sense to enquiry and where is the injustice in this 3. He saith in the beginning that it is unjust to say that these words I am a doore a vine doe not mean as the words import yet now he saith these being paâ—bolicall are to be explained by plainer Texts but what needs that if they be meant as the words import this is not to evince us but to contradict himselfe He prooveth it absurd and grosse thus It is grosse intimating as if the sense of the words seeme to import that Christ was a doore of wood or as if the bread was transubstantiate into the naturall body of Christ whereas there is no words importing such a sense But it is not halfe so grosse as the Authors understanding that knoweth not how to distinguish betwixt the words and sense of the words we say the words mean not as they seem to import And he saith it is grosse intimating that the sense of the words import Christ a materiall doore grosse indeed but this is not the sense of our assertion But this we may say that the words may seeme to import some such thing though it be but a grosse conceit true it is that any that is acquainted with Scripture language may be able to explode such a sense but those that are not so well acquainted with it may as well by the import of the words thinke Christ to be a materiall doore as Nicodemus of a naturall birth his Disciples of a materiall leaven of bread when he spake of the leaven of heresie and hypocrisie and the Jewes of the materiall Temple when he spake of the Temple of his Body yet in in all these how grosse soever they followed the naturall import of the words But he illustrateth himself in this manner If a man say to his servant reach me my cloth in the presse and a Dame to her maide turne the cheese in the presse the child cries to his mother the pot runneth over cannot these be understood in the sense that the words import Certainely Animus fuit in patinis his minde was in his dishes or in the potridge pot but if his understanding had not runne over with the pot he might have seen a wide difference between a Metonymy and a Metaphor the instances that he produceth are no way opposite to the case in hand for if they had they should have run thus If a man should lay to his servant I am a presse oâ— the child to his mother I am a pot let the Author tell may such sayings be understood in the sense they seeme to import I am necessitated to traverse his exotricke examples He proveth it false thus It is false for Christ is the doore and way of entrance into peace with God and he is the true Vine indeed John 15.1 Be it so yet as he intendeth his owne meaning the naturall import of the words doth not afford it we say not that he is not the doore of entrance into God and peace but that by the naturall import of the words themselves such a meaning cannot be deduced besides Christ is no more a doore or a Vine then he is said to be the seeds man the field the World the good seed the Children of the Kingdome the Tares the children of the wicked one the harvest the end of the World the reapers the Angels Mat. 13.37.38 39 but these have not a reall identity but a similitude as verse 24. The Kingdome of Heaven is like to a man that sowed so in the rest so in this it meaneth but thus Christ is like a doore and like a Vine beareth an analogy with them therefore the Text saith he spake to them this parable Iohn 10.6 relating to the same businesse yet if any shall thinke him a materiall doore they shall be deceived though he say I am the doore As for that phrase This is is my body he thus answerâ—th He saith not this bread is my body nor any word to colour such a grosse conceit as transubstantiation Whereas he saith it saith not this bread is my body he must meane as if Christ should say this meaning his owne body he being there present is my body but this is weake and absurd not to insist upon those reasons deduced from the Sacramentall use and relation betwixt his body and that which he spake of but it could not be Sacramentall if he meant his body for it could not be both the signe and thing signified Not to insist on reasons deduced from our shewing Christs death till he come in breaking of bread as 1 Cor. 11. which cannot be if the bread broken and given was not the signe of the body of Christ Nor yet to insist upon frequent use of Scriptures wherein such expressions are used to call a thing by that which they only represent as Gen. 41.26 The seven leane Kine are seven yeares c. But this argument I chiefely propound when he took the cup and said this is my blood what did he shew them some drops of his blood certainely he meant not his blood but the wine that he took let him decide himselfe Luke 22.20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this cup is my blood then it is absurd to say or thinke that the other should not be this bread is my body and was not the Author ambitious of confuting a Papist after the new fashion he could not but see that that word This relateth to bread which he tooke now the words being thus following the import of the word Is may wee not runne into the error of transubstantiation let but the Author grant the Papist that the bread is the body of Christ as they take the word according to its naturall import that is really identically corporeally and they will not be beholden to him to grant it transubstantiate for if it be what it was not it must be transubstantiate into what it is so that now what injury injustice absurdity falsity there is in our first reason let any judge and clear it is that the Scripture doth not alwayes mean as the words import no not in those Texts mentioned therefore those Texts 1 Tim. 2.6 Heb. 2 9. may not be understood as the words seeme to import Reason 2. The second reason by which we prove that all Scripture is not understood as the words seeme to import is this because the phrases All men every man c. seems to import no lesse then every sonne of Adam else the Author would not so confidently fasten that large sense upon them but in many Texts such phrases meane but some of Adams sonnes therefore not to be understood as the words seeme to import to this he answers This reason is already answered and proved vaine and fraudulent in Cap. 5. In this reason there are two things the Antecedent and Consequent the Antecedent is of two branches First that All men every man seeme to import no lesse then every sonne of Adam Secondly that in many places it is
