these are given according to the Law of Works If not then it must be according to the Law of Grace and the New Covenant or according to no Law If the former then none will question I think but it must come from Christs Blood For the New Law and Testament is founded in his Blood and Sealed by it If the later then at least the Law of Works must be first relaxed and they so far pardoned seeing according to that Law they should have lived not among these mercies but in misery And Scripture assures us that it was the Blood of Christ that delivered us from the Curse of the Law and that on the Cross he took down the hand writing that was against us c. And without his suffering there is no Relaxation of the Laws obligation They that set open so wide a door of mercy to all the World beside Jesus Christ do not lightly wrong him and do dangerously deceive themselves and others I am sure Christ will expect repentance thanks and obedience for these mercies and condemn Men for not improving these Talents which he committed to them however Men may now tell Sinners that all comes but from common providence and not by the Blood of Christ 3. Yea that which they call common providence is the disposal of things by the Redeemer For all things are delivered to him of the Father and all power given him and to that end he died rose and revived that he might be Lord of the Dead and Living And therefore if Men have any mercy now it must come through the Redeemers Hands and consequently is a fruit of his Blood But this will yet further be proved in the next which is 3. That it is Christs dying for those same persons to whom he gives these mercies that is the ground of them And this further is proved thus 1. Some of the mercies given are such as could no other way be procured and given as is ordinarily granted Such as are the Universal Remission Justification Adoption and gift of Christ himself on condition that Men will accept them Christ given as Redeemer supposeth his Redemption as to paying of the price to be past Without Blood there is no Remission neither conditional not absolute as is proved in the first Argument But a conditional Remission to all is given in the New Testament Ergo c. The Remission also of their punishment for the time of this Life or at least of so much of it is actual though not plenary Remission and wicked Men partake of that Of one of these two Christs speaks in the parable of the ungrateful unmerciful Servant Mat. 18. 27. 32. 35. The Lord of that Servant was moved with compassion and loosed him and forgave him the debt c. His Lord said O thou wicked Servant I forgave thee all that debt c. So likewise shall my Heavenly Father do also by you if ye from your Hearts forgive not every one his Brother their Trespasses But of this Text more hereafter So that God doth remit to the Non-Elect most of the temporal punishment of their Sin actually and all the Eternal punishment conditionally That he remitteth the temporal punishment is further proved Psal 78. 38. But he being full of compassion for gave their iniquity and destroyed them not Yea many a time turned he his anger away and did not stir up all his wrath He that reads out the rest of the Psalm will not believe that all these dissembling Israelites were Elect. So for the legal forgiveness of Sin upon the use of Ceremonies See Lev. 4. 26 31 35. and 5. 10 13 16 18. and 6. 7 and 19 22. Numb 15. 25 26 28. It shall be forgiven all the Congregation of the Children of Israel and the Stranger that sojourneth among them seeing all the People were in ignorance but all Israel were not Elect Numb 14. 19. Pardon I beseech thee the iniquity of this People according to the greatness of thy mercy and as thou hast forgiven this People from Egypt even until now 20. And the Lord said I have pardoned according to thy Word Dev. 21. 8. Psal 85. 2. Isa 40. 2. So the Example of Ahab the Ninevites c. Shew clearly For that which God did in mercy in respect to their humiliation was some kind of Remission 2. And further I prove it as by these express Texts of Scripture so by this Scripture reason Either God remitteth much of the temporal punishment or else he shews them no mercy And consequently they are not beholden to him nor owe him any thanks but God doth shew them mercy Ergo c. He that remitteth none of the punishment due sheweth no mercy in this case And he that sheweth mercy remitteth part of the punishment for it was part of the punishment to be deprived of the mercies which wicked Men enjoy Who dare once imagine that Health Strength Friends Liberty Peace Riches Honour Food Raiment Houses Accommodations Cattel all Creatnres to serve us Publick Peace Sun Rain Fruits of the Earth prospering of our Labours c. Knowledg Parts Motions of the Spirit excellent means and offers of Grace Godly society and Examples Admonitions Tast of the good word of God and the powers of the World co come Illumination Partaking of the Holy Ghost working Miracles casting out Devils hearing the word with joy believing for a time clean escaping the pollutions of the World by the knowledg of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to be sanctified with the blood of the Covenant to be loved of Christ as the man was Mar. 10. 