betweene Finem istum non esse absolute intentum sed ita ut ad applicationem requisita est conditio Which in my judgement do not se invicem destruere for Faith may be requisite and yet the Application absolutely intended I might take every particular by it selfe and dwell upon the absurdities that attend every one of them but I must not be so voluminous As when he saith The first end was to take away Sin before God for men Pag. 16. And this he saith is for all men every Son of Adam both false It is not the first end for may not the Question be asked Why he taketh away Sin from before God The Answer if he will give it confuteth him and telleth him there is a further end neither is it done for all the expression it selfe is rude and absurd to take away Sin before God for man the word to take away must have a terme from which and that must be either man or God And can he take away Sin from before God or from Man and Man not be possest of Justification this is a mystery Is it not all one for Sin to be taken away from before God and for it not to be found when it is sought for Jer. 50.20 But is this the priviledge of all or of Gods reserve only Let the Author in his next give me one place and prove it too where this or any of the attendants is said to be done for every Son of Adam Many things I leave to the intelligent Reader to save me a labour in I conceive that this consideration of the end of Christ helpeth him little I shall examine if his next do more CHAP. IIII. Of the divers manner of mentioning these ends in Scripture HE thinketh to extract much from the divers manner of propounding the Death of Christ with the ends of it as in that sometimes more ends are joyned sometimes one only Also the Ransome is considered as in it selfe made or as made known or as men are convinced by it Also it is delivered in a different Person sometimes in first sometimes second sometimes third Chapter These are the Allegations of his whole Chapter but what matter there is in all these I shall Examine Sometimes that end of his Death which was for Propitiation or Ransome is coupled with the end which was to testifie love and faithfulnesse in his Ministration propounded for our example and then such generall words as world all men are not used because his Ministration on earth did not reach to all the world 1. This seemes to affirme that the Ransome and Ministration of Christ are distinct ends and not coincident which I see not cleare seeing his giving life a Ransome is the greatest peece of Service that he did for us in doing this he did all And this was not only one but the greatest peece of his Ministration In that our Saviour saith I came to serve and give my life a Ransome for many He doth not in his latter words discover a distinct end but rather it is an explanation of the service of which he speaketh to any eye it may appeare that to Serve and to give his life a Ransome speake one and the same thing Christs words otherwhere seemeth to cleare it Luk. 22.27 Having eaten the Supper with his Disciples taking his last leave bequeathing himselfe to his Crosse he saith I am as he that serveth which to me referreth to his Death that was shortly to ensue And do not the Apostles words cleare it Phil. 2.6 7 8. where he makes the Death of Christ and his being obedient to the Death of the Crosse the explanation of his being a Servant Nay do not the Authors words cleare it He saith Pag. 21. His faithfulnesse in Ministration is set downe as an example to us to lay downe our lives for the Brethren 1 Joh. 3.16 Now what is that which moves us to lay downe our lives for the Brethren all along in Scripture is it not Christs laying downe his life Yea that Text plainly speakes of it as this Argument to move us whereby it appeares that to serve and to give his life a Ransome are one and not distinct ends therefore his expresses are not consonant to truth As if he testified greater love and faithfulnesse or more prevalently moved us to give our lives for the Brethren in any thing than in this giving his life a Ransome 2. Whereas he saith Such generall words are not used because his Ministration reaches not to all This is nobis causam tradere to give us the Question If his giving his life a Ransome was his serving and his serving reach not to all how can the other where is his Doctrine then And till he can prove that his serving and his giving his life a Ransome are distinct I shall accept his position viz. his Ministration reached not to all the world so neither his giving his Life a Ransome Sometimes that end which was for Ransome is coupled together with that end which was for sealing the New-Testament which belong not to all men but his chosen ones that have partaken of his heavenly Call and then such generall words as cannot in any sense be appropriated to some particular as world all men are not used nor yet such a word as may not be applyed