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
them but in all there is not the least beame of light added to the Truth multitude of words serve only to bleare the eyes of his Reader and this advantage he hath by them the Truth hath none and cleare it is that those Texts 1 Tim. 2.6 Heb. 2.9 are to be explained by places that are propounded to the same end which do not at all necessitate them to be taken in that generall seace CHAP. VI. Of the differences of the extent of the same word when spoken of and by men and when of and by God also when the opposition is betwixt men and men and when betwixt God and men THe end of the Author in this Chap. as I conceive is this Seeing the Seat of much Controversy is placed in these words All Every World urged in all places cited by them to be taken in an absolute generall sense taking in all the Individualls in the world But by us they are urged to have a limited sense as we instance in many Scriptures wherein they cannot be taken so largely His intent therefore is to shew the weakenesse of our Allegations and that our places are not to be rules for the expounding of theirs because ours are spoken of and by men theirs of and by God but how he quits himselfe herein I shall in few words examine Now wherein we both agree is as followeth That the same words in divers Sentences may differ much in signification and extent and yet by the Sentence the signification will clearly appeare thus he saith Pag. 28. This I acknowledge and shall improve for then 1. Why doth the Author say that All when spoken of Creation and when of Redemption must be taken in the same sence and latitude will he not be so farre fixed to his principles as to suffer the divers matter treated of to alter the signification of the same word 2. It deserveth examination whether the matter treated of in those places doth suffer the words to be taken in that large sense which light is to be fetched from Scriptures which teacheth us that the word All when spoken of Redemption is to to be taken so largely or else what he saith will want proofe Againe we agree in this It is ungodly and unequall to compare God and man and to make them to be alike and equall Isa 40.13 14. and mere ungodlines to compare the words workes and thoughts of God with mans and to make them equall and alike Isa 55.8 9. Thus he urgeth Pag. 29. This I grant But then I must advertise the Author of two things 1. It is one thing to compare the beings of man and God together of which his quoted Text speaketh which cannot be alike and another to compare Gods Actions and words which may be alike sometimes as we are commanded to be like our heavenly father this last is no such ungodlinesse as he pretendeth 2. There is a difference betwixt mans words as comming from man and opposed to Gods and mans words as comming from God and the dictate of his Spirit of this second sort it is no ungodlinesse to compare them to Gods for they are his own which will be usefull to us Thirdly we further agree in this It is easie for men to understand a difference in the extent of the same word spoken of and by God and spoken of and by men and when the opposition is betwixt God and men and when between men and men This I grant for 1. Joh. 2.20 he saith ye know all things and Cap. 3.20 he saith He viz. God knoweth all things no reason will hence conclude that God knoweth no more then man knoweth or that man is omniscient 2. It is easie also to know the difference of the same word when spoken of and by God if so be it be concerning divers Actions as 1 Joh. 2. The Spirit shall teach you all things and Cap. 3. he saith He knoweth all things So Joh. 2.24 He knoweth all men and Joh. 12.32 I will draw all men to me No reason will infer that he will draw all or so many as in that place he is said to know so when he is said to create all things and to reconcile all things Col. 1 16.20 both cannot be taken in the same latitude and extent because he made the fallen Angels but he never reconciled them 3. It is also cleare that many places speakes of God and is spoken by God and holy men inspired by God which is all one as if it was Gods immediate word yet those words All c. cannot beare that large extent as Matth. 