation he speakes of is so wrought out for men that it is not done in or upon men but such is not the Salvation from the present incumbency of the Curse for that is so wrought out for that it is also acted upon men applyed to every man there being nothing requisite to the application of that but what is common to all men And his second Salvation is so wrought in men that is distinct from and opposed to wrought out for men els his distinction is not good but this is false for no Salvation is wrought in or upon men but it is wrought out for men Impetration being the foundation of all Application therefore these two are ill brought as members contra-distinct seeing they are coincident in one and the same Redemption But if he meane his distiction of two Acts concurring to every Salvation viz. a working for and a bestowing upon a procuring for and applying to As I suppose he doth not only because this distinction is in use in all Arminian Tracts in this Point as the businesse of their elaborate structures and the hinge about which they turne But also from our Authors owne expressions in every leafe almost of his Discourse as to instance The pardon procured and in his hands to bestow Pag. 42 43. He would work out a Redemption and procure life and it is in him for men Pa. 50. If Christ had shed no Bloud to procure remission for them Page 137. He hath procured Salvation and made them salvable and calleth them that they might be saved Pag. 157 158. By all which and many more it appeareth plainly that by his first Salvation he meaneth no more then the first Act of Christ in procuring or meriting of Salvation And by the second he meaneth the Actuall applying of it upon such conditions performed and if this be all I must enforme him that this hath been well heeded long since and fully understood and yet the businesse not cleared beyond all doubt of his side And I would then know Whether his distinction be not something allied to that of the Arminians of Impetration and Application the one for every Man the second for Beleevers only and what difference there is betwixt him and an Arminian Save only that his expressions are more absurd though he cryeth out of a heavy Calumny so to be charged And when our Author gives a more distinct discovery of himselfe he shall have a more distinct Answer In the next place I shall examine both members of his distinction apart of the first now and first to consider his expressions in it Secondly the Scriptures he produced to backe it The members run thus A Salvation Reconciliation Redemption which Christ hath wrought in his Body for men with God Wherein 1. I desire satisfaction why he calleth the Act of Christ in meriting or procuring life for men A Salvation without further explanation Meriting or procuring being an Act relateth to the Agent and is terminated in him but Salvation is a transient Act that runneth into an Object It is an effect and therefore must have an object on which it is wrought Salvation is opus ad extra and therefore to say that that is terminated in Christ is absurd As it is a worke ad extra so it might have an object ad extra also Corv. in Mol. Cap. 28. Sect. 11 and if none be saved there is no Salvation Indeed the Remonstrants called it a Reconciliation but then they explaine themselves that it is not an actuall Reconciliation But therefore called so because Reconciliation is procured and if the Author had so discovered himselfe he had been ingenuous but herein in my Reason is not satisfied That those things that are procured And in time to come to passe may be laid downe as being in Act when they are not so because of the infallible futurition I grant as he that beleeveth not is condemned and he that beleeveth hath eternall life Scripture thus speaketh but that the act of Christ in procuring only that men may have life notwithstanding which most men perish and the end whereof is not the Salvation of men that such an act should be Salvation Reconciliation Redemption neither Scripture nor Reason speaketh therefore I