alive by Christ is all those that are his and come from him as all that dyed in Adam was all his and so they answer one the other So for the second Text Rom. 5.18 19. It is of the same nature with the former and sets out Christ the Root and Fountaine of Righteousnesse and Life as Adam was of Sin and Death as appeares by the Conclusion Ver. 21. That as Sin hath raigned unto Death so might Grace by Jesus Christ and further it cannot in my Judgement be carried Indeed it saith Ver. 18. As by one Judgement came on all men to Condemnation so by one the free gift on all men to Justification of Life But this is not more pregnant then that of 1 Cor. 15.21 22. And thus I say to this also All Adams Sons by his Sin Judgement came on them to Condemnation and so by the righteousnesse of Christ the free gift came upon all them that come from him to Justification of Life and this appeares in Ver. 27. where this latter All is supplyed by They which receive abundance of Grace and this gift of righteousnesse If the Author will have more from the Text let him prove it and I shall receive it Therefore neither of these places confirme this That Christ stood in the roome of every Individuall Son of Adam Yet thus far I go with him All those he redeemeth by his Bloud in their roomes he stood and as this is produced as a particular gradation in his worke of procuring and meriting Life and Salvation I grant it But being produced as that which is done for all and every Son of Adam it still lyeth under a Non probatum est Besides to wave all that hath been said and to grant him that he stood in the roome of every Son of Adam yet he doth not touch the Question for then he must prove that he stood in their roome for this end to procure Remission and Eternall Life for them which he doth not in all this Indeed our side have ever been peremptory against Christs standing in the roome of an but the Elect and they prove it thus Quorum personas sustinuit pro illorum peccaâ—s at isfecit Perkin A Cat. Twissevn pag 266. for their sins he satisfied whose persons he sustained Now I shall not undertake to determine against them the least dramme of whose worth it would be ambition in me to think to counter-ballance but to professe my selfe not yet to have attained their light and to see the necessity of that Argumentation why he might not stand in the roome of many so far as to procure for them a freedome from the present Incumbency of the misery without which many of his Elect could not be nor be brought to Repentance and yet not satisfie for their sins only Remission and Pardon of Sins and Eternall Life require a satisfaction for Sin but the other doth not And of such a taking their Persons on him as to procure life for them I suppose they mâ—ne when they say he stood in the roome of the Elect only and this I subscribe to and of such is the Question And though we grant him that Christ for some good did stand in the roome of all yet he is short of the Question 4 Being such a publique Person in the nature and roome of all mankind he also became for them under the same Law and Obligation in which they were which charged them with Sin and bound them over to punishment by vertue of which all the punishment the whole Debt of mankind became his That Christ became under the same Law that they were under whom he intended to Redeeme I grant But this enferreth not that he intended to Redeeme all that were under the same Law He Redeeming but his Elect only yet he must become under the same Law that every man lay under because all men lay under the same Curse and Law It was never yet questioned whether Christ became under that Law under which every man was but whether he redeemed every one that was under that Law He would speake something and attempteth to prove it from Gal. 4.5 He became under the Law to redeeme them that were under the Law True Those whom he redeemed were under the Law else needed no Redemption but doth the Text say or inferre that he redeemed All that were under the Law Let the Author view againe Thus he useth to argue He justifieth the ungodly therefore All the ungodly And will he say He hath chosen the foolish things of the world therefore he hath chosen all the foolish things Therefore his Assertion By vertue of which comming under the Law the whole Debt and all the Sin and punishment of mankind became his wanteth proofes the whoe Debt of mankind doth not appeare to be his This I say that for whose Sins he came under this Law to satisfie He was rightly challenged with their Debt and that this being under the Law is a gradation in his procuring Life for men I grant but that he became so to free every man from the Law lies still under a Non probatum est 5. Being thus in the nature and stead of mankind under the Law for them God was pleased to challenge the whole Debt of him and to impute all the Sin the Law could charge mankind withall unto him and to arest and call him to an account and enter into judgement with him for all Which laboureth with the same deficiency that the former doth First This is little different from the former for betwixt these two All the punishment and whole Debt of mankind became his And this All the Sin and whole Debt that the Law could charge mankind withall was challenged of him and imputed to him There is no difference Secondly That Christ stood charged with all the sin and the whole Debt of those whom he intended to redeeme and satisfie for their sins I grant but that he stood charged with all the Sins of every man and the whole Debt that the Law could challenge any man withall was challenged of him this is not yet proved which only is to the purpose he attempts to prove it by some Scriptures 1. 2 Cor. 5.19 God was in Christ reconciling the world to himselfe not imputing their Trespasses to them True he did so to men living in the world But will our Author say that non-imputation of Sins is every mans priviledge Is it congruous to Scripture Phrase to call every Son of Adam blessed and happy For so are they that have not their Sins imputed Psa 32.1 2. Such an Assertion as this viz. That Pardon covering not imputing Sins is the priviledge of every Son of Adam I leave to the Founder of it and must dissent till I find more cause of embracing it 2. Isa 53 6. And made him to be Sin for us 2 Cor. 5.21 Laid on him the iniquity of us all 1 Pet. 2.24 He himselfe bare our sins Hence he concludes the Iniquities
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
nulla hic est certa determinata questio nec sensus modus determinatus Neque potest vel posterior pars à nostris nec prior à Remonst absolute negari The maine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Question is still where it was viz. Whether Christ hath purchased pardon of sin and Eternall life for every individuall man Thirdly That the state of the Question may fully and clearely appeare there is some debate in a third particular and that is about the Act of Christ as the first was about the object the second the end For that he bringeth all to salvation and eternall life no Remonst durst ever yet affirme or that Christ by his death hath procured that every man shall infallibly be saved that they would shake off from them but this they say He hath procured that all men may be saved if they beleeve Hence we shall find in all their tracts this distinction of Impetration Application of Salvation The first for every man The second for beleevers But because Impetration is not so familiar to common understandings we shall find in other tearmes thus Intentio scopus Christi fuit omnes servare Coll. Hag 176. tamen aliter evenit propter ipsorum culpam That it was Christs intention to save all men but through their fault it happens otherwise But herein they give no satisfaction but seeme to implicate themselves for strange it is that anything can aliter evenire to Christs intention and if Corvinus argue rightly it cannot In Molin 4 cap 28. Sect. 2 pag 448. Christus exauditur semper sive salvantur sive non quia oratâ—cum annexa fidei conditione Christ is heard alwaies whether men be saved or no because his Prayer had a condition annexed So why any thing should aliter evenire and he not have his intent whether men beleeve or no because his intention is but annexâ fidei conditione they cannot clearely shew but such insatisfactory implications are no strange things in the best assertors of that Doctrine But the full state of the Question ariseth out of these particulars thus Whether Christ by his death did intend or purpose to procure remission of sins and eternall life for every man either absolutely or upon any condition The Affirmative is the Judgement of Arminius and his Followers The Negative of the contra Remonst and their Followers And that Proposition or that Discourse or those places that arise not to that height are vainely produced in this Controversie As for the Discourse of the Author it either ariseth not at all or very obscurely to this state in its genuine Altitude but I find an interwoven miscellany of expresses sometimes attempting to rise to this State sometimes receding from it pitching his thoughts upon a far lesse degree As to instance somtimes he saith He hath wrought for all men that they might be eternally saved Pag. 15. Sometimes againe bating of this and putting his end in his Death and the thing to be procured thereby only That he might be Lord of all and have all in his dispose Pag. 142. And with many instances of both kinds the Reader may supply that have perused his Treatise as if he intended his Discourse A materia prima capax omnium formarum turned any way according to the temper of his Reader which fluctuating expressions trouble the minds of his Reader as not able to conclude what he intendeth and is very unbecomming any who intendeth to be either ingenuous or faithfull in the businesse But I put the businesse to this issue Either he ariseth to this state or not If he doth not what need of that grand distinction so long insisted on in the first Chapter seeing that to nothing but eternall Salvation or with reference only to that can the worke of the Spirit of God in the hearts of men be thought requisite What need of his busie Discourse if that be not the businesse he intendeth to prove viz. That Christ procured eternall Salvation for every Son of Adam None ever yet stirred in any other Controversie neither needed he feare any molestation And if he do then my next taske is to examine how his whole Discourse manageth the businesse and how pertinent his expresses are to the Question thus stated To which I proceed CHAP. II. 1 Tim. 2.6 Who gave himselfe a ransome for all Heb. 2.9 That he by the grace of God should taste death for every man Proposition THe Sence as the words import appeares to be That Jesus Christ by the grace good will and favour of God did taste death for every man and also so gave himselfe a ransom to God for all men and so is become the propitiation for the sins of the World and the Saviour of the World How pertinently these places are produced any common understanding may perceive The Proposition may well be received as proceeding from the Texts alleadged or with reference to the Controversie But all being joyntly taken do not touch the true state of the Question The first Text viz. 1 Tim. 2.6 is peccant in the first particular because it saith not that he gave himselfe a ransome for every individuall and this will appeare a cleare allegation if we consider that the Author denyeth not but that all men is in Scripture sometimes taken for all sorts of men sometimes for every individuall Therefore Ante factam distinctionem as the Logicians speake before distinction be made it's equivocall And all that I would have noted here is that it is not the plaine words of the Text or meaning of it that he gave himselfe a ransome for every Individuall but that must be fetched from his reasonings the validity of which shall be examined in their proper place The second Text viz. Heb. 2 9. is obnoxious to divers exceptions as being produced to prove the Quest For we must refer it to the Author or rather to his Oracle whether there be any such Text or no. Any that well peruseth the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may well quere First Whether those words necessitate such a reading as He tasted death for every man Secondly Whether they will not admit a quite distinct and much differing reading and that most congruous to the context Thirdly Whether if all be granted from the words yet what this is to the Question because the words say not neither from them is it urged by the Author That he tasted death for every man to bring them to Salvation either absolutely or upon any condition I say no more of these Texts here because there are two distinct Chapters set apart to treate of these two Texts severally therefore there I shall say more of them only here I cannot but advertize the Author that these words He tasted death for every man are not in plaine expresse tearmes in the Text nor the Tenent viz. That Christ intended to bring every man to eternall Salvation by his death either absolutely or on any condition is
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
in hand and also of what ends whether intermediate or ultimate these Texts 1 Tim. 2.6 Heb. 2.9 treate For the first I conceive that this Treatise of the end of Christ in his Death doth not only not help but utterly overthroweth his Doctrine Herein I shall examine first whether the maine end Actuall and certaine Salvation was intended for every man Let this be my Query When Christ gave himselfe or determined to give him was it for this end to make Salvation of every man Actuall and certaine If it was Then I say if all do not come to Salvation he misseth of his end which is not to be appropriated to any rationall Agent that hath power to do what he willeth and to bring about his purposes Herein I suggest to my selfe some Remonst denying that an Actuall certaine and absolute Salvation of any is the end of God or Christ in his Death as Arminius Non actualis peccatorum ablatio non actualis remissio non justificatio In Perk. 77. non actualis horum aut illorum redemptio quae absque fide spiritu Christi nemini contingunt c. That is not Actuall Remission Justification Redemption so no Salvation which happen to none without Faith or with Corvinus Quod ad applicationem salutis attinet non intendit eam pracise absolute In Molin c. 28. Sect. 8. sed voluit intercedere fidem hominis As for the Application of Salvation God willed it not absolutely because he willed Faith to come betweene viz. Christs Death and Salvation For the assertion it selfe I have proved that the Actuall and certaine enjoyment of heaven is the finis ultimus in regard of the Creatures because all the rest even Impetration it selfe is but an intermediate end It remaines that I reassume their reason whereby they prove it is not and they are unanimous in their reasons and it is this Because God willed that men should be saved by Faith I shall not expect to vye Authority with them whose Learning and moderation I may admire yet I must freely accknowledge that the strength of that Reason is not cleare to me no more then this A man intendeth not a thing absolutely because he will effect it per mâ—dia by meanes or this A man doth not absolutely intend to dwell in a house because he intended to build it first or being built to cleanse and garnish it first but these are not valid because he may intend to act the meanes and then why he may not absolutely will to act the end I see not so if God intend absolutely to give and worke faith which is the meanes of Salvation then he may be said to will Salvation of men absolutely though he willeth Faith to intervene Againe I can suggest to my selfe my Antagonist answering thus As for his Elect he propounds their certaine and actuall Salvation as his end but for the rest His end is that they may be saved Therefore to engage with this for that is my taske to encounter my Antagonist For the rest of men that are not Elect what is his end That there may be a salvability or possiblenesse with God of their Salvation This I have before shewed cannot be the end of Christ to procure it because such was without Christs Death and that he might do it too and yet be just if he pleased no man will purchase his owne Land nor Christ by his Bloud procure that which allwaies was without that procurement I am yet to learne that any thing obligeth God to punish Sin without satisfaction but his free constitution and determination whereby he becometh a Law to himselfe But God no where hath revealed that he willeth that without satisfaction mans Salvation shall not be possible indeed he hath tyed himselfe not to save actually without satisfaction Againe secondly I desire a proofe from Scripture of this twofold end of Christ one for his Elect that their Salvation may be certaine a second for all the rest that their Salvation may be possible which if he can do he will performe a great taske Thirdly I demand how this end can stand with that Decree of God and that from Eternity of giving those that are not Elect up to destruction for contempt of means which he foreseeth as the Author averreth Pag. 120. leaving no way in Gods purpose for the possibility of their Salvation Now if Christ propounded this as an end to procure life for them how is his Will one with his Fathers Fourthly Concerning the possibility of mens Salvation I know he fetcheth it from the meanes of life propounded it is to be had upon condition Beleeve and thou shalt be saved Now if Christs end first and chiefe end was this that man might have life and misse of it upon unbeleefe and so be dealt withall according to the Tenour of the Gospell or as the Author saith That he might condemne or pardon as he saw â—t Pag. 17. Then it will follow that Condemnation will have equall share in his end with Salvation but this is no Scripture Language which saith I came not to condemne the world Joh. 3.17 But if this draw more from the Author I shall answer more by this it seemes not probable that the maine end viz. the certaine and actuall enjoyment of life was not in Christ for all and every Son of Adam Againe Let us see whether those intermediate ends which he reckoneth up often can be said to be for all and every Son of Adam and herein we must consider that the satisfaction of Justice taking away Sin abolishing Death slaying enmity becomming Lord these are as meanes conducing to that end Now ends are desired for themselves meanes but for the end certainly then they run in an even aequipage those things which are willed but for another thing are willed but in the same respect with the other for time place person manner for if he should will the meanes to more then he willeth the end then his will must be carried on the meanes without an end or stronglier to the meanes then to the end both which are absurd and so Christ be said to satisfie his Fathers Justice to take away Sin to take away all that stood crosse to our Salvation to abolish enmity and that at so deare a rate when he never intended to bring in any to partake of life which cannot I conceive be received but with detriment to Christ in his unspeakeable wisdome No neither is Impetration the first end As I conceive the Question may be asked Why Christ did Impetrate And if the Answer be given it sheweth plainly that the Impetration is not the first end If we say that Christ impetrated that it might be applyed the Remonst do not oppose but leave it in dubio An applicatio fit Impetrationis finis non dispute Corv. in Mol. Cap. 28. Sect. 8. Nay all that he produceth against its being the absolute and procise end is this that he intended Faith to come
