had placed him to attend the preaching of that new gospel neglecteth many gospel truths that may helpe to make the man of God wise to salvation such being swallowed up by generall atonement as if the whole gospel was clasped up in this now their evidence that it is not only profitable but it intimateth some transcendent utility either to God or his Church or himselfe sure I am if it be a truth it hath been the most profitable truth to him of all truths in the Bible Now to this Chapter I shall onely answer first with Corvinus to his adversary speaking of the utility of absolute predestination or election he thus answers Corv. in Molin c. 2. Sect. 1. Si doctrina esset evangeliū aut ejus pars tum ad salutem esset necessario the sum of it is this if it be true it is profitable and then I answer with the scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 everry scripture is of divine inspiration and profitable for doctrine reproofe correction instruction that the man of God may be perfect let the Author first prove his doctrine to be true and Scripture then we shall consider the utility of it else herein we shall but beat the aire at the best for that which is not according to truth and sound words as 1 Tim. 1.13 is at the best but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vaine bablings 2 Tim. 2.16 profiteth nothing and not only so but increases to more ungodlinesse and frets like a canker 2 Tim. 2.17 In the following part of his discouse I finde application made but that I wave because that which I undertake is the polemicall part of his treatise in which I have dealt as faithfully as my talent enableth me and as candidly as the Author and the nature of his discourse doth admit which I referre to himselfe or any unpraejudiced Reader And when he shall prove that his doctrine is consonant to the words or true consequence of Scripture I shall imbrace it presse it and magnifie the utility of it The Lord give us understanding in all things FINIS Imprimatur James Cranford ERRATA JN Frontisp for repudiant read repudiat In Epist page 12. line 35. read protestation which tied him p. 7. l. 11. for first r. fifth p. 13. l. 16. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 19. l. 23. for busines r. Basis p. 20. l. 19. r. relating to the agent only is terminated p. 28. l. 28. dele why p. 29. l. 23. r. of it was intended l. 34. for expresse r. espie l. 46. for he came out r. he came not out p. 34. l. 31. dele for p. 40. l. 34. for obnoxious r. obvious p. 44. l. 33. 41. 43. for opposite r. apposite p. 60. l. 38. dele so Page 141. l. 20. for approve r. disprove l. 35. for would them r would have p. 148. l. 35. r. if the all men p. 149. l. 35. r. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 151. l. 6. dele not l. 33. for God working r. God was working ibid. for as r. is p. 153 l. 3. r. I know not what l. 8. for unbeleving r. beleeving p. 154. l. 41. for branding r. branded with p. 156. l. 23. 30. for nature r. native p. 161 l. 28. r. expressed not generally p. 170. l. 23. for some r. summe p. 181. l. 32. dele that l. 40. dele he p. 182. l. 20. r. ungodly which be justified p. 183. l. 10. r. doth he not justifie p. 18. r. would not be so cleare p. 184. l. 9. for advantage r. adversary p. 192. l. 16. for obligation r. oblation p. 204 l. 36. for infallible r. fallible p. 202. for he had r. if he had
for all alike That which is done to every man as men or as sinners is done to all and makes no discrimination among men but all the former are his owne affirmations whence any may conclude that Christ dyed for al men alike for he mentioneth no other end so farre as Respects Ransome or Propitiation but what agreeth to every man alike in his owne reasoning 3. Some say Christ dyed for every man in case every man beleeve on him and for no man in case they persist in unbeleife but this is no Scripture sense c. Christ hath given himselfe a Ransome whether men beleeve it or no. I conceive the Author cannot produce any that so state the Question the modell of this plea may be drawne out of the Remonstrants with the greatest probability but they say no such thing they do not leave the act of man in beleeving to determine the act of Christ as done in and by himselfe For then they cannot prove that he dyed for any because in their judgement all may be unbeleevers and perish and yet Christ have his end They say as firmely and perspicuously that Christ dyed for all Acta Synod 4â— whether men beleeve or no as the Author himselfe avoucheth it Phrasis illa Christus mortuus est pro omnibus si credant fupponit cum non mortuum esse pro iis quis non credunt quod falsum est ideo mortuus est non si credant sed ut credant salventur Therefore I conclude that such a state of the Question he cannot produce from any Pen. 4. Some say Jesus Christ dyed in some sort for all men and so as all do receive some benefit thereby He dyed for all men as a Lord but he did not dye for all as a Surety to pay the price for and become the Propitiation for the sins of all The result of his thoughts is like the errand of Ahimaaz he seeth something but he knoweth not what something he meaneth if he could but speake For 1. Some he may produce that say that all Men yea all Creatures receive some benefit by Christs Death but then he erreth in a twofold respect they neither give this as the state of the Question neither do they say that he dyed for all that receive benefit by his Death he dyed for no other but men whose nature he undertook thus Scripture affirmeth but many more Creatures besides Men have some benefit by Christs Death 2. Some he may produce that say that he obtained Lordship and Dominion by his Death and thus the Remonstrants say Corv in Mol. cap 12. Sect 25 Non obtinuit ut salvator sed ut Dominus Judex esset And some contra Remonst thus may affirme but then he erreth in two particulars for they do not either give this as the state of the Question neither do any utter such an impolished expression as this He dyed for all men as Lord this is formed thus in his owne confused braine it was no Act of Lordship to dye but rather as a Servant he dyed Phil. 2.8 9 10. But to grant all that he saith it deserveth a little examination how he dealeth with this state of the Question if any such could be produced he saith The Affirmative is truth but not the whole truth but the Negative denyeth the remainder of truth and what was before affirmed for if he did not pay their Price and Purchase them how according to the Gospell is he their Lord 1. Unlesse he will say that every man receiveth all good and the highest good by Christs Death which he cannot prove he must confesse that it is the whole truth that every man receiveth some good by his Death 2. He strongly affirmeth that Christ dyed for every man by way of Surety which is not proveable either by Scripture or good reason It is against the nature of a Surety to doe any thing for one as a Surety and for the other to be lyable to the same thing hence the same debt in a way of justice commeth not by any meanes to be required of both the Surety the Principall For this would not be Moripro but Mori cum not to dye for but to dye with men Whether this or a different consideration I know not but some such thing made the Remonstr something shye of this expression of a Surety and in plaine tearmes do deny that it is so meant Coll. Hag. p. 175 176. in Arg. 3. In Collatione dixerunt fratres se hanc formulam ita accipere ut Christus diceretur mortuum esse pro nobis vadis instar ut pro nobis satisfaceret atqui non ita exprimitur So that it is cleare that they could not affirme that Christ dyed for every man as a Surety which the Author affirmeth but doth not prove it to satisfaction 3. He would prove it by this because he is their Lord for he cannot see how he should become their Lord if he did not dye for them as Surety but herein he argueth weakely No eye surely but seeth a wide difference betwixt purchasing Lordship and satisfying for one as a Surety These are no way coincident the one may be where the other is not The Israelites purchased Lordship over their slaves and Servants Lev. 25.44 But they were not said to be Surety for them So on the other side Judah was Surety for Beniamin Gen. 44.33 Paul for Onesimus Philem. 