2.3 Mark 13.13 Luk. 16.16 Ioh. 12.32 Acts 2.44 1 Cor. 14.5 2 Cor. 3.2 Phil. 2.21 Col. 1.28 But what need I fill Paper and trouble the Reader when my Adversary confesseth that the word all is sometimes taken for all upright sometimes for all ungodly certainly then those words when spoken of and by God are not alwaies to extend themselves to that large sense he pretendeth which being true sheweth the weakenesse of that distinction and freeth those following examples from that ignorance rashnesse which he out of greater ignorance and rashnesse chargeth them with And still I admit That if a man spake of a Family and say this man governes all it is to be meant of all in the Family so of a Corporation and a Kingdome But he must observe this that so we could not understand unlesse that the word All in propriety might have a limited sence And we grant also That if we say God governeth all we meane all in the World But if our Author had gone on to make his matter out he should have said So if we should say Christ redeemed all we must meane all in the world Herein he would have erred seeing there is no proportion betwixt his Gubernation and his Redemption the difference of matter treated of admits of a difference in the signification of the same word according to his owne principles And herein the Author is at a losse in all this for all that he hath said in this businesse is to make way for this That where God or Christ is said to Redeeme or Ransome all it must be all and every man in the world but this will not be admitted though when we say God governeth all we meane all things in the world Now to proceed to the Texts alleaged by us Luk. 2.1 15.1 Ioh. 3.26 Act. 2.8 Where we urge that world whole world all men every man are not to be taken in that large and generall senses therefore without further reason we cannot grant those places alleadged by him to be so generall he thus answers It will be found either ignorance or rashnesse to compare and make of like large extent the word world in Luk. 2.1 and the word world in 1 Joh. 2.2 But it will be found an ignorant Calumny so to charge us we make them not of like large extent as if he were the Propitiation for the sins of no
more then was in the Roman Empire or went then to be taxed this is absurd to affirme and a wilfull injury to fasten it on us but thus we say that as the word world in Luk. 2.1 being spoken by the Evangelist inspired by God doth not take in all and every Individuall in the world So neither the word World in 1 Ioh. 2.2 though spoken of God and Christ and where is the ignorance and rashnesse in all this As for that Text Luk. 2.1 There went a Decree that all the world should be Taxed If it had run thus that all should be taxed it had suted with his expressions and we might easily apprehend it to extend to no further then all of the Roman Empire But this more Emphaticall that all the world should be taxed Let the Author tell me why when the Spirit of God is to speake of some only in the Roman Empire he should use such a generall word as All the world it this Phrase might not be taken in a limited sence even when it is spoken of and by God So the All that came to Christ Luk. 15.1 we make not of large and like and equall extent with the All he dyed for 2 Cor. 5.14 As if he dyed for no more then at that time came to Jesus But thus we say that if when the Evangelist saith All came to him it taketh not in every Individuall Sinner in the world So when the Apostle saith Christ dyed for all it is not necessarily taken in that large sence which the Author pretends and all this sheweth no weakenesse in our cause the weakenesse may be easily seene elsewhere In the close of this Chapter he descendeth to shew how many waies those Phrases All men Every man World Whole world are taken But no whit pertinent to his businesse in this Chapter yet I shall recite them happily some may be advantagious to us 1. For every one of mankind without exception as all are gone out of the way all have sinned all must appeare before God This we grant but he cannot prove that the Scripture affirmeth Christ to have dyed for All or that those places wherein Christ is said to dye for All to be taken in this sence 2. For one another rich and poore Beleevers and unbeleevers If he meane all and every one of those kinds then it is the same with the first and so a vaine repetition and if but some of those kinds then it is nothing against us for that is still a limited sense and we grant that he dyed for all and those places that say Christ dyed for all we willingly grant them in this sense whether spoken by men or by God 3. So as not meant of Gods people good men Beleevers True and more opposite proofes might be produced then he bringeth but this is not against us or for him because he himselfe will not say that Christ dyed for this All and so to exclude his People and Beleevers or any place so to be taken whether spoken by man or God 4. For all upright Beleevers spirituall men Which he doth not plainly set downe as a fourth acceptation of the Phrase All men which had been honest and ingenuous dealing but he tacitely implyeth it as if he would not have that taken notice of as any may see Pag. 31. and he had good reason so to expresse himselfe for it doth not a little helpe us for it that place 1 Cor. 4.5 where All men is used doth not take in every individuall man in the world even then when it is spoken of God it may also be that those places 1 Tim. 2.6 Heb. 2.9 though spoken of