So that if the parts of his distinction be so coincident that we may say For the effecting of the former he ascended also to his Father and for the latter he came downe from the Father then his difference falleth to the ground as for that Text Joh. 16.28 it sheweth only that Christ both came from and also goeth to the Father but it saith not that he came downe only to procure and went to him to apply the good things procured So that we may see what libertie he takes to distortour Saviours words to apply them to his owne conceits without ground Nay our Saviour seemes to disclaime it for there is more the soly Application when he saith I go to prepare a place for you Joh. 14.2 His third is the same with this therefore I mention it not 3. The one is a Redemption for us in Christ Rom. 3.24 The other a Redemption of us in Soule and body Luk. 1.74 Many leaves would not serve sufficiently to display the vanity of this distinction First This denotes that the Redemption of our soules and bodies was not wrought out for us which is erroneous if he import not so much his distinction is frivolous Secondly That denoteth that the Application of Christs Bloud is not effected or showne till our soules and bodies be glorified which is false the giving of any Mercy the means of Grace his Patience is the Application of his Bloud And if he meane not the former he weakely expresseth the latter by the Redemption of us in our soules and bodies 3. The first he saith is only for us when in his sixth particular he produceth Christs Lordship Patience Goodnesse of God to men as this first Redemption but these are not only for us but of us and to us endlesse are his absurdities but I close with this other that Text Rom. 3.24 is abused that mentioneth not this Phrase For us therefore serveth him not for his purpose there is no expression there but what agreeth to the second Redemption viz. Application therefore serveth not to prove a discrimination I shall use only one more 4. The former is affirmed in Scripture to be for all men Joh. 3.17 The latter is for and to Beleevers only To this I Answer If he can carry this by Scripture then his weakenesse appeares in expressing himselfe so remissely as to contend in this Chapter only for this that they are distinct if the first be for all the second for Beleevers only then they are not only distinct but separable one from the other and one may be where the other never is and this is a degree beyond distinction 2. Whereas he saith That the latter viz. the Application of his Death is only for Beleevers how diflonant is it from himselfe and his best friends the Remonst who unanimous that Remission of Sins and Eternall Salvation is procured for all men not only for Beleevers Indeed they say it is only to them but for all for if they be confined to Beleevers not only to them in regard of enjoyment but for them also in regard of procurement his common Redemption will be but a meere Chymaera 3. If he say That the Impetration or procuring of Remission and Eternall Life be for all and every Son of Adam then he must prove it by Scripture that Text Joh. 3.17 proveth it not it speakes not of such a Redemption Salvation as may be divided from Eternall Life no nor barely of Impetration but as it relateth to Application to follow as when he saith I come to save that which was lost and he shall save his people from their Sins Math. 1.21 Neither doth the world World there meane every Son of Adam but he came to save the World that is Men living in the World his inference here from is no plaine Text but a corrupt reasoning from a cleare Text. Againe that Text Joh. 3.16 confirmeth me in this Point that Christ did not procure life for every Son of Adam because he there saith it was that only Beleevers might not perish It saith not that every one might not perish if they beleeve but that those that beleeve the number of which was well knowne to him Now if Christs will was one and concentricall with his Fathers he procured life for none but Beleevers So that then not only the Application is to but the Impetration for Beleevers only what then becommeth of his Doctrine That he procured life for all men whether they beleeve or no I see not this is no Scripture Language So that now having examined his particulars of distinction and finding them full of confusion and not distinct enough to be understood I shall give the Reader a taste of some new Divinity 1. That Christ dyed for some for whom he did not live againe as in the first 2. That he came from the Father for some for whom he went not to the Father againe as in the second 3. That he was abased for some for whom he was not exalted as in the third 4. That he shed his Bloud for some for whom he presented not his Bloud as shed as in the fifth All these he averreth in that he saith the former of all is done for all and every man the latter only for Beleevers Thus have I