Universal Redemption OF Mankind, BY THE Lord Jesus Christ:

Stated and Cleared by the late Learned Mr. Richard Baxter.

Whereunto is added a short Account of Special Redemption, by the same Author.

2 Cor. 5. 14, 15.

For the love of Christ constraineth us be­cause we thus judge, that if one dyed for all, then were all dead, and that he dyed for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which dyed for them, and [...]ose again.

Mors Christi in Sacra Scriptur [...] proponitur ut Univer­sale remedium omnibus & singulis hominibus exordina­tione Dei & naturà rei ad salutem applicabile. Davenant de morte Christi.

LONDON. Printed for John Salusbury at the Rising-Sun in Cornhill, 1694.

THE Epistle Dedicatory. To the Honoured Thomas Foley, Paul Foley, Phillip Foley, and William Jolliff, Esquires.

Worthy Sirs,

MY particular Relation to your Ho­noured Father, my Worthy Patron and Benefactor, as also to Mr. Baxter, the Author of these ensuing Disputations, (whom I cannot but own as a Spiritual Father to me, and the best Friend I had in the World) gives me occasion to pre­fix your Names to this Book: Not to flatter you (though I truly honour you for your Faithfulness, Courage, and Con­stancy in asserting the Rights of Religion and Property in opposition to the prophane and mercenary designs of such as appeared against them) but that by their Example I may invite you to go on in filling up the measure of your Fathers Vertues, and in following the Counsels of such a Minister of Christ, whose gifts and graces gave him the preeminence amongst his Suffering Bre­thren, [Page] and made him more than a Bishop even of the first Magnitude to the Inferiour Clergy. Your Father is dead long since, and Mr. Baxter is dead also; But the Me­mory of the Just is blessed, whereas the name of the Wicked shall rot. The Righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance. We can­not easily forget such Persons whose good works and great labours for publick good, have left them a Name better than of Sons and Daughters. A numerous Posterity is a great Blessing, a Holy Seed much greater, that the Blessing upon both accounts may be entailed upon you and yours to many Generations, is the hearty desire of

Yours in the Service of Christ JOSEPH READ.

HAving been assured from Mr. Baxter himself, both by word and write­ing, that he had given this his Treatise in Manuscript of Universal Redemption, &c. to Mr. Joseph Read the now Publisher thereof; and having seen some of the Ma­nuscript it self whilst it was printing off, and knowing it to be Mr. Baxter's own hand writing; I do (at Mr. Read's request) as­sure thee that this is the Treatise upon that Subject, which hath been so long desired and expected by the World from the Au­thor thereof, Mr. R. B. And I cannot doubt but that an Impartial and observant Reading thereof will quickly discover that acumen of judgment which will evince it to be his. Thine in the best of Bonds and Services,


To the READER.

IT is necessary that I give some Account how these Disputations (with many others) came to my hands, and of their Publication. Being sent to Cambridge by Mr. Baxter, be was pleased at my return from thence, to receive me into his Family, and to make use of me as his Assistant at my first entrance into the Ministry, Anno, 1657. in Kid­derminster the place of my Birth: Some of the first work he put me upon was to transcribe these Pa­pers of Redemption, which he designed for the Press. The Ministers of Worcestershire and Neighbour­hood thereabouts who usually attended on his Thurs­day Lecture, and heard these Disputations at their Monthly Meeting, were generally desirous to have them Printed. Mr. B. had long since raised their expectation thereof, by declaring his intention of it in Print. At last (though long first) viz. July 17. 1691. he gave them to me, signifying his willingness to have them Printed.

If any Person question whether he wrote and fitted these Sheets for the Press, I shall readily satisfie him by producing the Original of his own hand writing, as well as the Copy thereof wrote by me at least 38 years since. If these Disputations of Redemption find ac­ceptance (which I see no cause to doubt of) I shall be thereby incouraged to Print the rest, or such of them as may be thought most useful.

[Page]It was a great word of Bishop Wilkins, that Mr. Baxter had cultivated every Subject he handled, (read this Subject of Redemption, and judge whether there be not cause to say so of it) if he had lived in the Primitive times, he had been one of the Fathers of the Church. And again. It was enough, saith he, for one Age to produce such a Person as Mr. Baxter: But his works praise him much more than the Tongues or Pens of the greatest Doctors or best of Men can do. There is therefore no need of Letters of Recommendation to set forth the excellence of this Work▪ or the Praises of the Author thereof. Let it suffice to assure the Reader that this Disputation of Universal Redemp­tion was composed by him in the strength of his day, about the 40th year of his Age, when the op­position of the Learned of differing Opinions had sharpen'd his Pen, and made him critically exact in considering what he intended for the Press. That which I earnestly desire is, that young Ministers, and especially all Candidates for the Ministry would put on humbleness of mind, and set themselves at the feet of this Great Man as Learners, and then through the Divine Blessing, I doubt not but their profiting will appear unto all men: And let those of different Judgment from him, but remember, that Mr. Baxter now dead is as much above their clamorous censures, as while living he was their Superiour in his Gifts and Graces: Had the one or the other but known Mr. Baxter, as well as others of his familiar Friends, his Works would be highly va­lued by them; or at least his unspotted Holiness, and great Charity would so far have conciliated their minds, and engaged their affections as to love and honour his memory, and imitate his Life, which [Page] we impatiently wait for an account of from another band, being now ready for the Press. May every Minister but have that Book when Printed, and lay aside prejudice so far, at least as calmly to read it, and then I may with confidence expect, not only, that humble Learners, but the greatest Scholars will be as desirous of acquaintance with his Works as ever Usher, Gataker, Vines, and many others of the best of men were admirers of his Personal worth, and desirous of his Converse and Company.

If any shall be so far dissatisfied with the Title and Subject of the Book as to throw it aside, I only desire they would seriously think of those words, p. 286. [When God saith so expresly that Christ dyed for all, and tasted death for every man, and is the Ransom 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.


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 [Page 2] 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 [...]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) [Page 3] 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 [Page 4] 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 in our dispute; yet with those that are contentious, and will needs insist on the supposed advantage which the state of Indians and other Pagans and their Infants do afford them, I shall though unwil­lingly, proceed further, rather than prejudice the Truth.

But the greatest Ambiguity in our Question is in the term [For.] This proposition here may admit of divers Senses: Sometime Christ is said [Page 5] to Die [For] our Sins: Sometimes To Die [For] us; When he is said to Die [For] our Sins, it may be understood, 1. Either for our Sins as the pro Meritorious procuring Cause of his Suffering through his own undertaking to bear what they deserved: (Or if any think it fitter to call them the Occasi­on than the Meritorious Cause, they may.) And so, to Die [For] our Sins. is to Die [through the Desert] of our Sins. 2. Or else he may be said to Die [For] our Sins, Finalitèr▪ as Sin is part of the Evil which he intended through death to free us from. And so, to Die [For] Sin, is To Die [against] Sin: As when we say, This Medicine is good [For] such a Disease; we mean it is good [against it.]

When Christ is said to Die [For us] it may be meant either, 1. Subjectivè that he Died Loco nosiro (of which more anon,) 2. Or Finaliter; And that two ways, 1. Either as we are to be his own in propriety; and so 1. To be a means to his own glory, 2. Or his Propriety a means to our further good. And thus he dyeth [For] Men by way of purchase, as a Man gives a Price [For] a Slave or Condemned Malefactor, (for I will not say, as we buy a Beast in the Market, seeing that is only for our selves; and not for the good of the Beast.) 2. Or else more directly as we are the Finis Cui of those benefits which by his Death he procureth. And so Dying [For us] is either taken generally, respecting our selves generally consi­dered as the Objects of his love. As one Friend or Lover is said to Die for the sake of another in several Cases; as in fighting for him, or other way of signifying or testifying Love: So generally con­sidered Christ Died nostri gratiâ. 2. Or in refe­rence [Page 6] to the special Benefits which by his Death he procured [for us.] Which Benefits might be variously considered, either, 1. As to be offered, or to be enjoyed: 2. Either quoad possibilitatem, vel quoad futuritionem possessionis: 3. Quoad rem ip­sam, vel quoad Jus ad rem: with divers other Considerations, which I will pass by; lest by needless distinguishing I should rather obscure the point than clear it. Only, before I can go any far­ther I must needs lay down a few Distinctions which are of great moment and necessity for the right un­derstanding of this matter. 1. And first and above all, we must both distinguish between the divers Effects or Ends of Christs Death; and rightly consider the Reason and the Order of each of them. For to know only in general that Christ dyed for us, is so far from being a sufficient knowledge for a Di­vine, that it is not sufficient to denominate a man a Christian; seeing it saith no more of Christ than may be said of Stephen, Peter, Paul, or one another: For we must, if called to it, die for one another, saith John, 1 Epist. 3. 16. Yet I confess the right ordering of this whole work in our Conceivings is a matter of great difficulty though of great moment. At the present time will permit me only to give you this brief Account of my thoughts herein.