proud swelling word spake much of Christ and his ransome now it is frequent in Scripture to upbraid the sonnes of men with such things as they boast of as if they were so indeed as Ezek 28.12 and so making their boasting an aggravation of their sinne as Rom. 3.17.23 thou that gloriest in God and in the Law dost thou by breaking of the Law dishonour God So it was not an ordinary sinne that these false Prophets are branding not barely denying him that bought them for so every unbeleever doth in his judgement but this is more then every unbeleever is charged withall seeing he that names Christ is tyed thereby to depart from iniquity 2 Tim. 2.19 And they boasting of Christ they were more obliged then others not to deny him but they did deny the Lord that bought them that is not that the Text lookes at the reality of the thing but their boasting that it was so which made it be an aggravated sin in those false Prophets and how this agreeth with the persons spoke of and other Scriptures let the Author perpend and if so taken how much it serveth his turne let him also judge Are they not said to have troden under foote the Sonne of God Thus the Remonstrant urges Apostatae dicâ—ur filium dei conculcare act Synod c. ergo filius dei illis aliquo modo est datus fanguâ— testamenti ad aliquod gratiae faedus cum illis constituendum effusus c. That is they tread under foote the Sonne of God therefore he is in some way given to them and his blood shed to make some covenant of Grace with them the strength of which inferences I am not able to see for they being gathered to the Church and so hearing Christ preached so outwardly professing him they afterward falling off and not applying themselves to beleeve on him for salvation tread under foote the Sonne of God and this they may doe though Christ did never purchase life and salvation for them as a man may kicke the image of his Soveraigne in his coine though it was never intended for him Are they not said to be trees twice dead Jude 12. Yes we read so but whether the argument framed therefrom be valid I question for thus he reasoneth they are twice dead once in Adam now a second time by their sinnes now this second death supposeth a life intervening which they have from Christ but this is extorted and not the sense of this nor any other Scriptures For 1. For this supposeth all Adams sonnes to be made alive and to be alive with a life that is beside what of nature for this spirituall death in sin is opposed to a spirituall life but this is not the language of Scripture not one place that I know that saith all Adams sons are alive 2. It is frequent with Scripture to speake of things that doe appeare onely as if they were as Saint Paul Rom. 7.9 Without the Law I was alive that is I thought so but when the Law came I died here is a second death but that is opposed to an apparent life so why may not this Text meane a death opposed to an apparent life of grace which by their seeming holinesse they seemed to live but when they discovered themselves they are said to die the second time and this seemes backed by the context Clouds without water Trees without fruite twice dead 3. Scripture phrase speaketh that condemnation in Hell is the second death Rev. 20.14 cum 6. and this spoken of men as if it was actually so when yet it meaneth but thus that it infallibly shall be so as he that beleeveth not is condemned that is shall be in condemnation he that beleeveth hath everlasting life that is shall have it infallibly So this twice dead that is they are such as shall certainely die the second death 4. It is usuall with Scripture speaking of that which is throughly done or done indeed to expresse it by twice done or done doubly Jer. 17.18 Destroy them with a double destruction is destroy them throughly or to the purpose or destroy them indeed So twice dead is dead indeed throughly dead dead every way to this Mr. Perkins in his exposition propendes 5. The Authors Argument makes death in sinne to be second death but this Scripture speaketh not Rev. 2. Rev. 20.6.14 Therefore the sense of his cannot stand nor his argument from it CHAP. XIII Of answering the most usuall and strongest objections against this truth ANy that looketh upon this title and his first lines of this Chapter could promise himselfe no lesse then these three particulars First that the Author taketh these arguments that are most usuall and those that are of the greatest force Secondly that he propoundeth such in their proper force and vigour as they are propounded by his adversaries Thirdly that he giveth to these pertinent and satisfactory answers but that he in all these commeth short shall appeare by the following discourse The first Argument that he seemeth to answer he propoundeth thus The Scripture in such places as 1 Tim. 1.6 c. are not to be understood in the sense they import Wherein he perswadeth his readers that this is produced by us as an argument to prove the contrary to his assertion but this is false and bewrayeth his ignorance it is produced as an answer to the arguments formed on their parts thereby putting them to prove that those Texts are taken as he pretendeth seeing Scripture is not alway taken as it seemeth to import This responsory assertion of ours so much intrencheth upon his over confident concluding upon many Scriptures that he rejecteth it as many wayes obnoxious and affirmeth the contrary thus The Scripture speaketh sometimes plainely sometimes metaphorically parabolically yet alwayes truly and so as the words import for God is a God of truth Psalm 31.5 The weaknesse of which expressions may appeare to any for it may be understood that when we say some Scriptures are not to be understood as they seeme to import we meane not that they are not to be understood as the Spirit it selfe meaneth or as they are used by him to expresse his meaning but not so as they seeme to us to import not alwayes according to the nature and ordinary signification of the word which the Spirit useth Now let us see how he oppugneth this 1. He saith the Scripture sometimes speaketh plainely sometimes metaphorically parabolically Now in that he saith it speaketh sometimes plainely it granteth that sometimes it speaketh not plainly now when the Scripture speaketh plainely we know viz. when the sense of the words is so applied to the words in their native and common signification that he that knowes the one may know the other But when doe they speake not plainely certainely it is when he that knoweth the nature and usuall acceptation of the words used and followeth that and so mistaketh the true sense when the sense is beyond the native and
Episcopius is a sound interpretor when it is said a peccato it is no more then this A paenis peccati from the punishment of sinne Disp 45. Thes 3. a reatu peccatorum from the guilt of sinne Thes 5. and that not from the guilt of some or one but all sinnes and all condemnation absolutio a peccatis omni condemnatione from sinnes and all condemnation Thes 3. and this Scripture affirmeth Rom. 8. who shall lay any thing to their charge it is God that justifieth And so Arminius disp priis Thes 48. sect 12. disp 45. thei 6. ibid. Ab omnibus per totam vitam perpetratis from all committed through whole life and when it is said by it wee are delivered from death he meaneth eternall death So Episcopius per paenam peccati intelligimus proptie paenam aeternam quae mors aeterna dicitur in Scr. That is by the punishment of sinne we meane eternall death so that now it appeareth hereby that justification exempts not from the being of sinne nor from temporall death nor from afflictions for such cease to be satisfactory punishments though they relate to sinne as Episcopius desinunt esse paenae etiamfi non sine respectu ad peccatum immittantur but that which it removeth is the guilt and obligation to eternall death or if you will prosecutionem vindicantem the revenge or prosecution of that guilt These being considered I proceed to his answers to our Argument Now because he puts all the untruth upon the Major I shall resume it in the vigour and strength of it Those whom Christ satisfied his Fathers justice for they are justified in Gods account and shall be justified by the manifestation of this in time both in the Gospel and their owne consciences and at last be invested with eternall life else may Christ complaine of injustice To this he answers All the strength of this Argument is in the first proposition with the reason annexed unto it Then it seemes the Minor he giveth for truth viz. that all are not justified but then why hath he contended for this that all yee every sonne of Adam is justified in Christ as page 10. 45. But that we may see what he hath to say against the proposition he judgeth thus at a venture This is so contrary to Scripture that little need be said from the comparison betweene Christ and Adam it appeares that though all men be in the publique person Justified yet by and through him of the benefit of that Justification doe none partake but such as have a being of him If he had showen what Scripture this had beene contrary to that we might have examined those Texts he had done faire but he would have his Readeâ—s acted by an implicite faith 2. As for the comparison betwixt Adam and Christ there was nothing expressed by him therein that contradicteth the proposition not that preposition viz. none partake of the fruits of that justification but such as come to have a being from him because all those that he satisfied his Fathers justice for shall in time to come have a being from him 3. His expresses in the comparison betwixt Adam and Christ are so farre from contradicting that they confirme the proposition For he saith Though all men be in the publique person justified doth he not here tacitely grant that every man by virtue of his death and ransome as publique person to be justified in him and what is this to what the proposition affirmeth viz. that all he satisfied for are justified in or by his blood for to be justified in and by Christ are not different and to be justified by Christ and by his blood are as little different Christ is set forth to be a propitiation through faith Rom. 3.27 And this nothing against us for we say not that all when Christ satisfied for them they were justified in the pronunciation of the Gospel before faith was wought in them but that such in time shall be justified and receive the atonement in their hearts and his expresses herein hindreth not for they shall have that faith in his blood whereby they may receive this atonement againe true the evangelicall pronunciation of satisfaction is by faith but how doth he prove that in the minde of God they are not justified before faith Justification is not by blood shed onely but the application of his blood His expressions are herein something wilde but I guesse at his meaning thus that justification is not till another worke of the Spirit to be done upon the heart but then I say if he meane it as done in the minde of God it is false if as pronounced in the Gospel it is true but besides this is nothing against the proposition because we say still they shall have that further worke upon their hearts one time or other true also many have received this justification that once wanted it and some want it that shall have it but what are these to the purpose of proving that all that Christ satisfied for shall not one time or other have it And as for that expression Many of his elect want it for whom by this objection Christ should not have died Is too absurd to mention the objection is farre from urging that he died not for those elect that want this justification but it affirmeth that all such though they now want it shall have it in time As for that cleansing 1 Iohn 1.7 and forgivenesse verse 9 it speakes of a further cleansing c. to such as are in Christ and already justified by his blood and so not to this purpose More pertinent Texts might be produced to prove the proposition but this Text is not so deficient as as he conceived when he cited it for whereas he speaketh of a further cleansing it is hard to guesse at his meaning further then that he must meane one of these two or both further then justification or a cleansing further then that which is by the bloodshed of Christ but both these are false that it speakes of cleansing from guilt by justification appeares by ver 9. where it expounds it by forgiving our sinnes and that is such as is by bloodshed appeares in that it is by the blood of Christ and what though it speak of them that are actually justified it saith it is by the blood of Christ that is the meritorious cause and this is not impertinent to the businesse in hand but proveth the proposition that those for whom the blood of Christ satisfied his Father they came in time to be cleansed from their sins by that blood This untruth is not onely false and grosse in it selfe but denyes many sayings of Scripture as Iohn 3.17.18 8.24 Had the Author produced Texts wherein his managing might be more perspicuous or discover where his meaning lies in these I should have a clearer way for a reply I have seriously enquired after the intention of the Author in these Texts and my thoughts
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
any that denyeth the great love of God to the world of mankind John 3.16 Which is that he sent his Son that those that beleeve might not perish but have everlasting life 2. For his deduction there-from it is no high blasphemy to deny Secondly As for that Phrase Hating most men from Eternitie He doth not deale very candidly to set before his Reader the odious tearme of Hating most men from Eternity which flesh and bloud doth not well digest without explaining the meaning of his Adversaries herein as if they taught some monstrus Doctrine when indeed it is his owne Doctrine For that God hated Esau he cannot deny and that that hatred consisted in his denying that peculiar favour to Esau which he gave to Jacob he granteth Pag. 93. And so he defineth Gods hatred to be a lesse loving Pag. 92 And this lesse loving is a denying of that good which he giveth to another Now for God to deny that great good viz. Grace and Glory to most men which hee giveth to his Elect this is in our sense to hate them and let him if he can produce any that speaks otherwise of Gods hatred But this is no such Blasphemy as he pretendeth for he saith no lesse himselfe He decreed to harden and give up the residue for contempt of meanes to shew his justice when he overcommeth his Elect and brings them in to beleeve and so to the inheritance Pag. 123. Now is not to decree to harden to deny that great good Grace and Glory which he giveth to his Elect in overcoming them to beleeve And is not this to hate And is not this to most men in his owne expresses Yet he cries out of blaspheming the love of God in saying that in that sense God is said to hate most men But he may happily reply that Gods hardening most men is for contempt of meanes but this helpeth him not because he overcommeth his Elect notwithstanding contempt of meanes therefore he denies that grace to one which he giveth to another Aquin. part 1. q. 23. art 3. Therefore to this I say with Aquinas In quantum vult omnibus aliquod bonum omnes amat in quantum aliquibus non dat quodcunque bonum nec illud bonum quod est vita aeterna ideo eos odio habet reprobat Thirdly As for that Phrase of Most men being not beholding to God for any good at all It is his owne perverse inference that because we say he denyeth the top of his love to most men therefore he chargeth us with this that they are not beholding to God for any good False suggestion That God shineth both on Just and unjust shews many mercies to all no man denyeth Omnibus dat aliquod bonum ideo omnes amat Fourthly As for the last And no doore of life and repentance set open for them I only demand what doore can be set open and with what intention it is set open to them whom God hath determined to give up to destruction But this he hath done to most men as he saith Pag. 120. Now that I may in a few words thus reason they that are decreed to be given up and hardened are Reprobated and they that are Reprobated whilst they remaine so cannot be saved nor receive Faith or Conversion is the Confession of Corvinus Cap. 26. §. 5 Si intelligatur de reprobo qua tali in sensu composito nego reprobum posse salvari aut fidem accipere se convertere And that they that are from Eternity Reprobated do alwaies remaine so is cleare from their Principles because Reprobation is past on them that do finally persist in Infidelity and disobedience whom God foreseeth to do so and by vertue of his prescience do infallibly persist in it and so remaine alwaies Reprobates Hence is it that Corvinus himselfe Cap. 21. §. 6. though he said that Justified persons might be reprobated yet he durst not say that Reprobated persons could be justified because that was the conclusive Act being done after finall impenitence after which no man can beleeve or repent Therefore how a doore of life can be opened to such in time I cannot see and to deny it is no blasphemy The second thing which he sadly layeth to heart is That Many contradict plaine sayings of Scripture as that Christ gave himselfe a ransome for all 1 Tim. 2.6 Christ tasted death for every man Heb. 2.9 and affirme contrarie that Christ did not shed his bloud or die for everie man But herein he discovers either affected Ignorance or wilfull Calumny For 1. He cannot produce any that deny the truth of those Scriptures If he will content himselfe with what those places affirme he shall have no Antagonist but that which we deny is his glosses on and inferences from those Texts as that Christ did by death procure Eternall life for every son of Adam which no Scripture affirmeth The Remonst to whom our Author must come behind in these Controversies have been so farre from charging us with denying Plaine sayings of Scriptures that they have granted that their Tenent is not nor can be thought to be contained in plaine sayings of Scripture Col. Hagien 170. Vrgent fratres articulum istum totidem verbis Scripturae nunquā reperiri sed respōdemus fierinon posse ut articulus Controversus inter eos qui Scripturam pro verbo Dei agnoscunt totidem verbis Scripturae concipiatur They had the ingenuity to conceive that no man that had the least sparke of grace or reason would question or deny that which the Scripture plainely affirmeth Rep. ad art 31. art 12 and Arminius professeth that in this very point the Controversie is not about the words but sense and interpretation as may be seene in that place quoted in my Frontispiece but our Adversary delights fingere sibi adversarium stolidum to make to himselfe a foolish Adversary A third thing that he complaineth of is this That the Doctrine of the Church of England should be called a flat lie viz. that God redeemed me and all mankind in this assertion he redeemed none but the Elect. Wherein we may see the Church of England hath a Son of a very good nature but a very bad ingeny sorry to have her wronged but knoweth not when she is so therefore pickes quarrels without cause For 1. He that takes the Liturgie of the Church of England for the Doctrine thereof may very well take that for an injury which is not and what cause many have had to say that many expressions were foisted into the Liturgie and it not retaine its Primitive purity I leave to him to examine 2. To redeem totum genus humanum is no more then Omnia genera hominum all mankind no more then all the kinds of men and if he would have that Phrase to meane further he must prove it now this is not proved a lye by saying he redeemed only the Elect for such he hath in all
he here magnifieth his peircing judgement in descrying that tye that few besides himselfe could see but his ground I shall examine because happily it may reflect on them that are of a contrary judgement yet are under the same Covenant with him His grounds are twofold 1. He professed to maintaine the Protestant Religion against Popery and Popish Innovations To which he thinkes the denyall of his Doctrine sets a wide doore open I know not what his conscience is I am sure his understanding is weake if he herein speake as he thinks as for any feare of Popery I conceive no ground there is no affinity at all Let the Author peruse the Jesuites over looke the Remists in the Controverted places and then let him tell me if that Protestation tyed him against Popery obliged him to hold universall Redemption the Authour if he tooke the Protestation in judgement doth or may know that Papists are divided in those Points as well as Protestants and that ours hath no more affinity with Popery than his Doctrine because Papists there are on both sides as well as Protestants on both sides 2. The second ground is because he protested to defend the Doctrine of the Church of England As if his Doctrine fetched any authority from that He produceth foure severall Articles I shall examine them severally 1. Art 6. Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation so that what is not there read or proved by it is not required of any to be beleeved True But why doth not he thinke himselfe by this obliged rather to relinquish his opinion than to defend it Seeing no Scripture speaketh so much as is afterwards shewne and in that no Scripture faith so much this Article of the Doctrine of the Church of England binds him not to beleeve it much lesse to defend it First let him prove that his Tenent is the language of Scripture before he be bound by that article to defend it 2. Art 20. It is not lawfull for the Church to ordaine any thing that is contrary to the Word of God neither may it so expound one place of Scripture that it be so repugnant to another And still this is no friend to him or his Doctrine or way of maintaining it it must be first tryed who are most guilty of giving such uncouth interpretations of Scripture as that they cannot be reconciled to other places which I feare will fall upon the Author and this the ensuing Discourse will make appeare Herein the Reader may take a survey of the size of the Authors understanding and judgement in his Protestation taking 3. Art 2. Christ very God very man who suffered was crucified c. to reconcile his Father to us and to be a Sacrifice not only for originall guilt but also for all actuall sins of men This is truth but then the Reader may see that is no such enemy to the Popish Innovation against which this Article was framed nor is this Article so great a friend to his Tenent as he in both pretendeth Let us take the Popish Innovation as he layeth it downe Pag. 98. That Christ only paid the greatest part of the debt to his Father wholly in respect of Eternall punishment and left a Part of the debt in respect of temporall punishments for his People to pay c. Now whether do we that say according to this Article that Christ by his death was a Sacrifice not for originall only nor some actuall sins only but originall and all actuall sins of them for whom he dyed So that â—here is no new debt required of them for which he did not satisfie or he that saith that there is a new debt which Christ did not satisfie for viz. Contempt of meanes of grace which God may require of them for whom Christ dyed as a debt not satisfied for let any rationall man judge But as the grounds of his protesting So are his performances very weake Secondly This Article is no friend to his Tenent for if he have not suffered shipwracke of his common understanding he may see a wide difference betwixt the sins of all men and all the sins of men and hence ariseth his mistake he referreth the Particle All to men and it is to be referred to sins That Chirurgion that saith he hath wrought a cure on all the members of mans body doth no way inferre that he hath wrought a cure of the Members of all mens bodies That Article tendeth hitherto to affirme that Christ did take away all the sins of them for whom he dyed as well Actuall as Originall and our Authour would stretch it to averre that he tooke away the Actuall and Originall sins of every man but this is not to defend but to destroy the Doctrine of the Church of England 4. Art 15.31 That by the Sacrifice of himselfe he should take away the sins of the world and all the sins of the whole world both Originall and Actuall and this against a Popish Innovation Truth and so he doth take away the sin of the world that is of men living in the world as he is said to be beleeved on in the world that is by men living in the world He taketh away sins from the world quoad partem credentem in them that beleeve as John 3.16 And for all the sins of Beleevers all over the whole world thus farre we grant it but he cannot with any shew of reason stretch those Articles any further he may see that the scope of them tend to another businesse for if they should speak as much as the Author intendeth they should say thus much That Christ took away all Originall all Actuall sins of every Son of Adam which no Scripture speaketh no Arminian affirmeth and the Author disclaimeth for he saith contempt of meanes is a new debt Therefore the Doctrine of the Church of England being Orthodox and so he haveing protested to defend it it cannot speake any such thing or any waies favour his Doctrine Many more particulars might be instanced in but they are of so low a flight that they cannot but be distastefull to the Palate of them that are any way ingenuous therefore with these I content my selfe as affording a sufficient taste of his forged Calumnies impertinent Allegations abuse and foule dealing with his Opposers infirm and weake grounds both in maintaining his Doctrine and matters of greater concernment his Covenant and Protestations which should be done in judgement Ex pede Herculem by the foot we may guesse at the stature of the Body so by this we may guesse at the whole but I prepossesse thee not with prejudice as thou findest judge Now happily thou mayest demand why this comes forth as a birth out of due time after so many in these Controversies as Mr Whitfield and others To this I answer First because this was finished before Mr Whitfield's came to light Secondly because if the men we have to deale with were of such ingenuity as