embowelled the distinction the Chapter that treateth of it his expressions therein And little perspicuity or pertinency to the Question can I find therein and so confused that I feare few of his Readers can gather from it what he holds or what they should close withall neither can any ingenuous man shew what he hath gotten of his Adversary herein that which is truth in it no man denyeth yet a miscellany of Obscurities Errours Contradictions interwoven it is the basis of the whole Discourse therefore I have been more prolix in dissecting it lest I should over-looke any pertinent truth they are so few tedious I know it must be to them that are verst in more polite Notions but the Nature of my Antagonist requires it things of lesse concernment shall be passed over with lesse disquisition And what he delivers herein appeares to me not to be the meaning of 1 Tim. 2.4 6. Heb. 2.9 And his Proposition being taken in this sence here delivered is not made out in those Texts And what provision he is supplyed with from this distinction so prosecuted for the taking downe of the edge of our Arguments shall be seene in its proper place CHAP. III. Of divers ends of Christs Death and of which is here meant THe Author conceiving to find strength from the consideration of the ends of Christs Death enters this Point And I confesse it helps much to decide this Controversie therefore I shall to my Talent bend my thoughts to examine what he delivereth herein He saith thus 1. The first end and that which is generall and of largest extent was to be a Ransome Sacrifice and Propitiation and this hath three distinct ends in it 1. In respect
the premises and let them be right I will warrant his conclusion now what strength of Argument can we expect from such as is so weakely versed in that way 2. His arguments are many six in number to call the eyes of men upon that truth that is backed by multitude of arguments when he deceiveth them utterly for his mediums are all coincident in one let us veiw them His 1. Saith That which the Scripture plainely affirmeth in plaine words is true 2. Saith Tâ—â—â— for whom Christ and his Apostles in plaine termes affirme Christ to come to save them he did come to save 3. Saith That which Scripture layeth downe as one end of his death c. is to be beleeved 4. Saith That which the Scripture sets forth in generall for the world it a truth 5 Saith That which may be proved in and by Scripture in plaine sentences c. is a truth Now let any divine Chymnist extract a difference betwixt any of these doe they nor deserve by the variety of matter to be ranged as distinct arguments should I have distinct answers I should runne into the Authors folly 3. Let us view the conclusions in all and so see what he proveth in all his plaine Scriptures His 1. Thus That he gave himselfe a ransome for all and tasted death for every man 2. He came to save sinners world unjust ungodly 3. That by his death he is Lord of all 4. That he was sent to be the Saviour of the world that whoever beleeveth should not perish 5. That he hath in dying lordship over all 6. That he gave himselfe a ransome for all and tasted death for every man Now not to insist on that peccancy in having such various conclusions about one and the same question wherein he cannot satisfie that requisite in reasoning to conclude with the question this I say none of these conclusions are against us which may be reduced to that peccancy in reasoning which is called ignoratio elenchi none of his arguments are in right forme they have more in the conclusion then his premises contribute to them all have some or other obliquity but seeing all of them are but one medium and so in effect but one argument I shall give this one answer conceditur totum and he can desire no more of us then to grant all he saith now in the issue either his weaknes appeareth in producing that against us which we may grant or ours in granting that which maketh against us let him put it to the triall CHAP. XXI Of removing some doubts hindring some from beleeving that which they confesse WHerein he personateth some that cannot deny but confesse that Christ gave himselfe a ransome for all and tasted death for every man but they cannot beleeve that Christ died for all men I shall not insist on the Authors dexterity in framing such arguments and doubts that he may easily answer and render the objectors ridiculous his forgery lieth in two particulars 1. He knoweth none that cannot beleeve that which they confesse Scripture speaketh some may not confesse that which they beleeve but that any should not beleeve that which they confesse I beleeve not 2. He knoweth none that beleeve that Christ gave himself a ransome for all and yet do doubt whether he died for all or no this would be to exceed the Author in folly but here lieth the doubt though the Text say He gave himselfe a ransome for all men yet they