bestowed upon every Son of Adam which he often affirmeth but never yet proved Having thus immethodically propounded and displayed the particulars of his Common Salvation he proceeds thus to affirme In some sense and in truth all may be said to be Reconciled Redeemed Saved yea Justified in him though most be destitute of every of these Which is as much as to say Those may truly be said to be reconciled c. that neither are nor shall be reconciled c. Indeed I find sometimes that God calleth things that are not as if they were Rom 4 17. And Faith hath this privilege to see at a distance things that are not as if they were but then let us consider what they are not meerely possible but future such as God by his power can and his unbended purpose hath determined and his faithfull Promises hath assured us shall come to passe for such things to appeare to God or a faithfull eye as if they were is no strange thing But for such things as are never to come to reality no nor ever was so intended as the Reconciliation Justification and Salvation of many were not intended by Christ in his Death as the Remonst say and for such as neither are nor shall be effected for such to be called as done and to say that such men are Reconciled c. which neither are so nor shall be so in time seemes to me an incredible absurdity But he will happily say They may be said to be so because they may be so They are under such conditions which if they performe God is ready to do all those Well be it so Why then should they rather be said Saved then damned till the condition be performed I hope the way is indifferent to Damnation as Salvation as the Parties beleeve or not beleeve for the Gospell saith beleeve and be saved and also beleeve not and be damned and men may accidentally contract a sorer Condemnation if they beleeve not Therfore why they should rather be said to be reconciled and saved because they may be saved by Faith then that they are damned because they may be damned by unbeleefe Nay why may not men conclude sooner that they are not reconciled and redeemed especially casting an impartiall eye upon themselves seeing they find themselves more prone to reject him then to receive him to stand out then to beleeve in him I see not Againe It is not sutable to denominate them Justified and Reconciled that neither are nor shall be endued with Faith And why may not men be as well said to be Glorified in Christ as Justified and Reconciled Yet it is no sober expression to say that every man yea the damned Spirits are glorified in Christ Certainely the Scripture calleth none Reconciled Justified Redeemed Saved but such as are so or shall in Gods time be so But againe how he can thus conclude for every man from the Premises I see not He produceth not one particular which he can prove to be common to every Son of Adam but the first viz. an upholding in their being both man and the world of Creatures But are all said to be Reconciled Redeemed Saved Justified because they have their being continued and the world of Creatures also for their use Certainely there is no necessary dependance or because some are made partakers of Supernaturall light the Gospell and an encrease of light are all and every Son of Adam said thereby to be Justified c But he attempts to backe it both by Scripture and Reason I shall examine both His Scriptures are two Rom. 3.22 23 24. Herein I need not call out the disquisition of more piercing eyes to search out his fallacy but any common capacity to explode his palpable absurdity doth the Text speake of a Potentiall Justification wherewith all may be said Justified and yet all misse of it and yet be justified The Text speakes of a justification by Faith which is an Actuall Justification and there is none so justified but they partake of it If the Text had favoured him it should have run thus The righteousnesse of God for all with God But it saith The righteousnesse of God unto all and upon all Againe the Text saith It is unto and upon all But doth the Text meane All and every Son of Adam whether beleeving or not beleeving Let him view the Text That Justification by which every man is said justified is such as is without Faith But the Text owneth none such it saith upon all them that beleeve that is the Circumcision and uncircumcision Jew and Gentile as ver 30. there is no difference but the beleeving Gentile as well as the beleeving Jew is justified freely This the Remonst acknowledge with the Scripture Nullus nisi fidelis quâ fidelis est justificatur sive à condemnatione absolvitur Ant. 87. Strange it is to me that the Authour should dreame that this Text should call every Son of Adam justified Rom. 5.14.18 As for the 14. ver I cannot apprehend any shew of Reason the dint is in the 18. ver where the Text saith By the justifying of one the benefit abounded towards all to justification of life But 1. First Here we see not any shew of reason to say that all are justified The Text from any thing that Christ did doth not say every Son of Adam may be called justified where is there any such word 2. This place speakes not of any potentiall justification by which those may be said justified that Actually are not so but is an Actuall Justification and that opposed to an Actuall Condemnation and expounded in the 19. ver by being made righteous and that as in Adam were made sinners that Justification which he is to prove hence is such as is appropriated to them that are not nor ever shall be justified But let him shew and prove where any word in that Chapter seconds such an one as that 3. The Text saith indeed Free gift came upon all men to justification of life But what is that All To be taken with or without a limitation Let us compare the Apostle with himselfe The businesse of Justification by Faith in Christ Jesus is a thing that the Apostle takes often occasion to treate of in this Epistle yea it is his maine drift in this former part of his Epistle and this he had said before was upon all Cap. 3.22 but it was upon all that beleeve and that the Promise thereof might be made sure to an All Cap. 4.16 But it was sure to all the seed and when he speaketh of the same thing in the same Epistle that it is upon all men why should we take him in any other sense then he explaineth himselfe about the same businesse Even they seeme to be spoken with the same breath and so no other sense to be given to this place but this upon all men that is on all them that beleeve and that as the Condemnation came on all them that come
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
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
the premises and let them be right I will warrant his conclusion now what strength of Argument can we expect from such as is so weakely versed in that way 2. His arguments are many six in number to call the eyes of men upon that truth that is backed by multitude of arguments when he deceiveth them utterly for his mediums are all coincident in one let us veiw them His 1. Saith That which the Scripture plainely affirmeth in plaine words is true 2. Saith Tâ—â—â— for whom Christ and his Apostles in plaine termes affirme Christ to come to save them he did come to save 3. Saith That which Scripture layeth downe as one end of his death c. is to be beleeved 4. Saith That which the Scripture sets forth in generall for the world it a truth 5 Saith That which may be proved in and by Scripture in plaine sentences c. is a truth Now let any divine Chymnist extract a difference betwixt any of these doe they nor deserve by the variety of matter to be ranged as distinct arguments should I have distinct answers I should runne into the Authors folly 3. Let us view the conclusions in all and so see what he proveth in all his plaine Scriptures His 1. Thus That he gave himselfe a ransome for all and tasted death for every man 2. He came to save sinners world unjust ungodly 3. That by his death he is Lord of all 4. That he was sent to be the Saviour of the world that whoever beleeveth should not perish 5. That he hath in dying lordship over all 6. That he gave himselfe a ransome for all and tasted death for every man Now not to insist on that peccancy in having such various conclusions about one and the same question wherein he cannot satisfie that requisite in reasoning to conclude with the question this I say none of these conclusions are against us which may be reduced to that peccancy in reasoning which is called ignoratio elenchi none of his arguments are in right forme they have more in the conclusion then his premises contribute to them all have some or other obliquity but seeing all of them are but one medium and so in effect but one argument I shall give this one answer conceditur totum and he can desire no more of us then to grant all he saith now in the issue either