Christ are not taken in that large sence that he pretendeth And then to what issue all his words in this Chapter come let the wise judge Something I find in Pag 31 32. purposely set downe to prevent mistakes and cavills he saith thus The Death of Christ as a Ransome is to be understood of the Death of Christ as risen and ascended Which words have neither pertinency nor perspicuity they are of no use at all in this Chapter or the businesse treated of in it neither can they well be understood therefore they no way conduce to prevent mistakes rather to raise them his words are so laid downe as that no man can tell whether he make his Resurrection and Ascension conduce to his Impetration or Purchase to his Application to say That it was the Death of Christ as he is risen again and ascended May admit of either there is a difference betwixt things associated and coupled in the same Action The manhood of Christ with his Divinity suffered but not the manhood and the Divinity Faith with Workes justified but not Faith and Workes So his Death with his Resurrection was the means of Purchase or Ransome but hence it doth not follow that his Resurrection and Ascension are themselves meanes of procurement or belong to the Impetration And this ambiguous way of expression he borroweth from the Arminians as Corvinus Cum amissae salutis Impetratio immediatus fructus est Christi mortis talis mors omnino intelligitur quae resurrectionem habeat conjunctam And that to serve at need their contradictions in this point In Molin cap. 28.438 sometimes affirming sometimes denying that his Resurrection and Ascension belong to his Impetration But this I say as formerly that Resurrection and Ascension is so conjoyned with his Death that it hath equall share in the Impetration and hath no share in the Application as in every bargaine the bare depositing so much money as is agreed for any where is no true payment but the bringing of it to his house to whom it is paid or at a place appointed so in this though nothing more was to be paid as price yet something else was to be done viz. presenting that Bloud as shed without which no perfect Impetration as in the Law there there was as we I ostensio as mactatio the shewing as the shedding of Bloud But to returne to the Author either his Resurrection and Ascension belong to the Impetration or not if not whether tend these words His Death Resurrection are herein comprehended Pag. 32. Meaning his first Redemption and such as is done for all which in his Language is the Purchase or procurement and if it do whether tend these words as For effecting the other viz. the second Redemption which is the Application he left the world and went to his Father In one part he affirmeth them to belong to the Impetratory part in another to belong to the Applicatory part and is this to prevent doubts and cavills Whoever followes the Author shall run into uncertainties and contradictions and as carefull as he is to prevent mistakes and confident that any that will may understand yet I dare avouch that not any of his admiring Readers can give a good account of him neither do they know whereof he affirmeth I wish he himselfe knew
that he will have it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for every one that beleeveth as John 3.16 Rom. 1.16 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for every faithfull man as 1 Cor. 4.5 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for every sonne as Heb. 2.10 for every such man I grant he tasted death but if he will have it so large as every man or that pertaketh of humane nature that he must prove Quere 3 But if it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for every man how would he prove it to extend any further then 1 Tim. 2.6 all men and so not to mean men of every kinde for so sonnes he hath of all sorts of men of which sonnes he speaketh verse 10. certaine it is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the singular Heb 2.9 cannot more intimate the particulars in any kinde then the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the plurall 1 Tim. 2.6 Therfore his first conclusion page 64. needeth no ecce it is so empty So that if the question be asked for how many Christ tasted death it cannot be answered from the Text for every man that is as the Author expoundeth it Every individuall sonne of Adam CHAP. XII Of the Consideration of like Scriptures speaking in like manner HIs drift in this Chapter is to borrow some strength from other Scriptures pretending that it is the ordinary language of Scripture and not of 1 Tim. 2.6 Heb. 2.9 therefore his severall Texts I shall examine 2 Cor. 5.19 God was in Christ reconciling the World to himselfe not imputing their trespasses This text I have formerly treated of in my second Chapter and there showne that this Text favoureth him not for two reasons