I Consider, 1. What Christ did: 2. Why he did it.

1. That which he did was 1. In sensu Naturali, to Suffer and Die. 2. In sensu Legali vel Morali, It was, 1. In General, to be Punished: 2. In Special, it was A voluntary bearing in the person of a Mediator in the stead of fallen Mankind that punish­ment in weight which for their Sin the Law of works [Page 7] Obliged them to bear. Or to speak in the Scripture phrase (which it were well if men had been con­tented with) it is the offering himself a Sacri­fice for Sin, and so to take them away as a Ransom for Attonement and Propitiation.

2. Why Christ did this, must be answered from the Efficient and Final Causes. In general, Gods will is the Principal Efficient and Ultimate Final Cause of this, and all things. More particularly, 1. God was the Author or first Cause in committing this work to his Son, and sending him to do it. 2. Gods Mercy and Compassion (speaking after the manner of Men) was the Impulsive Cause. 3. Mans misery was the Occasion. 4. Mans sin was another occasion, as being loco Causae Meritoriae; for pro­perly there was no Meritorious Cause. 5. The Laws Curse or Obligation was another occasion, as being Miseriae Causa removenda. 6. Christs Volun­tary Sponsion or Consent was the Moral Obliging Cause, supplying the place both of a Meritorious and of a Legal Obliging Cause. 7. Christ himself was the Voluntary Patient. 8. God himself was the Principal moral Efficient, so far as it had rationem boni: (For he cannot be a morally deficient Cause, nor an Efficient of Punishment so far as it hath in it rationem veri mali.) 9. Satan was the Principal Author of it, as it was Evil. 10. Wicked men were the Instruments.

2. And for the Ends there is two ways of dis­cerning and expressing them. The 1. is accord­ing to Gods order of Intention. The 2. accord­ding to His Order of Attainment and Execu­tion.

[Page 8]1. The former is less fit for our observation both because we are utterly uncertain whether it be fully and wholly revealed; seeing God may have End [...] which he judgeth not fit to communicate to us; and where it is not revealed either 1. By Scripture; or 2. By Event, it is impossible we should know it.

2. And because when we do see Events, yet we are so vastly distant from God, and exceeding strange to his unconceivable unexpressible Na­ture, that we know not what hath the place of an End and what of a means in the Divine Intention, farther than He hath told us: Nor know what Gods intention is, the term being properly appli­able only to Creatures, and no term of Human Language in strict propriety appliable to the Nature of God.

But this much the Scripture Revealeth to us, 1. That in the sense as God may be said to have an end, Gods proper ultimate end is himself. He made all things for himself, and can have no lower end than himself. But how himself is his end is hard to open. If we say, his Being as such is his End, or that his Essential Glory is his End; we do but darken the matter and lose our selves. For neither Re­demption nor any other work can either cause, conserve or add to that Being and Glory. If we say, His Glory in the Esteem of the Creature is his utmost End, we suppose him to have an End In­finitely below himself. If you say, that the Commu­nication of himself to his Creature is his End, either you speak of the Acts of Communication as in God, and so it is himself; (as before expressed) Effici­ently and not Finally Considered: Or else you speak of the form produced by it, or as received by the [Page 9] Creature; and so it is quid Creatum & extra Natu­ram Divinam, and too low to be his End. I con­clude therefore that man is uncapable of a clear and full conceiving of the Nature of Gods End or Intending. But the conception and expression which I judge to be most favoured by Scripture and Rea­son is, That Gods will is the Beginning and End of all things. Whatsoever pleased him, that did he, And when he hath done it the pleasing him is his End. And therefore he Rested after the work of Crea­tion, and expresseth himself well pleased by and in his Son in the work of Redemption, as seeing his work in both to be very good: and therefore instituted a day of Rest in Commemoration of both. The term Rest expresseth the End; and his Well-pleasedness, Content, or Will, is his Rest, and so his End (And in this sense God himself is his own End,) and in­deed this Pleasing him should be Mans End also.

2. But besides this Ultimate End, (though pro­perly God can have no End but himself;) yet there are some means so closely conjunct with this End, as being the immediate matter of Gods Approbation & Delight, that they may not unfitly be called Gods secondary or less principal ends themselves; especi­ally we may so say in regard of Christs intentions who is Man as well as God. And these are,

1. The Glory, or Image, or Perfections of God, as appearing in all his works; thus his own Power, and Wisdom, and Goodness there shi­ning forth, is that Glory in which he is well-pleased, and which he loveth. And thus the Glory of God is materially only or objectively his ut­most End, as that in which his Will doth Rest.

[Page 10]2. The Glorifying of the Mediator in his Human Nature, and his full satisfaction and content in the fruits of his Redemption.

3. The Glory and Happiness of his Elect who are his Body.

4. Their Everlasting perfect Praises of God, loving him, and rejoycing in him.

5. And even in this Life, the Just, Wise, Mer­ciful Administrations of the Mediator in his Kingdom, and the imperfect Deliverance and Ho­liness of the Saints, and the glory that redounds to God hereby, may not unfitly be said to be the Ends of the Redeemer.

But I will meddle with this Order of Inten­tion no farther, as intending God willing, to speak more fully and accurately of that Question de or­dine decretorum, de fine & de mediis in a fitter place.

2. But let us consider of the Order of these Ends as Executed, I mean of the Effects of Christs Death. And they are 1. Such as immediatly fol­low it, as it is the Discharge of the Sufferers under­taking, being indeed, 1. Part of his Work in its Moral Consideration: 2. Or else the immediate re­sults of that Discharge These are, 1. That Christs Death doth demonstrate Gods justice and hatred of Sin. 2. In it an Example is given for the deterring of Offenders. 3. And for preserving the Lawgiver, and the Law from contempt. 4. And a demonstration made of unspeakable Love to Men. 5. And in and by these, 1. The Lawgiver satisfied. 2. And the chief Ends of the Law are attained: (though we cannot strictly say that the Law it self is satisfied, because its sense and nearest end is not fulfilled. Thus satisfaction of Justice is) [Page 11] the sum of these most immediate Effects. And the whole work together may well be called A Satis­factory Penalty.

2. Satisfaction being thus made, there are im­mediately hereupon, several Relative Effects resulting from it. Whereof some are from the Nature of the Work, (supposing that which is called The Covenant between the Father and the Son, that is, Gods Acceptation.) And some are given as it were by way of Retribution, or in Communication to Christ for his satisfaction.

Of the first sort are these,

1. Christ himself is now free from his Voluntary obligation to suffer. In the same sense as he was be­fore made Sin, he is now Justified; and upon his Resurrection declared just. He oweth no more, nor can any more be required of him.

2. The Father therefore doth give him an Ac­quittance, and acknowledgeth the satisfaction, proclaiming himself well-pleased in his Son.

3. And hereby is Christ become Conquerour over Death, and Him who had the Power of Death, even the Devil; (Supposing his Resurrection.)

2. Satisfaction is so pleasing to God, that upon the giving thereof, the work becomes Meritorious of Reward to the satisfier.

1. Because it was not Due from Him, nor Com­pelled, but voluntary.

2. Because (though God be not capable of re­ceiving good, yet) it was from his own earnest de­sire which he was moved to by Compassion to Man, and so it was reputative, in bonum Dei, as being plea­sing to him.

The things given to the Satisfier by way of Retri­bution are, 1. Some directly to himself, as necessary [Page 12] to the Ends of Redemption: 2. Some for the Sinners in whose stead he suffered.