so generally but so as his word may be applyed to either or both senses as occasion shall serve Hence Math. 26.28 This is my Bloud of the New-Testament which is shed for many for the remission of Sins 1. Whereas he speaketh of a New-Testament and the sealing thereof which belongeth not to all either I understand him not or he understandeth not himselfe First I understand not whether he meaneth not the Testament it selfe or the sealing thereof belongs not to all for he loveth to lurke in ambiguities though but poor shelter If he meane the latter then he intimateth that the Covenant is not sealed to so many as it is made which is not probable If he meane the first I am yet to seeke what he meaneth by the New-Testament if I understand him he meaneth nothing but the new Covenant promised to Abraham and Adam and preached by Christ and his Apostles Now that Covenant and Testament are Synonimous is cleare from Scripture Heb. 8. in many places mentioneth the Old and New-Testament in 8 9 10. verses which allude to Jer. 31.31 32 33. but there the Text runneth Covenant not Testament Nay some Translations read Heb 8.8 9 10. Covenant some read Testament where ever the word Covenant or Testament is used it is by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Matth. 26.28 it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Gal. 4.24 some read it two Testaments but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in that Text cited by him Heb. 9.14 15. Mediatour of the New-Testament yet it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So it is cleare that Covenant and Testament is all one Indeed every Covenant is not
odious that wherin the vigour of the argument lyeth is left out and a superfluity of confusion intermingled which giveth us a taste of his faithfulnesse in this businesse which he at first promised if he do it willingly he is to be blamed if ignorantly he will not I hope thinke much to be informed the argument in its genuine shape runs thus and it was the sixth in order in the conscience at Hague Those for whom Christ died he loved them some with the top and greatest love that is showne to man But so he loveth not all and every man with his greatest love Ergo He died not for every man that is for every son of Adam The major proposition is grounded on many Texts wherein the love of Christ in dying for us is not set downe as an expression of love barely but with an emphasis and transcendebly as Rom. 5.8 a love with all commendation or magnification 1 Iohn 3.16 He so loved the world not great love onely but greatest John 15.13 no greater love then for a man to lay downe his life for his friend but Christs greater in that he did it when we were enemies therefore we propound it not so remissely as he fallaciously whom he dieth for he loveth and no more but loveth eminently with the greatest love The minor is undeniable for that God should love every man most and with his greatest love yea the damned with so great as beloveth the saved withall the Arminians durst never yet affirme Scripture no where speaketh and the Author himselfe overthroweth page 89. to some more especiall love is showne Now any may see the wide difference betwixt the argument in its genuine force and as he propoundes it and all his answers fall to the ground being apted not to the argument but his perversions of it yet I shall reply that I may reduce him to truth As for that Text 1 Iohn 3.16 it is picked out of purpose by himself it is not so clearly holding fâ—ith the force of the argument as many others yet to take it as it lieth let us consider that it meaneth that transcendent love beyond the greatest of mans Hereby perceive we that love Cap. 4.10 11. and if he so loved us and behold what love Cap. 3 ver 1. Now can every son of Adam say I perceive the greatest love of God to me in that Christ died for me if every man perceiveth the greatest love then no roome for his expresse page 89. to some more speciall favour iâ— showne His after-plea The place speakes of the perception of love by beleivers helpeth not because it speaketh of no other perception then what arose from the former assertion Christ hath died for us it is a conclusion from infallible premises which any may conclude that can so premise there is such a connexion betwixt his dying for and his greatest love that every one that affirmeth the one doth in eodem instanti affirme the other it is no speciall priviledge of some to perceive his greatest love in dying for them but of all for whom he died Thus for the major He then violently assaulteth the minor thus The assumption is full of infidelity and blasphemy A heavy charge if he can make his charge good but like â—ailing Raâ—shekah he oftner barketh then biteth but how great is his impudence and injury to misalledge his adversary into infidelity and blasphemy let him take the assumption as he should propound it