that when a man doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refutare refute the most illustrious and expressions of greatest force in a Controversie they could acquiesce in it as if he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refutare refute all Then I know Mr Whitfield would give good satisfaction he having given such solutions as the Author will never contradict But any that considereth the nature of our Antagonists they may adjudge what hath been said to be a little too concise and thence they take occasion to say that we picke and chuse for our owne advantage therefore I have applyed my selfe to a generall Answer not leaving any materiall expression unexamined wishing every intelligent Reader to consider that the nature of my Antagonist necessitateth me to this tediousnesse Thirdly I hope though much hath been said with my poore Tallent to cast some Mite into the Treasure of publique decisions therefore not with intention to ecclipse in any measure what hath been before said but desiring in a brotherly way to unite forces to refell this spreading errour that eateth like a Canker The Method of his Chapters I have inverted his Sixt is my First To try a man when he is halfe hanged and to state a question in the midst of a Discourse I thinke not much different And to the Reader of what judgement soever I say but this Let neither affection nor prejudice either interpret Scripture or answer Reason follow the naturall and cleare genius of the Text and I commit this my unworthy Discourse to thy perusall and us all to God to lead us into all Truth necessary for our Salvation and remaine Thine to serve thee in our Common Saviour Obadiah Howe The Vniversalist Examined and Convicted destitute of plaine Sayings of Scripture or Evidence of Reason CHAP. I. Of the State of the Question THe vigour and life of Controversies ariseth from the right and due stating of the Question which deserveth to be transacted in the first place therefore I shall shew how the Author stateth the Question and then lay downe the usuall and genuine state as it hath been laid downe in all engagements in these Points The Author being a Man of vast reading in the Polemicks of Divinity attempts to summon the severall statings of the Question to his Test and saith 1. Some say Jesus Christ dyed for his Elect and only for them that are Elect to Sonship and Eternall Inheritance and no other Herein the affirmative of the Question is set downe but no state of the Question The one side say Christ dyed for his Elect only the other side say that Christ dyed for All but in neither is the Question stated only the affirmation barely propounded I shall expect to heare the Person and Place where this is given as the state of the Question 2. Some say that Christ dyed for all men alike wrought Redemption for all men alike with like love like intention and for like ends but this hath no ground in Scripture Who they are that thus state the Question I should gladly be informed if it be found any where it must be among the most rigid maintainers of his Doctrine and none more rigid then the Remonstrants do I know yet they disclaime it They would have the Love of God to be Common to all but not equall to all men a Corvin in Mel. cap. 31. Sect. 1. p. 492. Non volumus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ergâ hominum salutem esse equalem sed communem And also Arminius himself b Armin. in Perk. pag. 57◠Scio quidem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dei non esse omnimodo equalem c. Yet how they can avoid this I see not For they say that out of his naturall goodnesse he propendeth to the salvation of all men and that indifferently to all and by his will which they call plenaria voluntas he willeth Salvation to all if they beleeve and to none if they be incredulous Now lest any should thinke that I wrong them I instance that his will and intention is to save every man if they will beleeve and accept of him is cleare from their words Intentio scopus fuit omnes servare Coll. Hog 176. sed aliter evenit propter eorum culpam That it was his intention and scope to save all men but it falleth out otherwise through their owne default and also Corvin in Mol c. 27. Sect. 1. Corv. in Mol. Cap. 27. Sect. 4 Acta Synod 285. Nullus omnino hominum est cujus falutem non velit And that he dyed to procure life for none but upon this condition of saith is evident from them In that they say that Christ may have the end of his death entire though none either beleeve or be saved and this they say Quare etsi nemo credidisset futurum tamen fuisse ut finis mortis Christi constaret omnino credimus and also Cum mandanti Deo resistere possunt omnes singuli relinquitur profectò fieri posse ut impetratio sarta tecta maneat suisque numeris perfecta constet etiamsi increduli omnes manentes nulli essent foriè qui fructum ejus perciperent But this is well knowne to any that have but tasted of those disputes Now to say that he willeth the Salvation of all if they beleeve and the damnation of all if they beleeve not And so Christ by his death Impetrated Salvation for all that they might be saved if they beleeve and yet that none might be saved if they beleeve not and so for all any decree of God all may be incredulous and perish if this be not to say that Christ dyed for all men alike for like ends c. I know not what is But yet I say their professe words say nothing like this when they come to give the state of the Question and so to come to my Antagonist againe if he find it not there I would know where he findeth it elsewhere But besides I know not how the Author can free himselfe from this groundlesse assertion what his judgement is truly I cannot determine but so farre as his Discourse may assure us we may conclude it for in Cap. 2. where he sets downe the ends of Christ so far as concernes Men as Pag. 16 17 18 19. he concludeth That every particular in that generall was for the world all men every man Now to review these particulars I say with the Author Christ satisfied the justice of God for every Son of Adam and for all indifferently for no one more than another he satisfied it for all and he could but satisfie it for any So for a second Christ is the Lord of every man and not over one more than another but of all equally He is absolute Lord and Soveraigne over all and he can be no more as Lord to any So for a third He is the Ransome of All and not of one more than another That which is done for All and every Man is done
for all alike That which is done to every man as men or as sinners is done to all and makes no discrimination among men but all the former are his owne affirmations whence any may conclude that Christ dyed for al men alike for he mentioneth no other end so farre as Respects Ransome or Propitiation but what agreeth to every man alike in his owne reasoning 3. Some say Christ dyed for every man in case every man beleeve on him and for no man in case they persist in unbeleife but this is no Scripture sense c. Christ hath given himselfe a Ransome whether men beleeve it or no. I conceive the Author cannot produce any that so state the Question the modell of this plea may be drawne out of the Remonstrants with the greatest probability but they say no such thing they do not leave the act of man in beleeving to determine the act of Christ as done in and by himselfe For then they cannot prove that he dyed for any because in their judgement all may be unbeleevers and perish and yet Christ have his end They say as firmely and perspicuously that Christ dyed for all Acta Synod 4â— whether men beleeve or no as the Author himselfe avoucheth it Phrasis illa Christus mortuus est pro omnibus si credant fupponit cum non mortuum esse pro iis quis non credunt quod falsum est ideo mortuus est non si credant sed ut credant salventur Therefore I conclude that such a state of the Question he cannot produce from any Pen. 4. Some say Jesus Christ dyed in some sort for all men and so as all do receive some benefit thereby He dyed for all men as a Lord but he did not dye for all as a Surety to pay the price for and become the Propitiation for the sins of all The result of his thoughts is like the errand of Ahimaaz he seeth something but he knoweth not what something he meaneth if he could but speake For 1. Some he may produce that say that all Men yea all Creatures receive some benefit by Christs Death but then he erreth in a twofold respect they neither give this as the state of the Question neither do they say that he dyed for all that receive benefit by his Death he dyed for no other but men whose nature he undertook thus Scripture affirmeth but many more Creatures besides Men have some benefit by Christs Death 2. Some he may produce that say that he obtained Lordship and Dominion by his Death and thus the Remonstrants say Corv in Mol. cap 12. Sect 25 Non obtinuit ut salvator sed ut Dominus Judex esset And some contra Remonst thus may affirme but then he erreth in two particulars for they do not either give this as the state of the Question neither do any utter such an impolished expression as this He dyed for all men as Lord this is formed thus in his owne confused braine it was no Act of Lordship to dye but rather as a Servant he dyed Phil. 2.8 9 10. But to grant all that he saith it deserveth a little examination how he dealeth with this state of the Question if any such could be produced he saith The Affirmative is truth but not the whole truth but the Negative denyeth the remainder of truth and what was before affirmed for if he did not pay their Price and Purchase them how according to the Gospell is he their Lord 1. Unlesse he will say that every man receiveth all good and the highest good by Christs Death which he cannot prove he must confesse that it is the whole truth that every man receiveth some good by his Death 2. He strongly affirmeth that Christ dyed for every man by way of Surety which is not proveable either by Scripture or good reason It is against the nature of a Surety to doe any thing for one as a Surety and for the other to be lyable to the same thing hence the same debt in a way of justice commeth not by any meanes to be required of both the Surety the Principall For this would not be Moripro but Mori cum not to dye for but to dye with men Whether this or a different consideration I know not but some such thing made the Remonstr something shye of this expression of a Surety and in plaine tearmes do deny that it is so meant Coll. Hag. p. 175 176. in Arg. 3. In Collatione dixerunt fratres se hanc formulam ita accipere ut Christus diceretur mortuum esse pro nobis vadis instar ut pro nobis satisfaceret atqui non ita exprimitur So that it is cleare that they could not affirme that Christ dyed for every man as a Surety which the Author affirmeth but doth not prove it to satisfaction 3. He would prove it by this because he is their Lord for he cannot see how he should become their Lord if he did not dye for them as Surety but herein he argueth weakely No eye surely but seeth a wide difference betwixt purchasing Lordship and satisfying for one as a Surety These are no way coincident the one may be where the other is not The Israelites purchased Lordship over their slaves and Servants Lev. 25.44 But they were not said to be Surety for them So on the other side Judah was Surety for Beniamin Gen. 44.33 Paul for Onesimus Philem. 18. but in neither of these was there any purchasing or Lordship these are valde distantia therefore to argue He is their Lord therefore he is their Surety is weake reasoning 4. He affirmeth that to deny that Christ dyed for all as a Surety is contrary to what is before affirmed and saith If he paid not their price and purchased them how can he be their Lord This is grounded on his grosse perversion for he leaveth out the words As a Surety wherein the vigour lyeth for else his words should run thus If he pay not a Price for them as a Surety how can he be their Lord And then their weakenesse would have appeared to any Lord he might be and no Surety pay a Price for them and purchase them to himself he may and yet be no Surety but he thus produceth the words If he payed not a Price for them how is he their Lord This savours not of ingenuity or of one who hath his mouth full of Exclamations against perverters of words 5. Some say that Christ so dyed for all that his death is sufficient for all and applicable to all but not so as he hath ransomed all men and become the Propitiation for the Sins These or the like expressions may be patched up out of severall Judgements but for one man of either side to produce these words as the state of the Question I dare say the Author cannot produce any Example 1. That some say Christus mortuus est pro omnibus sufficienter That is Coll. Hag. Pag.
cause why it should be after the expunging of so many Statings entertained with confidence as that which hath most pertinency and light in it But I shall first examine the members apart and then the whole conjoyned In this large result there are included these five particulars 1. That they are given to his dipose But let the Author seriously consider His opinion being laid aside a while whether this Phrase To dye for as it is spoken of Christ hath the same meaning with paying a price for as any man doth when he purchaseth any person or thing into his dispose And is this Phrase Given to his dispose a fit expression for Ransome or Redemption Ransome or Redemption when spoken of man alwaies presuppose misery and liberty as the tearmes from which to which men are ransomed and redeemed but being given into ones dispose requireth neither The Israelites had the Heathen in their dispose but they cannot in reason be said to ransome them nor to bring them from misery and slavery to liberty but rather the contrary Besides hath not Christ all the Creatures on Earth the Angels in Heaven the Devils in Hell in his dispose for the good of his Church But it would be no Scripture Language to say that he ransomed redeemed all Creatures on Earth Angels in Heaven Devils in Hell Therefore this expression let it stand by a while as of no worth to expresse ransome or redemption by till we see what is in the rest 2. That he will raise them out of the death he dyed for them and set them alive before him which expression savours much of the confusion of its Author His meaning herein dubious and when ever discovered it will appeare senselesse He must have one of these two senses either meaning of the Resurrection at the last day and so affirming that being raised out of the dust and being made alive before him out of the dust is that ransome or redemption mentioned in Scripture Or else that Christ dyed for us the same death which by his Death he freeth us from but both absurd For the first though it be put as a meanes and way to the possession of that inheritance to which we are ransomed and redeemed Yet no Scripture giveth the Resurrection the name of ransome or redemption as Christ is said to redeeme or ransome us and the former very unfit to expresse this latter by for then those that are raised by his Judiciary power only and that to receive their eternall and finall doome in hell may in that Act be said to be ransomed and saved but this who can beleeve So for the second it is not any whit shorter in absurditie for the death which we are freed from is no way proportioned by the death which he dyed we are to be freed from the death we were adjudged to not what death he dyed himself he came to save us so farre as we were lost but not to be so farre lost himselfe Some sutable proportion of sufferings which he endured to them which we deserved I grant but where they wanted indurance it was made up by the excellency of the person suffering temporary sufferings of that Person that was an infinite God Act. 20.28 did countervaile eternall sufferings of a finite Creature we were adjudged to deaths Temporall Spirituall Eternall but Christ did not dye all these for us yet freed us from the two last he dyed the first for us and freed us not from it he dyed not a Spirituall death that is in sin for then he had not been an unspotted Lambe 1 Pet. 1.20 He dyed for our sins but we read not that he dyed in our sins and Eternally he dyed not then had he not been justified himselfe nor justified us yet he freed us from death both Spirituall and Eternall therefore this expression of the Author is obscure confused and however taken absurdly laid downe as not reduceable to any right reason 3. They shall acknowledge him Lord and come before his Judgement Seat that all men acknowledge him Lord and come to be judged by him none yet denyed But that being brought before his judgement seat and being made to confesse him Lord is to be ransomed and redeemed none before our Author have ever been so weake to affirme for in and by eternall destruction men may be caused to acknowledge him Lord but is it a sober expression to say that in eternall destruction we are ransomed and redeemed 4. That he is so filled with Spirit for them to make it knowne and with such tendernesse to them that they might be saved But what is it which by his Spirit he makes knowne Scripture telleth us that he is filled with Spirit to preach the Gospell Glad tidings Liberty Isa 61.1 But this is none of that god newes Gospell that Christ is to Preach For these viz. all are in his dispose shall be raised out of the dust shall acknowledge him Lord and stand before his Judgement Seat are no Gospell newes no glad tidings to them that call to the hils to cover them from the presence of the Lambe but to such these particulars equally belong with all others Againe He is filled with Spirit to make knowne that which requireth the worke of the Spirit to the actuall enjoying of it and so filled with Spirit to give Spirit that men might enjoy that which he maketh knowne Luk. 4.18 As liberty opening Prison doores Remission of sins eternall life and to the enjoyment of these the worke of the Spirit is requisite but to those particulars which he furnisheth us withall the workes of the Spirit in the hearts of men are no way requisite for men are and shall be brought into his dispose raised up out of the dust stand alive before him acknowledge him Lord come before his Judgement Seat though they never feele the worke of the Spirit upon their hearts therefore why he should be filled with Spirit to make any or all of these knowne I would be enformed Againe To make these known that men might be saved is not consonant to reason or Scripture seeing these may be done and made known to such men and at such a time when in the judgement of all men they are not salvable Certainely herein the Author commeth very short that which he is filled with Spirit to make knowne that men might be saved goeth further than all those particulars 5. So that all are made salvable This is the Helena on which the Universalists are so enamoured but this is no congruous expression to expound Ransome and Redemption and Salvation by no not in his owne principles for Ransome and Redemption is to all and every man as he urgeth But to be salvable is not attributed to all men but to the residue that are not Elect. For by salvable is meant only salvable and not infallibly to be saved and so salvandi now he saith the Elect are undoubtedly to be saved and so salvandi and the rest they are
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
