do give Christ as their Redeemer would be a mistake 4. And when their Eyes were opened in Hell they would repent that they loved Christ at all and were thankful to him at all seeing they would then discern it was upon a mistake and for a benefit that was never given them or for them Whereas contrarily they will be convinced then of their Sin and folly in loving Christ no more and being no more thankful Yet further that these Men are bound to love and gratitude to Christ as their Redeemer I will add some more Scripture proof 1. If the Non-elect are not bound to love Christ for Redeeming them or not dying for them then the Elect are not bound to it till they know themselves to be Elect But the consequent is false therefore so is the Antecedent He that dare say No Man in the World is bound to love Christ and be thankful to him for dying for him till he know he is Elect That is have assurance of Salvation which so so few attain to at all or at least so many Christians want Dare say that which I dare not Rom 5. 8. But God commended his love to us in that while we were yet sinners Chrift died for us Joh. 3. 16. God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever c. 1. If Gods love to the World and Sinners before Conversion in his Redeeming them by Christ be propounded to the consideration of unconverted Sinners then it is to manifest that they owe him love again and thankfulness for it But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the consequent These Texts and many other do propound the consideration of Gods love in Redeeming them to Men before Conversion as might abundantly be proved and that must need intimate their duty of love and gratitude or else the Law of nature is abrogated which bindeth us to return love and thankfulness for love and benefits 2. Let me add one other Argument for the Minor viz. that the Elect are bound to love and gratitude to Christ as their Redeemer before they know themselves to be Elect and it is such a one as I think makes the case so clear that it will be hard for the most prejudidiced not to discern it if they will consider it If the Elect are not bound to love and gratitude for Christs Redeeming them before they know themselves to be Elect then they are never bound to it at all and so never ought to perform it But the consequent is intollerable Ergo c. The consequence is proved thus They cannot know themselves to be elect unless by extraordinary Revelation till they first know their love and gratitude to Christ for Redeeming them Therefore if they are not bound to love and gratitude before they know themselves Elect then they are never bounnd to it The reason of the consequence is that the same thing cannot be Before and Not before before their knowledg of Election and not before it If it must go before the knowledg of Election then they were obliged to it before for that we are not obliged to is no duty and that which is no duty is no Mark of Election but it must go before Ergo c. The Antecedent is proved thus There is no other sign without this love and gratitude which is sufficient to discover a Man to be Elect Therefore no Man can know himself to be elect by ordinary means without the knowledg of these Two things will be replied to this 1. That Faith is before love and gratitude and a sufficient sign 2. That it may be known without signs by the Testimony of the Spirit To these in order And 1. For Faith as it is in the will and is the acceptance of an offered Christ is the same thing with love as love is in the rational appetite as I have elsewhere fully proved Aquinas oft expresseth this love to be but velle bonum 2. If love be distinct as it is exercised on the same object for else there 's no question of it Yet it is certain that it is concomitant and doth not in one moment of time come after Faith Much less so long as that a Man must first by reflection discern his Faith before he be obliged to love 3. Faith is no true Faith that is not accompanied with love and a false faith can be no true sign of Election as is said before The Acts of Justifying Faith in the Will are principally these two 1. To accept of Christ as he is offered Now he is offered as a Redeemer i. e. 1. As one that for the time past hath paid the price of our Redemption 2. And for the time to come will give us the benefits of it on his own terms Now Christ cannot be received as a Redeemer without respect to both He that receiveth him to pardon and save him any other way then by the price of his Blood already shed doth not receive him as he is offered nor as the Redeemer And if it be necessary that he must be received in respect to what he hath done for us as well as what he will do then it is as necessary that he be loving and thankfully received For as bonum recipitur volendo which is our love and cannot possibly be received qud bonum but lovingly so bonum preteritum is the object of this Amor Gratitudinis The benefit may remain but the act of the benefactor is past as bonum futurum is the object of Amor Concupiscentiae Bonum Presens of Amor Complacentiae So that no Man living can know that he hath received Christ as a Redeemer if he do not know that he hath lovingly and thankfully received him And no Man can know the good that Christ will do for the future nor receive it without knowing the good that he hath done in his Sacrifice for the time past and thankfully acknowledging it 2. After acceptance of an offered Christ the next Act is affiance which most Divines make the Principal and some the only justifying Act And this presupposing the loving consent acceptance the Velle before mentioned I do not need to prove that affiance is no certain Mark of Election without love Nay moreover as it presupposeth love so it containeth love in its own nature as every Act of the will toward goodness must needs do I rest on Christ as one to do me good for the future by virtue of his ransome already paid and so here is still the double good past and present which affiance doth respect or else it is not in Christ as Redeemer that we have affiance 3. The like I might easily shew in respect of desire after Christ An early Grace and before which none finds a distinct certain sign of his Election Yet goodness is its object and love is in its nature from whence we use the term of Amor Concupiscentiae Object But you said before that the Faith and Love of
