thus Ver. 14. For the Condition of Man constraineth us and layeth a necessity on us and others to live to God and not as they do The love of Christ constraineth us And if the Argument be drawne from the effect of Christs Death Then it is cleare the meaning is this Then are all dead all for whom he dyed for are dead have their old man crucified with him and so are or shall certainly have sin weakened and killed and live to God because he dyed for that end 2. From the Apostles expresses in the foregoing Chapter where he mentioneth that Life which he here inserts and may herein be his own Expositour Cap. 4.10 11 12. That the Life of Jesus Christ might be manifest in our Bodies c. Where life is undoubtedly taken for a Spirituall Life which he speakes of Cap. 5.7 We walke by Faith is nothing but we live by Faith as Gal. 2.20 And these may expound Ver. 5. where he saith That those that live must not live to themselves Where it is thus meant that those that live the life of Christ c. 3. From the usuall Phrase of the Apostles in other places when he perswadeth Beleevers to the same duties and useth the same Argument as Rom. 6. the twelve first verses where from Christs Death he exhorts them to death to Sin and a life in Righteousnesse but more particularly Ver. 10 11. Likewise thinke ye also that ye are dead to Sin but alive to God in Jesus Christ our Lord. So Cap. 7.4 Ye are dead to the Law by the Body of Christ that ye should live to another even to him that raised him from the dead Now is not this all one and nothing differing from the Text in hand yet here is meant a death to Sin and the Law and Life to God in the Spirit 4. From the Insatisfactory replies of the Remonst who have endeavoured to remove this Exposition 1. They say glossema istud peccato scilicet non est in Textu That is that glosse to sin is not in the Text True it is not neither was it affirmed to be in the Text but to be the meaning of the Text and this they produce no Argument to evert 〈◊〉 Hag. 170. 2. Sententia est quod ii pro quibus Christus mortuus est in peccato mortui erant That is this is the sense That all those for whom Christ died were dead in Sin as Eph. 2.1.5 That place in Eph. 2.1.5 is not to the Apostles purpose in 2 Cor. 5. therefore cannot be expected to be in the same sense Besides in Eph. 2. the Text affirmeth that they were dead in Sin and by sin which this place 2 Cor. 5 mentioneth not that is a glosse that is not in the Text we may also affirme with them 3. Verba illa omnes qui vivunt possunt accipi ut omnes homines viventes That is those words Those that live may be taken for all men living True and we are where we were we grant that it was that all men living the life of Christ and Grace might not live to themselves But this doth not yet please them they meane all men living the life of Nature but this is not proved we find not that every Son of Adam is bound to live to Christ or that it was his end and intention They would faine prove it in Acts 3.26 To turne every one of you from your Sins but from every one of you meaning Israel to every Son of Adam one and other the Argument is invalid So that by all these particulars it may appeare that by are dead is meant dead to Sin And by They that live is meant life of Christ Then how this maketh for him let any judge and thus we may argue That all for whom Christ died are dead to Sin but every Son of Adam neither is nor shall be so dead therefore that All doth not take in every Son of Adam A more cleare sense of the place I shall beglad to receive 7. Having thus suffered and died for our sinnes he rose againe the third day and rose acquitted of all the Sins imputed to him and a Triumphant over all the Enemies of our Salvation That he did so no man denyeth he had no Sins imputed to him but over them he became a Victor and this is true though we say he suffered for the Sins of the Elect only unlesse he prove that he was acquitted from the Sins of every Son of Adam and so a Triumphant over all the Enemies of the Salvation of every Son of Adam which is his taske to prove and that which he holds but this he doth not so much as affirme much lesse prove and this is his weakenesse 8. All this Oblation of this his Sacrifice he did dignifie through the onenesse of his will with his Fathers c. which is more then if every man had suffered and accepted of God as if all had suffered Herein we agree that it was with God as if all for whom he dyed had suffered but herein still is he deficient he proves not that it was as if every Son of Adam had suffered Certainly then no man should suffer againe for Justice it selfe requireth not a double suffering for the same Sins So that now to reasume these particulars I say againe That his being made flesh his comming into the world being made in the nature of mankind standing in the roome of mankind made under the Law having the Sins of men imputed to him and enduring the punishment that was due to them and standing acquited of them and that in all these his will to be one with his Fathers all these are requisite to his procuring of life Herein we agree and herein the Controversie not touched but that any of these or all of these were done for every Son of Adam to procure life Eternall for them he doth not yet prove and therefore comes short of his generall Doctrine Having spoke of his generall Redemption he comes to speake of his speciall the particulars whereof though lyable to exception yet are not pertinent to the Controversie yet some I shall insert of greatest concernment He to prove the Application of the Death of Christ by the Spirit of God in the hearts of men he produceth Rev. 5.9 Thou wast slaine and hast redemed us by thy Bloud out of every tongue and Nation Now The Reader must understand that this Text is produced by us against his generall Redemption and thus we urge that if he redeemed them out of tongues and nations then all were not so redeemed for some there are must be out of whom they are said to be so redeemed Now upon this ground the Author cunningly shuffles this Text in among others treating of the Application of Christs Death that so it might unsuspectedly be taken in the same sense but this a foule perversion Now that the Text speaketh of the Act of Christ in procuring Life and Redemption and that