viz. God loveth not every man with his greatest love then either it is not infidelity and blasphemy or else he is equally guilty with us for he saith page 89. God giveth to some more speciall love if so then he loveth not every man with his speciall and greatest love nay yet further he saith page 90. If it had been God loveth not every man in the world it might be granted and proved which is more then he can prove but if it be a truth that he loveth not every man in the world then certainely it is far from infidelity and blasphemy to say that he loveth not every man with his transcendent and greatest love no nor ever hath loved every man with his greatest love Neither is it such blasphemy as he pretendeth to say that he hath not nor doth love any but his Church with his transcendent or greatest love the Apostle giveth great reason so to affirme Ephes 5.25 26. He therefore exhorteth to conjugall affection which is the greatest and strongest of all relations and to the greatest and highest degree of that kinde and the patterne of this he fetcheth from Christ to his Church and that expressed in giving up himselfe to death for them is it not cleare that he loveth his Church with his transcendent and greatest love nay this he plainely affirmeth page 9â— from this very Text Ephes 5.25 where he saith That Text speakes of higher ends of giving himselfe then ransome even of the speciall fruits of application ver 26. so the Author page 94. So intimating that the application holds forth greater love then the giving his life to procure but this is groundlesse for though the Text speaketh of the application of his blood yet the specimen of his transcendent love is not in that but his giving himselfe to that end In that he loved it and gave himselfe for it Besides Scripture speaketh as if to give his life to procure is a signe of greater love then to give his spirit to sanctifie the Apostle inforceth from the greater to the lesse if he gave us him to die for us much more with him will he give us all things spirit to helpe infirmities vocation justification glorification Rom. 9.32 And when the Scripture commendeth his love it is not that he gives them Spirit to apply but his life to merit in that he died and no better testimony doe I desire then of the Remonstrants themselves Collat. Hagien in Arg. 6. Quum vitâ nullum pretiosius pignus quia pro alio constituere potest merito dicitur summam esse charitatem vitam deponere hoc cum scipo Christi convenit sicut cum aliis locis Ephes 1.2 1 Iohn 3.16 That is seeing none can lay downe for any a greater pledge then life therefore it is deservedly said that it is the greatest love to lay downe life for one by which the evidence both of Major and Mâ—nor appeareth But here in page 90 he instanceth where the blasphemy of our assumption lyeth viz. in contradicting and blaspheming many Texts of Scripture as Iohn 3.16 where it speakes of Gods love to the world true but is in the beleeving part of it as the afterwords show for them that beleeve not whom God foreseeth how doth God expresse his love to them doth he send his sonne to die for them that as many of them whom he foreseeth to persist in unbeleefe as that beleeve should not perish So he saith it blasphemeth Psal 145.8.9.136.25 where it saith the Lord is good
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
when yet he meanes but some is no way contrary to truth This I have proved at large and it is in many pages confessed by himselfe in that All and every man are in many places of Scripture taken but for some as any may see in my sixth Chapter all this being granted yet the Author may well know that the ignorance of some in the mysteries of grace may administer occasion of using such expressions as may cure that ignorance and mistakes which yet may be wrested by their naturall import seem to yeeld an other meaning and where is the emptinesse in all this So for the rest of his reply it is nothing but a heap of reitterate absurdities which for me to trace will be as unpleasing in me as in him when I am informed of any particular that requireth distinct and new satisfaction I shall say more To some few onely I shall in few words rejoyne He saith page 83. 