perswasions of his Spirit that he could not scale any comfortable tidings to their hearts that Christ had done for them if he had not ascended that finishing his Impetration he ascending sent him to them Thus the Author grants Pag. 7. 8. He appeares and Advocates for us to procure pardon of sins c. And to present himself and the Covenant of precious Promises therefore his ascending and Advocation belongs to the impetration or procuring life Hence that Discourse that divideth the Acts of Christ about our Salvation and that as Mediatour some to Impetration others to Application as he doth is not sound and Orthodox Which generals being well considered will make way to the methodicall examining of the Authors distinction and his Discourse upon it The distinction followeth First A Salvation Redemption Reconciliation which Christ hath wrought in his body with God for men Secondly A Salvation Redemption Reconciliation which Christ hath effected by his Spirit in men to God Which distinction the Author excudes to that end it might be both heeded and understood which if he had as really intended as he spake he would have made it to bring pertinency and perspicuity along with it pertinency that it might deserve to have been heeded and perspicuity with it that it might be in a capacity of being understood but so wild are his expressions herein that his Reader is put to a double taske both to search out his intricate meaning and also to refell it the first being of farre greater difficulty which savours not of Controversall ingenuity And that which by his other expresses we may conjecture to be his meaning being granted in its latitude affords no cleare decision to the Controverted truth as in the close of this Chapter I shall shew It is not easie to determine whether by this distinction our Author intends to discover two distinct Salvations wrought by Christ or two distinct Acts in Christ working and effecting one and the same Salvation which if our Author had heeded to discover his Discourse had more tended to satisfaction and been better understood If he meane distinct Salvations then he should have discovered what they are and how distinct for truth we may grant in this thus taken That there is a Salvation from the present Incumbency of the misery wrought out and effected by Christ for all men And there is a Salvation from enmity of heart by effectuall calling wrought by the Spirit of Christ and this is to none but Beleevers But what clearenesse this bringeth to the Controversie in hand is not yet cleare to me Besides if he thus meane though these Salvations be distinct yet as his distinction is cloathed with circumstances it falleth to the ground for his first Salvation he speakes of is so wrought out for men that it is not done in or upon men but such is not the Salvation from the present incumbency of the Curse for that is so wrought out for that it is also acted upon men applyed to every man there being nothing requisite to the application of that but what is common to all men And his second Salvation is so wrought in men that is distinct from and opposed to wrought out for men els his distinction is not good but this is false for no Salvation is wrought in or upon men but it is wrought out for men Impetration being the foundation of all Application therefore these two are ill brought as members contra-distinct seeing they are coincident in one and the same Redemption But if he meane his distiction of two Acts concurring to every Salvation viz. a working for and a bestowing upon a procuring for and applying to As I suppose he doth not only because this distinction is in use in all Arminian Tracts in this Point as the businesse of their elaborate structures and the hinge about which they turne But also from our Authors owne expressions in every leafe almost of his Discourse as to instance The pardon procured and in his hands to bestow Pag. 42 43. He would work out a Redemption and procure life and it is in him for men Pa. 50. If Christ had shed no Bloud to procure remission for them Page 137. He hath procured Salvation and made them salvable and calleth them that they might be saved Pag. 157 158. By all which and many more it appeareth plainly that by his first Salvation he meaneth no more then the first Act of Christ in procuring or meriting of Salvation And by the second he meaneth the Actuall applying of it upon such conditions performed and if this be all I must enforme him that this hath been well heeded long since and fully understood and yet the businesse not cleared beyond all doubt of his side And I would then know Whether his distinction be not something allied to that of the Arminians of Impetration and Application the one for every Man the second for Beleevers only and what difference there is betwixt him and an Arminian Save only that his expressions are more absurd though he cryeth out of a heavy Calumny so to be charged And when our Author gives a more distinct discovery of himselfe he shall have a more distinct Answer In the next place I shall examine both members of his distinction apart of the first now and first to consider his expressions in it Secondly the Scriptures he produced to backe it The members run thus A Salvation Reconciliation Redemption which Christ hath wrought in his Body for men with God Wherein 1. I desire satisfaction why he calleth the Act of Christ in meriting or procuring life for men A Salvation without further explanation Meriting or procuring being an Act relateth to the Agent and is terminated in him but Salvation is a transient Act that runneth into an Object It is an effect and therefore must have an object on which it is wrought Salvation is opus ad extra and therefore to say that that is terminated in Christ is absurd As it is a worke ad extra so it might have an object ad extra also Corv. in Mol. Cap. 28. Sect. 11 and if none be saved there is no Salvation Indeed the Remonstrants called it a Reconciliation but then they explaine themselves that it is not an actuall Reconciliation But therefore called so because Reconciliation is procured and if the Author had so discovered himselfe he had been ingenuous but herein in my Reason is not satisfied That those things that are procured And in time to come to passe may be laid downe as being in Act when they are not so because of the infallible futurition I grant as he that beleeveth not is condemned and he that beleeveth hath eternall life Scripture thus speaketh but that the act of Christ in procuring only that men may have life notwithstanding which most men perish and the end whereof is not the Salvation of men that such an act should be Salvation Reconciliation Redemption neither Scripture nor Reason speaketh therefore I
a Testament but in this case every Covenant that God makes with us is made in Christ and sealed with the death of the Covenant-maker therefore a Testament And this appeares by his own words All which being by Covenant Pag 20. or as in a Will and Testament plainely recorded are called the New Testament Now if I understand him in all this he speaketh thus much that The new Covenant belongs not to all but to his chosen ones but herein I thinke he doth not well understand himselfe Now that he thus meaneth appeareth by his own words Pag. 20. For such as beleeve and so come in to Christ there are for them many gracious Promises from Christ and his Father contained in one generall viz. Eternall life But here he engageth the Remonst against him they contend that God doth Novum foedus inire cum onibus Enter into a new treaty with every man and Corvinus labours in vaine when he thus proveth In Molin c. 29. Sect. 15. Quare quum primum foedus pertinuerit ad omnes quia cum primo homine ut gener is bumani stirpe fuit initum oportet ut eadem sit ratio secundi foederis That is As the first Covenant was to all men seeing made to the first Man as the Stock or Root of all So it is requisite it should be in the second it hath hitherto been the taske of the contra-Remonstrants to prove that the new Covenant belongeth only to some as appeares in that from Gen 3. Ibid. Molin pleades it to be peculiar but Corvinus answereth Merito dicimus esse generalem quum non probas eam restringi But now the Author saves us that labour we have it ex confesso but that I may in a few words present him with the consequences of this his Assertion I would have him shew me what is the new Covenant I know he will say the Promise of eternall life so he intimateth Pag. 20 and of those things that conduce to it Then I aske how this life is promised absolutely or upon condition I know he will say upon the condition of Faith Beleeve and thou shalt be saved and so all the conducements to eternall life and life it selfe as Pag. 20. are by the new Covenant tyed to Faith in Jesus Christ Now let him tell me are not all under this Covenant Do not all come under the Notion of salvability by vertue of this Covenant because they may have life upon beleeving Are not all under the Command of beleeving And doth the Command go without the Promise Let him stand to his owne principles and speake out Can every man be said to be Reconciled Redeemed Justified Saved if they be not under such a Covenant or Promise of having Actuall Reconciliation Redemption Justification Salvation if they beleeve What is that new Treaty that he speakes of Pag. 17. into which God brings all men Nay this overthroweth his whole Discourse What Gospell is there to be preached to them that are not under the Covenant The Gospell saith Beleeve and live but is this to be preached to them that are not under the Covenant of having life upon Faith These if he be fixed to his owne principles are of some force It is not enough to say that the Covenant belongs only to Beleevers that they shall not perish for he holds that yet every particular it is true of them that they shall have life and it is so promised upon beleeving as he urgeth Pag. 130. It is so a truth for mankind that it is a truth for them all that whoever of them beleeve shall not perish but have everlasting life And what is this but to be under the Covenant The businesse must come to this issue that there are two new Covenants the one under which the Elect is the other under which the rest are which will be hard to prove or else that all men are under the Covenant of Grace or thirdly that God hath not entered into a new Covenant and Treaty by Christ with every man according to which God may conferre and deny life both which latter are dissonant to himselfe and destructive to his cause This I say not to oppose his Assertion viz. That the New-Testament belongs not to all If it had not been his it should have been mine But I herein discover when a man understandeth not himselfe how soone he may cut his throat with his owne knife and strangle his opinion with his owne words 2. Whereas he saith Belong not to all but to his chosen ones he is here so confused and indistinct because his chosen ones may be all men in the Authors Divinity for he makes an Election to Service with which all are Elected to Service Pag. 118. 3. Whereas he explaineth Chosen ones by partaking of the heavenly Call Herein he needeth an Interpreter Pag. 9. because in many places of his Discourse he contendeth for this that all men partake of the heauenly Call as Thus he calls in some degree or other all the Sons of men And to this end that they might be convinced of Sin Pag. 23. There is a difference between partaking of the Call and the efficacie thereof in being by it wrought upon to beleeve the latter I confesse he saith is not to all but the first is if he divine right Therefore for him to say To his chosen ones that partake of his heavenly Call unlesse he will have all to be chosen involveth himselfe and if he will he doth no lesse for to say it belongs not to all but to his chosen ones and those that partake of the heavenly Call which may take in all is absurd But any may see he seekes so to temper his Pen that his Reader may mould him either way according to his owne temper but this becomes impostors rather then those that pretend they preach Christ 4. Whereas he saith And then such generall words as world all men which cannot be in any sence applyed to some only are not used wherein he tacitely implyeth that the words World All men are never taken for some only The proper decision of which will fall in another place therefore I shall only put him in mind of his owne words Pag 30. where he saith The Phrase All men is used so as it cannot be meant of Gods people good men hearers of the Word c. nor the Elect of God Certainely then if all the Elect of God and all Beleevers and Hearers of the Word of God be excluded this Phrase is to be meant but of some and now his taske will be to give a good Reason why the words All men may not meane all the Good excluding the Bad as well as all the Bad excluding the Good the propriety of Language is indifferent to either Nay shame will not suffer him to prevaricate but he confesseth Pag. 31. That there is an All of upright and Beleevers as 1 Cor. 4.5 Every man shall have praise of God as