all Men to believe in Christ as their Redeemer when they know he redeemed but the smallest part Or to charge them to rest on his Blood for Remission when he knows it was shed for the smaller number and will profit none but those whom it was shed for Yea how can he urge any to rest on Christ at all For till they know they are Elect they know not that Christ died for them according to the opposed Doctrin And till they know that Christ died for them they cannot rest on him as their Redeemer nor on his Blood as sufficient to procure their pardon seeing as is confessed it is but materially and not formally sufficient to pardon them if they should believe And they cannot know that they are Elect or that Christ died for them till they rest on him And therefore I see not how any Minister can press Men groundedly to rest on Christ by a justifying Faith or to accept him as their Lord-Redeemer And then for the duties of repentance Love and Thankfulness to Christ for redeeming them I have shewed before how this Doctrin evacuates them all and so that no Minister can groundedly press them 3. And for the promise how can any Minister in Christs Name assure a sinner of pardon by that Blood which was never shed for him on condition he will believe As if you should say to a Debtor believe that such a Man hath paid thy debt or trust him and then thy debt shall be discharged when you know he hath not paid it or know not that he hath Indeed a Man may come off with some kind of truth in his words if he certainly know that the Party will not believe But the certain knowledg that Men will not believe is not the reason why God calls them to believe and offers them Christ and Life 4. And for the threatening with what Heart can a Minister tell Sinners Christ is a Redeemer but to the Elect yet all the rest of you shall perish for not taking him for your Redeemer and for not resting on that Blood that was never shed for you And that as to the ends of preaching 1. How will the divulging of these glorify God When he hath purposely designed the glorifying of Love and Mercy directly and justice accidentally by this great work of the Redemption of the World and hath unhinged the Sabbath which was for Commemoration of the work of Creation to the first day of the Week for the Commemoration of the Work of Redemption which he will now have admired as his most glorious work which as Ames in the place cited in Argument 18. saith is to the works of Grace the same that Creation is to the works of Nature and so is the ground of Gods New Right of Dominion and Empire and of his governing and judging the World And how is this glory eclipsed by the opposed Doctrin 2. And for Mans Convesiron to the Faith I have shewed how unfurnished a Minister is rightly to endeavour it on the opposed grounds Whereto let me add this The Soul is never closed to Christ sincerely till it close in Love Love â—eing as all Divines say at the same moment of time as Faith produced And as Maccovius before-cited truly saith and so doth Chamier and many more Love to the Redeemer the object of Faith is of the Essence of justifying Faith it self Now it is Love that must cause Love I mean objectively and not only efficienter He cannot close in Love with Christ that knoweth nothing of Christs Love to him though he know it to others so near is Man to himself and Christ is to be received as my Redeemer and not only as another Mans. Now no Man can know that Christ loveth him with a special love before he know that he himself loveth Christ that 's past question And yet no Man can soundly love Christ as Redeemer that knows not Christs love to him What remains therefore but that it must be Christs common love in redeeming the World and making the conditional gift of pardon and Life and this offered to me in particular among others that must first cause my grounded love to Christ Let us see what Scripture saith of the ground of Ministerial duties Math. 22. The work of the Ministers was to invite the Guests and compel them to come in And the ground was all things are ready Else might not the Guests have said If we should come there is nothing for us we may go as we come You do but take this advantage to jeer us because you know our minds that we will not come 2 Cor. 5. 18 19 20. The work of Preachers is the Ministry of teconciliation And wherein lies it vers 20. Now then we are Embassadors for Christ as though God did beseech you by us we pray you in Christs stead be ye Reconciled to God so then the work of the Ministry is to beseech Men in Christs stead and Gods name to be reconciled to God But on what ground is this verse 19 21. To wit that God was in Christ reconciling the World unto himself not imputing their Trespasses to them and hath committed to us the word of Reconciliation which Text we shall afterwards further explain and vindicate Is there not an absolute necessity that the price of Reconciliation be first paid to God and accepted by him before any Sinner can be intreated to be reconciled to God on the ground of that price paid and accepted Let me desire Ministers seriously to consider with what Face they can stand up in the name of the Lord Jesus to beseech poor Sinners to be reconciled to God and tell them that else they shall be doubly miserable when yet there is no price paid for making them way to God nor Gods justice satisfied for their Sin which is supposed before any of their own endeavours can do any thing towards Reconciliation Let me imagine such a Dialogue as this between such a Teacher and a Sinner Minister Sinner I beseech thee in Christs stead be reconciled to God Sinner I have Sinned so much that he will not be reconciled to me All that I can do will do nothing to bring me again into his favour Min. Christ hath satisfied for all the Elect. Sinner But what 's that to me unless I knew my self to be Elect. M. But Christ hath satisfied for all if they will believe Sinner Did you not tell me he satisfied only for the Elect and that determined by name Either he hath satisfied for me before I believe or not if not my believing will not satisfie nor cause him to do it now If he have how shall I know it Min. You must believe first and then you shall know it afterwards For God hath ordained inseparable connexion between Christs dying for Men and their believing And therefore for all my beseeching you to believe if you be not one that Christ died for you neither will nor can believe for none is able
will tell me then we must say Christ is a Door a Way a Vine and the Bread is his Body c. But this is nothing to what I am speaking of For I did never say that we must take the literal sense in opposition to the figurative but only the plain obvious sense in opposition to a wyer-drawn extorted sense Some figurative speeches are so usual or plain and well known that he that should interpret them literally would be derided by any Plowman And every ignorant man useth figurative speeches in his common talk and use makes the true sence as plain and obvious as if they were not figurative You can scarce hear three sentences from any Countryman but will convince you of this If any man of common reason had heard Christ say I am the way to the Father would he have thought his plain obvious sense to be I am an Earthly or other Material way to be trodden on by the Feet of them to come to God What will not the lust of contradicting persuade men to Now I would know of any man would you believe that Christ died for all men if the Scripture plainly speak it If you would do but tell me what words can you devise or would you wish more plain for it than are there used Is it not enough that Christ is called the Saviour of the World You 'l say but is it of the whole World Yes it saith He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole World Will you say but it is not for All men in the World yes it saith he died for All men as well as for all the World But will you say it saith not for every man Yes that it doth he tasted death for every man But you may say It means all the Elect if it said so of any Non-Elect I would believe Yes