Donor Testator or Legislator of the new Law and it is A Grant of Remission of sins to All men on condition they will accept him and pardon with him so that this is Christs first pardoning act and this is but a conditional pardon and therefore is not yet full and actual 3. The third Pardon of sin Is Christs actual Pardon upon the performance of the condition which is not by any new physical act but by a new moral act of the former Law or Grant which till now was suspended upon the non-performance of the condition it being the Will of the Legislator or Donor that his Instrument should not act or remit sin till men believe 4 The fourth Pardon and most full is that by the absolving Sentence at Judgment by Christ as Judge when our sins shall be blotted out when that time of refreshing comes as the Apostle speaks Act. 3. These four are several acts tending to the full perfecting of our Pardon and Justification and are all called Pardon and must all proceed in this order one after another Moreover the third of these or the properest remission in this life is of divers sorts or degrees according to the Termini à quibus the divers sins or penalties Remitted As is the second also From thence therefore we must next distinguish of Remission as we did before from the nature of the remitting act For the word Remission of sin signifieth the Dissolution of the Obligation to Punishment and so doth constitutive Justification too But the term Justification respecteth more strongly the obligation dissolved and the word Remission more strongly respecteth the Punishment to which we were obliged not that Remission doth only respect the Punishment as some mistake and not the obligation at all but it chiefly respecteth the Punishment And therefore it is both Obligationis Relaxatio vel Remissio Poenae Remissio but most properly and principally the last And therefore it is a right distribution of Remission which is taken from the diversity of the Penalties remitted Let us therefore First distinguish of Punishment that we may the better distinguish of Remission And before that let us define Punishment Punishment Actually taken Punitio is The Action of a Governour depriving an Inferiour of some natural good because of some fault by him committed or because of some Moral Evil. Punishment Passively taken Poena is a privavation of some natural good Inflicted for the desert of some Moral Evil. The Matter of Punishment is Natural Evil and therefore the first thing intended by the Inflicter is ut noceat patienti that it may hurt the Sufferer and so may have the Matter of Punishment The form is its Relation to a fault viz. that it be because of some Moral Evil The end is the demonstration of Justice this end enters the difinition of Punishment in General and is common to all Punishment The other ends proper to each Species are to be fetcht from the definition of that Species And first quoad Materiam Punishment is of two sorts 1. Some Punishment is destructive to the sinner and some is lesser consisting in the removal of such good whose loss is tolerable 2. Quoad finem some punishment is for the Demonstration of Justice most eminently and principally and that is either 1. When there is all Justice inâ—utmost Rigour and no remitting mercy 2. Or when the remitting mercy is small comparatively and Justice is most eminently demonstrated 2. Some Punishment is for the demonstration of Justice conjunct with a far greater and more eminent demonstration of Mercy This is commonly called Chastisement yea Paternal Chastisement because of tenderness and Love that accompanieth it though indeed it is common to a Master a Prince or any Rector to Chastise as well as a Father God punisheth in this sort I. Rebels or Unbelievers 1. To Restrain them 2. To Reclaim them 1. From Total Rebellion 2. From a seeming Religiousness or half Christianity to Sincerity 3. From particular Sins II. True Believers his Adopted Sons 1. To weaken their Corrupt Inclinations and strengthen their Holy Inclinations 2. To raise them from particular falls and excite particular Graces into lively exercise 3. Remotely 1. To fit them for great Works 2. To fit them for greater Glory hereafter 3. To Glorifie his Power and Grace in their sustentation and deliverance 4. But still the end of Punishment as such or of the Evil that is in it is the demonstration of Justice in some measure however moderated and prevailed over by Mercy even Fathers Chastise their Children in Paternal Justice but with a prevailing Love and Vindictive it is though not in that rigorous Sense as the first mentioned sort of punishment is Vindictive And as Remission must be distinguished according to the diversity of the penalty remitted so also in respect of the sins remitted Though to remit Sin and to remit punishment is all one for it is 1. Either the whole general Mass of Sin past and present habitual and actual besides Original imputed Sin which is remitted at once which is at our first Repenting and Believing sincerely This is called Universal Remission or Justification Or else 2. It is particular sins of Act Omission or Habit that are remitted to one who had all the sins of his Unregenerate State pardoned before and was disposed to this Actual as being Habitually Penitent and Believing This is commonly called Particular Remission or Justification Also in regard of the obligation dissolved remission must be distinguished For it is either the penalty of the Law of Works which is remitted to all Believers 2. Or the Penalty of the Law of Christ which it obligeth men to for non-performance of the Conditions of the Law which is remitted to no man some who say the Law of works is totally abrogated do call this last the peremptory sentence of Christ's Law as distinct from the former which they call the remissible sentence of Christ's Law but all comes to one in sense Moreover Remission must be distinguished quoad jus ipsum or its very form Into 1. Inceptive or Remission given at first 2. And Continuate or Remission confirmed and continued which requireth a continued moral action of the remitting Law or Grant and more than the continuance of our Faith which was the Condition of inceptive Remission viz. The addition of sincere obedience and the continuance thereof By all this it may appear that remission of sin is variously distinguishable and not to be taken in one and the same sense wherever we find the word in Scripture And because I have run so far in distinguishing I will add some Conclusions in application of them Conclus 1. In the first remitting act wherein God so far remitteth sin as to let go his Jus Puniendi as Rector secundum legem operum meerly and giveth up all into the hands of the Redeemer to give out remission as he please on terms of Grace in this act I say God doth remit all the
commands men to Repent and Believe and giveth them his foresaid Benefits on condition they perform this laying a kind of engagement or obligation upon himself which he cannot break For God cannot lye and shall not the Judge of all the Earth do Righteously How else should God judge the World And God in the relation of a Righteous Judge will give the Crown of Righteousness at that day to all them that love his appearing Now I conceive that in a full proper sense none that hear not the Gospel i. e. that have not some Revelation of Christ Crucified are in this Covenant nor God in Covenant thus with them For the Preceptive part of the New Law doth not actually oblige them to the performance of the full condition of Believing in Jesus Christ Crucified nor doth the promisory part oblige Christ to give them the benefit in so full a sense as to those that have this Covenant revealed to them nor can Christ be said conditionally to give it them in so full a sense because the Law or Deed of Gift is not Promulgate fully to them as it is to others I shall open this more in the following conclusions 2. The Covenant of Christ is taken also for this same forementioned Covenant when it is accepted by Believing and so become a Mutual Covenant when men engage themselves to Christ as Christ first doth to them and so the Promise comes into force for the actual conveying of Right to the thing promised This is the fullest sense in which it is called a Covenant according to our common custom of speech and the first is most properly called a Law Testament Disposition c. yet is the word Covenant in Scripture used oftest in this less proper sense Now it is only Believers and their Seed that are in this mutual full Covenant with Christ But this belongs not so nearly to our present enquiry about the state of the Heathens as the former doth Prop. IV. The New Law Testament Promise or Gift which saith Whosoever Repenteth and Believeth shall be saved and whoever doth not shall be Damned doth as to its Tenour or extent of the sense of the words belong to all men in the World even those that never heard the Gospel This is so ordinarily acknowledged that I need not prove it Nor doth it need any other proof than the recital of the Covenant-terms The Promise is universal and no man on Earth is excepted or excluded so that Christ may be said to have 1. Obliged All men to Believe 2. And constituted Faith a condition of Salvation to all men 3. And obliged himself to give them Remission and Salvation if they do Believe quantum attinet ad merum Legislatorem as far as belongs to him as mere Legislator or as to the meer enacting of his new Law Grant Testament which is constituted and perfected with his Fiat And of the three forementioned Acts the last which is the obligation on Christ's part is most full and irreversible For though there goes yet more to the actual obliging of the Subject to perform the condition and of Christ to give the benefit when the condition is performed yet to the first conditional Obligation of Christ to give it there is no more requisite to make it real and irreversible than this enacting so that the New Law or Covenant extendeth to all the World as to its sense or tenour Prop. V. This New Law or Covenant doth not actually oblige men for all the enacting of it till it be Promulgate that is a rational sufficient publication of it made to the World It belongeth to the Rector after the enacting of his Law to promulgate it And though promulgation be not in the strictest sense I think a part of Legislation though many think otherwise I confess yet it is a necessarily subsequent act of the Rector without which his Law cannot actually oblige even as Revelation is a natural requisite of our actual Believing any Truth of God tho' not as I think the ipsum formale objectum fidei sed potius quod dicitur vinculum inter formale materiale For it is the Sense and Will of the Legislator that his enacted Law do oblige those and only those to whom it is promulgate else it should be apparently unjust as obliging to natural Impossibilities And it cannot oblige beyond his Sense and Will And therefore though the Tenour of the New Law extend to all men in the World yet it cannot be said that any man is by it obliged to Believe in Jesus Christ Crucified further than this Law hath been published or promulgate to him with a Rational sufficiency It is therefore a vain objection that one makes J. G. against Mr. Barlow p. 47. that if men be not obliged before the revelation of the Gospel then either they must remain disobliged when it is revealed or else God must make a new Law for them or be changeable that is his sense For it is sufficient that he make a Promulgation of that Law which before he had enacted and which was before an Instrument fit to oblige but wanted the application by a Promulgation without which it could not actually oblige By all this it appears that if the Heathens may be said to be not-obliged to Believe or to be not under the New Law or Covenant it must be only for want of a sufficient Promulgation of that Law and not for want of an Universal Tenour or from any exceptions against them in the Law it self Let us therefore next see how far the New Law is Promulgate to them Prop. VI. The Lord Jesus having enacted his New Law did purposely ordain Universal Officers to Promulgate his Universal Law giving them this Commission and Command Go ye into all the World Preach the Gospel to every Creature He that Believeth and is Baptized shall be Saved and he that Believeth not shall be Damned So that Christ hath not been wanting quoad actus morales as to the moral part which consisteth in commanding and authorizing his Officers for the Universal Promulgation of his New Law Yea for my part I doubt not but this work of publishing the Gospel to all Nations and so carrying it to them that have not heard it doth lye on some men to this day and God would have such Universal Ministers yet in the World and so far the Apostolical Work is not ceased And I believe it is a most hainous sin of Christian Princes and States that they procure not able Ministers to be sent into all the Heathenish parts of the World as far as possibly they can and that it is the sin of those Ministers who have ability fitness and opportunity for this Work that they do not how hazardous and painful and chargeable soever set themselves resolvedly to it So that if Christs Laws were well obeyed there is no likelihood that there would be any known part of the World where the Gospel would not be published Prop. VII So
as the first is God accepted the satisfaction on those terms only that no final Rebel should partake of the saving benefit If it be a wrong it is either against Christ or the Sinner Not to the Sinner for he suffereth but once And the former suffering of Christ was not in personation or representation of his person nor as his substitute nor appointed or procured by him But by a third Person in the Person of a Mediator sent by God and voluntarily undertaking it Nor to Christ is it any wrong For 1. He is willing Volenti non fit injuria 2. It was the agreement it should be so 3. Yea it is he that doth it He as Judge condemns them for ingratitude and Rebelling against himself and consequently leaves all the rest of their Sins upon them Prop. L. Nor is it any more absurd that Christ should satisfie for those that were in Hell when he sufferd then that he should do it for those that were in Heaven at his suffering He paid the Price which he had agreed to pay which became effectual upon the agreement and undertaking before the payment And was then offered to Mankind Of whom some suffered for rejecting it as others were saved upon the accepting it even before his death Prop. LI. Nor was Christs Satisfaction for those that perish Vain Seeing it is the ground of his New Title of Lord-redeemer as to Dominion and Rectorship and so the ground of his New Legislation Judgment Administration and Government of the World and will be the occasion of his just destruction of the Rejectors of him even those Rebels that would not have him to Reign over them and of his glory therein Even as Gods Creation and preservation of Men is not to be called Vain or no mercy because he gives not all Men Hearts to repent and so some perish For as Creation laid the ground of the Creators Dominion Rectorship Legislation and Rule and Judgment if the first Covenant had stood in force as it was at first So did Redemption by satisfaction do in respect of the Redeemer and Covenant of Grace Prop. LII All that Christ by the work of Redemption did purchase a propriety in and Dominion over were not Redeemed by him Bruits and Devils are hereby under his Dominion and Devils shall be judged by him But not as Subjects For he procured as Mediator a Dominion over these but as utensils in his House or as Enemies to be restrained ordered and destroyed Therefore Christs judging Devils will not prove that he redeemed them When yet his judging unbelieving Men will prove that he Redeemed them Devils are judged as Enemies but not as Rebels against their Lord-Redeemer But wicked Men are condemned as Rebels against him for ungrateful rejecting a benefit given them If a Country fall into Rebellion and the King sentenceth all to Fire and Sword and the Prince by satisfaction purchase all to himself both Men and Country And send Heralds to proclaim mercy and pardon to all that will accept him and thankfully accknowledg his favour Some accept and some reject him The same Prince destroyeth these Rebels for rebelling And he destroyeth also all the Bears Lyons Wolves and devouring Beasts that annoyed and kill'd his subjects Now will any say that because he appointeth the Wild Beasts to death and yet satisfied not for them nor Redeemed them that therefore he redeemed not the Rebels neither All sayings and writings have different Sences in the same words sometimes according to the difference of the Materia Subjecta Prop. LIII The Doctrine of Universal Redemption thus delivered runs with the whole Scope of Scripture and hath not the least inconveniences when the denial of it contradicteth a multitude of express Texts and bringeth on more desperate consequences than can easily be conceived Prop. LIV. Though Christ dyed equally for all Men in the foresaid Law-Sence as he satisfied the offended Legislator and as giving himself