only them to whom he wrote were out of the verge of any adverse thing it clearely affirmeth that only Beleevers are in such a condition as nothing shall prevaile against them So in this He delivered him up for us all This denoteth not the precise number nor argueth that he was given up only for them to whom he wrote being Romans but thus far it is firme that he was given up for Beleevers only and this sufficeth us So that when the Author saith No right reasoning can inferre hence therefore no other It is true if he meane no other Individuals for he was so given up for them as that he was also for all other Beleevers but right reasoning may inferre that he was given up for none other but Beleevers and where is the obliquity of this reasoning Sometimes in the second Person with personall Application as my Bloud which is shed for you Luk. 22.20 1 Pet. 1.18 19 c. Reason must yield such sayings shew not how many he redeemed This is of the same nature with the former therefore the same answer is to be given Thâ—se Texts shew not the precise number but the condition of them that are so redeemed as that Text 1 Pet. 1.18 19. Ye were redeemed from vaine conversation none ever said that this Text doth shew the number of them that were redeemed from vaine conversations for many Gentiles were to whom he wrote not neither hath any denyed but that this limiteth the condition that only Beleevers are Redeemed from vaine Conversations as in the next verse And he was manifested in the last times for you It doth not shew for how many but yet it doth for whom he was revealed viz. Beleevers as appeares in the next words Who by him beleeve in God hereby any may see through those mists which he casteth before cleare truths Sometime in the third Person with speciall Application and that sometimes to the better part as Joh. 10.15 I lay down my life for my Sheep Sometimes to the worse part as 1 Cor. 8.11 the weake brother for whom Christ dyed no sober mind will say that any of these alone resolve the Question for how many Christ dyed 1. For his expresses I demand why he putteth a weake Brother in the number of the worse part methinkes the name of Brother though weake should have got him a place in the better ranke 2. As for his assertion No sober mind will say that any of these alone shew for how many he dyed It is weake and impertinent we never yet attempted to define the precise number but the condition of them for whom he dyed we say only for Beleevers we meddle not for how many Beleevers or Sheepe he dyed Now if he deny that the Text Joh. 10.15 shews for whom only he dyed he hath drunke so deepe in Arminius his Cup that he is not sober yet and to cleare it let us view expressions of the like nature that in this we may follow the genious of Scripture Rom. 4.11 Abraham is there called the Father of them that beleeve Now doth not this denote that he is the father of none else as that Phrase of being Father is there meant we must so grant it if we compare it with Gal. 3.7.29 And in that it saith he is the Father of them that beleeve it is exclusive of such as beleeve not John 3.16 He sent his Son that those that beleeve might not perish but have everlasting life Let the Author tell me doth not this Text so confine eternall life to Beleevers as that none but Beleevers shall have it Ezek. 34.11 I will search my Sheep and bind them up and bring them againe doth not this so confine these to his Sheep as that he will do them to none else Matth. 25.33 He setteth his Sheepe on his right hand Is not this cleare that he setteth none but his Sheep on the right hand Nay in this Chapter take any verse or part of a verse where the word Sheepe is where they are said to do any thing for him or Christ to do any thing for them and tell me if such be not exclusive of all other as firmly as if the word only had been exprest as my Sheepe here my voice He calleth his shape by name his sheepe follow him I know my sheepe doth not all this speak thus much that none but Sheepe heare his voice he calleth none by name and leadeth them out but Sheep none but Sheep follow him he knoweth none but Sheep for of others he saith I know you not nay in that Phrase The good Shepheard layeth downe his life for his Sheep doth it not exclude all that are not his Sheepe doth any Shepheard venture his life in the behalfe of the Woolfe or any Sheep that is not under his charge Now seeing this Phrase runnes so in so many places in that Chapter I say that no sober mind will say that just in this verse it should admit such a latitude as that he may be there said to lay downe for any but his Sheep such expressions in Scripture have Materiam necessariam and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the termes are convertible But that I may cleare it fully in the same section there is something that will seeme repugnant to this and the objection may be thus framed It cannot be meant so as if Christ dyed for none but his Sheep because the Scripture saith he dyed for some that may perish 1 Cor. 8.11 c. And thus the Arminians in the Conference at Hague object Non pro ovibus solis quia Paulus dicit pro me se tradidit sed non pro illo solo ac Scriptura testatur Christum mortuum pro eo cui contingit perdi qui velox judicium sibi accersunt 1 Cor. 8.11 2 Pet. 2.2 Which though it be unworthy of such objectours because the argument is weake according to their owne principles for Christ may dye for his Sheepe only and yet dye for them that may perish because with them this is truth that they that are sheepe may perish if Corvinus be right In Molin c. 21. Sect. 6. when he saith Justificati possunt reprobari But it is worthy an Answer from us because we hold no such thing but this Obiter To answer to 1 Cor. 8.11 whence our Author would prove that our weake may perish for whom Christ dyed 1. Was it so this would not disprove that Christ dyed for his Sheepe only only it would averre that some for whom Christ dyed may perish for certainly in that he calleth him here a Brother he granteth him a Sheep he should have produced a place that he dyed for some that are not sheepe 2. But no such things follow from this Text it questions Shall he perish And commandeth Let him not perish but it affirmeth nothing that he may or may not Now we must be wary what Enunciatives we deduce from Intergatories or Mandatories Suppose the Text had gone further even
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
proud swelling word spake much of Christ and his ransome now it is frequent in Scripture to upbraid the sonnes of men with such things as they boast of as if they were so indeed as Ezek 28.12 and so making their boasting an aggravation of their sinne as Rom. 3.17.23 thou that gloriest in God and in the Law dost thou by breaking of the Law dishonour God So it was not an ordinary sinne that these false Prophets are branding not barely denying him that bought them for so every unbeleever doth in his judgement but this is more then every unbeleever is charged withall seeing he that names Christ is tyed thereby to depart from iniquity 2 Tim. 2.19 And they boasting of Christ they were more obliged then others not to deny him but they did deny the Lord that bought them that is not that the Text lookes at the reality of the thing but their boasting that it was so which made it be an aggravated sin in those false Prophets and how this agreeth with the persons spoke of and other Scriptures let the Author perpend and if so taken how much it serveth his turne let him also judge Are they not said to have troden under foote the Sonne of God Thus the Remonstrant urges Apostatae dicâ—ur filium dei conculcare act Synod c. ergo filius dei illis aliquo modo est datus fanguâ— testamenti ad aliquod gratiae faedus cum illis constituendum effusus c. That is they tread under foote the Sonne of God therefore he is in some way given to them and his blood shed to make some covenant of Grace with them the strength of which inferences I am not able to see for they being gathered to the Church and so hearing Christ preached so outwardly professing him they afterward falling off and not applying themselves to beleeve on him for salvation tread under foote the Sonne of God and this they may doe though Christ did never purchase life and salvation for them as a man may kicke the image of his Soveraigne in his coine though it was never intended for him Are they not said to be trees twice dead Jude 12. Yes we read so but whether the argument framed therefrom be valid I question for thus he reasoneth they are twice dead once in Adam now a second time by their sinnes now this second death supposeth a life intervening which they have from Christ but this is extorted and not the sense of this nor any other Scriptures For 1. For this supposeth all Adams sonnes to be made alive and to be alive with a life that is beside what of nature for this spirituall death in sin is opposed to a spirituall life but this is not the language of Scripture not one place that I know that saith all Adams sons are alive 2. It is frequent with Scripture to speake of things that doe appeare onely as if they were as Saint Paul Rom. 7.9 Without the Law I was alive that is I thought so but when the Law came I died here is a second death but that is opposed to an apparent life so why may not this Text meane a death opposed to an apparent life of grace which by their seeming holinesse they seemed to live but when they discovered themselves they are said to die the second time and this seemes backed by the context Clouds without water Trees without fruite twice dead 3. Scripture phrase speaketh that condemnation in Hell is the second death Rev. 20.14 cum 6. and this spoken of men as if it was actually so when yet it meaneth but thus that it infallibly shall be so as he that beleeveth not is condemned that is shall be in condemnation he that beleeveth hath everlasting life that is shall have it infallibly So this twice dead that is they are such as shall certainely die the second death 4. It is usuall with Scripture speaking of that which is throughly done or done indeed to expresse it by twice done or done doubly Jer. 17.18 Destroy them with a double destruction is destroy them throughly or to the purpose or destroy them indeed So twice dead is dead indeed throughly dead dead every way to this Mr. Perkins in his exposition propendes 5. The Authors Argument makes death in sinne to be second death but this Scripture speaketh not Rev. 2. Rev. 20.6.14 Therefore the sense of his cannot stand nor his argument from it CHAP. XIII Of answering the most usuall and strongest objections against this truth ANy that looketh upon this title and his first lines of this Chapter could promise himselfe no lesse then these three particulars First that the Author taketh these arguments that are most usuall and those that are of the greatest force Secondly that he propoundeth such in their proper force and vigour as they are propounded by his adversaries Thirdly that he giveth to these pertinent and satisfactory answers but that he in all these commeth short shall appeare by the following discourse The first Argument that he seemeth to answer he propoundeth thus The Scripture in such places as 1 Tim. 1.6 c. are not to be understood in the sense they import Wherein he perswadeth his readers that this is produced by us as an argument to prove the contrary to his assertion but this is false and bewrayeth his ignorance it is produced as an answer to the arguments formed on their parts thereby putting them to prove that those Texts are taken as he pretendeth seeing Scripture is not alway taken as it seemeth to import This responsory assertion of ours so much intrencheth upon his over confident concluding upon many Scriptures that he rejecteth it as many wayes obnoxious and affirmeth the contrary thus The Scripture speaketh sometimes plainely sometimes metaphorically parabolically yet alwayes truly and so as the words import for God is a God of truth Psalm 31.5 The weaknesse of which expressions may appeare to any for it may be understood that when we say some Scriptures are not to be understood as they seeme to import we meane not that they are not to be understood as the Spirit it selfe meaneth or as they are used by him to expresse his meaning but not so as they seeme to us to import not alwayes according to the nature and ordinary signification of the word which the Spirit useth Now let us see how he oppugneth this 1. He saith the Scripture sometimes speaketh plainely sometimes metaphorically parabolically Now in that he saith it speaketh sometimes plainely it granteth that sometimes it speaketh not plainly now when the Scripture speaketh plainely we know viz. when the sense of the words is so applied to the words in their native and common signification that he that knowes the one may know the other But when doe they speake not plainely certainely it is when he that knoweth the nature and usuall acceptation of the words used and followeth that and so mistaketh the true sense when the sense is beyond the native and