it speaks of those that denied the Lord that bought them and bring upon themselves swift destruction And yet all this seems nothing to men prejudiced 3. Furthermore it deserves consideration whether men can considerately go against the plain light of so many express Texts of Scripture without some reluctancy and regret of Judgment And then whether using a mans Judgment to such a course to bear down the evidence of of many express texts of Scripture be not a matter of a dangerous nature both symptomatically and effectually Doth it not signifie a defect in our belief of the truth of Scripture Or at least of our reverend esteem of it when we dare use it as a Leaden rule and Nose of Wax as the Papists presumptuously call it He that can think it will endure such bending is in danger of thinking it may endure breaking Hath it not too plain a tendency to infidelity and disobedience It is the truth of this word that must preserve us from both And he that thinks so meanly of the Scripture as that it will patiently endure such violence and stretching is in great danger of being drawn to question whether it be Gods Word or no and of venturing over its bounds in practicals in case of temptation For what have we to persuade us that Christ is the eternal God but plain Scripture And is it plainer in this than in its affirming that Christ died for All All tender conscionable Christians should be as fearful to adventure against the plain meaning of Scripture in the matter of Faith as to adventure against its plain precepts and prohibitions in matter of practice And therefore I conclude that when God saith so expresly that Christ died for All and tasted death for every man and is the Ranfom for all and the propitiation for the sins of the whole World It beseems every Christian rather to explain in what sense Christ died for All men then flatly to deny it The first text of Scripture ordinarily used and which I shall insist on is Job 3. 16. God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life Here it is plainly expressed that the giving of Christ proceeded from Gods Love to the World as the principal efficient and that it was to this end that whosoever of this World believe in him should be saved One would think all were plain here yet men have found or made almost as many knots as words If a King had his whole Army prove false to him and turn to the Enemy and when they are in his power the Enemy Imprisoneth them and maketh them Slaves in this misery the King saith of them I so love my Army that I give so much money or my own Son in Ransom that whosoever will thankfully accept my kindness and return to his Allegiance shall not remain in slavery but be delivered fully into my favour and their dignities would not ordinary men easily understand this speech Would so many doubts be raised whether he mean the whole Army or part What is meant by Love by Whosoever c. yet here we have such a dust raised in as plain a case or as plain words as such Divine mysteries could well be expressed by 1. It is doubted what is meant by the World 2. And then what is meant by Loved 3. And what is meant by Whosoever The 4. What is meant by Believeth in him we need not here stand on And for the first some say by the VVorld is meant the Elect part of the VVorld some say as Dr. Twiss and others it is meant of Mankind as distinct from Angels excluding none and not of the Elect only and withal that it speaks only of the sufficiency of Christ's Satisfaction which if it were not sufficient for All there were no place for the General Promise Whoever believeth shall be Saved There is more truth and soundness in this exposition than will stand with some other contradictory passages in the same Authors For my part I stand to this exposition of Dr. Twiss as you may find him industriously explaining this text Vindic. Grat. lib. 1. part 2. § 7. pag. mihi 203. I will repeat part of his words Ad locum illum Joh. 3. 16. quod attinet negamus ex his evinci posse Mundum eo in loco significare Electos in mundo degentes Ad cujus loci majorem elucidationem observandum est cum decrevisset Fidem Rescipiscentiam electis suis non modo concedere sed easdem modo naturae ipsorum rationali convenientissimo nempe per Suasionem exhortationem in ipsis operari consequenter Evangelium sub generali invitationis formâ proponendum esset in hunc modum Quisquis crediderit salvus erit qui non damnabitur hinc evincitur mittendi Mediatoris duplicem Deo habendam fuisse rationem alteram Pretii alteram Efficaciae Nam Pretium oportuit sufficiens esse redimendis omnibus alias enim tam generali promissioni quisquis crediderit salvus erit locus nullus fuisset rursus oportuit
them And so that in rejecting it they never were guilty of rejecting or sinning against any love or mercy Having examined what they say to prove that by the World is meant the Elect only I find it needless to examine the rest about the Sense of the word loved and whosoever partly because what they say requires not much confutation and partly because enough is said on occasion of this I affirm that by love is not meant a meer natural affection nor yet a meer Act But if we must speak of God after the manner of Men it is an Act proceeding from the goodness of God's nature And I deny not this Act to be free And therefore take not natural For Physical as if God loved us as the Fire burned quantum in se 2. Nor yet Constrained And it must be observed that both the Text and those that thus interpret it speak only of God's Love to Mankind or the World and not directly to the Salvation of the World The conditional gift of Salvation to the World is the Effect of that love to the World and it is true love though it infallibly procure not that Salvation And for the other words whosoever believeth as I have said before they are primarily and directly the conditional expression and to all But secondarily and accidentally distributive because all perform not the condition So Rom. 10. 13. Whosoever shall call on the Name of the Lord shall be saved Which verse 9. is conditionally thus expressed if thou believe and if thou confess and verse 11. It is put in equipollent terms whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed So Rom. 9. 33. Joh. 11. 26. Act. 10. 43. Whosoever believeth in him shall receive Remission of Sins Act. 2. 21. Joh. 12. 46. Mar. 10. 15. Mar. 8. 34 38. Mat. 18. 4. and 5. 19 21 22 28. and 10. 14 32 33 42. The 2d Text that I shall alledg is the next Verses Joh. 3. 17 18 19. For God sent not his Son into the World to condemn the World but that the World through him might be saved He that believeth on him is not condemned but he that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God And this is the condemnation that Light is come into the World and Men loved darkness rather than Light c. Here 1. It is expresly said that Christ came into the World that the World by him might be saved And therefore he died for them 2. Yet this World is distributed into such as believe and are not condemned and such as believe not and are condemned And therefore it is not only the Elect. 