every man else therefore I may love my Wife yet so as to love every woman what would this open a doore unto and follow our Author and this cannot be avoyded therefore his giving himselfe for his Church being an argument to move to a speciall love cannot be thought to be in common to all If the love be to be exercised to unbeleeving ones or Adversaries then it is thus he hath suffered for us 1 Pet. 2.18 24. for the unjust 1 Pet. 3.14 18. The Author mistaketh those Texts they shew not our duty to love Adversaries but to be obedient to froward Masters and to be patient under sufferings for well-doing and as an argument he useth Christs Death for Sinners and for them being Sinners But to take his argument as it is laid downe by him the love is a generall love to all even enemies Now certainly if the thing had been true he would have used this as an argument for he dyed or suffered for all but this he no where doth no nor by a division which taketh in all as he dyed for just and unjust but only unjust not meaning all unjust but them Beleevers who were unjust when Christ dyed for them Therefore considering that in such a case it is a most pregnant argument and he not using it it may appeare that it is not a truth that Christ gave himselfe for all and every man Under this ranke of Scriptures there are few others that require any answer they being not places used by us therefore might be passed by but one place or two I shall mention 1 Cor 8.11 13. Which place he saith containeth an argument to make love operative to Brethren But let us consider the expression If the Authors Doctrine had been truth certaine it would have run thus Shall a man perish for whom Christ dyed Because he saith that Christ dyed for all men as men But he saith shall a Brother perish for whom Christ dyed As if he dyed for none but such as come under the notion of Brother 2. Cor. 5.14 Which he saith is an argument to make love operative to all men but therein he is deceived there is no such duty commanded in that Text. But the Author discovers his ingenuity in that he bringeth this Text in the number of them that do not shew how many he dyed for when they say he dyed for all and in other places is produced as a proofe for his first Redemption for all and every man one more there is of some consequence Sometimes it is propounded to such as are overseers of Congregations as to admonish them to keep this Doctrine firmely and teach it 1 Tim. 1.11.15 To provoke them to watchfulnesse over them Act. 20.28 To constancy in sufferings 2 Tim. 3.8 But these shew not how many he dyed for 1. As for that Text I wonder that he should say that that place 1 Tim. 1.15 sheweth not how many he dyed for what was the reason that in Pag. 3. he brings this place to prove the first Redemption for all and every one And that place that proves that certainly sheweth for how many he dyed for he dyed not for more then All however the Author hath lost his memory in the croud of Notions 2. For that Text Act. 20.28 We must first consider that this is a speciall and peculiar care that the Apostle exhorteth to and the arguments by which he moveth is twofold First Their Charge they were made overseers Secondly Christs Purchase he purchased them with his owne Bloud Now cleare it is that that care the Apostle exhorteth them to was a peculiar care and that first argument from their Charge was a peculiar and speciall Charge and so must the second be also of Christs Purchase for still I ground my reason upon this Aequalis acquisitio non potest esse fundamentum inaequalis curae What reason can be shewen why the Death of Christ and the Purchase with his Bloud can be given as an argument to move the Elders to a peculiar care over the slocke above others if he equally purchased others with them It is not congruous with Scripture to give such Heterogenious arguments when God commanded not to shed the bloud of men he saith not because he is a Creature for this being common with other Creatures moves no more to the care of mans life then to care for any Creatures life But thus for he is the Image of God and this is peculiar to man from other Creatures Let the Author search the Scripture and see whether it gives any argument from a common thing to move to a speciall duty and faithfulnesse over such and such Till I heare further I shall conclude that Christ purchased none but the Flocke So that these places produced by him although they do not define how many he dyed for yet they clearely say that he did not dye for all and by cleare and strong intimation averre that he did not give himselfe for every man in the world A second sort of waies of propounding follows wherein he saith that we have it shewne for how many Christ dyed as followes Sometimes it is laid downe as the foundation laid to offer life and bring in such as knew it not to beleeve Joh. 1.29 3.16 17. Sometime to such as beleeve to shew what Gospell was preached among them 1 Joh. 4.14 c. To be a ground of praise for such as beleeve not 1 Tim. 2.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. And here shall we find the question resolved how many he dyed for Whereas he saith It is propounded as a ground to offer life and bring in men to beleeve He seems to averre these three things all which want truth however probation 1. That wheresoever the Death of Christ is propounded as a ground of offering life it is propounded in generall termes as All men Every man The world But this is false for it is laid downe as a ground of Faith and offering life Joh. 3.16 17. 1 Tim. 1.15 Math. 1.21 Joh. 11.51 In all these it is as plainly propounded for a ground of offering life as any he can produce yet not in generall termes 2. That where it is propounded in generall termes it is propounded as a ground of Faith and offering life but this is false for in 1 Tim 2.6 there it is in generall termes but it not to offer life or beget Faith but to move Beleevers to love and to exercise it in praise for all men as Ver. 1 2. 3. That there is no ground to offer life unlesse it be propounded in generall termes but this is false for that in Joh. 3.16 is a firme ground of offering life and the marrow of the Gospell yet no generall termes Though this be true that Christ purchased life and Salvation but for some of all sorts yet this is ground enough of offering life to all of all sorts and to admonish every man to repent So for the rest much may be said to