First because this Text speaketh of the application of the blood of Christ as I have showne by foure particulars in the second Chapter to which I referre the Reader which the Author is very averse to and strongly denieth but weakely disproveth His reasons why this meaneth not of the application by his spirit is twofold 1. It saith not God will be reconciling the world to himselfe as speaking of the worke of his Spirit as if no worke of God upon the hearts of men by his Spirit was done and past so that it might not be said he was so working certainely he had reconciled many mens hearts to himselfe by the Gospel long before the Apostle spoke these words so that though he spake of that act of his spirit he might say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God was reconciling therefore this is no convincing argument 2. It saith not God was in the world reconciling as if he spake of the application in the hearts of men Neither is it so to be meant in Christ as if God working in the heart of Christ But in Christ as no more then by Christ and for Christ but this phrase is as suitable to the application of his blood as well as the procurement by his blood if the Apostle say true Ephes 1.3 If all spirituall blessings be given us in him then surely reconcileing our hearts being one is also in him and in verse 10. he plainely saith that the faithfull are gathered together in one in Christ therefore though it saith not in the world but in Christ it may well be meant of the application of Christs blood in the hearts of men A second reason why this place favoureth him not is Because though it did speake of the Act of Christ as mediatour procuring reconciliation yet it doth not say for all or every sonne of Adam but for the world which phrase is taken in Scripture not so largely as 1 John 5.19 The whole world lieth in wickednesse this cannot take in every sonne of Adam because may are affirmed to be of God in the same verse and so not to sinne however not to lie in sinne So Colos 1.6 though the Gospel brought forth fruite in all the world yet not in every sonne of Adam 1 Tim. 3.16 beleeved on in the world but not of every sonne of Adam but men living in the world Some reasons he attempts to produce to prove that this world meanes all Adams sonnes and those reasons he draweth from 2 Cor. 5. his generall deduction is this What world it is that he reconciled let the Text shew so I say also he urgeth thus The world of mankinde verse 11. we perswade men it is true he perswaded men not God as Gal. 1.10 and the world of mankinde men living in the world and thus we grant that God was in Christ reconciling men But our Author would have men in verse 11. to denote every individuall man but this without ground for this phrase He perswades men is of like sense with Luke 5.10 thou shalt catch men and 1 Cor. 14.3 he that prophesieth speaketh unto men but these take not in every sonne of Adam nor can be so meant 2. He thus urgeth And these men that must appeare before the Judgement seat of Christ Verse 10. true and such we grant God in Christ reconciled but not all that must so appeare for though all shall appeare yet he speaketh not of all that shall appeare it is we that have the earnest of the spirit verse 5. wee that walke by faith not sight verse 7. we that love to dwell with the Lord verse 8. we that covet to be acceptable to the Lord verse 9. it is the same we that he saith must appeare before Christs judgement and the same wee we grant are reconciled in Christ But none of all these former take in all the sonnes of Adam therefore are not well produced to prove the word World verse 19. to take in every individuall son of Adam 3. He urgeth And those men that were dead verse 14. True let him well understand the Text and I grant it all that were dead to sinne as I have showen in the second Chapter and then I grant that Christ reconciled the All in the world that died to sinne and themselves but this taketh not in every sonne of Adam And so for the rest that he saith in this point from what I said in Chap. 2. may appeare not to availe any thing to prove the word world in verse 19. to take in every individuall son of Adam So that this Text helpeth him not A second Text is Iohn 1.9 He is the true light that enlightneth every man that cometh into the world And his deduction here from Is this through the ransome given there is some light afforded to every man Lombard citing this Text giveth this sense Non quod nullus sit qui non illuminetur sed quia nisi ab illo nullus illuminatur and this with no little probability But Secondly the Authour should have showen what enlightning this speaketh of it may be so understood as no way to favour him as not speaking of the same thing whereof he affirmeth it seemeth to speake of the light that he put into men in the creation as may appeare from verse 5.