a boone But now for God to be actually placated reconciled this is to enjoy the application of Christs Bloud else is Corvinus short in his reasoning Per ejus mortem est placabilu placandâ— si credereat which intimateth that when he is placatus appeased and reconciled then is the Dâ—th of Christ applyed Now let us consider the words of the Text the words are He is the propitiation and the Author must grant a difference betweene these things First It is one thing for God to set forth his Son to be a Propitiation 2. A second for Christ to do that by vertue of which he is to be a propitiation 3. A third for Christ by vertue of that done to be a propitiation the two former do not require Faith â—o their actuall accomplishment but the third doth Hence is he said to be propitiation through faith Rom. 3.25 Which clearely demonstrateth that for Christ to be a Propitiation is the application of his Bloud Christ by his Death made God only Placabilem placable and this puts no man into actuall possession of remission as our Author saith Cap. 6. and in his Judgement not into any certainty of its but this reacheth not so high as for Christ to be a propitiation but stayeth here He is to be one or May be one if men beleeve for till men have remission actually or else in a certainty of having it he is not truly said to be a Propitiation In Molin c. 28.445 No better testimony would I desire in this case than Corvinus himselfe who on Rom. 3.25 thus saith Deum Christum proposuisse propitiatorium sed tale ut id nobis futurus sit si modo in cum credamus docet quomodo Christus futurus sit nobis propitiatorium viz per fidem Which clearely bespeaketh that when Christ is a Propitiation Ibid. that is meant of the application of his Death by Faith and this he not only averreth but strongly proveth thus Ista pertinent clarissimè ad applicationem non impetrationem quomodo enim potest esse ut nobis impetret remissionem per fidem nisi sides nostra una cum sanguine ejus sit coprotium remissionis quod est absurdum The sense thus He cannot be said to procure remission by faith unlesse our faith was a coprice with his Bloud in meriting remission which is absurd therefore this Phrase belongeth to the application not impetration and this very pregnant and full though I conceive against himselfe for to compare that place to the Text in hands doth not Rom. 3.25 He is set forth to be a propitiation through faith clearely affirm that when he is said to be a Propitiation it is to be meant through Faith and so of Remission not only procured but applyed And doth not the place 1 Joh. 2.1 2 say He is the Propitiation it saith not God hath set him forth to be a Propitiation nor yet He is to be a Propitiation but thus He is a Propitiation which is given us clearely by the Remonstrants owne Confession to signifie the Application and the Mortis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to meane the actuall enjoyment of pardon of sin which may further appeare if we consider the persons of whom he speakes viz. such as did beleeve and had overcome the world by Faith as in 1 Joh. 4.10 But that he loved us and gave his Son apropitiation for our sins Let us consider is this all the love that God beareth to Beleevers to give Christ that he might be in a possibility of being a Propitiation that he might only procure Reconciliation notwithstanding which they may misse of it nay is it not incongruous to say he hath procured reconciliation for them that beleeve if they beleeve This cannot be the meaning of the word Propitiation when spoken of Beleevers because they do beleeve and so have it applyed And let the Author shew where he is called a Propitiation or said to be one but where mention is made of Beleevers and these things being considered I wonder why our Author or any Remonst whatever can upon their owne principles produce this Text to prove that which they would have done to all and every man when it is granted by them that Reconciliation is not applyed to all Now to conclude this Text He is said a Propitiation in that by vertue of his Mediation Reconciliation is applyed as he is said to be our Peace Col. 1.10 and our Redemption and Sanctification and both metonimically And that he may be said to be a Propitiation for them that do not yet beleeve I will not contend against it but men it is with respect had to the certaine futurition of it which is all one in this point with the other And that this Phrase He is a Propitiation necessarily presupposeth his meriting and procuring remission as the ground of application I grant But that it doth not principally point at actuall Remission whereby he is said to be a Propitiation the Author should do well to prove These I transmit to the disquisition of the Author expecting satisfaction in the Premises for this will helpe us in two points 1. That this place doth not favour any such Salvation wrought by Christ with God distinguished and divisible from the application and such as may be attributed to and as done for every Son of Adam 2. It will help to allay the Controversy about the Phrase whole world and determine who are comprehended under it Whether every man in the world to whom Remission is not applyed or all beleevers throughout the world to whom it is applyed and so he is a Propitiation 2. Cor. 5.19 God was in Christ reconciling the world c. The sense of which place if it second our Authors allegation must be thus Christ was with God working out Reconciliation with God for men whereby God is reconciled to man and this not to prove any worke of God in man reconciling man to God And such a thing if he can extract out of this Text he will shew himselfe a Divine Chymist but in this businesse he bewrayeth want of consideration or common understanding 1. That which he propoundeth is an Act of Christ with God an Act of the Mediator distinct from the offended Party as appeares by his expressions Effecting it with God So that if it had spoken his words it would have run thus Christ was with God reconciling the world but see a diametricall difference it saith God was in Christ reconciling c. 2. That which he is to prove is whereby God is reconciled to man and that opposed to mans being reconciled to God and so should have run thus Christ was reconciling God to man but see a diametricall difference it saith Reconciling the world to himselfe and so prevailes with men to God it saith not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which belongeth to the second Redemption as he confesseth P. 11. 3. That which he is to