to all alike in the conditional Covenant Yet he never properly intended or purposed the actual justifying and saving of all nor of any but those that come to be justified and saved He did not therefore dye for all nor for any that perish with a Decree or Resolution to save them much less did he dye for all alike as to this intent Prop. LV. All that conditional Pardon with the means of Grace and common Mercies which the Non-elect do actually receive in time were purposed for them before time and intended to them as Fruits of Christs Death and so far even in regard of his Purpose de eventu applicationis Christ may be said to Die for them besides the foresaid satisfaction For God being Rector per Leges deals with men on Law terms and gives Mercies and Executes Justice only according to his Laws He would not so much as relax the Old Law for the pardon of any Sin but by a new Law which is Lex Remedians But the old Law being broken God can shew no mercy now according to its tenour It must be therefore according to the Law of Grace and from it that all men receive their Mercies and consequently from the Blood of that Covenant which is the ground thereof and by which Apostates are said to have been sanctified Heb. 10. Prop. LVI When we say that Christ did Die for men conditionally as to his Death it self and the satisfaction to Justice immediately thence flowing we cannot intend it or truly say so Nor yet as to the granting of his Universal Conditional pardon For Christ absolutely procured all these But we mean it only in regard of Actual Remission Justification and Salvation The Covenant or Promise is indeed Conditional that is there are conditions required on our part to the fulfilling of it that we may have right to the Benefit But no conditions for the granting of it much less for Christs Actual Dying and Satisfying Prop. LVII Though it be disputable whether God have any Decretive will de eventu properly Conditional yet is it beyond all doubt that he hath a Conditional will de Debito and Conditional Laws and it being to God as Legislator that Christ made Satisfaction and it being by Law that the Dueness of Justification and Salvation is conveyed to believers and the Dueness of Punishment to Unbelievers therefore it is very proper to say that Christ by his Death hath purchased Salvation for all Men Conditionally Prop. LVIII Yea it is undoubted that the very Decretive Will of God de Eventu applicationis is Conditional in this sence that Faith and Repentance are Decreed by God to be Conditions of Justification and Salvation but not conditions of Gods act of Decreeing Twisse saith that in this Sense no man denyeth Gods will to be conditional Vid. Consid of Syn. Dort and Arles c. Page 61. And against Cotton Page 74. Prop. LIX Those that dare say that Christ is an imperfect Redeemer if he do not procure Faith it self for every Man that he Dyeth for
that were not so yet remember that the same Men that object this do teach also that Christ did as strictly represent us in obeying and that in him we fulfilled the Law 4. If that were not so yet it crosseth the Scripture to call the wicked Righteous in the first Sence i. e. non reos poenae Pprob Minor They say all the elect have satisfied in Christ But multitudes of the Elect are wicked Therefore c. Prob. Minor He he that doth wickedness is wicked and is of the Devil saith the Apostle But such are many of the Elect before Conversion Therefore c. This argument is in sence but the same with the 7th but that the terms differ John saith He that doth Righteousness is Righteous and this Doctrine saith consequentially He that never did Righteousness is Righteous Paul saith His Servants ye are to whom ye obey whether of Sin unto death or of obedience unto Righteousness But this Doctrine saith consequently His friends ye are whom you never obeyed and that the Elect before conversion who obey the Devil and so are his Servants and never had obedience unto Righteousness are yet Righteous as having paid all their debt 10 Arg. That Doctrine which denieth Christs Satisfaction for us in strict Sence is not of God But such is this opposed Therefore c. The Major is plain Prob. Minor That Doctrine which affirmeth Christs sufferings to have been the Idem which was required by the Law and not the Tantundem doth deny satisfaction in strict Sence But so doth this opposed Therefore c. The Major is proved by the definition of satisfaction which strictly taken is Redditio aequi valentis as Scotus and other Schoolmen and Amesius contra Bellar from them approving it or it is solutio tantidem as Grotius and others and is distinct from solutio ejusdem which is solutio strictè sic dicta Minor Prob. They that affirm us to have suffered all that the Law required do affirm us consequently to have suffered the Idem and not meerly the tantundem But so do they that teach that we suffered in Christ c. Therefore c. More of this anon 11. Arg. Christ suffered and satisfied in the Person of Mediator therefore not in the Person of the Elect or Offender Because a mediator is a middle person and Christ sustained not two persons as a sufferer 12. Arg. The Scripture oft speaks of Christs taking on him our nature and our Sins but not in suffering our person Therefore it is not to be affirmed Isa 53. c. 13. Arg. That Doctrine is not tollerable which makes Man his own Redeemer or to have satisfied or suffered for his own Sins But such this seems therefore c. For if the Law say that we satisfied in Christ then in Law Sence we satisfied for own Sins and consequently redeemed our selves As for their Objection that no other way but representing our persons could suffice to save us by the satisfaction of another it is a gross mistake and naked affirmation without proof And for them that say Christ suffered in persona nostrâ but not satisfied or merited so I answer They speak inconsistencies Satisfaction and Merit are necessary results from the nature of the suffering considered with the Dignity of the Person and the Divine acceptance Now if Christ suffered not in his own person whose dignity was to communicate a value to his sufferings then his sufferings are defective in their value And if we did in Christ or by him suffer all that was due it is impossible but God should take that suffering for satisfactory in the larger Sence it being solutio ipsius debiti in strict Sence So that if the Law or Law-giver say the Elect suffered in Christ they must needs say the elect satisfied in Christ or rather paid the debt of the due punishment And this God could not but accept consequenter ad Leges For who can refuse the proper debt Or deny an acquittance to him that dischargeth it But from a sponsor he might have refused it I might add many more Arguments were it needful As from the dishonour that this will cast on Gods Law in threatning those that have satisfied it already in offering pardon and justification on conditions to those that were justified without pardon 1600. years ago For a condition suspendeth the benefit till it be performed But no justice can suspend his justification who hath discharged all the debt What can be required more then all Also that the Covenant or Testament should be Gods Deed of Gift or Instrument of conveying Right to that which is our own already 1600. years ago Also the Gospel saith our Life is in the Son and all is delivered into his Hands but this putteth our Rights in our own Hands even when we have no being Also according to this Doctrine Men were justified before they were Men and acquitted from all Sin before they were born or had committed Sin And so Sinners that were no Men and consequently no Sinners were acquitted from Sin that was not and consequently was no Sin CHAP. V. Prop. 2. Christs sufferings for Mans Sins were not the Idem the same thing which the Law threatned to us Or the fulfilling of the threatening and discharge of the debt it self in kind But the Aequivalens or Value freely paid by him obliged only by his own sponsion and accepted by God for our not fulfilling the Law as to its Precept and Commination SOme think this Question whether Christ paid the Idem or Tantundem To be not Tantidem not worth the disputing Mr. O against me seems stifly to maintain it to be the Idem but yielding it to be not per eundem and the Law to be Relaxed so far doth yield as much as I need and gives up the whole cause and made me think it a useless labour to reply to him As small as this Question seems I think the main Body of Divinity stands or falls according to the Resolution of it For understanding the meaning of it you must know 1. That it is not of the quality of the suffering that we enquire Whether Christ suffered the same kind of pain or loss that we should have suffered Nor of the quantity of Torment for intension or duration For I am willing to believe as much identity in these as I can see any ground but of probability to encourage me Though yet I know how hard it is for them that say by Death in the threatning was meant Death Temporal Spiritual and Eternal to prove that the loss of Gnds Image was none of the penalty for I hope none will say that Christ lost Gods Image or that Christs temporary sufferings were the Idem with our Eternal quoad quantitatem and not the want of duration made up by the intension or dignity of the person as being Aequivalent Which is our ordinary Doctrine and I think sound Or yet that the Eternity of the punishment was not in the
receives to him he delivereth But Christ seeth it meet to give it out to us on Conditions and by Degrees and we are not at the highest Degree 'till the end of all at Judgment even the Remission it self and not only the manifestation is thus given by Degrees And so it may be longer coming to us and be still passively imperfect through our incapacity As a King receiving a Ransom for a Prisoner may agree when all the Ransom is paid that yet he shall be delivered but by Degrees or upon Conditions Concl. 13. Yet some and many Degrees of the foresaid Corrective Temporal Punishment are remissible and Christ hath Conditionally promised to remit them in this Life He having now the inflicting of all Punishment committed to him John 5. 22. hath threatned more in his new Law to some yet disobedient than to others and promised more forbearance and tender dealing to some than to others Concl. 14. But this is not by so Universal and unreserved a promise as the Remission of Destructive punishment and as Salvation is given by But it is by a Promise with Exception or Reserve As if Christ should say Ordinarily you may expect to smart most when you sin most and to be remitted and eased most Consideratis Considerandis taking one thing with another when you please me best But yet I reserve my Jus Dominii yea and power of punishing even the best as shall seem meet to my wisdom for publick good or prevention of Sin not yet committed or manifesting my Wisdom or Power or Goodness c. So that mark here 1. That still this is punishment and for Sin if we had nothing but Original Sin when it is absolutely considered why God punisheth the best it is for sin But when it is asked comparatively why he punisheth Job more than another it is not for Sin and therefore in the Comparative Sense that is oft rather to be called Affliction Persecution as from Men Tribulation c. which in the Absolute sense must still be called Chastisement or Punishment 2. Mark that this Gospel Promise of Mercy and remission of Temporal Corrective Punishment in part is properly a Conditional Promise as it respecteth God's ordinary dealing with Men but it is not an infallible ascertaining Promise as to this or that particular Person though they do perform the Condition because as is said it hath besides the Condition on our part certain Exceptions and Reserves on Christ's part from hence you may see how to answer the Question whether we must pray for temporal Deliverances Absolutely or Conditionally Concl. 15. As all Punishments on the Elect before Conversion while yet God hateth them as Workers of Iniquity and they are Children of wrath are not of the first sort in demonstration of prevailing Rigorous Justice but most commonly Merciful Chastisements for they are oft the happy occasions of their Conversion yea powerful means thereto So the like must be said of the Non-Elect themselves who are but in the same state even they are the subjects of tender Chastisement and in a gracious sense God is oft called their Father in Scripture tho' not in that special strictest sense as he is the Father of the Adopted as not giving them that special Grace but common only The Reason is because though God have unequal Intentions de eventu in Chastising the Elect and the Non-Elect yet 1. He doth demonstrate more Mercy than Rigorous Vindictive Justice even in the punishments of the Non-Elect and therefore their Punishments are such Chastisements Proved 1. Else they should not be guilty and accusable for losing the Fruit of merciful Corrections when indeed it is a main mercy that they shall perish for not improving 2. Else God would not make it the matter of a threatning to correct them or smite them no more that is in that sort because they revolt more and more which yet he doth Ergo c. 2. Punishment being the Action of a Rector as such and not of Dominus Absolutus an Owner as such and so not formally and directly the act of God as determining of events by his secret Decrees therefore they are to be specified and denominated from Rectoral ends which I call the ends of God's Legislative Will rather than from the ends of God's Secret Decrees de rerum eventu Concl. 16. Hence it follows that God may and doth remit much Temporal Punishment both destructive and corrective even to the unregenerate both Elect and Non-Elect taking an easier way to give the same mercy which else he might have given in a sharper way and so far he may be said to remit or forgive their sins Though yet the Destructive Eternal Punishment being not forgiven it is not fit in ordinary Speech to say that such mens Sins are forgiven without a limiting restrictive explication because they are forgiven only secundum quid and in the weakest Sense I have on occasion of this Text run quite beyond my first intentions in opening the nature and sorts of remission but yet I hope not unprofitably From all this now it may appear that as there are several sorts of Remission so divers of them are Reversible and common to those that perish for ever And now to the Text in hand 1. It is apparent that this Text speaks of some of these sorts of Remission 2. And that it speaks of a Remission reversible or which may be conferr'd on those that afterward perish And though I presume not to determine which of them it is that is here meant yet 3. It is certain that which ever it be it is the fruit of Christs blood shed for them to whom it is given for without blood there is no Remission The Law of Works remitteth not for it relaxeth not its own obligation And God relaxeth it not but upon satisfaction as a valuable Consideration And therefore it is relaxed by the New Testament in the blood of Christ for that Testament is founded in his blood But for the sense of the Text I judge that the Forgiveness there mentioned is the second and third sort that is the Conditional Universal Grant of Pardon by the New Covenant for the Covenant is the same in its Tenour to Unbelievers and Believers there is no real change in it when men believe only the same instrument doth then morally act that is actually remit sin which before it did not because it was suspended on a Condition which was not performed But Christ hath done his part as Testator Donor and Legislator before in making the Grant And so it is applicable differently to different Persons To those that have only the Conditional Remission and have not yet performed the Condition it tells them eventually what shall be their miserable case if they do not perform it which too oft comes to pass To them that do believe and so are inceptively Justified and Pardoned Christ speaks as a Legislator and Teacher supposing the possibility oâ— their not performing the