will glorifie and all certaine from predestination And this is but parallell to what he must say upon that Text John 17.2 To give eternall life to as many as thou hast given him Now by giving to Christ he saith page 149. is meant bringing on men to beleeve in the heavenly call and so the sense must be this He hath given him power over all flesh to give eternall life to as many as he hath given to him that is brought in to beleeve in the heavenly call Now hence I question had Christ received power to give eternall life to no more then were at that time brought in to beleeve let him answer herein he must salve it this way or none He hath that is to whom he either hath or shall bring in to beleeve so why not this Text and then thus we shall not be affraid to affirme of all the elect they either are or shall be called justified glorified therefore what he saith herein is a wilfull perversion no satisfaction to the text Againe he urgeth This reason given to fortifie the proposition mistaketh the end of the Apostles connexion of priviledges which is not to set forth for how many Christ hath died or shall receive the fruits of his death but it is to set forth the priviledges of those that have begun to receive the choice fruits of both his propitiation and advocation True the end and scope of the Apostle is neither of these but to show and make good his owne words viz. that all things and so crosses and afflictions shall worke together for the good of them that are called of his purpose yet he doth it so as hit he doth in it virtually show who are and how many are elected justified glorified those and so many are elected as some to be called and glorified those and so many are called as are elected those and so many are justified as are elected and called those and so many are glorified and shall be as are elected called and justified or shall be and thus they are the boundaries of one an other and so Christ's being given for us being one of those connected priviledges it followeth that those and only such have life procured and purchased for them who were elected to it and come in glorification to partake of it 2. It is cleare that the Text doth not show the priviledges of them onely who have begun actually to receive the benefits of Christs oblation and advocation because it showeth the priviledges of all them that are predestinated and foreknowne and this the Author granteth page 115. 116. the concatenation of these high favours is the priviledge of the elect sons of God but all that are foreknowne and are predestinated do not yet actually partake of the choice benefits of Christs oblation and advocation therefore this hitherto is perversion not satisfaction Againe he giveth a third Answer This inference from these places destroyeth the distinction between the Gospel and the communication of the choice benefits thereof between the atonement made by Christ and the receit of it by his chosen ones But this without any shew of truth we plead indeed for a non division or separation of the one from the other and that for whom he made an atonement they shall receive it in time and this be might have seen if envy and calumny had not blinded him and his sufficiently confuteth him and this we affirme from this irrefragable chaine Rom. 8. all from election to glorification are inseparable Againe he saith thus The connexion it selfe is wrested for this inference c. as if all Christ dyed for and ransomed must of necessity partake of all these priviledges nor as if all that partake of some fruits of his ransome should partake of them all nor as if all that were called must partake of them all But this hath as little force as any of the former words for 1. The connexion is not wrested if we finde the death of Christ one of those connected priviledges for then it will appeare that he that partakes of any one shall of all the rest else how are they priviledges connected none ever yet doubted of this now that this is one of those connected priviledges it will appeare if we seriously consider the Chapter we must know that under those generals many particulars are to be included as under vocation he effectuall power and spirit of God by which we are called and sanctification the effects of it under justification is contained the death of Christ the meritorious cause and this is one to be included that not only by consequence but clearely expressed as may appeare from the Apostles repetition of those priviledges ver 31.32.33.34 where he reassumeth the election ver 33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect Also justification ver 33. It is God that justifieth He assumeth also vocation in ver 35. who shall separate us from the love of Christ they were so far from being separated from the love of Christ by them that they are more then conquerers over them and such is a spirit befitting them that are called of his purpose ver 28. he reassumeth also the death of Christ ver 32.34 He hath delivered him up for us and Christ hath died for us and that to make up the same confidence with election justification and vocation and what is more cleare then that the death of Christ is one of the connected priviledges and then the connexion is not wrested 2. Whereas he saith As if all that partake of some fruits of his ransome must partake of all It is too generall to be pertinent I know not what he may introduce under the notion of fruit of his ransome this is our inference that whoever partaketh of any of those connected priviledges shall partake of all of them in time else they are not connected 3. Whereas he saith Nor as if all that were called should partake of them all evidenceth that he doth steele his forehead to outface a cleare Text doth he not say whom he hath called he hath justified and glorified that is hath or will or else it discovereth that he hath blinded his eyes so far as to understand the word called of outward call onely but then where is the truth of the Text whom he hath called he hath justified all that are outwardly called he neither hath nor will justifie nor glorifie nay all should then be justified and glorified because in his judgement all the sonnes of men are called this will prove no propitious interpretation of the Text. But fearing that what we have said should prove inpregnable he hath an other assault and seekes to enervate it by proving though it be one of the connected priviledges yet it followeth not that because every one that partaketh of those priviledges had Christ delivered up for them therefore every one that have Christ delivered up for them partake of all the priviledges and this he doth thus
sense of this place or give any light to it The second giving cannot be meant because all for whom he undertook and ransomed in the Authors judgement doe not come to him that is beleeve on him so contrary to the text all that my Father giveth me shall come to me Neither can the third be the sense here meant upon the same ground many who are Christs at his dispose so as to be their Lord they yet come not to him that is beleeve on him and those that by his judiciary power come to be judged or come to sue for mercy many of them are cast out as is seeme in the wedding and the five foolish virgins therefore little need be said of these because they doe not expound the Text by any one of these all the contestation betwixt the Remonstrants and their adversaries and me and my Antagonist is betwixt the first and the fourth he affirmeth the fourth to be the genuine sense of this place but against not onely reason but common sense for by comming to Christ is certainely meant beleeving in him comming by faith as is cleare by many Scriptures Mat. 11.28 come unto me yee that are heavy laden that is beleeve in me Iohn 6.64.65 compare them together yee beleeve not no man can come unto me except my Father draw him and ver 35. both are put together He that beleeveth shall not hunger he that cometh shall not thirst so according to him the sense must be this they that have come shall come or they that have beleeved shall beleeve but this is very improbable the glosse of the Remonstrants solveth it not Act. Syn. in locum veniet for venite debet that is shall come by it is meant ought to come for it is still under the same absurdity to say they that have come ought to come as to say they shall come The next thing is to consider whether the first interpretation be the right or no it seemeth to be the right because the giving is antecedaneous to comming or beleeving therefore most probable to be the giving by election now of this sense he saith So they may be though not in Scripture truly said to be given him But whence doth he deduce this liberty to say that it is truly said of Christ which is not said in Scripture it seemes the Scripture is not the adequate subject of truth But these are not the onely number that are given to him for as they are given to him to be heires with him so were all the rest given to him to serve him and his people Which is very impertinent to the case in hand for we question not whether none be any way given to Christ but such as are given by election but whether in this Text the giving by election is meant or no let all be given to Christ to be his servants yet here those that come to him are given to him to be heires with him and this giving is before coming therefore by election Againe Where election is set forth under this tearme of giving to Christ is hard to finde in Scripture But herein he did not compare his noâ—es well and consider what he saith in the next page 149. there he saith In all these three senses giving comprehends Adam and all that come of him all men being given to Christ in all these three senses as Scripture testifieth Now we must consider that the first of these three is giving to Christ to be heires and that by election as he saith page 148. and this in one page he saith the Scripture testifieth that this election to sonship is understood by giving to Christ but in page 148. he saith it is hard to finde where it is so taken this is an egregious contradiction besides the extream falsity because we never finde it testified that all are given by election to Christ to be heires with him And then he groundlesly concludes In this place it neither is nor can be so taken But we have no reason nor Scripture to prove but his bare word only to affirme it but it is not of weight to carry it 2. If it be not a giving by election and yet antecedaneous to beleeving I hope he will in his next make it appeare what it is and thus notwithstanding his groundlesse evasion the doubt is still unsatisfied from that Text John 6.37 The third Text produced is Acts 13.48 As many as were ordained to eternall life beleeved the doubt hence is this that seeing the reason why men beleeved was because they were ordained to eternall life and so the number of beleevers and the ordained to life are equall and run in an equipage it is not probable that Christ would shed his blood for those to procure life upon faith whom he knew were not ordained to eternal life This he would remove thus The words ordained to eternall life it is to be feared are mistaken as if they signified only the prime election to sonship whereas it is not found where that only sense is set forth in the words ordained to life The clearest truth may be eclipsed by the interposition of humane glosses and suspicions but to any unprejudiced man these three things may appeare 1. That it was God that did ordaine them for so of his act it speakes ver 47. and of setting Paul to be for salvation he did also ordaine them to life that were to beleeve indeed the Remonstrants are pleased to say Act. Synod in locum non dicuntur ordinati a deo that is they are not said to be ordained of God but what then is it a hard thing to prove it so to be meant why are we not to thinke it to be Gods act in ordaining to life as well as in appointment to life and salvation as 1 Thes 5.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. He hath appointed us viz. God to obtaine salvation but if it be not Gods act let us be informed who it is that ordaineth men to life 2. We may see it is an appointment to eternall life and that in plain terms so that it must be an ordaining to sonship and inheritance 3. It is an act that was precedaneous to saith as is cleare as many as were ordained to life then beleeved therefore it could not be that temporary election of which the Author speakes therefore it must meant of the prime election now seeing that it meaneth the prime election to inheritance and he cannot produce any place of Scripâ—ure where this phrase signifieth any thing else we may conclude that this phrase here signifieth onely such prime ordaining to inheritance and therefore the place is not abused But I hope if he remove that sense he will furnish us with some better and not leave words without a sense let us therefore see how it is taken in his judgement He urgeth thus The word ordaining being found in Scripture to have a further sense even of ordaining the elected constitution preparation
furniture consecration for the businesse to which they are elected 1 Pet. 1.20 Act. 10.42 Heb. 10.5 Eph. 2.10 Wherein there is a learned discovery but little to the purpose For 1. What matters it how the word be taken in it selfe the question is how it is taken in this phrase Ordained to life 2. He intimateth that to be ordained constituted consecrated to eternall life is a further sense then to be elected to eternall life let any intelligent man extract the difference 3. He cannot produce any Scripture wherein the word in this Text signifieth preparation or furniture to that thing which they were before elected to if he can I demand it 4. He produceth foure severall Texts as he doth thousands to no purpose to prove the words in Acts 13.48 to have such a signification when the word in that Text is not found in any of these foure places no nor the word ordained in our translation in all of them 1 Pet. 1.20 saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Acts 10.42 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 10.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. 2.