18. but in neither of these was there any purchasing or Lordship these are valde distantia therefore to argue He is their Lord therefore he is their Surety is weake reasoning 4. He affirmeth that to deny that Christ dyed for all as a Surety is contrary to what is before affirmed and saith If he paid not their price and purchased them how can he be their Lord This is grounded on his grosse perversion for he leaveth out the words As a Surety wherein the vigour lyeth for else his words should run thus If he pay not a Price for them as a Surety how can he be their Lord And then their weakenesse would have appeared to any Lord he might be and no Surety pay a Price for them and purchase them to himself he may and yet be no Surety but he thus produceth the words If he payed not a Price for them how is he their Lord This savours not of ingenuity or of one who hath his mouth full of Exclamations against perverters of words 5. Some say that Christ so dyed for all that his death is sufficient for all and applicable to all but not so as he hath ransomed all men and become the Propitiation for the Sins These or the like expressions may be patched up out of severall Judgements but for one man of either side to produce these words as the state of the Question I dare say the Author cannot produce any Example 1. That some say Christus mortuus est pro omnibus sufficienter That is Coll. Hag. Pag.
betweene Finem istum non esse absolute intentum sed ita ut ad applicationem requisita est conditio Which in my judgement do not se invicem destruere for Faith may be requisite and yet the Application absolutely intended I might take every particular by it selfe and dwell upon the absurdities that attend every one of them but I must not be so voluminous As when he saith The first end was to take away Sin before God for men Pag. 16. And this he saith is for all men every Son of Adam both false It is not the first end for may not the Question be asked Why he taketh away Sin from before God The Answer if he will give it confuteth him and telleth him there is a further end neither is it done for all the expression it selfe is rude and absurd to take away Sin before God for man the word to take away must have a terme from which and that must be either man or God And can he take away Sin from before God or from Man and Man not be possest of Justification this is a mystery Is it not all one for Sin to be taken away from before God and for it not to be found when it is sought for Jer. 50.20 But is this the priviledge of all or of Gods reserve only Let the Author in his next give me one place and prove it too where this or any of the attendants is said to be done for every Son of Adam Many things I leave to the intelligent Reader to save me a labour in I conceive that this consideration of the end of Christ helpeth him little I shall examine if his next do more CHAP. IIII. Of the divers manner of mentioning these ends in Scripture HE thinketh to extract much from the divers manner of propounding the Death of Christ with the ends of it as in that sometimes more ends are joyned sometimes one only Also the Ransome is considered as in it selfe made or as made known or as men are convinced by it Also it is delivered in a different Person sometimes in first sometimes second sometimes third Chapter These are the Allegations of his whole Chapter but what matter there is in all these I shall Examine Sometimes that end of his Death which was for Propitiation or Ransome is coupled with the end which was to testifie love and faithfulnesse in his Ministration propounded for our example and then such generall words as world all men are not used because his Ministration on earth did not reach to all the world 1. This seemes to affirme that the Ransome and Ministration of Christ are distinct ends and not coincident which I see not cleare seeing his giving life a Ransome is the greatest peece of Service that he did for us in doing this he did all And this was not only one but the greatest peece of his Ministration In that our Saviour saith I came to serve and give my life a Ransome for many He doth not in his latter words discover a distinct end but rather it is an explanation of the service of which he speaketh to any eye it may appeare that to Serve and to give his life a Ransome speake one and the same thing Christs words otherwhere seemeth to cleare it Luk. 22.27 Having eaten the Supper with his Disciples taking his last leave bequeathing himselfe to his Crosse he saith I am as he that serveth which to me referreth to his Death that was shortly to ensue And do not the Apostles words cleare it Phil. 2.6 7 8. where he makes the Death of Christ and his being obedient to the Death of the Crosse the explanation of his being a Servant Nay do not the Authors words cleare it He saith Pag. 21. His faithfulnesse in Ministration is set downe as an example to us to lay downe our lives for the Brethren 1 Joh. 3.16 Now what is that which moves us to lay downe our lives for the Brethren all along in Scripture is it not Christs laying downe his life Yea that Text plainly speakes of it as this Argument to move us whereby it appeares that to serve and to give his life a Ransome are one and not distinct ends therefore his expresses are not consonant to truth As if he testified greater love and faithfulnesse or more prevalently moved us to give our lives for the Brethren in any thing than in this giving his life a Ransome 2. Whereas he saith Such generall words are not used because his Ministration reaches not to all This is nobis causam tradere to give us the Question If his giving his life a Ransome was his serving and his serving reach not to all how can the other where is his Doctrine then And till he can prove that his serving and his giving his life a Ransome are distinct I shall accept his position viz. his Ministration reached not to all the world so neither his giving his Life a Ransome Sometimes that end which was for Ransome is coupled together with that end which was for sealing the New-Testament which belong not to all men but his chosen ones that have partaken of his heavenly Call and then such generall words as cannot in any sense be appropriated to some particular as world all men are not used nor yet such a word as may not be applyed so generally but so as his word may be applyed to either or both senses as occasion shall serve Hence Math. 26.28 This is my Bloud of the New-Testament which is shed for many for the remission of Sins 1. Whereas he speaketh of a New-Testament and the sealing thereof which belongeth not to all either I understand him not or he understandeth not himselfe First I understand not whether he meaneth not the Testament it selfe or the sealing thereof belongs not to all for he loveth to lurke in ambiguities though but poor shelter If he meane the latter then he intimateth that the Covenant is not sealed to so many as it is made which is not probable If he meane the first I am yet to seeke what he meaneth by the New-Testament if I understand him he meaneth nothing but the new Covenant promised to Abraham and Adam and preached by Christ and his Apostles Now that Covenant and Testament are Synonimous is cleare from Scripture Heb. 8. in many places mentioneth the Old and New-Testament in 8 9 10. verses which allude to Jer. 31.31 32 33. but there the Text runneth Covenant not Testament Nay some Translations read Heb 8.8 9 10. Covenant some read Testament where ever the word Covenant or Testament is used it is by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Matth. 26.28 it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Gal. 4.24 some read it two Testaments but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in that Text cited by him Heb. 9.14 15. Mediatour of the New-Testament yet it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So it is cleare that Covenant and Testament is all one Indeed every Covenant is not