death to lose all naturall comforts which tended to our comfortable living and so the whole Creation made for our use to be reduced to its first nothing By Spirituall death we were to lose our Spirituall good the Image of God and his graces to become dead in sins alienated from the life of God and so to be denyed his glorious presence for ever which makes up the greatest part of Eternall death this third not being different from the second specifically but only gradu duratione And to all this there was one degree of misery more all this was remedilesly without a Saviour and incontinently without delay to fall upon man In the day thou eatest thou shalt dye the death Now had not Christ intervened and interposed the Justice of God could not have brooked one moments respite Now here is a great latitude left for Christ by his Death to procure some good for every Creature for every man and yet the freedome from Eternall death and procurement of Eternall life not to be so generall as to reach to all men Yea in this case Christ did interpose and every man hath benefit by it Every man is freed from the present incumbency of the misery and so to a life of nature and so to the use of the Creatures they being given to man not quâ integer but quâ homo and that every man is thus farre redeemed from the incumbency of the misery none hath denyed common experience shewes But then whether or no those are such as Christ in Scripture Phrase is said to dye for and to ransome Or whether to all so and in such a measure freed He is said in Scripture to intend Eternall life it is very questionable and never yet proved The end of God and Christ in giving so much to every man I will not now either examine or determine But one we may be furnished with from the Author That though mans condition was such as deserved the present incumbency of the Curse yet that and the execution of many of Gods Eternall purposes concerning his Son and his Elect could not both have their accomplishment God having elected his Son Christ to union Hypostaticall and office of a Mediatour to give and bestow life to such a number of men whom he had elected to bring infallibly to Grace and Glory and that absolutely without any foresight of faith or any good as he granteth Pag. 118 119. 120. Which Decrees could not have been accomplished had the Curse been speedily and presently executed then had not Christ been borne he being to come through the multiplication of such a long Genealogie nor his Elect had any being to have been the Subjects either of Grace or Glory many of them being to issue from the Loynes of those to whom God had decreed to deny both Grace and Glory That this was only the sole and chiefe end of Christ in interposing yea for them that never come to have Eternall life I will not determine but leave it to the Author to consider whether there was not ground enough for him to intend some good to every man by his Death and yet not intend eternall life for them Therefore to let this passe for granted that Christ did so far interpose himselfe for every man as to keepe off from him the present imcumbency of the misery so to continue to him his forfeited being a roome in the world and the Creatures for his subsistence And could he make it good from Col. 1.20 that in this sense he hath reconciled the world of Creatures wherewith God was angry for mans delinquency so far as to have them continued in their borrowed and created being it could not any thing intrench upon the Question By vertue of which interposall he hath procured and every man enjoyeth many benefits I will not undertake to make a full enumeration of them but let it go thus far that every good that any man enjoyeth it is a streame flowing from that bloudy side of our Saviour And were it so that by vertue of this he might be said to taste of death for every man as Heb. 2.9 To be the Saviour of all men as 1 Tim. 4.10 To have bought them that perish with a swift destruction as 2 Pet. 2.1 And that not only quodammodo liberati as the contra Remonst would supply that Text Coll. Hag. 143. but that this they have by the vertue of Christs Bloud Were all this proved and stood firme I should embrace it I deny it not Nay my thoughts are that if Christ had not procured it no man should have had any good it being as well against justice to give the least mercy as Eternall life without a Saviour for Justitia constat in minimis And were the expression such as the Remonst through the great croud of Notions sometimes let slip in too rude a drought Acta Synod P. â—83 Effectum Christi mortis est restitutio in talem statum in quo Deus nobis beneficia sua communicare potest vult That is The effect of Christs Death is such that God may bestow his benefits as he seeth good leaving the words in such a latitude that they may admit of a diversity of good to divers persons some good to every man some good only to some men Herein few Adversaries would appeare He may give many good things that never intendeth to give Eternall life But then all this would