demand a reason of that his expression 2. Why he so expresseth it as if the first Act viz. of Impetration or merit was in Scripture Phrase as done in his body when the Scripture saith the second Act viz. of Application is done In that body of his flesh Col. 1.20 Which place evidently treateth of the application of his Death and Reconciliation of their hearts to God by being brought in to beleeve who were strangers and enemies in heart to God before yet notwithstanding this is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that body of his flesh I rather wonder why our Author should produce such an expression making it the seat of Controversie without further explanation when it so easily might be explained Let him tell me how that Reconciliation was wrought in Christs Body Reconciliation is a thing subjectated in God Xanchy in locum existing only in mente divina not in Christs Body Expositours to cleare this unanimously say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In for by as is most frequent in Scripture as one saith Quasi dicat reconciliavit per oblationem Corporis sui And therefore said to be In his Body because it was done by those sufferings which were subjectated in his Body in which regard he was said to beare our sins in his Body that is the punishment of our sins but our Reconciliation properly is not said to be in his Body That indeed whereby he merited it was in his Body The meanes of our Reconciliation are twofold in Scripture His Body and His Bloud the one broken the other shed but of this latter it is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his Bloud as it were to expound the other that though it be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet to be meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his Body Col. 1.20 If this be so then not the first Redemption or procuring of Salvation or Reconciliation only but the second also even the application of it is said and also truly is In that is by his Body Seeing that we are said to be redeemed by his Bloud Rev. 5.9 Which place our Author averreth to be meant of the application of Christs Death therefore the circumscribing that first Redemption with this Phrase In his Body is groundlesse 3. We shall view the expressions wherewith this is clothed that so we may Judge how pertinent his alleadged Scriptures are it being his boast that he hath so many plain Texts First It is said to be an Act of Christ as Mediator distinct from God the offended Party Secondly to be done in his body as opposed to be done by his spirit Thirdly With God for men as opposed to of God upon man Fourthly A reconciling of God to man as opposed to reconciling man to God Fifthly This is said to be for every man Now our next taske is to consider how pertinent his Texts are to make out this Joh. 4.42 We know that this is indeed Christ the Saviour of the World The meaning of Which place if our Author Divine right must be this We know now that this is Christ that worketh out Salvation for the world and this exclusively and confining the word Saviour to woâ—â—ing it with God and that opposed to a working a Reconciliation in the hearts of men an empty exposition very improbable to the meaning of them that so said upon their being brought in to beleeve as they were 39. And so had the worke of God on their hearts by his Ministry certainly in such a time if they say his is the Saviour of the World they meane such a Salvation as is by faith in Christ Now what that is let the Authour judge And he said to be the Saviour of the world because they knew he it was that came to merit Salvation so as it should be applyed in time by Faith Shall we take the liberty thus to expound Scripture and say Math. 1.21 He shall save his people from their sins That is he shall worke out with God a Salvation which yet may not be applyed And Luk. 1.47 My Spirit rejoyceth in God my Saviour thus meant in him that worketh out Salvation with God for me notwithstanding which I may perish How shall we herein perplexe the Word of God Let the Author shew me where Christ or God is called Saviours and respect not had to the Application of Salvation either present or to come Acts 5.37 He is a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance and forgivenesse of sins Saviour there looketh at the actuall bestowing of Salvation he then is said to be a Saviour from sins when he giveth Repentance and Remission And the nature of a Saviour is clearely set downe Neh. 9.27 Gavest them Saviours that saved them Now that Christ in procuring life may be called a Saviour I grant but then it is with reference to the actuall application of it in time to them for whom he procured it Indeed Corvinus attempts to prove the word Saviour in 1 Tim. 4.10 In Molin c. 29. 