may misse of Justification but such an one is his first Redemption Againe I shall embrace his Exposition and thus urge If Redemption here meant be the Impetration or procurement of Christ and yet it said to be such as through which we are said to be justified Actually then it must follow that Impeâ—ation is alwaies seconded with Application and Justification in time applyed to all those for whom it was Impetrated which how destructive it is to the whole Arminian Fabrick in this Point Any knowing man may judge 1 Pet. 2.24 Who in his owne selfe bare our sins in his owne Body that we being dead to sin should live c. That this Text holds forth the Act of Christ in procuring Remission and Life I grant but that it doth so his owne Principles deny however that it holds forth such a Redemption as is common to All or distinct from the Application of his Bloud he cannot prove 1. He saith Where the Person is changed that place is not to be understood as meant of the first Act for all men but of the Act of the Spirit in the hearts of men as being spoke of Beleevers so he saith Cap. 10. Pag. 53. And the ground is because there it is spoken Applicatively and so not so large as when in the third Person plurall and generall And he instanceth in 2. Cor. 5.21 He was made sin for us because there the Person is changed and produced in the second Person plurall which cannot shew for how many Christ dyed therefore he concludeth such places speake of the application of his Bloud And of the same nature is this quoted Text both in the same Person and spoken applicatively of Beleevers Yet this is produced to prove a first Act of Christ as done for All He must Balaam-like cast about for Divinations to reconcile himselfe to himselfe 2. That which he is to prove is such a Redemption as neither brings men into the possession nor aimes at as its chiefe end But this Text disavoweth such a worke For first That the Application is intended in his bearing our sins is cleare in the after words That we might live to righteousnesse Cap. 3.18 That he might bring us to God And secondly for the Application it selfe not only as intended but also effected Ver. 25. Ye are returned to the Bishop of your soules Therefore how pertinently this Text is produced to prove a Redemption from which the Application and intention thereof is and may be separated let any judge Heb. 2.9 1 Tim. 2.6 Of both these I shall have occasion to speake more largely in their proper places therefore here I wave them Joh. 1.29 That taketh away the sins of the World That this place presupposeth the Act of Christ in meriting and procuring Remission I grant but to say that it doth not also include the Application thereof seemeth improbable Can Sin be taken away and the Bloud of Christ not applyed Isa 6.7 There taking away Sin is expounded by having sin purged away but to have Sin purged away is not but by bloud sprinkling and so in the Authors Divinity the application of the Bloud of Christ Let the Author consult with Rom. 11.27 And let him tell me whether that taking away sin be the Application of the Death of Christ or no Happily the Author or some for him may say when God taketh away Sin that is the Application but when Christ takes away Sin that is the Impetration of Remission Let it be so but then Christ in his Impetration looked at the Actuall taking away of sin and it followeth in time else could not he in that Act of his be said to take away Sinne. All which places being laid together as being produced to prove his first Redemption are a heape of mistakes and whereas he professeth himselfe to have read the Scriptures ten times over I must conclude that he wanteth common understanding to ballance his reading or by over affecting his cause willing to betray his understanding to weak conceits and for his first Branch we must either have new proofes or these created But were they effectuall for his purpose Yet why are they produced in this Controversie They only prove thus much that Christ did impetrate and purchase Remission and Life this none yet that I know deny but the Socinian with whom I thinke he engageth not Having laid downe his first Redemption attended with a sufficient Traine of impertinent Scriptures he proceedeth to lay downe the severall particulars or gradations by which Christ did ascend to this worke for men Why by the way let the Reader observe where they are not proved to be for all and every man they are impertinent and where he attempteth so to prove shall be brought to the Test 1. To this purpose he appeared was manifested came into the world to take away sins 1 Joh. 3.5 2. In this appearing and manifestation he was made flesh These two may well passe as not pertinent to decide any part of that Controversie We grant that he did purchase Life it was his worke and to that end he was made flesh and came into the world and this is true though he purchased Life for none but the Elect but yet these are not well martialled and ranked I would know a reason why his being made flesh is set in order as second to his manifestation and comming into the world He was made flesh in his Conception but he came not into the world till his Nativity But it is absurd to say first he was Borne secondly conceived but of this sort is the Authors Method as if even those things that did nothing at all engage him he could not name them without bewraying himselfe 3. Being thus in the nature of mankind he was set and stood a publique Person in the Nature and roome of all mankind Here lye confounded expressions of a different nature To be A publique Person and In the Nature of Mankind and in The roome of all Mankind are different one from the other and all of them short of clearing the truth of his procuring Life for every Son of Adam 1. A publique Person he might be and yet not in the roome of every Individuall If he had stood in the roome and stead of the Elect only it had bespoke him a publique Person in that he represented others and not himselfe only As in State affaires a Burghes of a Corporation is a publique Person because he acts not as a private Person but representing others But his being a publique Person doth not argue him to stand in the roome of all men in the Kingdome or Country but of that Corparation only where he was chosen For the second His being in the Nature of mankind is a truth but if produced to prove his procuring Life for every man is very weake For if Christ had redeemed far fewer then he doth yet it would be requisite for him to take upon him the Nature of Man and stand
in the kind for he could not as God had decreed it redeeme any one Person but he must take upon him the nature of Man Therefore to argue thus He tooke upon him the nature of man therefore he stood in the roome of every Individuall is not valid Argumentation Yet this is the reasoning of Arminius Naturam assumpsit humanam omnibus communem respectu cujus non est inter homines differentia In Perkin 74. For the third Standing in the roome of Mankind The Expression is either improper or false for him to stand in the nature of Mankind is true and well expressed because Naturam assumpsit non personam hominis he assumed the nature not the person of man and the nature is rather of the kind or species than of the Individualls therefore we may say he stood in the nature of mankind But to say Christ stood in the roome of mankind is improper for His standing in the roome of the effect and benefit of was intended to particulars Individuals are represented not the kind of man Thus we find it expressed in these Disputes Twisse vind grat 266. Corv. in Mol. cap. 27. 427. Anne Christus sustinuit personas omnium an electorum tantum Whether Christ sustained the persons of all or the Elect only It was the persons not the kind of men that were adjudged to death and therefore the persons not the kind must be freed from the same This Arminius himselfe will teach him Salus convenit non generibus sed singulis In Perkin 192. singulis praeparatur non generibus singulis negatur non generibus And upon better thoughts I know he will say that Christ stood in the roome of Individualls not the kind and his owne expression herein improper But happily by All mankind he may meane all the Individuals of mankind but then it is false and rests still at his unperformed taske to prove that Christ did stand in the roome of every Individuall Something I expresse wherein he attempteth to prove it by some reason and some Scripture his Reason is this As Adam did who was the Figure of him that was to come Thus arguing Adam as publique person stood in the roome of every Individuall man in the world whereby all and every individuall comes to be plunged in sin and misery therefore Christ being to answer him as the Figure must stand in the room of all Individuals also but the strength of these I shall examine in a few words I hope the Author will not say that Adam stood in the roome of any but his Off-sping and those that should come of his Loynes by naturall propagation and so those that were to come of him And that he stood in the roome of any man in any other Notion than as comming from him naturally I would have the Author to prove and for this reason that our Saviour though he was an Individuall man yet not comming by naturall propagation but supernaturall overshadowing the Virgin and so without the helpe of man and so was it that he came out of the Loines of Adam as the Author saith Pag 119. Hence was it I say that he had no sin he was not under that generall Contagion that lyeth upon all Adams Sons he was not defiled from him and let me put this supposition If God should now as at first Create more men they not comming from Adam by Propagation they should not be interested into Adams Sin and Curse therfore it is cleare that Adam did stand in the roome of men not as men but as his Sons and to come from him Now let the Comparison go forward and let Christ answer his Type Adam as a publique Person stood in the roome of all his Posterity and those that are his Sons and come from him So Christ standeth in the roome of all those that are his Sons and come to have a being from him If he should stand in the roome of more he should not answer his Figure but this he might do though he stood in the roome of the Elect only for none else come to have a being from him and to be his Sons So that it seemeth cleare that the Comparison betwixt Adam and Christ lyeth not in the certaine and defined number of Individuals but the relation wherein they stand each kind to their owne root So that here is little in reason I shall examine his Scriptures They are two 1 Cor. 15.21 22 45 46. Rom. 5.14 18 19. That these places hold forth thus much that as Adam was the Fountaine of Death so Christ of Life As Adam conveyed Death to all his so Christ Life to all his I grant but if he will have any further let him bring good probation and I shall examine it Let us consider his alleaged places severally 1 Cor. 15.21 22. As in Adam all dye so in Christ shall all be made alive Which Text seemeth to speake of the Resurrection at the last day Ver. 21. Now that every Individuall shall be raised at the last and so made alive to stand before his Judgment Seat I grant and it is nothing to the Quest But let us see further I conceive this place speakes not only of Resurrection in generall but Resurrection to Life which is only called Resurrection in Scripture the Resurrection of wicked men to be condemned for ever the Scripture honoureth it not with the name of Resurrection the Members of Christ are called Emphatically the Children of the Resurrection Luk. 20.36 Now of this Resusurrection the Text seemeth to speake and of this let the 22. vâ—r be understood As in Adam all dye so in Christ shall all be made alive Is this now to be understood as if all those who dyed in Adam are made alive by Christ or only all those that are his and so come of and from him Let Arminius and Corvinus themselves judge they do not attempt to prove that all that dyed in Adam were or shall be made alive by Christ as it is there meant but they expound the place thus b Armin. in Pork 191. Corv in Mol. câ—p 27.430 Quoad locum 1 Cor. 15. non diffitemur ibi Emphasin non esse in voce omnes sed in vocibus in Christo sensum esse per Christum vivificabuntur omnes qui vitae restituuntur à Christo vita ut ab Adamo mors fuit That is the Emphasis is not in the word All but in the words In Christ and the sense this as Death came by Adam so Life by Christ In which sense it is received by us but commeth short of this Assertion That all that dyed in Adam shall be restored to Life by Christ Again let the Text it selfe judg what is meant by that All that is made alive by Christ Ver. 23. First Christs then they that are Christs at his comming And doth the Chapter speake of any other Who is there that is not perverse but he may see that the All that are made
of every man was laid on him he was made sin for and bare the sins of every Son of Adam strange reasoning Doth the word us or ours spoken of and by Beleevers bring in every Son of Adam This is not suitable to himselfe For Cap 10. Pag. 53. He speaking of that very Text 2 Cor. 5.21 saith Speaking of the Application to them that have beleeved he changeth the Person and faith He made him to be sin for us Yet here this Text is produced to prove that he bare the Sins of every Son of Adam 3. Psal 40.12 Innumerable evils have compassed me mine iniquities have taken hold on me What he will hence infere I cannot well determine true it is that hence he may inferre that Christ was incompassed with innumerable evills and that very many Sins had taken hold upon him and that those Iniquities which he had undertooke to answer for tooke hold on him whereby he might say Mine Iniquitie hath taken hold on me But what is this to the Point in hand I know not If he intend hereby to prove that all the evills of every man had taken hold on him this is a weake inference But thus farre I conclude with him that all those for whose Sins he undertook he stood charged with all their sins that the Law could charge them with but that he stood charged with all the sins that the Law could charge any man withall that is yet to be proved 6. Having on him our Sins God laid on him the punishment and Curse that was due to us for those sins and so dyed as a Sinner in the roome of us all This is for substance nothing distinct from the former for betwixt His being charged with our Sins and Having our Sins imputed to him and his Having the punishment of our Sins laid on him there is no difference Yet here are some improper speeches and fallacies Improprieties I say in the first words Having on him our Sins God laid on him the punishment of Sins It is beyond my capacity to conceive how Christ had on him our Sins before he had on him the punishment of our Sins he had not Sin formally but only imputatively he bare our Sins True but that is Metonimically Sins for the punishment of our Sins and then was it when he was wounded for our Transgressions Isa 35.5 And I remember not where the Scripture ever speaketh Christ to have our Sins on him as distinct from his having the punishment of them on him Therefore if he make them distinct he must free it from Impropriety if they be the same then from a vaine Tautologie The fallacy is in the next words In the roome of us all If the Author meanes as the Apostles and Prophets did and must in the Authors owne Principles from the change of Persons us all that is we all that are Beleevers then it is true but nothing to his purpose But if by us all he would understand Every Son of Adam it would be indeed pertinent to his businesse but false and destitute of probation he instanceth in Isa 55.5 Gal. 3.13 1 Cor. 15.4 1 Pet. 3.18 Rom. 5.6 Which cannot cleare that the Apostle speakes of them under the Notion of men and so in common with all men but as Beleevers and so proper to them And this the Authour puts out of doubt in his owne inference from the change of Persons And certainly the Apostle writing to Beleevers saying He was made sin for us all can afford no such Interpretation He attempts to prove it by 2 Cor. 5.15 For we thus judg that if Christ dyed for all then are all dead and he dyed for all that they which live might not live to themselves c. The sense of which Text if it favour him must run thus For we thus judge that if Christ dyed for every Son of Adam then was every Son of Adam dead and he dyed for every Son of Adam that they that live might not live to themselves but to him that hath dyed for them but I leave this to every Intelligent Reader to judge whether it be not herein set upon the racke This cannot be produced from the words themselves nor made well to accord with the foregoing or following words but he loveth to give us words without any meaning But I desire the Author or any Reader to examine whether this be not the sense For we thus judge that if Christ have dyed for all That is in Scripture Phrase for all whom he intended to bring to Salvation all those whom his Father had for that end given him Then have all dyed that is all those for whom he dyed have dyed to sin Now the ground of this is the Connection betwixt the end of Christ and the execution of it in the next words And he dyed for all that those that live not the life of Nature but of Grace and Faith might not live to themselves but to him that hath dyed and rose againe Now in this Exposition these two things are only to be proved Then other things will follow and they are these First That that Phrase Then are all dead is meant death not in but to Sin Secondly That the Phrase That they which live is meant of a Life of Grace and Faith not the Life of Nature Which being cleared the place will not only not help him but affoord a good Argument against him which particulars I shall cleare by these foure particulars 1. The Apostles scope in this present Chapter that which he is about in this and the foregoing Chapter is to shew the beleeving Corinthians that he with the rest of the Apostles did neglect earthly things and were heavenly minded and desired to approve themselves to God and for their good Cap. 4.1 2 8 9 10 16 17. Cap. 5.5 6 7 8 9 11 13. And also to presse the same upon them Ver. 17. Now that those words Ver. 14 15 Containe an Argument to prove and backe this is evident and that to shew a ground why they did so and the Corinthians should do so and the Argument is drawne from the Death of Christ For we thus judge that if Christ dyed for all then are all dead Now it may be questioned whether this Argument be drawne from the cause or the effect of Christs Death that is whether he meaneth thus Then were all dead in Sin and so need to live to God Or thus Then have all dyed that is in Christ that dyed in whom the Sins of Beleevers were crucified as Rom. 6.6 Happily our Author will say the first but I conceive that is not his Argument in this Text and that on these two grounds 1. Because then the Apostles Argument to Beleevers is not so opposite and full because there was no greater engagement on them to live to God then upon every Son of Adam which agreeth not with the whole series of the Word of God 2. Because then the words of the Apostles should have run
Now if this be his dissimilitude the Scripture no where owneth it Indeed we read that Christ loseth none of them whom his Father giveth to him or those who come to him but that he suffered none to perish I read not So that if by Christ loseth none he meaneth that Christ destroyeth none it is in vaine produced Against them that grant that he came not to condemne the world but to save But it by it he meane that Christ suffers none to perish or hath done what in him lyeth to save every Son of Adam this he must prove That after plea Whoever perisheth destroyeth his owne selfe seemes to appeare under the face of an Argument to prove that Christ hath done what in him lyeth to save every man but it is not valid for men may destroy themselves and yet Christ suffer them to perish and if he suffer them to perish he doth not what in him lyeth to save them We might destroy our selves though Christ doe nothing for us nay our destroying of our Soules was the occasion of Christs comming to save us therefore the destroying of our Soules hath no dependance of Christs saving of us Having thus vented his Paradox and as he thinketh backed it be comes to reassume his former position which seemes to be the result of his mind and thoughts thus He hath so saved all men c. that he makes all salvable so as there is a possibility in and through and with Christ for all men to come in into him to beleeve on him and be eternally saved in beleeving He hath not produced any thing as done for all and proved it also to have been done for or to all that may bring every Son of Adam under a possibility of beleeving and so of being saved This I see is that on which many seeme to dote therefore I shall a little expatiate my selfe herein First I must remove all Equivocation when he saith possibility he meaneth I hope only a possibility for otherwise we may say that Christ intended to make Salvation possible that is in making of Salvation certaine he made it possible certainty including a possibility but not è contra But his expresses herein seeme to averre that the chiefe and first end of the Death of Christ so farre as it respected man was that he might make the Salvation of man possible nothing different from the result of Arminian exercitations wherein we shall find thus Christus impetravit ut Deus possit velit communicare sua beneficia Acta Synod â—83 In Molin c. 27. Sect. 3. certa lege modo And this latter word velit is no more then possit velle that he might be able to will and to bestow good things as appeares by Corvinus Finis proximus mortis Christi fuit ut Deus possit hominem peccatorem velle salvare That is The immediate end of Christs death was that God might will to save Sinners and save his Justice but seeing the Author disclaimeth the Arminian therefore I passe this by with this monition That he be wary lest he fall into their Doctrine and to returne to our Author again it seemes to me erroneous that the end of Christs Death should be to make mens Salvations possible and that on these grounds 1. The Scripture furnisheth us with no such Phrase as Possibility of Salvation but it treateth of the end of Christs Death often Math. 1.22 He shall save his people from their sins Joh. 1.29 He taketh away the sins of the world Math. 18.11 He is come to save It doth not say that he might possibly save or to procure a possibility of Salvation this is no where found 2. If he propounded to himselfe only a possibility of Salvation then though none be saved yet Christ hath the end and travell of his soule for though none be saved or beleeve actually yet the possibility remaineth entire Acta Synod 285. and this will be found the sowrest peeces of Arminianisme Thus they say Impetratio sarta tecta manet perfecta suis numeris constat etsi omnes maneant increduli c. But how harsh this may be to any Christian Eare let any Reader judge and I wish the Author be not driven to say that Christ in being Lord of all which may be without the Salvation of any he seeth the travell of his Soule as he seemeth Pag. 142. And this to defend this meere possibility the end of Christs death 3. Let us consider was there not a possibility for God to bring men to Salvation and happinesse yea Sinners without the Death of Christ Was God tyed under such an impossibility that he could not save Sinners to which he was naturally propense till Christ by his Death released him I have not observed any that deny the former or affirme the latter The Remonst who would accept of such a help if they durst leane thereon say thus Si potestas jus salvandi consideretur in Deo absolute Corv. in Mol. c. 28 Sect. 11 tum Deus si voluisset potuisset nos salvare citra Christi satisfactionem And therefore seeme to wave this as the end viz. to procure a possibility So the same Cap. 27. Sect. 3 Non dicimus Deo impetratam simpliciter potestatem salvandi acsi Deus pro absolutâ suâ potestate c. That is we say not that Christ procured only a possibility of saving as if God could not without Christ save Sinners But happily it may be said true God could by his absolute power but not in justice save Sinners without satisfaction Deus etiamsi pro sua omnipotentia facilè possit non vult tamen tales 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apostatas salvare Ant. 68. To this I answer In that he could by his power he could his justice notwithstanding for God cannot by his absolute power do any thing against his Justice no more then he can sin or deny himselfe or cease to be God this would be impotency not Omnipotency Therefore in saying he can do it we In eodem instanti rationis affirme he can do it his justice notwithstanding and this followes upon the principles of Arminius In Perk. p. 2 3. Ex hoc antecedente Deus hoc fecit sequitur necessario ergo juste If God do it it is enough to conclude it just Againe It may be said that Christ did not procure a power to save but a possibility to will to save as Corvinus inserteth Vt posset peccatorem velle salvare salva justitia That he might will to save and yet his Justice safe To this I answer If he had a power to save he had a power to will to save without Christ for he cannot do any thing that he cannot will and this is true in Arminius Reason Vaum includic alterum nemo potest credere nisi potest velle credere quia nemo credit nolens In Perkin 592. So I argue Deus non potest salvare nisi possit velle salvare