not satisfie in all this there would be a double deficiencie 1. All this wants proofe to be meant when Christ is said to dye for and to Ransome and to Redeeme As if he is said in Scripture Phrase to dye for them for whom he procured some good I thinke Scripture doth not say Christ to have dyed for such but rather for them that were the chiefe end and for whose fake he gives such mercies to them that never come to have life as to instance He dyed not for them to whom he gives any outward priviledge but rather for them for whose sakes they were so that so by that they might come to be and be brought to repentance and so to life And I would entreat the Author to furnish me with some Arguments to prove that all the good he sheweth to those men that never come to life is not shewne them for the Elects sake chiefly and that the end why the world is not consumed is not chiefly that the Elect might in their times and seasons be brought to Repentance 2. Herein is not the state of the Question but we are yet besides the Controversies all things have been quiet till they came to say That Christ procured life and Salvation for every man and in the hottest Disputes about this Point I find such expressions as puts the case out of all doubt Amos Anty Synod p. 176. Si vago sensu quaeratur an Christus pro Electis aliquo modo mortuus sit an pro omnibus aliquo modo
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
I cannot think that God allures them Many are not convinced that Christ was sent till hell seaze on them and then they shall every Tongue confesse but then God intendeth not to allure them it is too late and therefore though we grant that Christ prayed for his that the world might be convinced yet it will not follow that he prayed that they might be allured And for his generall Intercession for all seeing so many Texts confine his Intercession to Beleevers as Rom. 8.34 Maketh Intercession for us Heb. 7.25 Makes intercession for them that come to God by him Heb 6.20 He entered into the heavens for us viz. Heires of Promise ver 17. Heb. 9.24 Who appeareth in heaven for us 1 John 2.1 2. We have an Advocate with the Father And by our Author Pag. 54. it is urged as a privilege of Beleevers and not one place in the whole Scripture that maketh out a generall Intercession I cannot but judge it an Oracle of flesh and bloud and not of God 5. I would know a ground why he changeth the termes When he speaketh of the generall and for Transgressors he giveth it the name of Intercession only But when he speaketh of the speciall for his Chosen Ones he giveth the title of Advocation as the Reader may observe As if there was some momentous difference betwixt an Intercessour and an Advocate which the Scripture affordeth not for that in Rom. 8.34 Maketh Intercession for us And that 1 Job 21. We have an Advocate are all one And can this flourish with Phrasiologies tend to any thing but to bleate the eyes of his ignorant Readers 6. I would know a reason why to the second viz. his Advocation He confineth his presenting them holy to his Father as if he did intercede for some in heaven whom he did not so present And herein I demand one Text to shew where Christ appeares in heaven for any either as Intercessor or Advocate and doth not present the Persons of such holy to his Father That he intercedes in heaven for all and yet presents but some holy to his Father is the Language only of our Author not of Scripture and when these particulars are duly scanned his simple jumbling and confounding Notions beyond either his owne understanding or any mans else will clearely appeare From which jumbling and confused Discourse he comes to raise a double Salvation and he thus speaketh 1. One common the other speciall and eternall of each it is fit distinctly to mention That it is so sit to speake of them distinctly I grant it would be well he would speak as distinctly as he pretends that we might understand it he should have explained what he meaneth by that speciall and eternall Salvation if he meane by it our perfect glorification in heaven which in Scripture Phrase is called eternall Salvation Heb 5.9 Then it seemeth he intendeth Grace and Faith to belong to the common not speciall Salvation which is contrary to himselfe in many Pages of his Discourse But if by it he meane Grace and Glory Faith and the Inheritance then doth he speake of Faith and beleeving as not being an eternall Salvation as Pag. 10. Yea with some he goeth further so as that they beleeve though departing from this grace they may perish c Hereby we see because he speaketh not distinctly he speaketh not as is fit But he addeth The one Christ worketh for all men Pag. 9. The other he workes in men to God Pag. 12. O that the confused braine of the Author could produce it selfe in any reasonable perspicuity why doth he say that the common Salvation is wrought only for men Is it not bestowed on men As to instance in his particulars as the preservation of the Creatures the patience of God meanes of knowledge c. Are they not given to men And acted upon men Have they them not Why then are they set downe as only wrought out for men Certainely herein he could not promise himselfe satisfaction And so for the speciall Salvation wrought in the hearts of men by his Spirit why doth he say it was only wrought in men Was it not also wrought for men by his Bloud before it was wrought in men by his Spirit I thinke the purchase of Christ is the foundation of every spirituall good whether Grace or Glory Eph. 1.3 His expresses herein therefore are preposterous but herein is his mistake he should have made his distinction run betweene the Acts of Christ in procuring and applying but he speaketh of a distinct good bestowed