468. He is the Saviour of all men to be thus meant Quia quantum in se paratus est omnes salvare but he giveth to me but little satisfaction for he proveth not that this is meant of any other Salvation than what is actually applyed And that expression He is ready to save as much as in him lyeth is no congruous exposition of this word Saviour for in his Judgement He may be ready to save and yet none be saved but if none be saved how Christ should be called a Saviour I cannot comprehend But to close I say to this Text Joh. 4.42 If he meane that this Text includeth and taketh in the Act of Christ in procuring salvation for the world this I deny not but this I affirme also it taketh in and hath an eye to the application of it to the world that is Men living in the world and then it favours him not for his first Redemption is such as hath no eye to the certaine and infallible application of it 1 Joh. 2.2 He is the Propitiation c. The sense of which place he maketh to stand thus He hath wrought out remission and reconsiliation for our sins with God and so for the sins of the whole world and that in distinction from the application but this very short of the meaning of that place that the word propitiation hath more in it then a solitary procuring of remission as distinct from application is plaine from the word it self and other Scriptures The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cometh from a word which signifieth to be actually appeased placated reconciled actually to remit the fault when the Publican prayed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did he desire only that God might be in a capacity or possibility to pardon or that pardon and remission might be wrought out for him with God notwithstanding which he might want it certainly he was not content with such
not contend But his Texts prove it not they speake of the efficient not the meritorious cause who is so patient not who procured it but grant it this is not pertinent to the â—oint in hand He may be patient and long-suffering to all and yet not intend the Salvation of all to whom he is so patient neither is God patient to every Son of Adam to leade them to Repentance Could he prove that God or Christ intended the Repentance of every man I would confesse and prove too that he intended the eternall Salvation of every man For Repentance of any is not willed but as meanes to that end and it is considered as meanes in tendency to the end But the former he proveth not as for that Text Rom. 2.4 It speaketh of another patience then what every Son of Adam partaketh of viz. the patient waiting of God in the Gospells Ministry or such a deferring of Judgement as hath the Gospell annexed as appeareth in the whole Chapter but such an one every Son of Adam hath not enjoyed Besides this patience and long suffering of God leadeth to Repentance that Moraliter not physice by swasion not efficiency worketh not Repentance but admonisheth to Repentance and so this place is expounded Act. 17.30 Now he admonisheth every man to Repent which sheweth that the patience of God without the Word is no fit meanes to bring men to Repentance Now this place which denoteth such a longsuffering that every Son of Adam hath not is not well produced to prove such a worke as is common for every Son of Adam and that God intendeth by his patience to bring every Son of Adam to Repentance it is not easie to grant and as hard for the Author to prove 3. By him is procured some meanes with some light therein and according thereto to lead men to Repentance c. though to some more darke some more clearely First to remove such generalities and indefinite Expressions fit only to deceive then his Expresses will the better appeare That Christ did procure meanes and Light and Spirit to lead men to Repentance whoever yet denied This commeth too short of his Doctrine for that he procured meanes to bring every Son of Adam to Repentance this neither he nor any else hath yet proved That he procured meanes and God gives such meanes to every man whereby they may know something of God I grant but that he giveth to every one so much as leadeth them to Repentance this is doubtfull every measure of the knowledge of God serves not for this businesse I would know what he thinketh of those that have only Verbum rei the Book of the Creatures to read on True They may know something of God as Rom. 1.20 As his Power and Godhead yea so much seene of him the Text saith not as to bring them to Repentance but as may leave them without excuse and that not for not Repenting but for their Idolatry because there is so much seene in the Creatures as may convince men of the Deity of God that he is not made with hands nor any such Creature as they worshipped Ver. 23. But how will he prove hence that the Creatures are fit meanes to bring men to Repentance To bring men to Repentance there must concurre these things A fight of Sin to be Sin A sense of our condition without it A Hell to affright with other things but which of these are obnoxius to them that have but the light of Nature only For the knowledge of Sin to