prove is such a Redemption Reconciliation as is separated from the application of it or at least which may be so that because it is done for all Now if it had been cleare for his purpose it should have run thus Christ was with God reconciling God to the world not not imputing their sins and this it should have been for his Redemption is such as putteth no man into possession of Remission of sins as Pag. 33. But see a diametricall difference Reconciling the world to himselfe and not imputing sins to them and any may see that that text wherein the Application of Remission is plainely set downe as an attendant is weakely produced to prove such a Redemption from which Remission may be separated and that because Remission of sins belongs to the Applicatory part the Remonst being Judges Corv. in Mol. Ca. 28 Sect 26 Pag 447. Si per reconciliationem actualem intelligas remissionem tum non est distinguenda ab applicatione quia est ipsa opplicatio 4. Let us see how he warreth with himselfe He saith that the Phrase God was reconciling us to himselfe Ver. 18. Meant of the application of his Death thus Pag. 66. And yet the same Phrase he admitteth not to the same sense in Ver. 19. For â—etwixt these two viz. Reconciling us by Christ committing to us the word of Reconciliation and this In Christ reconciling the world to himselfe putting into us â—e word of Reconciliation I should gladly see any momentous difference he seemeth to stumble at a twofold difference 1. That Ver. 18. saith By him but Ver. 19. saith In him so he seemeth to urge Pag 66. But this is of no force because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are often promiscuously used each for other and In him and By him are all one in Scripture as often appeareth in my following Discourse 2. That Ver. 18 saith us Ver. 19. saith the world but this availeth not because when he saith the world he meaneth only men living in the world or the world quoad partem credentem in the beleeving part thereof and then the world and us are little different 5. That which he here proveth is the worke of Christ for men not of the Spirit in men to God and so not of the Reconciliation of mens hearts to God But I admire with what face or plea he could father such an one upon this place Let us consider a while of the time of which it is said God was reconciling Some I acknowledge and of worth hold that this is meant from Eternity so he was reconciling that is preparing a way to reconcile the world to himselfe and were the words alone I should subscribe to this but as the words run I cannot see the necessity or congruity of this Exposition because the words run 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Intimating that then when he was reconciling the world to himselfe he was also putting into the Apostles the word of Reconciliation which I conceive not to be done from Eternity but in time And happily our Author may say He was that is when Christ offered himselfe on the Crosse But neither this congruous for he put the word into the Apostles before the time of his offering himselfe I rather for the present conceive that the Text meaneth of the reconciling of the hearts of men to God by the Gospells Ministry When he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is when he was giving it to them by Commission and putting it into them by inspiration then was he reconciling the world to himselfe in that Ministration And it appeareth to be such a Reconciliation as is effected by the word of Reconciliation but such is that whereby we are reconciled in our hearts to God And so it said to be of the world that is men living in the world and to be in Christ as God is said to blesse us with all Spirituall blessings even effectuall Calling and Conversion in Christ Ephes 1.3 And it is said to be the word of Reconciliation because it is the instrument of Reconciliation and the Argument which he useth here to the Corinthians is fetched thus God having this worke for the Gospell viz. to reconcile us to himselfe and this he hath done by it when he first put it into us and ever since so it is expected that by this Ministration ye also should be reconciled This sense of the Text I transmit to the Judgement of the Learned and till I see further I must conclude that this Text speakes of the Application of Reconciliation and that of Gods Act by vertue of Christs merit in the Gospels Ministry and not of the Act of Christ with God for men there is no one word that favoureth such a conceit and if this be true then it not only sheweth that where the Scripture speaketh of the Application of Reconciliation yet useth such a generall expression as the world which yet in every Judgement is not common to every Son of Adam therefore we may conclude that the word world doth not imply in it every Son of Adam which may stand in some stead in this Point but also it faileth the Author and serveth him not for his purpose to set forth such a procuring of Reconciliation as may be separated from the Application Rom. 3.24 Justified through the Redemption in Christ Jesus Which place our Author produceth as holding forth the Act of Christ as Mediatoâ—r in procuring Remission of sins and such an one as may be where the Application is not and so separated from actuall Remission and Justification but he certainly concludeth his Reader too credulous that will assent to this without any proofe when there is so many leading circumstances to the contrary his conceit hath no strength neither from the word Redemption nor from the Phrase In Christ nor from both joyntly Not from the word Redemption 1. If we consider the Authors owne placita upon Rev. 5.9 Thou hast redeemed us by thy bloud In which he saith though upon small ground that the word Redemption or Redeemed is meant of the Application of his Bloud being brought in to beleeve and in this sense brought to backe his second Redemption mentioned Pag. 5. Therefore if the word Redemption in his Judgment signifieth the Application of his Bloud we cannot beleeve that it signifies his first Redemption that may be separated from the Application unlesse he prove it so 2. If we view the placita of Arminius himselfe the Master-builder in this Artifice Arm. in Perk. Pag. 78.79 Redemptio enim notat non passionem non actionem ullam Christi sed passionis actionis apotelesma eventum fructumque c. Ex applicatione dicuntur redempti c. Per illas actiones redemptio impetrata est per fidem applicata itaque demum sunt redempti That is Redemption noteth not the Actions or Passions of Christ but the event and fruit of both Men are said to be redeemed by