84. The Jewes that beleeved did not contend for preaching the gospel to the Gentiles as doubting of ransom for them but for fellowship and partaking of their priviledges being not regulated to them therefore that place Act. 10.45 11.18 c. is misalledged Hence inferring that these expresses All men every man being applied to the death and ransome of Christ needed not to be produced to cure any such stumbling of the Iewes because there was no stumbling concerning the Gospel or death or ransome but onely at their partaking of priviledges now the argument is good but weakely founded as elsewhere when he produceth that which is pertinent he falleth short in proofe For 1. There was as fair occasion of stumbling at the Gentiles receiving of the Gospel or any spirituall benefit from Christs death as any temporall the discrimination is more made in spirituall then temporall priviledges as appeares Mat. 10.5 go not to the Gentiles that is to preach the Gospel Rom. 9. covenants glory law promises Christ were their peculiar priviledges Rom. 3. the oracles of God 2. That they did stumble at that is evident by the cure we may gather the disease what was the vision to prepare Peter for Acts 10. to receive them into some outward priviledge onely or whether to go to them to preach the Gospel consult with that Text any that please what was the occasion that the Iewes contended with Peter was it because the Geniles had partaken of outward priviledges or because they had received the word of God consult with Acts 11.1 what is more cleare then that the Iewes stumbled at the preaching Gospel to them 3. To say they stumbled not at their receiving of the Gospel but partaking of priviledges is too weak they are not to be opposed for in partaking of the Gospel they looked at it as partaking of their chiefe priviledge for so it was Rom. 3.2.3 9.3.4 5. 4. What did the Jewes admire what were they astonished at not for any outward priviledges but for the receiving the Holy Ghost Acts 10.45 that repentance to life was granted to them Acts 11.18 they thought no Gospel no life no repentance no Christ no Holy Ghost belong'd to them this is cleare to any capacity therefore it is reason that such termes should be used as might let in the Gentiles to all these he urgeth further p. 85. On whose part could it be a reason for such an end not to the beleeving Jewes in respect of themselves because they reckon'd themselves the people of God Which might well have been spared because wee plead it not to confirme the Jewes of themselves but to let in the Gentiles of whom they doubted yet something in respect of themselves that they might not thinke themselves solely the seed of Abraham or because lineally discended but that they are so by the faith of Abraham and all that beleeve are so which the Apostle labours much to presse Rom. 9.6.7.8 Gal 3.7.8.9 which is much helped by such generall expressions letting in the Gentiles For the Jewes in respect of Gentiles it could be no reason whilest the ministration of the Gospel was not sent to the Gentiles To this I say neither were such generall expressions frequent or much used if at all till such times as the Apostles commission was inlarged but if any be found it was to prepare them for that businesse before hand as the vision was sent to Peter before he heard of his going to Cornelius Againe We see it had not that effect with the beleeving Jewes who were not by such words prevailed with Which is palpably false for Acts. 11.18 by that which was equipollent viz. the vision they stumbled not but received the Gentiles now they saw that repentance was granted to them Againe he urgeth On the part of such Gentiles as were brought to beleeve before the use of such generall words it could be no reason and yet to them is the Gospel set forth in generall termes None of his produced Texts viz. Rom. 3.22 5.12.18 prove that any Gentile was converted before the use of such generall termes yet the thing I deny not for be it so and though no reason can be produced on their part yet for others that were to be converted before the enlarged commission to the Apostles they were looked at by themselves and others to partake of those priviledges as being indeared to the Iewes being Proselytes and so under the notion of Iewes but hitherto there was no way for Gentiles as Gentiles and unproselyted to the Iewes to partake of any which was a mystery hidden till then revealed in such expressions Col. 1.20.26 27 28. Now I shall conclude with his owne words let our weake and and frothy reasons his irreffragable and strong answers and the dealing with Scripture in both be well perpended and then we are content that those Epithites injurious unjust absurd false weake fraudulent ungodly deceitfull frothy termes which he much trades in rest where they fall and let me counsel him ere I goe from this to be more mercifull to himselfe and spare those loades of epithites of calumny symptomes of a bad cause or weake maintainers of a good one for in the upshot they prove commonly his owne share and so in branding an other he pictureth out himselfe to the life CHAP. XIIII Of answering a second Objection THe second Argument which he undertaketh to refute as he produceth it is this Saint Iohn makes it an infallible marke of the love of Christ to them for whom he died and laid down his life 1 Iohn 3.16 But God hath not loved every man in the world for he hated Esau Rom. 9 13. but his Church whom he loveth to the end Ephes 5.25 Ergo Christ did not die for every man The former which he produced was no argument and this so miserably abused that any intelligent man may be ashamed to owne it and confident I am he cannot produce it from any pen unlesse such as himselfe propounding it purposely to make it vile and