his weaknes appeareth in producing that against us which we may grant or ours in granting that which maketh against us let him put it to the triall CHAP. XXI Of removing some doubts hindring some from beleeving that which they confesse WHerein he personateth some that cannot deny but confesse that Christ gave himselfe a ransome for all and tasted death for every man but they cannot beleeve that Christ died for all men I shall not insist on the Authors dexterity in framing such arguments and doubts that he may easily answer and render the objectors ridiculous his forgery lieth in two particulars 1. He knoweth none that cannot beleeve that which they confesse Scripture speaketh some may not confesse that which they beleeve but that any should not beleeve that which they confesse I beleeve not 2. He knoweth none that beleeve that Christ gave himself a ransome for all and yet do doubt whether he died for all or no this would be to exceed the Author in folly but here lieth the doubt though the Text say He gave himselfe a ransome for all men yet they cannot beleeve that it meaneth every individuall man without exception upon a threefold ground arising from severall Scriptures as first Eph. 2.8 By grace are ye saved through faith and this not of our selves it is the gift of God from this Text I doe not affirme that faith is said to be the gift of God though it be so and other Scriptures hold it forth yet I say not that this text saith so for having said ye are saved by grace through faith it saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not of our selves it doth not well agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it being of the newâ—er gender but rather with the whole sentence going before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that salvation by grace through faith is the gift of God as Rom 6.33 the gift of God is eternall life through Jesus Christ our Lord. But to take it as as he propoundeth it and from this that faith is the gift of God which is a truth hence the doubt is this Seeing faith is the gift of God and he hath determined not to give to every man that faith therefore it is not probable that Christ would lay downe his life for them upon the condition of faith whom he seeth cannot beleeve without God and to them God will not give it to the salving of which he speakes many things but little to satisfaction he seemeth to distinguish of salvation 1. A salvation without man in Christ for men 2. A salvation in men inabling men to beleeve 3. A salvation upon men both in soul and body compleat in heaven Now he saith that this phrase Yee are saved by grace through faith in Eph. 28. is meant of the second salvation but first that is not cleare for then the sense must be this yee are brought in to beleeve through faith so that faith is by him the meanes conducing to faith this is absurd I thinke it plainely appeares to be meant of compleat salvation in heaven and it saith ye are saved because they were certainely to be saved through faith But be it so as he saith yet the doubt is where it was yet that being saved by faith is the gift of God and he not giving that grace to all he would not give his Son to merit life for all upon the condition of beleeving if I can in his next be informed of his strength in his expresses to this purpose I shall say more His second Text produced Iohn 6.37 All that my Father giveth me shall come unto me and him that cometh I will not cast out Now from this Text here lieth the doubt it is not consonant to reason or Scripture that Christ would lay downe his blood to purchase life for them whom his Father had not given to him seeing his Fathers giving is the measure of coming to him and so being within the compasse of the benefit of his impetration his will being one with his Fathers his impetration would be equall with his Fathers giving to him this he undertaketh to remove by showing a fouretold giving of men to Christ 1. Giving by election to sonship and inheritance 2. Giving men to him to undertake for them and to ransome them 3. Giving men to Christ they to be his and he to be their Lord. 4. Giving men to Christ in the heavenly call so they are given up to him But what neede so many words to darken a cleare Text and what need so many acceptations when it is cleare that all of them cannot be the
sense of this place or give any light to it The second giving cannot be meant because all for whom he undertook and ransomed in the Authors judgement doe not come to him that is beleeve on him so contrary to the text all that my Father giveth me shall come to me Neither can the third be the sense here meant upon the same ground many who are Christs at his dispose so as to be their Lord they yet come not to him that is beleeve on him and those that by his judiciary power come to be judged or come to sue for mercy many of them are cast out as is seeme in the wedding and the five foolish virgins therefore little need be said of these because they doe not expound the Text by any one of these all the contestation betwixt the Remonstrants and their adversaries and me and my Antagonist is betwixt the first and the fourth he affirmeth the fourth to be the genuine sense of this place but against not onely reason but common sense for by comming to Christ is certainely meant beleeving in him comming by faith as is cleare by many Scriptures Mat. 11.28 come unto me yee that are heavy laden that is beleeve in me Iohn 6.64.65 compare them together yee beleeve not no man can come unto me except my Father draw him and ver 35. both are put together He that beleeveth shall not hunger he that cometh shall not thirst so according to him the sense must be this they that have come shall come or they that have beleeved shall beleeve but this is very improbable the glosse of the Remonstrants solveth it not Act. Syn. in locum veniet for venite debet that is shall come by it is meant ought to come for it is still under the same absurdity to say they that have come ought to come as to say they shall come The next thing is to consider whether the first interpretation be the right or no it seemeth to be the right because the giving is antecedaneous to comming or beleeving therefore most probable to be the giving by election now of this sense he saith So they may be though not in Scripture truly said to be given him But whence doth he deduce this liberty to say that it is truly said of Christ which is not said in Scripture it seemes the Scripture is not the adequate subject of truth But these are not the onely number that are given to him for as they are given to him to be heires with him so were all the rest given to him to serve him and his people Which is very impertinent to the case in hand for we question not whether none be any way given to Christ but such as are given by election but whether in this Text the giving by election is meant or no let all be given to Christ to be his servants yet here those that come to him are given to him to be heires with him and this giving is before coming therefore by election Againe Where election is set forth under this tearme of giving to Christ is hard to finde in Scripture But herein he did not compare his noâ—es well and consider what he saith in the next page 149. there he saith In all these three senses giving comprehends Adam and all that come of him all men being given to Christ in all these three senses as Scripture testifieth Now we must consider that the first of these three is giving to Christ to be heires and that by election as he saith page 148. and this in one page he saith the Scripture testifieth that this election to sonship is understood by giving to Christ but in page 148. he saith it is hard to finde where it is so taken this is an egregious contradiction besides the extream falsity because we never finde it testified that all are given by election to Christ to be heires with him And then he groundlesly concludes In this place it neither is nor can be so taken But we have no reason nor Scripture to prove but his bare word only to affirme it but it is not of weight to carry it 2. If it be not a giving by election and yet antecedaneous to beleeving I hope he will in his next make it appeare what it is and thus notwithstanding his groundlesse evasion the doubt is still unsatisfied from that Text John 6.37 The third Text produced is Acts 13.48 As many as were ordained to eternall life beleeved the doubt hence is this that seeing the reason why men beleeved was because they were ordained to eternall life and so the number of beleevers and the ordained to life are equall and run in an equipage it is not probable that Christ would shed his blood for those to procure life upon faith whom he knew were not ordained to eternal life This he would remove thus The words ordained to eternall life it is to be feared are mistaken as if they signified only the prime election to sonship whereas it is not found where that only sense is set forth in the words ordained to life The clearest truth may be eclipsed by the interposition of humane glosses and suspicions but to any unprejudiced man these three things may appeare 1. That it was God that did ordaine them for so of his act it speakes ver 47. and of setting Paul to be for salvation he did also ordaine them to life that were to beleeve indeed the Remonstrants are pleased to say Act. Synod in locum non dicuntur ordinati a deo that is they are not said to be ordained of God but what then is it a hard thing to prove it so to be meant why are we not to thinke it to be Gods act in ordaining to life as well as in appointment to life and salvation as 1 Thes 5.