3. This condemnation is for not believing which as I have proved presupposeth Christ's dying for them Now let us see what they bring to prove that by the World here is meant only the Elect. They tell us here of a notable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if by the Word World were meant several things when here repeated But for proof of what they say you must take their words Is it not good Sense and true to say God sent not his Son into the World viz. into the World of mankind or among Men to condemn the World viz of Mankind but that the World of Mankind through him might be saved But what if their various acception were granted Still the World that Christ was sent to save is divided into Believers eventually saved and Unbelievers eventually condemned If this be denied the next words annexed are so clear that I desire the Reader but without prejudice to consider them and use no violence with his judgment in expounding them Their Reasons for their Senseare these 1. Because all are not saved And the Lord hath said he will do all his pleasure and his purpose shall stand Ans 1. He will do all that he is pleased to do But not all that he is pleased to command Man to do Nor all that he is pleased to promise to Man on certain conditions when those conditions are not performed His purpose shall undoubtedly stand But when will it be proved that God did purpose or resolve eventually and actually to save that World that is here meant As God hath a Will de rerum eventu and a Will de debito which I call Legislative So each act of his Will hath its proper end as we may ascribe any end to Gods Will distinct from himself by improper speech His decreed or purposed ends he always attains supposing them absolute For I will not in this place touch that controversie whether God have a conditional decretive Will de rerum eventu But his Legal prescribed ends he doth not always attain The end of his Law is the fulfiling of its conditions and Mans attaining the reward thereby This may be called God's end 1. In that God prescribeth it to Man to be by him intended and so sending Christ into the World to satisfie his justice he hath bound the World to seek and accept Life and Salvation in and by him 2. In that God hath made Christ and Faith to have the nature of a means in reference to that command And all Men are bound that hear the Gospel to take Christ by believing in him as a means of Salvation provided by God 3. Because God hath truly made to all Men a deed of gift or a legacy of Christ and Salvation with him to all that will take him and therefore he may well be said to have given Christ that the World through him might be saved Having given them Salvation in Christ they will have it 4. He therefore giveth Christ to the World of Unbelievers that conditionally they may be saved That is if they will That is if they will have Salvation in and with Christ And 5. In so doing God doth all that belongs to him to do as Legislator For it must be understood that here he speaks those words that the World by him might be saved not as absolute Lord meerly or properly but as Rector per Leges And it belongs to him as Legislator only to propound Salvation to Man as his end And to promise it on his conditions and prescribe those conditions and command Man to perform them And to threaten him with the loss of that end of Salvation if he perform them not But to give Faith which is the condition it self doth not belong to God as Legislator No Man living can claim the first Act of Faith or effectual Grace thereto from God by any promise that he hath made But he giveth it as Dominus absolutus and as one that may do with his own as he list So that it is Finis prescriptus conditionaliter datus that is here spoken of aud not Finis Decretus to be by God eventually infallibly accomplished It is the end of Gods Law and Legislative Will and so of God as meer Legislator or Rector per Leges And not of his decretive
threatning but was accidental Either as some Schoolmen think for want of power to deliver or overcome or as others and with them Parker and Sanford I think not soundly because of the everlastingness of Sinning I think none of these much worth the disputing comparatively Nor 2. is it de personâ naturali who he was naturally that paid the debt or made the satisfaction It is not therefore de materia debiti that we enquire but de formâ Whether it were the same formally which we owed and the obligation required Or only the Value and not the same full debt Also you must know that though we may well use the word debt in this Case because the Scripture doth yet we must acknowledg it but a Metaphor and the proper terms are whether Christs sufferings were the same thing that the Law in its threatning required i. e. obliged unto and made due And so a fulfilling of that threatning And this with great averfeness I deny The question is determined on the determination of the former having necessary dependance on it and being tantum non in Sence the same And therefore all the Arguments which I used for the former will serve to this and therefore I need not repeat any of them but refer you to them desiring you to peruse them and apply them to this for all the same absurdities or neer all do follow upon this as on the other Indeed these two together that Christ paid the Idem the debt it self and not the value by personating us in his sufferings so that in Law Sence we satisfied in him are the very foundation of the whole frame of that Religion commonly called Antinomian but much more fitly Anti-evangelical To touch again on some few It is evident that this Doctrine utterly destroyeth all possibility of pardon of Sin and consequently all repenting and believing praying for pardon all thankfulness for it all Testamental or Evangelical Conveyance of it by the promise all Gospel and Ministerial tenders of pardon all Sacramental exhibition and obsignation of pardon and a Christians enquiries examination and seekings after pardon and his comforts living or dying in assurance of pardon and instead of all asserteth us so righteous that we need no pardon You will sure confess that if this will follow then almost all Religion is overthrown at a blow And that it follows seems to me past doubt For what can any Law in the World require or any Lawgiver in exactest justice but that the Law be perfectly fulfilled What can any creditor require but the Idem the very debt it self which the obligation did contain Can he have all his debt and remit it too Is the obligation fulfilled and remitted or relaxed too Doth the Judg execute all the penalty and yet forgive it Is not he unjust that denieth him an acquittance and the cancelling of the obligation who hath fully paid him all his due If any shall conceive with the Socinians that the same inconveniences will follow upon the asserting of Christs full satisfaction for us I answer Not one of them Nay there is no way I think but this that I now maintain to confute a Socinian and defend Christs satisfaction Were it well used it is a Key into a great part of the Body of Divinity and helpeth to resolve solidly and satisfactorily a multitude of difficult objections which without this admit not of solution though Mr. O. call it my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Idem or full debt or suffering is solutio non recusabilis the Value