Episcopius is a sound interpretor when it is said a peccato it is no more then this A paenis peccati from the punishment of sinne Disp 45. Thes 3. a reatu peccatorum from the guilt of sinne Thes 5. and that not from the guilt of some or one but all sinnes and all condemnation absolutio a peccatis omni condemnatione from sinnes and all condemnation Thes 3. and this Scripture affirmeth Rom. 8. who shall lay any thing to their charge it is God that justifieth And so Arminius disp priis Thes 48. sect 12. disp 45. thei 6. ibid. Ab omnibus per totam vitam perpetratis from all committed through whole life and when it is said by it wee are delivered from death he meaneth eternall death So Episcopius per paenam peccati intelligimus proptie paenam aeternam quae mors aeterna dicitur in Scr. That is by the punishment of sinne we meane eternall death so that now it appeareth hereby that justification exempts not from the being of sinne nor from temporall death nor from afflictions for such cease to be satisfactory punishments though they relate to sinne as Episcopius desinunt esse paenae etiamfi non sine respectu ad peccatum immittantur but that which it removeth is the guilt and obligation to eternall death or if you will prosecutionem vindicantem the revenge or prosecution of that guilt These being considered I proceed to his answers to our Argument Now because he puts all the untruth upon the Major I shall resume it in the vigour and strength of it Those whom Christ satisfied his Fathers justice for they are justified in Gods account and shall be justified by the manifestation of this in time both in the Gospel and their owne consciences and at last be invested with eternall life else may Christ complaine of injustice To this he answers All the strength of this Argument is in the first proposition with the reason annexed unto it Then it seemes the Minor he giveth for truth viz. that all are not justified but then why hath he contended for this that all yee every sonne of Adam is justified in Christ as page 10. 45. But that we may see what he hath to say against the proposition he judgeth thus at a venture This is so contrary to Scripture that little need be said from the comparison betweene Christ and Adam it appeares that though all men be in the publique person Justified yet by and through him of the benefit of that Justification doe none partake but such as have a being of him If he had showen what Scripture this had beene contrary to that we might have examined those Texts he had done faire but he would have his Readeâ—s acted by an implicite faith 2. As for the comparison betwixt Adam and Christ there was nothing expressed by him therein that contradicteth the proposition not that preposition viz. none partake of the fruits of that justification but such as come to have a being from him because all those that he satisfied his Fathers justice for shall in time to come have a being from him 3. His expresses in the comparison betwixt Adam and Christ are so farre from contradicting that they confirme the proposition For he saith Though all men be in the publique person justified doth he not here tacitely grant that every man by virtue of his death and ransome as publique person to be justified in him and what is this to what the proposition affirmeth viz. that all he satisfied for are justified in or by his blood for to be justified in and by Christ are not different and to be justified by Christ and by his blood are as little different Christ is set forth to be a propitiation through faith Rom. 3.27 And this nothing against us for we say not that all when Christ satisfied for them they were justified in the pronunciation of the Gospel before faith was wought in them but that such in time shall be justified and receive the atonement in their hearts and his expresses herein hindreth not for they shall have that faith in his blood whereby they may receive this atonement againe true the evangelicall pronunciation of satisfaction is by faith but how doth he prove that in the minde of God they are not justified before faith Justification is not by blood shed onely but the application of his blood His expressions are herein something wilde but I guesse at his meaning thus that justification is not till another worke of the Spirit to be done upon the heart but then I say if he meane it as done in the minde of God it is false if as pronounced in the Gospel it is true but besides this is nothing against the proposition because we say still they shall have that further worke upon their hearts one time or other true also many have received this justification that once wanted it and some want it that shall have it but what are these to the purpose of proving that all that Christ satisfied for shall not one time or other have it And as for that expression Many of his elect want it for whom by this objection Christ should not have died Is too absurd to mention the objection is farre from urging that he died not for those elect that want this justification but it affirmeth that all such though they now want it shall have it in time As for that cleansing 1 Iohn 1.7 and forgivenesse verse 9 it speakes of a further cleansing c. to such as are in Christ and already justified by his blood and so not to this purpose More pertinent Texts might be produced to prove the proposition but this Text is not so deficient as as he conceived when he cited it for whereas he speaketh of a further cleansing it is hard to guesse at his meaning further then that he must meane one of these two or both further then justification or a cleansing further then that which is by the bloodshed of Christ but both these are false that it speakes of cleansing from guilt by justification appeares by ver 9. where it expounds it by forgiving our sinnes and that is such as is by bloodshed appeares in that it is by the blood of Christ and what though it speak of them that are actually justified it saith it is by the blood of Christ that is the meritorious cause and this is not impertinent to the businesse in hand but proveth the proposition that those for whom the blood of Christ satisfied his Father they came in time to be cleansed from their sins by that blood This untruth is not onely false and grosse in it selfe but denyes many sayings of Scripture as Iohn 3.17.18 8.24 Had the Author produced Texts wherein his managing might be more perspicuous or discover where his meaning lies in these I should have a clearer way for a reply I have seriously enquired after the intention of the Author in these Texts and my thoughts