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is in every place a severall word and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 13.48 nor any word of that root to be found in any of those Texts and yet these Texts are produced to show the meaning of that word testifying his insufferable impudence to darken a cleare Text upon such grounds whereof he is altogether ignorant 5. Admit all he saith yet doth the word ordaine or the words in the originall text in 1 Pet. 1.20 Acts 10.42 Eph. 2.10 comprehend any more then Gods instituting appointing consecrating Christ to his office and us to holinesse and not differing from his election to such things what ordination of Christ to be the Lambe shine before the foundation of the world but only in Gods purpose and was not this his prime election to that office what vaine flourishes he brâ—ngs to make us expect the explanation of that phrase ordained to life when he doth not produce any place whereby it may be explaned He further addeth So the word is used when spoke of the Church Acts 14.23 or of Gods ordaining Rom. 13.1 1 Cor. 12.28 1 Tim. 2.7 Joh. 15.15 Here is more forgery and falsehood still no one place here mentioned except Rom. 13.7 hath the same word as in Acts 13.48 let any consult with the Text and yet he dare averre that the word in Acts 13.48 is used as he speakes in those Texts how the man would boast of plenty of places to backe his forgery upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he labours with a great penury the word in Rom. 13.1 is the same and signifieth appointment not furniture it is spoken of offices not officers which are appointed not furnished He further addeth And this word to be thus taken for an actuall ordaining here is evident by the like use of it in other places speaking of the like blessing 1 Col. 12.13 1 Pet. 2.9 1 Ioh. 5.11.12 Ioh. 6.36 And because an actuall ordaining therefore not for ordaining by election as if Gods ordaining by prime election was not actuall ordaining a senselesse evasion 2. His Texts that he produceth are abused for 1 Col 12.13 he vainely saith that they are of like use is ordaining of men to life and making them meet to partake of light one and the same act let reason determine and for 1 Pet. 2.9 it is cleare that they were called a chosen generation in relation to prime election as appeares by the opposition to them that were disobedient to which they were appointed as also from the entire sentence in the like case 1 Thes 5.10 He hath appointed us to obtaine salvation yet he abuseth not satisfieth the Text but what meaneth he by actuall ordaining by comparing his words I gather this meaning page 151.152 whereby he giveth this interpretation of the Text Those that were ordained to life that is had unfeined and effectuall faith wrought in them and so did cleave to Christ and give themselves up to him c. they beleeved Something allyed to the glosse of the Remonstrants but he I beleeve considered not what a monstrous interpretation this will invite for then this must be the meaning they that had faith in them beleeved excellent interpreter inferring that men may have faith cleave to Christ give themselves up to him before they beleeve for cleare it is that they were so ordained to life before they beleeved but he hath an argument to prove that by ordained to life cannot be meant the prime election as he calleth and it followeth in page 152. It meaneth not so many as were elected in Gods councell to life for then what becometh of all beleevers since nor yet as many in that place or of that society many such might be that were afterwards called Wherein he hath plowed with the Arminian heifeâ— else this objection would not have been so ready at hand Act. Synod in locum Si de electione absoluta haec verba accipienda essent tum necessario sequeretur reliquos omnes c. a deo reprobatos esse but to this we may answer diverse wayes For 1. Let it be as he would have it that by ordaining to life is to have faith wrought in them will he say that all that had faith wrought in them and so cleaved to Christ did then beleeve Scripture showeth the contrary for then it must follow that all that did not at that time come in to beleeve did not cleave to Christ or give themselves to him or in the Remonstrants phrase were not fit to receive the Gospel but this is false 2. Our Author suggests an answer As many in that place or in that society as were ordained to life beleeved and all that he produceth against this is this only Many there might be that were afterwards called but this is poore probation 3. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not alwayes rendred As many but those or which the argument is not deduced from the quantity but the quality of them that beleeved in Acts 9.39 it saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet we read it not they show'd him as many coats as Dorcas made but those coats which Dorcas made that is those coats that they showed him were of Dorcas her making so here those which were ordained to life beleeved that is those that were beleevers were such as were ordained to eternall life so that let the Author of these be who it will yet they are free from his responsary cavills CHAP. XXII Of the benefit of this Doctrine IN which Chapter he attempts to lay lay downe the utility of this doctrine and that not without ground that so it might appeare that it is not without cause that he compasseth sea and land to make Proselytes runnes and tides from Dan to Beershâ—ba as if the care of all Churches were laid upon his shoulders leaveth his honest calling in which providence
any that denyeth the great love of God to the world of mankind John 3.16 Which is that he sent his Son that those that beleeve might not perish but have everlasting life 2. For his deduction there-from it is no high blasphemy to deny Secondly As for that Phrase Hating most men from Eternitie He doth not deale very candidly to set before his Reader the odious tearme of Hating most men from Eternity which flesh and bloud doth not well digest without explaining the meaning of his Adversaries herein as if they taught some monstrus Doctrine when indeed it is his owne Doctrine For that God hated Esau he cannot deny and that that hatred consisted in his denying that peculiar favour to Esau which he gave to Jacob he granteth Pag. 93. And so he defineth Gods hatred to be a lesse loving Pag. 92 And this lesse loving is a denying of that good which he giveth to another Now for God to deny that great good viz. Grace and Glory to most men which hee giveth to his Elect this is in our sense to hate them and let him if he can produce any that speaks otherwise of Gods hatred But this is no such Blasphemy as he pretendeth for he saith no lesse himselfe He decreed to harden and give up the residue for contempt of meanes to shew his justice when he overcommeth his Elect and brings them in to beleeve and so to the inheritance Pag. 123. Now is not to decree to harden to deny that great good Grace and Glory which he giveth to his Elect in overcoming them to beleeve And is not this to hate And is not this to most men in his owne expresses Yet he cries out of blaspheming the love of God in saying that in that sense God is said to hate most men But he may happily reply that Gods hardening most men is for contempt of meanes but this helpeth him not because he overcommeth his Elect notwithstanding contempt of meanes therefore he denies that grace to one which he giveth to another Aquin. part 1. q. 23. art 3. Therefore to this I say with Aquinas In quantum vult omnibus aliquod bonum omnes amat in quantum aliquibus non dat quodcunque bonum nec illud bonum quod est vita aeterna ideo eos odio habet reprobat Thirdly As for that Phrase of Most men being not beholding to God for any good at all It is his owne perverse inference that because we say he denyeth the top of his love to most men therefore he chargeth us with this that they are not beholding to God for any good False suggestion That God shineth both on Just and unjust shews many mercies to all no man denyeth Omnibus dat aliquod bonum ideo omnes amat Fourthly As for the last And no doore of life and repentance set open for them I only demand what doore can be set open and with what intention it is set open to them whom God hath determined to give up to destruction But this he hath done to most men as he saith Pag. 120. Now that I may in a few words thus reason they that are decreed to be given up and hardened are Reprobated and they that are Reprobated whilst they remaine so cannot be saved nor receive Faith or Conversion is the Confession of Corvinus Cap. 26. §. 5 Si intelligatur de reprobo qua tali in sensu composito nego reprobum posse salvari aut fidem accipere se convertere And that they that are from Eternity Reprobated do alwaies remaine so is cleare from their Principles because Reprobation is past on them that do finally persist in Infidelity and disobedience whom God foreseeth to do so and by vertue of his prescience do infallibly persist in it and so remaine alwaies Reprobates Hence is it that Corvinus himselfe Cap. 21. §. 6. though he said that Justified persons might be reprobated yet he durst not say that Reprobated persons could be justified because that was the conclusive Act being done after finall impenitence after which no man can beleeve or repent Therefore how a doore of life can be opened to such in time I cannot see and to deny it is no blasphemy The second thing which he sadly layeth to heart is That Many contradict plaine sayings of Scripture as that Christ gave himselfe a ransome for all 1 Tim. 2.6 Christ tasted death for every man Heb. 2.9 and affirme contrarie that Christ did not shed his bloud or die for everie man But herein he discovers either affected Ignorance or wilfull Calumny For 1. He cannot produce any that deny the truth of those Scriptures If he will content himselfe with what those places affirme he shall have no Antagonist but that which we deny is his glosses on and inferences from those Texts as that Christ did by death procure Eternall life for every son of Adam which no Scripture affirmeth The Remonst to whom our Author must come behind in these Controversies have been so farre from charging us with denying Plaine sayings of Scriptures that they have granted that their Tenent is not nor can be thought to be contained in plaine sayings of Scripture Col. Hagien 170. Vrgent fratres articulum istum totidem verbis Scripturae nunquā reperiri sed respōdemus fierinon posse ut articulus Controversus inter eos qui Scripturam pro verbo Dei agnoscunt totidem verbis Scripturae concipiatur They had the ingenuity to conceive that no man that had the least sparke of grace or reason would question or deny that which the Scripture plainely affirmeth Rep. ad art 31. art 12 and Arminius professeth that in this very point the Controversie is not about the words but sense and interpretation as may be seene in that place quoted in my Frontispiece but our Adversary delights fingere sibi adversarium stolidum to make to himselfe a foolish Adversary A third thing that he complaineth of is this That the Doctrine of the Church of England should be called a flat lie viz. that God redeemed me and all mankind in this assertion he redeemed none but the Elect. Wherein we may see the Church of England hath a Son of a very good nature but a very bad ingeny sorry to have her wronged but knoweth not when she is so therefore pickes quarrels without cause For 1. He that takes the Liturgie of the Church of England for the Doctrine thereof may very well take that for an injury which is not and what cause many have had to say that many expressions were foisted into the Liturgie and it not retaine its Primitive purity I leave to him to examine 2. To redeem totum genus humanum is no more then Omnia genera hominum all mankind no more then all the kinds of men and if he would have that Phrase to meane further he must prove it now this is not proved a lye by saying he redeemed only the Elect for such he hath in all
words in a threefold relation viz. to the Author whom he citeth to the former stating which he rejecteth to the Question of which he pretendeth it is a state As they relate to the Author cited by him I answer these two particulars 1. It cannot be either proved or expected that these words should be the state of this Question about Redemption because that was not his Theame he treateth there of Reprobation and therefore no rationall man will expect to find in that Discourse a full state of this Question 2. Our Author hath got the words of that learned man but hath left us doubtfull of his meaning for that Phrase He obtained a way of Salvation for every man may have a double meaning First That Christ hath obtained a way viz. faith in which every man that walketh shall and may through it come to life intimating thus much only that Salvation is not attainable but by Faith and Repentance Secondly That Christ made that a way with a purpose that every man should walk in it and through it have life Our Author taketh the words in this second sense else the words of Dr Davenant serve him not but thus the words are not taken by him whose words they are and that for these two Reasons Dr. Davenant on Heard Pag 198. 1. He expresly saith thus The way that he opened for every one of us to partake the fruit of our Redemption is by Repentance and Faith which saith no more but this that the way whereby every man partaketh of Salvation is Faith and Repentance or that every man that doth beleeve and repent shall come to life and to this tends his after words The Decrees of Election and Reprobation are no obstacles against any that do this 2. Because he saith Election and Reprobation crosseth not that Now let us consider the Decrees of Election and Reprobation he maketh Reprobation to be a denying from Eternity Grace and Glory to the most men And these two viz. That God decreed from Eternity to deny both Grace and Glory to the most men And that Christ opens a way for every man and so for them as that he intendeth to bring them into life by that way or that they might be so are in my thoughts inconsistent Thus as these words relate to the Author of them Secondly I shall consider them as they stand compared with the former statings which he rejecteth And then I demand what difference there is betwixt this which he receiveth and the third which he rejecteth The third state saith thus He dyed for all that all might be saved if they beleeve yet they shall not if they beleeve not And is not this one and the same with his last state I cannot see any momentous difference For between these two Christ by his Death impetrated and procured that all men have life if they beleeve yet so as none but them that beleeve should partake of it And this Christ by his Bloud redeemed mankind and obtained a way of Salvation for every man which way is Faith and yet this puts not any man presently into the possession of Salvation unlesse they beleeve I need a more piercing Judgement then I have to find any difference I shall expect to find one in the Authors next Againe What difference between this which he receiveth and the first which he rejecteth For that saith that the Death of Christ is applicable to all Now when this word applicable is expressed without Sophistry it is meant only applicable and so in an indifferency either to be applyed or not applyed as the condition is performed So applicable is applicandum si crederent non applicandum si non crederent That which is only applicable is not to be applied but on condition and then it is hence Corvinus maketh these two Deus est placabilis and placandus si crederent to be equipollent tearmes and this is the true meaning of the word applicable Now betwixt these two Christ by his Death hath made his life applicable to all that is to be applyed if they beleeve and not applyed if they beleeve not And this Christ by his bloudshed hath obtained a way of Salvation for every man but God never intended that the outward Act put