in another kind or way is solutio recusabilis stricte dicta satisfactio more plainly the proper penalty which is supplicum delinquentis is all that can be required to satisfie the Legislator or Law But that an innocent person should suffer for our Sins is quid Recusabile the Legislator may refuse it If therefore we had paid the Idem the very debt we had been acquitted or to be acquitted ipso facto as presently righteous without Remission but when another pays it even the Son of the Law-giver sent by his own Love aud Mercy who is neerer him then us these two things follow 1. That the supream Rector may accept it on what terms he please or not accept it And that accordingly God did accept it on terms most fitted to his blessed ends in governing the World Among others that Man should have the special benefits of this satisfaction conveyed to them only in a legal way in time on such and such terms or conditions as he saw meet and as is expressed in the tenor of the Covenant of Grace c. Nay it was the desire of Christ the satisfier that these Benefits should only thus be conveyed to the Redeemer That so though the Impetration were wholly by him and absolutely wrought yet the Application might be in part by themselves and conditional and the mercy might not cross Gods ends by making them independent and secure but might further his ends in drawing them to him and engaging them to repent believe seek strive fear care c. If the Idem were paid that is the delinquent himself had suffered there had needed no New Covenant to apply the Benefits or convey them But now there doth Object But it may be the Idem the full due though not per eundum by the same person Ans Distinguish as before between the Idem Materialiter and Formaliter also between the full debt and a Part. And so if it were a debt of Money or the like 1. It may be fully the same materially and not formally As a Man may steal that same Money which you owe another and pay it to that other as his own debt 2. Here you must distinguish between Personam Naturalem Civilem vel Legalem If you pay all that was in the obligation by your Servant Friend or any Delegate or Vicar the Law will say you have paid it your self It was your deligates person naturally but yours Legally or rather your Instrument Because the obligation required but the thing to be paid in your Name by what hand soever and so you are acquitted without remission For you have discharged the proper debt and the Creditor can demand no more But now in Criminals its otherwise Because the very Person offending is in the obligation as the subject of the penalty Noxa Caput sequitur So that formaliter it is not the suffering which was due to you which another suffers for you This I add as a main Argument for my proposition If the Law do require only supplicium ipsius delinquentis then Christs sufferings were not the Idem the same thing which the Law required Nor is the Law fulfilled thereby But the Law doth require only supplicium ipsius delinquentis Therefore c. For the Major or its consequence it needs no proof for Christ was not ipse delinquens He was made Sin that is one punishable and punished for Sin but not really nor in Law
Workmanship But he loveth man after his Faith and Love to him as Rector per Leges as putting on the resemblance of goodness and justice in civil Sense and as he now stands in that Relation to them in which he is by his own Law as it were obliged to do them good Note this difference of Christs love Prov. 8. 17. I love those that love me and those that seek me early shall find me So ver 21. Luke 7. 47. Many sins are forgiven for she loved much If it be meant therefore she loved much yet it would not make against this From John 3. 19. I argue thus If men are condemned for loving darkness rather than Light and Christ is this Light then they were obliged to love Christ the Light But c. Ergo c. And I have shewed it is as Redeemer that he must be loved For to Love Christ as an excellent Prophet only that a Turk may do for Mahomet so confesseth him to be Mat. 10. 37. It is Christs condition propounded to all That if they love not him better than Father Mother House Land or Life they cannot be his Disciples So that those that are not yet his Disciples are obliged at once to love him above all and become his Disciples 1 Cor. 16. 22. If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ let him be Anathema Maran-atha And then more specially for Gratitude because I have hitherto insisted on the other species Love there are many Parables in the Gospel that shew that wicked men are condemned for ingratitude to their Redeemer Mat. 21. 37 40. c. Christ convinceth his Auditors that those unthankful Husband-men that refused to pay the Fruits and killed the Son that was sent to them he was sent to be entertained as Redeemer would deservedly be destroyed with a miserable destruction and the Vineyard let out to others i. e. that the Kingdom of God should be taken from them and given to a Nation bringing forth the Fruits thereof And what is that Kingdom here meant but the Gospel The proclaiming and offer of Christ as Redeemer and of mercy in and with him Mat. 22. 8. It is unthankful refusal of the feast prepared when all things were ready and they invited which was the unworthiness that there is mentioned which shut out those Guests Mat. 18. 32. Unthankfulness is intimamated as part of the Sin of that wicked Servant who took his fellow Servant by the throat for 100. Pence when himself had been forgiven 10000 Talents I forgave thee all the debt signifieth such a mercy as Men may have that perish as is plain verse 34. 35. and yet certainly presupposeth Christs dying for them and obligeth them to thankfulness If any ask the sense of the Text I shall give it after by it self more fitly Let me therefore conclude thus That Doccrin which subverteth a very great part of Religion is not of God But so doth this which denieth Universal satisfaction Therefore it is not of God The Minor is proved from what is said It destroyeth the ground of all Mens first love to Christ for Redeeming them It justifieth all the Non-Elect in their ingratitude and not loving Christ as their Redeemer Besides what was said before of its destroying the use of repentance and all Means But we shall recollect more of these consequences in the end and shew you more fully the face of the Doctrin which I dispute against I have proved that all Men that hear the Gospel owe Christ love and thankfulness for Redeeming them by dying for them I should next shew that all Men in the World do owe God love and thankfulness for those mercies which are the effects of Christs satisfaction But especially those within the Church who have in the New Covenant made over to them a conditional remission of their Sins and adoption and everlasting life viz. If they will accept Christ with his benefits Those that are sanctified with the Blood of the Covenant and are made partakers of the Holy Ghost and were escaped from the pollutions of the World through the knowledg of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and and have tasted the good word of God and the Powers of the World to come c. Certainly these have received the fruits of Christs