and in the Application by those Actions he impetrated Redemption but it is applyed by faith and then are they said to be redeemed a faire and full Testimony in this Point 3. If we consider the Text and the businesse the Apostle is about to prove which is that we are justified by Faith and not by Workes This he presseth in the former part of this Epistle and in this Chapter much as ver 20 22 25 26 28 30. In all which we are said to be justified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are equipollent by or through faith Now to me it appeares and I suppose will to any that looks upon the Text with a serious eye that this Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 24. Justified through the Redemption speaketh the same thing with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justified by faith ver 22. And so the meaning to be this We are justified through faith in Christ as in the next verse followeth Faith in his Bloud and this called Redemption because then we are redeemed being brought into beleeve in part freed from sin and in a certainty of Heaven as Tit. 2.4 Redeemed from vain conversation 4. If we consider the nature and frequent use of the Word Redemption or Redeemed I have not observed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or any word from that root to signifie any thing but the application of good as Rom. 8.23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Redemption of our bodies that is perfect and freedome from all vanity Ephes 1.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 till the Redemption of the purchased possession That is the actuall and perfect enjoyment of heavens glory and here plainly distinguisht from the purchase by Christ Ephes 4.30 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the day of Redemption not the day of Christs procuring or meriting for that was past but this to come and it meaneth the day of restauration of all things when Beleevers shall possesse actually perfect glory Tit. 2.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Redeeme us from our Iniquities Is it not expounded by purging us from our sins in the next words Heb. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Obtained Eternall Redemption The first word holds forth the Impetration or procuring therefore the word Redemption must meane the Application unlesse we will say Impetravit impetrationem which it absurd But what need I spend time herein I referre it to the Author to produce any place where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or any word from that root is used as signifying the Act of Christ in purchasing or procuring that thing that is never applyed I confesse the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I find used to signifie the price of Redemption as Exod. 21.30 The Septuagint reade it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shall give the price of ransome for his soule So 1 Tim. 2 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pretium Redemptionis But then in both it is so called from the necessary and certaine futurition of the Redemption and Application and therefore looked at as done therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with his compounds never signifying Nummos solvere but Vinculo solvere not to solve a price but to loose the bonds therefore if the Author will but be constant to himself subscribe to his Master consult with the scope of the Text or consider the genius of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Redemption he cannot make his Allegation good from this word Redemption Secondly Happily he may give this sense of the word Redemption because it is said to be In Christ but this will prove as empty as the former For if this be not so to be meant as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in the next ver 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Faith in Christ or in his bloud So that as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is one with Faith by which we are redeemed so In Christ is as much as to say the object of our Faith For which I do not earnestly contend yet it will appeare that In Christ is no more then By Christ and so shewing the meanes by whom we come to beleeve as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very often as Col. 1 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we say not In him but By him all things were created and that by the authority of the Text for it addes by way of selfe Exposition in the same verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by whom all things neither can I thinke the Author trusteth to this because he is not constant to his expressions herein for though he here say that this first Redemption is in Christ yet sometimes both together In and By seeming to expound the one by the other as P. 22. Sometimes By not In as if he would supply the one with the other as Pag. 54. But this is not all one who though a strong Remonst puts it out of doubt in his Judgement In Christo id est A Lapide in ocu◠Per Christum Haebreum enim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est in significat per vel propter Now if In Christ be no more than By Christ then this denotes the Application as well as the Impetration for so by him we are glorified nay blest with all Spirituall blessings in him Ephes 1.3 Nay in this sence Redemption signifies clearely the Application for the Application is by him that is by his Impetration so that he hath nothing from Redemption or in Christ to help him But let him have it as he desires that this speakes of the Act of Christ in procuring Remission and Reconciliation and Justification we shall make it appeare it helps him not and standeth us in much use That which is to be proved in these Scriptures is the Act of Christ done for All and such an one as may be separated from the Application such an one as puts not any man into the possession of Justification so Pag. Cap. 6. No nor yet importeth any future Application it being done for All so many are not justified or partake of it but such a one this place proveth not for this speaketh of such a Redemption as through which we are justified Actually as we are justified by Faith as Ver. 21. Which words through which noteth a reciprocation every one that hath that Redemption are justified by or through it and whoever are justified are justified through it which Reciprocation is cleare in Ver. 22.25 Now if this Redemption be meant of Christs Act in procuring for all and yet such a one as through which men are justified then all that have that Redemption must be justified so all and every man must be justified in our Authors reasoning but this he disclaimes Pag. 95. In answer to the third Objection And it is cleare to any eye that that place that speakes of a Redemption through which we are justified is vainely produced to prove such a Redemption notwithstanding which most men