only them to whom he wrote were out of the verge of any adverse thing it clearely affirmeth that only Beleevers are in such a condition as nothing shall prevaile against them So in this He delivered him up for us all This denoteth not the precise number nor argueth that he was given up only for them to whom he wrote being Romans but thus far it is firme that he was given up for Beleevers only and this sufficeth us So that when the Author saith No right reasoning can inferre hence therefore no other It is true if he meane no other Individuals for he was so given up for them as that he was also for all other Beleevers but right reasoning may inferre that he was given up for none other but Beleevers and where is the obliquity of this reasoning Sometimes in the second Person with personall Application as my Bloud which is shed for you Luk. 22.20 1 Pet. 1.18 19 c. Reason must yield such sayings shew not how many he redeemed This is of the same nature with the former therefore the same answer is to be given Thâ—se Texts shew not the precise number but the condition of them that are so redeemed as that Text 1 Pet. 1.18 19. Ye were redeemed from vaine conversation none ever said that this Text doth shew the number of them that were redeemed from vaine conversations for many Gentiles were to whom he wrote not neither hath any denyed but that this limiteth the condition that only Beleevers are Redeemed from vaine Conversations as in the next verse And he was manifested in the last times for you It doth not shew for how many but yet it doth for whom he was revealed viz. Beleevers as appeares in the next words Who by him beleeve in God hereby any may see through those mists which he casteth before cleare truths Sometime in the third Person with speciall Application and that sometimes to the better part as Joh. 10.15 I lay down my life for my Sheep Sometimes to the worse part as 1 Cor. 8.11 the weake brother for whom Christ dyed no sober mind will say that any of these alone resolve the Question for how many Christ dyed 1. For his expresses I demand why he putteth a weake Brother in the number of the worse part methinkes the name of Brother though weake should have got him a place in the better ranke 2. As for his assertion No sober mind will say that any of these alone shew for how many he dyed It is weake and impertinent we never yet attempted to define the precise number but the condition of them for whom he dyed we say only for Beleevers we meddle not for how many Beleevers or Sheepe he dyed Now if he deny that the Text Joh. 10.15 shews for whom only he dyed he hath drunke so deepe in Arminius his Cup that he is not sober yet and to cleare it let us view expressions of the like nature that in this we may follow the genious of Scripture Rom. 4.11 Abraham is there called the Father of them that beleeve Now doth not this denote that he is the father of none else as that Phrase of being Father is there meant we must so grant it if we compare it with Gal. 3.7.29 And in that it saith he is the Father of them that beleeve it is exclusive of such as beleeve not John 3.16 He sent his Son that those that beleeve might not perish but have everlasting life Let the Author tell me doth not this Text so confine eternall life to Beleevers as that none but Beleevers shall have it Ezek. 34.11 I will search my Sheep and bind them up and bring them againe doth not this so confine these to his Sheep as that he will do them to none else Matth. 25.33 He setteth his Sheepe on his right hand Is not this cleare that he setteth none but his Sheep on the right hand Nay in this Chapter take any verse or part of a verse where the word Sheepe is where they are said to do any thing for him or Christ to do any thing for them and tell me if such be not exclusive of all other as firmly as if the word only had been exprest as my Sheepe here my voice He calleth his shape by name his sheepe follow him I know my sheepe doth not all this speak thus much that none but Sheepe heare his voice he calleth none by name and leadeth them out but Sheep none but Sheep follow him he knoweth none but Sheep for of others he saith I know you not nay in that Phrase The good Shepheard layeth downe his life for his Sheep doth it not exclude all that are not his Sheepe doth any Shepheard venture his life in the behalfe of the Woolfe or any Sheep that is not under his charge Now seeing this Phrase runnes so in so many places in that Chapter I say that no sober mind will say that just in this verse it should admit such a latitude as that he may be there said to lay downe for any but his Sheep such expressions in Scripture have Materiam necessariam and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the termes are convertible But that I may cleare it fully in the same section there is something that will seeme repugnant to this and the objection may be thus framed It cannot be meant so as if Christ dyed for none but his Sheep because the Scripture saith he dyed for some that may perish 1 Cor. 8.11 c. And thus the Arminians in the Conference at Hague object Non pro ovibus solis quia Paulus dicit pro me se tradidit sed non pro illo solo ac Scriptura testatur Christum mortuum pro eo cui contingit perdi qui velox judicium sibi accersunt 1 Cor. 8.11 2 Pet. 2.2 Which though it be unworthy of such objectours because the argument is weake according to their owne principles for Christ may dye for his Sheepe only and yet dye for them that may perish because with them this is truth that they that are sheepe may perish if Corvinus be right In Molin c. 21. Sect. 6. when he saith Justificati possunt reprobari But it is worthy an Answer from us because we hold no such thing but this Obiter To answer to 1 Cor. 8.11 whence our Author would prove that our weake may perish for whom Christ dyed 1. Was it so this would not disprove that Christ dyed for his Sheepe only only it would averre that some for whom Christ dyed may perish for certainly in that he calleth him here a Brother he granteth him a Sheep he should have produced a place that he dyed for some that are not sheepe 2. But no such things follow from this Text it questions Shall he perish And commandeth Let him not perish but it affirmeth nothing that he may or may not Now we must be wary what Enunciatives we deduce from Intergatories or Mandatories Suppose the Text had gone further even
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
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