to an affirmation and said Thou hast caused him to perish for whom Christ dyed this would not argue any effect to be transient into the Patient but to be with the Agent as if it had been done as Heb. 6.6 Seeing they crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh This argueth no re-action upon the body of Christ in heaven but that a fresh they brought the guilt of that Act upon them in that they testifie they would crucifie if oportunity served So Matth 5.28 He that looketh on a woman to lust 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he hath committed adultery this doth not argue any actuall deflouring this cannot be meerly by the eye of another that would be a mans or womans inevitable misery to be involved in the guilt of anothers obliquity yeelding neither direct nor indirect concurence But it meaneth for his part he hath done that which is before God Adultery having gone so farre in the fact as opportunity will give leave so in this case destroy not thy Brother argues not that a Brother may perish Actually but that a man by offensive and scandalous walking may bring the guilt of a brothers destruction on him because such an one that will needlesly be a scandall to his Brother doth not much care though his Brother perish As for that Text 2 Pet. 2.1 I might produce many expositions that are given to it and all with great probability any of which shew the weakenesse of his reasoning but herein I am no way ingaged thereto If our Author will but consider that the question is whether Christ purchased life and Salvation for his Sheepe only we affirme it he denyeth it upon this ground because he bought others but this is a weake Inference he bought them therefore he purchased Eternall life for them Emption doth no way suppose Redemption he may buy them into his dispose and be their Lord and never intend eternall life for them Sometimes in the third Person generall without any application restraining as to be the Saviour of the world 1 Joh. 4.14 He dyed for all 2 Cor. 5.14 15. And such sayings fully answer the Question for how many Christ dyed the like may be said how many have sinned shall dye rise againe That such generall termes are used I grant that therein it is shewes for whom when he saith for how many I thinke he mistaketh for from thence hee cannot give mee the number I grant but that there is a further thing contained in these generalls than was in the former I deny the Apostles All and yet expressions lesse generall are equipollent as I have shewen and after shall And whereas he croudes that expression He hath dyed for all among these All have sinned All must dye All must rise as if the word All must have the same signification in all them is fallacious and against his owne Judgement he saith that the same Phrase used about divers things hath not the same sense so Pag. 31. The Scripture speaking on divers occasions of divers Persons to divers purposes c. Take the words All men Every man in a scanter or larger sense he must not then blame us if we swallow not that downe which he hath not the immodesty to owne though much advantagious to his cause And whereas he saith These generall places are not to be opposed by those with restrictive application True but they are to be explained by them that they are expositours one of another we need not doubt but the generall cannot expound particulars but the particulars may the generall and that 1 Tim. 2.6 Heb. 2.9 speake generally I grant but that they settle us in the sense without comparing with other places I question So in all this what he hath strengthned himselfe or weakened us let any judge CHAP. V. Of divers waies of propounding the Death of Christ in Scripture and how here in 1 Tim. 2.6 Heb. 2.9 HE begins with such waies of propounding as he saith do not shew for how many Christ dyed 1. Sometimes for an example to Beleevers to follow in love and as a motive thereto Eph. 5.1 2. This is a truth but then let us consider the manner of propounding when the Apostle propounds the duty of love we may assure our selves he useth the most forcible arguments and that would be the great love of God for certaine it is the greater the love of God appeares to us the more forcible argument it is to love others but in our Authors judgement the love of God is then magnified when it appeares to be to all and every man therefore certainly the Apostle would have used this argument if it had been truth that Christ gave himselfe for every Son of Adam When our Saviour exhorteth to love of Enemies though a sufficient argument he might have had from the love of God to some being enemies he useth this argument because in truth he might that Gods love is to all Sun shineth on just