by bloudshed I am enduced to conclude from these grounds 1. From the word in the Text which though we read it Thou hast redeemed which word may be distorted to that sense yet the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou hast bought us which word plainly relateth to the price paying which was his Bloud as shed which word I conceive cannot be produced in the whole Scripture in any other sense and is not this word pressed by our Adversaries in that sense in 2 Pet. 2.1 denying the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that bought them but surely those were not redeemed by Bloudsprinkling and why they should put any other sense upon the word then in that place they themselves plead for I cannot see 2. From circumstantiating expressions in the Text as that he is said to redeeme by Bloud Now the Application of the Bloud of Christ to the hearts of men is done by Spirit But between Spirit and Bloud there is a wide difference the one is the efficient the other the meritorious cause of the Application But he saith True it is by Bloud but it is Bloudsprinkling but this glosse is not in the Text and should we say so he would presently aske us what belongs to them that adde to the Scripture but he doth not only say that which the Word saith not but that which it explodes As for his expression by Bloudsprinkling it is a quite distinct thing from Bloud because the sprinkling of Bloud is the Act of the Spirit and the Text saith Thou wast slaine and hast redeemed by Bloud which referreth that Redemption by Bloud to his Death and Bloudshed 3. Because the Act of Application by Bloudsprinkling is so the Act of the Son as that it is also the Act of the Father and the holy Spirit but that which is here said The Lambe thou art worthy c. because thou was killed and hast redeemed us by thy Bloud c. Cannot be said of any but Christ and that as by his Bloudshed procured life for us The Authors reply may draw more from me but herein he savours strong of an Arminian thus they envade the Text as if it spake o◠such to whom the Bloud of Christ was Applyed Acta Synod 360. and in whom it had its full efficacy Quis non videt hic agi de illis quibus non tantum impetravit sed per sidem applicavit c But this solves it not the Application is inserted in the next verse but the Impetration only in the 9. verse which impetration did tend to a further Act. Againe as he did set downe divers particulars that conduced to the effecting of the first so he doth now some that conduce to this second and thus goeth on For effecting of which Redemption Jesus Christ was exalted at his Fathers right hand Acts 2.33 Act 5.31 But herein I am unsatisfied why his exalting to his Fathers right hand is made an Act of Application more then his Resurrection from Death I thinke he hath no ground to disjoyne them they are conjoyned by the Apostle Rom. 8.34 Certainly all the Acts of his Exaltation tend the same way 2. I conceive as I have formerly hinted that all the Acts of Christ mentioned Rom. 8.34 Tend to perfect his Impetration and procurement of Salvation For if he had not Risen Ascended Interceded the Purchase had not been made or Salvation impetrated for men though nothing else was to be paid as Price but Bloud yet something else was to be done there was to be Ascensio Sacerdotis ostensio sanguinis The Priest was to ascend into the veile and shew the Bloud else no Atonement procured by the Priest Therefore this is not well divided from the other in the first Redemption or procuring of Salvation And why may not he as well say that he dyed to effect that Redemption as he was exalted to his Fathers right hand For both came under the same Notion of effecting that Reconciliation And the cited place Act. 2.33 speaketh no more then this that he was not only to dye but to be raised againe and exalted else could he not as God give them Repentance and Remission of Sins All this proveth not that his Session at his Fathers right hand is an Act of Application or tended more to it than his Death and Passion As for his subdivided particulars in Pag 6. I grant them as being nothing to the Controversie untill he come in the 7. Pag. wherein he delivereth something that deserveth examination which is this In some sort interceding and putting in for Transgressors even the Sons of men yet in and of the world Isa 53.12 Joh. 17.21.23 That so the men of the world might be convinced and allured c. But in a speciall manner doth he intercede being Advocate for his chosen ones c. and presenteth them to his Father holy and spotlesse Eph. 5.22 Wherein are sublime discoveries worth our notice 1. Whereas he saith Puting in for Transgressors c. but in a speciall manner interceding for his chosen ones seemes to intimate that Transgressors and chosen ones are not coincident which is not only contrary to the truth but himselfe in Pag. 120. And what speciall favour interceded for or manner of interceding that he doth not use for Transgressors This is a nicity beyond my reason and I feare his owne too 2. Why should Intercession be so ranged as to make a part of his Application He seemeth to be touched with Arminius his Magneticke who saith Sacrificatio pertinet ad meritum intercessio ad applicationem meritum acquisivit sacrificio pro applicatione intercedit In Perk 70. But it is against reason for if he Intercede it must be with God and for men And doth not Reason and his owne Principles tell us that this must appertaine to his Impetration Nay doth not he say Pag. 8. By this he procureth the grant of Dispensation And why should that which the Author pleades Is for all be produced as an ingredient into that Redemption which is proper only to Beleevers 3. I demand one place or places of Scripture that hold forth the distinction of generall and speciall Intercession especially now he is at his Fathers right hand for so he urgeth both kinds nay at any time this is a streame from the Arminian fountaine but not from the Sacred Fountaine of Gods word those Texts alleadged come short as not proving that he Interceded for all and every Transgressor or Crucifier 4. Why doth he Connexe Allure and Convince As if alwaies and whom God intendeth to convince he intendeth to allure The World Joh. 17.21.23 he would have convinced that Christ was the true Messiah but that he would have them allured to come to him is a presuming on the Text to affirme The Devills beleeve that and are convinced Mark 3.11 But he never intended to allure them Many souls are not convinced that Jehovah is God till and by their destruction Ps 83. last But then