some to all some not to all which is not only uselesse in this Controversie but also admits not of his Expressions Seeing those things which are speciall are wrought out for those that have them and those that are common are not only wrought for but conferred on men But he inserteth severall particulars as branches of this common Salvation Which I shall examine 1. The earth and Inhabitants thereof which by Sin are dissolved he beareth up the pillers of it Psal 75.3 4. Heb. 1.3 And the frame of the Creatures for mans use preserved Psal 145.8 9. Math. 5.45 Col. 1.18 And this a witnesse of his goodnesse Act. 14.17 17.24.31 That the Fabricke of the world and the Creatures thereof by sinne forfeited are againe restored and sustained and continued for mans use and that by vertue of Christs Sacrifice and interposall I verily beleeve and needs it must so be man being upheld in his being the Creatures must be so for his subsistence and that man is so is cleare and must be so if for no other end yet for this that his Elect might come to have a being and so come to Repentance Thus far I have formerly granted and grant this generall Salvation And this is the Hellena on which he seemeth so enamoured but it serves him not it is nothing to the Question this he might do and yet have no thoughts to bring most men to Grace or Glory But if I had an inclination to deny it his quoted Texts prove it not there is not any one of those places alleaged except Col. 1.18 that hath any shew of proving that Christ as Mediatour procured the being of the world and the Creatures therein few of them speake of Christ but God essentially the living God Creatour of all things as Psal 75.3 4. Psal 145.8.9 Math. 5.45 Nay with expresse distinction from Christ God man as Acts 17.24.31 The rest of Christ as God and as Creator and Preserver of all things as Heb. 1.3 Therefore I could advise him to seeke out more pertinent Texts for his purpose 2. By him is procured patience and long suffering of God and much bounty in many mercies to men as 2 Pet. 3.9 Rev. 2.21 Psal 19.14 Psalm 136.25 And this to lead men to Repentance Rom. 2.4 That patience and long-suffering is procured for every man that is that the Curse is not incontinently executed on them and the world dissolved I will
So that if the parts of his distinction be so coincident that we may say For the effecting of the former he ascended also to his Father and for the latter he came downe from the Father then his difference falleth to the ground as for that Text Joh. 16.28 it sheweth only that Christ both came from and also goeth to the Father but it saith not that he came downe only to procure and went to him to apply the good things procured So that we may see what libertie he takes to distortour Saviours words to apply them to his owne conceits without ground Nay our Saviour seemes to disclaime it for there is more the soly Application when he saith I go to prepare a place for you Joh. 14.2 His third is the same with this therefore I mention it not 3. The one is a Redemption for us in Christ Rom. 3.24 The other a Redemption of us in Soule and body Luk. 1.74 Many leaves would not serve sufficiently to display the vanity of this distinction First This denotes that the Redemption of our soules and bodies was not wrought out for us which is erroneous if he import not so much his distinction is frivolous Secondly That denoteth that the Application of Christs Bloud is not effected or showne till our soules and bodies be glorified which is false the giving of any Mercy the means of Grace his Patience is the Application of his Bloud And if he meane not the former he weakely expresseth the latter by the Redemption of us in our soules and bodies 3. The first he saith is only for us when in his sixth particular he produceth Christs Lordship Patience Goodnesse of God to men as this first Redemption but these are not only for us but of us and to us endlesse are his absurdities but I close with this other that Text Rom. 3.24 is abused that mentioneth not this Phrase For us therefore serveth him not for his purpose there is no expression there but what agreeth to the second Redemption viz. Application therefore serveth not to prove a discrimination I shall use only one more 4. The former is affirmed in Scripture to be for all men Joh. 3.17 The latter is for and to Beleevers only To this I Answer If he can carry this by Scripture then his weakenesse appeares in expressing himselfe so remissely as to contend in this Chapter only for this that they are distinct if the first be for all the second for Beleevers only then they are not only distinct but separable one from the other and one may be where the other never is and this is a degree beyond distinction 2. Whereas he saith That the latter viz. the Application of his Death is only for Beleevers how diflonant is it from himselfe and his best friends the Remonst who unanimous that Remission of Sins and Eternall Salvation is procured for all men not only for Beleevers Indeed they say it is only to them but for all for if they be confined to Beleevers not only to them in regard of enjoyment but for them also in regard of procurement his common Redemption will be but a meere Chymaera 3. If he say That the Impetration or procuring of Remission and Eternall Life be for all and every Son of Adam then he must prove it by Scripture that Text Joh. 3.17 proveth it not it speakes not of such a Redemption Salvation as may be divided from Eternall Life no nor barely of Impetration but as it relateth to Application to follow as when he saith I come to save that which was lost and he shall save his people from their Sins Math. 1.21 Neither doth the world World there meane every Son of Adam