and unjust Math 5.44 45. Then did he magnifie the goodnesse of God Certainly then if it had been so that Christ had given himselfe for all he would have expressed it as the most forcible argument of love If the love be of Beleevers one to another then he thus sets it forth as having loved us True but then we must consider what kind of love it is that he exhorteth to it is not such as is common to all with Beleevers but a love peculiar to Beleevers Eph. 5 1 2. Walke in love one to another we are to beare some degree of love to all as to compassionate them but inward love of complacency we owe only to the Saints Col. 1.4 Now let us consider what is a sutable argument to move to this a love that is common to all or a peculiar love Certainly a common love cannot be a fit argument to move to a speciall love it seemes consonant to reason that as it was a peculiar love he exhorted them to so it was a peculiar love he exhorted them by Now if he exhort them by a peculiar love and this love is limited to and exprest by his giving himselfe for them it cannot be meant of such a giving for them that is common to all with them If the love be to be enlarged to any relation as Husband and Wife then thus hath loved his Church and given himselfe for it Eph. 5.25 True But let us consider that the love of Husbands is to be such to their Wives as excludeth love to any other Then certainly the love by which he moveth to it is such as is to hâ—s Church and no other for that love which is common to all cannot be a fit argument to a peculiar love to our Wives only he saith not Husbands love your Wives for God is good he loveth all causeth Sun to shine on good and bad then might a man thus argue I must love my Wife as Christ loved his Church But Christ loved his Church so as that he loved
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
and 10. immediately after these words we find the world was made by him he cannot I beleeve prove it to be understood of the redemption And herein he proceeds to show how many wayes the Scripture affirmeth the same of the world 1. Of the world in generall John 1.29 3.17 I know what he meaneth by generall if he meane as it is a totum aggregatum of which an action may be predicated yet it agrees but to one part of it as the world is said to lie in wickednesse when it agreeth onely to the unbeleeving part and so he shall convince the world of sin that is the unbeleeving part so on the other side he taketh away the sins of the world that is of the unbeleeving part thereof this I grant 2. Of the world distributed into its parts some beleeving some not John 3.16.18 But will the Author say that he came to save both parts of the world the Text saith no such thing but that those that beleeve might not perish God is said to love the world it is true but distribute this world into its parts and what love doth the Text set forth to both its parts his love to the world as totum quid is there intimated and showne in his love to the beleeving part thereof and to the beleeving part in that they shall be saved but wherein is the love of God exprest to the unbeleeving part let the Text or the Author from the Text speake So that though he be here said to love the world and that is distributed into parts yet no love is expressed to both parts of that distribution 3. Of the world opposed to Beleevers in the world 1 John 2.1 It is cleare to every eye that there is no opposition at all in that Text onely a diversification 2. Neither can he prove that there is a distinction of beleevers from unbeleevers but onely of some beleevers to whom he wrote from beleevers all over the world 3. For such an assertion as this that Christ gave himselfe a ransome for a world opposed to beleevers it is such as cannot be found in any beside our Author the Remonstrants that have made the number as large as may either by shew of reason or Scripture yet they professe that In horum numero censeri non debent impaenitentes Act. Synod 285. 286. increduli rebelles c. qua tales that is in this number of All the unbeleeving and impenitent are not to be reckoned and thus Infidelibus rebellibus quâ talibus gratia impetrata non est that is grace was not impetrated or procured for the unbeleevers as so But if our Authors words be true that he died for the world opposed to beleevers then he dyed for unbeleevers as so considered but this no Scripture speaketh 4. Of the world divided and such particulars set out as cannot be the Elect of God John 12.47.48 We had before in the second acceptation the world distributed into its parts and now we have it divided into its parts here is judicious distinction betwixt distributed and divided 2. That Text doth not say that he came to save that part of the world which he saith cannot be meant of the Elect of God 3. It is not evident that that place speaketh of such as are not the Elect many may not receive the word