cannot beleeve that it meaneth every individuall man without exception upon a threefold ground arising from severall Scriptures as first Eph. 2.8 By grace are ye saved through faith and this not of our selves it is the gift of God from this Text I doe not affirme that faith is said to be the gift of God though it be so and other Scriptures hold it forth yet I say not that this text saith so for having said ye are saved by grace through faith it saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not of our selves it doth not well agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it being of the newâ—er gender but rather with the whole sentence going before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that salvation by grace through faith is the gift of God as Rom 6.33 the gift of God is eternall life through Jesus Christ our Lord. But to take it as as he propoundeth it and from this that faith is the gift of God which is a truth hence the doubt is this Seeing faith is the gift of God and he hath determined not to give to every man that faith therefore it is not probable that Christ would lay downe his life for them upon the condition of faith whom he seeth cannot beleeve without God and to them God will not give it to the salving of which he speakes many things but little to satisfaction he seemeth to distinguish of salvation 1. A salvation without man in Christ for men 2. A salvation in men inabling men to beleeve 3. A salvation upon men both in soul and body compleat in heaven Now he saith that this phrase Yee are saved by grace through faith in Eph. 28. is meant of the second salvation but first that is not cleare for then the sense must be this yee are brought in to beleeve through faith so that faith is by him the meanes conducing to faith this is absurd I thinke it plainely appeares to be meant of compleat salvation in heaven and it saith ye are saved because they were certainely to be saved through faith But be it so as he saith yet the doubt is where it was yet that being saved by faith is the gift of God and he not giving that grace to all he would not give his Son to merit life for all upon the condition of beleeving if I can in his next be informed of his strength in his expresses to this purpose I shall say more His second Text produced Iohn 6.37 All that my Father giveth me shall come unto me and him that cometh I will not cast out Now from this Text here lieth the doubt it is not consonant to reason or Scripture that Christ would lay downe his blood to purchase life for them whom his Father had not given to him seeing his Fathers giving is the measure of coming to him and so being within the compasse of the benefit of his impetration his will being one with his Fathers his impetration would be equall with his Fathers giving to him this he undertaketh to remove by showing a fouretold giving of men to Christ 1. Giving by election to sonship and inheritance 2. Giving men to him to undertake for them and to ransome them 3. Giving men to Christ they to be his and he to be their Lord. 4. Giving men to Christ in the heavenly call so they are given up to him But what neede so many words to darken a cleare Text and what need so many acceptations when it is cleare that all of them cannot be the
from Adam so the righteousnesse of one came on all men that come from him and here lyeth the perfect Analogie betwixt Christ and Adam and this will more appeare if we well consider the Text That Redemption and Justification which he gives to every Son of Adam is such as only is wrought out for men but not on men for this is to partake of Actuall Justification but of this latter the Text speakes it saith It commeth on all men but Justification is upon none but Beleevers Rom. 3.22 23 24. Againe this Righteousnesse is said to come upon all as the Condemnation came upon all by Adams Sin but Condemnation came Actually upon all so that they were without a Saviour in an infallibility of perishing So this comming of Righteousnesse on all must be Actuall too and so as all on whom it so commeth shall infallibly come to glory and life Eternall but so Righteousnesse commeth not on every Son of Adam but Beleevers only Againe This All men in Ver. 18. is supplied and expounded Ver. 17. by those that receive abundance of Grace and the gift of Righteousnesse which maketh it appeare that is an Actuall Justification which the Apostle speaketh of here and therefore favoureth not such an one which may be though none partake of Justification and such an one as none can be truly said to be justified with but those that Beleeve therefore owneth not such an one as is competible to every Son of Adam So that the validity of his Scriptures I see not I shall examine his Reason It may be understood and beleeved as well as this that all men were made righteous in the first Adam and were truly righteous in him of which Righteousnesse