more then was in the Roman Empire or went then to be taxed this is absurd to affirme and a wilfull injury to fasten it on us but thus we say that as the word world in Luk. 2.1 being spoken by the Evangelist inspired by God doth not take in all and every Individuall in the world So neither the word World in 1 Ioh. 2.2 though spoken of God and Christ and where is the ignorance and rashnesse in all this As for that Text Luk. 2.1 There went a Decree that all the world should be Taxed If it had run thus that all should be taxed it had suted with his expressions and we might easily apprehend it to extend to no further then all of the Roman Empire But this more Emphaticall that all the world should be taxed Let the Author tell me why when the Spirit of God is to speake of some only in the Roman Empire he should use such a generall word as All the world it this Phrase might not be taken in a limited sence even when it is spoken of and by God So the All that came to Christ Luk. 15.1 we make not of large and like and equall extent with the All he dyed for 2 Cor. 5.14 As if he dyed for no more then at that time came to Jesus But thus we say that if when the Evangelist saith All came to him it taketh not in every Individuall Sinner in the world So when the Apostle saith Christ dyed for all it is not necessarily taken in that large sence which the Author pretends and all this sheweth no weakenesse in our cause the weakenesse may be easily seene elsewhere In the close of this Chapter he descendeth to shew how many waies those Phrases All men Every man World Whole world are taken But no whit pertinent to his businesse in this Chapter yet I shall recite them happily some may be advantagious to us 1. For every one of mankind without exception as all are gone out of the way all have sinned all must appeare before God This we grant but he cannot prove that the Scripture affirmeth Christ to have dyed for All or that those places wherein Christ is said to dye for All to be taken in this sence 2. For one another rich and poore Beleevers and unbeleevers If he meane all and every one of those kinds then it is the same with the first and so a vaine repetition and if but some of those kinds then it is nothing against us for that is still a limited sense and we grant that he dyed for all and those places that say Christ dyed for all we willingly grant them in this sense whether spoken by men or by God 3. So as not meant of Gods people good men Beleevers True and more opposite proofes might be produced then he bringeth but this is not against us or for him because he himselfe will not say that Christ dyed for this All and so to exclude his People and Beleevers or any place so to be taken whether spoken by man or God 4. For all upright Beleevers spirituall men Which he doth not plainly set downe as a fourth acceptation of the Phrase All men which had been honest and ingenuous dealing but he tacitely implyeth it as if he would not have that taken notice of as any may see Pag. 31. and he had good reason so to expresse himselfe for it doth not a little helpe us for it that place 1 Cor. 4.5 where All men is used doth not take in every individuall man in the world even then when it is spoken of God it may also be that those places 1 Tim. 2.6 Heb. 2.9 though spoken of Christ are not taken in that large sence that he pretendeth And then to what issue all his words in this Chapter come let the wise judge Something I find in Pag 31 32. purposely set downe to prevent mistakes and cavills he saith thus The Death of Christ as a Ransome is to be understood of the Death of Christ as risen and ascended Which words have neither pertinency nor perspicuity they are of no use at all in this Chapter or the businesse treated of in it neither can they well be understood therefore they no way conduce to prevent mistakes rather to raise them his words are so laid downe as that no man can tell whether he make his Resurrection and Ascension conduce to his Impetration or Purchase to his Application to say That it was the Death of Christ as he is risen again and ascended May admit of either there is a difference betwixt things associated and coupled in the same Action The manhood of Christ with his Divinity suffered but not the manhood and the Divinity Faith with Workes justified but not Faith and Workes So his Death with his Resurrection was the means of Purchase or Ransome but hence it doth not follow that his Resurrection and Ascension are themselves meanes of procurement or belong to the Impetration And this ambiguous way of expression he borroweth from the Arminians as Corvinus Cum amissae salutis Impetratio immediatus fructus est Christi mortis talis mors omnino intelligitur quae resurrectionem habeat conjunctam And that to serve at need their contradictions in this point In Molin cap. 28.438 sometimes affirming sometimes denying that his Resurrection and Ascension belong to his Impetration But this I say as formerly that Resurrection and Ascension is so conjoyned with his Death that it hath equall share in the Impetration and hath no share in the Application as in every bargaine the bare depositing so much money as is agreed for any where is no true payment but the bringing of it to his house to whom it is paid or at a place appointed so in this though nothing more was to be paid as price yet something else was to be done viz. presenting that Bloud as shed without which no perfect Impetration as in the Law there there was as we I ostensio as mactatio the shewing as the shedding of Bloud But to returne to the Author either his Resurrection and Ascension belong to the Impetration or not if not whether tend these words His Death Resurrection are herein comprehended Pag. 32. Meaning his first Redemption and such as is done for all which in his Language is the Purchase or procurement and if it do whether tend these words as For effecting the other viz. the second Redemption which is the Application he left the world and went to his Father In one part he affirmeth them to belong to the Impetratory part in another to belong to the Applicatory part and is this to prevent doubts and cavills Whoever followes the Author shall run into uncertainties and contradictions and as carefull as he is to prevent mistakes and confident that any that will may understand yet I dare avouch that not any of his admiring Readers can give a good account of him neither do they know whereof he affirmeth I wish he himselfe knew