natural suffering nor ever was to be punished meerly on the old score that is meerly for violating and incuring the penalty of the first Law by God as Rector according to that Law God might have refused to accept Christs Sufferings as a Satisfaction for Sinners much more to have freely provided it out of his own Treasure as it were when God therefore did freely himself provide a Satisfaction and freely Accept it He did both only on these terms that as Legislator of the strict Law of Works as standing without remedy he would punish no Man but yet he would not actually and absolutely discharge them for they are still his Subjects and now by a double right and bond viz both of Creation and Redemption and therefore must still be governed by him and therefore must still be Governed by Laws and therefore must still be under Precepts Prohibitions Promises and Threatnings which are the Parts of the Law For the Nature of Man is such as that it must be governed not meerly by Commanding but also per Praemia Poenas Experience tells us that of the best Men on Earth as propounded to them therefore God in mercy would make a New Law commanding all men to repent and that hear the Gospel to Believe and giving to the Redeemed the actual pardon of all their Sins on these Conditions making Christ the Fountain of our Life and Head of all that shall be Saved and Ordaining that Christ and with him Pardon and Adoption and the Spirit for further Sanctification and Salvation shall be given to all that will take Christ and that those that refuse him shall be unpardoned for all his Sacrifice and Satisfaction and shall moreover incur a far sorer punishment These are the terms on which God took Christ's Sufferings as satisfactory to his Justice which terms are well pleasing to the Son himself nor did he ever desire to ransom them on other terms or to bring them into any other Condition than under this his own Government and Laws nor to convey Pardon and Glory the Fruits of his Death to any that refused him still supposing his Everlasting secret Decree of procuring his chosen infallibly to perform the Conditions and partake of the benefits which belongs to another part of Theology Also it must be well observed as the very Principal Point for avoiding the common Errours in this business that the satisfaction is made to God as Legislator and so Rector per Leges and so hath its main direct respect to his Legislative Will His Will de Eventu is naturally Antecedent to it and the Cause of it as Event But his Law was the cause or occasion of it as due or morally necessary and also there are no Acts of his Decretive Will de Eventu caused by it but there are Acts of his Laws and so as to our manner of conceiving of his Will de Debito caused by it and so it was not for Christ's Death that God decreed to give Faith to any and consequently to give actual Pardon and Glory But God Decreed to give these for Christ's death when he so gives them And it is because of Christs death that they are due though not immediately from his death but mediante donatione Testamenti vel faderis Christ's death is the Cause of Faith but not of the Decree to give it Again it must be understood that it is not God as Legislator of the New Law that is satisfied for Sin by Christ's death that were to dye to satisfie himself the Mediator for the Non execution of his own remedying Law But it is God as Legislator of the Law of Works constituting Everlasting Death the due Penalty of every Sin Or if any had rather say that it is not formally the Law of Works which is now in force conjunct with the Law of Grace but it is become part of the Law of Grace the matter comes all to one sense though we change the words There is one Law that saith He that Sinneth shall dye call it what you will this Law as to the end Christ hath satisfied i. e. he hath properly satisfied the Law-giver There is another Law or as they call it the peremptory part of the New Law which saith He that believeth shall be Saved and he that believeth not shall be Damned Christ hath not satisfied the Justice of this Law by his Sufferings The sense of the Commination is He that in the time of this Life believeth not shall be Damned This Law is ever executed on all that are guilty and by it obliged to Everlasting Death that is on those that in their life time here do not Repent and Believe For the violation of the precept of this Law as it requires Belief or other Duty at the present time Christ did dye but not for the non-performance of the Condition which Death is threatned to Lastly It is therefore certain that Christ dyed not for the Sin of Final Impenitency in a prevalent degree and unbelief or Final Rebellion against himself or his Father And therefore when I said before that he satisfyed God as Legislator of the Law of works for sin as sin it is to be understood of the Law of Works as contradistinct from the Law of Grace and so all the sins peremptorily Condemned by the Law of Grace are excepted from the satisfaction Not only nor at all because they are the sins of such Persons but because they are such excepted sins who ever the person be Now therefore to the Argument and first to the Major I deny it and never saw any fair colour of proof of it and therefore having full plain Scripture to the contrary do confidently believe that all those are not Saved that Christ satisfied for and to the Proof brought I answer 1. It is untrue that Christ satisfied for every sin of every Man for whom he satisfied and it will never be proved He hath excepted all those Sins which are comprized in the final non-performance of the Condition of Salvation Object None that he satisfied for are ever guilty of that and that 's the Reason why he may not be said to dye for such Sins Answ That 's denyed and to be better proved before it can be received by Sober Men. I have already proved that he dyed and satisfied for those that are final Unbelievers or Apostates and so perish And I now prove that the Reason why Christ satisfied not for such sins as final Impenitency Infidelity or Rebellion is not accidental from the state of the Redeemed viz. because none of them are guilty of such but it is directly from the Nature of the sin without respect to this person more than that If Christ have expresly excepted the final non-performance of the Gospel Conditions from among the number of those sins which he hath satisfied for and that even in the New Law which he hath enacted for all Elect or Non-Elect then it is not only accidentally or because it
or offered to them nor any satisfaction ever made for them by Christ then should they escape all the sorer punishment of the new Law and never suffer at all for Abuse of that mercy or rejecting a Redeemer or any fruit of his satisfaction which he made for them And this would be an easie Hell in comparison of theirs that refuse Christ offered them Prop. XXVIII We must in all our Controversies try the Minus nota pro notiora minus certa per certiora non contra We must reduce uncertainties to certainties and dark points to clear ones and not certainties to uncertainties Seeing therefore it hath pleased God to leave his final dealing with Pagans that hear not the Gospel Ideots and Infants so uncertain and dark the Controversy of Universal Redemption is not to be tryed hereby nor all the plain Scripture for it to be reduced to the uncertainties herein So much to this Argument Let the Reader note that since the writing of this I am clearer than I was then in the assurance of this Truth that the Covenant or Law of Grace as it is the Rule of Duty and Retribution was made with all Mankind in the first Edition in Adam and Noah and is not repealed to any that have not the second Edition in the Gospel but the rest of the World are still under it When I had gone thus far Dalleus's Defence of Universal Redemption and Grace came out with Blondels Preface where are so great a number of Witnesses cited of all Ages that I not only stopt my work but cast away a multitude of Testimonies which I had collected even of English Anti-Arminians such as Davenant Ward Hall Carlton Rob. Abbots Bishop of Salisbury Dr. Preston Whately Will. Fenner Ezek. Culverwel and many such DISPUTATION OF Special Redemption Whether Christ Died with a Special Intention of bringing Infallibly Immutably and Insuperably certain Chosen Persons to Saving Faith Justification and Salvation THE Question is so cautelously and clearly expressed that I need not say much for the explication of it but shall directly determine it Affirmatively only in brief take notice of these things as the Reasons of the Terms First We mean here the Intention of Christ as God for so he knew all things and Willed all the Good which he knew But whether as Man he that knew not the day nor hour of his own coming to Judgment did know the number and names of his own Elect that ever were and should be and consequently whether he had a special Intention concerning the Salvation of each of them in particular this I shall purposely leave undetermined Secondly It is therefore implied by us that the Father and Holy Ghost had the same Intention which we affirm Christ to have had Thirdly By the word Intention we mean that Act of Christ's Will which is resembled by Intention in mere man and so is Analogically called Intention And we confine it not to the Will alone but take it as comprehending that Counsel of the Understanding or that simple Knowledge which the act of the Will supposeth Nor do we take it in the strict sense as it is terminated only on the End and so Intentio Finis is distinct from Election of the means but more largely as it may comprehend either of these for that which we commonly call a Purpose or Resolution Fourthly We call it a Special Intention because it is about a Special Object and is not General or Common to all Fifthly We call it an Intention of Bringing men to Faith c. because it is Christ's own Work to give these things which he Intendeth and so we difference it both from his Intention to Permit if such there be in case of Sin and from that imagined Intention of a Partial Causation of a Concurse determinable by the Will of Man But tho' it be an intention of Effecting that we mention yet the Manner of this effecting or bringing men to Believe we here meddle not with Sixthly It is an Infallible effecting of this that we mention thereby differencing it from a mere Velleity or a conditional willing so as that the very act of willing should depend upon some uncertain condition as distinct from this we may call it Absolute And in the word Infallible which respecteth the act of the Divine Understanding we imply also Immutable which respecteth Gods Will and Invincible as to his operation and had we one word that comprehended these it would contain our full sense It is the same thing which our Divines mean by the word Irresistible or Insuperable Seventhly It is Certain Persons or Individuals that are the objects of this Purpose which we mention as against the Arminian Conceit that it is only Believers in General or All men Conditionally if they will Believe that Christ Decreed to Justifie and Save without determining infallibly of any certain Individuals till he foresaw that themselves would make the difference by Believing Eighthly We call them Chosen Persons not a Posteriore upon the foresight of their Faith but a priore before and without any moving cause or condition in themselves It is the same act which we here call Chusing as considered in Eternity determining of the future difference of Persons and which we before call Special Intention there considering it as respecting the time of Christ's Death Ninthly The Intended effect is 1. Saving Faith such as is not common to the Unjustified This we express against the Pelagian Conceit that giveth Justification and Salvation on condition of Faith but not Faith it self or at least not Certainly and Infallibly to any we say both that God Decreeth us to Faith as well as to Salvation by Faith and that Christ dying did purpose Infallibly to bring his chosen to Believe and this as a fruit of his Death 2. When we speak of Justification as the second Intended effect we take it in Connexion with the foregoing Faith and subsequent Salvation meaning that all the Elect that are at Age and Believe and they only have that Justification which follows their personal Faith We own not their opinion that think that many persons that were never Elected to Salvation were yet Elected to Faith and Justification and do fall from these at last and perish Tho' yet we reverence many that have maintained or owned this opinion as precious Servants of God and think not so hardly of their opinion as of their's who maintain the Apostacy of the Elect if now there be any such Austin himself seems fully to go that way who yet maintaineth the perseverance of all the Elect And so doth Musculus and some others among the Reformed Divines called Calvinists But for the Justification of Infants which hath no such connexion to a personal Faith of their own whether it may cease when they come to the use of Reason for want of personal faith to continue it which was the Judgment of Davenant Dr. Ward Amyraldus and many of our own this
for all and the propitiation for the sins of the whole World it beseems every Christian rather to explain in what sense Christ dyed for all men than flatly to deny it And let me add those words of Bishop Usher Distinguish between the satisfaction of Christ absolutely considered and the application of the same unto every one in particular The former was once done for all the other is still in doing the one brings with it sufficiency abundant to discharge the whole debt the other adds unto it efficacy The Universality of the satisfaction derogates nothing from the special grace neither the speciality of the one abateth the generality of the other The Lord give us a right understanding of his mind and will and bless this work of the Author both to Ministers and their People that the common Salvation may not be narrowed or lessen'd that Coming Souls may not be discouraged and that the Gospel of Salvation which we Preach may be Tydings of Joy to all People and then I shall not repent my part in the Publication thereof June 18. 1694. JOSEPH READ OF Universal Redemption Chap. 1. The General Question Whether Christ Died for All Men and not only for the Elect Aff. THough according to the Order of our Disputations I must directly Affirm or Deny and indeed may safely Affirm as the Question is thus generally put yet that it may be understood in what sense I affirm it it is necessary that those ambiguities be removed which in some of the terms do cloud the sense and that the nature of the Subject be somewhat opened And indeed it is a clear Explication that is most necessary in this Controversie that we may not as is here usual fight in the dark and trouble our selves with unuseful Argumentations on an ill stated question and in dubious terms not knowing each others mind if well our own Who is meant by Christ we are all agreed and who by Men and that therefore we extend not the Question to Angels though that with some be a great dispute whether Christ dyed not in some sort for them By his Dying we mean His whole Humiliation of which his Death is so principal a part that as the Scripture takes most notice of it so must we Amesius thinketh that the Assumption of the Human Nature is no part of this Humiliation his reason is because it was an Act of the Sole Deity And the Godhead cannot suffer But I think we need not be of that Opinion For 1. The Holy Ghost seems to me to contradict it making it part of Christs Humiliation To make himself of no Reputation and take upon him the form of a Servant and be made in the likeness of Men when he was in the form of God and equal with God Phil. 2. 6 7. 2. And though the Godhead cannot suffer the Loss of any Real Good or suffer any Pain yet in a Relative Sense he may be said to suffer while he is disesteemed and dishonoured Mans Obedience addeth nothing to him nor can it properly be said to do Good to God yet is it in Bonum Dei Reputavitè as Aquin. speaks It is Good and due to God from us and when we deny it him we deprive him of his due Gods Glory is dear to him or else Divines would not so use to affirm it his Sole End which saying yet needs Caution And as Relative and Reputative he enjoyeth and delighteth in his Honour and our Praises as good so Relative and Reputative he suffereth when he is Dishonoured And so the Condescention was so great indeed to the astonishment of Angels and Men that it may well be taken for part of Christs Suffering that â—â—od should by assuming so mean a Nature become Man It is the point that so surpasseth Human Reason and seemeth so improbable to it that it puts Faith harder to it and consequently ennobleth it more than any other in the World which occasioned the whole Moral work of Faith containing divers Physical Acts to be all entitled or denominated hence by the name of Belief So that I am readier to think that the Eclipsing of the Glory of the Godhead in so strange a Condescention and Humility not only in his Assumption of the Human Nature but in the Life and Death of Christ was the greatest part of his Sufferings And am so far from thinking that the Godhead did not Suffer that I think its Sufferings were the chiefest for merit though in a Natural Sense it be uncapable of suffering But a greater Ambiguity lieth in the Word All. All is taken sometime limitedly and improperly for the multitude or very many as in Mat. 2. 3. and 3. 5. Mar. 1. 32 33. Acts 5. 12. c. 2. Sometime properly according to the different subjects Sometime it is spoken of All kinds only as of All Ages Sexes Estates Degrees Nations Conditions of Men Sometime of All Persons and then if it be All in proper speech we need not expect that Every one should be added for All Persons and Every Person are equivalent And though our Question be of All in this last proper sense yet principally as contradistinguished from the Elect only And I had rather far so take it here as referring only to those that have heard the Gospel Not that I doubt at all of Christs Dying for every Man so far as we shall anon explain But 1. Because the case is more clearly opened in Scripture 2. And much more concerneth us to know How God dealeth with those to whom Christ is revealed than with those to whom he is not revealed God speaks both little and more darkly of the State of those to whom he speaks not seeing it concerneth us not to know his Counsels about others so much as about our selves Those therefore who in all disputes on this Question do still insist on the Case of Infants and Pagans to whom Christ was never revealed to prove that he Dyed not for All do plainly shew that they seek not the clearing of the point and manifestation of the truth but the Obscuring of it It being the usual trick of men that are at a loss and can carry on their Cause no farther to argue presently à minus noto ad obscurum ab obscuriore that so they may carry the business into a mist which will not endure the light and so may bring their Antagonists to grope the weakest having the most disadvantage in the dark If it had much concerned us to know on what terms the Indians are judged that never heard of Christ the Scripture would have said more of it and not have fitted the description of the Judicial process wholly or almost wholly to the state of those that have heard the Gospel Mat. 25. 2. Thes 1. 6 7 8 c. So that I desire to handle this Question now as it concerneth all those that have heard the Gospel knowing no great use but some hurt that may be in the extending it farther