21. to have the easiest place in Hell c. who dare say that none of all these are Mercies Or that the enjoyment of these may stand with the full execution of the sentence of the Law If the Curse lay in the deprivation of these then the enjoyment of them is a remission of that curse or Penalty But c. Ergo c. read Deut. 28. Now that this Remission is granted to none but by virtue of Christs dying for him I will now but refer you to the whole multitude of Reformed Divines in their Writings against the Papists about Purgatory Indulgences and Humane Satisfactions where they argue with greatest Zeal and many Arguments that temporal punishments are remitted only for Christ's Satisfaction even the same men that deny Universal Satisfaction not remembring how this overthroweth their own cause The reason I conceive is that here the evidence of truth constraineth them but in the denial of Universal Redemption they constrain themselves to it meerly because they have not found out the way of reconciling Universal Satisfaction with Special Predestination and therefore think they are necessitated to deny the former though against the clear light of many express Texts of Scripture for fear of contradicting the later 1. Amesius saith Bellarm. Enervat To. 2. li. 5. c. 2. p. mihi 158. Christus per spiritum suum nihil in nobis operatur
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
which is their Master Argument may as well say that God is an imperfect Creator because he maketh not Worms to be Men or that he is an imperfect Conservator because he preserved not man from Mortality Damnation and Antecedent Calamities especially from Sin Or that he is imperfectly Merciful because he permitteth Men to sin and Condemneth them Or that Christ is an Imperfect Redeemer of the Elect because he suffereth them after his Redemption to Sin Suffer and Die Or that the Holy Ghost is an imperfect Sanctifier and Caller because many wicked Men are Sanctifyed and Believe imperfectly so as will not suffice to Salvation and because they resist and quench the Spirit and fall from that Faith and Sanctification which they had Or that the Spirit is an imperfect Comforter because so many Saints Live and Die in such unconformitable sadness Or that Scripture is an imperfect means because the Effect is so imperfect In a word they may as well say that where God doth not overcome mens wicked dispositions he is an imperfect God to them in regard of his Mercies All which beseem not the Tongue of a Christian Prop. LX. That Argument commonly brought against Universal Redemption that where Christ doth the work of a Mediator for any man in one of his Offices he doth it in all is undeniably destructive to the cause it is brought for For it is undeniable that Christ as Prophet and King Teacheth Calleth Illuminateth many Non-elect giveth some Faith some Taste of his word and the powers of the World to come sanctifyeth them by the Blood of the Covenant and washeth them from their former pollutions Mat. 13. Heb. 6. and 10. â—2 Pet. 2. 20. Therefore in his Priestly Office he must at least be as far their Mediator CHAP. IV. The First Proposition Asserted Prop. I. CHRIST in Sufâ—ering did not strictly and properly bear and represent the person of the Sinner so as Civiliter Moraliter Legaliâ—er it might be said that we either satisfied or sufferâ—d in or by Christ Explic. I am not willing to make the meer â—ords here any matter of quarrel If any dislike â—ny term of mine or like his own let him apâ—ly himself to the matter in Question and let â—…e words pass 1. I deny not that Christ Sufâ—ered nostro loco in our place or stead suffering â—…at which we deserved and should else have unâ—voidably suffered 2. I acknowledge and mainâ—â—in that our Sins were the quasi Causa Meritoria 〈…〉 loco causae meritoriae of his sufferings and that 〈…〉 became Sin for us that is a Curse for Sin â—…at is he made himself by his own Sponsion obâ—â—xious to the Curse and Punishment due to us for 〈…〉 Sin And so far Sin was imputed to him But Christ was neither really a Sinner nor eâ—â—eemed of God so to be and in that sence sin â—as not imputed to him 4. All know that 〈…〉 Physico Christ did not bear our persons Some will needs extend the phrase of bearâ—â—g or representing the person of another civiliter so far as if it were applicable to every sponser surety or one that alterius vice loco doth do or suffer any thing And so they say Christ bore our Person But as I think they abuse the phrase by extending it so far so I am content they use their liberty to express themselves