sense of this place or give any light to it The second giving cannot be meant because all for whom he undertook and ransomed in the Authors judgement doe not come to him that is beleeve on him so contrary to the text all that my Father giveth me shall come to me Neither can the third be the sense here meant upon the same ground many who are Christs at his dispose so as to be their Lord they yet come not to him that is beleeve on him and those that by his judiciary power come to be judged or come to sue for mercy many of them are cast out as is seeme in the wedding and the five foolish virgins therefore little need be said of these because they doe not expound the Text by any one of these all the contestation betwixt the Remonstrants and their adversaries and me and my Antagonist is betwixt the first and the fourth he affirmeth the fourth to be the genuine sense of this place but against not onely reason but common sense for by comming to Christ is certainely meant beleeving in him comming by faith as is cleare by many Scriptures Mat. 11.28 come unto me yee that are heavy laden that is beleeve in me Iohn 6.64.65 compare them together yee beleeve not no man can come unto me except my Father draw him and ver 35. both are put together He that beleeveth shall not hunger he that cometh shall not thirst so according to him the sense must be this they that have come shall come or they that have beleeved shall beleeve but this is very improbable the glosse of the Remonstrants solveth it not Act. Syn. in locum veniet for venite debet that is shall come by it is meant ought to come for it is still under the same absurdity to say they that have come ought to come as to say they shall come The next thing is to consider whether the first interpretation be the right or no it seemeth to be the right because the giving is antecedaneous to comming or beleeving therefore most probable to be the giving by election now of this sense he saith So they may be though not in Scripture truly said to be given him But whence doth he deduce this liberty to say that it is truly said of Christ which is not said in Scripture it seemes the Scripture is not the adequate subject of truth But these are not the onely number that are given to him for as they are given to him to be heires with him so were all the rest given to him to serve him and his people Which is very impertinent to the case in hand for we question not whether none be any way given to Christ but such as are given by election but whether in this Text the giving by election is meant or no let all be given to Christ to be his servants yet here those that come to him are given to him to be heires with him and this giving is before coming therefore by election Againe Where election is set forth under this tearme of giving to Christ is hard to finde in Scripture But herein he did not compare his noâ—es well and consider what he saith in the next page 149. there he saith In all these three senses giving comprehends Adam and all that come of him all men being given to Christ in all these three senses as Scripture testifieth Now we must consider that the first of these three is giving to Christ to be heires and that by election as he saith page 148. and this in one page he saith the Scripture testifieth that this election to sonship is understood by giving to Christ but in page 148. he saith it is hard to finde where it is so taken this is an egregious contradiction besides the extream falsity because we never finde it testified that all are given by election to Christ to be heires with him And then he groundlesly concludes In this place it neither is nor can be so taken But we have no reason nor Scripture to prove but his bare word only to affirme it but it is not of weight to carry it 2. If it be not a giving by election and yet antecedaneous to beleeving I hope he will in his next make it appeare what it is and thus notwithstanding his groundlesse evasion the doubt is still unsatisfied from that Text John 6.37 The third Text produced is Acts 13.48 As many as were ordained to eternall life beleeved the doubt hence is this that seeing the reason why men beleeved was because they were ordained to eternall life and so the number of beleevers and the ordained to life are equall and run in an equipage it is not probable that Christ would shed his blood for those to procure life upon faith whom he knew were not ordained to eternal life This he would remove thus The words ordained to eternall life it is to be feared are mistaken as if they signified only the prime election to sonship whereas it is not found where that only sense is set forth in the words ordained to life The clearest truth may be eclipsed by the interposition of humane glosses and suspicions but to any unprejudiced man these three things may appeare 1. That it was God that did ordaine them for so of his act it speakes ver 47. and of setting Paul to be for salvation he did also ordaine them to life that were to beleeve indeed the Remonstrants are pleased to say Act. Synod in locum non dicuntur ordinati a deo that is they are not said to be ordained of God but what then is it a hard thing to prove it so to be meant why are we not to thinke it to be Gods act in ordaining to life as well as in appointment to life and salvation as 1 Thes 5.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. He hath appointed us viz. God to obtaine salvation but if it be not Gods act let us be informed who it is that ordaineth men to life 2. We may see it is an appointment to eternall life and that in plain terms so that it must be an ordaining to sonship and inheritance 3. It is an act that was precedaneous to saith as is cleare as many as were ordained to life then beleeved therefore it could not be that temporary election of which the Author speakes therefore it must meant of the prime election now seeing that it meaneth the prime election to inheritance and he cannot produce any place of Scripâ—ure where this phrase signifieth any thing else we may conclude that this phrase here signifieth onely such prime ordaining to inheritance and therefore the place is not abused But I hope if he remove that sense he will furnish us with some better and not leave words without a sense let us therefore see how it is taken in his judgement He urgeth thus The word ordaining being found in Scripture to have a further sense even of ordaining the elected constitution preparation