any man into possession unlesse they beleeve I cannot see any momentous difference and the rather I am enduced to thinke so because the result of the eighth State which he receiveth is but this that all men are salvable Pag. 36. which is one and the same with applicable which he rejecteth Againe I would know what this last state of the Question which he receiveth differeth from the seventh State which he neglecteth as not the whole truth Doth not the first part of the seaventh viz. That Christ dyed for all men that they might be saved equallize and speake as much as this viz Christ by his Bloud obtained a way to Salvation for every man And what is there in the last that is not in the first To obtain a way to salvation for every man which way is Faith is no more then to say Christ dyed for all men that they might be saved by Faith And doth not the second Branch in the seventh viz. And for the Elect that they should undoubtedly be saved equallize and speake as much as the second part in the eighth State viz. None but them that enter into that way of Faith and Repentance shall possesse it And what is there in this last that was not couched in that first particular He pretendeth a Plea which is this The distinction betwixt the Redemption wrought by Christ in himself by bloudshed and that which he worketh in men by application of his Bloud is not expressed But this is empty and groundlesse because that distinction is not in expresse termes in the eighth State and by as good consequence in the seventh herein he appeares not so quicke sighted as he pretendeth Diruit edificat mutat quadrata rotundis Thus I have examined the last State given and received by him in comparison with the former which he neglecteth and I can see no cause why the last should be entertained when severall others are rejected Thirdly Let us see this State which he so eagerly fastneth on how it relateth to or looketh on the Question of which it is a State the result of it is thus So that Jesus Christ hath so dyed and given himselfe a Ransome to God for all men c. That in and by himselfe he hath so redeemed and saved all men that they are given to his dispose and he will raise them out of the death he dyed for them and make them alive before him That they shall acknowledge him Lord and come before his judgement Rom. 14.9 12. c. And he is so filled with Spirit for them to make it so knowne and with such tendernesse that they might be saved so all are made savable When this is embowelled we shall see little
of every man was laid on him he was made sin for and bare the sins of every Son of Adam strange reasoning Doth the word us or ours spoken of and by Beleevers bring in every Son of Adam This is not suitable to himselfe For Cap 10. Pag. 53. He speaking of that very Text 2 Cor. 5.21 saith Speaking of the Application to them that have beleeved he changeth the Person and faith He made him to be sin for us Yet here this Text is produced to prove that he bare the Sins of every Son of Adam 3. Psal 40.12 Innumerable evils have compassed me mine iniquities have taken hold on me What he will hence infere I cannot well determine true it is that hence he may inferre that Christ was incompassed with innumerable evills and that very many Sins had taken hold upon him and that those Iniquities which he had undertooke to answer for tooke hold on him whereby he might say Mine Iniquitie hath taken hold on me But what is this to the Point in hand I know not If he intend hereby to prove that all the evills of every man had taken hold on him this is a weake inference But thus farre I conclude with him that all those for whose Sins he undertook he stood charged with all their sins that the Law could charge them with but that he stood charged with all the sins that the Law could charge any man withall that is yet to be proved 6. Having on him our Sins God laid on him the punishment and Curse that was due to us for those sins and so dyed as a Sinner in the roome of us all This is for substance nothing distinct from the former for betwixt His being charged with our Sins and Having our Sins imputed to him and his Having the punishment of our Sins laid on him there is no difference Yet here are some improper speeches and fallacies Improprieties I say in the first words Having on him our Sins God laid on him the punishment of Sins It is beyond my capacity to conceive how Christ had on him our Sins before he had on him the punishment of our Sins he had not Sin formally but only imputatively he bare our Sins True but that is Metonimically Sins for the punishment of our Sins and then was it when he was wounded for our Transgressions Isa 35.5 And I remember not where the Scripture ever speaketh Christ to have our Sins on him as distinct from his having the punishment of them on him Therefore if he make them distinct he must free it from Impropriety if they be the same then from a vaine Tautologie The fallacy is in the next words In the roome of us all If the Author meanes as the Apostles and Prophets did and must in the Authors owne Principles from the change of Persons us all that is we all that are Beleevers then it is true but nothing to his purpose But if by us all he would understand Every Son of Adam it would be indeed pertinent to his businesse but false and destitute of probation he instanceth in Isa 55.5 Gal. 3.13 1 Cor. 15.4 1 Pet. 3.18 Rom. 5.6 Which cannot cleare that the Apostle speakes of them under the Notion of men and so in common with all men but as Beleevers and so proper to them And this the Authour puts out of doubt in his owne inference from the change of Persons And certainly the Apostle writing to Beleevers saying He was made sin for us all can afford no such Interpretation He attempts to prove it by 2 Cor. 5.15 For we thus judg that if Christ dyed for all then are all dead and he dyed for all that they which live might not live to themselves c. The sense of which Text if it favour him must run thus For we thus judge that if Christ dyed for every Son of Adam then was every Son of Adam dead and he dyed for every Son of Adam that they that live might not live to themselves but to him that hath dyed for them but I leave this to every Intelligent Reader to judge whether it be not herein set upon the racke This cannot be produced from the words themselves nor made well to accord with the foregoing or following words but he loveth to give us words without any meaning But I desire the Author or any Reader to examine whether this be not the sense For we thus judge that if Christ have dyed for all That is in Scripture Phrase for all whom he intended to bring to Salvation all those whom his Father had for that end given him Then have all dyed that is all those for whom he dyed have dyed to sin Now the ground of this is the Connection betwixt the end of Christ and the execution of it in the next words And he dyed for all that those that live not the life of Nature but of Grace and Faith might not live to themselves but to him that hath dyed and rose againe Now in this Exposition these two things are only to be proved Then other things will follow and they are these First That that Phrase Then are all dead is meant death not in but to Sin Secondly That the Phrase That they which live is meant of a Life of Grace and Faith not the Life of Nature Which being cleared the place will not only not help him but affoord a good Argument against him which particulars I shall cleare by these foure particulars 1. The Apostles scope in this present Chapter that which he is about in this and the foregoing Chapter is to shew the beleeving Corinthians that he with the rest of the Apostles did neglect earthly things and were heavenly minded and desired to approve themselves to God and for their good Cap. 4.1 2 8 9 10 16 17. Cap. 5.5 6 7 8 9 11 13. And also to presse the same upon them Ver. 17. Now that those words Ver. 14 15 Containe an Argument to prove and backe this is evident and that to shew a ground why they did so and the Corinthians should do so and the Argument is drawne from the Death of Christ For we thus judge that if Christ dyed for all then are all dead Now it may be questioned whether this Argument be drawne from the cause or the effect of Christs Death that is whether he meaneth thus Then were all dead in Sin and so need to live to God Or thus Then have all dyed that is in Christ that dyed in whom the Sins of Beleevers were crucified as Rom. 6.6 Happily our Author will say the first but I conceive that is not his Argument in this Text and that on these two grounds 1. Because then the Apostles Argument to Beleevers is not so opposite and full because there was no greater engagement on them to live to God then upon every Son of Adam which agreeth not with the whole series of the Word of God 2. Because then the words of the Apostles should have run
thus Ver. 14. For the Condition of Man constraineth us and layeth a necessity on us and others to live to God and not as they do The love of Christ constraineth us And if the Argument be drawne from the effect of Christs Death Then it is cleare the meaning is this Then are all dead all for whom he dyed for are dead have their old man crucified with him and so are or shall certainly have sin weakened and killed and live to God because he dyed for that end 2. From the Apostles expresses in the foregoing Chapter where he mentioneth that Life which he here inserts and may herein be his own Expositour Cap. 4.10 11 12. That the Life of Jesus Christ might be manifest in our Bodies c. Where life is undoubtedly taken for a Spirituall Life which he speakes of Cap. 5.7 We walke by Faith is nothing but we live by Faith as Gal. 2.20 And these may expound Ver. 5. where he saith That those that live must not live to themselves Where it is thus meant that those that live the life of Christ c. 3. From the usuall Phrase of the Apostles in other places when he perswadeth Beleevers to the same duties and useth the same Argument as Rom. 6. the twelve first verses where from Christs Death he exhorts them to death to Sin and a life in Righteousnesse but more particularly Ver. 10 11. Likewise thinke ye also that ye are dead to Sin but alive to God in Jesus Christ our Lord. So Cap. 7.4 Ye are dead to the Law by the Body of Christ that ye should live to another even to him that raised him from the dead Now is not this all one and nothing differing from the Text in hand yet here is meant a death to Sin and the Law and Life to God in the Spirit 4. From the Insatisfactory replies of the Remonst who have endeavoured to remove this Exposition 1. They say glossema istud peccato scilicet non est in Textu That is that glosse to sin is not in the Text True it is not neither was it affirmed to be in the Text but to be the meaning of the Text and this they produce no Argument to evert 〈◊〉 Hag. 170. 2. Sententia est quod ii pro quibus Christus mortuus est in peccato mortui erant That is this is the sense That all those for whom Christ died were dead in Sin as Eph. 2.1.5 That place in Eph. 2.1.5 is not to the Apostles purpose in 2 Cor. 5. therefore cannot be expected to be in the same sense Besides in Eph. 2. the Text affirmeth that they were dead in Sin and by sin which this place 2 Cor. 5 mentioneth not that is a glosse that is not in the Text we may also affirme with them 3. Verba illa omnes qui vivunt possunt accipi ut omnes homines viventes That is those words Those that live may be taken for all men living True and we are where we were we grant that it was that all men living the life of Christ and Grace might not live to themselves But this doth not yet please them they meane all men living the life of Nature but this is not proved we find not that every Son of Adam is bound to live to Christ or that it was his end and intention They would faine prove it in Acts 3.26 To turne every one of you from your Sins but from every one of you meaning Israel to every Son of Adam one and other the Argument is invalid So that by all these particulars it may appeare that by are dead is meant dead to Sin And by They that live is meant life of Christ Then how this maketh for him let any judge and thus we may argue That all for whom Christ died are dead to Sin but every Son of Adam neither is nor shall be so dead therefore that All doth not take in every Son of Adam A more cleare sense of the place I shall beglad to receive 7. Having thus suffered and died for our sinnes he rose againe the third day and rose acquitted of all the Sins imputed to him and a Triumphant over all the Enemies of our Salvation That he did so no man denyeth he had no Sins imputed to him but over them he became a Victor and this is true though we say he suffered for the Sins of the Elect only unlesse he prove that he was acquitted from the Sins of every Son of Adam and so a Triumphant over all the Enemies of the Salvation of every Son of Adam which is his taske to prove and that which he holds but this he doth not so much as affirme much lesse prove and this is his weakenesse 8. All this Oblation of this his Sacrifice he did dignifie through the onenesse of his will with his Fathers c. which is more then if every man had suffered and accepted of God as if all had suffered Herein we agree that it was with God as if all for whom he dyed had suffered but herein still is he deficient he proves not that it was as if every Son of Adam had suffered Certainly then no man should suffer againe for Justice it selfe requireth not a double suffering for the same Sins So that now to reasume these particulars I say againe That his being made flesh his comming into the world being made in the nature of mankind standing in the roome of mankind made under the Law having the Sins of men imputed to him and enduring the punishment that was due to them and standing acquited of them and that in all these his will to be one with his Fathers all these are requisite to his procuring of life Herein we agree and herein the Controversie not touched but that any of these or all of these were done for every Son of Adam to procure life Eternall for them he doth not yet prove and therefore comes short of his generall Doctrine Having spoke of his generall Redemption he comes to speake of his speciall the particulars whereof though lyable to exception yet are not pertinent to the Controversie yet some I shall insert of greatest concernment He to prove the Application of the Death of Christ by the Spirit of God in the hearts of men he produceth Rev. 5.9 Thou wast slaine and hast redemed us by thy Bloud out of every tongue and Nation Now The Reader must understand that this Text is produced by us against his generall Redemption and thus we urge that if he redeemed them out of tongues and nations then all were not so redeemed for some there are must be out of whom they are said to be so redeemed Now upon this ground the Author cunningly shuffles this Text in among others treating of the Application of Christs Death that so it might unsuspectedly be taken in the same sense but this a foule perversion Now that the Text speaketh of the Act of Christ in procuring Life and Redemption and that