as they please only I intreat them that they misunderstand not me but know that my meaning is that the Law doth not look on any Man no not the Elect as having either satisfyed or suffered in or by Christ nor doth the Law-giver and judge so look on him And so Christ did not strictly in Law-Sense bear the person of any Man in suffering so as that person might be said to have in him suffered 6. Some think Christ in suffering the penalty as penalty did strictly bear our persons as Sinners but not as this suffering was a satisfaction to Gods Justice which is the effect of it much less as it was meritorious of further Grace and Salvation The Authors or owners of this opinion of whom Arminiâ—â— himself seems one discerned the inconveniences that would follow the opinion of strict Representation but while they discerned not the right way of avoiding them and feared lest they should swarve by a full denial of it they seem to me to fall into the same place from which they leaped Though I confess that at the first view I began to incline to this opinion as most moderate which now I see to be unsafe The most of my Arguments are drawn from those intollerable consequences of the Doctrine which I oppose as being such as overthrow the very substance of the Gospel Though to the inconsiderate it may seem a small matter 1. Argument That Doctrine which consequentially denyeth all Pardon of Sin is not of God But such is the Doctrine which I here oppose Therefore c. The Minor only requires proof Where the proper debt is discharged or penalty undergone in Law-Sence by the person himself who was obnoxious there is no room for Pardon to such a Person But according to the Doctrine which I oppose the proper debt is discharged or the penalty undergone in Law-Sence by the Person himself who was obnoxious Therefore according to that Doctrine there is no place for Pardon to such The Minor needs no proof it being the express terms of the assertion which I deny that Christ so represented our Persons in suffering or â—atisfying as that Legaliter vel Civiliter we may properly be said to have suffered or satisfied in â—im so that though it was Christs Person naturally yet it was ours Legally Morally or Impuâ—â—tively The major I prove thus He that oweth nothing or to whom no penalty is due can have â—one forgiven him But he that hath paid all the â—ebt or undergone all the punishment that was â—â—e by himself or another that in Law-Sence is himself doth owe nothing or to him no penalty â— due Therefore he can have none forgiven him â—ob Major Remissio est Debiti Remissio Thereâ—â—re where there is no due there can be no reâ—â—ssion Prob. Minor To have paid or suffered all 〈◊〉 to owe some are contradictory and inconstent Therefore he that hath paid all owes noâ—â—ing The Antimonians Answer is this It is true that no punishment is due to the Elect and none is properly forgiven them now since Christs Death But Christs assuming their Persons in satisfying was a Remission to them Or God did in one instant remit it to them and transfer it on Christ Reply 1. Christs assuming our Persons is not remission of Sin 2. If God did remit it to us when he transferred it on Christ and yet we Legaliter suffered in Christ then God did both remit the whole debt to us and receive satisfaction in Law-Sence from us at the same time But that is a contradiction Therefore c. From hence I may therefore further argue 2. Arg. That Doctrine
Condition of the Continuance of Justification and tells them what will be their misery if they perform it not though yet he may as to the event nevertheless Decree to cause them effectually and infallibly to perform it Seeing I have spoken so much here of Forgiveness I shall refer you to it when I come to speak of other Texts of the like sense I might here add lest any upon any other Interpretation of this Text should think it of no weight that other Scriptures do expresly assert some kind of Remission to the Wicked upon their half Repentance as to Ahab the Ninivites those Heb. 10. that were Sanctified by the Blood of the Covenant i. e. purified and those Numb 14. 20. I have pardoned them according to thy word saith God of the whole People of Israel Yea forbearance of Punishment with hope and means for Everlasting Escape is a sort of Remission Those that say this Remission needed not the Sacrifice of Christ's Blood to procure it do say that which they will never be able to prove The Tenth Text that I shall insist on is â— Tim. 4. 