that his mission in Mat 15 24. doth not exclude his death and ransome giving it mentioneth nothing but stands as indifferent to receive any thing that he did as part of his ministration here on earth of which his dying was a part and the cheife part and all things else in reference to it Mat. 20.28 To minister and to give his life a ransome for many therefore for him to say not to die but to minister to is weake and frothy and his opposing these two death and ministration here on earth intimateth that either his death is no part of his ministration or else that part of his ministration was not done on earth both most false and absurd And yet the restraint of his mission to the Iews is not wholly exclusive for then the woman could not have been commended for faith and helped thereby Mat. 15.24.28 It makes not whether it were wholy exclusive yea or no it sufficeth us if there was good ground so to thinke as any may see there was when he answered to her suite I was not sent but to the lost sheepe of the house of Israel now the Jewes being ready to snatch at the word house of Israel as their proper priviledge which is refelled Rom. 9. by the Apostle they might and did hence conclude that he was sent to none but them Besides Christ went not thither to minister the Gospel by vertue of his mission but onely to hide and secure himselfe in those parts of Tyre and Sydon therefore this accidentall act to the Phaenician woman doth not argue that his mission was not confined to the house of Israel To conclude were his mission to die or onely to promulge the Gospel the one or other or both yet his speech Mat. 15.24 gave good occasion to the Jewes to exclude the Gentiles from Christ which he removeth and reason there was he should so remove it And of the same nature was the sending of his Disciples and of no further as yet Mat. 10.5 This is but new divinity to say that the mission of Christ and of the Apostles was of the same nature when his Father sent him to the lost sheepe of the house of Israel he came to save that which was lost to redeeme to dye for John 3.16 But when Christ sent his Disciples to the lost sheepe of Israel Mat. 10.5 he sent them not to dye for them to be their Saviours Christ was sent to performe the whole work of ministration they but a part to be adjutant in preaching the Gospel and true Christ had done no more yet but he was sent to doe more even to dye This could be no reason to darken or streighten the extent of the death of Christ much lesse of using such generall termes as all men c. True neither did he streighten it but enlarged it not larger then it was indeed but larger then the Jewes did apprehend it and this was reason enough of using such generall terms as made way for the Gentiles But he attempteth to prove that those generall termes could not be produced to cure such an offence taken from such speeches Mat. 15 24. Thus 1. Before the mission of Christs Disciples or his speaking to the woman of Canaan he was said to be send into the world that the world might be saved c. Which proveth it not because although those sayings were before his speech to his Disciples and the woman of Canaan yet they were not before such expressions as were equipollent and might administer like and equall occasion To passe by all the Prophesies types prefigurations of Christ which were exhibited to the Jews onely in which regard they have the preheminence of the Gentiles but Mat. 1.21 he is said by the angels to be the Saviour of his people and expresly Mat. 2.6 Israel this was enough to create that stumbling against the Gentiles but this was before any such generall terms Besides the word world doth not temper those confining expressions because that word might and is used as to include no more then the Jewes they being most potent and catholâ—ke in the world Luke 2.1 2. Their mission was afterwards enlarged to goe into all the world Mat. 20.28 and then no necessity of using words importing more then truth To wave his expresses of using words importing more then truth being the result of his folly we may say that their mission being enlarged to all the world there was good reason to use such expressions as might admit both Jew and Gentile else they would not be received for Peter for all his commission he was questioned for comming to the Gentiles Acts. 11.1.2.3 and they were not satisfied till he shewes them the vision which was but equivalent to these generall terms and then they admitted them but with admiration that to them should be granted repentance 3. Whilest these generall words were frequent in use the same is still affirmed of Christs administration that it was for the Circumcision Rom. 15.8 9 And good reason because those generall expresses were to let in the Gentiles not to exclude the Iewes but therein Rom. 15.8 9. both Jew and Gentile are inserted that they might both mutually embrace each other this argueth not those generall expresses were not used to cure a mistake in the Iewes excluding the Gentiles when there were no such expressions as did let them in if he had produced any Text speaking of the Iewes so exclusively as formerly then he had said something but take his reasons as they are and they are reasonlesse and miserable and by this it appeares that yet our reason hath more in it then he with all his understanding can resist The second part of this last reason as he calleth it is as followeth Had not the Jewes been for a long time the onely people of God and might not other nations think themselves excluded being called strangers and aliens and was not the receiving of the Gentiles a thing new to the Apostles Acts. 10. therefore there was great reason such generall words should be used which might enforme the Iewes and encourage the Gentiles and them that went to preach to them as it did to Peter to go to Cornelius and his family which otherwise he would have beene as backward to as to eate the creatures that he called uncleane and he was moved thereto when he knew that of every Nation those that worke righteousnesse are accepted of God and this is one reason why such expressions are so frequent in Scripture this reason he is pleased to brand with the titles of weake and frothy he foames out little but such expressions of venome and contempt but how doth he make it appeare Thus The ignorance of some in the mysteries of grace is no proofe that the God of Truth will speake beyond the bounds of Truth Which is the empty reply that he gave to the first part of this reason wherein he urgeth me to say againe that Gods using such expressions
debt which God requires c. so that here is not two payments of one debt but a new debt in despising Gods goodnesse I demand when he saith Christ satisfied for sinne what sinne he means what onely for originall and lest us to satisfie for actuall or for some actuall and left us to makt out the rest Was the unbeleife of Paul in the time of non conversion a new debt not satisfied for can any be saved and their sinnes not satisfied for is any able to satisfie but Christ and the sinner be capable of life O impious doctrine derogatory to the sufferings of Christ is not Christs worke a perfect worke but a man may have a new debt that was not thought on by Christ strange divinity how must the deare children of God do with their past rebellions against meanes of grace it is a new debt Christ satisfied not they are not able doth not he doe well to charge others with grosse ignorance that he may have some fellowes Hath he so soone forgot his protestation against popery and to defend the doctrine of the church of England against all popish innovation which doctrine runnes thus That Christ suffered for all sinnes of men originall and actuall Yet he comes with a new debt unsatisfyed for and who must if Christ did not I would have the Author tell me what he meaneth when he saith The whole debt of mankinde became his page 3. is not contempt of meanes and rebellion against Gods call part of our debt certainely herein the Author discovered too much ignorance with which he is pleased to brand others certainely those for whom Christ undertook he satisfyed for all their sinnes originall actuall against Law against Gospel his satisfaction was not done to the halfe to need a corrivall in that worke therfore such can have no new debt and such cannot in justice be bound over to suffer eternall torments for any sinne no not for any pretended new debt he hath taken away all that stands crosse to our salvation so the Author speaketh page 18. 