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
in hand and also of what ends whether intermediate or ultimate these Texts 1 Tim. 2.6 Heb. 2.9 treate For the first I conceive that this Treatise of the end of Christ in his Death doth not only not help but utterly overthroweth his Doctrine Herein I shall examine first whether the maine end Actuall and certaine Salvation was intended for every man Let this be my Query When Christ gave himselfe or determined to give him was it for this end to make Salvation of every man Actuall and certaine If it was Then I say if all do not come to Salvation he misseth of his end which is not to be appropriated to any rationall Agent that hath power to do what he willeth and to bring about his purposes Herein I suggest to my selfe some Remonst denying that an Actuall certaine and absolute Salvation of any is the end of God or Christ in his Death as Arminius Non actualis peccatorum ablatio non actualis remissio non justificatio In Perk. 77. non actualis horum aut illorum redemptio quae absque fide spiritu Christi nemini contingunt c. That is not Actuall Remission Justification Redemption so no Salvation which happen to none without Faith or with Corvinus Quod ad applicationem salutis attinet non intendit eam pracise absolute In Molin c. 28. Sect. 8. sed voluit intercedere fidem hominis As for the Application of Salvation God willed it not absolutely because he willed Faith to come betweene viz. Christs Death and Salvation For the assertion it selfe I have proved that the Actuall and certaine enjoyment of heaven is the finis ultimus in regard of the Creatures because all the rest even Impetration it selfe is but an intermediate end It remaines that I reassume their reason whereby they prove it is not and they are unanimous in their reasons and it is this Because God willed that men should be saved by Faith I shall not expect to vye Authority with them whose Learning and moderation I may admire yet I must freely accknowledge that the strength of that Reason is not cleare to me no more then this A man intendeth not a thing absolutely because he will effect it per mâ—dia by meanes or this A man doth not absolutely intend to dwell in a house because he intended to build it first or being built to cleanse and garnish it first but these are not valid because he may intend to act the meanes and then why he may not absolutely will to act the end I see not so if God intend absolutely to give and worke faith which is the meanes of Salvation then he may be said to will Salvation of men absolutely though he willeth Faith to intervene Againe I can suggest to my selfe my Antagonist answering thus As for his Elect he propounds their certaine and actuall Salvation as his end but for the rest His end is that they may be saved Therefore to engage with this for that is my taske to encounter my Antagonist For the rest of men that are not Elect what is his end That there may be a salvability or possiblenesse with God of their Salvation This I have before shewed cannot be the end of Christ to procure it because such was without Christs Death and that he might do it too and yet be just if he pleased no man will purchase his owne Land nor Christ by his Bloud procure that which allwaies was without that procurement I am yet to learne that any thing obligeth God to punish Sin without satisfaction but his free constitution and determination whereby he becometh a Law to himselfe But God no where hath revealed that he willeth that without satisfaction mans Salvation shall not be possible indeed he hath tyed himselfe not to save actually without satisfaction Againe secondly I desire a proofe from Scripture of this twofold end of Christ one for his Elect that their Salvation may be certaine a second for all the rest that their Salvation may be possible which if he can do he will performe a great taske Thirdly I demand how this end can stand with that Decree of God and that from Eternity of giving those that are not Elect up to destruction for contempt of means which he foreseeth as the Author averreth Pag. 120. leaving no way in Gods purpose for the possibility of their Salvation Now if Christ propounded this as an end to procure life for them how is his Will one with his Fathers Fourthly Concerning the possibility of mens Salvation I know he fetcheth it from the meanes of life propounded it is to be had upon condition Beleeve and thou shalt be saved Now if Christs end first and chiefe end was this that man might have life and misse of it upon unbeleefe and so be dealt withall according to the Tenour of the Gospell or as the Author saith That he might condemne or pardon as he saw â—t Pag. 17. Then it will follow that Condemnation will have equall share in his end with Salvation but this is no Scripture Language which saith I came not to condemne the world Joh. 3.17 But if this draw more from the Author I shall answer more by this it seemes not probable that the maine end viz. the certaine and actuall enjoyment of life was not in Christ for all and every Son of Adam Againe Let us see whether those intermediate ends which he reckoneth up often can be said to be for all and every Son of Adam and herein we must consider that the satisfaction of Justice taking away Sin abolishing Death slaying enmity becomming Lord these are as meanes conducing to that end Now ends are desired for themselves meanes but for the end certainly then they run in an even aequipage those things which are willed but for another thing are willed but in the same respect with the other for time place person manner for if he should will the meanes to more then he willeth the end then his will must be carried on the meanes without an end or stronglier to the meanes then to the end both which are absurd and so Christ be said to satisfie his Fathers Justice to take away Sin to take away all that stood crosse to our Salvation to abolish enmity and that at so deare a rate when he never intended to bring in any to partake of life which cannot I conceive be received but with detriment to Christ in his unspeakeable wisdome No neither is Impetration the first end As I conceive the Question may be asked Why Christ did Impetrate And if the Answer be given it sheweth plainly that the Impetration is not the first end If we say that Christ impetrated that it might be applyed the Remonst do not oppose but leave it in dubio An applicatio fit Impetrationis finis non dispute Corv. in Mol. Cap. 28. Sect. 8. Nay all that he produceth against its being the absolute and procise end is this that he intended Faith to come
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
ground that can be no reason against his comming short in this particular because he is to answer his Figure for this notwithstanding he may exceed and go beyond in our Authors Judgement Secondly If he stand in the roome of all them that come to have a being from him he answers his Figure that stood in the roome of all that had a being from him although he did not stand in the roome of every Individuall or the precise number of Individualls And if a part of Scripture did affirme that unlesse Christ stood in the roome of the precise number of Individualls he should come short of his Figure I should yeeld to him in this point but till then he must give me leave to thinke this Reason of no force A second Reason by which he proveth it is this God honoured Christ more then Adam True and herein Adam was a root of Life and Death life if he had stood and death if he fell But Christ was to convey only life herein Christ was more honoured than Adam But the honour of Christ is not placed in the precise number of them for whom he stood so as that he that stands in the room God should honour most for then in that God honoured Christ more than Adam it must follow that Christ stood in the place and roome of more than Adam lost or that came from his Loines which is absurd As for the second particular which he observeth in this Similitude betwixt Adam and Christ Pag. 44. is not pertinent or usefull to the Controversie at all therefore I shall wave it A third which he observeth is the Effect and fruit of this publique businesse It was publique and concerned all mankind the disobedience of the first Adam overthrew all mankind so as in and by him they were all deprived of life c. So the obedience of the second Adam hath recovered and restored all mankind so as in him they are restored redeemed and made righteous It matters not what comes from the Authors Pen but what proceeds from the mouth of Scripture but this no Scripture speaketh 1. No Scripture speaketh that Adam stood in the roome of all mankind that is of every individuall man the Author confesseth that he stood not in the roome of Christ 2. Adams sin lost not every man he lost not Christ himselfe but only such as came of him by propagation which Christ did not both these particulars are concealed if not denyed by him though contrary to himselfe 3. No Scripture saith That as Adam lost all that came from his Loynes so Christ recovered all that came from the first Adams Loynes 4. No Scripture saith that Christs recovery concerned all that came out of Adams Loynes 5. The Scripture no where saith that if as Adams losse concerned all that came from his Loynes so Christs recovery must concerne all that came from Adams Loynes rather the contrary 1 Cor. 15. All dyed in Adam so in Christ all shall be made alive The All in the former part is Adam and all that came from him but the All in the second part is not all that came from the first but the second Adam Vers 23. First Christ and then Christs at his comming So that what is herein spoken the Author speaketh but not Scripture he produceth some places Rom 3.24 22. where it saith All are justified and the righteousnesse of God on All but herein he diabolically clippes the Text willfully leaveth out that which would decide the Controversie it is not all that came from Adams Loynes but all that beleeve So Rom. 5.18 Free gift came on all men to Justification of life True but it is on the All that is mentioned Cap. 3.22 24. as may appeare by the 17. verse it saith not on all Adams Sons or all that came from Adams Loynes A fourth particular which he observeth from this comparison is this in regard of the vertue and operation of this publique businesse thus When any commeth to have a being from the first Adam they do necessarily in that participation of his nature partake of the guilt c. So when any do come by a spirituall birth to have a being in Christ in that participation c. He now freely imputeth it to them This being well considered will shew his weakenesse and the truth at once For 1. How is it that every man in and by partaking of Adams nature and comming from him partaketh of the guilt if he stood not as a publique for mankind as comming from his Loynes which he even now denyed 2. I demand Why those that come to have a being from the first Adam partake of his guilt and misery is it not because he stood in their roome And is it upon this ground that as it was intended in his standing in publique so it taketh place in them that partake of his nature And as they that come to partake of his nature come to partake of his sin because he stood in the roome of them that should partake of his Nature So must it not A pari follow if a reason being demanded why them that have a being from Christ come to partake of his righteousnesse Is it not to be answered because he stood a publique person for them What is this but to averre that as Adam stood a publique person for all his So did Christ for all his and all that were to have a being from him Which falleth short of what the Author intendeth and what he hath obtained in all this pursuance of this Comparison only thus much appeares that herein they agreed both conveyed their proper influence to them that came of them but they did both to the precise number of Individuals he proveth not in one word of his Discourse nor one place of Scripture And all this and all that which followeth being of the same stampe with what went before riseth not so high as to prove that Christ obtained life for all that came from the first Adams Loynes CHAP. VIII Of the joynt mention of Creation and Redemption by Christ. HIs scope in this Chapter is to prove his Assertion by the joynt mention of Creation and Redemption thence inferring they are of equall extent because mentioned together and thus urgeth His great love appeareth to mankind in that when Adam lost himselfe and all mankind c. He would not suffer him to perish in his death c. but would worke a recovery for him what ever it cost him Thus in the beginning of the Gospell he puts in this All things were Created by him and that light was the life of men what can be lesse seene than this 1. That God made the Creatures for man yea so loved him that though he was fallen yet he would worke out a Redemption and procure life 2. That it is for men that were made by him as his Creatures not a part but the whole And herein is the top of the Authors reason in this Chapter But 1.