9 10 11. This is a Faithful Saying and worthy of all acceptation For therefore we both laâ—â—â— and suffer reproach because we trust in the living God who is the Saviour of all Men specially of those that believe These things command and teach Davenant putteth in the frontispiece of his Dissertations these words of Prosper on this Text quae sententia si tranquillo consideretur intuitu â—â—um controversiam dirimit De vocat Gent. li. 2. â— 31. Here it s left past dispute that by all Men â—â— meant more than believers for it is such an all Men as is contradistinct from believers even as the whole from a principal part There is no room therefore left in this Text for any cavil or exception but this one viz. whether by Saviour be not meant God the Father as the common preserver of his Creature or of Mens natural lives Rather then Jesus Christ as Redeemer This is commonly affirmed and upon this ground because it is only said we trust in the living God who is the Saviour and therefore say they this proves not that Christ is a Saviour of all by his Death Answ 1. Whether it be the Father or Son that is here spoken of is no whit material seeing God the Father Redeemeth and saveth by his Son as the Son doth by himself If it be spoken of saving the Soul and not only the Body then it 's no matter which person it is spoken of For God saveth none but by the Death of his Son Now that it is spoken de Deâ— Redemptore and not only of God as preserver oâ— Mens Bodies I prove 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say then the generallity oâ— Criticks signifieth moren then Servator yeâ— than salvator and therefore Laurentius and Grotius turn it sospitator and Grotius saith that servator salvator may be spoken of one that preserveth those that are safe and never were miserable but so it is not here 2. The same word is applied to God in the same manner of Speech twice before in this same Epistle and in both places is he called a Saviour in respect to Eternal Salvation and not to Temporal only 1 Tim. 1. 1. Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ our Hope 1 Tim. 2. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour Who will have all Men to be saved and to come to the knowledg of the Truth For there is â—â—e God and one Mediator between God and Man â—â—e Man Jesus Christ who gave himself a Ransom for all to be testified in due time He that denieth that the Apostle doth in both these places â—â—ll God a Saviour in respect to Spiritual and Everlasting Salvation is either very blind or perverse And is it not fit for us to understand the same phrase used in the next Chapter save â—â—e as in the same Sense If one Scripture must interpret another sure it is On 1 Tim. 1. 1. â—â—scator himself can expound the same Phrase â—â—us observa nomen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 servatoris etiam Patri â—â—ribui Is enim servat nos per Filium Quippe â—â—m salutis nostrae causd misit per quem nos sibi â—conciliavit per quem etiam Spiritum Sanctum â—â— nos mittit And will not an impartial Man â—â—en expound the same Phrase here in the â—â—me manner Specially there being no reaâ—â— to be brought from the Text to the contraâ—â— Even so doth Calvin expound 1 Tim. 1. 1. â—â—d 2. 3. and generally all interpreters that I have observed Yea let every place in the New â—estament be examined where God the Father â—â— called a Saviour and it will be found to have â—â—ference to Everlasting Salvation and not to â—â—poral only T it 2. 10. That they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things For the â—â—ce of God that bringeth Salvation hath appeared â—â—all Men Tit. 3. 4. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward Man appeared not by works of Righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of Regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour Luke 1. 47. My Soul doth magnifie the Lord and my Spirit hath rejoyced in God my Saviour So Tit. 1. 3. and Jud. 25. both in the same Sense And I remember no more in the New Testament And I think no considerate Man will in this case refer us to the Phrase oâ— the Old Testament for exposition of the New who knows and hath well weighed how seldom and darkly Eternal Salvation in Heaven iâ— mentioned in the Old Testament 3. It seems manifest to me from the contexâ— that Paul meant it not only of a Temporal Salvation For Paul makes this office of God to be the reason of Christians constancy in labour and in suffering reproach for godliness sake For the Apostle oft shews us that it was the hope of Glory and not of temporal deliverance that caused him to labour and suffer and therefore he trusted here on God as a Saviour Even lasting and not so much as a Temporal Saveour For he professeth that he knew that where ever he went bonds and afflictions did abiâ— him Yet did he not regard this nor accouâ—â— his Life dear that he might finish his courâ—… with joy And on this ground he perswade Christians to be stedfast unmovable alwaâ—… abounding in the work of the Lord forasmuâ—… as they know that their labour was not in vaâ—… in the Lord When as if in this Life only 〈…〉 had hope in Christ we were of all Men mâ—… miserable 2. And indeed God is not a Saviour of all Mens Bodies in danger by any obligation at all that I know of No though they be wronged and