not in plaine tearmes and affirmations in the words as the Authour falsly suggests to his ignorant Readers but in both he must be beholding to his owne corrupt inferences and reasonings which without prejudice to the Scripture may be brought to further disquisition As for the Proposition resulting from the Texts alleadged it doth neither good nor hurt untill it leave those wild generalls and come to some more particulars it will neither prove friend or enemy to the Question of either side It saith indeed that Christ did taste death for every man but if the words were to be so read he saith not to bring them to eternall Salvation either absolutely or conditionally Therfore that an imperfect expression It saith indeed that Christ gave himselfe to God a ransome for all men But it doth not say that he gave himselfe a ransome for every Individuall man Therefore this an imperfect expression also It saith indeed That He is become the propitiation for the sins of the World But it saith not that he is the propitiation for the sins of every Individuall Therefore imperfect It saith indeed That He is the Saviour of the world but mentioneth not whether he meaneth Saviour of the world with eternal salvation whether he actually saveth the world eternally or merited eternall Salvation for the world upon faith and repentance or whether he meanes any kind of Salvation neither doth he say that he is the Saviour of every Individuall in the world this also is an imperfect expression and what the whole is may be seene by a view of the severall parts of it it is all imperfect as not being at all to the Question And if it should be reduced to a Syllogisme it must run thus If Christ by Gods grace tasted death for every man and also gave himselfe a ransome to God for all men c. Then he intended by his death to purchase eternall Salvation for every man either absolutely or upon condition But he did do the former go He did the latter Then the businesse being thus framed it remaineth our Authors taske to prove the consequence of the Major So that hitherto we see no plaine affirmations of Scripture in his Tenent of which we find such a confident boast in his whole Discourse So that his whole Discourse making out to us no more then he here in the Text pretends it is no other then a progresse in impertinencies But for his better understanding he promiseth five things which successively make up five of his first Chapters all which he mentioneth Pag. 2. The first whereof takes up his first Chapter and it is the difference betweene First A Redemption Reconciliation Salvation wrought by Christ in his owne body with God for men 2. A Redemption Reconciliation Salvation which he effecteth by his Spirit in men to God Which distinction he supposeth will make the matter cleare which indeed makes the businesse more full of obscurities then before For my clearer Answer to this rude distinction I must also premise some few particulars if it be possible to reduce the indigested conceptions of the Author to some reasonable perspicuity And they are these § 1. That the word Salvation is too wide a field to rove in without a limitation seeing it is a generall terme applicable to any deliverance from any thing that either is or was an enemy to mans well being As 1. That Sentence that was past upon Adam and all his Sons for the present and speedy execution of it was a grand enemy to mans well being And the deliverance from it even in the next moment of reprievall might deserve the name of Salvation though I know no one place that speakes of it under this notion of Salvation nor doth it acknowledg the love of God to be expressed to any only in this and no further 2. Any outward temporary misery thraldome danger is an enemy to mans well-being and a deliverance from such hath in Scripture the name of Salvation Act. 27.31 Heb. 5.7 1 Pet 4.18 1 Pet. 3.20 Jude 5. 3. That ignorance of God and Jesus Christ our Peace which is in us is an enemy to our well-being seeing that without Hearing no Faith without Faith no Salvation by him therefore the deliverance from this ignorance by the comming of the Gospell and the preaching of it is in Scripture called a Salvation Luk. 3.6 compared with Isa 40.3 Act. 28.28 2 Cor. 6.2 Heb. 2.3 4. The wrath of God which he hath conceived against sinners is an enemy to our well-being and to be delivered from it by Reconciliation is a Salvation Rom. 11.11 15. And if Reconciliation be not a Salvation why puts the Author them together as being Synonimous 5. The enmity in our hearts against God is an enemy against our well being and to be delivered from it by Conversion and effectuall Calling is Salvation 1 Cor. 9.22 Tit. 3.5 Luk. 19 9. 2 Tim. 2.10 1 Tim. 1.9 Nay although it is but a graduall emendation of mens lives in regard of some grosse sins to which they were formerly given is Salvation Jude 23. 6. Any want or imperfection comming short of that blessed state of Innocency is an enemy also therefore to be in consummate and compleat happinesse in Heaven is Salvation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 1.9 7. Sometimes the word Salvation is comprehending all these as Math. 1.21 And in any place where Christ is said to come to be the Saviour of his people These being considered that Discourse that treates of Salvation indefinitely without a specification of what Salvation it is meant is but a rambling in obscurities § 2. That to the enjoyment of any one of these or all these there are two distinct Acts requisite viz. Impetration or Merit and actuall Application or bestowing of it according to Merit and Purchase It is against his wisdome to impetrate a benefit at so deare a rate without applying it or intention to apply it It is against his Omnipotency and perfection not to apply that which he intended to apply and against his Justice to apply any Salvation without that Application or Salvation applied were first merited and impetrated Hence it may be truly said Impetratio est applicationis fundamentum applicatio est impetrationis complementum Impetration is the foundation of Application and Application the Complement and perfection of Impetration and both together make an entire Salvation And the first Act viz. Impetration or Merit is not nor can be called Salvation Reconciliation Redemption any otherwise then Metonimically as Christ himselfe is called our Salvation Luke 1. and our Peace And so it is called Salvation with reference to the Salvation perfectly applyed either as actually done or as infallibly in time to be done But properly Salvation is not wrought perfectly in Christ for they are opera ad extra necessarily requiring an object without and they must be terminated upon the Creature as there is no Act without an Object so no Salvation or
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
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
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.
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