To himself is given. 1. Something to be received before the End and Delivering up of the Kingdom, and something after. Before he Received, 1. Real, the glorifying of his person. 2. Relative Fruits, Novum jus Dominii, a full Propriety in the Creature as his own which he bought. And that is, 1. Over Mankind whom he Redeemed. 2. And all the Creatures as they may be serviceable to his Ends. By his Propriety in Man he hath Power, 1. To use what means he seeth meet to perswade them to himself. Either 1. External, 1. As the Word, or 2. Works. 2. Or Internal, by his Spirit, and their Conscience. 2. And to succeed the means. By his Propriety in other Creatures, he hath Power to dispose of, 1. Persons, both 1. Angels, and 2. Enemies, as Devils; and 2. Things: As 1. Crea­tures, 2. Actions, and Thoughts, so as many serve his Ends of Redemption.

2. Beside this Propriety, he hath Novum Jus Im­perii, and is become Rector of the Rational Crea­ture, whom he Redeemed. This is partly conse­quential to his Jus Dominii: For every Man hath Power to Rule his Own according to its Capacity. By this Rectorship Christ hath Power, 1. To Deter­mine both 1. What shall be Due from Man, 2. And What shall be Due to him: Which he doth, 1. By making Laws de novo. 2. And disposing of the Old at his pleasure. And as he hath this power of the Laws: So, 2. Of their Execution. 1. By Sen­tence. 2. And by the Execution of the Sentence. Thus much of that which Christ himself was to re­ceive for his satisfaction in this time before the End.

[Page 13]2. After the End he was further to receive, 1. The continuation or perpetuating of his Personal Glory and Blessedness. 2. A full Content in the perfect accomplishment of his work, 1. In the just Destruction of his Enemies that rebelled and rejected him. 2. And in the Blessedness and Glory of his Saints, who are his Body: and in the pleasing of God in all. Thus much of what Christ was to re­ceive to himself.

2. That which Mankind was to receive for whom he satisfied, was 1. Immediately, in the change of his Condition; where is Consider­able,

1. The Terminus à quo, which was, A Legal ne­cessity of Destruction or Damnation; which consist­eth in this, that now the Lawgiver (God-Creator) being satisfied, he is no longer necessitated or oblig­ed (as we may speak) to destroy the Sinner; (tho' yet the Law is not wholly Abrogate, nor its Obligation of the Sinner to Duty or Punishment dis­solved:) but the Sinner is Delivered from that Law as it stands alone without a Remedy, seeing a sufficient Remedy is provided, and the Law it self is now at the pleasure and dispose of the Re­deemer, who will Judge no Man by this Law alone, or principally. So that the Sinner who be­fore was not pardonable, but in potentiâ remotiore nor at all quoad Potentiam Dei ordinatam in his for­mer state, without this change; is now become pardonable in Potentiâ propriore, & quoad Potentiam Deiordinatam in his present state.

2. The Terminus ad quem, or state to which he is Delivered; is,

1. To the Redeemer as Proprietary, he being his Own.

[Page 14]2. To the Redeemer as Rector, to be dealt with on terms of Grace, and in order to Recovery from his Misery.

3. And in both these to the Redeemer as our grand Benefactor and Saviour whose Office is to lead us to God by the winning demonstration of his Love.

Mans state having this immediate change of Re­lation: 2. The Benefits Consequential to these which he receiveth; are Either, 1. From Christ as Rector: Or, 2. As Dominus absolutus, Proprie­tary. 3. And as a free Benefactor doing as he list with his own benefits.

1. As Rector, Christ is (as is said) 1. Legi­slator: 2. And seeth to the Execution. As Legi­slator, 1. He taketh down the old Law, both, 1. That of works, as it is a proper covenant and means of Life, and so freeth man from the ne­cessity of perfect obeying for salvation (though yet he destroy not its being or obligation to per­fect obedience.) 2. And he freeth those that were under it, from the Mosaical Law of Rites, and that by Abrogating it (But this was not till the fulness of time, but the other was presently upon the beginning of Restauration.) 2. He [1. Maketh, 2. Promulgateth] a New Law of Grace, containing, 1. Essentials: 2. Acciden­tals. By the Essentials of the Law, 1. He pre­scribeth to men a sweet and easie Course of Du­ty, and giveth them commands that are not grie­vious; which 1. In some respects he maketh meer Duties and Means: 2. And in other respects, Conditions of their receiving farther benefits. 2. He determineth of what shall be Due to man, (as by way of Penalty if they Rebel; so, 1.) By [Page 15] conferring farther benefits on men: Which are Considerable, 1. In themselves: 2. In the way of Collation. 1. The Benefits given by the new Law or Covenant are, 1. Right to relative Benefits or new Relations. 2. Or Right to real Benefits. The former are, 1. Principal and Radical, that is, Membership of Christ or Union with him. 2. Or Consequential: Which are, 1. The fruits of satisfaction, properly as satisfaction; that is, The Restoring us from the misery we fell into, by freeing us from Guilt or Obligation to punish­ment, by pardoning our Sin, and Justifying us, so far. 2. Those that are Consequential to satisfacti­on, not meerly as satisfaction, but as a Price Pur­chasing or Meriting farther good, (and so are con­sequents of his Meritorious Works also.) And that is his bringing us to a higher and better state of Relation than that which was lost; which is in, 1. Adoption to Sonship. 2. Membership of the Church of the Redeemed and Called.

2. The real Benefits which the Covenant giveth us right to are, 1. Such as are to be received in this Life: As 1. The Spirit to be, 1. Our fur­ther Sanctifier: 2. And Comforter. 2. And all other things to work for our good, and pro­mote our Recovery and Happiness. 2. Or such as are to be received in the Life to come; Either at the Entrance, as, 1. Felicity of the Soul first, and then Resurrection from the Dead. 2. And Justi­fication by sentence and adjudication of Eternal Glory: 2. Or in the state thereof, which is our Perfect Blessedness in Enjoying God, and being perfectly acceptable to him in our Persons, and Praises. We speak not now of these real benefits as Conferred in themselves; but in the Right we [Page 16] have to them before hand: All which Right is gi­ven by the New Law or Covenant, as Gods In­strument.

2. And as the benefits given, so the manner of the Laws giving must needs be observed: Which is, 1. By imperfect Collation, not ipso facto, pre­sently making the thing our own, which is, 1. When the gift is conditional, suspended on some Condition: And only thus doth the Law or Covenant give Pardon, Justification, Adopti­on, with all that Right to real Mercy before mentioned; to all men, Elect or not Elect before they believe. 2. Or when the thing is given only in Diem. And so Right to a Resurrection is given to all. 2. Or else the Law makes a perfect Col­lation, and that is, 1. When it gives the Benefit absolutely and presently: So that Christ freed men from the Law of Works and Ceremonies, so far as is before expressed. 2. Or when it actually confers that Benefit after the performance of the Condition, which before was but Conditionally Given. For it was the will of the Legislator that the actual Gift should be suspended on that Condition; and therefore though the Nature of the Law change not upon that performance of the Condition, yet it then begins Moraliter Efficariter agere, which it did not before. And thus the Law of Grace gives actual Pardon, Adoption, and Right to glory, to men as soon as they sincerely believe. And here begin the Ef­fects of Christs death in Law sence, to be peculiar to some; when they perform the conditions which others do not (which condition Christ giveth not as Legislator.) All that we have spoke till now, was common to Non-elect. Thus we [Page 17] have shewed what the Law gives by its Essentials. 2. By the Integrals or Accidentals (which you will call them) of this new Law; (for Laws use to have Preambles, Narratives, &c. to inform men of the ground, occasion, and end of them:) Christ doth, 1. Give all men that hear it infor­mation or objective discovery of whatsoever is necessary to be known for attaining the foresaid benefits: As of God, Christ, his Nature, Office, Works, &c. 2. He giveth them potent Reasons, Motives, Perswasions, Exhortations, Threat­nings, &c. to work upon their Wills. And both these are Grace and sufficient in suo genere. Having shewed what Christ giveth as Legislator, it fol­loweth, 2. That we shew what he giveth in Exe­cution of these Laws. And that is, 1. In this Life, as was promised. 2. After, 1. At Death and by Resurrection, 2. By Judgment, 1. By Sentence, where as Judge, 1. He Justifieth all Believers, 2. Adjudgeth to them Everlasting Glory; (as he Condemneth their Enemies to Ever­lasting Fire: Both Wickedmen as Rebels, and De­vils as hostes open Foes.) 2. In Execution of this Sentence he perfecteth them in Glory. So far of Christs Benefits which we receive from him as Rector.