a Sinner The Law never took any Man for a Sinner that did not Sin Of this more anon The Minor is proved from the words of the Law In the Day thou eaâ—est thou shalt dye Cursed is he that continueth not in all things It saith Thou shalt dye not another shall dye for them that say It means thou or thy surety 1. They add to Gods Law out of their own Brain 2. They make the Law to know a surety before Sin 3. They confound hereby Law and Gospel For it is only the Gospel that revealed a surety 4. They make the Law to Curse the innocent and to threaten Christ for our Sin dangerously 5. They make Christ a surety â parte ante and not ex post facto and so corrupt the Doctrine of his Office Let them therefore prove it before they affirm it I conclude therefore in this case as Grotius Essenius c. Dum alius soluit simul aliud solvitur And therefore Mr. O. and others that grant alius soluit must needs grant that aliud solvitur It was us and not Christ that the Law threatned and therefore it is not Christs sufferings that is the Idem the thing threatned but ours nor that is a proper fulfilling of the commination in the execution So that the obligation is not ipso facto in justice void on Christs satisfaction as it would have been on our payment had ours been possible and on the payment of the proper Debt Again I argue as before that is not true Doctrine which denyeth Christs proper satisfaction But so doth the opposed Doctrine directly Ergo c. For satisfactio strictè sumpta solutio stricte sumpta are thus different satisfactio is solutio tantidem solutio stricte sumpta est ejusdem He therefore that affirmeth that Christ paid our proper Debt denyeth him to have made proper satisfaction for our non-payment Lest you should think me singular herein I think it meet to shew you in some few Testimonies what our greatest Divines say in this point 1. Great Camero saith page 363 Operum folio Objectio qui pro alio satisfecit is soluit quod ille debet At Christus non soluit quod nos debebamus Ergo Resp Ad majorem per distinctionem Id soluit quod alius debet Pondere Valore concedo Id soluit specie nego Jam vero Christus id soluit quod nos debebamus pondere valore quod satis est 2. Rivet Disput de satisfact pag. 253 254. c. that which he disputeth for the Laws Relaxation makes wholly for this 3. Mr. Ball of the Covenant page 290. There is a twofold payment of Debt One of the thing altogether the same which was in the Obligation and this ipso facto freeth from Punishment whether it be paid by the Debtor himself or by his Surety Another of a thing not altogether the same which is in the Obligation so that some act of the Creditor or Governour must come unto it which is called Remission in which Case deliverance doth not follow ipso facto upon the satisfaction And of this kind is the satisfaction of Christ 4. Grotius in his Excellent Treatise De satisfactione hath the same more fully 5. Essenius defendeth it in Grotius against the cavils of Crellius at large 6. Bilsâ—n of Christs Descent page 45. and 262. as cited by Parker 7. And Parker that opposeth him saith as much as I do de Descensu Christi lib. 3. page 108 109. Argu. 2. If Christ paid the Idem or fulfilled the Laws threat then we who were the persons obliged may be truely said to have fulfilled it in him But that is false therefore I mean the Law is not fulfilled by Christs Sufferings Of which see the next Question CHAP. VI. Prop. III. It was not the Law it self properly that Christ satisfied but the Legislator as above Law FOR the understanding of this you must distinguish between fulfilling the Law and satisfying for not fulfilling Between fulfilling the the Precept and the Commination between satisfaction largly taken pro desiderij impletione and stricty taken pro solutione aequivalentis and between the Law iâ— self and its end And so Isay 1. Man fulfilled not the Precept of the Law 2. Nor is the threatning perfectly fulfilled on man by God specially on the saved 3. The suffering of the penalty may be called satisfaction of the Law as to the Precepts that is the Law is satisfied for our violation of its commands but as to the threatning it is properly the fulfilling of it 4. Christ did fulfil the precept of the Law in his own personal perfect obedience and so was himself Righteous qâ—oad continuationem being initially Righteous before from his conception 5. Christ did not fulfil the threatning of the Law as to himself for it did not threaten him 6. Christ did not fulfil the threatning of the Law as to us for that had been nothing else but to Damn us all 7. Christ might improperly be said to satisfie the ends of the Law I mean the remote Ends which are not Essential to it but not the immediate nearest end which entereth its difinition viz. The terminus The Debitum Poenae pro comminationem Constitutum God made Laws to rule men and therein by threatnings expresseth his hatred of Sin c. This is as fully expressed in the sufferings of Christ as if the threat had been fulfilled 8. Christ did not satisfie the Law it self I mean the sence of the Law but the Legislator This is it which I must prove having first removed this Objection Object The end of Law is the Law But Christ satisfied the End of the Law Ergo c. Answ The next end called the terminus enters the definition in Relations This Christ did not satisfie The Law did constitute the dueness of our personal punishment which is remitted but not Christs punishment which was suffered The remote ends of the Law are not truly the Law but proverbially so called by some The letter and sence is the Law and not those ends Now that Christ satisfied not the Law I prove thus Argu. 1. If the Law know no satisfaction or be capable of none but the fulfilling of it which is not strictly satisfaction then Christs sufferings were no satisfaction to the Law But the Law knoweth no other Ergo c. We doubt not of his fulfilling the Precept himself but that is not satisfaction to the Law directly and properly for anothers violation of it The Major is unquestionable if we prove that Christ fulfilled not the threat And that I have done already 1. If Christ was not threatned by the Law or if it threatned none but ipsum delinquentem then Christs sufferings were not the fulfilling of the threat for he was not the delinquent But c. Ergo c. 2. If Christ therefore suffered to relax the Law and that its threatning might not be fulfilled then his sufferings were not the fulfilling of the
Young Converts that hold not Universal Satisfaction may be sincere though not rightly ordered grounded or raised Answ True for if one should conceit that Christ Dyed but for Englishmen or for a very few at least and that he is one of those few he might truly love Christ for dying for him though yet he grounded his apprehension amiss of his interest in Christ But still here is no certainty of Faith without certainty of Love Nor certainty or any knowledge of Election without the knowledge of both Faith and Love Object Then a Socinian can have no â—ertainty of Election For he that believeth not Christs Satisfaction can have no Love or Thankfulness for it Answ No wonder if he have no certainty of Election who can have no grounded hope of Salvation If it be not only some circumstances or Terms or Law-notions but the substance of this Doctrine which any Man shall deny viz. That Christ hath taken away Sin by the Sacrifice of himself and having made Purgation of our sins is ascended c. And hath by one Sacrifice perfected for ever them that are sanctified and became a Curse for us to free us from the Curse and so hath taken away the Sins of the World quoad pretium And hath born our transgressions that we might be healed by his stripes and hath Dyed for us the just for the unjust so that now we must be justified by his Blood I say he that believeth not this I think is no Christian See 1 Cor. 5. 7. Heb. 9. 26. and 10. 1 2. c. and 1. 3. and 10. 14. Gal. 3. 13. Isa 53. 4 5. John 1. 29. 1 Pet. 3. 18. Eph. 1. 17. Rom. 3. 25. and 5. 9. Col. 1. 20. Heb. 9. 22. and 13. 12. 1. Pet. 1. 2. 19. I know nothing more of moment that can be here objected and therefore will go to the next Reply 2. Which was that men may know their Election by the Testimony of the Spirit To which I answer 1. The Spirit sheweth to us the things given of God of which Love to Christ is a principal 2. The Spirit witnesseth our Election mediately and not immediately that I know of 1. By giving those graces that will prove it and do flow from it 2. By exciting them 3. By illuminating us to see them and try by them 4. Filling the Soul with those sweet affections which are a kind of tast of the Love of God But all affections are raised mediante intellectu and therefore knowledge goes before them Who can know that he rejoyceth Spiritually and that his Joy is a fruit of Election that knoweth not why he rejoiceth 3. However it is desperate Doctrine to teach poor Christians that they have no ground to Love or Thank Christ for Redeeming them till the Spirit have without any signs revealed their Election to them which I think it never doth Lastly The Spirit witnesseth with our Spirit Now our Spirit witnesseth only from evidence that we are Gods Children and not without and therefore whether the Spirit be a concurring witness in the same Testimony or its Testimony be a concomitant Testimony distinct from though conjunct with that of our Conscience I think the former yet all 's one to the point in hand seeing they witness together So much for the Minor viz. that the Elect are bound to love and thankfulness for Redemption before they know themselves Elect. Now for the consequence of the Major it it clear from what is said that the Elect could not be bound to this except the Non-Elect are also Because as is proved no Man can know whether he be Elect or not before he know himself so much as obliged to love and gratitude for Redemption For Elect and Non-Elect are not to to be discerned till Faith and love do put a difference And therefore methinks I may conclude confidently that the Non-Elect are bound to love and thankfulness for Redemption or satisfaction and therefore they are redeemed or satisfyed for If any shall make the common objection viz. The Non-elect or the Elect not yet converted are bound to love and gratitude to Christ for satisfying for all that will believe I have answered this oft already 1. The Doctrine which I oppose is that Christ hath not only died for Men if they will believe but died only for the Elect that they might believe so that it is determined by name for whom he Died and the rest he Died not for at all and therefore his Dying for another is not that which obligeth a man to Thankfulness And their Ignorance that they are excluded I have shewed can add no obligation 2. Mens believing will not cause Christ to Die for them nor is it a condition of it as if Christ would Die for Men if they will believe Believing presupposeth Christs Dying for us and what then can be their meaning that say Christ Died and Satisfied for all men if they will Believe When they say absolutely withal that he Died not for all at all but only for the Elect that they might believe Will they say that he Died for the Non-elect if they will believe Then either they must mean that he underwent the Penalty and left it undetermined quorum loco in whose stead and for whose sins it should be till their believing determine it But 1. This is as much denyed by those whom I oppose as by me 2. And it is a contradiction For it is Essential to Punishment to be propter peccatum that Relation is its formal Nature as it differs from Affliction in general And therefore Christ suffered no Punishment if it were not determinately for Sin And the meritorious cause is considered as before the effect and not after it Or else if they speak of Believing not as any condition on mans part but a Divinely-infused Character of those for whom Christ Died then the sence of their words is but this Christ Died for the Non-elect if they be Elect or Christ satisfied for all men if all men be Elect or Christ Died in stead of all if he will give Faith to all And who sees not that these words are a plain Negation and all one with these Christ satisfied not for all q. d. I leave in my Will such a Legacy to Titus if Titus be not Titus but Sempronius what Lawyer knows not that is a denyal or an illusory nothing And how then can this bind men to Love and Gratitude If I could bethink me of any other considerable Objection I would answer it But I cannot Furthermore for the Antecedency of the obligation to love mark how Christ maketh it a condition to his own Love and his Fathers as in a greater degree and as manifested Joh. 14. 21. He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father and I will love him and will manifest my self to him Christ Loveth Men before they Love as he is Dominus Absolutus and a free Benefactor and as a Natural Lover of his own
proper Empire or Rectorship over Bruits For they are not capable of being Subjects of a Kingdom 2. His Dominion over them is but as they are subservient to his ends for Man and as they are Mans Servants and Utensils 3. Christ hath not that I can find in Scripture any novum jus Dominii any new propriety as Redeemer in Devils or in good Angels But having an ancient propriety in them as being their Creator he useth them accordingly for his Redemption ends 4. Nor do I find that he hath purchased any new proper absolute jus imperii or Rectorship over them but only a power of using them for his Church and for service about Man he shall send them on 5. And therefore I say the Empire of Christ over Angels is not of the same kind with that which he hath over Men and which we use in the Argument to prove that he died for Men. if both should be called by the same title of a novum jus imperii yet the difference of the Subjects sufficeth to shew the different Sence of the same attribute as severally applied I find not that Christ any where proclaims himself the King of Devils or Angels nor requires them to take him for their King nor hath made any new Laws to govern them by as he hath done for Men nor hath restored any forfeited mercy to them nor offers them pardon of any Sin upon condition of repentance nor will judg them on such terms So that if it should be proved that the good Angels are part of his Kingdom as Redeemer yet it would be but as their confirmer and not as a Redeemer of them For he is never offered to them as a Redeemer nor did they need any for ought I know He took not on him the nature of Angels but of the Seed of Abraham He is Head over all things to his Church Eph. 1. 22. That is He is superior to Angels and all things and hath the disposal of them for his Churches use but he is only Head of his Church de facto as to proper Kingly Rule and of the rest of the World de jure who shall suffer as Rebels for not acknowledging his Title and because they would not that he should reign over them Luke 39. 