quia Deus nominem salvat nolens And if he can will to save us without Christ then he can will to save without Christ Salva justitia otherwise he cannot will it he cannot will to do any thing injustly And that he had a possibility to save and to will to save without Christs Death and that his Justice safe to me seemeth evident because neither a possibility to save nor a possibility to will to save no nor a will to save is against the Justice of God this I have propounded to let the Author see that seing God had a possibility to save Sinners without Christ their Salvation was possible before and without Christs Death then to let him consider how derogatory to Christs wisdome it is to say that his end in dying was to make the Salvation of man possible I cannot conceive that he would shed his bloud to procure that which was in being before and without his Death 4. For his expressions associated with this viz. A possiblenesse of mens comming in to Christ and beleeving It is a farre different thing from the former when our Salvation is said to be possible we meane in regard of God that God can bring us to Salvation but when our faith is said to be possible it may be referred either to God or man That God can by absolute power bring men in to beleeve or else that we have a power to come in or beleeve what he meaneth is very dubious The ground of coupelling these together is yet obscure for our Salvation eternall may be possible and yet faith not possible for God can bring us to Salvation without Faith if he please and if by the possibility of our beleeving he meane only a power in God to bring all men in to beleeve I grant there is such a possibility as there is a possibilite of more worlds being created but then this is too rude and indetermined to make either the end or effect of Christs Death Neither is it cleare that Christ prepared a possibility on mans part to beleeue because he did not procure that all should enjoy the Gospell without which men cannot beleeve Rom. 10.14 15. A possibility to beleeve is too unworthy a thing for Christ to purchase at so deare a rate Christ purchased Grace not Nature for us but Posse credere est naturae A possibility to beleeve is a Priviledge of Nature not Grace I desire a more cleare explication of himselfe then shall he have a more perspicuous Answer He having summed up the particulars of this common Salvation but weakely seeing they cannot be proved to be the share of every Son of Adam he comes to repeat his speciall what he doth for Beleevers and that in Pag. 11 12 13. with severall unjustifiable expressions which because they are not pertinent to the Question I wave them till he come in the 14 Page to give us a Summ. total and entire result of this elaborate Chapter thus Now betweene these two Salvations that with God for men and that in men to God c. the Scripture doth often and many waies distinguish Parturiunt montes nascitur Behold the issue of this fruitlesse peece hath he been in so long a travell of opposition and hath brought forth nothing but what every man grants Let me againe interrogate where doth he find it denyed that the purchasing and applying the procuring for and bestowing upon men any good are two distinct Acts Nay What Treatise findeth he where it is not strongly asserted and therefore he needed not to have been at so much paines to prove it But by this foundation we may guesse what structure we shall find But yet the manner of their distinction as he layeth it down is something observable and such as we find no where else as followeth 1. The former is called a reconciliation by his Death the other a saving by his life Ro. 5.10 that his procuring reconciliation by his death should be here set downe under being reconciled by his Death is something distorted and improbable Doth the Author conceive that those words do not denote actuall Reconciliation If they do as it is cleare they do then this is the second Act not the first only Application not procurement of it The Text saith not If he merited Reconciliation for us much more shall we be saved by his life If the Text had favoured this conceit it would have run thus If he hath procured Reconciliation by his Death then shall we be actually reconciled by his life but it runs not thus the inference is not from Impetration to Application but from Reconciliation to Salvation two distinct degrees of good applyed the Scripture yields no such difference because both Impetration and Application of all good is said to be by his Death and by his Bloud 2. The former was a Reconciliation wrought for the world by God in Christ The latter a Reconciliation of some to God by Christ 2 Cor. 5.18 19. Herein lyeth a twofold difference couched but both absurd 1. He saith The one is For men the other In men But this is no difference for herein they both agree The second viz. the Application is wrought out for men as to instance the Grace and Faith that is given to some by which they are overcome is also wrought for else how comes it to be applyed or how can it be called the Application or Sprinkling of Christ if the Bloud of Christ did not procure the Application 2. He saith The former is wrought by God the latter by Jesus Christ As if he should say the Impetration or procurement was done by God the Application was done by Jesus Christ which foppery discovers it selfe sufficiently the contrary of is most true the Impetration is Christs Act the Application is Gods if this be true Christus Impetravit ut Deus possit c And herein is one difference the procuring is the Act of Christ as of one that dyed the Application is Gods the offended Party 3. In effecting the former he came from the Father for the effecting of the other hee went againe to his Father Joh. 16.28 Herein can lye no difference because his comming from the Father and going to his Father both were requisite to his first Act viz. Impetration or procurement else are not his owne expresses Orthodox Pag. 8. where speaking of things done after his going up to his Father he saith Thereby he doth present before his Father c. and so procures the grant of dispensation c. Which evidently cleareth that his Ascending is no part of his Application but an Act that tendeth to the perfecting of his procurement and that done as Mediatour Againe His comming from the Father was not tyed only to Impetration but it was also for the effecting of Application He came to save them that were lost Math. 18.11 And he dyed not to procure purging only but that he might Sanctifie to Sanctifie to himselfe a peculiar People Ephes 5.25
So that if the parts of his distinction be so coincident that we may say For the effecting of the former he ascended also to his Father and for the latter he came downe from the Father then his difference falleth to the ground as for that Text Joh. 16.28 it sheweth only that Christ both came from and also goeth to the Father but it saith not that he came downe only to procure and went to him to apply the good things procured So that we may see what libertie he takes to distortour Saviours words to apply them to his owne conceits without ground Nay our Saviour seemes to disclaime it for there is more the soly Application when he saith I go to prepare a place for you Joh. 14.2 His third is the same with this therefore I mention it not 3. The one is a Redemption for us in Christ Rom. 3.24 The other a Redemption of us in Soule and body Luk. 1.74 Many leaves would not serve sufficiently to display the vanity of this distinction First This denotes that the Redemption of our soules and bodies was not wrought out for us which is erroneous if he import not so much his distinction is frivolous Secondly That denoteth that the Application of Christs Bloud is not effected or showne till our soules and bodies be glorified which is false the giving of any Mercy the means of Grace his Patience is the Application of his Bloud And if he meane not the former he weakely expresseth the latter by the Redemption of us in our soules and bodies 3. The first he saith is only for us when in his sixth particular he produceth Christs Lordship Patience Goodnesse of God to men as this first Redemption but these are not only for us but of us and to us endlesse are his absurdities but I close with this other that Text Rom. 3.24 is abused that mentioneth not this Phrase For us therefore serveth him not for his purpose there is no expression there but what agreeth to the second Redemption viz. Application therefore serveth not to prove a discrimination I shall use only one more 4. The former is affirmed in Scripture to be for all men Joh. 3.17 The latter is for and to Beleevers only To this I Answer If he can carry this by Scripture then his weakenesse appeares in expressing himselfe so remissely as to contend in this Chapter only for this that they are distinct if the first be for all the second for Beleevers only then they are not only distinct but separable one from the other and one may be where the other never is and this is a degree beyond distinction 2. Whereas he saith That the latter viz. the Application of his Death is only for Beleevers how diflonant is it from himselfe and his best friends the Remonst who unanimous that Remission of Sins and Eternall Salvation is procured for all men not only for Beleevers Indeed they say it is only to them but for all for if they be confined to Beleevers not only to them in regard of enjoyment but for them also in regard of procurement his common Redemption will be but a meere Chymaera 3. If he say That the Impetration or procuring of Remission and Eternall Life be for all and every Son of Adam then he must prove it by Scripture that Text Joh. 3.17 proveth it not it speakes not of such a Redemption Salvation as may be divided from Eternall Life no nor barely of Impetration but as it relateth to Application to follow as when he saith I come to save that which was lost and he shall save his people from their Sins Math. 1.21 Neither doth the world World there meane every Son of Adam but he came to save the World that is Men living in the World his inference here from is no plaine Text but a corrupt reasoning from a cleare Text. Againe that Text Joh. 3.16 confirmeth me in this Point that Christ did not procure life for every Son of Adam because he there saith it was that only Beleevers might not perish It saith not that every one might not perish if they beleeve but that those that beleeve the number of which was well knowne to him Now if Christs will was one and concentricall with his Fathers he procured life for none but Beleevers So that then not only the Application is to but the Impetration for Beleevers only what then becommeth of his Doctrine That he procured life for all men whether they beleeve or no I see not this is no Scripture Language So that now having examined his particulars of distinction and finding them full of confusion and not distinct enough to be understood I shall give the Reader a taste of some new Divinity 1. That Christ dyed for some for whom he did not live againe as in the first 2. That he came from the Father for some for whom he went not to the Father againe as in the second 3. That he was abased for some for whom he was not exalted as in the third 4. That he shed his Bloud for some for whom he presented not his Bloud as shed as in the fifth All these he averreth in that he saith the former of all is done for all and every man the latter only for Beleevers Thus have I embowelled the distinction the Chapter that treateth of it his expressions therein And little perspicuity or pertinency to the Question can I find therein and so confused that I feare few of his Readers can gather from it what he holds or what they should close withall neither can any ingenuous man shew what he hath gotten of his Adversary herein that which is truth in it no man denyeth yet a miscellany of Obscurities Errours Contradictions interwoven it is the basis of the whole Discourse therefore I have been more prolix in dissecting it lest I should over-looke any pertinent truth they are so few tedious I know it must be to them that are verst in more polite Notions but the Nature of my Antagonist requires it things of lesse concernment shall be passed over with lesse disquisition And what he delivers herein appeares to me not to be the meaning of 1 Tim. 2.4 6. Heb. 2.9 And his Proposition being taken in this sence here delivered is not made out in those Texts And what provision he is supplyed with from this distinction so prosecuted for the taking downe of the edge of our Arguments shall be seene in its proper place CHAP. III. Of divers ends of Christs Death and of which is here meant THe Author conceiving to find strength from the consideration of the ends of Christs Death enters this Point And I confesse it helps much to decide this Controversie therefore I shall to my Talent bend my thoughts to examine what he delivereth herein He saith thus 1. The first end and that which is generall and of largest extent was to be a Ransome Sacrifice and Propitiation and this hath three distinct ends in it 1. In respect
of God offended that his Justice might be satisfied 2. In respect of Jesus Christ that he might be Lord of all and have all in his dispose 3. In respect of Mankind to take out of the way all that stood betweene God and Man and kept back streames of mercy 2. To seale and confirme the New-Testament of pretious Promises Math. 26.28 Luk. 22.20 3. To be a witnesse-bearing to the Truth Joh. 18.37 Wherein the Authour doth well to pitch upon the first and maine end of Christs Death and that in regard of the Creature for to treate of intermediate ends would have been but obscure and impertinent to this Point because when we speake of intermediate ends they are such as are but media meanes in relation to the first end but to treate of meanes when the question is of the end is something preposterous When we treate of the end of Christs Death it is presupposed that we mean that which in relation to man is considered under no other Notion but as end therefore he doth well to speake of a first end but whether he do so well to say that that which he layeth downe is Christs first end in dying must be further enquired into Now when he saith First end I hope he meaneth first in Gods intention and Christs for from the intention of Agents is the priority and posteriority of ends deduced Now I say to be a Ransome a Sacrifice a Propitiation are not the first end of Christ in dying or of God in giving his Son and this is cleare in that these all do Tendore in finem ulteriorem Tend to a further end for he is all these that men might be eternally saved Himselfe is cleare for this His being a Ransome and Propitiation was that all men might be eternally saved Pag. 18 19. And if he did not Reason would presently convince him as shall afterwards appeare these then tending to a further end are not the first end in that they tend to a further end they are meanes and in so being they are not first in intention then should God intend first the meanes then the end which is absurd Againe if the Author will have the procuring life and Salvation and opening a doore that men only may enter and to make men salvable only for thus he interpreteth his Phrases of Ransome Propitiation to be the first end in Christ then I hope he will give us some Scripture that so speaketh Scripture seemeth to speake otherwise Joh. 3.17 I came not to condemne but to save Math. 18.11 He came to save that which was lost 1 Tim. 1.15 He came to save Sinners which places I know the Author would thus temper to make them salvable but this is an unwarrantable perversion and all these which he produceth they are but subservient to this first end as to instance As God had out of his free constitution designed a way of his own dispensations before man can partake of heaven the Justice of God must be satisfied Enmity taken away we Reconciled Hence this made end of God and Christ in his Death Col. 1.20 To reconcile us which suppose Justice satisfied but this is not willed for it selfe but in tendency to a further end and is not the first end but that Text gives a further Ver. 22. To present you holy and unblameable to him Againe That we may be partakers of hapinesse the hand-writing against us must be blotted out and every thing that stands crosse must be taken away So that this is an end of Christs Death Col. 2.14 But this was not done or intended only for it selfe but in tendency to eternall Salvation and the actuall enjoyment of it for only to this is our sinfull estate contrary and therefore a further end appeares Cap. 3 4. to which this serves but as meanes Yee shall appeare with him in glory Againe That men partake of heaven the staine and power of Sin must be taken away and we Sanctified and Regenerate So that this also is an end of Christs Death Eph. 5.25 26. but this not for it selfe but with a tendency to further end Ver. 27. that he might present it glorious 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not Vt sistere possit but Vt sisteret to cause it to stand before him glorious denoting that the actuall enjoyment of heaven and as certaine is his first end Againe That men be glorified it is requisite that Christ be Lord of all and have power over all flesh this therefore is an end of his Death Rom. 14 9. but this not for it selfe intended but a tendency to the first end Joh. 17.2 He gave him power over all flesh that he might give eternall life to as many as thou hast given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not Vt dare possit but ut dacet that he might actually certainly give eternall life And more intermediate ends may be produced which may be called ends in regard of his Death but yet not the first end but rather as meanes tending to the first end and so all these three particulars under his generall they all cannot make up a first end but are as meanes to the first end Therefore his setting downe them as the first end is not Orthodox Againe That to procure life that is that men may have it is not the end of Christs Death that is the first end and maine end Then it must follow that though none be actually saved yet Christ hath his end full and entire and as much as he desired this indeed the Remost say but I cannot yet see it the Language of Scripture Againe it is a rule that Acquisito fine quiescit movens when any Agent hath attained his end it rests with it but Christ and God do not rest with a possibility of mans Salvation or in a doore being opened but they go on further Actually to lead into that doore to invite sollicite expostulate perswade that they might actually be saved He saith not Why O Israel will not ye come into a possibility of Salvation But why will ye dye Why will ye not be Actually saved Nay the Author grants that he doth not only propound meanes give the Gospell and so open a doore by morall swasion but also overcome and over-power by Physicall efficiency the hearts of his Elect and bring them in to beleeve and bring them into his Kingdome thus Pag. 120. Now I demand whether Christ did procure this Whether Christ and God aimed at this in Christs Death and so propounded it as an end If not Quo pacto is it applyed Is it not the sprinkling of the Bloud of Jesus If it be so then that was not the first and maine end of Christ and God to make Salvation possible but that Salvation should be certain and Actuall So that we may see how in considerately the Author expresseth himselfe about the ends of Christs Death My next taske will be to examine what influence these expresses have upon the Question