19. And all that he saith notwithstanding the proposition standeth firme CHAP. XVI Of the fourth Objection A Fourth Argument is this Those to whom he would not vouchsafe to manifest himselfe or to pray for for those he would not die John 17.9 But he would not manifest himselfe to nor pray for the world of ungodly and wicked men Ergo He did not die for the world of ungodly or wicked men Before I come to his answers I shall take notice of his dealing with the argument to make it fit for his purpose 1. He confoundeth two arguments together for Manifestation of him self that belongeth to an other argument neither can he give any president of jumbling these two together which confusion will make the argument not clear and the answers obscure 2. He cannot produce any that citeth John 17.9 to prove the Major 3. Nor any that maketh the Minor to runne thus But he prayed not for the world of ungodly or the conclusion to run thus Ergo He dyed not for the world of ungodly all these are purposely foysted in to make the argument seeme vile this is no faithfull dealing as he promised the argument runneth thus in the seventh Argument in Hag. Col. Those whom he reconciled he interceded for John 17.9 But He interceded not for all and every son of Adam John 17.9 Ergo He reconciled not every sonne of Adam John 17.9 The Major is thus grounded Rom. 8.32 he saith If he give us his Sonne he wil much more give us all things The Argument is this if he gave us the greater he will certainely much more give us the lesse so if he die for us he will pray for us so in the negative we conclude if he pray not for the world which is the lesse he did not die for or reconcile which is the greater Now to perpend his answers he giveth this generall and facile refutation This objection is false many waies And that which he driveth at I guesse to be the ground of the reason that is the ground of proceeding from the lesse to the greater negatively that he would prove it is no good reason to say because he would not pray therefore he would not die for the world and he urgeth thus It is not right reason to say God would not make Heaven c. whom he would not preserve in that good estate But had he beene in his right reason he would have seen this very impertinent to our purpose our argument proceeds from the lesse to the greater negatively but his instance proceedeth from the greater to the lesse negatively which is unsound and quite contrary to the businesse in hand for to preserve in a good estate is a greater mercy then to create in such estate onely so that though this is not sound he will not create because he will not preserve yet this is good if he will not create which is the lesse he will not preserve which is the greater and this serveth us the lesse may include the greater negatively but the greater cannot the lesse As for those expresses that touch that part of the argument viz. the manifesting of himselfe to the world it is not to this argument which mixture of Heterogeneous expresses will pertuâ—be the reader in the cleare decision of this argument therefore I wave them Againe he urgeth If Christ had said he never did nor would pray for the world which he never said yet it were evill in us to use that as an argument to deny the truth of his own words as that he dyed for all and every one But rather an evill in himselfe to obtrude such a sense on those places that contradict Christs owne words or the true consequences from the same it is no evill in us to gainesay the phansy or glosse that the Author puts on those Texts from this I can gather little but that the Author would have all the sayings of our Saviour to take the modell of their interpretations from his own conceits upon those places 1 Tim. 2.6 Heb. 2.9 which is not a reasonable postulatum as for that parenthesis which he did not if he once said he did not and it cannot be proved that ever he did pray for that world we may presume he meaneth he never had nor would pray for them This confoundeth his love of compassion common to all and of delight peculiar to Beleevers It is hard to divine his meaning herein unlesse he meaneth that his dying for be only the love of compassion and his praying for the love of delight and so to pray for us to be a greater love then dying for us for so he maketh the love of delight to be the greatest love but this is not apparent by any Scripture and how this argument confoundeth compassion and delight the Author would have done well to have discovered to them that see it not This confoundeth the death of Christ as ransome
Psalm 111. 4 5. He is gracious full of compassion giveth meate to them that feare him it will not hence follow that he giveth meat and is compassionate to no other Which if it had not been purposely produced to pervert the Text more then to satisfie he could not but have seene this example impertinent to the case in hand for this in Psal 111.4.5 it is cleare it hath not such a convertible connexion as that Text Rom. 8. from which convertibility the force of the argument is deduced as those whom he predestinateth them he calleth all and onely those and so in the rest which cannot be in the instance produced by him for though he be compassionate to all that feare him yet all do not feare him to whom he is compassionate and giveth meate therefore that rocke is easily avoided and the folly and falsehood lights upon himselfe But that he might illustrate himselfe in the point of election he craveth leave to thrust out some of his owne conceits about the same some whereof that are most momentous I shall examine Having spoken of the election of the man Christ he saith h◠So all other chosen being affirmed chosen in him Eph. 1.4 he must needs be chosen first else how are they chosen in him See how presently he taketh leave to vary from Scripture he said as he found so he beleeved what he beleeveth I know not but I thinke that he findeth it not said that Christ was first elected this phrase if any such be of which anon is so farre from arguing him to be elected first that it doth not argue him elected at all for when the Text saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Col. 1.16 In him were all things created doth this infer that he was first created or created at all and will he thus argue else how are they created in him 2. But it may be to this he will repose that that place speakes of an efficient but this Eph 1.4 of a meritorious cause therefore to instance to his minde Col. 1.