but he came to save the World that is Men living in the World his inference here from is no plaine Text but a corrupt reasoning from a cleare Text. Againe that Text Joh. 3.16 confirmeth me in this Point that Christ did not procure life for every Son of Adam because he there saith it was that only Beleevers might not perish It saith not that every one might not perish if they beleeve but that those that beleeve the number of which was well knowne to him Now if Christs will was one and concentricall with his Fathers he procured life for none but Beleevers So that then not only the Application is to but the Impetration for Beleevers only what then becommeth of his Doctrine That he procured life for all men whether they beleeve or no I see not this is no Scripture Language So that now having examined his particulars of distinction and finding them full of confusion and not distinct enough to be understood I shall give the Reader a taste of some new Divinity 1. That Christ dyed for some for whom he did not live againe as in the first 2. That he came from the Father for some for whom he went not to the Father againe as in the second 3. That he was abased for some for whom he was not exalted as in the third 4. That he shed his Bloud for some for whom he presented not his Bloud as shed as in the fifth All these he averreth in that he saith the former of all is done for all and every man the latter only for Beleevers Thus have I embowelled the distinction the Chapter that treateth of it his expressions therein And little perspicuity or pertinency to the Question can I find therein and so confused that I feare few of his Readers can gather from it what he holds or what they should close withall neither can any ingenuous man shew what he hath gotten of his Adversary herein that which is truth in it no man denyeth yet a miscellany of Obscurities Errours Contradictions interwoven it is the basis of the whole Discourse therefore I have been more prolix in dissecting it lest I should over-looke any pertinent truth they are so few tedious I know it must be to them that are verst in more polite Notions but the Nature of my Antagonist requires it things of lesse concernment shall be passed over with lesse disquisition And what he delivers herein appeares to me not to be the meaning of 1 Tim. 2.4 6. Heb. 2.9 And his Proposition being taken in this sence here delivered is not made out in those Texts And what provision he is supplyed with from this distinction so prosecuted for the taking downe of the edge of our Arguments shall be seene in its proper place CHAP. III. Of divers ends of Christs Death and of which is here meant THe Author conceiving to find strength from the consideration of the ends of Christs Death enters this Point And I confesse it helps much to decide this Controversie therefore I shall to my Talent bend my thoughts to examine what he delivereth herein He saith thus 1. The first end and that which is generall and of largest extent was to be a Ransome Sacrifice and Propitiation and this hath three distinct ends in it 1. In respect
That by the grace of God he might taste death for every man The whole verse is thus being directly rendred from the Originall We see Jesus made little lower then the Angels through the suffering of death crowned with honour and glory that by the grace of God c. Now here are two things affirmed of Christ First that he was made a little lower then the Angels Secondly that through death he was crowned with honour and glory now it would give some light into the after words if we could tell on which of these two they depend or to which they relate I must confesse it very obscure The Author page 65. seemes to make them relate to both as if he was made little lowet then the Angels that he might taste death and also crowned with honour and glory because he tasted death for every man but this least probable for then the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie both ut and quia both that and because which is not likely but let the dependance be what it will for the words themselves I propound these following Queries First whether these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be well rendred thus That by the grace of God he might taste death for every man And whether it may not beare this reading That by the grace of God he might taste of every death or de tota morte of all or whole death That he might taste 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This reading I shall cleare to be no way contrary to the Scripture or Grammaticall construction then that the context clearely leadeth to it the most forcible objection from Grammer is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a verbe of sense governeth a genitive case without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But although this be true yet it is well knowne that this language delights in such pleonasmes and redundancy of prepositions is the elegancy of this language when yet the word will governe the genetive case without them But some may say that if it had been so meant the words would have been thus placed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to this I answer that in the chapter there are two and in the verse one president for placing the verbe between the adjective or relative and the substantive And the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often for totus not omnis as Ephes 4.