betweene Finem istum non esse absolute intentum sed ita ut ad applicationem requisita est conditio Which in my judgement do not se invicem destruere for Faith may be requisite and yet the Application absolutely intended I might take every particular by it selfe and dwell upon the absurdities that attend every one of them but I must not be so voluminous As when he saith The first end was to take away Sin before God for men Pag. 16. And this he saith is for all men every Son of Adam both false It is not the first end for may not the Question be asked Why he taketh away Sin from before God The Answer if he will give it confuteth him and telleth him there is a further end neither is it done for all the expression it selfe is rude and absurd to take away Sin before God for man the word to take away must have a terme from which and that must be either man or God And can he take away Sin from before God or from Man and Man not be possest of Justification this is a mystery Is it not all one for Sin to be taken away from before God and for it not to be found when it is sought for Jer. 50.20 But is this the priviledge of all or of Gods reserve only Let the Author in his next give me one place and prove it too where this or any of the attendants is said to be done for every Son of Adam Many things I leave to the intelligent Reader to save me a labour in I conceive that this consideration of the end of Christ helpeth him little I shall examine if his next do more CHAP. IIII. Of the divers manner of mentioning these ends in Scripture HE thinketh to extract much from the divers manner of propounding the Death of Christ with the ends of it as in that sometimes more ends are joyned sometimes one only Also the Ransome is considered as in it selfe made or as made known or as men are convinced by it Also it is delivered in a different Person sometimes in first sometimes second sometimes third Chapter These are the Allegations of his whole Chapter but what matter there is in all these I shall Examine Sometimes that end of his Death which was for Propitiation or Ransome is coupled with the end which was to testifie love and faithfulnesse in his Ministration propounded for our example and then such generall words as world all men are not used because his Ministration on earth did not reach to all the world 1. This seemes to affirme that the Ransome and Ministration of Christ are distinct ends and not coincident which I see not cleare seeing his giving life a Ransome is the greatest peece of Service that he did for us in doing this he did all And this was not only one but the greatest peece of his Ministration In that our Saviour saith I came to serve and give my life a Ransome for many He doth not in his latter words discover a distinct end but rather it is an explanation of the service of which he speaketh to any eye it may appeare that to Serve and to give his life a Ransome speake one and the same thing Christs words otherwhere seemeth to cleare it Luk. 22.27 Having eaten the Supper with his Disciples taking his last leave bequeathing himselfe to his Crosse he saith I am as he that serveth which to me referreth to his Death that was shortly to ensue And do not the Apostles words cleare it Phil. 2.6 7 8. where he makes the Death of Christ and his being obedient to the Death of the Crosse the explanation of his being a Servant Nay do not the Authors words cleare it He saith Pag. 21. His faithfulnesse in Ministration is set downe as an example to us to lay downe our lives for the Brethren 1 Joh. 3.16 Now what is that which moves us to lay downe our lives for the Brethren all along in Scripture is it not Christs laying downe his life Yea that Text plainly speakes of it as this Argument to move us whereby it appeares that to serve and to give his life a Ransome are one and not distinct ends therefore his expresses are not consonant to truth As if he testified greater love and faithfulnesse or more prevalently moved us to give our lives for the Brethren in any thing than in this giving his life a Ransome 2. Whereas he saith Such generall words are not used because his Ministration reaches not to all This is nobis causam tradere to give us the Question If his giving his life a Ransome was his serving and his serving reach not to all how can the other where is his Doctrine then And till he can prove that his serving and his giving his life a Ransome are distinct I shall accept his position viz. his Ministration reached not to all the world so neither his giving his Life a Ransome Sometimes that end which was for Ransome is coupled together with that end which was for sealing the New-Testament which belong not to all men but his chosen ones that have partaken of his heavenly Call and then such generall words as cannot in any sense be appropriated to some particular as world all men are not used nor yet such a word as may not be applyed so generally but so as his word may be applyed to either or both senses as occasion shall serve Hence Math. 26.28 This is my Bloud of the New-Testament which is shed for many for the remission of Sins 1. Whereas he speaketh of a New-Testament and the sealing thereof which belongeth not to all either I understand him not or he understandeth not himselfe First I understand not whether he meaneth not the Testament it selfe or the sealing thereof belongs not to all for he loveth to lurke in ambiguities though but poor shelter If he meane the latter then he intimateth that the Covenant is not sealed to so many as it is made which is not probable If he meane the first I am yet to seeke what he meaneth by the New-Testament if I understand him he meaneth nothing but the new Covenant promised to Abraham and Adam and preached by Christ and his Apostles Now that Covenant and Testament are Synonimous is cleare from Scripture Heb. 8. in many places mentioneth the Old and New-Testament in 8 9 10. verses which allude to Jer. 31.31 32 33. but there the Text runneth Covenant not Testament Nay some Translations read Heb 8.8 9 10. Covenant some read Testament where ever the word Covenant or Testament is used it is by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Matth. 26.28 it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Gal. 4.24 some read it two Testaments but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in that Text cited by him Heb. 9.14 15. Mediatour of the New-Testament yet it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So it is cleare that Covenant and Testament is all one Indeed every Covenant is not
every man else therefore I may love my Wife yet so as to love every woman what would this open a doore unto and follow our Author and this cannot be avoyded therefore his giving himselfe for his Church being an argument to move to a speciall love cannot be thought to be in common to all If the love be to be exercised to unbeleeving ones or Adversaries then it is thus he hath suffered for us 1 Pet. 2.18 24. for the unjust 1 Pet. 3.14 18. The Author mistaketh those Texts they shew not our duty to love Adversaries but to be obedient to froward Masters and to be patient under sufferings for well-doing and as an argument he useth Christs Death for Sinners and for them being Sinners But to take his argument as it is laid downe by him the love is a generall love to all even enemies Now certainly if the thing had been true he would have used this as an argument for he dyed or suffered for all but this he no where doth no nor by a division which taketh in all as he dyed for just and unjust but only unjust not meaning all unjust but them Beleevers who were unjust when Christ dyed for them Therefore considering that in such a case it is a most pregnant argument and he not using it it may appeare that it is not a truth that Christ gave himselfe for all and every man Under this ranke of Scriptures there are few others that require any answer they being not places used by us therefore might be passed by but one place or two I shall mention 1 Cor 8.11 13. Which place he saith containeth an argument to make love operative to Brethren But let us consider the expression If the Authors Doctrine had been truth certaine it would have run thus Shall a man perish for whom Christ dyed Because he saith that Christ dyed for all men as men But he saith shall a Brother perish for whom Christ dyed As if he dyed for none but such as come under the notion of Brother 2. Cor. 5.14 Which he saith is an argument to make love operative to all men but therein he is deceived there is no such duty commanded in that Text. But the Author discovers his ingenuity in that he bringeth this Text in the number of them that do not shew how many he dyed for when they say he dyed for all and in other places is produced as a proofe for his first Redemption for all and every man one more there is of some consequence Sometimes it is propounded to such as are overseers of Congregations as to admonish them to keep this Doctrine firmely and teach it 1 Tim. 1.11.15 To provoke them to watchfulnesse over them Act. 20.28 To constancy in sufferings 2 Tim. 3.8 But these shew not how many he dyed for 1. As for that Text I wonder that he should say that that place 1 Tim. 1.15 sheweth not how many he dyed for what was the reason that in Pag. 3. he brings this place to prove the first Redemption for all and every one And that place that proves that certainly sheweth for how many he dyed for he dyed not for more then All however the Author hath lost his memory in the croud of Notions 2. For that Text Act. 20.28 We must first consider that this is a speciall and peculiar care that the Apostle exhorteth to and the arguments by which he moveth is twofold First Their Charge they were made overseers Secondly Christs Purchase he purchased them with his owne Bloud Now cleare it is that that care the Apostle exhorteth them to was a peculiar care and that first argument from their Charge was a peculiar and speciall Charge and so must the second be also of Christs Purchase for still I ground my reason upon this Aequalis acquisitio non potest esse fundamentum inaequalis curae What reason can be shewen why the Death of Christ and the Purchase with his Bloud can be given as an argument to move the Elders to a peculiar care over the slocke above others if he equally purchased others with them It is not congruous with Scripture to give such Heterogenious arguments when God commanded not to shed the bloud of men he saith not because he is a Creature for this being common with other Creatures moves no more to the care of mans life then to care for any Creatures life But thus for he is the Image of God and this is peculiar to man from other Creatures Let the Author search the Scripture and see whether it gives any argument from a common thing to move to a speciall duty and faithfulnesse over such and such Till I heare further I shall conclude that Christ purchased none but the Flocke So that these places produced by him although they do not define how many he dyed for yet they clearely say that he did not dye for all and by cleare and strong intimation averre that he did not give himselfe for every man in the world A second sort of waies of propounding follows wherein he saith that we have it shewne for how many Christ dyed as followes Sometimes it is laid downe as the foundation laid to offer life and bring in such as knew it not to beleeve Joh. 1.29 3.16 17. Sometime to such as beleeve to shew what Gospell was preached among them 1 Joh. 4.14 c. To be a ground of praise for such as beleeve not 1 Tim. 2.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. And here shall we find the question resolved how many he dyed for Whereas he saith It is propounded as a ground to offer life and bring in men to beleeve He seems to averre these three things all which want truth however probation 1. That wheresoever the Death of Christ is propounded as a ground of offering life it is propounded in generall termes as All men Every man The world But this is false for it is laid downe as a ground of Faith and offering life Joh. 3.16 17. 1 Tim. 1.15 Math. 1.21 Joh. 11.51 In all these it is as plainly propounded for a ground of offering life as any he can produce yet not in generall termes 2. That where it is propounded in generall termes it is propounded as a ground of Faith and offering life but this is false for in 1 Tim 2.6 there it is in generall termes but it not to offer life or beget Faith but to move Beleevers to love and to exercise it in praise for all men as Ver. 1 2. 3. That there is no ground to offer life unlesse it be propounded in generall termes but this is false for that in Joh. 3.16 is a firme ground of offering life and the marrow of the Gospell yet no generall termes Though this be true that Christ purchased life and Salvation but for some of all sorts yet this is ground enough of offering life to all of all sorts and to admonish every man to repent So for the rest much may be said to
many as God by vertue of that Covenant betwixt Adam and God appointed he should So Christ stood in the roome of so many as God appointed in that Covenant betwixt him and Christ thus farre we agree But he would have them go one thus farre that as Adam stood in the roome of all that came from his Loines so Christ as publique person should stand in the roome of all that came from the first Adams Loines and herein we differ and as he saith As Adam stood in the roome of all that came from his Loines so Christ stood in the roome of all that came from Adams Loines making the Analogie to run thus So we say That as Adam stood in the roome of all that came from him so Christ stood in the roome of all that have a being from himselfe And is not the Analogie betwixt Christ and his Figure as cleare and full in our Assertion as in his So that though they for whom Adam stood and they for whom Christ stood differ in the precise number yet they agree in aliquo tertio being both the peculiar issue from their owne root receiving from the one death the other life This he hath no way to enervate but by affirming That Adam stood in the roome of mankind not as because they came from his Loines for so they were after his fall and losse therein of the vertue of that publique place but by vertue of the Account Covenant agreement betweene him and God Wherein we have his assertion it selfe then the reasons to backe it The assertion viz. That Adam stood in the roome of mankind not as or because they came from his Loynes This is contrary 1. To reason because Adam as a root could propagate neither life nor death but to such as came from him and as so to what can a root communicate either good or bad sap but to such branches as grow out of it selfe by vertue of which comming out of it it hath a meane to conveying such to it as it hath it selfe 2. It is contrary to all mens Judgements both dogmaticall and polemicall they all grant that Adam was betrusted with no more than came from his Loines but the testimony of the Remonst are the most convincing in this case Iâ— Molin c. 9 Sect. 1. See Corvinus Ita representavit genus humanum in origine ut sibi posteris simul peccaverit That he did so represent mankind as in the root that he sinned for himselfe and his Posterity See Spiscopius Communicatio homini facta est ut stirpi generis humani Part. 2. disp 15. Sect 4. cujus inobedientia reatus ad omnes posteros lege naturae perveniret That the Communication was to man as the roote that the guilt of the Law of nature is to come to his Posterity See Arminius Disp privat Thes 31. Sect. 9 He speaking of that stipulation betwixt Adam and God saith that God betrusted with Grace for himselfe and that those gifts Ad posteros transmitterentur and that he wanting them posteri etiam iis carerent and thence concludeth Hinc accidit ut omnes homines qui naturalter ex ipsis propagandi fuerint morti obnoxii evaserint That is those that come of them by naturall propagation all which clearely demonstrate thus much that Adam as publique person conveyed death to mankind as comming from his Loynes and to so many as come from his Loynes and no more 3. This assertion is contrary to himselfe Pag. 119. where he saith that the first man was made a publique person in the roome and place of all mankind to stand or fall for all that came from him by propagation what is this but to say that he was a publique person for them as comming from his Loines So Pag. 48. 4. Yet further it apeares that he stood as a publique person for them not as men but as such as came from his loynes because though Christ was truly man yet by vertue of his publike place he neither had profited him if he had stood nor did hurt him by his fall did not convey sin and death to him as to his posterity and the reason of this is because he came from him not by propagation but supernaturall overshadowing and something in his owne words there as to this purpose Pag. 119. He decreed that all the rest of mankind should come from this first Adam by propagation except his Son Christ Having thus examined his assertion I shall perpend his Reasons and they are weake as that false The first is this For so they were after his fall arguing that because they came from him by propagation after his fall therefore by his loines strong reasoning If our Author will not have it because they came from his loynes it must be because they were mankind But is not reason as valid against this thus not as mankind because so they were after his fall nay doth it strongly overthrow him for seeing now after the fall men are his off-spring and all such and none but such as come from his Loynes are guilty of sin and death doth it not appeare that he was a publique person for all such as came out of his Loynes and under that very notion His second reason is this It was by vertue of the Covenant between God and Adam A fond and weake reason to oppose these two and say not as comming from his Loynes but by vertue of the Covenant they agree very well and we may say t was for them as or because they came from his loynes because it was the agreement betwixt God and Adam that he stood as a publique person for himselfe and his Posterity and such as came from his Loynes If he will beleeve any thing Arminius himselfe Ratio faderis a Deo cum hominibus primis initi haec fuit ut si ipsi ingratid permonerent ad posteros dona transmitterentur si se indignos facerent posteri vero â—s carcrent hinc accidit ut omnes ex ipsis propagandi morti obnoxit evaserâ—nt So that now reduce the Authors assertion to truth and let us say That Adam stood as a publique peâ—â— in the room of all that came from his Loynes and under that very notion And then the Analogie will come to this even so doth Christ the second Adam stand in the roome of all those that come to have a being from him And if the Author would have it driven any further he must prove it Indeed he would fain conclude as In this his publique place he is not betrusted with fewer than Adam And he would prove by such Arguments Else will he come short of his Figure But this is no convincing Argument for first it is no paradox to say that in some things Christ comes short of his Figure for in our Authors Judgement they are not alike in all things Now in the rules of proportion it is no more discrepant to come short than to exceed And upon this
ground that can be no reason against his comming short in this particular because he is to answer his Figure for this notwithstanding he may exceed and go beyond in our Authors Judgement Secondly If he stand in the roome of all them that come to have a being from him he answers his Figure that stood in the roome of all that had a being from him although he did not stand in the roome of every Individuall or the precise number of Individualls And if a part of Scripture did affirme that unlesse Christ stood in the roome of the precise number of Individualls he should come short of his Figure I should yeeld to him in this point but till then he must give me leave to thinke this Reason of no force A second Reason by which he proveth it is this God honoured Christ more then Adam True and herein Adam was a root of Life and Death life if he had stood and death if he fell But Christ was to convey only life herein Christ was more honoured than Adam But the honour of Christ is not placed in the precise number of them for whom he stood so as that he that stands in the room God should honour most for then in that God honoured Christ more than Adam it must follow that Christ stood in the place and roome of more than Adam lost or that came from his Loines which is absurd As for the second particular which he observeth in this Similitude betwixt Adam and Christ Pag. 44. is not pertinent or usefull to the Controversie at all therefore I shall wave it A third which he observeth is the Effect and fruit of this publique businesse It was publique and concerned all mankind the disobedience of the first Adam overthrew all mankind so as in and by him they were all deprived of life c. So the obedience of the second Adam hath recovered and restored all mankind so as in him they are restored redeemed and made righteous It matters not what comes from the Authors Pen but what proceeds from the mouth of Scripture but this no Scripture speaketh 1. No Scripture speaketh that Adam stood in the roome of all mankind that is of every individuall man the Author confesseth that he stood not in the roome of Christ 2. Adams sin lost not every man he lost not Christ himselfe but only such as came of him by propagation which Christ did not both these particulars are concealed if not denyed by him though contrary to himselfe 3. No Scripture saith That as Adam lost all that came from his Loynes so Christ recovered all that came from the first Adams Loynes 4. No Scripture saith that Christs recovery concerned all that came out of Adams Loynes 5. The Scripture no where saith that if as Adams losse concerned all that came from his Loynes so Christs recovery must concerne all that came from Adams Loynes rather the contrary 1 Cor. 15. All dyed in Adam so in Christ all shall be made alive The All in the former part is Adam and all that came from him but the All in the second part is not all that came from the first but the second Adam Vers 23. First Christ and then Christs at his comming So that what is herein spoken the Author speaketh but not Scripture he produceth some places Rom 3.24 22. where it saith All are justified and the righteousnesse of God on All but herein he diabolically clippes the Text willfully leaveth out that which would decide the Controversie it is not all that came from Adams Loynes but all that beleeve So Rom. 5.18 Free gift came on all men to Justification of life True but it is on the All that is mentioned Cap. 3.22 24. as may appeare by the 17. verse it saith not on all Adams Sons or all that came from Adams Loynes A fourth particular which he observeth from this comparison is this in regard of the vertue and operation of this publique businesse thus When any commeth to have a being from the first Adam they do necessarily in that participation of his nature partake of the guilt c. So when any do come by a spirituall birth to have a being in Christ in that participation c. He now freely imputeth it to them This being well considered will shew his weakenesse and the truth at once For 1. How is it that every man in and by partaking of Adams nature and comming from him partaketh of the guilt if he stood not as a publique for mankind as comming from his Loynes which he even now denyed 2. I demand Why those that come to have a being from the first Adam partake of his guilt and misery is it not because he stood in their roome And is it upon this ground that as it was intended in his standing in publique so it taketh place in them that partake of his nature And as they that come to partake of his nature come to partake of his sin because he stood in the roome of them that should partake of his Nature So must it not A pari follow if a reason being demanded why them that have a being from Christ come to partake of his righteousnesse Is it not to be answered because he stood a publique person for them What is this but to averre that as Adam stood a publique person for all his So did Christ for all his and all that were to have a being from him Which falleth short of what the Author intendeth and what he hath obtained in all this pursuance of this Comparison only thus much appeares that herein they agreed both conveyed their proper influence to them that came of them but they did both to the precise number of Individuals he proveth not in one word of his Discourse nor one place of Scripture And all this and all that which followeth being of the same stampe with what went before riseth not so high as to prove that Christ obtained life for all that came from the first Adams Loynes CHAP. VIII Of the joynt mention of Creation and Redemption by Christ. HIs scope in this Chapter is to prove his Assertion by the joynt mention of Creation and Redemption thence inferring they are of equall extent because mentioned together and thus urgeth His great love appeareth to mankind in that when Adam lost himselfe and all mankind c. He would not suffer him to perish in his death c. but would worke a recovery for him what ever it cost him Thus in the beginning of the Gospell he puts in this All things were Created by him and that light was the life of men what can be lesse seene than this 1. That God made the Creatures for man yea so loved him that though he was fallen yet he would worke out a Redemption and procure life 2. That it is for men that were made by him as his Creatures not a part but the whole And herein is the top of the Authors reason in this Chapter But 1.