of Christ for the present yet be one of Gods chosen and thus much the Author confesseth page 69. thus Yea even among these are many of Gods Elect and chosen to whom these sayings agree and one of these sayings is this neither receiveth nor perceiveth the things of the Spirit Yet now this expression he that heareth my words and beleeveth not must needs set out such as cannot be Gods elect and chosen ones 5. Of the world as the Elect are in due time called out of the fellowship of it and distinguisht from it whilest many of the Elect are in it He produceth many Texts wherein the word world is thus taken but he produceth not one place wherein it is said that Christ came to save that world and therefore he herein requireth no answer yet I say of that world he may be said to be the Saviour yet in respect of them that shall be called out in time but that he is the Saviour of that world out of which all his Elect are tâ—ken no Scripture speaketh and therefore that fond flourish which he maketh in those after words the Reader may see he hath little ground whereas he saith Of the World every way taken he is the Saviour he cannot nor hath he proved that he is the Saviour of both parts beleeving and unbeleeving nor the world opposed to beleevers nor such as cannot be called the elect of God nor that world out of which all the elect are chosen But after this spacious digression upon the word World he comes to affirme that the Elect is never called the World something like that of the Remonstrants vox mundus in Scripturis nunquam electos significat that is act Synod 301. the word World doth never signifie the Elect which I shall not at this time disprove but content my selfe with this that there is no need to prove it sufficient it is now to prove that the word All doth not take in every sonne of Adam and that that thing is said to be done to and by and in the World that is done but to and by and in the beleeving part of the world and this is not hard Col. 1 6. 1 Tim. 3.19 Rom. 4.12.13 with others in which places I thinke also the word World denoteth onely the Elect of God if beleevers be such But still in prosecution of this he hath severall Queries as If we looke at such as stumble at Christ doth not the Scripture say such perish for whom Christ died To which I answer no no Scripture affirmeth any such thing not that Text 1 Corinth 8.11 It is not affirmative but interrogatory And bring upon themselves swift destruction denying the Lord that bought them 2 Pet. 2.1 I have said something upon this text before but because it againe offereth it selfe I shall adde a few words more true it is they are said to deny the Lord that bought them that is as it is generally received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to their owne and others judgement as Ahaz is said to sacrifice to the Gods of Damascus that smote him 2 Chron. 28.23 And how can the Author prove that Christ did ransome or buy them any more them the Gods of Damascus did smite Ahaz the one saith they denied the Lord that bought them and the other sacrificed to the gods that smote him but I know the Author will not say that the Gods of Damascus did really and indeed hurt or smite Ahaz but he thought so This I overthrow not but to it I adde thus much it was not only as they thought but Secundum vanam jactantiam as they boasted they spake
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
to all but dâ—th our affirmation viz. that God loveth onely his Church with his highest and greatest love contradict that of the Psalmist viz. that God is good to all let the Author better consider hath the Lord nothing to bestow unlesse he give them the top of his love Thirdly he saith it contradicteth the force of all his exhortations and calls to such as refuse nay it leaveth a way for these there being not his highest love for greater it is for God to give hearts willing to obey his call which his very words intimate he giveth not to all therefore loveth not all with his highest love And so for the rest they are weake and to no purpose alledged onely apted against this position that God hath not loved every man at all which is not our affirmation let them that broach it maintaine it But he hath a more stupendious piece of blasphemy against our assumption viz. It saith he hath not loved any other of mankinde no not when he made and beheld them all righteous but hated them Oh fearefull to say that he hateth the righteous Psalm 45.7 But here envy speaketh and ignorance admires for we say not nor can it be infer'd from us that God loved not innocent man at all but that he loved not him with his transcendent and greatest love he did not manifest the top of his love to him and this is no such blasphemy or fearefull thing to say for the gift that he gave to his Church viz. His Son was greater then primitive grace or any thing that he conferred in the creation and our