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. He hath appointed us viz. God to obtaine salvation but if it be not Gods act let us be informed who it is that ordaineth men to life 2. We may see it is an appointment to eternall life and that in plain terms so that it must be an ordaining to sonship and inheritance 3. It is an act that was precedaneous to saith as is cleare as many as were ordained to life then beleeved therefore it could not be that temporary election of which the Author speakes therefore it must meant of the prime election now seeing that it meaneth the prime election to inheritance and he cannot produce any place of Scripâ—ure where this phrase signifieth any thing else we may conclude that this phrase here signifieth onely such prime ordaining to inheritance and therefore the place is not abused But I hope if he remove that sense he will furnish us with some better and not leave words without a sense let us therefore see how it is taken in his judgement He urgeth thus The word ordaining being found in Scripture to have a further sense even of ordaining the elected constitution preparation
furniture consecration for the businesse to which they are elected 1 Pet. 1.20 Act. 10.42 Heb. 10.5 Eph. 2.10 Wherein there is a learned discovery but little to the purpose For 1. What matters it how the word be taken in it selfe the question is how it is taken in this phrase Ordained to life 2. He intimateth that to be ordained constituted consecrated to eternall life is a further sense then to be elected to eternall life let any intelligent man extract the difference 3. He cannot produce any Scripture wherein the word in this Text signifieth preparation or furniture to that thing which they were before elected to if he can I demand it 4. He produceth foure severall Texts as he doth thousands to no purpose to prove the words in Acts 13.48 to have such a signification when the word in that Text is not found in any of these foure places no nor the word ordained in our translation in all of them 1 Pet. 1.20 saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Acts 10.42 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 10.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. 2.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is in every place a severall word and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 13.48 nor any word of that root to be found in any of those Texts and yet these Texts are produced to show the meaning of that word testifying his insufferable impudence to darken a cleare Text upon such grounds whereof he is altogether ignorant 5. Admit all he saith yet doth the word ordaine or the words in the originall text in 1 Pet. 1.20 Acts 10.42 Eph. 2.10 comprehend any more then Gods instituting appointing consecrating Christ to his office and us to holinesse and not differing from his election to such things what ordination of Christ to be the Lambe shine before the foundation of the world but only in Gods purpose and was not this his prime election to that office what vaine flourishes he brâ—ngs to make us expect the explanation of that phrase ordained to life when he doth not produce any place whereby it may be explaned He further addeth So the word is used when spoke of the Church Acts 14.23 or of Gods ordaining Rom. 13.1 1 Cor. 12.28 1 Tim. 2.7 Joh. 15.15 Here is more forgery and falsehood still no one place here mentioned except Rom. 13.7 hath the same word as in Acts 13.48 let any consult with the Text and yet he dare averre that the word in Acts 13.48 is used as he speakes in those Texts how the man would boast of plenty of places to backe his forgery upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he labours with a great penury the word in Rom. 13.1 is the same and signifieth appointment not furniture it is spoken of offices not officers which are appointed not furnished He further addeth And this word to be thus taken for an actuall ordaining here is evident by the like use of it in other places speaking of the like blessing 1 Col. 12.13 1 Pet. 2.9 1 Ioh. 5.11.12 Ioh. 6.36 And because an actuall ordaining therefore not for ordaining by election as if Gods ordaining by prime election was not actuall ordaining a senselesse evasion 2. His Texts that he produceth are abused for 1 Col 12.13 he vainely saith that they are of like use is ordaining of men to life and making them meet to partake of light one and the same act let reason determine and for 1 Pet. 2.9 it is cleare that they were called a chosen generation in relation to prime election as appeares by the opposition to them that were disobedient to which they were appointed as also from the entire sentence in the like case 1 Thes 5.10 He hath appointed us to obtaine salvation yet he abuseth not satisfieth the Text but what meaneth he by actuall ordaining by comparing his words I gather this meaning page 151.152 whereby he giveth this interpretation of the Text Those that were ordained to life that is had unfeined and effectuall faith wrought in them and so did cleave to Christ and give themselves up to him c. they beleeved Something allyed to the glosse of the Remonstrants but he I beleeve considered not what a monstrous interpretation this will invite for then this must be the meaning they that had faith in them beleeved excellent interpreter inferring that men may have faith cleave to Christ give themselves up to him before they beleeve for cleare it is that they were so ordained to life before they beleeved but he hath an argument to prove that by ordained to life cannot be meant the prime election as he calleth and it followeth in page 152. It meaneth not so many as were elected in Gods councell to life for then what becometh of all beleevers since nor yet as many in that place or of that society many such might be that were afterwards called Wherein he hath plowed with the Arminian heifeâ— else this objection would not have been so ready at hand Act. Synod in locum Si de electione absoluta haec verba accipienda essent tum necessario sequeretur reliquos omnes c. a deo reprobatos esse but to this we may answer diverse wayes For 1. Let it be as he would have it that by ordaining to life is to have faith wrought in them will he say that all that had faith wrought in them and so cleaved to Christ did then beleeve Scripture showeth the contrary for then it must follow that all that did not at that time come in to beleeve did not cleave to Christ or give themselves to him or in the Remonstrants phrase were not fit to receive the Gospel but this is false 2. Our Author suggests an answer As many in that place or in that society as were ordained to life beleeved and all that he produceth against this is this only Many there might be that were afterwards called but this is poore probation 3. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not alwayes rendred As many but those or which the argument is not deduced from the quantity but the quality of them that beleeved in Acts 9.39 it saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet we read it not they show'd him as many coats as Dorcas made but those coats which Dorcas made that is those coats that they showed him were of Dorcas her making so here those which were ordained to life beleeved that is those that were beleevers were such as were ordained to eternall life so that let the Author of these be who it will yet they are free from his responsary cavills CHAP. XXII Of the benefit of this Doctrine IN which Chapter he attempts to lay lay downe the utility of this doctrine and that not without ground that so it might appeare that it is not without cause that he compasseth sea and land to make Proselytes runnes and tides from Dan to Beershâ—ba as if the care of all Churches were laid upon his shoulders leaveth his honest calling in which providence
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
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.