by him elsewhere yet this is said to be the world that is men living in the world 2. He would have hence that ver 21. He hath made him to be sinne for us speaketh of the choice benefits of beleivers this I approve not but minde him of these two things 1. His selfe-contradictions for when he was treating of the first redemption for all and as wrought in Christ page 4. he produceth this place to prove it and here speaking of the second which is applicative to beleivers be brings this place to prove it we may see with what judgement the Author speaketh 2. This phrase plainely denoteth the death of Christ and redemption wrought by it for to die for and to be made sinne for are termes of the same signification yet this is said to be for us and not in generall termes Nay it is plaine that the first words speake of the death of Christ and the second viz. That we might be made the righteousnesse of God denote the application but here is no change of person both in the same he made him sinne for us that we c. Therefore his device on this place falleth Gal. 4.4.5 Speaking of that which he did for all he saith redeemed them that were under the Law but speaking of the especiall priviledges of Adoption he changeth the person and saith that we might receive the adoption of sonnes wherein he would them the first words to be without a restriction and in generall termes but he doth not here nor elsewhere prove it in redeeming them that receive the Adoption he redeemed them that were under the Law and the Text saith not that he redeemed all that were under the law 2. He supposeth that adoption is a more speciall benefit then redemption which the Apostle owneth not he puts as great emphasis and dignity on the one as the other both spirituall blessings with which he blesseth Beleivers Ephes 1.7 Col. 1.14 So for the rest of his texts they are a little invalid and let the sober-minded reader view those texts in his sense He reconcileth every man that we might be made the righteousnesse of God He redeemed every man under the Law that we might receive the adoption of sonnes He suffered for all unjust that he might bring us to God is this a probable interpretation as if that God that he might bring some to God should redeeme and reconcile all and then view them in our sense He reconciled us being men living in the world that we might be the righteousnesse of God in him he redeemed us being under the Law that we might receive the adoption of sons he suffered for us being unjust that he might bring us to God And now let the reader judge which is most commodious and if this second then any may see both parts relateth to the same persons 2. The Scripture doth not onely not follow that method in these cited places but also in other places as Iohn 10.15 1 Thâ—s 5.8 9 10. Where speaking of his death he maketh it not to runne in generall termes but with a restriction 3. Suppose it was so yet the one is but to explaine the other as He hath suffered for the unjust that is for us unjust that he might being us to God so that his invented method herein and arguments thereon fall to the ground CHAP. X. Of the Consideration of 1 Tim. 2.6 HEre we are come to the grand Text of difference where Christ is said to give himselfe a Ransome for all men Now to the transaction of this Text I shall place the controversie onely about the phrase all men and the reader may know that the author would have it meant de singulis generûm as to take in every individuall of every kind We on the other side would have it meant de generibus singulorum so as to take in onely all the sorts and kinds of men and herein stands the controversie about this Text now how strongly he proveth his interpretation it is my next taske to examine And herein he hath a threefold field to runne in viz. the force of the words themselves the circumstances the scope of the Text and he thinkâ—s all these and every one of these is sufficient to evince it that this Text is to be understood of all Adams sons First he saith For the sense of the word it selfe All appeareth to be meant of Adam and all his sonnes because the opposition is betweene God and men First the sense of the word it selfe cannot carry it to that meaning because the Author himselfe confesseth that the word All is many wayes taken so as not to take in every of Adams sonnes as page 30. Therefore that word or phrase that is indifferent to be meant of all and every sonne of Adam or of some or in a sense not so large cannot of it selfe be any convincing argument of its owne signification in any place the matter treated of must administer light herein as the Author confesseth page 31. Neither is that plea of the opposition betwixt God and men of any force by this phrastologie he meaneth when God is said to doe any thing for man or men or every man then it meaneth all Adams sonnes but this is very empty when Christ is said to draw all men to him doth it take in every sonne of Adam and when 1 Cor. 4.14 The Apostle saith all men shall have praise of God doth this take in all Adams sonnes and will he follow his absurd reasoning and say Every man so all were created by him every man and all that have being from Adam and so his nature being men c. with many such frothy expressions as he doth page 55. How would this wrack the Scripture and so in page 56. He pursues this phrase All men with the many acceptations of it but to small purpose he showes that sometimes it is taken for all Adams sonnes and sometimes not but this is not wisely inserted here he affirming that the sense of the word it self will carry it to all Adams sons And he gives us some occasion to thinke that he hath deserted this sense of the word and hath found out another more probable but lesse propitious to his doctrine in the end of page 56. the Reader may observe he hath changed the face of his assertion and in that the question For in page 55. he giveth it thus this word all meaneth Adam and all his sonnes But in page 56. he gives it thus All men 1 Tim. 2.6 principally is meant of naturall men sinners sonnes of Adam unbeleevers unregenerate men He would hereby insinuate to his unwary reader that we deny and he is to prove that Christ gave himself a ransome for naturall men sonnes of Adam sinners when he and all know that it is his taske to prove and his former assertion that he gave himselfe a ransome for All naturall men All Adams sonnes all sinners this is no faire dealing but egregious and
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
that his mission in Mat 15 24. doth not exclude his death and ransome giving it mentioneth nothing but stands as indifferent to receive any thing that he did as part of his ministration here on earth of which his dying was a part and the cheife part and all things else in reference to it Mat. 20.28 To minister and to give his life a ransome for many therefore for him to say not to die but to minister to is weake and frothy and his opposing these two death and ministration here on earth intimateth that either his death is no part of his ministration or else that part of his ministration was not done on earth both most false and absurd And yet the restraint of his mission to the Iews is not wholly exclusive for then the woman could not have been commended for faith and helped thereby Mat. 15.24.28 It makes not whether it were wholy exclusive yea or no it sufficeth us if there was good ground so to thinke as any may see there was when he answered to her suite I was not sent but to the lost sheepe of the house of Israel now the Jewes being ready to snatch at the word house of Israel as their proper priviledge which is refelled Rom. 9. by the Apostle they might and did hence conclude that he was sent to none but them Besides Christ went not thither to minister the Gospel by vertue of his mission but onely to hide and secure himselfe in those parts of Tyre and Sydon therefore this accidentall act to the Phaenician woman doth not argue that his mission was not confined to the house of Israel To conclude were his mission to die or onely to promulge the Gospel the one or other or both yet his speech Mat. 15.24 gave good occasion to the Jewes to exclude the Gentiles from Christ which he removeth and reason there was he should so remove it And of the same nature was the sending of his Disciples and of no further as yet Mat. 10.5 This is but new divinity to say that the mission of Christ and of the Apostles was of the same nature when his Father sent him to the lost sheepe of the house of Israel he came to save that which was lost to redeeme to dye for John 3.16 But when Christ sent his Disciples to the lost sheepe of Israel Mat. 10.5 he sent them not to dye for them to be their Saviours Christ was sent to performe the whole work of ministration they but a part to be adjutant in preaching the Gospel and true Christ had done no more yet but he was sent to doe more even to dye This could be no reason to darken or streighten the extent of the death of Christ much lesse of using such generall termes as all men c. True neither did he streighten it but enlarged it not larger then it was indeed but larger then the Jewes did apprehend it and this was reason enough of using such generall terms as made way for the Gentiles But he attempteth to prove that those generall termes could not be produced to cure such an offence taken from such speeches Mat. 15 24. Thus 1. Before the mission of Christs Disciples or his speaking to the woman of Canaan he was said to be send into the world that the world might be saved c. Which proveth it not because although those sayings were before his speech to his Disciples and the woman of Canaan yet they were not before such expressions as were equipollent and might administer like and equall occasion To passe by all the Prophesies types prefigurations of Christ which were exhibited to the Jews onely in which regard they have the preheminence of the Gentiles but Mat. 1.21 he is said by the angels to be the Saviour of his people and expresly Mat. 2.6 Israel this was enough to create that stumbling against the Gentiles but this was before any such generall terms Besides the word world doth not temper those confining expressions because that word might and is used as to include no more then the Jewes they being most potent and catholâ—ke in the world Luke 2.1 2. Their mission was afterwards enlarged to goe into all the world Mat. 20.28 and then no necessity of using words importing more then truth To wave his expresses of using words importing more then truth being the result of his folly we may say that their mission being enlarged to all the world there was good reason to use such expressions as might admit both Jew and Gentile else they would not be received for Peter for all his commission he was questioned for comming to the Gentiles Acts. 11.1.2.3 and they were not satisfied till he shewes them the vision which was but equivalent to these generall terms and then they admitted them but with admiration that to them should be granted repentance 3. Whilest these generall words were frequent in use the same is still affirmed of Christs administration that it was for the Circumcision Rom. 15.8 9 And good reason because those generall expresses were to let in the Gentiles not to exclude the Iewes but therein Rom. 15.8 9. both Jew and Gentile are inserted that they might both mutually embrace each other this argueth not those generall expresses were not used to cure a mistake in the Iewes excluding the Gentiles when there were no such expressions as did let them in if he had produced any Text speaking of the Iewes so exclusively as formerly then he had said something but take his reasons as they are and they are reasonlesse and miserable and by this it appeares that yet our reason hath more in it then he with all his understanding can resist The second part of this last reason as he calleth it is as followeth Had not the Jewes been for a long time the onely people of God and might not other nations think themselves excluded being called strangers and aliens and was not the receiving of the Gentiles a thing new to the Apostles Acts. 10. therefore there was great reason such generall words should be used which might enforme the Iewes and encourage the Gentiles and them that went to preach to them as it did to Peter to go to Cornelius and his family which otherwise he would have beene as backward to as to eate the creatures that he called uncleane and he was moved thereto when he knew that of every Nation those that worke righteousnesse are accepted of God and this is one reason why such expressions are so frequent in Scripture this reason he is pleased to brand with the titles of weake and frothy he foames out little but such expressions of venome and contempt but how doth he make it appeare Thus The ignorance of some in the mysteries of grace is no proofe that the God of Truth will speake beyond the bounds of Truth Which is the empty reply that he gave to the first part of this reason wherein he urgeth me to say againe that Gods using such expressions
he maketh Gods compassion and mercy to extend no further then to make men salvable and his delight to be in the giving union and possession of all priviledges but this division is without ground for all good that God gives to fallen man even to glory it selfe floweth from his compassion and mercy glory in heaven is mercy as well as any thing we receive on earth 2 Tim. 1.18 and all that love that rests not till the party loved be brought into union c. is that love of compassion though he make it to be the love of delight which properly rests not till all that be done for delight is rather in the thing done then tending to the doing of it these two constitute not a good distinction as he boundeth them but these with many other things I passe by and come to examine what he speaketh of hatred that also he saith is twofold 1. A not so much loving as Gen. 29.30.31.33 Luke 14.26 2. A positive and furious hatred tending to the destruction of the hated Deut. 19.11 Now that a not so much loving should be called hatred is not cleare from those Texts alledged as for Gen. 29.30 that Text speaketh not of a lesse degree of love but of no love at all that is conjugall affection so he loved her not at all therefore hated her and for Luke 14.26 there is not spoken of a lesse love but absolute hatred if they stand in opposition to Christ for else it is enough to give worldly respects some part so that we give Christ the greatest part of our love but this is not sound divinity Againe if a not so much loving be hating then it is no such fearefull thing to say that God hateth the righteous for certaine it is that he loveth not them so much as he doth his onely Sonne But to let this passe I am now to examine how he welldeth these weapons to cut down our assumption That of Gods love he pursueth thus farre A love of compassion and mercy Psalm 136.25.145.8.9 is such a love as extendeth it selfe so farre for the good of man loved in good things afforded that a man is made salvable and so much done for him that in accepting c. he maybe saved Psal 36.5.6.7 That God is full of compassion and his mercy is over all his workes and he saveth man and beast those Texts affirme and that by the virtue of his compassion the sonnes of men come to partake of the well of life we grant but all the rest is of his owne making none of these Texts say that every of the sonnes of men have so much of Gods compassion as to have life procured for them by Christs death no nor yet that every man enjoyeth the height of Gods compassion this is to be yet proved for if creatures irrationâ—ll may have much of Gods compassion and yet not the height of his compassion why may not some men have much compassion yet not the height of it yet our assumption stands firme Againe he saith Lesse love then this was not to the Angels before they fell nor lesse love to mankinde before the fall Ecel 7.29 Gen. 12. This though it serve him not yet he discovereth his folly for this supposeth that Angels and men had compassion showen them before they fell but this is false for compassion presupposeth misery and the fall which was not before the fall but what is the result of all this no more but this that all men have some degree of Gods compassion manifested on them but what is all this to prove that every man hath the height of his compassion so that his reasoning cometh to this head every man hath some compassion showed him therefore that is high blasphemy to say that every man hath not the height of his compassion this is but miserable reasoning Againe thus he urgeth The love of compassion and the hatred that is in a lesse degree of love may stand together both in God and man Hos 11.5 Jer. 9.1.2 This is a truth nay I shall grant further that his love of compassion and his positive hatred may stand together that is God may give some expresses of his compassion to many whose destruction he willeth and whom he purposeth to destroy and this is so far from overthrowing that it confirmeth our assumption For it cleareth this that every degree of his compassion enjoyed doth not argue an eye to the salvation of them whom God bestoweth that low degree of compassion on therefore the compassion that God showeth to many is no argument that every man enjoyeth also the height of Gods compassion Yet hitherto we are untouched He saith further To say whoever he loveth with the love of compassion he loveth for ever or to say he hateth with any other hatred then that which is in the lesse degree of love any before they have hardened their hearts against him c. is contrary to Hosea 9.10 to 15. Zach. 7.11.13 1.18.28 2.4.5 In which words there is confusion impropriety and fallacy 1. He speakes confusedly not distinguishing the severall degrees of his compassion for it may be granted that to whom he giveth some degrees of his compassion he continueth not that for ever because some good he may give that is not to last for ever viz. a temporall good yet certainely to whom he giveth his highest pitch of compassion he loveth such for ever Will he say that Rom. 6.15 is not an everlasting compassion that compassion mentioned Ier. 31.33.34 is not for ever continued consult with 36.37 2. He speaketh improperly because though hatred may stand with a lesse degree of love that is he may deny some good to them to whom he giveth some good yet it is not proper to say that hatred consists in that lesse degree of love for in that he bestoweth any good he hateth not neither can hatred consist in the giving that good but rather in the deniall of a greater good he hated nor Esau in that he gave him some good but in that he gave him not that great good that he gave to Jacob. 3. He speaketh fallaciously suggesting to his followers that we hold that God hateth with a hatred that is without any degree of love that is he so willeth evill to to them that he willeth not to bestow any good at all but this we say not for the greatest hatred is to will to deny grace and glory but God may give much good to such he hateth not the reprobate with the hatred that excludeth all good yet some and many he hateth so as to deny them the top and height of his compassion and that before they turne away their hearts from him and how doth he in all this overthrow the Minor but by this hatred which he makes to be after their turning away from him I suppose he meaneth or at least should doe his will to deny saving grace and glory and then happily 4. He may seeme to speake
according to the merit of our mediatour as it would in â—ench upon the justice of God so it is granted by the Author page 100. Now if Christ did undertake for every man payed his debt satisfied his father justice and tooke away sinne and all that stood crosse to our salvation and abolished death all which he affirmes for every sonne of Adam and so effectually and actually that it is as good with God as if every man had suffered and died the death due to his sinne in his owne person for so the Author is pleased to say page 17. certainely then every man should stand acquitted from that charge Gods justice should exact no more for as justice requireth satisfaction so it requireth but satisfaction the same debt is not in justice required both of the surety and the principall and as it had not been agreeing with Justice to require a second payment if man had been able to undergoe the wrath of God due to sinne and to rise out of it so is it equally disagreeing to justice to require a second payment of any seeing Christ hath payed it in his owne person For herein he did not die for but die with them that so die Hence I conclude that if Christ satisfied his Fathers justice for every man they should be freed from the curse due to sinne which is to be justified and this by his merits which is to be justified by his blood this is the genuine face of the argument But before I reply to his answers I shall premise a few things concerning justification to which I may referre the severall and confused pieces of of his rude answers concerning justification these three things are enquitable 1. What Justification is 2. When a Sinner is justified 3. What justification freeth us from The two first will be cleared in considering that in justification these three things are comprehended 1. As it is done in God and his minde and will 2. As it is discovered in the Gospel and pronounced there 3. As it is apprehended in the heart of the person justified By the first God is said to justifie 2. To declare him justified 3. The Beleever to apprehend or conclude himselfe justified Justification as it is in God existing in mente divinâ I finde such a definition given by Episcopius treating of justification and saying that justification and remission of sins be Synonyma's Disp 45. Thes 6. he saith thus Remissio peccatorum est voluntas non infligendi paenam quam peccata promerâ—ierunt That is remission of sins or justification is nothing else but a will in God not to inflict the punishment due to sin and so on the other side it must be a will in God to impute the righteousnesse of Christ and to deale with us as righteous persons now the Arminians have and our Author doth grant such decrees to be in God eternall as we must for he doth not in time will any thing that he did not will from eternity our justification doth not introduce any change in God all therefore in this sense it appeareth to me that man is justified from eternity Armin. disp pub Thes 19. sect 4. 2. Justification as it is pronounced in the Gospel is thus defined Quâ homo a deo ut a judice justus praemio dignuâ— censetur pronunciatur that is it is an act whereby man is of God as judge esteemed and pronounced righteous and of this runnes the definition of our modern Divines as Daven de Justif 310. Ames Medul 188. And of this justification the Scripture alwayes speaketh or most frequently to wit of the promulgation of it See Evangelii tenorem and so onely the faithfull and penitent are said to be justified and so in present existing because to such onely hath he pronounced justification and thus he is said to justifie the beleever or him that beleeveth in God or in Jesus when by the first as it is a will of God so to do he is and may be said to justifie the ungodly Rom. 4.5 for so he willeth nor to impute their sinnes whilest they remaine ungodly but he never pronounceth any one justified whilest they remaine ungodly Scripture no where so saith Now in our discourses of justification we must not confound these and if the question be asked when a man is justified by distinguishing these two we may clearely answer that as the act is done in God so we are justified from eternity for thus justification is an imminent action though conversant about the creature yet introduceth no physicall mutation into the creature disp 45. thes 3 this all grant but the Papist Episcopius thus saith Non justae aut sanctae infusio qualitatis in animam that is no infusion of any holy quality into the minde and this act doth no more make a man Justificatum then election maketh him electum yet none will deny election to be an imminent action and why God may not as well justifie us from eternity that is will not impute our sinnes as to elect us that is will to bring us to salvation I am not able to see And if any object the usuall streame of Scripture language viz. that we are justified by faith and he justifieth him that beleeveth in Jesus by considering this distinction we may breake through that and say that that is onely meant of the pronunciation of it according to the tenour of the Gospel and the reason why though there be such an act in God from eternity before our faith be wrought in us yet the Scripture speakes of justification through faith c. is because as in judiciary affaires it matters not what the Judge resolveth in his breast though whom he resolveth to acquit they may be said to be acquitted yet men looke at his legall sentence pronounced that by the law the person himselfe and the spectators is looked at at his absolution or acquittance So in this case we looke at our absolution from the â—nour of the Gospel thereby men come to know us and we ourselves to be justified this pronunciation is called justification and this is to Beleevers onely That which in this may seeme harsh is That a man remaining a sinner may be said to be justified but if it be well considered it will not appeare more harsh then this That a man whilst a sinner is elected to life both are prest with the same pretended absurdities Againe God is said to justifie the ungodly Rom. 4.5 but this he doth not quoad evangelicam promulgationem for that is onely to beleevers but beleevers when so are not branded with the title of ungodly and may not this We are justified whilest enemies be received as well as this We are reconciled whilest enemies Rom. 5.10 This I commend to the Authors consideration Againe it is to be enquired into from what justification freeth us we finde it thus exprest A peccato morte from sin and death Ames med and of this