2. Next we are to view those which Christ gives as free Benefactor, and Dominus absolutus meerly (though yet with respect to the Ends of Government.) And so, 1. He disposes of the Means. 2. Of the Success. 1. He giveth Means differently as he please, to some more, to some less. And they are, 1. Outward Means: 2. Inward. The outward are, 1. The Works of God. 2. The Ordinances or Justified Means. The [Page 18] works which are means to teach and win men are, 1. The Creatures themselves as discovering Gods Wisdom, Power, Goodness, and much Mercy to man, so much as opened to all Nations that hope of pardon, which was their Encou­ragement to all that Sacrificing, Prayers, and o­ther Religiousness, which they generally in some measure used, and would never have used it, had it not been for this hope, which was grounded in a discovery of Gods Mercifulness to them, though Sinners. 2. And Providential disposal of Events, much furthers this: 1. In seasonable Afflicting and Punishing: 2. In giving the Mercies of Pros­perity. 2. The Ordinances or instituted means are, 1. His Ordinances strictly so called, as, 1. His Laws, Covenants, Doctrine. 2. And his Sacraments. 1. Baptism. 2. And the Lords Supper. 2. And the concomitant means. 1. For the divulging of his Word; by 1. Men appointed thereto, 1. Ordi­nary, as, 1. Ministers in their places; and 2. O­ther Christians in theirs. 2. Extraordinary, as Apostles and Prophets. 2. And by Artificial means. 1. To the Ear by Speaking, in Teaching and Perswading by the foresaid men: 2. To the Eye by Writing, Printing. 2. And as he giveth these means for the divulging his word; so for the in­forcing of it and the success that men may Un­derstand, Believe and Obey it, he giveth means. 1. Extraordinary, as the Holy Ghost to work Miracles.

2. Ordinary, 1. By fellowship with one ano­ther in ordinary community, whether. 1. With private Christians: 2. Or Ministers, either of which help us: 1. Either by Example: 2. Or Instru­ction, either, 1. By Conference. 2. Or solemn [Page 19] Teaching, 1. By Voice, 2. Or Writing, being gifted, 1. Meanly, 2. Or Eminently, 1. By Na­ture, 2. Art, Learning, Grace as God is pleased to dispose. 2. Or else these Ordinary helps are from and in Association, and that, 1. In lesser bodies as Families. 2. In greater as, 1. Ecclesiastical Church­ches: Where we have the benefit, 1. Of the Per­sons, 1. Officers, 2. Members Common. 2. Of the order and ordinances, discipline, &c. 2. Or Ci­vil Societies, where we have all civil helps to further our Religious Ends.

So much for the Outward Means, Only ob­serve, that I am not now speaking of these as commanded and made due: for so they are not given by Christ as Legislator; but as bestowed and disposed of eventually which is by Christ as a free benefactor, proprietary or Dominus absolutus; so far as he doth it without pre-obligation and differently.

2. Next, the Inward Means which Christ giveth thus are, 1. The disposal and ordering of the temper of the Humours and parts of the Body, so as may be more or less fit to receive or retain Im­pressions. 2. The advantitious helps are, 1. The ser­vice of good Angels. 2. Above all the Holy Ghost, to work in that season, manner and measure as to his Wisdom seems meet.

So much of the Benefits which Christ giveth as free Benefactor and as Dominus by way of Means. 2. Lastly, He also succeedeth these means variously as he please. 1. To some for the Endowing them only with Common Gifts, 1. Extraordina­ry, as working Miracles. 2. Ordinary, as 1. In­tellectual, in the knowledge, 1. Of Arts and Sci­ences; 2. Or of more Divine Truth. 2. Or Moral, [Page 20] either, 1. In Civility and common Honesty toward Men; with excellent quallifications, as Meekness. Patience, &c. 2. Or Religiousness or Piety toward God; which is of divers degrees. some having less, and some more, even a taste of Gods word and the powers of the World to come, with some real Faith, Love, Joy, Cleansing from former filthiness, and Sanctification by the Blood of the Covenant, which yet are not saying. 2. To others he giveth his Spitit to work in such seasons, manner and measure, (accompanied with congru­ous providential occurrences and removal of temp­tations and hindrances) as shall infallibly prevail, 1. For to bring them to Faith; and 2. To further Sanctification and Perseverance. In a word he useth such means with all his Elect as shall infal­libly succeed, to bring them to Faith and Perse­verance; and so much with all the World, as shall leave them all without excuse. In all this you may see that those benefits which Christ gives as free benefactor and as Dominus absolutus are nei­ther for all men alike, nor for all the Elect alike; nor for ought we can know, for any two persons alike in degree; and therefore if Christ may not be said to Die for any man except he give him all that he gives to others without the accusation of being an imperfect Saviour; then he could not be said to Die for most of the Elect. Also you may see in this Scheme how far Christ Died for all men, and how far not; and that the main in­equality is not in the Mercies which he gives as Legislator, (till their own Faith or Unbe­lief make the difference) but in the Mercies which he gives as absolute Lord, which flow from his secret Decree de rerum Eventu. And lest [Page 21] you should think that all this Power and Operati­on ascribed to the Mediator is derogatory to the Father; understand that as the Father and Son are one; so the Mediators Power being but the Supream Derived Power, and not the Supream Primitive Power, it still supposeth the Primitive Power and Operation of the God-head. And therefore both the obtaining and conveying of these benefits to us is still expressed to be as from Christ indeed, but in dependance on, and by de­rivation from God. And so 1. As they are at first procured by Christs satisfaction, they are said to be by Purchase or Redemption. 2. And as they are continued, or daily given out from the continued Moral Vertue of that satisfaction in Gods acceptation, they are said to he procured by Christs intercessions; which being but the said continued force of his satisfaction and purchase in producing the remote effects; I need not speak of it any further.

Thus I have given you a Scheme of the Nature, Order and Difference of the Effects of Christs Death, in the best manner that at present I can learn from the Word. And though in this you may see my whole sence of the point in hand, and all the distinctions are here couched which I intend to make use of (or at least implyed:) Yet because some of them need a fuller explication, I will next proceed to that.

CHAP. II. Some further necessary Distinction.

1. IN the next place as I told you that it was Essential to Christs Punishment in Specie that he suffered nostro loco; so because here lies the first and greatest point of the Controversie in hand, quorum loco, in whose stead Christ suffered, and whose sin or guilt did lie upon him. And also because the right or wrong understanding of this point hath so great an influence into most of the consequent points in the Body of Divinity, as ei­ther much to help us, or quite to overturn all; I think it exceeding necessary, that we here carefully distinguish of the Phrase Nostro loco, or in our stead. Understand therefore that a thing may be said to be done or suffered [In our stead] in these two sences, 1. When he that doth or suffereth it, doth therein Legally Personate us, or Represent our Persons, or do it in our Name; so far that though Naturally the Agent or Patient be another person: yet Legally Morally or Civiliter he is not another. Thus a Deputy, Delegate▪ or Vicarius whom I send in my Name to pay a Debt, is herein Legally my self: What he payeth I pay Civiliter or in Law sence. I shall shew you when I come to my Propo­sitions how intollerable and desperate an Error it is, overthrowing the very frame of Christianity, to affirm that Christ did thus Die or Satisfie Nostro loco in our stead, or any Mans stead.

2. Or one is said to Do or Suffer Loco alterius in anothers stead, when it is done to save another [Page 23] from doing it that was obliged to do it; or that suf­fered that which another was obliged to suffer toward the freeing him from it, being materially the same, but not formally from the same Obliga­tion, but from the Obligation of a voluntary Spon­sion; and being not done or suffered in the Name or in Representation of the Person of the other: But in a Third Person, viz. in the Person of a Mediator, Redeemer or Friend. I say, when a Mediator or Sponsor consenteth to bear the Punishment deserved by the Offendor, and so far to have his faults imputed to him; this is to suffer in his stead. And thus I shall anon prove that Christ suffered in the stead of all Mankind, ha­ving that Punishment on him which all mens sins deserved.

2. We must also distinguish between Christs Dying Loco nostro in the foresaid sence, and his Dying In nostrum Beneficium: Or between his Dy­ing for us Subrogative and Effective: The former being the presupposed ground of the latter. Christ is considerable first as Dying for our Sins as the pro-causa Meritoria, before he is consider­able as Dying for our Benefit, In regard of the order of Execution, as the Efficient Cause is be­fore the end obtained. I shall after shew that he Dyeth Loco omnium aequaliter; all mens Sins, except the after excepted, being equally the Cause of his Sufferings; but not In omnium Bo­num aequaliter, not to procure equal Benefits for all, or for ought we can prove, for any two.