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
perswasions of his Spirit that he could not scale any comfortable tidings to their hearts that Christ had done for them if he had not ascended that finishing his Impetration he ascending sent him to them Thus the Author grants Pag. 7. 8. He appeares and Advocates for us to procure pardon of sins c. And to present himself and the Covenant of precious Promises therefore his ascending and Advocation belongs to the impetration or procuring life Hence that Discourse that divideth the Acts of Christ about our Salvation and that as Mediatour some to Impetration others to Application as he doth is not sound and Orthodox Which generals being well considered will make way to the methodicall examining of the Authors distinction and his Discourse upon it The distinction followeth First A Salvation Redemption Reconciliation which Christ hath wrought in his body with God for men Secondly A Salvation Redemption Reconciliation which Christ hath effected by his Spirit in men to God Which distinction the Author excudes to that end it might be both heeded and understood which if he had as really intended as he spake he would have made it to bring pertinency and perspicuity along with it pertinency that it might deserve to have been heeded and perspicuity with it that it might be in a capacity of being understood but so wild are his expressions herein that his Reader is put to a double taske both to search out his intricate meaning and also to refell it the first being of farre greater difficulty which savours not of Controversall ingenuity And that which by his other expresses we may conjecture to be his meaning being granted in its latitude affords no cleare decision to the Controverted truth as in the close of this Chapter I shall shew It is not easie to determine whether by this distinction our Author intends to discover two distinct Salvations wrought by Christ or two distinct Acts in Christ working and effecting one and the same Salvation which if our Author had heeded to discover his Discourse had more tended to satisfaction and been better understood If he meane distinct Salvations then he should have discovered what they are and how distinct for truth we may grant in this thus taken That there is a Salvation from the present Incumbency of the misery wrought out and effected by Christ for all men And there is a Salvation from enmity of heart by effectuall calling wrought by the Spirit of Christ and this is to none but Beleevers But what clearenesse this bringeth to the Controversie in hand is not yet cleare to me Besides if he thus meane though these Salvations be distinct yet as his distinction is cloathed with circumstances it falleth to the ground for his first Salvation he speakes of is so wrought out for men that it is not done in or upon men but such is not the Salvation from the present incumbency of the Curse for that is so wrought out for that it is also acted upon men applyed to every man there being nothing requisite to the application of that but what is common to all men And his second Salvation is so wrought in men that is distinct from and opposed to wrought out for men els his distinction is not good but this is false for no Salvation is wrought in or upon men but it is wrought out for men Impetration being the foundation of all Application therefore these two are ill brought as members contra-distinct seeing they are coincident in one and the same Redemption But if he meane his distiction of two Acts concurring to every Salvation viz. a working for and a bestowing upon a procuring for and applying to As I suppose he doth not only because this distinction is in use in all Arminian Tracts in this Point as the businesse of their elaborate structures and the hinge about which they turne But also from our Authors owne expressions in every leafe almost of his Discourse as to instance The pardon procured and in his hands to bestow Pag. 42 43. He would work out a Redemption and procure life and it is in him for men Pa. 50. If Christ had shed no Bloud to procure remission for them Page 137. He hath procured Salvation and made them salvable and calleth them that they might be saved Pag. 157 158. By all which and many more it appeareth plainly that by his first Salvation he meaneth no more then the first Act of Christ in procuring or meriting of Salvation And by the second he meaneth the Actuall applying of it upon such conditions performed and if this be all I must enforme him that this hath been well heeded long since and fully understood and yet the businesse not cleared beyond all doubt of his side And I would then know Whether his distinction be not something allied to that of the Arminians of Impetration and Application the one for every Man the second for Beleevers only and what difference there is betwixt him and an Arminian Save only that his expressions are more absurd though he cryeth out of a heavy Calumny so to be charged And when our Author gives a more distinct discovery of himselfe he shall have a more distinct Answer In the next place I shall examine both members of his distinction apart of the first now and first to consider his expressions in it Secondly the Scriptures he produced to backe it The members run thus A Salvation Reconciliation Redemption which Christ hath wrought in his Body for men with God Wherein 1. I desire satisfaction why he calleth the Act of Christ in meriting or procuring life for men A Salvation without further explanation Meriting or procuring being an Act relateth to the Agent and is terminated in him but Salvation is a transient Act that runneth into an Object It is an effect and therefore must have an object on which it is wrought Salvation is opus ad extra and therefore to say that that is terminated in Christ is absurd As it is a worke ad extra so it might have an object ad extra also Corv. in Mol. Cap. 28. Sect. 11 and if none be saved there is no Salvation Indeed the Remonstrants called it a Reconciliation but then they explaine themselves that it is not an actuall Reconciliation But therefore called so because Reconciliation is procured and if the Author had so discovered himselfe he had been ingenuous but herein in my Reason is not satisfied That those things that are procured And in time to come to passe may be laid downe as being in Act when they are not so because of the infallible futurition I grant as he that beleeveth not is condemned and he that beleeveth hath eternall life Scripture thus speaketh but that the act of Christ in procuring only that men may have life notwithstanding which most men perish and the end whereof is not the Salvation of men that such an act should be Salvation Reconciliation Redemption neither Scripture nor Reason speaketh therefore I