27. But so shall not Bruits or Devils So that the Argument will hold good â— jure novo Dominii Imperii from Christs new propriety in and Rectorship over Men to his Redeeming them by his Blood But so it will not from that kind of Dominion which Christ hath over Bruits or that kind of Rule that he hath over Angels or Devils to his Redemption of them And yet for Bruits as they suffered for the sake of Man and as they shall be restored from their suffering for the use and sake of Man so the same Blood which purchased Mans Restoration did remotely and collaterally purchase theirs Let us illustrate all by a similitude as near resembling the present case as we can imagine Suppose when King James Raigned in England that Ireland had all fallen into Rebellion and so open bloody and malicious that the King were resolved not a Man of them should be pardoned or escape Hereupon in the height of their malice they intice all Scotland into Rebellion also But because they are but deluded into it by the Irish and not maliciously bent against him as they or because being his Countrimâ—â— he hath a special respect to them it is concluded betwixt him and his only Son that his Son shall pay their ransome or by some publickly shameful suffering shall make that satisfaction to the Law and that Reparation to the King which may suffice to deter all others from Rebellion and openly in his suffering shall publish This I 〈◊〉 willingly for the offence of my Rebellions 〈◊〉 to procure them mercy Hereupon by agreement the Prince is to undertake it as his further business to use means for the bringing them all back to their allegiance To which end the whole Kingdom of Scotland is given up to him as King upon his satisfaction and Ramsome and he is to make a General pardon or Act of Oblivion to all so be it they do by such a day come in and lay down Arms and return to their Allegiance and acknowledg the Kings Grace and the Princes singular favour in Ransoming them and will take him for their King upon this Ransome And for those that will not accept this offer the Prince is to subdue them by force and destroy them that they shall have no benefit of the Ransome And for all the Irish which he finds among them seducing them he is to destroy them or use them to what servitude in the mean time he please Also he is to make use of any of the Kings Servants or Subjects of England to send on his Message to summon them to come in Now I demand 1. Hath not the Prince here Ransomed all the Scots over whom he hath his Jus Dominii Imperii That is absolutely all 2. Doth it follow that therefore he hath Ransomed the Irish because he hath power to judg and destroy them or use them in servitude 3. Or doth it follow that he hath Ransomed the Trees Beasts and Lands of the Country because he hath a propriety in them as the Goods or Utensils of them whom he Ransomed 4. Or did he Ransome any of the Kings Servants or English because he hath power to send them on his message or command them on his Service into Scotland If one argue thus with a Scot the Prince hath a new Title of Dominion and Empire over all you Scotsmen as ransomer therefore he ransomed you all this is no unsound arguing And would you confute it bâ— saying that then he ransomed the English and Irish too yea the Lands and Trees and Beasts By the Scots I mean mankind By the Irish the Devils by the Kings Servants or English the Angels And by the Lands Trees c. I mean all the creatures on Earth as Servants of Man A Man would think that those Men that do so vehemently contend that Christ is the Head of the visible Church and the King of this visible Kingdom which comprehendeth good and bad should easily yield to this Argument If Christ be the Head or King of all the visible Church and consequently of more than the Elect then did he die for the visible Church and so for more than the Elect But the Antecedent is maintained stifly by themselves Ergo c. When they have voluminously pleaded for the Honours and Priviledges of the Church visible viz. That even the unregenerate part of it are Disciples Christians 〈◊〉 Believers Adopted in Covenant c. And that Christ is their Master King and Head will they say that yet for all this Christ did not die for them Why hereby they incur these intollerable inconveniences 1. That such excellent gifts and Gospel Priviledges should flow from any other fountain than the
knowledge shall he perish c. But he nevea saith destroy not him or by thy knowledge shall he perish whom God hath Elected but contrarily Christ saith if it were possible they would deceive the very Elect. 6. We find them that fall away described to be such as were sanctified by the blood of the Covenant but never to be such as were Elected to Salvation And their Sin is aggravated as being a treading under foot the Son of God and putting him to open shame but not as treading under foot Gods Election And their misery is in this that there is no more Sacrifice for Sin but a fearful looking for of Judgment and Fire c. But not that there is no more Election 7. Men are warned to see that they refuse not Christ that speaketh and threatned that they shall not escape if they neglect so great Salvation and they shall speed worse at Judgment than Sodom and Gomorrhah But none are so threatned for sinning against Election nor are they warned to take heed of rejecting it nor is it said how shall we escape if we neglect so great a mercy as Election Also men that unworthily receive the Sacrament are said to eat and drink damnation to themselves and to be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord But no Man that is not Elect is said either to be the cause of his own Non Election or to be guilty of abusing or rejecting his Election 8. Also I find men warned on pain of Damnation to receive Christ as their Redeemer Be they never so wicked it is our office to perswade them to this and therefore to preach the Gospel to every Creature But we are not to command men to take God for their Elector I may not go to all the ignorant prophane men men in the Countrey and charge them to take God for their Elector 9. We must command all men to love Christ as their Redeemer and be thankful to him and in thankfulness to obey him and we may say to them You are not your own you are bought with a price therefore glorifie God with your Bodies and Spirits for they are his But we cannot perswade all men to love God as their Elector or to be thankful to him for Election or to obey God because he hath chosen them 10. We find Scripture telling us how hardly flesh and blood will digest the Doctrine of predestination and how they will quarrel at Gods chosing one and not another and how God stops their mouths with an answer drawn from his absolute Lordship and Propriety over them as the Potter over the clay he may make them vessels of honour or dishonour and do with his own as he list But we never find any murmurrings of Flesh and Blood that Christ should die for one man and not for another Nor do we find God ever acknowledging any such thing much less giving them a reason from his Absolute Dominion 11. Besides we find God useth to give the reason why men be not saved by Christ from their own wilfulness and rebellious rejecting him This is the cause given why his blood is not applyed to them But when it comes matter of Election or Non-Election the Answer is Oh Man Who art thou that disputest against God So that all these things laid together and considered it seems to me clear that Redemption is a Universal Cause as Creation is and not a thing proper to the Elect only as Gods Election is and that on this Universal Ground of Redemption Christ is entitled the Redeemer of the World and hath founded his jus Dominii imperii his right of Propriety and Government over all even those That will not that he should Reign over them as God was called the Creator of the World because he Created them and on that ground did found his first Title of Dominion and Empire over all the World And that Redemption hath no more an infallible connexion to the Salvation of all the Redeemed as subsequent than Creation hath with the Salvation of all the Created But both Creation and Redemption as they are the means between Election and its End have an infallible connexion with the consequent of the Salvation of the Elect. 2. It is a rule of great use and approved generally by Divines that when texts seem contradictory one to another or several interpretations and opinions are contradictory indeed that we must ever reduce uncertainties to certainties and not contrarily certainties to uncertainties and we must interpret obscure texts by reducing them to the plain ones and not the plain ones by reducing them to the obscure This rule Dr. Sanderson presseth well And Augustine said excellently Shall we deny that which is plain because we cannot comprehend that which is hid and secret Shall we say that is not so which we see to be so because we cannot find why it is so Aug. l. de bono persever c. 14 O that this rule were better observed When God telleth us as plain as can be spoken that Christ died for and tasted death for every man men will deny it and to that end subvert the plain sense of the words meerly because they cannot see how this can stand with Christs damning men and with his special Love to his chosen It is not hard to see the fair and harmonious consistency But what if you cannot see how two plain Truths of the Gospel should agree Will you therefore deny one of them when both are plain Is not that in high pride to prefer your own understandings before the wisdom of the Spirit of God who indicted the Scriptures Should not a humble man rather say doubtless both are true though I cannot reconcile them So others will deny these plain truths because they think that All that Christ died for are certainly Justified and Saved For whomsoever he died and satisfied Justice for them he procured Faith to Believe in him God cannot justly punish those whom Christ hath satisfied for c. But doth the Scripture speak all these or any of these opinions of theirs as plainly as it saith that Christ died for all and every man Doth it say as plainly any where that he died not for all Doth it any where except any one man and say Christ died not for him Doth it say any where that he died only for his Sheep or his Elect and exclude the Non-Elect There is no such word in all the Bible Should not then the certain truths and the plain texts be the Standard to the uncertain points and obscure texts Also Divines generally make it a rule for the Interpretation of Scripture that we must not leave the most obvious plain sense of the words without necessity and clear compelling evidence Now then let them be viewed by any unprejudiced man and let him tell us what is the plain and obvious sense of these foresaid words And for my part I see no necessity of going from that plain sense Some here
efficax esse redimendis electis alias enim frustra fuissent constituti ad obtinendam salutem per Jesum Christum si salutem per Christum non fuissent assecuturi His hunc in modum constitutis apparet fieri posse ut quaedam loca Scripturae de Christo mediatore tractent quoad pretii ipsius sufficientiam alia vero quoad mortis ejus efficaciam Locum autem hunc de quo agimus existimo significare tantum pretii ipsius sufficientiam Ratio est quia agit non de efficacia Spiritus sancti in danda hominibus fide sed de modo quo fides dari solet nempe per predicationem Evangelii Generalem omnium invitationem ad fidem in hanc formam Quisquis credit in Christum non peribit sed habet vitam aeternam Hujus autem invitationis Generalis fundamentum est pretii a Christo soluti sufficientia Atque hic rursus sese in gerit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 peculiaris divinae clementiae propensio in genus humanum quod scilicet pro peccatis humani generis pretium sufficiens solutum iri voluit non autem pro peccatis Angelorum For the better understanding of this it must be remembred that there is a double efficacy of Christs death 1. It s satisfying God's Justice for the Sins which Christ bore 2. The effecting of Pardon Justification Sanctification and Salvation of Sinners It is only of this latter that solid Divines speak when they distinguish the efficacy of Christ's death from its sufficiency But the former the effecting of satisfaction is presupposed to the sufficiency as being the proper immediate end of Christ's death for there is a double sufficiency First a sufficiency material antecedent to satisfaction passive as we may call it by which it is said to be sufficient to satisfie God for all Men. Secondly A sufficiency of this price and satisfaction so made for the pardoning and saving of all that will believe It is the latter sufficiency which is to be distinguish'd from the latter efficiency and that implies some efficiency as necessary to that sufficiency viz. The efficiency of satisfaction And the Doctor can be understood no otherwise here than according to this interpretation 1. Because he makes it the necessary ground of the general promise without which it could have no place Now leave out the efficiency of satisfaction to Justice from Christ's death and it is no more a ground for an Universal promise than if he had not paid a satisfaction materially sufficient at all For it is not sufficient to pardon all men if they did believe except Justice be first satisfied for them 2. He expresly makes it to be sufficientia pretii and not ut sit pretium though I know elsewhere he contradicts that 3. He makes it the interpretation of those Scriptures that speak of Christs dying for all which cannot be if he satisfy'd not for all 4. He makes a general promise and invitation to be grounded on it But surely Christ is not with his Salvation given so much as conditionally to any but whom by satisfying for them he hath purchased that mercy to 5. Yea he expresly in his Reason shews that by the efficacy of Christs death he means that which consisteth in the Spirits efficacy in working Faith Others say that by the World is meant only the Elect but not as Elect but as they are Gentiles who are called the World in contradistinction to the Jews This cannot be true for First Then no Elect Jews should be included but it should run thus God so loved the Gentiles that he gave his only Son c. whereas Christ was sent to Jews as well as Gentiles and that first in some respects Secondly This way crosseth themselves also for the Gentiles consist of Elect and non-Elect and therefore according to their Doctrine it should only run thus God so loved part of the World if the Gentiles be the World or else they must say that by the World is meant the Elect part of the Gentiles But I shall prove further that this is false by proving that it includeth the Non-Elect also By the World it is evident is not meant the containing World the Air Earth c. Nor Angels or unknown Superiour Creatures nor yet brute Beasts but the Men living on Earth It is granted that the usual obvious sense of words is not to be denied without evident cause and when there is cause of denying that sense we must go but to the next obvious and usual sense and not to a remote unusual improbable one Now it is known that the word World used for Men doth most directly and obviously signifie Mankind in general without excluding any Next to that it signifieth the greater part or common sort of the World Next that it signifieth the generality or greater part of some Country where the speaker then is not to speak of more remote significations If therefore we be forced to forsake the first signification it must be proved that we are also forced from the second before we must take the third and both second and third must be disproved before we can take the World for the Elect only 2. The effects of that love and giving of Christ here mentioned are undoubtedly such as are given to all and not only to the Elect as to the Tenor of the Law or Deed of Gift they are given to all Mankind and as to the promulgation they are given to all those that hear the Gospel Therefore the World here mentioned is all and not only the Elect. I think none will deny the Consequence and for the Antecedent it is evident through all the Scripture as well as this Text. The effect of the giving of Christ here expressed is the conditional gift of Salvation But the conditional gift of Salvation is to all and not only to the Elect Ergo c. That whosoever believeth in him should not perish is a plain giving of Salvation on condition of believing it being usual in Scripture and common speech to make whosoever will and if you will equally conditionally Whosoever will let him take the water of Life freely is equivalent to this it shall be yours if you will take it If you beat up the Drum for Souldiers you proclaim whosoever will come to such a place and list himself under such a Commander shall have Entertainment and Pay here whosoever will come and list himself is equivalent to if any or all of you will come and list your selves So that where they put the question whether the word whosoever be distributive I answer no not directly it is but the universal extension of the Conditional Promise with an expression of the conditionality but consequently it is distributive though Antecedently and directly it be not As in the former Comparison when you say whosoever will list himself c the word whosoever is not directly distributive for you offer all that hear you that priviledge and