deserts lesse for though in creation we could deserve no good and so his gift be free yet now in in our restoring we deserved much evill in creation what good he gave us was onely without merit but he now bestoweth all against our me it hence the scripture puts the emphasis of love upon the worke of redemption mercy having more in it then meere goodnesse by the former rather then by the latter he would be knowne as by his glory Exod. 33.19 34.6.7 But besides why should he fasten that on us as blasphemy which will prove the result of his owne words he saith to hate is to love in a lesse degree page 92. now doth not God love the righteous in a lesse degree then he loveth his onely Sonne in then he hateth the righteous by his owne doctrine oh fearefull to say but thus much is cleare that grant him that God loved innocent man yet it followeth not that he loved every man with the top and greatest of his love so that our Minor yet standeth good But he descendeth to give some satisfactory answer to the argument and it is well he doth so for his former words have yeelded but little it is well if his afterwords yeeld more we shall not shut our eyes against it He would have the Scripture shewed where it speaketh of the love and hatred let it be so as also his words which are these The Scripture mentioneth a diverse kinde and degree of love and hatred in God shewen in the effects of it Now herein I shall willingly joyne issue with him seriously to consider and weigh not onely what Scripture saith but what the Scripture meaneth in such speeches least we vent our owne conceits unworthy the nature of God love and hatred is no more attributed to God then desire griefe rejoycing with all other affections and passions of men which in us are perturbations and why not then love and hatred but to grant any perturbations in God comes little short of blasphemy therefore it may be controverted whether as all the rest of our affections incident to us so love and hatred be attributed to God properly or onely by an Anthropopathy as the members of our body are given to him by an Anthropomorphy that there is such a thing in God which we call love I grant but that the name of love and hatred is but figuratively given to it that also I affirme Gods love is generally thus defined Velle dare bonum creaturis a will to bestow good upon his creatures now this will is properly said to be in God but it is as I conceive figuratively called love after the manner of men because whom man loveth to him he willeth to bestow good So Gods will to bestow good is termed his love yet this is the difference mans will to bestow good is an effect of his love but God when he willeth to give good it is not any effect of his love but his love it self Scripture furnisheth us with such expressions John 3.16 God so loved the world that he sent his Sonne that is his actuall sending is an effect of his love that is of his will to send but we never finde this nor any such God so loved that he willed to send his Sonne because his will to send his Sonne is that love it selfe Hence that assertion of Cortinus in Molin l. 5. s 3 Let him that will consult with him about that expression Alius affectus mensura alterius affectus causa quod deus decretum faciat hath not stabiliment at all in Scripture this being considered it will appeare that Gods love hath no augmentation diminution alteration diversification Aquin. p. 1â— Q 20. Art 30. Q. 20. Art 20. Q. 23. Art 30. but what proceeds from the good things bestowed or will to bestow them so that as God is said to will a greater or lesse good so he is said to love more or lesse Ex parte boni voliti unum diligit magis aut minus And as the willeth some good freely and yet some evill for the sinne of the creature that creature may be said to be both loved and hated Idem potest odio haberi amari diversa ratione peccator amatur odio habetur and that as God willeth to give this man eternall life and to deny that man the same good he is said to love the one and hate the other although to both he give some good Deus omnes amat in quantum omnibus dat aliquod bonum in quantum aliquibus non dat vitam aeternam ideo eos od o habet These being considered I shall make it appeare that there is more feare of his confounding the degrees of his love of compassion then that wee should confound his love of compassion and delight as he speaketh Now to proceed to what he saith of Gods love and hatred of Gods love he speaketh of a double sort Love of Compassion and Delight I shall not insist on these termes though I might and show his want of wisdome in hinting such expressions without explanation for true the Scripture gives to God compassion but in compassion there must needs be passion but none in God Nor yet to insist upon what he saith of either by way of bounding to each its limits in good things bestowed though I might expatiate my selfe herein for