and in the Application by those Actions he impetrated Redemption but it is applyed by faith and then are they said to be redeemed a faire and full Testimony in this Point 3. If we consider the Text and the businesse the Apostle is about to prove which is that we are justified by Faith and not by Workes This he presseth in the former part of this Epistle and in this Chapter much as ver 20 22 25 26 28 30. In all which we are said to be justified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are equipollent by or through faith Now to me it appeares and I suppose will to any that looks upon the Text with a serious eye that this Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 24. Justified through the Redemption speaketh the same thing with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justified by faith ver 22. And so the meaning to be this We are justified through faith in Christ as in the next verse followeth Faith in his Bloud and this called Redemption because then we are redeemed being brought into beleeve in part freed from sin and in a certainty of Heaven as Tit. 2.4 Redeemed from vain conversation 4. If we consider the nature and frequent use of the Word Redemption or Redeemed I have not observed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or any word from that root to signifie any thing but the application of good as Rom. 8.23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Redemption of our bodies that is perfect and freedome from all vanity Ephes 1.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 till the Redemption of the purchased possession That is the actuall and perfect enjoyment of heavens glory and here plainly distinguisht from the purchase by Christ Ephes 4.30 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the day of Redemption not the day of Christs procuring or meriting for that was past but this to come and it meaneth the day of restauration of all things when Beleevers shall possesse actually perfect glory Tit. 2.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Redeeme us from our Iniquities Is it not expounded by purging us from our sins in the next words Heb. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Obtained Eternall Redemption The first word holds forth the Impetration or procuring therefore the word Redemption must meane the Application unlesse we will say Impetravit impetrationem which it absurd But what need I spend time herein I referre it to the Author to produce any place where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or any word from that root is used as signifying the Act of Christ in purchasing or procuring that thing that is never applyed I confesse the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I find used to signifie the price of Redemption as Exod. 21.30 The Septuagint reade it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shall give the price of ransome for his soule So 1 Tim. 2 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pretium Redemptionis But then in both it is so called from the necessary and certaine futurition of the Redemption and Application and therefore looked at as done therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with his compounds never signifying Nummos solvere but Vinculo solvere not to solve a price but to loose the bonds therefore if the Author will but be constant to himself subscribe to his Master consult with the scope of the Text or consider the genius of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Redemption he cannot make his Allegation good from this word Redemption Secondly Happily he may give this sense of the word Redemption because it is said to be In Christ but this will prove as empty as the former For if this be not so to be meant as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in the next ver 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Faith in Christ or in his bloud So that as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is one with Faith by which we are redeemed so In Christ is as much as to say the object of our Faith For which I do not earnestly contend yet it will appeare that In Christ is no more then By Christ and so shewing the meanes by whom we come to beleeve as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very often as Col. 1 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we say not In him but By him all things were created and that by the authority of the Text for it addes by way of selfe Exposition in the same verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by whom all things neither can I thinke the Author trusteth to this because he is not constant to his expressions herein for though he here say that this first Redemption is in Christ yet sometimes both together In and By seeming to expound the one by the other as P. 22. Sometimes By not In as if he would supply the one with the other as Pag. 54. But this is not all one who though a strong Remonst puts it out of doubt in his Judgement In Christo id est A Lapide in ocu◠Per Christum Haebreum enim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est in significat per vel propter Now if In Christ be no more than By Christ then this denotes the Application as well as the Impetration for so by him we are glorified nay blest with all Spirituall blessings in him Ephes 1.3 Nay in this sence Redemption signifies clearely the Application for the Application is by him that is by his Impetration so that he hath nothing from Redemption or in Christ to help him But let him have it as he desires that this speakes of the Act of Christ in procuring Remission and Reconciliation and Justification we shall make it appeare it helps him not and standeth us in much use That which is to be proved in these Scriptures is the Act of Christ done for All and such an one as may be separated from the Application such an one as puts not any man into the possession of Justification so Pag. Cap. 6. No nor yet importeth any future Application it being done for All so many are not justified or partake of it but such a one this place proveth not for this speaketh of such a Redemption as through which we are justified Actually as we are justified by Faith as Ver. 21. Which words through which noteth a reciprocation every one that hath that Redemption are justified by or through it and whoever are justified are justified through it which Reciprocation is cleare in Ver. 22.25 Now if this Redemption be meant of Christs Act in procuring for all and yet such a one as through which men are justified then all that have that Redemption must be justified so all and every man must be justified in our Authors reasoning but this he disclaimes Pag. 95. In answer to the third Objection And it is cleare to any eye that that place that speakes of a Redemption through which we are justified is vainely produced to prove such a Redemption notwithstanding which most men
from Adam so the righteousnesse of one came on all men that come from him and here lyeth the perfect Analogie betwixt Christ and Adam and this will more appeare if we well consider the Text That Redemption and Justification which he gives to every Son of Adam is such as only is wrought out for men but not on men for this is to partake of Actuall Justification but of this latter the Text speakes it saith It commeth on all men but Justification is upon none but Beleevers Rom. 3.22 23 24. Againe this Righteousnesse is said to come upon all as the Condemnation came upon all by Adams Sin but Condemnation came Actually upon all so that they were without a Saviour in an infallibility of perishing So this comming of Righteousnesse on all must be Actuall too and so as all on whom it so commeth shall infallibly come to glory and life Eternall but so Righteousnesse commeth not on every Son of Adam but Beleevers only Againe This All men in Ver. 18. is supplied and expounded Ver. 17. by those that receive abundance of Grace and the gift of Righteousnesse which maketh it appeare that is an Actuall Justification which the Apostle speaketh of here and therefore favoureth not such an one which may be though none partake of Justification and such an one as none can be truly said to be justified with but those that Beleeve therefore owneth not such an one as is competible to every Son of Adam So that the validity of his Scriptures I see not I shall examine his Reason It may be understood and beleeved as well as this that all men were made righteous in the first Adam and were truly righteous in him of which Righteousnesse none ever yet felt or partaked Rom. 5.12 And so though all recovered c. The Question is not how it may be beleeved and understood if it was so in truth but whether it be so or no. Secondly We may grant the whole both may be understood alike that is neither of them at all I know no Scripture that saith all the Sons and Posterity of Adam were made righteous That Text Eccles 7.29 faith no more but that man was made righteous which is true in that Adam and Evah were so Not that every Son of Adam was made holy none were made holy but those that were Created but his Posterity were not created holinesse was