all may accept it if they will and then there would be no distribution But because all will not and this is foreknown therefore consequently it is distributive So here and that it is distributive is from the will of Man and the event and other exteriour differencing Causes but not properly from the promise or deed of gift at all except by accident 3. The next words shew what World it is that is here spoken of viz. That which comprizeth men that believe and so are not Condemned and those that believe not which Consideration is consequential and not antecedent to Christ's dying for them and so are Condemned already because they have not believed c. v. 18. They that will affirm a greater restriction in the sense of the word must prove it For though I have proved here the larger sense yet indeed it belongs to them to prove their assertion who recede from the commoner and more extensive sense I shall briefly examine what they say to that end Only I must intreat the Reader that if they compare my Writings with any Book which contains the Reasons which I confute that you would not expect that I should take any notice of any of those strangely-confident Juvenile Triumphant Expressions which some do abound with but that I draw out only the pith of their Arguments and set Reason against Reason and let the heaps of Worldly Rhetorical Gloryings alone Much more must I expect that you will not take me to be engaged to defend any Arminian misinterpretations and weaknesses and to confute what any man saith against them but only that which seems of force against the interpretations or assertions that I my self do maintain The first Reason they give for proving that it is only the Elect that here are called the World is drawn from the Love which is here said to have the World for its object which cannot be common to all but is proper to the Elect. This we deny and they attempt to prove by these five Reasons 1. Say they it is the most transcendent and remarkable Love and therefore proper to the Elect. I must desire the Reader to see this answered afterward in my answer to their interpretation of John 2. It is an Eternal act of God's will Answ But what that is to the purpose I know not 3. It was the cause of sending Christ Answ That 's true it was one cause but how follows the consequence 4. They say that Love which is the cause of giving Christ is always the cause of bestowing all other good things Answ That Love which caused the giving of Christ for the Elect is the cause of giving them all things with him but that love which caused the giving of Christ for all shall not eventually give them all things I refer you to what I shall say anon to Rom. 8. 32. for the full answer to this 5. They say this Love is an assured Fountain of Salvation to all that are beloved with it Answ I deny it if they mean by assured such as shall eventually be saved but say they the issue of this Love being not perishing but obtaining Eternal Life happens only to the Elect Ergo c. Answ The Text speaks of no other effect of this Love but the giving of Christ and the giving of Eternal Life on Condition of believing Now for the former there is a twofold giving of Christ First giving him on the Cross for us Secondly Giving him in the word of Promise to us The Text seems to comprehend both He is given on the Cross for all he is given in the word conditionally to all and so is Eternal Life with him Now though the actual right to Eternal Life and fruition of it be not the portion of all yet that makes no alteration or differencing nature in this Universal Conditional promise it is because one believed and another did not The Promise antecedently to the performance or non-performance of the Condition gave Christ alike to the Elect and non-Elect and Life with him But that some believed rather than others was not from the gift of this Universal Conditional Promise but from another cause even Gods secret decree of Election Their second Reason for proving that by the World is meant only the Elect is because it is the same World that Christ came to save ver 17. but that is only the Elect else God should fail of his intention Answ This is to pervert one Text by perverting another as I shall shew anon when we come to that Text. Their Third Reason is that its usual to call the Elect the World Answ It was a very Pious Judicious Grave Divine that said I profess I cannot find any one clear place where the World must of necessity be taken for the Elect only Ezek. Culverwell in his Answer to Objections against his Treaty of Faith They alledge for what they say these Texts John 4. 42. where Christ is called the Saviour of the World a Saviour of Men not saved is strange Answ So are all things strange to Men till they understand them It 's no more strange than that God Created all Men to Life that Happiness which the first Covenant promised who yet did dye for Sin The Second is John 6. 33 57. which shall be vindicated anon The Third is Rom. 4. 13. Abraham is said by Faith to be Heir of the World which ver 11. is called to be the Father of the Faithful Answ A bold interpretation but here 's no proof nor appearance of any that the Father of the faithful is all one with Heir of the World is too unlikely a thing to be received on a Mans bare word Especially considering that it is proper to Abraham to be Father of all them that believe verse 11. But to be Heir of the World verse 13. is not proper to him For it is said the promise that he should be Heir of the World was not to Abraham or to his Seed through the Law I never read where Abraham is called Heir of the Faithful nor can he so be conveniently called But he is called Heir of the World Therefore by the World is not meant only the Faithful The Next is Rom. 11. 12. If the fall of them be the Riches of the World and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles c. Ans It is more than the Elect Gentiles that shall be and are enricht by Christ though not as the Elect others are enriched with that Church state visible which Paul here speaks that the Jews were broken off from As also with the Gospel and ordinances and conditional gift of Christ and justification and glory besides many other mercies The next Text cited to prove that the World is put only for the Elect is Col. 1. 6. Which Gospel is come unto you as it is in all the World and bringeth forth fruit as it doth also in you c. Ans 1. It is not said that it bringeth forth
fruit in all the World but that it is come into all the World and bringeth forth Fruit viz. in some where it comes 2. But suppose it were otherwise doth not Christ say that the Gospel doth bring forth fruit in more than the Elect viz. in many that fall away when Persecution ariseth Mat. 13. And in whom the cares of the World do choak that Fruit. 3. Were these Colos all Elect to whom Paul speaks 4. It is a known truth that the Gospel comes to more than the Elect for many are called but few chosen next they alledge 2 Cor. 5. 19. which makes sufficiently against their whole cause as shall be shewen anon when we come to it Another place cited by them is 1 Joh. 2. 2. Christ is the propitiation of the sins of the whole World Ans If they may thus beg the question all Texts shall mean as they would have them Of this anon Another place cited is Psal 22. 27. All the ends of the World remember and turn unto the Lord And all the Kindreds of the Nations shall worship before thee For the Kingdom is the Lord's and he is the Governour among the Nations Ans 1. All the ends of the World is not so large as all the World 2. It is plain that this Text speaks of the establishment of Christs visible Kingdom which contains more than the Elect. The Net of the Gospel brings Fishes good and bad The Heathen Countries that have turned to the Lord from Paganism and Infidelity have not all believed to Salvation The Kingdoms of the World shall become the kingdom of the Lord and of his Christ But they are not all Elect. These are all the Texts that I find urged to to prove that by the World is signified only the Elect. 2. And what if it were so in some places 1. It follows not that it is so here 2. The usual Sense must not be forsaken without cause Nor is it sufficient that unusually it is otherwise taken 3. The conjoyned words will shew the necessity of a restrained Sense where such a Sense is necessary to be received but so they do not here but contrarily as hath been shewed Their 4th Reason to prove that by the World is here meant the Elect only is this If every one in the World be intended why doth not the Lord in the pursuit of this Love reveal Christ to all so loved Ans This is to be fully answered anon among the main Objections by it self Lastly they say else all these will follow 1. That some are beloved and hated also from Eternity 2. That God's Love towards innumerable is fruitless and vain 3. That the Son of God is given to them that never hear word of him and have no power granted to believe in him 4. That God is mutable in his Love or else he still loveth those that be in Hell 5. That he gives not all things to them to whom he gives his Son 6. That he knows not certainly before who shall believe and be saved Ans To the first I thought no Antiarminian Divine ever denied it God hateth all the Workers of iniquity Psal 5. 5. You will not say that he hated them not from Eternity Many of the Workers of iniquity are Elect and so loved from Eternity God's Love is spoken say Divines ab effectu potius quam ab affectu God from Eternity so loved Men not Elect as to give them on Creation Everlasting Life in Adam on condition of fulfilling the first Covenant and to give them everlasting life in Christ on condition of believing according to the second Covenant And yet he decreed not to give any Men Grace to perform the condition of the first covenant nor to give all men Grace to perform the condition of the second To the 2d Consequence I shall answer fully by it self anon among the contrary Arguments To the 3d. also I shall there answer To the 4th I say for it is not worth a fuller answer 1. All Divines that I know say that God loveth those in Hell as his Creatures and as Men Aquinas and the rest of the Schoolmen have it frequently Yea Ursine Rob. Baronius and many of our Protestant Divines say that he punisheth those in Hell short of their deserving and so sheweth some mercy there that I will not meddle with 2. If you speak of God's Love as it is in effectu and not in affectu then it is certainly mutable He gives Men those mercies which for their â—buse he removeth or turneth to judgments He gives to all a conditional Pardon and Life And after condemneth most to Death for not performing the condition To the Elect themselves these Effects are changeable 3. If you say God's Love is but his Velle bonum alicui and therefore he cannot be said now Men are in Hell to continue to will them a conditional Pardon and Life Therefore God's Love must be mutable I answer Let those Owls that love to blind themselves by gazing on the Sun of God's undiscernable Infiniteness undertake to tell what God's Love is and what his Will is and how he Wills that which is past c. For my part I pretend not to a capacity of discerning any such things 2. You may enforce your objection as strongly concerning God's Love to the Elect He once willed their Creation then he willed to redeem them by Christ then he willed to call them and to give them their first justification to deliver them from this sickness and that danger then he willed that they should die and then that they should rise again If you will tell me how God after the Resurrection will continue to all Eternity to will to create Man to redeem him to call him justifie him deliver him raise him c. then I will tell you how God will Eternally will the giving Christ Pardon and Salvation conditionally to all If you say he Wills them as preterita and not as presentia vel futura you may say so by this If you say that there is no preteritum vel futurum with God but all present and therefore he willeth them as preterita sic dicta quoad hominem vel fidem mensuram humanam sed ut presentia quoad Deum the like you may say here also To the 5th Consequence I must answer anon by it self when we speak of their Argument from Rom. 8. 32. To the 6th It is a naked affirmation as easily denied Dare Men say that it was no mercy or love of God to give mankind in Adam Eternal Life on condition of keeping his Law because God foreknew or foredecreed they would not or should not keep it And so not attain the fruit of that Govenant thereby Dare these Men pretending to preach the Gospel tell their hearers that to all of them except the Elect the preaching the Gospel and therein the offer and conditional gift of Christ Pardon Justification and Salvation is no mercy nor from any love of God to
them And so that in rejecting it they never were guilty of rejecting or sinning against any love or mercy Having examined what they say to prove that by the World is meant the Elect only I find it needless to examine the rest about the Sense of the word loved and whosoever partly because what they say requires not much confutation and partly because enough is said on occasion of this I affirm that by love is not meant a meer natural affection nor yet a meer Act But if we must speak of God after the manner of Men it is an Act proceeding from the goodness of God's nature And I deny not this Act to be free And therefore take not natural For Physical as if God loved us as the Fire burned quantum in se 2. Nor yet Constrained And it must be observed that both the Text and those that thus interpret it speak only of God's Love to Mankind or the World and not directly to the Salvation of the World The conditional gift of Salvation to the World is the Effect of that love to the World and it is true love though it infallibly procure not that Salvation And for the other words whosoever believeth as I have said before they are primarily and directly the conditional expression and to all But secondarily and accidentally distributive because all perform not the condition So Rom. 10. 13. Whosoever shall call on the Name of the Lord shall be saved Which verse 9. is conditionally thus expressed if thou believe and if thou confess and verse 11. It is put in equipollent terms whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed So Rom. 9. 33. Joh. 11. 26. Act. 10. 43. Whosoever believeth in him shall receive Remission of Sins Act. 2. 21. Joh. 12. 46. Mar. 10. 15. Mar. 8. 34 38. Mat. 18. 4. and 5. 19 21 22 28. and 10. 14 32 33 42. The 2d Text that I shall alledg is the next Verses Joh. 3. 17 18 19. For God sent not his Son into the World to condemn the World but that the World through him might be saved He that believeth on him is not condemned but he that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God And this is the condemnation that Light is come into the World and Men loved darkness rather than Light c. Here 1. It is expresly said that Christ came into the World that the World by him might be saved And therefore he died for them 2. Yet this World is distributed into such as believe and are not condemned and such as believe not and are condemned And therefore it is not only the Elect. 3. This condemnation is for not believing which as I have proved presupposeth Christ's dying for them Now let us see what they bring to prove that by the World here is meant only the Elect. They tell us here of a notable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if by the Word World were meant several things when here repeated But for proof of what they say you must take their words Is it not good Sense and true to say God sent not his Son into the World viz. into the World of mankind or among Men to condemn the World viz of Mankind but that the World of Mankind through him might be saved But what if their various acception were granted Still the World that Christ was sent to save is divided into Believers eventually saved and Unbelievers eventually condemned If this be denied the next words annexed are so clear that I desire the Reader but without prejudice to consider them and use no violence with his judgment in expounding them Their Reasons for their Senseare these 1. Because all are not saved And the Lord hath said he will do all his pleasure and his purpose shall stand Ans 1. He will do all that he is pleased to do But not all that he is pleased to command Man to do Nor all that he is pleased to promise to Man on certain conditions when those conditions are not performed His purpose shall undoubtedly stand But when will it be proved that God did purpose or resolve eventually and actually to save that World that is here meant As God hath a Will de rerum eventu and a Will de debito which I call Legislative So each act of his Will hath its proper end as we may ascribe any end to Gods Will distinct from himself by improper speech His decreed or purposed ends he always attains supposing them absolute For I will not in this place touch that controversie whether God have a conditional decretive Will de rerum eventu But his Legal prescribed ends he doth not always attain The end of his Law is the fulfiling of its conditions and Mans attaining the reward thereby This may be called God's end 1. In that God prescribeth it to Man to be by him intended and so sending Christ into the World to satisfie his justice he hath bound the World to seek and accept Life and Salvation in and by him 2. In that God hath made Christ and Faith to have the nature of a means in reference to that command And all Men are bound that hear the Gospel to take Christ by believing in him as a means of Salvation provided by God 3. Because God hath truly made to all Men a deed of gift or a legacy of Christ and Salvation with him to all that will take him and therefore he may well be said to have given Christ that the World through him might be saved Having given them Salvation in Christ they will have it 4. He therefore giveth Christ to the World of Unbelievers that conditionally they may be saved That is if they will That is if they will have Salvation in and with Christ And 5. In so doing God doth all that belongs to him to do as Legislator For it must be understood that here he speaks those words that the World by him might be saved not as absolute Lord meerly or properly but as Rector per Leges And it belongs to him as Legislator only to propound Salvation to Man as his end And to promise it on his conditions and prescribe those conditions and command Man to perform them And to threaten him with the loss of that end of Salvation if he perform them not But to give Faith which is the condition it self doth not belong to God as Legislator No Man living can claim the first Act of Faith or effectual Grace thereto from God by any promise that he hath made But he giveth it as Dominus absolutus and as one that may do with his own as he list So that it is Finis prescriptus conditionaliter datus that is here spoken of aud not Finis Decretus to be by God eventually infallibly accomplished It is the end of Gods Law and Legislative Will and so of God as meer Legislator or Rector per Leges And not of his decretive