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole body so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whole death so that here is not one word rendred but justifiably by Scripture Secondly this is most agreeing with the context for if the Author will have these words to relate to his being made lower then the Angels and suffering death it very well agreeth thereto for if it be asked why he suffered such a death which death is not confined to the perfective act when his soule was separated from his body but extendeth to all the acts of his humiliation from his incarnation to his expiration for so all this was the death for which he was crowned as appeareth Phil 2.7.8 9. His taking on him the forme of a servant as well as his submitting to the crosse was that which got him that name now if it be asked why he suffered such a death of such latitude and extent it was that he might taste 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of whole death both top and dregs no part of that death we lie under shall be untasted off Or if we will have them relate to those words He was crowned with honour it well agreeth with them for if the question be asked how he came to be crowned with honour and glory as he now is the answer is not to be given or the cause fetched from the latitude of the persons for whom he was humbled because his first act of humiliation viz. his taking our nature upon him was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for every man for whom he afterward died and if the ground of his glory was drawne from the latitude of persons for whom he suffered his Father had as good ground to glorifie him at his Incarnation as at his expiration but that he did not but the ground is fetched from the latitude of sufferings when he had taken our nature on him and undergone a series and method of sufferings in his life and the dregs of all at his death and so drunke his potion and done his worke by tasting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all or whole death then and therefore he was crowned having so much suffered he entred into glory and so we see it well agreeing with the words foregoing And it well agreeth with the words that follow For it behooved him c. to make the Captaine of their salvation perfect through sufferings Now that word For sheweth that this 10. verse relateth to the 9. and that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he might be perfect through sufferings now when is Christ perfect through sufferings whether when he hath suffered for all men or when he hath tasted of all sufferings or whole death certainely if the former then he might in his very incarnation be said to be perfect through sufferings for that he was for all for whom he died but this neither reason nor Scripture teacheth and it is most congruous to both to affirme the latter and so Heb. 5.9 saith and seemeth to refer this perfection to the ultimate act and then he was made the author of salvation Nay further we finde verse 17. that it behooved him to be like unto us in all things still expounding his being perfect in sufferings that is when he hath sufferings that we were lyable to and so might know how to helpe us in all afflictions he being like to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every death or affliction then is he perfect through sufferings This I determine not but desire the Author to transmit it to his oracle and I leave it to the judgment of the learned and if it be found congruous then this Text maketh but little for him Query 2 Wave the former sense how can the Author fetch his generall expression from these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it was to be read for every man the substantive is not expressed but left so as indifferent to be rendred every beleever or son of God as every man or sonne of Adam the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or any word from it when set alone is not alwayes to be rendred All men or every man as John 12.32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not I will draw all men that is not verified but plainely from Iohn 3.15 where it saith the sonne of man is lift up that whoever beleeveth might have eternall life appeareth to be meant of every one that beleeveth and so 1 Cor. 4.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praise shall be given is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to every man but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to every faithfull man as verse 2. So
he maketh Gods compassion and mercy to extend no further then to make men salvable and his delight to be in the giving union and possession of all priviledges but this division is without ground for all good that God gives to fallen man even to glory it selfe floweth from his compassion and mercy glory in heaven is mercy as well as any thing we receive on earth 2 Tim. 1.18 and all that love that rests not till the party loved be brought into union c. is that love of compassion though he make it to be the love of delight which properly rests not till all that be done for delight is rather in the thing done then tending to the doing of it these two constitute not a good distinction as he boundeth them but these with many other things I passe by and come to examine what he speaketh of hatred that also he saith is twofold 1. A not so much loving as Gen. 29.30.31.33 Luke 14.26 2. A positive and furious hatred tending to the destruction of the hated Deut. 19.11 Now that a not so much loving should be called hatred is not cleare from those Texts alledged as for Gen. 29.30 that Text speaketh not of a lesse degree of love but of no love at all that is conjugall affection so he loved her not at all therefore hated her and for Luke 14.26 there is not spoken of a lesse love but absolute hatred if they stand in opposition to Christ for else it is enough to give worldly respects some part so that we give Christ the greatest part of our love but this is not sound divinity Againe if a not so