Fourth cirumstance By the manner of praying enjoyned viz. Without wrath and doubting this is not incident to beleevers in praying one for another as when they thinke of them that have wronged them but beleevers praying one for an other is in a sweeter manner That which he seemeth to drive at in these words is this that the Apostle would have us pray for others besides beleevers but this no man denieth it was never our assertion that we should pray onely for beleivers but that which we question is whether the Apostle commandeth us to pray for every individuall son of Adam and this manner of praying without wrath and doubting evinceth it not for even among beleevers there may be quarrels and dissentions by reason of which he might bid them pray one for another without wrath or doubting but however this is farre from proving that we are to pray for every sonne of Adam For if we are to pray but for some unconverted and enemies it is requisite that we pray without wrath or doubting because wrath and doubting are as incident to us praying for some as for all so that those some be enemies to us But againe by wrath and doubting it may be questioned whether they be referred to God that is without wrath a foolish charging of God if he deferre to heare us and doubting of his faithfulnesse or power to helpe us and if thus this is not only requisite for beleevers praying one for another but to be an ingredient in all their prayers of what nature soever The Fifth circumstance By the things prayed for viz. That God would order their hearts that we beleevers might lead quiet and godly lives but things to be prayed for Beleivers are of a higher nature Iohn 17.9.21 Herein also he bendeth his force to prove that we are to pray for unbeleivers which is not the thing in hand but this is so empty that it is so far from proving that we are to pray for every individuall sonne of Adam that it doth not urge a necessity of praying for any more then beleevers for the thing prayed for is as sureable for beleivers as unbeleivers that their hearts should be so directed that they under them may lead quiet and godly lives David and Solomon and other beleeving Kings prayed for it Psal 72.1 2 3 4. Secondly whereas the Apostle saith that wee he maketh not a distinction betwixt beleivers and unbeleivers as if the sense was thus pray for unbeleeving Kings that we beleevers might live c. but it relateth to their place of subjection in that body politique and so that we who are under them might lead godly lives for thus must beleivers pray when yet they are under beleiveing Princes Besides from the matter prayed for it appeareth not that by all men is meant every sonne of Adam because every sonne of Adam hath not an influence into the godly and quiet lives of any state or any beleivers in any state or government The Sixth circumstance By the manner of mentioning them that are to be prayed for All men Kings men in authority of which very few Beleivers c. The author must know that wee are to pray for Kings not as beleevers or unbeleivers but as Kings as they are in eminent place and rule and so have an influence in our holy lives whether beleevers or unbeleevers besides he can infer hence but this that we are to pray for unbeleiving Kings but this proveth not that we are to pray for every sonne of Adam Yet he confidently concludeth it of his side but it is his boldnesse that presumes not his reason that proveth he hath produced many circumstances but yet they are so rudely applied to this businesse that the expressions spent about them cannot but be tedious to the intelligent because they have not the least shew of reason to prove that the all men mentioned either in the 1.4 or 6. verse does take in all Adams sons Having spoke of the sense of the words themselves the circumstances that attend them he comes to the third sort and rank of proofes and that is from the scope of the Text and he thus speaketh From the 1. to the 8th verse no further thing is mentioned but what belongs to all men to heare and what Christ hath done for all and what we are indebted to all men Rom. 5.14.15.16 Phil. 2.15.16 Mat. 5.44 And this I conclude from page 61. is the scope of the Text which he hints of but let the Reader well observe the vanity of this last will seem as great as the former For the businesse that he is to prove is that all men comprehendeth in it every sonne of Adam and this he proveth from the scope of the Text which speaketh of nothing but what belongeth to all men So that this is the dint of his reason all men taketh in every individuall man because the Text saith all men the strength of his reason is admirable If he had said the Text treates of such things as belong to ever individuall sonne of Adam then he had said to the purpose but that I feare upon examination would want weight therefore it is as good to speake that which is impertinent as that which is to the purpose and not be able to prove it And if he had said so let us view the method of this new disputer his affirmative is that Christ gave himselfe a ransome for all Adams sonnes and he proves this by the Text 1 Timoth. 2. â— And being asked how he proveth that Text speaketh of all Adams sonnes he saith because that speaketh of such things as are common to all Adams sonnes and so in this circle he may runne in infinitum but further to explaine the scope of the Text he thus saith It appeares to be a laying downe of the Gospel as it is to be preached to every creature That it is a truth of the gospel which is to be preached I deny not but that the intention and scope of the Apostle is to lay downe a platforme of the Gospel to be preached is no way evident the scope is to move beleevers to pray as he confesseth page 28. But admit it yet it followeth not that that phrase all men extendeth to every individuall for then it must follow that to say Christ gave himselfe a ransome for every individuall man is Gospel but where proveth he that I know he will say from this Text of 1 Tim. 2.6 Still all must come to that issue it is Gospel because 1 Tim. 2.6 so saith and that Text saith so because it containeth the Gospel and this is still like the authors reasoning 2. It is laid downe as a ground of praying for all men True and so we grant that Christ gave himself a ransome for all and what is he better he leaves the question untouched in all this large discourse he proveth not yet this Text commands us to pray for every individuall sonne of Adam but grant it yet it
of that Chapter which is to show the difference betwixt himselfe the good Sheepheard and those hirelings which he so sharpely charges verse 12. So that neither of those differences are principally intended Yet 2. Both those differences are secondarily intended and prosecuted for be it so that he puts the difference between them that beleeve and them that beleeve not what differences are they let us peruse the Text one is they that beleeve are sheepe those that persist in infidelity are not so ver 26. this is now in relation to God all are beleevers or unbeleevers so all are sheepe or goates but there are other differences something what they doe for Christ something what Christ doth for them as his Sheepe know him others doe not his sheepe heare his voice others doe not ver 14. Herein is a double difference cleare betwixt them that are sheepe and are not and them that know him and heare him and them that doe not So in the things he doth for them I know my sheepe ver 14. others not Mat. 25.12 now will any say that here is not a double difference viz. betwixt them that are sheepe and them that are not the one be knoweth the other not as also between them that are knowne of him and them that are not the one as sheepe the other not So in the other I lay downe my life for my sheepe now is not here a cleare difference two wayes betwixt sheepe and not sheepe the one he died for the other not and another involved in it betwixt them he died for and those for whom he died not the one are his sheepe the other are not So in ver 27 28. he saith My sheepe heare me and I give them eternall life here is a manifest difference between sheepe and not sheepe the one have eternall life the other not as also between them that have eternall life and them that have not the one are sheepe the other are not such as these and all these have in them differentiam convertibilem convertible differences that may be formed either wayes therefore the abuse of the place lighteth upon himselfe for in showing the difference betwixt them that beleeve and beleeve not that are sheepe and those that are not he likewise showeth the difference betwixt them that Christ died for and them for whom he did not Neither doth he show the priviledge of all he died for but of those that beleeve on him through the Ministration of the Gospell These are still opposed very ill for in showing the priviledges of them that beleeve he showeth also of them for whom he died for he layeth downe his life for his sheepe But if we soberly consider the Text it will appeare that he layeth downe the priviledge of them for whom he died For ver 27. he saith my sheepe heare my voice doth he not there show the mutuall priviledges of them that are sheepe and also of them that heare his voice those that are his sheepe heare his voice and such as heare his voice are his sheepe ver 14. I know my sheepe doth he not there show that all that are knowne of him are sheepe ver 28. I give my sheepe eternall life doth he not there show that all to whom he giveth eternall life are sheepe if any heare his voice or know him or he know any or give life to any but sheepe then are his expresses invalid So in ver 15. I lay down my life for my sheepe let him tell me and not abuse both reason and Scripture doth not he here show likewise that all that he died for are sheepe if so then he showeth the priviledge of all he died for they are sheep therefore hear him he knoweth them and giveth to them all eternall life and what is more cleare then this Nor was our Saviour so much treating of his ransome giving c. as of his Ministration of the Gospel and so his love and faithfulnesse in it in laying downe his life for the ministred to and therein gave us an example not to make propitiation for sinne but to testifie love in suffering What paines taketh he to abuse himselfe his readers and the Text at once For 1. It appeareth plainely that verse 15. doth chiefely and only speake of his ransome giving in that it treateth of laying downe his life for in giving his life he gave a ransome Mat. 20.28 Shall give his life a ransome for many why should he so abuse the Text as to say it treateth not of ransome giving when it manifestly treateth of giving his life 2. Whereas he saith not so much of his ransome as ministration of the Gospell seemes to intimate that his giving a ransome or dying is no part of his ministration that there is a wide difference between them but he herein abuses his readers for his giving his life is the greatest part of his ministration Mat. 20 28. But to minister and give his life a ransome for many 3. Whereas he saith not so much of ransome giving as his love and faithfulnesse in giving his life for the ministred to intimating that his giving his life is not a giving a ransome but doth not he herein abuse Scripture his Readers himselfe at onceâ— what is ransome but the life of Christ Mat. 20.28 his life a ransome for many 4. His last clause viz. as an example not of making propitiation for sin but to testifie love intimateth these two things 1. That where the ransome of Christ is spoken of as our example it is to move us thereby to make propitiation for sin wherein he miserably abuseth Scripture 2. That where it speaketh of ransome giving it is not set downe as a motive to love and suffer for the brethren wherein he abuseth not Scripture onely but himselfe also for page 26. he saith thus The death of Christ in respect of ransome is propounded to beleevers as an example to follow in love Either now he must intimate these two things or his expresses are very frothy behold then how inconsistent empty and absurd his expressions are and how insufficient they are to enervate that which we say in the prosecution of this reason Reason 4. The fourth reason which he reciteth although his martialling them up in order first second third and fourth proceed from his owne grosse conceit yet it is well put in by way of answer to an objection which might arise from the premises for if any shall aske why Christ meaning but some should use such words and expressions as by their naturall import may seeme to take in every sonne of Adam the reason is ready at hand That so the Gentiles might not exclude themselves nor the Jewes exclude the Gentiles when either might on good ground Christ being sent to the Iewes not to the way of the Gentiles and he commands his disciples accordingly This reason he undertaketh to refell and first he would show the absurdity of the assertion it selfe viz. There was
I have brought to this result it may be with greater force then he intended and it is this John 3.17 Christ is said to save the world yet John 16.8.11 he is said to convince the world of sinne and John 8.23.24 ye shall die in your sinnes by these it appeareth that all that he died for and saveth are not justified and saved from wrath and this may seeme a specious allegation but it hath little in it For by World in the Authors judgement is meant every Sonne of Adam so that Iohn 3.16 saith he saved the world Iohn 16.8.11 saith he shall convince the world that is in both every sonne of Adam and so he would have these places compared to prove that as he came to save every man so he shall save never a man for every man that shall be convinced of sin because they beleeve not this indeed opposeth the proposition but no reasonable man can judge to be the meaning of those Texts therefore to reply 1. He cannot prove that those that were convinced of sin for not beleeving did not afterward beleeve for every man that is saved hath hâ—s tâ—me of unbeleife wherein he may be convinced for not beleeving therefore this Text convinceth not that they did never beleeve for whom Christ died 2. That place Iohn 3.17.13 he saith he came to save the world that is men living in the world and he did it the world is reconciled 2 Cor. 5.18.19 their trespasses not imputed he giveth life to the world John 6.33 and taketh away the sinne of the world Iohn 1.29 and yet he shall convince the world of sinne they shall be judged by beleevers 1 Cor. 6.2 and be condemned 1 Cor. 11.32 in all the World now then cannot be verified of the world the same way taken but he saveth the world Quoad partem credentem according to the beleeving part and he shall condemne the world for sinne that is the unbeleeving part thereof so that to conclude John 3.18 doth not say that they which he came to save were not so in time nor that Text Iohn 16.8.11 doth not say be satisfied his Fathers justice for them that should be convinced of sin and so perish therefore how these Texts can disprove the proposition I see not It overthroweth many affirmations in the Scripture as that all shall beare the image of the first Adam 1. Cor. 15.46 that all are dead in sin by nature Eph. 2.2 that God justifieth the ungodly Rom. 4.5 c. It cannot but be judged too great a prodigality of time and paines to insist upon such jejune and empty expressions that have not the least shew of reason but the nature of my Antagonist requireth it doth the proposition say that all doe not beare the image of the earthy certainely no. It supposeth the contrary that all doe for it saith that all that Christ died for shall in time partake of the Image of the heavenly which intimateth that all at first beare the Image of the earthy Justification doth not immediately reflect upon the being of sinne but obligation to punishment and this may suffice for the two first Texts alledged by him As for Rom. 4.5 it speaketh not of such a justification as is by faith it speaketh of beleeving on him that justifieth he ungodly but not of his justifying the ungodly upon their beleeving therefore he misalledgeth that Text he is said to justifie the ungodly but beleevers are never called so especially if he reflect upon his owne sense of ungodly page 10. besides the Text sheweth not that