3. We must distinguish between the Sins whose Guilt Christ took upon him and bore on [Page 24] the Cross; and those which he never took upon him or bore: That is, the final non-performance of the Conditions of the New Covenant.

4. And so we must distinguish between, 1. That Law whose Curse Christ took upon him, and bore, that he might deliver men from it who were obnoxious to it, and obliged to bear it; that is, the first Law of Works. And 2. That Law whose Curse he never took upon him nor bore▪ nor ever freeth any man from who is once properly, Actually and I eremptorily obliged to bear it, or whom it doth actually condemn as guilty of the threatned Penalty: That is, the Law of Grace, which is his own New Law, con­demning the finally Impenitent.

5. We must also distinguish betwixt the fulfilling of the Law, which is when it attaineth its most immediate or nearest Ends: And the satisfaction to the Law-maker for not fulfilling it. It is fulfilled either, 1. In respect of the Precept, and that is on­ly by Perfect Obedience. 2. Or in respect of the Th [...]eatning; which is fulfilled only per supplicium delinquentis, and not in anothers suffering. For if it never threatned another: then the threatning is not fulfilled in anothers suffering. You must distinguish also between satisfaction to the Law, and Satisfaction to the Lawgiver. The fulfilling of the threatning may be called satisfaction to the Law, for the not fulfilling of the Precept. I shall shew you that Christ did not this, but that he satisfied only the Lawgiver, and not properly the Law; seeing the Law cannot relax it self, and therefore cannot ac­cept of satisfaction in stead of fulfilling: Yet impro­perly [Page 25] it may be said to be satisfied, in that its pri­cipal ends are obtained, though not its nearest. But we must not use improper speeches without necessity,

6. We must distinguish between the satisfying of God as Rector per leges and the satisfying him as Dominus absolutus. Christ did not satisfie God pro­perly as Dominus absolutus, but as Rector per Legem, yea as Rector per hanc Legem [...]p [...]m; and so satisfied him by doing and suffering that by which the chief ends of that Law may be attained. Much less did God require satisfaction strictly and pro­perly as a Creditor for a Debt: Though Metapho­rically our Sins and our Punishment are called Debt; and so we are called Debtors and God the Creditor; And so satisfaction is the Redditio equi­valentis vel Tantidem, non Ejusdem. Yet without a metaphor, punishment may be called Debitum, Due: But it is Due to us from God, and not pro­perly to God from us; much less due to God as a Debt to a Creditor, or Goods and Possessions to a Proprietary.

7, We must distinguish betwixt suffering ex obligatione Legis & merito peccati, as we should have done if we had suffered our selves; and suf­fering ex obligatione solius sponsionis propriae; as Christ did without any Merit or Legal obligation; His own Sponsion being instead of both, and our Sin and Obligation being but the Occasion, or Loco Causae meritoriae & Obligatoriae. These Distin­ctions are chiefly to shew what Christ did, which must be known before we can clearly discern for whom: The use will be after manifest. More [Page 26] Distinctions are necessary, especially about his Obedience or Fulfilling the Preceptive part of the Law, (and not the commination) and that in his own person, as obligatory to himself, (for the Precept obliged him, though the threatning did not) and not in Personâ nostrâ or as obliging us: But I will proceed to those Distinctions which concern the Effects.

8. We must further distinguish between Christs Death as satisfactory to Justice, and as a Price meritorious to purchase further Benefits: For I shall manifest that the former is the immediate next Effect; and that it could not be Purchasing, meritorious, no nor accepted, but as it is first satis­factory; and that Christ did not Merit or Purchase further Benefits Loco nostro, so far as he did suffer Loco nostro.

9. We must distinguish between Gods accep­tance of Christs satisfaction▪ and Acquittance and Justification of him thereupon, as having discharged all that he undertook; and Gods Acquittance, Justification and Acceptance of Sinners themselves. God proclaimeth himself well pleased in his Son, as having done all his work perfectly; when yet he is not well pleased with and in men themselves till Christ be formed in them: nor perfectly, till Christ be perfectly formed in them, and till he have presented them perfectly sanctified▪ and justified to his Father without spot or blemish, and fit for him to take full delight in.

10. We must distinguish between that Re­demption of Mankind, which Christ procured [Page 27] immediately by his satisfaction; [viz. That all should be saved from that legal necessity of perishing, and God should Remit his Right of Punishing, and the advantage which his Justice had against man, into the Power and dispose of the Redeemer; and that Mankind should be all delivered up to Christ as their Lord and Ruler, to be dealt with hereafter upon terms of Mercy and not upon the old terms of the Law of Works in meer rigor of Justice] And that full recovery which Christ afterward maketh by the giving out of his Grace and Benefits. And so (as part of this) we must distinguish beween Mercy and Life Given to Christ for men, and Mercy and Life Given by Christ to Men themselves directly. For as Christ and not we did make the satisfaction to God▪ so the Actual benefits are given first to Christ, and not directly to us; and so by Christ to us: Not that Pardon or Justification formally is given to Christ; but Power to pardon and justifie; to be exercised on the terms which we shall afterwards express: God having not directly and fully forgiven the Sinners them­selves but remitted his Right of Punishing as he is Rector according to the old Rigorous condemning Law; delivering the Obligation into the hands of the Redeemer (as we do the Debtors Obligati­ons into the of hands of the surety for his securi­ty;) to be put in suit only in Case of rejecting of his conditions of Grace.

11. We must as is said before distinguish be­tween Christ (and the Father in him) as Rector per Leges or Legislator, and as Dominus Absolutus. And so we must distinguish between those Bene­fits which Christ as Rector giveth by his Laws; and [Page 28] those which as meer Benefactor and Absolute Pro­prietary he giveth, though not contrary to his Laws or Covenant; yet over and above what by Covenant or Law he giveth. Also we must distinguish between the Event and Nature of things as such; and the Right to, and Dueness of of things as such. And consequently we must most carefully distinguish between Gods Will de Rerum Eventu, and his Will de Debito, as such. The clear distinguishing of these two is a singular Key to the opening of the sence of Scripture, and in particular of this Controversie. For indeed, it is to distinguish between our Physicks and our Ethicks. Gods will about Natural Beings as such stands at the top of Physicks, as the first Cause. Gods will de Debito as such, stands at the top of our Ethicks, as the first Cause. And you may easily conceive, how the confounding of our Physicks and Ethicks must needs blind us and lose us in our Divinity, as it would do in Philosophy. I joyn all these Distinctions together, for in some they all come to one, or are of necessary conside­ration joyntly that any one of them may be under­stood. Our Divines usually with the Schoolmen distinguish between voluntatem signi and Beneplaciti. But in the ordinary School Sense, that is not the same distinction with that which I here intend. Dr. Twisse oft useth the distinction between volun­tatem propositi & praecepti, and meaneth in effect the same that I do: But he oft speaks of it as be­ing but Metonymically Gods will, and not properly; by which I must conclude that he meant quoad Eventum, and not quoad Debitum; for God pro­perly willeth that this shall be Mans Due or Duty.