not derived to any by propagation A ground why every Son of Adam is not said in Scripture to be righteous in Adam I conceive is this to be made righteous as Adam was is a reall denomination and quality induced into the Patient and that by a transient Action passing from the Agent into the Patient but such an Action there cannot be In subjecto nondum existente In a Subject that hath not actuall existence So that our Author must cleare this to us before he can make it the standard of our beliefe of the former that every Son of Adam is Reconciled and Justified in Christ Thirdly I shall grant him that all are or were made righteous in Adam yet I cannot subscribe to the other neither is it any way explicatory of this that All Adams Sons are made alive and justified in Christ for let us consider there were none made righteous or could be so said but those that were to come from him by propagation and under that notion as comming from him he was made righteous and betrusted with Grace as a publique Person to convey to his Posterity and such as came from him so that all that come from him his off-spring we shal grant for Conference sake that they were made righteous in him Now will this inferre or help us to understand that all were justified in Christ It helps us to beleeve that all that do or are to come from him were made righteous in him but no further for what ground can be deduced from Scripture or Reason that as Adams Figure Christ makes more righteous in him then come from him to have a being from and in him let us grant him that all the Sons of Adam were made righteous in him because they were to come from him yet we cannot yet yeeld or understand that every Son of Adam is justified in Christ because they have not nor ever are to have a being from him Having laid down his reason he produces a dissimilitude betwixt Adam Christ thus As the first Adam being a living Soule and of the earth He lost all our soules in his Fall without remedy on his part So the second Adam is a quickening Spirit the Lord from heaven and loseth none but who ever now perisheth destroyeth himselfe and loseth his owne soule The absurdities and obscurity of these expresses far exceed the pertinency or usefulnesse to the Point in hand 1. The Author pretendeth a dissimilitude but yet he brings an As So As the first Adam lost So the second Adam loseth none Now there is none but knoweth that these words As So set forth a similitude as the Apostle when he would shew a Similitude betwixt Adam and Christ Rom. 5.18 19 21. he saith As by offence of one c. So Righteousnesse c. But when he sheweth a dissimilitude he useth other expressions as For But as Ver. 16. For the judgement was by one c. But the free gift is of many c. But we may expect no better from the Author but this Obiter 2. He saith The Scripture sheweth that dissimilitude but he sheweth not where The Apostle Paul who undertaketh the businesse of the difference and similitude betwixt Adam and Christ Rom. 5. yet this he mentioneth not 3. This Phrase Loseth none is very fallacious and doubtfully laid downe it may be taken either Actively or Passively Actively to cast away or to destroy so it is taken when he saith Adam lost himselfe and us all if he thus take it then Scripture neither doth nor can set downe such a difference Adam destroyed but Christ destroyeth none differences are Inter Entia positive beings do usually afford differences and we shall find that when the Apostles shew discrepances betwixt Adam and Christ they give them still betwixt Adams losing and Christs saving not Adams losing and Christs not losing this would import that Christs Office was only not to destroy Againe secondly It may be taken Passively that is He suffers none to perish and thus is it taken when Christ is said not to lose as Joh. 6.39 18.9 So Christs not losing is nothing but his not suffering to perish if it be thus taken then the dissimilitude must run thus As Adam lost all so Christ recovers all And as all were lost by Adam without remedy so Christ recovered all infallibly and without feare of being taken out of his hands he shall suffer none to be lost no not to lose themselves for then are they lost and therefore he removes all externall and internall principles that might destroy us Joh. 10.28 29.
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
and 10. immediately after these words we find the world was made by him he cannot I beleeve prove it to be understood of the redemption And herein he proceeds to show how many wayes the Scripture affirmeth the same of the world 1. Of the world in generall John 1.29 3.17 I know what he meaneth by generall if he meane as it is a totum aggregatum of which an action may be predicated yet it agrees but to one part of it as the world is said to lie in wickednesse when it agreeth onely to the unbeleeving part and so he shall convince the world of sin that is the unbeleeving part so on the other side he taketh away the sins of the world that is of the unbeleeving part thereof this I grant 2. Of the world distributed into its parts some beleeving some not John 3.16.18 But will the Author say that he came to save both parts of the world the Text saith no such thing but that those that beleeve might not perish God is said to love the world it is true but distribute this world into its parts and what love doth the Text set forth to both its parts his love to the world as totum quid is there intimated and showne in his love to the beleeving part thereof and to the beleeving part in that they shall be saved but wherein is the love of God exprest to the unbeleeving part let the Text or the Author from the Text speake So that though he be here said to love the world and that is distributed into parts yet no love is expressed to both parts of that distribution 3. Of the world opposed to Beleevers in the world 1 John 2.1 It is cleare to every eye that there is no opposition at all in that Text onely a diversification 2. Neither can he prove that there is a distinction of beleevers from unbeleevers but onely of some beleevers to whom he wrote from beleevers all over the world 3. For such an assertion as this that Christ gave himselfe a ransome for a world opposed to beleevers it is such as cannot be found in any beside our Author the Remonstrants that have made the number as large as may either by shew of reason or Scripture yet they professe that In horum numero censeri non debent impaenitentes Act. Synod 285. 286. increduli rebelles c. qua tales that is in this number of All the unbeleeving and impenitent are not to be reckoned and thus Infidelibus rebellibus quâ talibus gratia impetrata non est that is grace was not impetrated or procured for the unbeleevers as so But if our Authors words be true that he died for the world opposed to beleevers then he dyed for unbeleevers as so considered but this no Scripture speaketh 4. Of the world divided and such particulars set out as cannot be the Elect of God John 12.47.48 We had before in the second acceptation the world distributed into its parts and now we have it divided into its parts here is judicious distinction betwixt distributed and divided 2. That Text doth not say that he came to save that part of the world which he saith cannot be meant of the Elect of God 3. It is not evident that that place speaketh of such as are not the Elect many may not receive the word of Christ for the present yet be one of Gods chosen and thus much the Author confesseth page 69. thus Yea even among these are many of Gods Elect and chosen to whom these sayings agree and one of these sayings is this neither receiveth nor perceiveth the things of the Spirit Yet now this expression he that heareth my words and beleeveth not must needs set out such as cannot be Gods elect and chosen ones 5. Of the world as the Elect are in due time called out of the fellowship of it and distinguisht from it whilest many of the Elect are in it He produceth many Texts wherein the