satisfaction for which they were bound to be thankful But of those more particularly in their place Arg. 14th Acertitudine fidei possibilitate rectè credendi If Christ hath not satisfied for the Sins of all then no Man hath a sufficient ground for his first justifying Faith All Men are left at an utter uncomfortable uncertainty whether they may believe to Justification or not But the consequent is false Therefore so is the Antecedent That which is said before doth shew so much of the grounds of this Argument that I shall be the shorter in it now All the doubt is of the consequence of the Major and to clear that I suppose it is granted that all firm sufficient Faith for justification must not only have a command to warrant it but also a fit object about which it must be exercised God commandeth no Man to believe a falshood to make it become true by believing it nor to trust to a person or promise that is not to be trusted as being not only fallible but certainly will deceive As for the Act of affiance or recumbency commonly called the justifying Act no Man can groundedly or comfortably rest on Christ for justification by his Blood who doth not first know that his Blood was shed for him and hath satisfied for him Else he must rest on that which he knows not to be sufficient for him to rest upon For it hath been proved that Christs death is not sufficient to justifie any for whom it was not suffered though they should believe He suffered not superfluously as I have shewed Take the confession of a Divine that for fear of Arminianism joyned Hands with the Antimonians Maccovius colleg disp de justif disp 5. § 22. Quoad substantiam poenae nihil olus perpessus est Christus quam per legem debebatur Neque enim vel Amor Patris vel etiam justitia permittere potuit plura ut filio imponerentur quam quae illi necessariò tanquam sponsori ferenda erant Quoad circumstantias autem patientis personam patiendi causam passionis efficaciam plusquam sufficiens satisfactio Christi Neque enim lex requirebat ut Deus moreretur neque ut sine peccato proprio quis moreretur neque morstalis quae suffecisset pro peccatis totius mundi sive pro omnibus singulis hominibus Here he confesseth that Christ suffered no more than was due by Law and than was necessary for him to suffer as Sponsor And yet that his Death was sufficient for the Sins of all the World even for all Men and every Man And if so then either he suffered as Sponsor for all Or else circumstances did make that Death sufficient for
all may accept it if they will and then there would be no distribution But because all will not and this is foreknown therefore consequently it is distributive So here and that it is distributive is from the will of Man and the event and other exteriour differencing Causes but not properly from the promise or deed of gift at all except by accident 3. The next words shew what World it is that is here spoken of viz. That which comprizeth men that believe and so are not Condemned and those that believe not which Consideration is consequential and not antecedent to Christ's dying for them and so are Condemned already because they have not believed c. v. 18. They that will affirm a greater restriction in the sense of the word must prove it For though I have proved here the larger sense yet indeed it belongs to them to prove their assertion who recede from the commoner and more extensive sense I shall briefly examine what they say to that end Only I must intreat the Reader that if they compare my Writings with any Book which contains the Reasons which I confute that you would not expect that I should take any notice of any of those strangely-confident Juvenile Triumphant Expressions which some do abound with but that I draw out only the pith of their Arguments and set Reason against Reason and let the heaps of Worldly Rhetorical Gloryings alone Much more must I expect that you will not take me to be engaged to defend any Arminian misinterpretations and weaknesses and to confute what any man saith against them but only that which seems of force against the interpretations or assertions that I my self do maintain The first Reason they give for proving that it is only the Elect that here are called the World is drawn from the Love which is here said to have the World for its object which cannot be common to all but is proper to the Elect. This we deny and they attempt to prove by these five Reasons 1. Say they it is the most transcendent and remarkable Love and therefore proper to the Elect. I must desire the Reader to see this answered afterward in my answer to their interpretation of John 2. It is an Eternal act of God's will Answ But what that is to the purpose I know not 3. It was the cause of sending Christ Answ That 's true it was one cause but how follows the consequence 4. They say that Love which is the cause of giving Christ is always the cause of bestowing all other good things Answ That Love which caused the giving of Christ for the Elect is the cause of giving them all things with him but that love which caused the giving of Christ for all shall not eventually give them all things I refer you to what I shall say anon to Rom. 8. 32. for the full answer to this 5. They say this Love is an assured Fountain of Salvation to all that are beloved with it Answ I deny it if they mean by assured such as shall eventually be saved but say they the issue of this Love being not perishing but obtaining Eternal Life happens only to the Elect Ergo c. Answ The Text speaks of no other effect of this Love but the giving of Christ and the giving of Eternal Life on Condition of believing Now for the former there is a twofold giving of Christ First giving him on the Cross for us Secondly Giving him in the word of Promise to us The Text seems to comprehend both He is given on the Cross for all he is given in the word conditionally to all and so is Eternal Life with him Now though the actual right to Eternal Life and fruition of it be not the portion of all yet that makes no alteration or differencing nature in this Universal Conditional promise it is because one believed and another did not The Promise antecedently to the performance or non-performance of the Condition gave Christ alike to the Elect and non-Elect and Life with him But that some believed rather than others was not from the gift of this Universal Conditional Promise but from another cause even Gods secret decree of Election Their second Reason for proving that by the World is meant only the Elect is because it is the same World that Christ came to save ver 17. but that is only the Elect else God should fail of his intention Answ This is to pervert one Text by perverting another as I shall shew anon when we come to that Text. Their Third Reason is that its usual to call the Elect the World Answ It was a very Pious Judicious Grave Divine that said I profess I cannot find any one clear place where the World must of necessity be taken for the Elect only Ezek. Culverwell in his Answer to Objections against his Treaty of Faith They alledge for what they say these Texts John 4. 