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In whom we have redemption doth this infer that either he was redeemed first or redeemed at all or will he thus argue else how are we redeemed in him So 2 Cor. 5.19 In him we are reconciled But latet anguis in herbâ there is something yet behinde which the Arminians contend for and which I beleeve the Author in endeth viz. Christ to be the first Elect we elect in him as the head from which our election is conveyed and by whom procured Exam. Perkins 31. as Arminius himselfe Christus secundum Apostolum non tantum est medium per quod salus obtinetur sed tanquam causa meritoria cujus respectu electio nostra facta sit That is he is not only the meanes of salvation but the meritorious cause of election and I beleeve this is the Authors judgement thus he Christ is first elect and so the roote in whom all are elected page 115. Now if we be elected in Christ as the roote he must convey election to us as the roote doth sap to the branches but this is not cleare from Scripture for if we be elected in Christ as the roote then as the sap is first in the roote then in the branches and the same identicall sap which was in the roote is conveyed to the branches so must the same election wherewith Christ was elected be translated upon us and so our election be one with Christs and Christ his election one with ours but neither of these doe I for the present comprehend for that election wherewith we are elected is such as hath sinners for the object of it Electio versatur circa bomines ut peccatores consideratos Ibid. but Christ was never a sinner or so considered so never elected with that election that hath sinners for the object and as such as needs pardon of sinne so that our election is not competible to Christ Againe Christs election in all Remonstrants and our Author is nothing but a destination to that office of a Mediator and so to a Kingdome for the recompence of that service So our Author 118.119 but this election is not competible to us for then should we be elected mediatours how then it should be that we are elected in him as the roote I see not But happily he will say that his meaning is thus Christ was first chosen to his office of a mediatour and so by his mediation he merited our election as Arminius in the forequoted place so that to be elected in him is not onely for Christ to be elected first but that he also merited our election and so as reconciliation sanctification adoption glorification flow from him as the head so doth election also To wich I will reply only thus much this is more then any Scripture speaketh it is the generall consent of Schoolemen and moderne Divines that praedestination or election hath no cause in respect of the praedestinator so no merit to move it But I shall not trouble the Author with testimonies of this nature I shall be content with his owne words page 119. All that election of Christ and his sons was free from eternity and no cause but his will Which is altogether false if Christ merited our election for that which is grounded on the death of Christ as the meritorious cause cannot be grounded on Gods meere will Againe though Arminius would have Christ the meritorious cause of our election yet he hath much to doe so to temper his pen as not to betray his cause and speak truth at once for let us take a survey of his owne words in Perkins 31.32 Nam Apostolus inquit nos in Christo electos esse tanquam in mediatore Now if he had beene constant to himselfe and resolved to make out his owne assertion he should have said Cujus sanguine parta est electio nostra that is by whose blood our election was obtained then he had spoken to the purpose but then as he knew well enough he had spoken beside Scripture therefore he saith thus Cujus sanguine nobis salus parta est vita ut in capite ex quo ista bona a derivantur That is by whose blood salvation and life are obtained and that as head from whom those good things are derived and is this all for us to be elected in Christ as he saith afterward Christ to be the meritorious cause of grace and glory this cometh farre short of his being the meritorious cause of our election all they can make out is this viz. Christ is the meritorious cause of bestowing all good things that follow and flow from election but there is a wide difference betwixt election and the good things communicated by vertue of it But still the argument of Arminius and so of our Author is unsatisfied viz. Else how are we said to be elected in him Ephes 1.4 To this I onely advertise the Author that he
his words Rom. 11.33 True if we be sure such a thing is the worke of God if we cannot fathome it to admire the wisdome of God is good as Rom. 11.33 but we may admire our owne folly and bewaile it to put such a sense on Scripture as that we cannot make it and the wisdome of God to meete we deny not the truth of Gods words but the Authors glosse and if he can prove it to be truly the worke of God or that it is a truth I shall admire though I cannot fathom it Hitherto I conceive he hath been oppugning the major afterwards he cometh to the minor and thus saith The Scripture testifieth that God hath and doth use some meanes towards all men not onely in his workes of creation and providence which giveth some testimony of his goodnesse c. but with some further light yea it may be some rumour of the Gospel as much as drew Rahab to beleeve c. Hereby attempting to prove that some discovery of the purchase is made knowne to every man But very confidently he saith God affordeth some meanes to all men but showes not to what end whether to manifest his power and Godhead and meer goodnesse or further to show his mercy in our repairing but this latter is most suiteable to his purpose and the argument but what meanes doth he use he saith not onely by his workes of creation and providence to intimate that those are meanes to discover something of Christ but without ground for the creation can no more alone discover a Saviour then they could in the creature goodnesse we may see in the creature but not mercy indeed if we have a word with them it can tell us we have sinned and so forfeited all then we may see mercy not else and all that the creation discovers is power and Godhead but this there was before any mercy and may be without it but he saith With further light but speaketh not what that is therefore I cannot answer but he addeth It may be some rumour of the Gospel but no Scripture saith it if it doe why doth he darken truth with May be if it doe not why doth he oppugne truth with may be he must not thinke to overthrow arguments with May beâ—s as for the rumour that was made to Adam Noah Shem Abraham Jacob Rahab c. unlesse he learne better skill in probation Apolog. c. 7. s 8. in resp ad Art 31. A 11. it will not be very easie to prove that that those had knowledge of Christ or of a Saviour the Remonstrants will tell him that faith in Jesus was not required of the fathers under the Old Testament but onely in God and Arminius will not onely question but strongly argue that the faithfull in the Old Testament did not know that the Law typed out Christ and his benefits but I doe not so satisfie the Author but what if Adam Noah Shem Abraham c. did hear and know something what is this to every individuall man that ever was or shall be the strongest asserters of this general discovery of the gospel have yet been forced to confesse the contrary in Perk. 258. Corv. in M. c. 28. s 8. Act. Synod 327. 316. 