much loving be hating then it is no such fearefull thing to say that God hateth the righteous for certaine it is that he loveth not them so much as he doth his onely Sonne But to let this passe I am now to examine how he welldeth these weapons to cut down our assumption That of Gods love he pursueth thus farre A love of compassion and mercy Psalm 136.25.145.8.9 is such a love as extendeth it selfe so farre for the good of man loved in good things afforded that a man is made salvable and so much done for him that in accepting c. he maybe saved Psal 36.5.6.7 That God is full of compassion and his mercy is over all his workes and he saveth man and beast those Texts affirme and that by the virtue of his compassion the sonnes of men come to partake of the well of life we grant but all the rest is of his owne making none of these Texts say that every of the sonnes of men have so much of Gods compassion as to have life procured for them by Christs death no nor yet that every man enjoyeth the height of Gods compassion this is to be yet proved for if creatures irrationâ—ll may have much of Gods compassion and yet not the height of his compassion why may not some men have much compassion yet not the height of it yet our assumption stands firme Againe he saith Lesse love then this was not to the Angels before they fell nor lesse love to mankinde before the fall Ecel 7.29 Gen. 12. This though it serve him not yet he discovereth his folly for this supposeth that Angels and men had compassion showen them before they fell but this is false for compassion presupposeth misery and the fall which was not before the fall but what is the result of all this no more but this that all men have some degree of Gods compassion manifested on them but what is all this to prove that every man hath the height of his compassion so that his reasoning cometh to this head every man hath some compassion showed him therefore that is high blasphemy to say that every man hath not the height of his compassion this is but miserable reasoning Againe thus he urgeth The love of compassion and the hatred that is in a lesse degree of love may stand together both in God and man Hos 11.5 Jer. 9.1.2 This is a truth nay I shall grant further that his love of compassion and his positive hatred may stand together that is God may give some expresses of his compassion to many whose destruction he willeth and whom he purposeth to destroy and this is so far from overthrowing that it confirmeth our assumption For it cleareth this that every degree of his compassion enjoyed doth not argue an eye to the salvation of them whom God bestoweth that low degree of compassion on therefore the compassion that God showeth to many is no argument that every man enjoyeth also the height of Gods compassion Yet hitherto we are untouched He saith further To say whoever he loveth with the love of compassion he loveth for ever or to say he hateth with any other hatred then that which is in the lesse degree of love any before they have hardened their hearts against him c. is contrary to Hosea 9.10 to 15. Zach. 7.11.13 1.18.28 2.4.5 In which words there is confusion impropriety and fallacy 1. He speakes confusedly not distinguishing the severall degrees of his compassion for it may be granted that to whom he giveth some degrees of his compassion he continueth not that for ever because some good he may give that is not to last for ever viz. a temporall good yet certainely to whom he giveth his highest pitch of compassion he loveth such for ever Will he say that Rom. 6.15 is not an everlasting compassion that compassion mentioned Ier. 31.33.34 is not for ever continued consult with 36.37 2. He speaketh improperly because though hatred may stand with a lesse degree of love that is he may deny some good to them to whom he giveth some good yet it is not proper to say that hatred consists in that lesse degree of love for in that he bestoweth any good he hateth not neither can hatred consist in the giving that good but rather in the deniall of a greater good he hated nor Esau in that he gave him some good but in that he gave him not that great good that he gave to Jacob. 3. He speaketh fallaciously suggesting to his followers that we hold that God hateth with a hatred that is without any degree of love that is he so willeth evill to to them that he willeth not to bestow any good at all but this we say not for the greatest hatred is to will to deny grace and glory but God may give much good to such he hateth not the reprobate with the hatred that excludeth all good yet some and many he hateth so as to deny them the top and height of his compassion and that before they turne away their hearts from him and how doth he in all this overthrow the Minor but by this hatred which he makes to be after their turning away from him I suppose he meaneth or at least should doe his will to deny saving grace and glory and then happily 4. He may seeme to speake