42. where Christ is called the Saviour of the World a Saviour of Men not saved is strange Answ So are all things strange to Men till they understand them It 's no more strange than that God Created all Men to Life that Happiness which the first Covenant promised who yet did dye for Sin The Second is John 6. 33 57. which shall be vindicated anon The Third is Rom. 4. 13. Abraham is said by Faith to be Heir of the World which ver 11. is called to be the Father of the Faithful Answ A bold interpretation but here 's no proof nor appearance of any that the Father of the faithful is all one with Heir of the World is too unlikely a thing to be received on a Mans bare word Especially considering that it is proper to Abraham to be Father of all them that believe verse 11. But to be Heir of the World verse 13. is not proper to him For it is said the promise that he should be Heir of the World was not to Abraham or to his Seed through the Law I never read where Abraham is called Heir of the Faithful nor can he so be conveniently called But he is called Heir of the World Therefore by the World is not meant only the Faithful The Next is Rom. 11. 12. If the fall of them be the Riches of the World and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles c. Ans It is more than the Elect Gentiles that shall be and are enricht by Christ though not as the Elect others are enriched with that Church state visible which Paul here speaks that the Jews were broken off from As also with the Gospel and ordinances and conditional gift of Christ and justification and glory besides many other mercies The next Text cited to prove that the World is put only for the Elect is Col. 1. 6. Which Gospel is come unto you as it is in all the World and bringeth forth fruit as it doth also in you c. Ans 1. It is not said that it bringeth forth
who are true spiritual Members of the same as to be Saints Elect Redeemed c. Answ 1. All professed Christians are Saints by separation from the World to the Church Visible and Elect or chosen to that Condition 2. Scripture speaks thus of none but those that seem to be such the Penmen of Scripture therein speaking of men that knew not the heart 3. But when by denying Christ they manifest the contrary doth the Scripture say yet that they were Elect Saints c. or rather that they were before of old ordained to this Condemnation 4. Why else may not we still use this Language if it be true that it is the perpetual course of Scripture Be not then offended with us if we write and say that Christ redeemed by his blood all professed Christians Nay then we might say Julian was a Saint Elect and so was Judas c. 5. I would our Brethren of the separation would speak in the same Language when they are judging of Church-Members and Communicants as they do when they use these Arguments against Christs Universal Ransom or at least come near to this charitable vein laying by the delusory part 2. But the great prop of this Cause is that they will prove from other Texts that the Scripture speaketh thus And three Texts I find urged and I may safely say sadly abused The first is Mat. 27. 53. Hierusalem is called the Holy City because it was so in esteem and appearance saith my Author Answ Must we needs take his bare word for this when we know it was Holy by Gods own separation of it from the rest of the World for the principal place of his publick Worship and residence of his Church and Priests and so denominated by himself What Man then will believe that it was called Holy meerly from the Peoples professing to be Holy The Second Text is John 5. 18. It is said of Christ that he had broken the Sabbath which he only did in the corrupt Opinion of the blinded Pharisees Answ 1. The words seem to speak only of the Jews accusation of him i. e. what they charged him to have done and not what he did therefore they sought to lay hands on him not only because he had broken the Sabbath c. 2. Distinguish between breaking the rest of the Sabbath naturally by Natural actions contrary to rest but without sin and breaking it morally by sin The former way Christ did break the Sabbath the latter he did not take this distinction from Christ himself who tells you that the Priests in the Temple brake the Sabbath viz. the external rest of it by labour and are blameless and therefore broke it not morally But the Text that I find alledged most frequently and confidently by very many Learned Men is 2 Chron. 28. 23. and I desire God to forgive me that in my ignorance I have oft so abused it my self The words are these For he Sacrificed to the Gods of Damascus that smote him and he said because the Gods of the King of Syria help them therefore will I sacrifice to them that they may help me The last words are confess'd to be the false words of the deluded Idolater Ahaz but all the question is of the former words which are the words of the Holy Ghost He Sacrificed to the Gods of Damascus that smote him where by supine oversight Men have taken it as if the Text made this smiting the act of the Gods whereas it makes it the act of Damascus or the Men of Damascus It was Damascus that smote him and not the Gods of Damascus according to the Text. Tremelius and Junius render it thus plainly Sacrificavit enim Diis Damascenorum percutientium ipsum not Diis Damascenorum percutientientibus ipsum And would one think now that so great a stress should be laid by prudent sober men on such an oversight Darmesek being a collective the Cities name put for the Peoples than which nothing more usual when there is mention of the acts of Cities and Countries did truly smite Ahaz As England did smite Scotland Or Rome conquered so much of the World And Venice holds War with the Turk 2. What if it had been otherwise May not God give power to those Devils which were the Gods of Damascus really to smite Ahaz As well as he gave the Devil power to smite Job a better man 3. And what if all that they supposed of this Text had been true If God had spoke in so strange a language once in all the Bible If we shall thence take liberty to interpret him so elsewhere without proving this to be the sense we may then indeed make any thing of the Scripture And though I doubt not but God in mercy will bear with the weakness of good men that by the power of prejudice do run on such expositions having a zeal for God though not according to knowledge and supposing themselves necessitated to it yet certainly the proper natural tendency of such violent dealing with Scripture is to infidelity it self and the questioning of the truth of Scripture and if we escape that we lie fair open to the invasion of Popery to conceit a necessity of an Earthly final Judge of the sense of Scripture as being insufficient to manifest its own sense In the mean time how do we gratifie Papists and Scepticks by this dealing But inded the Text is plain though I confess the Septuagint and some Translators might give occasion to some of this common mistake The sixth Text that I shall alledge is Heb. 6. 4 5 6. For it is impossible for those who were once inlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the World to come if they shall fall away to renew them again to Repentance seeing they crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh and put him to open shame Here these Apostates are said to crucifie the Son of God afresh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not barely to crucifie Christ again but to crucifie him to themselves again That is either finaliter as some expound it or efficienter as others which way soever it be it is not efficaciter but quantum in se 1. If it be the first then the meaning is this If such be saved then it must be by a new Sacrifice and so they bring themselves into that case that Christs Death on the terms that first it was accepted will not serve to save them because he died not to satisfie for that sin So Paraeus expoundeth it sed quomodo hoc faciendo Christum denuò crucifigunt sibimetipsis Quia filium Dei semel crucifixum abnegando nolunt salvari ejus morte ex qua sola dependet resipiscentia salus Si igitur resipiscere servari deberent denuò crucifigendus esset eis Christus quod est impossibile quia amplius mori non potest Sic infra