be Sin the Booke of the Creatures discovers not St. Paul said I had not known sin but by the Law Rom. 7.7 And that not the Law of Nature or any thing written only in Nature but lex superaddita A Law that was not alwaies knowne that said Thou shalt not lust Besides that men repent it is requisite that men should know it is a duty to Repent For that which discovereth not that cannot be said any way to lead to Repentance But doth the Creature or the light of Nature command this The time before the Gospell commeth admonishing to Repent is a time of ignorance of that duty Act. 17.30 Againe it is requisite that men know the danger of not repenting the punishment due to Sin that shew men the necessity of repenting But how doth the Creatures dictate any such thing Therefore that which discovereth not Sin to be Sin nor it to be our duty to repent nor the danger of not repenting or the benefit of repenting such a thing is not a fit meanes to leade us to Repentance But at the end of this his Assertion I find some Scriptures annexed I shall perpend them to see if they affirme any such thing as that God giveth to every man such means as may and to that end to lead them to Repentance Rom. 1.19 Because that which may be knowne of God is manifest in them c. And what is there in that Text but this viz. That something of God is seene in the Creatures as his Power and Godhead which might keep them from Idolatry or worshiping of such things as they did worship but not so much as to bring them to Repentance for that Idolatry the Text saith no such thing Acts 17.24 30. Now he admonisheth all men every where to repent This is the same nature with the former It is spoken of those and to those that worshiped the unknown God as Ver. 23. To which he addeth these words and tells them that God Created the Worlds and placed the bounds of our Habitations as Ver. 24 25 26. and this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ver. 27. That they might enquire after the Lord to know so much of him as to convince them that the Godhead is not like to Silver or Gold or the worke of mans hands as ver 29. But that it was for such an end as to bring them to Repentance the Text owneth not nay it altogether disclaimes as Ve. 30. The time of this ignorance God regarded not as if he should have said when there is only the Creatures and light of Nature in regard of the duty of Repentance it could be no other but the time of Ignorance seeing that by that light they neither knew that they should nor how they should Repent But now he admonisheth all to Repent no such admonition by the Creatures then had his words But now he admonisheth beene to no purpose Therefore his joyning 24. and 30. verses together as if he intended to prove that by the Creatures God intended to lead men to Repentance is very weake and frivolous Now if he shall reply that Rom. 2. saith The Gentiles did the things contained in the Law and that by nature and therefore why not Repent I answer Let the Text be well weighed and we shall see a difference betwixt Legem implere and Ea quae legis sunt facere to do things that the Law commands and to fulfill the Law The second requires that
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
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
great reason why when he meant but some he should yet use such expresses as may in their naturall import seeme to take in all and taketh much paines therein as followeth That any other doctrine or contrary words should be necessary to deliver the Gospel within these our times is monstrous to affirme The reason of which cometh to this issue it is monstrous to deliver the Gospel now in our times in contrary words Therefore it was monstrous for Christ to deliver the Gospel or his Apostles to deliver the Gospel in such expressions as might seeme to import every man when yet they meant but some where lyeth the strength of this Argument Christ in himselfe and his Spirit inspiring the Apostles were Legislatores might use what expressions they pleased we are tied to those which they used besides we say not they were contrary expressions for though he used such expressions as might import a further meaning yet they were not contrary to truth nor his owne meaning for as he saith page 73. to any that understandeth the truth of of his word wil appeare to be right and plaine according to the words which he useth But he further urgeth Those whose faith we are to follow are such whose words c. hold forth Christ yesterday today and the same for ever Which is so far from overthrowing us that it confirmes us he was for ever the Redeemer and Saviour both of Jewes and Gentiles which Gentiles should know it and be gathered to him in his time therefore in his time he used such generall expressions that might bespeake so much both to the Jew and Gentile these generall terms now used mak no change in Christ but the contrary Do not the words of Christ and his