all the ungodly be justified doe not in time come to partake of life hitherto I see nothing of strength against the proposition As for that counterpart to the proposition which he produceth page 96. viz. many for whom Christ died remaine without that justification that is in him wants proof for those Texts alledged doe not make it appeare that Christ died for such as want that justification and never partake of it The next thing that he stumbleth at is the second part of the proposition viz. All for whom he satisfied shall be saved from wrath through him this he presently cryeth downe as false and contrary to Scripture But what Text 2 Peter 2.1.2 This text I have spoken of formerly and cleared it from overthrowing the proposition it speaketh not not a word of satisfying his Fathers justice for them And this untruth denieth the Lordship of Christ grounded on his death for all But wherein it denieth it he showeth not doe we by saying all that he satisfied for shall be saved deny him to be Lord of all as if he could not be their Lord unlesse he save them from wrath to come weak argument and of this stamp are the rest that follow clearely confuted in severall pages of this discourse Having spoken of the two parts of the proposition he cometh to the reason by which the proposition is backed and he hath something to say to that as followeth the reason if he doe not justifie and save from wrath all those for whose sinnes he hath satisfied he should be unjust to this be answers A presumptuous rashnesse in an intimate charging God with injustice But where lieth the rashnesse whether in saying if such a thing be granted he is unjust or in affirming such the granting whereof maketh him to be unjust let the Author judge Let us see what he himselfe saith page 97. That were injustice not onely to require the whole debt againe but even any part of it either of him or any other that are discharged by him or to detaine from him or his any thing that by vertue of his ransome is to be conferred So that we see it is no such charging God with injustice as he pretendeth to say that if such a thing be granted God is unjust but besides let us consider it is injustice in God to require any part of the debt againe of Christ or any other for whom Christ suffered and was discharged or any that are discharged for Christ for so both are equally alike now let us consider the Authors words page 4. All the sinnes the law could charge mankinde withall were imputed to him he suffered the curse and died as the sinner and rose acquit of all our sinnes and a triumphant victor over sin and death Let him tell us is it not injustice in his own language to require part of this debt or all of Christ or any for whom he stood and died and of whose sinnes he stood acquitted But he saith he did so for every sonne of Adam therefore doth not justifie the reason of the proposition and show the vanity of this his rash charge But he thinketh to presse the reason of the proposition with an absurdity Gods children have complained of trouble by the law in their members Rom. 7.15 and he saith of his own children Psalm 89.32 I will visit their sinnes with stripes Wherein it seemeth strange that the Authors ignorance
should put God to his purgatories to clear his justice but it is an easie thing to cleare his justice in that his people have both sinnes and sufferings when yet it would be too cleare if they should not have eternall life because Christ did not procure that they should be taken out of an estate of sinne presently or freed from all temporall afflictions to correct reduce warne themselves and others but that they should be in part renewed and at last come to life but he in satisfying Gods justice for them did actually free them from the curse due to sin which is eternall death therefore to punish any such with eternall death would entrench on his justice I say not that temporall sufferings is indured as satisfactions for sinnes I leave that soppery to the Authors neither doe I say they are no punishments but corrections but I say they are castigatory punishments not satisfactions and thus to say is no way contradictory to any of those Texts quoted page 98. all which shew as they were punishments so they were for castigation and correction onely not satisfaction as the eternall torments of them that perish are but so weakely are his Texts quoted all along as if he intended to make the word of God seeme vile The text by which we prove the proposition is Rom. 5.9 If whilst enemies wee were reconciled by the death of his Sonne much more being reconciled shall wee be saved by his life To this he thus answereth It saith not that all Christ died for c. shall be saved by his life but speaking of Beleevers c. they should much more be saved by his life Which is a meere shift and no handsome one neither For let us but seriously consider he makes reconciliation and his death is of equall extent if we were reconciled by his death and so doth the Author Secondly he maketh reconciliation and salvation of equall extent nay with a much more meaning that is not so great an absurdity to say we are not reconciled by his death as to say that being reconciled we shall not be saved then let him consider doth it not strongly intimate that all that he died for and so reconciled shall be saved by his life as for that glosse But speaking of Beleevers he saith that much more they shall be saved It is a perversion of a cleare Text for it saith not Much more shall we beleevers be saved which it would have been if his perversion had beene right but it is much more we being reconciled not wee beleevers but we reconciled their confidence of salvation was deduced not from their condition of beleeving but what Christ hath done by dying viz. reconciled them and this drawne from the connexion betwixt his death and reconciliation and our reconciliation and salvation which cleareth the proposition The second thing which he chargeth the reason annexed to the proposition with is Grosse ignorance in the end of Christs death as the price Of which he saith thus It was not that by that act without any more done by him men should be presently possessed of all that justification freedome from death enjoyment of life in him How he discovereth his owne ignorance to make the ignorance of his advantage knowne he discovers ignorance 1. Of the nature of justification for that expression Be possessed of all that justification implieth that justification is successive and reteined by degrees which is false 2. Of his adversaries meaning which is not that presently they should enjoy life without any more done but that in time they shall have life and that spirituall worke which leadeth to it therefore he is either ignorant or perverse thus to say 3. If we be ignorant in the end of Christs death I beleeve he will not informe us he saith thus That he might be the Lord of all men that he might have all released to him and have pardon in his hands and spirit and life to bestow as he thinketh fit that he hight justifie them that beleeve and harden and adjudge the residue to a second death In which discovery he savours more of Arminian scripture then of sacred Scriptures thus they define the impetration by the death of Christ Est restitutio in talem statum quo non obstante justitia deus de novo beneficia communicare potest vult eâ lege modo quo ipsi videtur 2. If Christ came to save them that beleeve and condemne them that beleeve not then a joynt end of his death was to condemne contrary to John 3.17 I came not to condemne 3. Herein is not mentioned that end Tit. 2.14 viz. to purchase holinesse that we may be fitted for glory if he know it not he is ignorant if he willfully leave it out worse 4. This discription excludes all purpose to have any saved but if they either be saved by faith or condemned for unbeleife Christ hath his end though all perish 5. That phrase as he thinketh fit importeth that Christ in his death did not pitch upon a way by which he would save but left it indifferent whether by faith or any other way if he hold that Christ by death procured life by faith in Christ then he is too remisse in that expression as he thinketh fit how many exceptions are his words herein liable to and discover little knowledge in the Author in this businesse I have showne Chapter 3. that the maine end so farre as it relateth to man is to give eternall life and all those are but intermediate ends as to become their Lord c. As for that which he produceth as one end viz. satisfaction of his Fathers justice it is not intended for it selfe but for something further now what can he intend lesse in satisfying his Fathers justice then that they for whom he so did should not answer or suffer for any of those sinnes doth then to say that all those for whom he so satiâ—fied shall be free from suffering for those sins argue any ignorance in the ends of Christs death or he that denyeth it it discovers more let any judge But he cometh to answer the objection page 10. it seemes he hath done nothing all this while but how If Christ strive in the meanes and they be found hardning themselves it increaseth their debt and if he punish he is just True because Christs death never procured an immunity from temporall punishments but rather that we should have them to correct and reduce us And if he still strive and they refuse if he give them over to destruction is he not just If he have received satisfaction for that unbeleife as he hath if that be true which the Author saith page 4. that he was charged with all the sinnes the law could charge man with certainely then with all the Gospel could then his justice seemeth blemisht in damning them for it eternall death is not correctory but satisfactory Unbeliefe is the maine sinne c. and this is the
afterwards saith The answer to that objection is easie But what need an answer if the objection be so sober as not to oppose him and easie it is to give an answer but to give such an one as satisfieth that is not so easie as appeareth by his whole discourse but let us see his facile and obvious answers it is this As the mediation of Christ is both more generally and more speciall the first as he is Mediatour between God and man 1 Tim. 2.5 the second as he is Mediatour of the New Testament Heb. 9.14 so in all his offices there is that which is more generall and that which is more speciall Now this labours with a double error for neither is his mediation twofold neither are his offices twofold that is generall and speciall as for the first viz. his distinction betwixt his mediation of the New Testament and his mediation betweene God and man is ridiculous and not consonant to Scripture for when he was said to be a mediatour betwixt God and man 1 Tim. 2 5. was he not in that mediation a mediatour of the New Testament is there any mediation that is not by a New Testament even for transgressors that were under the former Testament as Heb. 9.15 and was not his mediation Heb. 9.15 a mediation between God man is there any mediation that is not between God and man was not that mediation in Heb. 9.14.15 for the redemption of transgressors and by death and was not that in 1 Tim. 2.5 the like and is there any mediation for transgressors and by death but such as is between God and man no marvell if such answers be easie and ready at hand Againe he urgeth thus as a Priest he offered sacrifice in respect of one end viz. propitiation for all men Heb. 9.26 2.9 Iohn 1.29 1 Iohn 2.2 but in respect of all ends propitiation sealing the New Testament testification of truth and for the uttermost end in all for his called and chosen ones Heb. 9.14.15 As for his distinction of ends dividing some to all others for his chosen is without ground as I have showen in the former part of my treatise and cleare it is because his propitiation is nowhere said to be for every man therefore all the ends of his death are for the same persons Yea that Text Heb 9.14.15 hinteth of no other end but propitiation or redemption of transgressions as ver 15. yet the Author himselfe confesseth that it is for his called and chosen ones and that those Texts Heb. 2.9 1 John 29. 1 Iohn 2.2 doe not hold such a generall popitiation I have showen at large this is but petitio principij And why he should produce a double oblation from 1 Tim. 2.5 and Heb. 9.14.15 I see not seeing he cannot produce any differing circumstance both by Christ both by death both for transgressions both that those that are called might receive the promise now if he shall say the one is for all the other for his chosen this is not against us but giveth us the question and granteth that the all in 1 Tim. 2.5 is no more then the chosen ones in Heb. 9.14.15 Hereby we may have a taste that let the argument be as weak as it can yet his answers are as weake and come farre short of discovering any weakenesse in it CHAP. XIX Of the seventh Objection A seventh argument produced by him is this If God intended life for all men by Christ death he would certainely have used some meanes to bring all men to the knowledge of Christ and so to repentance and faith But to many he giveth no meanes at all to others denied meanes when his servants would have carried the same Therefore This argument was the fifth argument in the conference and in its right formation runneth thus If Christ have procured reconciliation and remission by his death for every man none excepted then the word of reconciliation would and should have been preached to every man none excepted But the word of reconciliation is not c. Ergo Christ did not procure remission for all and every man But to take his argument as it runneth I shall first show the force of the argument it is but consonant to the wisdome of God to have made such a purchase by his Sonne or Christ by himselfe at so deare a rate as his blood and that for the good of men that he should make a discovery of this that so men might come to partake of it and the benefits of it for no man can partake of this remission but by faith Rom. 3.25 and faith is not ordinarily begotten but by the word Rom. 10.14 hence the Apostle putteth both together 2 Cor. 5.15.18.19 with dying and reconciling he committed the Gospel of reconciliation to the Apostles but that many millions die without any knowledge of Jesus Christ Scripture showeth and experience witnesseth Now to perpend his answer hereto he saith This objection denyeth neither the death or ransome of Christ to be for all men but onely any intendment of life and saving grace thereby And doth this cleare him from the force of this argument he is sufficiently confounded hereby because he holdeth that his purchase and ransome and death was with an intendment of life to every man as he saith page 15. He hath wrought for all men that they might be eternally saved doth not this sufficiently discover the folly of the Author in answering the objection with that which confirmeth it and overthroweth himselfe He further saith Nor for any but where the Gospel is not granted And enough too because if Christ died not for all those where the Gospel never commeth he died not for every man without exception Yet he can manfully say the force of the objection is weake and his grounds follow The Scripture hath expressely affirmed Gods intention to be that they all might be saved and repent and beleeve and be further saved Ezeck 33.11 Iohn 3.17 Iohn 1.4.7 Rom. 2.4 1 Tim. 2.4 2 Pet. 3.9 But what doth this helpe him certainely nothing because that to deny Gods intendment of life to all was nothing against him as even now he professed 2. If he meane every sonne of Adam no place cited by him cleareth it it is not suitable to reason that God should intend those men might or should beleeve and be further saved whom he decreed from eternity should be damned this I have at large provd 3. If the Author so confidently can say that it is Gods intention that all men should beleeve he need not be so squeemish at the affirming that it is his intention that all men should be eternally saved which I finde him sometimes and others of his opinion so loth to affirme But he further saith If we cannot in the workes of God see the fulfilling of the sayings of God it becomes us to admire his wisdome and holinesse and bewaile our ignorance c. and not by rash judging deny the truth of