debt which God requires c. so that here is not two payments of one debt but a new debt in despising Gods goodnesse I demand when he saith Christ satisfied for sinne what sinne he means what onely for originall and lest us to satisfie for actuall or for some actuall and left us to makt out the rest Was the unbeleife of Paul in the time of non conversion a new debt not satisfied for can any be saved and their sinnes not satisfied for is any able to satisfie but Christ and the sinner be capable of life O impious doctrine derogatory to the sufferings of Christ is not Christs worke a perfect worke but a man may have a new debt that was not thought on by Christ strange divinity how must the deare children of God do with their past rebellions against meanes of grace it is a new debt Christ satisfied not they are not able doth not he doe well to charge others with grosse ignorance that he may have some fellowes Hath he so soone forgot his protestation against popery and to defend the doctrine of the church of England against all popish innovation which doctrine runnes thus That Christ suffered for all sinnes of men originall and actuall Yet he comes with a new debt unsatisfyed for and who must if Christ did not I would have the Author tell me what he meaneth when he saith The whole debt of mankinde became his page 3. is not contempt of meanes and rebellion against Gods call part of our debt certainely herein the Author discovered too much ignorance with which he is pleased to brand others certainely those for whom Christ undertook he satisfyed for all their sinnes originall actuall against Law against Gospel his satisfaction was not done to the halfe to need a corrivall in that worke therfore such can have no new debt and such cannot in justice be bound over to suffer eternall torments for any sinne no not for any pretended new debt he hath taken away all that stands crosse to our salvation so the Author speaketh page 18. 19. And all that he saith notwithstanding the proposition standeth firme CHAP. XVI Of the fourth Objection A Fourth Argument is this Those to whom he would not vouchsafe to manifest himselfe or to pray for for those he would not die John 17.9 But he would not manifest himselfe to nor pray for the world of ungodly and wicked men Ergo He did not die for the world of ungodly or wicked men Before I come to his answers I shall take notice of his dealing with the argument to make it fit for his purpose 1. He confoundeth two arguments together for Manifestation of him self that belongeth to an other argument neither can he give any president of jumbling these two together which confusion will make the argument not clear and the answers obscure 2. He cannot produce any that citeth John 17.9 to prove the Major 3. Nor any that maketh the Minor to runne thus But he prayed not for the world of ungodly or the conclusion to run thus Ergo He dyed not for the world of ungodly all these are purposely foysted in to make the argument seeme vile this is no faithfull dealing as he promised the argument runneth thus in the seventh Argument in Hag. Col. Those whom he reconciled he interceded for John 17.9 But He interceded not for all and every son of Adam John 17.9 Ergo He reconciled not every sonne of Adam John 17.9 The Major is thus grounded Rom. 8.32 he saith If he give us his Sonne he wil much more give us all things The Argument is this if he gave us the greater he will certainely much more give us the lesse so if he die for us he will pray for us so in the negative we conclude if he pray not for the world which is the lesse he did not die for or reconcile which is the greater Now to perpend his answers he giveth this generall and facile refutation This objection is false many waies And that which he driveth at I guesse to be the ground of the reason that is the ground of proceeding from the lesse to the greater negatively that he would prove it is no good reason to say because he would not pray therefore he would not die for the world and he urgeth thus It is not right reason to say God would not make Heaven c. whom he would not preserve in that good estate But had he beene in his right reason he would have seen this very impertinent to our purpose our argument proceeds from the lesse to the greater negatively but his instance proceedeth from the greater to the lesse negatively which is unsound and quite contrary to the businesse in hand for to preserve in a good estate is a greater mercy then to create in such estate onely so that though this is not sound he will not create because he will not preserve yet this is good if he will not create which is the lesse he will not preserve which is the greater and this serveth us the lesse may include the greater negatively but the greater cannot the lesse As for those expresses that touch that part of the argument viz. the manifesting of himselfe to the world it is not to this argument which mixture of Heterogeneous expresses will pertuâ—be the reader in the cleare decision of this argument therefore I wave them Againe he urgeth If Christ had said he never did nor would pray for the world which he never said yet it were evill in us to use that as an argument to deny the truth of his own words as that he dyed for all and every one But rather an evill in himselfe to obtrude such a sense on those places that contradict Christs owne words or the true consequences from the same it is no evill in us to gainesay the phansy or glosse that the Author puts on those Texts from this I can gather little but that the Author would have all the sayings of our Saviour to take the modell of their interpretations from his own conceits upon those places 1 Tim. 2.6 Heb. 2.9 which is not a reasonable postulatum as for that parenthesis which he did not if he once said he did not and it cannot be proved that ever he did pray for that world we may presume he meaneth he never had nor would pray for them This confoundeth his love of compassion common to all and of delight peculiar to Beleevers It is hard to divine his meaning herein unlesse he meaneth that his dying for be only the love of compassion and his praying for the love of delight and so to pray for us to be a greater love then dying for us for so he maketh the love of delight to be the greatest love but this is not apparent by any Scripture and how this argument confoundeth compassion and delight the Author would have done well to have discovered to them that see it not This confoundeth the death of Christ as ransome