word world is thus taken but he produceth not one place wherein it is said that Christ came to save that world and therefore he herein requireth no answer yet I say of that world he may be said to be the Saviour yet in respect of them that shall be called out in time but that he is the Saviour of that world out of which all his Elect are tâ—ken no Scripture speaketh and therefore that fond flourish which he maketh in those after words the Reader may see he hath little ground whereas he saith Of the World every way taken he is the Saviour he cannot nor hath he proved that he is the Saviour of both parts beleeving and unbeleeving nor the world opposed to beleevers nor such as cannot be called the elect of God nor that world out of which all the elect are chosen But after this spacious digression upon the word World he comes to affirme that the Elect is never called the World something like that of the Remonstrants vox mundus in Scripturis nunquam electos significat that is act Synod 301. the word World doth never signifie the Elect which I shall not at this time disprove but content my selfe with this that there is no need to prove it sufficient it is now to prove that the word All doth not take in every sonne of Adam and that that thing is said to be done to and by and in the World that is done but to and by and in the beleeving part of the world and this is not hard Col. 1 6. 1 Tim. 3.19 Rom. 4.12.13 with others in which places I thinke also the word World denoteth onely the Elect of God if beleevers be such But still in prosecution of this he hath severall Queries as If we looke at such as stumble at Christ doth not the Scripture say such perish for whom Christ died To which I answer no no Scripture affirmeth any such thing not that Text 1 Corinth 8.11 It is not affirmative but interrogatory And bring upon themselves swift destruction denying the Lord that bought them 2 Pet. 2.1 I have said something upon this text before but because it againe offereth it selfe I shall adde a few words more true it is they are said to deny the Lord that bought them that is as it is generally received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to their owne and others judgement as Ahaz is said to sacrifice to the Gods of Damascus that smote him 2 Chron. 28.23 And how can the Author prove that Christ did ransome or buy them any more them the Gods of Damascus did smite Ahaz the one saith they denied the Lord that bought them and the other sacrificed to the gods that smote him but I know the Author will not say that the Gods of Damascus did really and indeed hurt or smite Ahaz but he thought so This I overthrow not but to it I adde thus much it was not only as they thought but Secundum vanam jactantiam as they boasted they spake
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
usuall sense of the word then the Scripture speaketh not plainely as to instance with the Author in metaphoricall c. speeches such are tropicall and changed from their native signification unto a foraigne signification as his paedagogicall rudiments may informe him but when they are so changed they mean not as they seeme to import but thus many Scriptures speake as the Author confesseth now thus to say is no way to confute us but to confirme us 2. That expression He speaketh alwayes truly is no argument against us because though he meaneth not as the words seeme to import yet he speaketh truly the truth of his words are so deduced from the conformity of the sense to his owne mind not to the native use of the words He afterwards thus argueth When the Scripture saith that by the grace of God he tasted death for every man and gave himselfe a ransome for all men c. That any of us should say his words have not the sense they seeme to import Wherein he seemeth to wonder that any should presume so to say but it is groundlesse for the sense that Thomas Moore putteth upon those Scriptures is that Christ by his death procured eternall life for every sonne of Adam and this sense the words seeme to import else he forgeth it without any ground but that is not indeed the sense my whole discourse showeth therefore we may well say they have not the sense they seeme to import Againe be thus urgeth The mysteriousnesse of the Scripture stands not in any equivocall hiddennesse or doubtfulnesse of speech as the Oracles of the Heathen Gods that might be made true which way so ever taken though contrary to what they imported but Scriptures though mysterious are so full of unchangeable truth that when by the Spirit the knowledge thereof is given it will appeare to be right and plaine according to the words in which it is expressed But all this is not against us for 1. True they are not equivocall that is relating to the minde of the speaker now God never meant to deceive as the Heathen Oracles yet may the Scripture have a sense beyond what the words import or seem to export because they are mysterious 2. He is mistaken in the Heathen Oracles they were not made true contrary to what they imported because they were so framed as that they might import either way as Aio te Aeacida Romanos vincere posse 3. The truth of the Scripture is unchangeable wee grant but it will not thence follow that some places have not a sense beyond what the words naturally import and when we know the sense we shall say that it is true according to the words in a tropicall or figurative transmutation yet not true as the words naturally import but it matters not how plaine the sense is when we know it but how is the sense obvious to us before it be revealed Whether may we not follow the native sense and import of the words so far as to take up a sense contrary to the meaning of Christ if so all that that he saith is but empty but that we may is cleare from Nicodemus John 3.4 the disciples Mark 8.15.16 the Jewes Iohn 2.19.20 in which places they judged of his speeches by the naturall import of the words but in so doing cried But this assertion of ours viz. That the Scripture hath not alway the sense that the words import or seeme to import is backed with foure severall reasons as he produceth it which he attempts to disprove but how he performeth I shall examine Reason 1. Because these expressions the Vine this is my body I am the doore are not meant as the words seeme to import These instances he produceth therefore I shall engage with these though more might be produced and others more cleare thus we urge if these places be not meant as the words seem to import then all Scriptures are not to this he answers thus This reason is unjust injurious absurd false so of no strength and thus he runneth up his black mouth'd catalogue Page 75. which in close will be his owne share he would prove it injurious thus It is confessed by all Interpreters as an argument against Papists that what ever is necessary to salvation is therein plainely delivered as the humble and diligent reader may easily understand but he may know 1. That no Interpreter saith that every scripture is plain and easily to be understood neither are we engaged so to say in any controversie between us and the Papists they say indeed that many are and such as are necessary to salvation but this is no way injured by saying that some Scriptures meane not as the words seem to import 2. They may say that what is necessary to salvation is plaine but many places that are urged by the Author as they relate to the point in controversie are not absolutely necessary to salvation Necessary it is for us to know Christ to die for sinne and to be the Messiah and to procure life for them that beleeve but whether for some or for all it is not necessary to salvation to know for I am not so uncharitable as to thinke other but that many holding his doctrine are saved and I hope he is not so uncharitable as to hold that they that hold against him cannot be saved I beleeve Heaven hath a great harvest of them that never could assent to his doctrine therefore to say that those