Apostles expresse their meaning This fond Query hath had its answer already yes they doe so but their meaning is not alwayes according to the naturall import of the words Did their words serve but for their times Yes for ours and after times and so much the reason intimateth for in that it was to make way for the Gentiles to come in it is to serve till the fulnesse of the Gentiles be come in but this I say that the occasion of those expressions had its rise in those times Have any of us found fitter words to expresse the Gospel in these times No that were high presumption we are tied to the expressions which are used by the Spirit of God we are not to dictate to him what if fit for him to use but was Christ and his Spirit so bound his reason herein is this because we cannot finde better words then he hath used therefore it was not fit for him to use such generall expressions when yet he meant but some what piercing eye can discerne the strength of his reason It is irksome to follow him in such froth and impertinency that can neither please nor satisfie the learned But he comes at last to an extasy O ye Heavens be astonished O the admiration of ignorance at which the Heavens may stand astonished in that he triumphs in such weake reasonings and at his impudence in putting such into print to scourge the eares of the world Wee conclude Christ was free to use what words he pleased we not so his expresses were true though not conformable to our understandings and though he used such as All men Every man whole world yet they were no way contrary to his meaning though he meant but some or but many or his sheepe they may bene convenire inters◠well agree in one which ariseth of all the needelesse allegations produced by him page 78. 79. He then invadeth the reason it selfe why Christ should use such generall expressions viz. to temper those particular ones which he had used before with which those generall might agree yet cure some mistakes that might and did arise from the particular the reason he sets downe and then answers this reason is grounded on the ensuing particulars which he reciteth The ground of it in full vigour is thus the legall pedagogy that was the finger to point at Christ to type him out was exhibited onely to the Jewes as priviledges relating to Christ as Rom. 9.4 5. When he was foretold by the Angel he was said to be the Saviour of his people Mat. 1.21 The Jew coming under that notion onely Christ himselfe said he was sent but to the lost sheepe of the house of Israel Mat. 15.24 He forbad his Disciples to go into the way of the Gentiles Mat. 10.5 Hence we conclude that seeing he came to redunate both Jew and Gentile that he should use some other expressions that might temper those particular and confining words to the Jewes onely To this he thus replyeth This part of the reason is weake and frothy for it is evident to a meane understanding that our Saviour Matthew 15.24 speaketh not of his mission to die c. but his mission for his ministration here on earth which was for the Jewes Rom. 8.9 which mission with greater enlargednesse he left with his Disciples Matt. 28.20 I shall first cleare further the force of the reason then rejoyne to his reply the first I shall doe in showing these 3 particulars 1. That there were many things at which the Jewes might take occasion to stumble at the Gentiles as Christ being borne of the Jewes the seed of Abraham brought up amongst them exercising his ministry living dying amongst them chargeing his Apostles not to go to the Gentiles as strangers and dogge which are cleare Rom. 9 3 4 5. Mat. 10.5 2. That from those there was an actuall stumbling at them as a people estranged and uncleane hence in their Law it was forbidden to accompany with a Gentile Acts. 10.28 Acts. 11.3 and when they saw that the Gentiles beleeved they admired Acts 10.45 even beleeving Jewes Acts. 11.18 they said then hath God granted repentance to the Gentiles a thing which they knew not before it was contrary to the received opinion of the Gentiles on the same ground before mentioned yea Peter himselfe was not free from this in that a vision was sent to him to prepare him to goe to Cornelius a Gentile and from his owne words Acts 10.34 of a truth I perceive that God is no respecte of persons but that in every Nation it was not his thoughts before they thought that no salvation was promised to the Gentiles upon faith and obedience 3. That God did cure this by a vision to Peter Acts. 10.11 12 13. a sheet in which were all manner of beasts so he was to feed without discrimination and this was equipollent to those generall expresses all men every man the one being in the Hieroglyphicke what the other is in vivâ voce and both these to prevent and remove the same stumbling blocke against the Gentiles Now to consider his reply He faith this reason is weake and frothy But had not his understanding been of the meanest sort he might have seen