none ever yet felt or partaked Rom. 5.12 And so though all recovered c. The Question is not how it may be beleeved and understood if it was so in truth but whether it be so or no. Secondly We may grant the whole both may be understood alike that is neither of them at all I know no Scripture that saith all the Sons and Posterity of Adam were made righteous That Text Eccles 7.29 faith no more but that man was made righteous which is true in that Adam and Evah were so Not that every Son of Adam was made holy none were made holy but those that were Created but his Posterity were not created holinesse was not derived to any by propagation A ground why every Son of Adam is not said in Scripture to be righteous in Adam I conceive is this to be made righteous as Adam was is a reall denomination and quality induced into the Patient and that by a transient Action passing from the Agent into the Patient but such an Action there cannot be In subjecto nondum existente In a Subject that hath not actuall existence So that our Author must cleare this to us before he can make it the standard of our beliefe of the former that every Son of Adam is Reconciled and Justified in Christ Thirdly I shall grant him that all are or were made righteous in Adam yet I cannot subscribe to the other neither is it any way explicatory of this that All Adams Sons are made alive and justified in Christ for let us consider there were none made righteous or could be so said but those that were to come from him by propagation and under that notion as comming from him he was made righteous and betrusted with Grace as a publique Person to convey to his Posterity and such as came from him so that all that come from him his off-spring we shal grant for Conference sake that they were made righteous in him Now will this inferre or help us to understand that all were justified in Christ It helps us to beleeve that all that do or are to come from him were made righteous in him but no further for what ground can be deduced from Scripture or Reason that as Adams Figure Christ makes more righteous in him then come from him to have a being from and in him let us grant him that all the Sons of Adam were made righteous in him because they were to come from him yet we cannot yet yeeld or understand that every Son of Adam is justified in Christ because they have not nor ever are to have a being from him Having laid down his reason he produces a dissimilitude betwixt Adam Christ thus As the first Adam being a living Soule and of the earth He lost all our soules in his Fall without remedy on his part So the second Adam is a quickening Spirit the Lord from heaven and loseth none but who ever now perisheth destroyeth himselfe and loseth his owne soule The absurdities and obscurity of these expresses far exceed the pertinency or usefulnesse to the Point in hand 1. The Author pretendeth a dissimilitude but yet he brings an As So As the first Adam lost So the second Adam loseth none Now there is none but knoweth that these words As So set forth a similitude as the Apostle when he would shew a Similitude betwixt Adam and Christ Rom. 5.18 19 21. he saith As by offence of one c. So Righteousnesse c. But when he sheweth a dissimilitude he useth other expressions as For But as Ver. 16. For the judgement was by one c. But the free gift is of many c. But we may expect no better from the Author but this Obiter 2. He saith The Scripture sheweth that dissimilitude but he sheweth not where The Apostle Paul who undertaketh the businesse of the difference and similitude betwixt Adam and Christ Rom. 5. yet this he mentioneth not 3. This Phrase Loseth none is very fallacious and doubtfully laid downe it may be taken either Actively or Passively Actively to cast away or to destroy so it is taken when he saith Adam lost himselfe and us all if he thus take it then Scripture neither doth nor can set downe such a difference Adam destroyed but Christ destroyeth none differences are Inter Entia positive beings do usually afford differences and we shall find that when the Apostles shew discrepances betwixt Adam and Christ they give them still betwixt Adams losing and Christs saving not Adams losing and Christs not losing this would import that Christs Office was only not to destroy Againe secondly It may be taken Passively that is He suffers none to perish and thus is it taken when Christ is said not to lose as Joh. 6.39 18.9 So Christs not losing is nothing but his not suffering to perish if it be thus taken then the dissimilitude must run thus As Adam lost all so Christ recovers all And as all were lost by Adam without remedy so Christ recovered all infallibly and without feare of being taken out of his hands he shall suffer none to be lost no not to lose themselves for then are they lost and therefore he removes all externall and internall principles that might destroy us Joh. 10.28 29.