sanctitati innocentiae Qui igitur excusso fraeno in omnem licentiam se projiciunt non immeritò dicuntur Christum abnegare a quo Redempti sunt But because Calvin judgeth truly that these are the same that are spoken of in Jude 4. Let us see what he saith of that Text also lest you think he overshot himself here through inadvertency His words are these Christum vero abnegari intelligit Quum hi qui sanguine ipsius Redâ—mpti fuerant diabolo se rursus mancipantes incomparaliâ—e illud pretium quantum in se irritum faciunt And that you may see 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for Christ both in Peter and here and that this is a full Testimony for Christ's Godhead it being Christ that is here called the only Lord God and our Lord see the foregoing words Deum qui solus Herus est Vetusti quidam Codices habent Christum qui solus est Deus ac Herus certe Others say it is an uncertainty in secundâ Petri Epistolâ solius Christi fit mentio ille herus vocatur You see Calvin speaks both for the sense of these Texts and the point of Universal Redemption as much and as plain as I. The second shall be the Divines of the Assembly in their last Edition of their Annotations Thus they say The Lord that bought them that gave a price sufficient for them even his own precious blood Acts 20. 28. 1 Cor. 6. 20. 1 Pet. 1. 18 19. This is their first exposition and as a second they add that from their profession And they refer us farther to Jude 4. where they say thus Denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ denying Christ to be God who was their Master by profession for they professed themselves to be of his Household and their Lord by publick Authority over them or by their deeds denying Christ so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Christ in their judgment in both places and this Text speaks for Christ's Godhead The Third shall be Deodate who saith that bought them viz. who by the price of his blood which they had professed to be partakers of through Baptism had gotten the Right and Title of Lord and Master over them to make them his Servants see Heb. 10. 29. 4. Beza also expounds it of Christ as their Redeemer professedly 5. Dr. Willet expoundeth Jude 4. which is confessedly the same with this of Peter in sense thus and deny God the only Lord and our Lord Jesus Christ These words thus Translated seem to speak of two Persons of God the Father and God the Son But indeed the whole Sentence is to be understood of Christ who is called God and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Master and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord So that Lord here in the first place should be translated Master For Christ is God in respect of his Godhead with his Father He is our Master because he hath bought us 2 Pet. 2. 1. He is our Lord because by him all things are preserved 1 Cor. 8. 6. Heb. 1. 3. So that he is God as our Creator Lord as our Preserver Master as our Redeemer 6. Mr. Dav. Dickson on 2 Pet. 2. 1. expoundeth it of Christ as professed by them to be their Redeemer 7. Erasmus's Paraphrase is plainly they shall deny Christ by whose blood they were Redeemed and whom they professed Many more are here omitted 8. Even Piscator himself confesseth it spoken of Jesus Christ and saith thus Per quas illi abnegaturi sint Dominum id est Christum qui ipsos mercatus est Periphrasis Christi argumentosa quasi dicat Christus illos est Mercatus ergo non debebant eum negare Mercatus est viz pretioso suo sanguine Conser Acts 20 28. 1 Cor. 6. 20. Then comes he in with his last shift not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I 'll not now stand to transcribe any more these being of such Authority and so impartial and the last the most extream in these Controversies of almost any Learned Judicious Pious Divine 3. I come next to the Third and last Reason which is given to shew that Christ bought not these men The foresaid Author saith Neither is it more certain that the Apostle speaketh of the purchase of the Wolves and Hypocrites in respect of the reality of the purchase and not rather in respect of that estimation which others had of them and by reason of their outward seeming profession ought to have had and of the profession that themselves made to be purchased by him c. This is the great answer which is the last refuge It was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am ashamed unfeignedly to remember the time when I took up with this interpretation my self and had the face to maintain it Consid 1. It was no act of theirs which the Apostle mentions which profession though dissembled might have warranted him to ascribe to them as he may call those Holy that seem to be Holy by profession but it is an Act of Christ and his passion long ago performed He bought them 2. It is not an act ascribed to them during the time of that profession while that profession might have better warranted a mistaking charitable judgment but it is after by Apostacy they cast away that profession and so if before we might have indulged a charitable mistaken judgment yet after we may not 3. It is the words of the Holy Ghost who is the Spirit of truth and sent to lead the Apostles into all truth And shall we feign the Spirit of Truth to assert a falsehood meerly because men profess that falsehood and this after they reject that profession Wicked men say Christ bought them and afterward renounce or deny Christ therefore the Spirit of God shall write it to the Churches as Gods word that Christ did buy them even they who once falsely said so but now deny him O what a bold dealing it is with the Holy Ghost to interpret his words thus without any need or fair reason 4. May not a Man by this dealing say what he will as the meaning of Scripture May not almost any truth of God expresly affirmed in Scripture be said to be spoken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God saith as Man would have him and in giving his Laws to be a rule to the World he speaks untruly because men speak so before him making their speeches the rule of his speech which is a rule to them Blame us not too zealously if we do not swallow these things so easily even meerly because Mr. such a one or such a one saith so But let us see why they say so for sure they have some shew of reason why 1. They say It is the perpetual course of Scripture to ascribe all those things to every one that is in the fellowship of the Church which are proper to them only
non invenient ullam Marlorat adds talibus ergo contemptoribus nulla sâ—es veniae relinquitur So that they had a Sacrifice for sin till they Apostatised So Dickson also in loc Piscator and many more for I will name none but who are known to be against universal Redemption lest their exposition be rejected To all this I find no more objections of our opponents but to the first argument which we draw hence they return many words Which was both from all those benefits which here Apostates are said to partake of which only Christs Blood hath procured them and specially in that they are expresly ascribed to Christs Blood for they are said to have been sanctified by the Blood of the Covenant Now to this they say to give you the Sense briefly For if I should recite and answer the maze of words which some here use I should provoke the Reader to throw away all in weariness or loathing 1. This speaks only of some that were professors of the Faith of the Gospel separated from the World brought into the Church c. but these are not all Men. Answ Grant that it is some Non-Elect and it is as much as I desire from this Text. And if that be granted I think there is few would question but that it is for all the Non-Elect in the Church that Christ died And for those that never heard of him though I am past doubt that Christ satisfied for the sins of all Mankind yet the use of the point is so small that I will not contend much about it with any 2. They say the Apostle doth neither declare what hath been nor assert what may be but only adds a commination upon a supposition of a thing c. Ans This I answered before I 'll stand to the Judgment of almost any learned Expositor on this Text though against Universal Redemption See Calvin Beza Paraeus Piscator Perkins Dickson Bullinger c. 3. They say It is certain that these Men made profession of all these things c. and therefore the open renouncing them was a sin so hainous as deserved all this Commination though the Apostates themselves had never interest in Christs Blood Answ What 's this to the point The Text saith they were sanctified by the Blood of the Covenant and not only they professed that they were 4. They say it was the manner of the Saints and Apostles themselves to esteem of all baptised initiated persons ingrafted into the Church as sanctified persons So that speaking of Backsliders he could not make mention of them any otherwise than as they were commonly esteemed to be and at that time in the Judgment of charity were to be considered c. Answ 1. How much doth it differ from the language of Men when they are pleading for Separation Then they cannot endure to hear that all the baptised are called Saints by the Apostles and Churches 2. Indeed only those are so called that seem probably to be so 3. And therefore what is this to them that by Apostacy into a remediless misery shew themselves not to be so The Apostles will not encourage known falshood in the Speeches or Opinions of others much less be the Authors of it and lead them into it doth the Apostle here pronounce their Case hopeless and remediless and tell them there is no Sacrifice for their sin but a fearful looking for of Judgment c and doth he at the same time perswade People to believe that they were sanctified by the Blood of the Covenant c. if it were not true Even then when it openly discovereth it self false or is supposed so to do 5. They say if the Text be interpreted positively and according to the truth of the thing it self in both parts thereof viz. 1. That these of whom the Apostle speaketh were truly sanctified 2. That such may totally perish then these two things will follow 1. That faith and Sanctification is not the Fruit of Election 2. That Believers may fall finally from Christ Answ 1. These were truly sanctified though not with that Sanctification which is proper to the Elect and saved 2. No doubt such may and do fall away and perish He that denieth this must deny to believe Christ who hath expresly affirmed it in Mat. 13. That they in whom the Word is not deeply rooted do believe for a while and in the time of temptation or persecution fall away What else is our distinction between Temporary Faith and saving 3. When common Faith and Sanctification is antecedent to special Faith and Sanctification and so found in the Elect it is then a Fruit of Election But when it is found in others it is no Fruit of Election And why should they wonder at that who deny it to be a Fruit of Satisfaction or Ransom which is a more Universal cause then Election is 6. They further say there is nothing in the Text to perswade that the Persons here spoken of must needs be truly justified and regenerated Believers much less that Christ died for them c. Answ 1. That they were illuminated and partakers of the Holy Ghost and sanctified by Christs Blood the Text speaks without strained consequence with Heb. 6. 6. But that they had true special saving Faith Regeneration or Sanctification I affirm not Yet was it true 2. Is it a strained consequence to conclude 1. That he who by Apostacy is fallen into that misery which he was never in before and other sinners are not in that now there is no more Sacrifice for his sin had before a Sacrifice And so have other sinners that be not fallen so far as he is 2. Or that he who is sanctified by the Blood of the Covenant was one whose sins caused that Blood and for whom it was shed If you had proved that it sanctifieth those for whom it was never shed then you had done something so much for this Text. I had thought to have answered all the objections of the contrary-minded which the Books at hand afford but I shall do far less than I thought to do in it as finding that they are so disordered wordy and weak in many that I shall but fill Paper with needless Lines and be tedious and ungrateful to the judicious Readers The 8th Text which I will insist on is Matth. 22. 2 3 4 12 13. The Kingdom of Heaven is like unto a certain King which made a Marriage for his Son and sent forth his Servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding and they would not come And he sent forth other Servants saying Tell them that were bidden saying Behold I have prepared my Dinner My Oxen and my Fatlings are killed and all things are ready Come unto the Marriage c. Then said he to his Servants the Wedding is ready but they which were bidden were not worthy So 12. 13. Here it is agreed on that God is the King The Wedding feast is Christ and the benefits of his
sins of all mankind as they are against the Law of works Of this are meant those Scriptures which say Christ having purged away our sins ascended c. Heb. 1. 3. And that he took away the sins of the World and that God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself not imputing to them their iniquities c. 2 Cor. 5. 19 20. Concl. 2. In the second remitting act by which Christ first gives out pardon according to the power given him Christ the Redeemer and the Father by him doth forgive conditionally all sins to all men except what the very nature of the Condition excepteth viz. The Non-performance of the said Condition Concl. 3. Neither of these Acts or any following do remit the proper viz. final non-performance of the Conditions of remission Concl. 4. In the third act Christ doth actually remit to every true Believer all the destructive Penalty of all his sins past or present and all that Penalty whatsoever which proceedeth from the intention of demonstrating Justice above Mercy or prevailing or rigorous Justice commonly called vindictive in a more rigid restrained sense Concl. 5. It is not only the Eternal punishment but all the temporal punishment which is of the fore-described Nature which Christ remitteth to every Believer Concl. 6. At the same time he disposeth him to the daily receiving of a daily pardon for daily sins both in that his former sins being all pardoned his person is Accepted and Adopted and his Soul habituated to that Faith and Repentance which is the Condition and possessed of the Spirit which maintaineth these Graces Concl. 7. Yet are not his sins actually pardoned before they are committed Concl. 8. Inceptive Remission is actual and equal to absolute as to the present possession of it as soon as men believe but as to the continuance of it both Universal and particular Remission are still but Conditional till death and the Condition of Continuance as is beforesaid is more than the Condition of our first obtaining Concl. 9. That Men lose not Justification or Remission therefore comes not from the Nature of the thing nor the Tenor of the Remitting-Grant which being Conditional supposeth ever the possibility of the Non-performance of the Condition alas more than possibility but it comes from the good pleasure of God to maintain that Grace in his Elect which he hath given them so far as to see infallibly that they perform the Condition of continued and renewed Remission and Justification by causing them to persevere and overcome and therefore God as Legislator in Precepts Prohibitions Threats and Rewarding Promises doth still deal with all Men as defectible and supposeth the possibility of their falling away from Grace and perishing But God as Eternal Elector and Determiner of Events by his Decrees dealeth with all his Elect as Men whom he resolveth infallibly to Save and whose Apostacy is though possible yet non futura a thing that never shall be yea in respect to the power of any Enemy to deceive them by overcoming God's preserving grace so the deceiving or perverting of them is properly impossible as well as not future as Christ himself tells us Concl. 