Scriptures that are not absolutely necessary to salvation to be knowne are not to be meant as the words import is not injurious to the saying of Interpreters that proceeds upon such as are necessary to salvation 3. They may say that such necessary truths are plaine to an humble and diligent rearer true but we say to an unwary and arrogant Reader that to foment his owne conceits will snatch at the naturall import of the woâ—d to uphold it to such the sense may not be plaine nor as the words import the humble and diligent Reader may easily perceive that many places are not meant as the words import So that in this here is a clamour of injury no proofe He would prove it unjust thus It is unjust seeing it is granted by Interpreters that hard and difficult places as Sacramentall allegoricall parabolicall are to be opened by plaine places not plaine places obscured by them This though true makes nothing to the proving what we say unjust For 1. That which we affirme is that all places are not meant as the words import now in that he mentioneth hard difficult places as Sacramentall parabolicall allegoricall he confirmeth us for in such expresses the sense is not as the words seeme to import 2. It proveth not the assertion unjust because we doe not obtrude any sense upon 1 Tim. 2.6 Heb. 2.9 from such hard places onely show that as in those places the sense is not as the words import so it may be in these leaving the
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
for all and his advocation that is onely for Beleevers I know the Authors understanding is not able to reach the difference betwixt confounding and not dividing the argument contends for the non dividing of his death and advocation but not to confound them the argument and them that forme it hold it distinct But we would have his advocation and death to be to the same persons and so his death and ransome not for all and every sonne of Adam 2. Whereas he saith his advocation is peculiar to beleevers I conclude he hath lost part of his lesson viz. the distinction of Arminius of Advocation into generall and speciall for without this how will he free himselfe from a contradiction in that he saith here that his advocation is peculiar to beleevers yet he contendeth page 110. 111. that he prayed for the world John 9.21 for transgressors Isay 53.12 for crucifiers Luke 23.34 all which he opposeth to elect and beleevers 3. How his advocation is proper to beleevers that is in act I see not because he prayed for some that after should beleeve and therefore then did not ver 22. 4. That his advocation is proper to beleevers that is such as are or shall be I grant but then why his oblation should be of larger extent I see not they are joyned acts in his mediatourship the one shedding Col Hag. in Arg. the other presenting that blood as shed Hence the Remonstrants grant pro omnibus Christum imercedere ut pontifices ejus typi solebant and these acts are never disjoyned but connected as Rom. 8.34 1 John 2.1.2 for him to appeare on earth for them for whom he appeareth not in heaven Scripture owneth not and if he can prove Christ to have interceded for all I for my part shall grant him to have offered blood for all and seeing he granteth intercesion to be peculiar so shall I conclude oblation also they being both of the same latitude and whereas he saith This confoundeth ransome for all and advocation for beleevers is a weake confutation because in in it there is petitio principii a supposing that his ransome is for all and every man which is yet sub judice nay cleare to the contrary Yet upon this weake batâ—ery he can after his usuall custome manfully conclude that The whole argument is fallen without further answer But why doth he attempt workes of supererogation in producing so many leaves in a businesse that is done allready but his meaning is as much as it will with all the rest that follow he then attempt thâ— to answer that Text Rom 8.32 wherein the strength of the proposition lieth and from it we urge if he gave us his Sonne his Sonne will give us his prayers if not the latter not the former to this he thus answers This is not spoken in the third person nor of ransome onely nor as a proposition to bring men in to beleeve This antidote like an Empericke he applieth to every Text not considering how it is applied to the constitution of the same for what though it be not in the third person the consequence is good that to whom he giveth his Sonne to them he giveth all things and that as firme as if the words had runne thus If he hath given his Sonne to every man how shall he not with him give them all things what person soever it be spoken in first second or third yet this is firme that if he give the greater gift he will not be niggardly of a lesse the argument of confidence is not drawne from the persons to whom but the gift that was given 2. Whereas he saith that this phrase He hath delivered him up for us all meaneth not of ransome onely it is false and contrary to any common understanding it is cleare that these words relate to his death in which he is said to be delivered up for us But he urgeth further It serveth not the proposition for it saith not how shall he not freely give us all things but how shall he not with him freely give us all things so speaking of his free giving him to us and with him all things A wise interpretor would stand the Author in much stead to explicate his meaning herein the difference betwixt Shall he not give us all things and this Shall he not with him give us all things is very obscure and had he kept his owne councell we should have remained expectants of some rare discovery but from page 107. we may gather what his abuse of the Text is and what he meaneth by this phrase With him give us all things there I finde this expresse They now by beleeving receit having Christ and in him life and being sonnes thereby which giveth hope of all good he concludeth having freely given us this his owne Sonne whom before he delivered up for us how shall he not with him freely give us all things So that hence I conceive his evasion is this viz. that phrase With him speakes of such a giving his Sonne as consists in giving his Spirit by bringing them in to beleeve and being so a beeing made sonnes and having adoption and thus having him given us with him thus given we shall have all things but this is injurious to the Text many wayes as 1. Then the sense must be thus having the Sonne and all things with him how shall he not with him give us all things this would be absurd Let the Author tell me what thingt are they of which he concludes upon the having of Christ are they not all those things mentioned in the Chapter as redemption of our body ver 23. spirit to helpe infirmities ver 26. the utility of all things for good v. 28. conformity to his Sonne ver 29. vocation justification glorification yea as as a strong Remonstrant affirmeth Omnia quae spectant ad vocationem glorificationem nostram Certainely then if vocation and spirit Cornel. A lapid in locum be those things that he concludeth from Christs being given then those things are not included in that giving of Christ then it would meane thus if we have vocation and spirit how shall he not with those things give us those things but this sense I leave to the Author 2. Is it not as cleare as the light that this phrase with him is no more but with him so delivered up for us there is no mentioning of a giving of Christ as distinct from his being delivered up for us as he suggests 3. This would intimate that to be brought in to beleeve is set out in Scripture by this phrase of having Christ given for us or having given to us but this I no where finde where Christ is said to be given either by his Father or himself it relateth to his death and ransome as Mat. 20.28 Joh. 6.17 Luk 22.19 Ephes 5.2 especially where this phrase delivered up for us is used that is most cleare that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