285. Col. Hag. 179. Col. Hag. in Arg. 5. Arminius himselfe saith thus Causa cur deus omnibus Christum non revelet est quod parentes repudiaverunt that is the cause why God doth not reveale Christ to all is because their parents have rejected if he give a reason then certainely that must be a truth of which he giveth a reason that Christ is not revealed to all and the Remonstrants confesse Ecce populos quosdam etiam hujus temporis qui adhucdum nihil de hoc reconciliationis verbo sciunt that is there is a people in this time that never heard a word of that worke of reconciliation and in this thing they miserably falter sometimes they say As much as in him lieth he dispenseth it sometimes for his part he is ready to take care that it be preached sometimes he commandeth it to be preached sometimes it ought to be preached sometimes it may be preached and if it were possible would say many more to salve it And therefore though we will not say that God doth not use any meanes to know him and his Godhead yet we may say he useth no meanes to every man to discover Christ and the redemption by him He further saith Gods denyall of his servants to preach in some places for a time as in Acts 16.6 7. proveth not an utter deniall of all meanes to them and among many reasons he giveth this one but he may deny it for one time yet grant it for an other All this may be received yet we not hurt for we say not that he denyeth them all meanes to know him but meanes to know Christ he did and what though he granted the Gospel afterwards to those places yet in the intervall of time did not many thinketh he die without knowledge of Christ as for example many Gentiles perished in ignorance of Christ during the time of the Gospels confinement to the Jews though afterward it was granted to the Gentiles and if so our Minor is yet firme nothing of moment doth he else produce but what confirmeth that assumption that he would overthrow Thus have I martialed up our arguments in their native force and his answers in their greatest strength and herein have been as faithfull as I am able and whether he hath abated the force of any one argument or given any thing but cavills to darken the truth I leave to any indifferent reader to judge and what faithfulnesse he hath observed in laying downe our arguments I leave also to judge in the next Chapter wee shall see if he have any more dexterity in producing his owne arguments then he hath manifested in reciting ours CHAP. XX. Of the Arguments confirming the Proposition WHerein I shall first touch his faire flourish in the entrance viz. To satisfie such as would have reason satisfied reasons are added So that now we may set up a generall siquis if any would have his reason satisfied let him come hither and he doth well to satisfie reason for he hath not yet confirmed our faith but what persons are they that must be satisfied certainely none but such as are satisfied with any thing yet thus farre my reason is satisfied that the Author hath not light upon forcible arguments to prove this position As for his arguments produced no answer need be given muchlesse much paines to be spent in a solicitous answer and this any intelligent Reader will grant if he consider these particulars concerning them 1. Observe that in all he produceth Scriptures to backe his conclusions providing himself against such as having as little skill as himself in ratiotination may deny the conclusion which is against the rule of argumentation in which if good the conclusion hath strength enough from
the premises and let them be right I will warrant his conclusion now what strength of Argument can we expect from such as is so weakely versed in that way 2. His arguments are many six in number to call the eyes of men upon that truth that is backed by multitude of arguments when he deceiveth them utterly for his mediums are all coincident in one let us veiw them His 1. Saith That which the Scripture plainely affirmeth in plaine words is true 2. Saith Tâ—â—â— for whom Christ and his Apostles in plaine termes affirme Christ to come to save them he did come to save 3. Saith That which Scripture layeth downe as one end of his death c. is to be beleeved 4. Saith That which the Scripture sets forth in generall for the world it a truth 5 Saith That which may be proved in and by Scripture in plaine sentences c. is a truth Now let any divine Chymnist extract a difference betwixt any of these doe they nor deserve by the variety of matter to be ranged as distinct arguments should I have distinct answers I should runne into the Authors folly 3. Let us view the conclusions in all and so see what he proveth in all his plaine Scriptures His 1. Thus That he gave himselfe a ransome for all and tasted death for every man 2. He came to save sinners world unjust ungodly 3. That by his death he is Lord of all 4. That he was sent to be the Saviour of the world that whoever beleeveth should not perish 5. That he hath in dying lordship over all 6. That he gave himselfe a ransome for all and tasted death for every man Now not to insist on that peccancy in having such various conclusions about one and the same question wherein he cannot satisfie that requisite in reasoning to conclude with the question this I say none of these conclusions are against us which may be reduced to that peccancy in reasoning which is called ignoratio elenchi none of his arguments are in right forme they have more in the conclusion then his premises contribute to them all have some or other obliquity but seeing all of them are but one medium and so in effect but one argument I shall give this one answer conceditur totum and he can desire no more of us then to grant all he saith now in the issue either his weaknes appeareth in producing that against us which we may grant or ours in granting that which maketh against us let him put it to the triall CHAP. XXI Of removing some doubts hindring some from beleeving that which they confesse WHerein he personateth some that cannot deny but confesse that Christ gave himselfe a ransome for all and tasted death for every man but they cannot beleeve that Christ died for all men I shall not insist on the Authors dexterity in framing such arguments and doubts that he may easily answer and render the objectors ridiculous his forgery lieth in two particulars 1. He knoweth none that cannot beleeve that which they confesse Scripture speaketh some may not confesse that which they beleeve but that any should not beleeve that which they confesse I beleeve not 2. He knoweth none that beleeve that Christ gave himself a ransome for all and yet do doubt whether he died for all or no this would be to exceed the Author in folly but here lieth the doubt though the Text say He gave himselfe a ransome for all men yet they cannot beleeve that it meaneth every individuall man without exception upon a threefold ground arising from severall Scriptures as first Eph. 2.8 By grace are ye saved through faith and this not of our selves it is the gift of God from this Text I doe not affirme that faith is said to be the gift of God though it be so and other Scriptures hold it forth yet I say not that this text saith so for having said ye are saved by grace through faith it saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not of our selves it doth not well agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it being of the newâ—er gender but rather with the whole sentence going before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that salvation by grace through faith is the gift of God as Rom 6.33 the gift of God is eternall life through Jesus Christ our Lord. But to take it as as he propoundeth it and from this that faith is the gift of God which is a truth hence the doubt is this Seeing faith is the gift of God and he hath determined not to give to every man that faith therefore it is not probable that Christ would lay downe his life for them upon the condition of faith whom he seeth cannot beleeve without God and to them God will not give it to the salving of which he speakes many things but little to satisfaction he seemeth to distinguish of salvation 1. A salvation without man in Christ for men 2. A salvation in men inabling men to beleeve 3. A salvation upon men both in soul and body compleat in heaven Now he saith that this phrase Yee are saved by grace through faith in Eph. 28. is meant of the second salvation but first that is not cleare for then the sense must be this yee are brought in to beleeve through faith so that faith is by him the meanes conducing to faith this is absurd I thinke it plainely appeares to be meant of compleat salvation in heaven and it saith ye are saved because they were certainely to be saved through faith But be it so as he saith yet the doubt is where it was yet that being saved by faith is the gift of God and he not giving