[Page 29]I shall therefore a little further explain this Distinction, and then shew you the soundness of it, and then the exceeding usefulness and necessity of it; both in this and many other Controversies. 1. For the Title, I choose rather to denominate it from the Object than the Act; because the Diversity is in the Object, but none in the Spe­cies of the Act naturally considered: Debitum and Natural Being are two distinct things; but [To Will] one, and [to Will] the other, is all one as to the Nature of Willing. God doth as pro­perly Will Duty, as he wills Natural Beings: Yet if I must denominate it from the Acts, I would distinguish between Gods Directive Will, and his Legislative. For to call it volunt as Praecepti is too narrow a term; for the Precept is but one part of Gods Law, and determineth only of one sort of Right; that is, of the dueness of obediential Acti­ons, or forbearance of forbidden Actions. But there is also a Debitum praemii, & Beneficii-purè vel absolute-dati, & Debitum Poenae, which the rest of the Law, Testament or Covenant of God deter­mineth of; which must all be here included as well as the former. In sum, the Law determi­neth, 1. What Shall be due from us; 2. And what Shall be due to us, and on what terms. I call it therefore, The Will of God de Eventu, & de Debito, as such. I say. [as such] for else they are co­incident: For Gods Will de rerum Naturâ, vel ex­istentiâ determineth de Debito quatenus evenit esse Debitum, but not quâ Debitum. And his Will de Debito determineth of the Dueness of some Events, not as eventual but as due: Or to avoid all ambi­guity call it Gods will de ente mere naturali; and his will de debito Morali; or Legislative or Gover­ning. [Page 30] 2. And for the Nature of the distinction, understand further, that there are two Acts which I call Gods will de Debito. The first is that imma­nent Act of his Will by which he strictly and pro­perly willeth what shall be due. This also is twofold; 1. Productive or Instituting dueness: 2. And approbative or taking complacency in Duty. The former of these I principally intend, but exclude not the latter. God doth eternally will every Due, but it is not therefore eternally or from Eternity Due: For he willeth from Eternity (to speak vulgarly) only that this shall be due at such a time, and by such a means. I say by such means: For though Gods will produce all dueness, yet only by means doth he produce it. That means is, the Revelation of his will. 2. This Revelation of Gods will de Debito, we call his Law. This therefore is the second thing which I call Gods will de debito, or his Legislative will; that is, the Law as it is signum voluntatis Divinae, that is, formally as a Law. This I call Gods will de Debito, only Metonymically, as it is the sign of his will be­fore expressed. If the proper will of God were separated from this, it would then be no produ­cer of Dueness or Right at all; for it would be no Law no signum; it would lose its Nature as Abro­gated Laws do.

Also observe, that you must here carefully di­stinguish between Gods Act in making a Law, and the Moral Act of that Law, or of his will by that Law when it is made. I call not Legislation it self [Gods will de Debito] or, [his Legislative will.] His ordaining the sign it self, or making the Law which is his instrument, is an Act of his will de rerum Eventu vel Naturae For it only maketh [Page 31] that instrument or sign by which Right shall be after produced; but doth not directly thereby produce that Right. But it is the signification and Moral Act of that Law, which floweth from its Nature which doth produce Right, and which we here intend. The Scribe that writes a Statute, and the Sovereign himself, in composing the Mat­ter, Order and Terms, doth but make that Sig­num or Instrument, which being made doth there­fore Institute Right, because it signifieth the So­vereigns will to institute it. So much for the ex­plication of my meaning in this Distinction.

2. Next I shall say somewhat to prove the soundness of it, which is therefore necessary, because some ignorant persons laugh at it; as if we feigned two wills in God, and one of them contrary to the other. Otherwise, to men of understanding it is not very needful: And there­fore I shall say but this briefly▪ It is not two Wills in God, as two distinct Essences or Faculties that I assert; but only two distinct Acts: Distinct, I say, in regard of their distinct products or Effects, and so to mans apprehension, though in God, we say there, is no diversity or distinction. Yet as we cannot hansomely conceive of his will to save Peter, and his will to damn Judas, as one act, having such different Effects; so it is here. Who knows not that Naturality and Morality. Phy­sicks and Ethicks, Event and Right are different things, and consequently we may and must distin­guish of Gods willing them accordingly. When a Man saith, [You shall do this,] preceptively, he doth only say [It shall be your duty to do it] but saith not that eventually you shall do it. Nor are his words false if you never do it. He that saith [Page 32] prophetically or by prognostication [you shall do this] means that it shall so come to pass; and if it do not his words are false: But he doth not say, [It is or shall be your Duty.]

12. Accordingly we must distinguish between the antecedent and consequent Acts and Will of Christ as Ruler of Mankind. For the understanding of which and avoiding mistakes, observe, 1. That we speak not now of Eternal Decrees, but of the will of Christ in this Relation as he is the Ru­ler of the World and Church, and as he is the conveyer of his mercies according to and by his Covenant, and as he judgeth the World accor­ding thereunto. 2. That by his Antecedent will, and acts, we mean only that which in his Govern­ment is Antecedent to Mans Obedience or Diso­bedience; which is principally Legislation, and and making his new Covenant; and also the gi­ving of Preachers, and other acts, which are the first part of his Administration. And by his con­sequent Acts and Will, we mean only that second part of Government, which findeth Man Obedi­ent or Disobedient, and is commonly called Judg­ment and Execution. And when we say that by his Antecedent Acts and Will Christ giveth Par­don, Justification and Right to Glory, equally to all; we mean that as Legislator and Promiser, he hath antecedently made an Universal Act of O­blivion or Deed of Gift Conditionally Pardo­ning, &c. all, and no farther than Conditionally Pardoning any. And when we say that he conse­quently justifieth and saveth none but true Chri­stians, and in that Sence dyed for no other ac­cording to his consequent will, we mean that as Judge of Mankind he will give Justification [Page 33] and Salvation to Believers and to no others; nor ever intended to do otherwise.

(Let the Reader know, that the foresaid Scheme of the Effects of Christs Death, is more accurately, and yet more briefly done in my Me­thodus Theologiae: And therefore let him that dislik­eth the Number or Order of Distributions pass it by: But I have not time to reform it here.

CHAP. III. Explicatory Conclusions.

Proposition I. CHRIST Died nullius loco, so as strictly, and properly, and fully to represent Mens Persons as if in sensu Legali vel Civili they themselves did suffer and satisfie.

Prop. II. Christ Died loco nostro, so as to bear that Suffering partly for kind, and wholly for weight, which our sins deserved, and we should have born.

Prop. III. Christ's Dying [in our stead] is in or­der of Nature, before his procuring us Be­nefits by his Death; as the means necessary thereto.

Prop. IV. Christ dyed not for any Mans final non­performance of the conditions of the Law of Grace.

[Page 34] Prop. V. Christ did not bear for any the proper punishment threatned by the New Law, as such; nor taketh off its Actual proper obliga­tion from any.

Prop. VI. Christs Obedience was a perfect fulfil­ling of the preceptive part of that Law, whose actual obligation he submitted himself to.

Prop. VII. Christs sufferings were not a fulfilling of the Laws commination as obliging us, nor was it fulfilled but relaxed to us by a pardon.

Prop. VIII. Christs sufferings were a satisfaction, or Redditio aequivalentis, non ejusdem) for our not fulfilling the Precept, and the Fathers not ful­filling the Threatning upon us, (or our not bear­ing the penalty.)

Prop. IX. Christs satisfaction was not made to the Law properly, but to the Law-giver for the transgression of the Law.

Prop. X. The Law as binding us, was the great Occasion of Christs Death, and Loco-causa Obli­gatoriae: But not the Obligatory Cause it self.

Prop. XI. Christs own Sponsion and his Fathers will were the only proper obligations.

Prop. XII. Christ satisfied God most properly as Legislator or Rector per legem operum, and not without respect to his Law: His satisfaction [Page 35] was for the obtaining the principal ends of the Law.

Prop. XIII. Christ suffered in our stead, that we might not suffer; but he did not in proper sence obey in our stead that we might not obey, but for our sakes and benefit and that we might obey.

Prop. XIV. All mens sins equally were the occasi­on or Loco causae meritoriae of Christs sufferings (except the fore excepted sins.)

Prop. XV. Christ in suffering bore the punishment antecedently due to all Mankind, equally, and not the punishment due only to some; and so dyed Loco omnium aequaliter in regard of his suf­fering, and their sin the cause.

Prop. XVI. The purchasing meritorious Virtue of Christs Death, and all the rest of the effects which follow thereupon, do presuppose the sa­tisfactory Virtue, as the very ground of all; and without which Christs Death would have been unacceptable to God, as having only Rationem mali, or at least would have been but a pattern of Patience as suffered from men.

Prop. XVII. Christ did not purchase further be­nefits Loco nostro, though he suffered Punish­ment Loco nostro.

Prop. XVIII. God was not well pleased with Man, no, not the Elect, nor did he acquit or justifie them, when he proclaimeth himself well-plea­sed [Page 36] in and with his Son, as being a perfect ac­complisher of his will, and when he did acquit and justifie him.

Prop. XIX. All Mankind immediately upon Christs satisfaction, are redeemed and Deliver­ed from that Legal necessity of Perishing which, they were under, (not by remitting Sin or Punishment directly to them, but by giving up Gods Ius puniendi into the hands of the Re­deemer; nor by giving any Right directly to them, but per meram resultantiam this happy change is made for them in their Relation; up­on the said remitting of Gods Right and Ad­vantage of Justice against them,) and they are given up to the Redeemer as their owner and ruler, to be dealt with upon terms of mercy which have a tendency to their recovery.