10. It is evident therefore that Remission and Justification are not perfect in this lifie both in that many sins are still behind to be remitted and from whose guilt a particular Justfication is necessary to be added and also because the very continuance of the Justification and Remission received is but Conditional and a Conditional Grant is not so perfect as an absolute or when the Condition is all performed Concl. 11. That punishment which man was sentenced to Gen. 3. after his fall and the Redeemer inflicteth in this Life on merciful terms where there is a greater demonstration of mercy than vindictive Justice which is commonly called corrective punishment or chastisement is never wholly remitted to any even of the Elect themselves in this Life All Men must eat their bread in sorrow and be sick and dye and the Earth is still cursed with barrenness for our sakes and the remnants of God's frowns and want of Communion with him and want of more Grace and Spirit from him and of mortification of our Sins are all sad punishments which the Elect must here undergo As for those that say that none of these are punishments I have elsewhere confuted them at large 1. They contradict express Scripture 2. And Orthodox Divines 3. They understand not the definition of Punishment else would they know that Chastisement is a Species of it Nor is it true that they say that God hath taken away all the evil of Affliction but only he hath taken away the Destructive Evil and introduced or added a greater prevailing good which yet this Evil must and that but by accident produce It is essentially quoad materiam malum naturale still quoad formam it is propter malum morale So that quoad Receptionem peccatoris patientis as to our Reception Remission of Sin is not omnibus numeris perfect in this Life there being still some unforgiven Punishment to be suffered here Hence you may see how to judge of the Controversie so much agitated between us and the Papists Utrum Remissd Culpa remaneat poena temporalis Whether Temporal Punishment remain when the Sin is forgiven And how indistinctly that question is commonly handled etiam per magni nominis Theologos Detur Venia censurae necessariae As merciful corrective Punishment is not all remitted in this Life to any of the Elect so Sin it self is to them so far unremitted as the punishment is unremitted I weigh not the Clamours that some will make against this Assertion who use more zealously to assert the Dictates of their Leaders than the words of God and to search and learn what the Orthodox say than what God saith or the Nature of the thing containeth Hear the Scripture Lam. 3. 42. We have transgressed we have Rebelled thou hast not pardoned This was spoken by the Prophet in his own name and the name of all God's People the Jews because of their Temporal Sufferings Abundance of the like importance might be cited from Scripture but this is not the place Methinks those Antinomians should not be against this Doctrine who falsly teach that that it is only Temporal Punishment or Chastisement that Believers Pray against when they daily Pray forgive us our Trespasses as the most moderate of their Books do affirm Concl. 12. This imperfection in Remission of Sin here comes not from any deficiency in Gods Love or Christs satisfaction but from God's Wisdom in the right giving out of his Mercies and Man's State and the nature of the work Yea in sensu activo in respect of God as meer Legislator of the Law of Works Remission may be said to be perfect that is quantum in se in illa Relatione he hath perfectly pardoned it by quitting all his right of punishing into the hands of the satisfier From whom he
suffer injustly He doth what he doth of this kind for unbelievers arbitrarily Let any Man shew where God is engaged by any Covenant to save unbelievers from bodily dangers But their Souls he hath redeemed by Christ and so saved them quoad pretium And he hath made a Deed of Gift of Christ and Eternal Life to all on condition they refuse it not So that he may in respect of his Covenant and so in a fuller Sense be called their Saviour in Spiritual respects than in temporal for all that they are not eventually saved The word Saviour here implies such a Relation as God hath undertaken and that Men may assure themselves he will perform all that belongs to it Or else it could not be the ground of our confidence But wicked Men have no promise for or assurance of an hours Life or any outward deliverance whatsoever no not though it were never so good for them For God will not be in Covenant with them for common things till they first accept of his Covenant of Grace in Christ But for Salvation he hath made them a conditional promise as aforesaid 3. And it is less probable that the Apostle calls God a Saviour here so equivocally as not to mean in the same kind of Salvation when yet he intimateth no difference in the Text. 4. But let us suppose all this were as the opponents would have it yet for ought I can see the Text will fully prove the point in question For even in temporal respects God is the Saviour of no Man but those whom Christ died for For all Men have forfeited all his Salvation and are under his Curse And he can be no Saviour to them according to the tenor of that cursing violated Law It must be therefore according to the New Law or Covenant or not at all And the New Law is founded in the Blood of Christ shed for those to whom it is made Indeed according to the first Law he may uphold the Life and Being of Sinners But it is only as he doth the Devils to make them capable of punishment But neither do we for that call him the Saviour of the Devils nor would it be any such great encouragement to Paul and all Christians in labour and sufferings for godliness sake So that even this Temporal Salvation doth presuppose the Relaxation or Non Execution Plenary of the Law of Works And that is done only by the remitting Law of Grace and that presupposeth Christs Blood shed or undertaken to beshed for the sinners I know nothing more that needs to be spoken to for vindicating this Text. The 11th Text shall be 1 Joh. 5. 9 10. 11 For this is the witness which he hath testified of his Son He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself He that believeth not God hath made him a Lyar because he believeth not the Record that God gave of his Son And this is the Record that God hath given us Eternal Life and this Life is in his Son He that hath the Son hath Life and he that hath not the Son hath not Life Hence I thus argue If Eternal Life in Christ be given to unbelievers who make God a Lyar and have not Christ or Life then Christ was first given on the Cross as a Sacrifice for those unbelievers But the Antecedent is true Therefore so is the Consequent And consequently Christ died for more than the Elect and therefore for all 1. I Suppose none that is not willing to be deceived will maintain that it is only such unbelievers as afterward shall be converted and are Elect who are here said to make God a Lyar For the Record which they are condemned here for not believing is the object propounded to Elect and not Elect without such Distinction as they are all considered in number of sinful Mankind 2. As for the Minor or Antecedent of the Major proposition it is very plain in the Text. If all men should believe who hear the Gospel that Eternal Life in Christ is given them and those that believe it not do make God a Lyar then it 's certain that Eternal Life in Christ is given to them all But c. Ergo c. There is nothing here to be questioned but only who are meant in the term Us when it is said God hath given Us Eternal Life And it is plain that it is the same persons included with others who are charged with making God a Lyar. 1. Else their Unbelief should consist only in not believing that Life is given to other men and consequently the Faith required of them should consist only in believing that God hath given Life in Christ to others without any inclusion of themselves But that is not true Ergo c. The falshood of this consequent is proved thus 1. True saving Faith is of a Receiving or Applying nature as it is the act of the Will and it is introductory thereto as it is the act of the Understanding But believing that God hath given Life in Christ to other men is not receptive nor applicatory nor introductory thereto Ergo c. All our Divines against the Papists do fully maintain the Major 2. The Devils and the most despairing men have not saving Faith But the Devils and Despairing men do believe that God hath given Eternal Life to others therefore to believe that God doth give that Life to others is not saving Faith 3. True saving Faith is of greatest concernment to the Believer as to the object of it as being the means of his Salvation But the believing meerly what God giveth to other men is of no such concernment to any Ergo c. Obj. It is not Saving Faith that is here mentioned nor any act that is proper to a true Believer nor is it the want of that which is here condemned But it is the not believing the Truth of the Gospel which is only a preparatory act and which the Devils themselves may have who believe and tremble For though this meer assent will not save yet the want of it will condemn Answ 1. Saving Faith hath two parts according to the Souls faculties which have each their several Offices about this saving object the one is the assent of the Understanding the other is the consent of the Will and affiance thence following when ever Justifying Faith is mentioned in the Scripture it is usually by one of these acts alone sometime one and sometime another And when one only is expressed the other is still implied And so it is in this Text. 2. Assent is true saving Faith though not the whole of saving Faith 3. It is not meerly assent to this proposition in general the Gospel is true that is here made the Record of God and object of Faith nor yet assent to this Jesus is the Son of God and Saviour of Believers But it is this God hath given us Eternal Life and this life is in his Son so that it
is to believe that God hath made such a Deed of Gift of Christ to us that is to Mankind including our selves Now no Devils do believe this nor can say God hath given us Eternal Life 3. And where it may be said that Wicked men may believe it I Answer It is true but not with that deep intense effectual operative Belief which is savingly sincere when the Scripture requireth believing and condemneth for want of it it always implieth the necessary modification even that the Act be in some measure answerable to the nature of its object It still means sincere cordial believing though it do not alway express it nor were it convenient so to do And so undeniably doth this Text. And this Assent no wicked man can have 4. The Text plainly evinceth the falshood of the objection and shews that it is a saving Faith that is here mentioned and is opposed to the Unbelief here condemned For it saith He that Believeth hath the witness in himself which beyond dispute is the Holy Ghost which is Christs great witness in the World especially in the Souls of Believers And it is the Holy Ghost in such a kind as is common to all true Believers or else the proposition were not universally true And this must needs be if not only yet chiefly the Holy Ghost illuminating and sanctifying And to this is the condemned Unbelief directly opposed in the next words He that Believeth not God hath made him a Lyar. Here Amyraldus and Dallaeus coming forth stopt me CHAP. VIII Arguments against Universal Satisfaction answered Argum. I. ALL those are certainly saved for whom Christ Satisfied But all men are not Saved Therefore Christ Satisfied not for all men The Major is proved thus It will not stand with Gods Justice to punish one sin twice or to punish twice for one sin the first punishment being a full satisfaction for that sin God can require no more But Christs sufferings were a full satisfaction for every sin of those persons for whom he suffered Ergo c. The Satisfaction was full 1. In respect of the sins of the person there being none unsatisfied for 2. As to God who was offended he being fully reconciled or well-pleased with the Sinners for whom the Satisfaction was made and not only conditionally or in part Answ This is the main Argument urged by Dr. Twiss and most others against Universal Satisfaction and which prevaileth most with those of that way so far as I can find But it is grounded on an unhappy ignorance of the Nature of Satisfaction and a confounding of satisfaction and solution of the proper Debt and a sore mistake about Christ's undertaking and performance Solutio ipsius debiti strictè sic dicta the proper discharge of what was due was supplicium ipsius Delinquentis and of any other in his stead as I have proved before The Law did neither Threaten the Innocent nor make any mention of a Surety And therefore Christ did not fulfill the Law in Suffering as he did in Obeying or the Law was not properly fulfilled on Christ in his Suffering Satisfaction is taken sometime generally for the fulfilling of anothers desire and so a Believing Repenting Obedient person may be truly said to satisfie God himself But this is not all the sense of the word as it 's now in question with us in the present case 2. Sometimes it is taken specially for a debtors satisfying his Creditor not by submission and deprecation but by such a sufficient way as that the Creditor shall be no loser by him From a Creditor and Debtor it is by translation applied to a Rector and Delinquent In this special sense Satisfaction is taken 1. Sometime more loosely and largely for the Payment of the proper Debt the same with Solutio ipsius Debiti Or 2. More strictly and properly For the Satisfying the Creditor by giving him as good a thing or taking such a course as that he shall be no loser though the Debt be not paid And in this sense is the word Satisfaction ordinarily used as its proper strict sense the former sense being one of them too general and the other improper and loose And so Satisfaction is commonly by Lawyers and Schoolmen defined to be Redditio aequivalentis alias indebiti or solutio vel Redditio tantidem and it is contradistinguished from solutio strictè sumpta which is ejusdem quod debetur And so in Criminal Cases the Punishment of the Offender is the Ipsum Debitum and not properly satisfaction to the Comminatory part of the Law though all Punishment may be called a satisfaction as to the Preceptive part of the Law because it is not the ipsum quod debetur as to the Precept but something to provide that the Law and Lawgiver lose not by the delinquent But if any other sufficient means be found which without the Punishment of the offender may provide for the Indemnity of the Law-giver and the publick good and this both for what is past by reparation and for time to come by Prevention that so the main ends of the violated Law may yet be attained this is satisfaction to the Lawgiver Satisfaction alway supposeth the non-payment of the Debt And in Criminal Cases as ours is satisfaction still supposeth the Duty or Punishment or both to be overpassed which the Law required The Punishment of the Delinquent himself which may be called a satisfaction to the Law supposeth that the Precept was violated by Omission or Commission The punishing of another for us or any other such Satisfaction supposeth the Delinquent himself not to be punished So that it must needs be remembred by all true Christians that Christ did not only satisfie for our not obeying but for our not suffering the Punishment threatened by the Law and so due to us for our disobedience yea most directly did he Suffer for our not Suffering and so secondarily for our Sinning Further it must be remembred that satisfactio est solutio Recusabilis sed solutio ejusdem est non recusabilis The Creditor or Rector may chuse to take satisfaction by receiving the value in another kind But he cannot refuse the proper Debt unless by remitting it freely He can require nothing else but the Debt Moreover satisfaction being a refusable payment the Creditor may take it on his own terms and there must intercede a New Agreement for the accepting of it and if the Satisfier will not come to the Creditors terms he may refuse it as no satisfaction whereas if the Debt it self be paid he must ipso facto acknowledge the Debtor acquit and to be no longer a Debtor The like may be said in the Punishment of a Delinquent To apply all to the case in hand Christ was not the offender therefore Christs Sufferings as is said before were not the fulfillin of the Law but satisfaction to the Law-giver His Satisfaction supposeth that no man was himself Punished when Christ satisfied morally by undertaking his