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
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
for all and his advocation that is onely for Beleevers I know the Authors understanding is not able to reach the difference betwixt confounding and not dividing the argument contends for the non dividing of his death and advocation but not to confound them the argument and them that forme it hold it distinct But we would have his advocation and death to be to the same persons and so his death and ransome not for all and every sonne of Adam 2. Whereas he saith his advocation is peculiar to beleevers I conclude he hath lost part of his lesson viz. the distinction of Arminius of Advocation into generall and speciall for without this how will he free himselfe from a contradiction in that he saith here that his advocation is peculiar to beleevers yet he contendeth page 110. 111. that he prayed for the world John 9.21 for transgressors Isay 53.12 for crucifiers Luke 23.34 all which he opposeth to elect and beleevers 3. How his advocation is proper to beleevers that is in act I see not because he prayed for some that after should beleeve and therefore then did not ver 22. 4. That his advocation is proper to beleevers that is such as are or shall be I grant but then why his oblation should be of larger extent I see not they are joyned acts in his mediatourship the one shedding Col Hag. in Arg. the other presenting that blood as shed Hence the Remonstrants grant pro omnibus Christum imercedere ut pontifices ejus typi solebant and these acts are never disjoyned but connected as Rom. 8.34 1 John 2.1.2 for him to appeare on earth for them for whom he appeareth not in heaven Scripture owneth not and if he can prove Christ to have interceded for all I for my part shall grant him to have offered blood for all and seeing he granteth intercesion to be peculiar so shall I conclude oblation also they being both of the same latitude and whereas he saith This confoundeth ransome for all and advocation for beleevers is a weake confutation because in in it there is petitio principii a supposing that his ransome is for all and every man which is yet sub judice nay cleare to the contrary Yet upon this weake batâ—ery he can after his usuall custome manfully conclude that The whole argument is fallen without further answer But why doth he attempt workes of supererogation in producing so many leaves in a businesse that is done allready but his meaning is as much as it will with all the rest that follow he then attempt thâ— to answer that Text Rom 8.32 wherein the strength of the proposition lieth and from it we urge if he gave us his Sonne his Sonne will give us his prayers if not the latter not the former to this he thus answers This is not spoken in the third person nor of ransome onely nor as a proposition to bring men in to beleeve This antidote like an Empericke he applieth to every Text not considering how it is applied to the constitution of the same for what though it be not in the third person the consequence is good that to whom he giveth his Sonne to them he giveth all things and that as firme as if the words had runne thus If he hath given his Sonne to every man how shall he not with him give them all things what person soever it be spoken in first second or third yet this is firme that if he give the greater gift he will not be niggardly of a lesse the argument of confidence is not drawne from the persons to whom but the gift that was given 2. Whereas he saith that this phrase He hath delivered him up for us all meaneth not of ransome onely it is false and contrary to any common understanding it is cleare that these words relate to his death in which he is said to be delivered up for us But he urgeth further It serveth not the proposition for it saith not how shall he not freely give us all things but how shall he not with him freely give us all things so speaking of his free giving him to us and with him all things A wise interpretor would stand the Author in much stead to explicate his meaning herein the difference betwixt Shall he not give us all things and this Shall he not with him give us all things is very obscure and had he kept his owne councell we should have remained expectants of some rare discovery but from page 107. we may gather what his abuse of the Text is and what he meaneth by this phrase With him give us all things there I finde this expresse They now by beleeving receit having Christ and in him life and being sonnes thereby which giveth hope of all good he concludeth having freely given us this his owne Sonne whom before he delivered up for us how shall he not with him freely give us all things So that hence I conceive his evasion is this viz. that phrase With him speakes of such a giving his Sonne as consists in giving his Spirit by bringing them in to beleeve and being so a beeing made sonnes and having adoption and thus having him given us with him thus given we shall have all things but this is injurious to the Text many wayes as 1. Then the sense must be thus having the Sonne and all things with him how shall he not with him give us all things this would be absurd Let the Author tell me what thingt are they of which he concludes upon the having of Christ are they not all those things mentioned in the Chapter as redemption of our body ver 23. spirit to helpe infirmities ver 26. the utility of all things for good v. 28. conformity to his Sonne ver 29. vocation justification glorification yea as as a strong Remonstrant affirmeth Omnia quae spectant ad vocationem glorificationem nostram Certainely then if vocation and spirit Cornel. A lapid in locum be those things that he concludeth from Christs being given then those things are not included in that giving of Christ then it would meane thus if we have vocation and spirit how shall he not with those things give us those things but this sense I leave to the Author 2. Is it not as cleare as the light that this phrase with him is no more but with him so delivered up for us there is no mentioning of a giving of Christ as distinct from his being delivered up for us as he suggests 3. This would intimate that to be brought in to beleeve is set out in Scripture by this phrase of having Christ given for us or having given to us but this I no where finde where Christ is said to be given either by his Father or himself it relateth to his death and ransome as Mat. 20.28 Joh. 6.17 Luk 22.19 Ephes 5.2 especially where this phrase delivered up for us is used that is most cleare that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