Prop. XX. In Law-sence, or in respect to the Le­gislative will of God, Christ Dyed for all men. This will be explained in the following Pro­positions.

Prop. XXI. Neither the Law whose curse Christ bore, nor God as the Legislator to be satisfied, did distinguish between men as Elect and Re­probate, or as Believers and Unbelievers de presenti vel de futuro; and so impose on Christ, or require from him satisfaction for the Sins of one sort more than of another; but for Man­kind in general.

Prop. XXII. Christ hath made satisfaction to God as Legislator; and accordingly his Legal Rigo­rous [Page 37] Justice is satisfied, for the Sins of all man­kind, as they are condemned, and were to be judged directly, primarily, simply by that Law; and hath not satisfied the Legislators Justice for some men only as Elect, or for one more than another, but equally for all.

Prop. XXIII. Christ hath by his Redemption of all obtained a Novum jus Imperii over all, and is Rector derivativè Supremus.

Prop. XXIV. As those those that know not God nor his Creation, are yet Gods Subjects as Creator, and he their Lord: So those that know not Christ nor his Redemption, are yet his Redeemed, and his Subjects as Redeemed, and he their Lord-Reedeemer as to his Right and Law, and their Obligation.

Prop. XXV. God the Father, and Christ the Me­diator now dealeth with no man upon the meer rigorous terms of the first Law: [Obey perfectly and Live, else thou shalt Die;] But giveth to all much Mercy, which according to the tenor of that violated Law they could not receive, and calleth them to repentance in order to their receiving further mercy offered them. And accordingly he will not judge any at last according to the meer Law of works, but as they have obeyed or not obeyed his conditions or terms of Grace.

Prop. XXVI. Though God hath been pleased less clearly to acquaint us, on what terms he deal­eth with those that hear not of Christ, yet it [Page 38] being most clear and certain that he dealeth with them on terms of Grace, and not on the terms of the rigorous Law of works; this ge­neral may evince them to be the Mediators Subjects and Redeemed.

Prop. XXVII. The Law of Nature since the fall, is part of the Mediators Law, by which in part he governeth: For it, with all things is deliver­to him.

Prop. XXVIII. Man without Scripture may find that he is a Sinner, and that Sin deserveth Gods wrath, and his destruction; and in the Creatures and Providences, providing for him, preserving, maintaining, delivering him, he may find abundance of Mercy; which being given to one that deserveth misery, must needs evince that it comes from a most gracious dis­poser, and tends to recovery, and to further mercy.

Prop. XXIX. Hence all Nations of the World have known themselves Sinners, and all Na­tions have had a Hope of obtaining mercy in the pardon of their sins; and thence it is that all (who acknowledge a God) have had some kind of Religion; and expressed it in Sacrifices or Prayers for pardon and mercy; which could never have been, without the said Hope.

Prop. XXX. Though it be very difficult and not very necessary to know what is the condition prescribed to them that hear not of Christ, or on what terms Christ will judge them; yet to [Page 39] me it seems to be the Covenant made with Adam, Gen. 3. 15. which they are under; re­quiring, their taking God to be their only God and Redeemer, and so expecting mercy from him, and loving him above all, as their end and chief good; and repenting of Sin and Sincere Obedience according to the Laws pro­mulgate to them, to lead them further.

Prop. XXXI. As the rigorous Law of works is so far taken down to all men, that they are no longer under its imposed necessity of per­fect obedience to salvation; so the Mosaical Ceremonial Law, is Abrogated totally, and so the Obligation destroyed for all that were under it, without difference of Elect or Non-Elect.

Prop. XXXII. God the Father and Christ the Mediator hath freely without any prerequisite condition on mans part enacted a Law of Grace, of Universal extent in regard of its tenor, by which he giveth, as by a Deed of Gift, Christ himself with all his following benefits which he bestoweth (as Benefactor and Legislator) and this to all alike, without excluding any; upon condition they Believe and Accept the Offer.

Prop. XXXIII. By this Law, Testament or Co­venant, All men are Conditionally Pardoned, Justified and Reconciled to God already, and no man Absolutely; nor doth it make a diffe­rence, nor take notice of any, till mens per­formance [Page 40] or non-peformance of the condition make a difference.

Prop. XXXIV. This Law or Covenant Christ or­daineth Heraulds to Publish, and commandeth them to Preach it to every Creature, and com­mandeth every man in his place to publish it; without excepting or excluding any from the Priviledge of receiving it.

Prop. XXXV. As a Sovereign is not bound to cause every particular man infallibly to hear of his Laws, so he maketh a convenient publick Declaration of them; so Christ as Legislator is not bound to provide that every man hear of his Law whom it doth concern: Men that by Nature may be convinced that there is a God, and how necessary it is to know him and their Duty concerning him, and how little they do know of him are bound to make all possible enquiry after the further Revelation of his will, though it were by travelling into other Countries.

Prop. XXXVI. When we say God and the Me­diator give pardon and Salvation to all men conditionally; we do not mean that there is any condition of his Making the Grant, but of his performing it, or of our receiving the thing pro­mised. He absolutely maketh a conditional Deed of Gift. He makes the Deed, and we are conditionally pardoned whether we believe or not. But we shall not be actually pardoned till we belive.

[Page 41] Prop: XXXVII. The condition of this La Grant is nothing unreasonable nor of Natural proper impossibility, (it is an Easie Yoake, and Commands that are not grievous) it being not the least repensum, price or requital; but only [the Hearty Acceptance of the offered Bene­fit according to its Nature and use:] It is therefore proper enough to say (as Scripture doth) that all men are reconciled, the Worlds sins taken away, and they forgiven; though yet none of this is Actually done, nor ever shall be to the final Rejecters; because in a moral sence, that is said to be done: which being highly beneficial and necessary, may be done if we will, all the other impediments being re­moved; and nothing but the refusal can de­prive Men of the benefit, the Law supposing that he that is compos mentis will accept so great an offered benefit. Christ having done all his part or quantum in se, as satisfier and Legislator and given himself with his benefits to every man that will accept him; so that nothing but their own wilful refusal can deprive them of them; in Law sence he may well be said, not only to Die for them, but to have procured them Pardon, Justification and Life. Where­as if the condition had either been a thing of proper Natural Impossibility, or unreasonable, or unhonest, or if it were long of Christ that it is not performed, than it were improper to say that Christ and Life is given them, or that Christ Dyed for them to procure this gift.

Prop. XXXVIII. Christ hath given Faith to none by his Law or Testament; though he hath re­vealed [Page 42] that to some he will as Benefactor and Dominus Absolutus give that Grace which shall infallibly produce it. And God hath given some to Christ that he might prevail with them ac­cordingly: Yet this is no giving it to the Person, nor hath he in himself ever the more Title to it; nor can any lay claim to it as their due.

Prop. XXXIX. It belongeth not to Christ as sa­tisfier, nor yet as Legislator to make wicked re­fusers to become willing and receive him and the benefits which he offers; therefore he may do all for them that is fore-expressed though he cure not their unbelief.

Prop. XL. Faith is a fruit of the Death of Christ, (and so is all the good which we do enjoy): But not directly as it is satisfaction to justice; but only Remotely, as it proceedeth from that [...]us Dominii which Christ hath received, to send the Spirit in what measure and to whom he will, and to succeed it accordingly; and as it is necessary to the attainment of the fur­ther ends of his Death, in the certain gathering and saving of the Elec [...] ▪ So that most directly it floweth from the good pleasure of God and the Redeemer, which we call Praedestination. So that it is an unmeet Speech (and such as Scripture never useth) to say, that [Christ dy­ed to purchase us Faith] though it be a Fruit of his Purchase. As if a Prince should Ransome or Buy a condemned Malefactor, agreeing and resolving that yet he shall not be saved, if he will spit in his Redeemers Face and refuse him and his kindness. And if it be known that this [Page 43] Malefactor is so desperately wicked, that he will thus reject and abuse his Redeemer and re­fuse his kindness, except the Prince send a bo­som Friend to perswade him, who is the most powerful unresistable Orator in the World: If the Prince because he is resolved neither to lose the Man, nor his Price of Ransom, doth send this Orator with a Charge that he shall take no denial, nor cease till he have procured the Malefactors consent; is it a convenient Speech to say, that he gave his Ransom Mony to purchase the Malefactors consent to be de­livered? Or to cure his wicked nature? No: Yet it is true that his Price was a ground-work and Preparative to this effect; so is it in our present Case.