that grace to all he would not give his Son to merit life for all upon the condition of beleeving if I can in his next be informed of his strength in his expresses to this purpose I shall say more His second Text produced Iohn 6.37 All that my Father giveth me shall come unto me and him that cometh I will not cast out Now from this Text here lieth the doubt it is not consonant to reason or Scripture that Christ would lay downe his blood to purchase life for them whom his Father had not given to him seeing his Fathers giving is the measure of coming to him and so being within the compasse of the benefit of his impetration his will being one with his Fathers his impetration would be equall with his Fathers giving to him this he undertaketh to remove by showing a fouretold giving of men to Christ 1. Giving by election to sonship and inheritance 2. Giving men to him to undertake for them and to ransome them 3. Giving men to Christ they to be his and he to be their Lord. 4. Giving men to Christ in the heavenly call so they are given up to him But what neede so many words to darken a cleare Text and what need so many acceptations when it is cleare that all of them cannot be the
afterwards saith The answer to that objection is easie But what need an answer if the objection be so sober as not to oppose him and easie it is to give an answer but to give such an one as satisfieth that is not so easie as appeareth by his whole discourse but let us see his facile and obvious answers it is this As the mediation of Christ is both more generally and more speciall the first as he is Mediatour between God and man 1 Tim. 2.5 the second as he is Mediatour of the New Testament Heb. 9.14 so in all his offices there is that which is more generall and that which is more speciall Now this labours with a double error for neither is his mediation twofold neither are his offices twofold that is generall and speciall as for the first viz. his distinction betwixt his mediation of the New Testament and his mediation betweene God and man is ridiculous and not consonant to Scripture for when he was said to be a mediatour betwixt God and man 1 Tim. 2 5. was he not in that mediation a mediatour of the New Testament is there any mediation that is not by a New Testament even for transgressors that were under the former Testament as Heb. 9.15 and was not his mediation Heb. 9.15 a mediation between God man is there any mediation that is not between God and man was not that mediation in Heb. 9.14.15 for the redemption of transgressors and by death and was not that in 1 Tim. 2.5 the like and is there any mediation for transgressors and by death but such as is between God and man no marvell if such answers be easie and ready at hand Againe he urgeth thus as a Priest he offered sacrifice in respect of one end viz. propitiation for all men Heb. 9.26 2.9 Iohn 1.29 1 Iohn 2.2 but in respect of all ends propitiation sealing the New Testament testification of truth and for the uttermost end in all for his called and chosen ones Heb. 9.14.15 As for his distinction of ends dividing some to all others for his chosen is without ground as I have showen in the former part of my treatise and cleare it is because his propitiation is nowhere said to be for every man therefore all the ends of his death are for the same persons Yea that Text Heb 9.14.15 hinteth of no other end but propitiation or redemption of transgressions as ver 15. yet the Author himselfe confesseth that it is for his called and chosen ones and that those Texts Heb. 2.9 1 John 29. 1 Iohn 2.2 doe not hold such a generall popitiation I have showen at large this is but petitio principij And why he should produce a double oblation from 1 Tim. 2.5 and Heb. 9.14.15 I see not seeing he cannot produce any differing circumstance both by Christ both by death both for transgressions both that those that are called might receive the promise now if he shall say the one is for all the other for his chosen this is not against us but giveth us the question and granteth that the all in 1 Tim. 2.5 is no more then the chosen ones in Heb. 9.14.15 Hereby we may have a taste that let the argument be as weak as it can yet his answers are as weake and come farre short of discovering any weakenesse in it CHAP. XIX Of the seventh Objection A seventh argument produced by him is this If God intended life for all men by Christ death he would certainely have used some meanes to bring all men to the knowledge of Christ and so to repentance and faith But to many he giveth no meanes at all to others denied meanes when his servants would have carried the same Therefore This argument was the fifth argument in the conference and in its right formation runneth thus If Christ have procured reconciliation and remission by his death for every man none excepted then the word of reconciliation would and should have been preached to every man none excepted But the word of reconciliation is not c. Ergo Christ did not procure remission for all and every man But to take his argument as it runneth I shall first show the force of the argument it is but consonant to the wisdome of God to have made such a purchase by his Sonne or Christ by himselfe at so deare a rate as his blood and that for the good of men that he should make a discovery of this that so men might come to partake of it and the benefits of it for no man can partake of this remission but by faith Rom. 3.25 and faith is not ordinarily begotten but by the word Rom. 10.14 hence the Apostle putteth both together 2 Cor. 5.15.18.19 with dying and reconciling he committed the Gospel of reconciliation to the Apostles but that many millions die without any knowledge of Jesus Christ Scripture showeth and experience witnesseth Now to perpend his answer hereto he saith This objection denyeth neither the death or ransome of Christ to be for all men but onely any intendment of life and saving grace thereby And doth this cleare him from the force of this argument he is sufficiently confounded hereby because he holdeth that his purchase and ransome and death was with an intendment of life to every man as he saith page 15. He hath wrought for all men that they might be eternally saved doth not this sufficiently discover the folly of the Author in answering the objection with that which confirmeth it and overthroweth himselfe He further saith Nor for any but where the Gospel is not granted And enough too because if Christ died not for all those where the Gospel never commeth he died not for every man without exception Yet he can manfully say the force of the objection is weake and his grounds follow The Scripture hath expressely affirmed Gods intention to be that they all might be saved and repent and beleeve and be further saved Ezeck 33.11 Iohn 3.17 Iohn 1.4.7 Rom. 2.4 1 Tim. 2.4 2 Pet. 3.9 But what doth this helpe him certainely nothing because that to deny Gods intendment of life to all was nothing against him as even now he professed 2. If he meane every sonne of Adam no place cited by him cleareth it it is not suitable to reason that God should intend those men might or should beleeve and be further saved whom he decreed from eternity should be damned this I have at large provd 3. If the Author so confidently can say that it is Gods intention that all men should beleeve he need not be so squeemish at the affirming that it is his intention that all men should be eternally saved which I finde him sometimes and others of his opinion so loth to affirme But he further saith If we cannot in the workes of God see the fulfilling of the sayings of God it becomes us to admire his wisdome and holinesse and bewaile our ignorance c. and not by rash judging deny the truth of