furniture consecration for the businesse to which they are elected 1 Pet. 1.20 Act. 10.42 Heb. 10.5 Eph. 2.10 Wherein there is a learned discovery but little to the purpose For 1. What matters it how the word be taken in it selfe the question is how it is taken in this phrase Ordained to life 2. He intimateth that to be ordained constituted consecrated to eternall life is a further sense then to be elected to eternall life let any intelligent man extract the difference 3. He cannot produce any Scripture wherein the word in this Text signifieth preparation or furniture to that thing which they were before elected to if he can I demand it 4. He produceth foure severall Texts as he doth thousands to no purpose to prove the words in Acts 13.48 to have such a signification when the word in that Text is not found in any of these foure places no nor the word ordained in our translation in all of them 1 Pet. 1.20 saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Acts 10.42 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 10.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. 2.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is in every place a severall word and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 13.48 nor any word of that root to be found in any of those Texts and yet these Texts are produced to show the meaning of that word testifying his insufferable impudence to darken a cleare Text upon such grounds whereof he is altogether ignorant 5. Admit all he saith yet doth the word ordaine or the words in the originall text in 1 Pet. 1.20 Acts 10.42 Eph. 2.10 comprehend any more then Gods instituting appointing consecrating Christ to his office and us to holinesse and not differing from his election to such things what ordination of Christ to be the Lambe shine before the foundation of the world but only in Gods purpose and was not this his prime election to that office what vaine flourishes he brâ—ngs to make us expect the explanation of that phrase ordained to life when he doth not produce any place whereby it may be explaned He further addeth So the word is used when spoke of the Church Acts 14.23 or of Gods ordaining Rom. 13.1 1 Cor. 12.28 1 Tim. 2.7 Joh. 15.15 Here is more forgery and falsehood still no one place here mentioned except Rom. 13.7 hath the same word as in Acts 13.48 let any consult with the Text and yet he dare averre that the word in Acts 13.48 is used as he speakes in those Texts how the man would boast of plenty of places to backe his forgery upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he labours with a great penury the word in Rom. 13.1 is the same and signifieth appointment not furniture it is spoken of offices not officers which are appointed not furnished He further addeth And this word to be thus taken for an actuall ordaining here is evident by the like use of it in other places speaking of the like blessing 1 Col. 12.13 1 Pet. 2.9 1 Ioh. 5.11.12 Ioh. 6.36 And because an actuall ordaining therefore not for ordaining by election as if Gods ordaining by prime election was not actuall ordaining a senselesse evasion 2. His Texts that he produceth are abused for 1 Col 12.13 he vainely saith that they are of like use is ordaining of men to life and making them meet to partake of light one and the same act let reason determine and for 1 Pet. 2.9 it is cleare that they were called a chosen generation in relation to prime election as appeares by the opposition to them that were disobedient to which they were appointed as also from the entire sentence in the like case 1 Thes 5.10 He hath appointed us to obtaine salvation yet he abuseth not satisfieth the Text but what meaneth he by actuall ordaining by comparing his words I gather this meaning page 151.152 whereby he giveth this interpretation of the Text Those that were ordained to life that is had unfeined and effectuall faith wrought in them and so did cleave to Christ and give themselves up to him c. they beleeved Something allyed to the glosse of the Remonstrants but he I beleeve considered not what a monstrous interpretation this will invite for then this must be the meaning they that had faith in them beleeved excellent interpreter inferring that men may have faith cleave to Christ give themselves up to him before they beleeve for cleare it is that they were so ordained to life before they beleeved but he hath an argument to prove that by ordained to life cannot be meant the prime election as he calleth and it followeth in page 152. It meaneth not so many as were elected in Gods councell to life for then what becometh of all beleevers since nor yet as many in that place or of that society many such might be that were afterwards called Wherein he hath plowed with the Arminian heifeâ— else this objection would not have been so ready at hand Act. Synod in locum Si de electione absoluta haec verba accipienda essent tum necessario sequeretur reliquos omnes c. a deo reprobatos esse but to this we may answer diverse wayes For 1. Let it be as he would have it that by ordaining to life is to have faith wrought in them will he say that all that had faith wrought in them and so cleaved to Christ did then beleeve Scripture showeth the contrary for then it must follow that all that did not at that time come in to beleeve did not cleave to Christ or give themselves to him or in the Remonstrants phrase were not fit to receive the Gospel but this is false 2. Our Author suggests an answer As many in that place or in that society as were ordained to life beleeved and all that he produceth against this is this only Many there might be that were afterwards called but this is poore probation 3. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not alwayes rendred As many but those or which the argument is not deduced from the quantity but the quality of them that beleeved in Acts 9.39 it saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet we read it not they show'd him as many coats as Dorcas made but those coats which Dorcas made that is those coats that they showed him were of Dorcas her making so here those which were ordained to life beleeved that is those that were beleevers were such as were ordained to eternall life so that let the Author of these be who it will yet they are free from his responsary cavills CHAP. XXII Of the benefit of this Doctrine IN which Chapter he attempts to lay lay downe the utility of this doctrine and that not without ground that so it might appeare that it is not without cause that he compasseth sea and land to make Proselytes runnes and tides from Dan to Beershâ—ba as if the care of all Churches were laid upon his shoulders leaveth his honest calling in which providence