fruit in all the World but that it is come into all the World and bringeth forth Fruit viz. in some where it comes 2. But suppose it were otherwise doth not Christ say that the Gospel doth bring forth fruit in more than the Elect viz. in many that fall away when Persecution ariseth Mat. 13. And in whom the cares of the World do choak that Fruit. 3. Were these Colos all Elect to whom Paul speaks 4. It is a known truth that the Gospel comes to more than the Elect for many are called but few chosen next they alledge 2 Cor. 5. 19. which makes sufficiently against their whole cause as shall be shewen anon when we come to it Another place cited by them is 1 Joh. 2. 2. Christ is the propitiation of the sins of the whole World Ans If they may thus beg the question all Texts shall mean as they would have them Of this anon Another place cited is Psal 22. 27. All the ends of the World remember and turn unto the Lord And all the Kindreds of the Nations shall worship before thee For the Kingdom is the Lord's and he is the Governour among the Nations Ans 1. All the ends of the World is not so large as all the World 2. It is plain that this Text speaks of the establishment of Christs visible Kingdom which contains more than the Elect. The Net of the Gospel brings Fishes good and bad The Heathen Countries that have turned to the Lord from Paganism and Infidelity have not all believed to Salvation The Kingdoms of the World shall become the kingdom of the Lord and of his Christ But they are not all Elect. These are all the Texts that I find urged to to prove that by the World is signified only the Elect. 2. And what if it were so in some places 1. It follows not that it is so here 2. The usual Sense must not be forsaken without cause Nor is it sufficient that unusually it is otherwise taken 3. The conjoyned words will shew the necessity of a restrained Sense where such a Sense is necessary to be received but so they do not here but contrarily as hath been shewed Their 4th Reason to prove that by the World is here meant the Elect only is this If every one in the World be intended why doth not the Lord in the pursuit of this Love reveal Christ to all so loved Ans This is to be fully answered anon among the main Objections by it self Lastly they say else all these will follow 1. That some are beloved and hated also from Eternity 2. That God's Love towards innumerable is fruitless and vain 3. That the Son of God is given to them that never hear word of him and have no power granted to believe in him 4. That God is mutable in his Love or else he still loveth those that be in Hell 5. That he gives not all things to them to whom he gives his Son 6. That he knows not certainly before who shall believe and be saved Ans To the first I thought no Antiarminian Divine ever denied it God hateth all the Workers of iniquity Psal 5. 5. You will not say that he hated them not from Eternity Many of the Workers of iniquity are Elect and so loved from Eternity God's Love is spoken say Divines ab effectu potius quam ab affectu God from Eternity so loved Men not Elect as to give them on Creation Everlasting Life in Adam on condition of fulfilling the first Covenant and to give them everlasting life in Christ on condition of believing according to the second Covenant And yet he decreed not to give any Men Grace to perform the condition of the first covenant nor to give all men Grace to perform the condition of the second To the 2d Consequence I shall answer fully by it self anon among the contrary Arguments To the 3d. also I shall there answer To the 4th I say for it is not worth a fuller answer 1. All Divines that I know say that God loveth those in Hell as his Creatures and as Men Aquinas and the rest of the Schoolmen have it frequently Yea Ursine Rob. Baronius and many of our Protestant Divines say that he punisheth those in Hell short of their deserving and so sheweth some mercy there that I will not meddle with 2. If you speak of God's Love as it is in effectu and not in affectu then it is certainly mutable He gives Men those mercies which for their â—buse he removeth or turneth to judgments He gives to all a conditional Pardon and Life And after condemneth most to Death for not performing the condition To the Elect themselves these Effects are changeable 3. If you say God's Love is but his Velle bonum alicui and therefore he cannot be said now Men are in Hell to continue to will them a conditional Pardon and Life Therefore God's Love must be mutable I answer Let those Owls that love to blind themselves by gazing on the Sun of God's undiscernable Infiniteness undertake to tell what God's Love is and what his Will is and how he Wills that which is past c. For my part I pretend not to a capacity of discerning any such things 2. You may enforce your objection as strongly concerning God's Love to the Elect He once willed their Creation then he willed to redeem them by Christ then he willed to call them and to give them their first justification to deliver them from this sickness and that danger then he willed that they should die and then that they should rise again If you will tell me how God after the Resurrection will continue to all Eternity to will to create Man to redeem him to call him justifie him deliver him raise him c. then I will tell you how God will Eternally will the giving Christ Pardon and Salvation conditionally to all If you say he Wills them as preterita and not as presentia vel futura you may say so by this If you say that there is no preteritum vel futurum with God but all present and therefore he willeth them as preterita sic dicta quoad hominem vel fidem mensuram humanam sed ut presentia quoad Deum the like you may say here also To the 5th Consequence I must answer anon by it self when we speak of their Argument from Rom. 8. 32. To the 6th It is a naked affirmation as easily denied Dare Men say that it was no mercy or love of God to give mankind in Adam Eternal Life on condition of keeping his Law because God foreknew or foredecreed they would not or should not keep it And so not attain the fruit of that Govenant thereby Dare these Men pretending to preach the Gospel tell their hearers that to all of them except the Elect the preaching the Gospel and therein the offer and conditional gift of Christ Pardon Justification and Salvation is no mercy nor from any love of God to