I have brought to this result it may be with greater force then he intended and it is this John 3.17 Christ is said to save the world yet John 16.8.11 he is said to convince the world of sinne and John 8.23.24 ye shall die in your sinnes by these it appeareth that all that he died for and saveth are not justified and saved from wrath and this may seeme a specious allegation but it hath little in it For by World in the Authors judgement is meant every Sonne of Adam so that Iohn 3.16 saith he saved the world Iohn 16.8.11 saith he shall convince the world that is in both every sonne of Adam and so he would have these places compared to prove that as he came to save every man so he shall save never a man for every man that shall be convinced of sin because they beleeve not this indeed opposeth the proposition but no reasonable man can judge to be the meaning of those Texts therefore to reply 1. He cannot prove that those that were convinced of sin for not beleeving did not afterward beleeve for every man that is saved hath hâ—s tâ—me of unbeleife wherein he may be convinced for not beleeving therefore this Text convinceth not that they did never beleeve for whom Christ died 2. That place Iohn 3.17.13 he saith he came to save the world that is men living in the world and he did it the world is reconciled 2 Cor. 5.18.19 their trespasses not imputed he giveth life to the world John 6.33 and taketh away the sinne of the world Iohn 1.29 and yet he shall convince the world of sinne they shall be judged by beleevers 1 Cor. 6.2 and be condemned 1 Cor. 11.32 in all the World now then cannot be verified of the world the same way taken but he saveth the world Quoad partem credentem according to the beleeving part and he shall condemne the world for sinne that is the unbeleeving part thereof so that to conclude John 3.18 doth not say that they which he came to save were not so in time nor that Text Iohn 16.8.11 doth not say be satisfied his Fathers justice for them that should be convinced of sin and so perish therefore how these Texts can disprove the proposition I see not It overthroweth many affirmations in the Scripture as that all shall beare the image of the first Adam 1. Cor. 15.46 that all are dead in sin by nature Eph. 2.2 that God justifieth the ungodly Rom. 4.5 c. It cannot but be judged too great a prodigality of time and paines to insist upon such jejune and empty expressions that have not the least shew of reason but the nature of my Antagonist requireth it doth the proposition say that all doe not beare the image of the earthy certainely no. It supposeth the contrary that all doe for it saith that all that Christ died for shall in time partake of the Image of the heavenly which intimateth that all at first beare the Image of the earthy Justification doth not immediately reflect upon the being of sinne but obligation to punishment and this may suffice for the two first Texts alledged by him As for Rom. 4.5 it speaketh not of such a justification as is by faith it speaketh of beleeving on him that justifieth he ungodly but not of his justifying the ungodly upon their beleeving therefore he misalledgeth that Text he is said to justifie the ungodly but beleevers are never called so especially if he reflect upon his owne sense of ungodly page 10. besides the Text sheweth not that all the ungodly be justified doe not in time come to partake of life hitherto I see nothing of strength against the proposition As for that counterpart to the proposition which he produceth page 96. viz. many for whom Christ died remaine without that justification that is in him wants proof for those Texts alledged doe not make it appeare that Christ died for such as want that justification and never partake of it The next thing that he stumbleth at is the second part of the proposition viz. All for whom he satisfied shall be saved from wrath through him this he presently cryeth downe as false and contrary to Scripture But what Text 2 Peter 2.1.2 This text I have spoken of formerly and cleared it from overthrowing the proposition it speaketh not not a word of satisfying his Fathers justice for them And this untruth denieth the Lordship of Christ grounded on his death for all But wherein it denieth it he showeth not doe we by saying all that he satisfied for shall be saved deny him to be Lord of all as if he could not be their Lord unlesse he save them from wrath to come weak argument and of this stamp are the rest that follow clearely confuted in severall pages of this discourse Having spoken of the two parts of the proposition he cometh to the reason by which the proposition is backed and he hath something to say to that as followeth the reason if he doe not justifie and save from wrath all those for whose sinnes he hath satisfied he should be unjust to this be answers A presumptuous rashnesse in an intimate charging God with injustice But where lieth the rashnesse whether in saying if such a thing be granted he is unjust or in affirming such the granting whereof maketh him to be unjust let the Author judge Let us see what he himselfe saith page 97. That were injustice not onely to require the whole debt againe but even any part of it either of him or any other that are discharged by him or to detaine from him or his any thing that by vertue of his ransome is to be conferred So that we see it is no such charging God with injustice as he pretendeth to say that if such a thing be granted God is unjust but besides let us consider it is injustice in God to require any part of the debt againe of Christ or any other for whom Christ suffered and was discharged or any that are discharged for Christ for so both are equally alike now let us consider the Authors words page 4. All the sinnes the law could charge mankinde withall were imputed to him he suffered the curse and died as the sinner and rose acquit of all our sinnes and a triumphant victor over sin and death Let him tell us is it not injustice in his own language to require part of this debt or all of Christ or any for whom he stood and died and of whose sinnes he stood acquitted But he saith he did so for every sonne of Adam therefore doth not justifie the reason of the proposition and show the vanity of this his rash charge But he thinketh to presse the reason of the proposition with an absurdity Gods children have complained of trouble by the law in their members Rom. 7.15 and he saith of his own children Psalm 89.32 I will visit their sinnes with stripes Wherein it seemeth strange that the Authors ignorance
afterwards saith The answer to that objection is easie But what need an answer if the objection be so sober as not to oppose him and easie it is to give an answer but to give such an one as satisfieth that is not so easie as appeareth by his whole discourse but let us see his facile and obvious answers it is this As the mediation of Christ is both more generally and more speciall the first as he is Mediatour between God and man 1 Tim. 2.5 the second as he is Mediatour of the New Testament Heb. 9.14 so in all his offices there is that which is more generall and that which is more speciall Now this labours with a double error for neither is his mediation twofold neither are his offices twofold that is generall and speciall as for the first viz. his distinction betwixt his mediation of the New Testament and his mediation betweene God and man is ridiculous and not consonant to Scripture for when he was said to be a mediatour betwixt God and man 1 Tim. 2 5. was he not in that mediation a mediatour of the New Testament is there any mediation that is not by a New Testament even for transgressors that were under the former Testament as Heb. 9.15 and was not his mediation Heb. 9.15 a mediation between God man is there any mediation that is not between God and man was not that mediation in Heb. 9.14.15 for the redemption of transgressors and by death and was not that in 1 Tim. 2.5 the like and is there any mediation for transgressors and by death but such as is between God and man no marvell if such answers be easie and ready at hand Againe he urgeth thus as a Priest he offered sacrifice in respect of one end viz. propitiation for all men Heb. 9.26 2.9 Iohn 1.29 1 Iohn 2.2 but in respect of all ends propitiation sealing the New Testament testification of truth and for the uttermost end in all for his called and chosen ones Heb. 9.14.15 As for his distinction of ends dividing some to all others for his chosen is without ground as I have showen in the former part of my treatise and cleare it is because his propitiation is nowhere said to be for every man therefore all the ends of his death are for the same persons Yea that Text Heb 9.14.15 hinteth of no other end but propitiation or redemption of transgressions as ver 15. yet the Author himselfe confesseth that it is for his called and chosen ones and that those Texts Heb. 2.9 1 John 29. 1 Iohn 2.2 doe not hold such a generall popitiation I have showen at large this is but petitio principij And why he should produce a double oblation from 1 Tim. 2.5 and Heb. 9.14.15 I see not seeing he cannot produce any differing circumstance both by Christ both by death both for transgressions both that those that are called might receive the promise now if he shall say the one is for all the other for his chosen this is not against us but giveth us the question and granteth that the all in 1 Tim. 2.5 is no more then the chosen ones in Heb. 9.14.15 Hereby we may have a taste that let the argument be as weak as it can yet his answers are as weake and come farre short of discovering any weakenesse in it CHAP. XIX Of the seventh Objection A seventh argument produced by him is this If God intended life for all men by Christ death he would certainely have used some meanes to bring all men to the knowledge of Christ and so to repentance and faith But to many he giveth no meanes at all to others denied meanes when his servants would have carried the same Therefore This argument was the fifth argument in the conference and in its right formation runneth thus If Christ have procured reconciliation and remission by his death for every man none excepted then the word of reconciliation would and should have been preached to every man none excepted But the word of reconciliation is not c. Ergo Christ did not procure remission for all and every man But to take his argument as it runneth I shall first show the force of the argument it is but consonant to the wisdome of God to have made such a purchase by his Sonne or Christ by himselfe at so deare a rate as his blood and that for the good of men that he should make a discovery of this that so men might come to partake of it and the benefits of it for no man can partake of this remission but by faith Rom. 3.25 and faith is not ordinarily begotten but by the word Rom. 10.14 hence the Apostle putteth both together 2 Cor. 5.15.18.19 with dying and reconciling he committed the Gospel of reconciliation to the Apostles but that many millions die without any knowledge of Jesus Christ Scripture showeth and experience witnesseth Now to perpend his answer hereto he saith This objection denyeth neither the death or ransome of Christ to be for all men but onely any intendment of life and saving grace thereby And doth this cleare him from the force of this argument he is sufficiently confounded hereby because he holdeth that his purchase and ransome and death was with an intendment of life to every man as he saith page 15. He hath wrought for all men that they might be eternally saved doth not this sufficiently discover the folly of the Author in answering the objection with that which confirmeth it and overthroweth himselfe He further saith Nor for any but where the Gospel is not granted And enough too because if Christ died not for all those where the Gospel never commeth he died not for every man without exception Yet he can manfully say the force of the objection is weake and his grounds follow The Scripture hath expressely affirmed Gods intention to be that they all might be saved and repent and beleeve and be further saved Ezeck 33.11 Iohn 3.17 Iohn 1.4.7 Rom. 2.4 1 Tim. 2.4 2 Pet. 3.9 But what doth this helpe him certainely nothing because that to deny Gods intendment of life to all was nothing against him as even now he professed 2. If he meane every sonne of Adam no place cited by him cleareth it it is not suitable to reason that God should intend those men might or should beleeve and be further saved whom he decreed from eternity should be damned this I have at large provd 3. If the Author so confidently can say that it is Gods intention that all men should beleeve he need not be so squeemish at the affirming that it is his intention that all men should be eternally saved which I finde him sometimes and others of his opinion so loth to affirme But he further saith If we cannot in the workes of God see the fulfilling of the sayings of God it becomes us to admire his wisdome and holinesse and bewaile our ignorance c. and not by rash judging deny the truth of
How doth the Author prove that either in 3. or 4. verses of John 1. the Text mentioneth the worke of Redemption I conceive he cannot prove it to speake of any thing but Creation No not vers 4. In him was life and that was the light of men speakes only thus much that in the Word there was life even when he made the world and that life was the light of men from that life came the light of men and till he make this cleare this Text serves him not 2. Grant this yet doth the joynt mention in the Text argue an equality of extenâ— Let us then follow this rule and say from Verse 10. The world was made by him and the world knew him not What doth this lesse inferre than this That the world that knew him not was as large as the world that was made by him but this is false if any at all in those times knew him which Scripture tells us there did So from Col. 1.16.18 By him were all things Created and he is the head of his Body We may say his Body and Headship is as large as his Creatures or the things that were Created by him this would be strange reasoning and of the same mould is his inference fron John 1.2 3 4. But if he had minded the Text he might have seen some thing against this Inference for speaking of Creation it saith All things were Created by him but in the other it saith that light was the life of Men and if it come short in this it may come shorter yet no violence to the joynt mention of Creation and Redemption Againe Speaking of the recovery of Man and of the Creatures to their purity for mans use c. he thus speaketh And is not all this affirmed in the Gospell where Creation and Redemption are mentioned together Col. 1.16 20. And where this generall tearme All things is mentioned in Creation Vers 16. Reconciliation Vers 20. Preservation Vers 17. and what lesse doth this inferre then that the peace wrought for mankind is as large as Creation and Preservation of mankind I willingly acknowledge with his Query that nothing can be lesse seene in those places than that For where it speakes of Creation it takes in the fallen Angels and the rest of the Creatures but where it speaketh of Reconciliation it cannot For the fallen Angels I know the Author will say he never did reconcile and for the rest of the Creatures it is not sutable to Scripture to say he reconciled them He created the bruit Beasts but Scripture no where said that he reconciled the bruit Creatures for whom he reconciled he dyed for but Scripture saith no where that he dyed for bruit Creatures he being in the nature of men dyed only for men and reconciled only men and so from that place it doth appeare that the All things Created and the All things Reconciled are not of the same latitude and extent That which is of moment is in Pag. 52. as followeth In that Creation is used as an Argument to induce us to Faith and Confidence Job 10.8 13. and 14.14 Psalm 129.16 17. 1 Pet. 4.16 And coupled with Redemption in this businesse Isay 43.1 Now if he hath not wrought a Redemption as large as mankind created by him what force can there be in this Argument grounded on his Creation The worke of Creation indeed is used as an argument of a threefold duty 1. Of uprightnesse as Psa 139.16 17. and this is such as every man may use I am his Creature therefore I ought to serve him uprightly 2. Of prevailing in Prayer to move God to take away his hand because we are his Creatures and not able to endure his hand So Job 10.8 13. And with this sometimes God is moved The extravagancies of their lives Psalm 103.9 14 15. But this is such an argument as every one cannot urge as if God was alwaies moved towards every one that he made he may do much for his Children because they are weake Creatures 3. Of confidence in Gods power and ability to save as Isa 40.9 10 11 12 c. And the Argument thus framed he is as able to save us as to create us But all these are nothing to his purpose because the worke of Redemption is not in any of those places joyned with Creation And I never observed that the Creation is used as an Argument to perswade us of Gods willingnesse to save as if he would save because he did Create much lesse that he maketh Creation an Argument to perswade us of Redemption as if he would Redeeme us because hee Created us But where both are joyned together as Isa 43.1 there is a perfect Argument both of his Power and Will but his Power is drawne from the Creation and his Will from Redemption So 1 Pet. 4.19 He is able because Creator willing because faithfull Now these are Arguments that his owne Children may make and to perswade them of his Power to save which is common may use the Creation which is common and to perswade them of his willingnesse which is peculiar they use his Redemption and what of all this It doth not yet inferre Redemption to bee as large as Creation for the All Created goeth beyond the All Redeemed And the more the Reader observeth the more he shall see of the Authors weakenesse herein force enough is there in Creation to evince Gods Power although his Redemption be not so large CHAP. IX Of the constant changeing of the person when having mentioned the generall it mentioneth the especiall THe Author his scope in this Chapter is to make it appeare that those places that are produced by us with applicative restriction are nothing against him being such as treat of the speciall favours of beleivers which is not the businesse he treateth of and this he doth by suggestion to his reader that where the Scripture speaketh of ransome and redemption wrought in him it speakes in generall termes but where it speaketh of choice benefits it speakes in applicative expressions But when I prove these three particulars that follow this will prove invalid 1. The Scripture useth not this method in those Scriptures which he urgeth and his Scriptures are these 2 Cor 5.19 20 21. where he saith Reconciling is to the world and that is the redemption wrought in him and ver 21. He was made sinne for us there is the speciall benefit of believers wherein he intimated these two things 1 That the word reconciling in the 19 verse is meant of Christs act as Mediatour working out a reconciliation with God for men but this is a non probatum I shewed the contrary in the foregoing part of this discourse that word both 18 and 19 verses whether to be understood of Gods actuall reconciling himselfe to us not imputing our sinnes or his reconciling us to himselfe it is to be meant of the application of his death and the choice benefits of beleivers as is confessed