Prop. XLI. The Resurrection of the Bodies of all Men is a Benefit procured by the death and Resurrection of Christ: (For though the Soul it self should everlastingly have suffered, yet the Body should have remained in its state of dis­solution, if Christ had not restored it) which Resurrection in it self is a mercy to all, (and it is a means to Gods further Glory by his Crea­ture) though the wicked turn it to be the en­terance of unspeakable misery to themselves.

Prop. XLII. There is no mercy which any Man enjoyeth by Right of Law from God, but it is from the Covenant or Law of Grace, and so from the Blood of that Covenant: For from the old riolated rigorous Law it cannot be; therefore it must be from the Law of Grace.

[Page 44] Prop. XLIII. Christ by his Law of Grace, hath made it every Mans duty that hears it, to be­lieve in him, and accept him, as our Saviour that hath made satisfaction for their Sins, and so dyed for them, and is their Redeemer: And to be highly thankful to him for this his Mer­cy.

Prop. XLIV. Christ by his Law hath made a far sorer punishment than before belonged to them, to be due to all those that believe not in him as one that hath so satisfied, and are not thankfull for it, and do not take him for their Redeemer. And for refusing their Lord-Re­deemer, shall they be condemned.

Prop. XLV. The consciences of the damned in Hell (which will be Gods executioners) will everlastingly torment them for refusing that Pardon and Salvation that was so dearly pur­chased for them, and that Redeemer that ex­pressed so much Love to them, and for not performing so reasonable and easie a condition, as Faith. They shall not then have the disco­very of an impossibility in the condition, or that Christ never died for them, and never was their Redeemer, and consequently that it was no Sin of theirs to refuse a Redeemer, that was not their Redeemer, and satisfaction that was none for them, I say, they shall not have such discoveries to ease their consciences, and lessen their torments, and make Hell as no Hell to them.

[Page 45] Prop. XLVI. A Christ-Redeemer, that hath sa­tisfied justice, is the object of Commanded Faith, and presupposed to it: Annd he that commandeth all Men to believe in Christ a one that hath redeemed them or satisfied for their Sins, doth hereby assert the truth of this supposition.

Prop. XLVII. The constitution of Christs King­dom containeth many great universal mercies, Antecedent to those that are given conditionally by his Covenant or Law of Grace; Such as are the giving of the Covenant it self, and the Institution of Sacraments, Ordinances, Officers, &c. Therefore as to be a subject is Antecedent to the being of an Obedient or a Rewarded Subject; so Christs Antecedent mercies of Redemption, extend to more than his consequent mercies do, which suppose the performance of the conditions of his Cove­nant.

Prop. XLVIII. The foundations of Christs Kingdom being first laid in his undertaking, Performances, Death, Resurrection, and Le­gislation or Covenant-making; so there are three distinct states of his subjects: 1. The Antecedent state (Antecedent to any act of their own) is to be subditi obligati obliged sub­jects. 2. The mediate state is to be consenting obedient subjects, or rebellious and disobedient. 3. The consequent state is to be justified re­warded subjects, or Condemned Subjects. And it will not follow that Christ never brought men [Page 46] into the first condition, because he never brought them into the last.

Prop. XLIX. Accordingly the Kingdom of Christ the Mediator, in its largest extent con­taineth all Mankind as redeemed, and made his obliged Subjects, though most prove Re­bells. But in a limited sense it containeth only the faithful, obedient, and justified part of the universal Kingdom.

Prop. L. It is this second consenting Part of his subjects only who are his Church, and are by Baptism engaged to him. So that the King­dom of Christ as Redeemer is larger than his Church; and they are not words of the same signification, unless when the word Kingdom is taken in the narrow sense.

Prop. LI. God hath not divided the World into two Parts, and put one Part only under the Government of Christ, and Governeth the o­ther immediately himself only as meer Creator: But Christ is Administrator General over all Mankind.

Prop. LII. They that say that God giveth, all the mercies which the ungodly have, according to the first Covenant of Innocency; must make that Covenant another thing than indeed it was.

Prop. LIII. They that feign God to continue the Covenant of Innocency, as to the Promissory Part, and to Covern those that are born in sin [Page 47] and misery, by that Law which saith [Be In­nocent and Live] do expose Gods Govern­ment falsly to reproach.

Prop. LIV. They that hold that Heathens and Hypocrites are under no Covenant or Law that hath conditional promises, do deny a great Part of Gods Government of Mankind, and give them more excuse for their neglect of all means for their Salvation, than is true, or than God will allow of.

Prop. LV. They that say that all the mercies bestowed on Heathens, or Hypocrites are gi­ven them without the purchase of Christ, by the meer will of God not respecting any re­conciler or Propitiation, do Sin against the Scripture reasons of Christs Office, and un­dertaking, and do open a Gap for the reason­ings of them who plead against the necessity of Christs death for the Elect.

Prop. LVI. Though Christs Dominion over inanimates and Bruits do not prove that he dyed for them; Yet his dying for Mankind in gene­ral, procured his Dominion over them; which is joyned with his Empire over the same Persons, which he exerciseth by such Laws as have a tendency to their repentance, Pardon and Salvation.

Prop. LVII. All this considered, It is (de nomine) a proper Speech much used in Scripture, to say that Christ dyed for all Men, and is the Sa­viour of the World, and is the Lamb of God [Page 48] that taketh away the Sins of the World, and is a propitiation for the Sins of the whole World, and tasted Death for every man, and that if one Died for all then were all Dead, &c. Seeing all the foresaid Benefits of his Death, are actually given them.

Some Expository Thesis about the Effects of the Death of Christ.

Proposition I. THE First and most Immedi­ate Use and Effect of Christs Death, was the satisfaction▪ of Gods Justice for mans Violation of his Law.

Prop. II. It was not the Law it self that Christ satisfied (if we speak properly) but the Law-giver. Though improperly the Law it self may be said to be satisfied when its Ends are at­tained; that is, the Ends of the Legislator in giving the Law. The Law knows no proper satisfaction. To admit of satisfaction instead of fulfilling and execution, is beyond the power of the Law, and is the act of the Legislator as he is above the Law.

Prop. III. Christ did not suffer from the Obligation of the Law, but from the Obligation of his own Sponsion; on occasion of the Laws obliging us to suffer. The Law never obliged Christ to Suffer (though it did to obedience.)

[Page 49] Prop. IV. Christs sufferings were not a fulfilling of the Laws Threatning (though he bore its Curse Materially;) but a satisfaction for our not fulfilling the Precept, and to prevent Gods fulfil­ling the Threatning on us.

Prop. V. Christ paid not therefore the Idem but the Tantundem or aequivalens, not the very Debt which we owed and the Law required, but the Value.

(Else it were not strictly satisfaction, which is Redditio aequivalentis: And (it being impro­perly called the Paying of a Debt, but properly A suffering for the Guilty) the Idem is nothing but Supplicium Delinquentis. In Criminals, Dum alius solvit simul aliud solvitur. The Law know­eth no Vicarius Poenae; though the Lawmaker may admit it, as he is above Law. Else there were no place for Pardon, if the proper Debt be Paid, and the Law not Relaxed but Fulfilled.

Prop. VI. The Meriting and Purchasing of further Benefits is consequential to the satisfactoriness of Christs Death. It would be so far from meriting (as it is his meer hurt) were it not first necessary for satisfaction, that it would be displeasing to God, who is merciful, and delighteth not in the Blood of the Just.

Prop. VII. Though Christs Death be first satis­factory and next Meritorious of further good: Yet hic Obedience is first Meritorious and afterward Satisfactory: For it could not Satisfie but by Meriting.

[Page 50] Prop. VIII. Because Punishment is not a Thing Commanded by the Law,Quod percipi­tur & ita est Obedientiae materia proxi­ma est [Agere] vel [Non age­re] & non, [Pati] sid [Pati] potest esse materia re­mota. but Threatued; therefore all Obedi­ence properly is active, (for suspen­sive is by act of will,) and the distinction between Christs Active and Passive Obedience, must be carefully understood, or else it will tend to confound Obedience and Punishment. His Passive Obedi­ence is but his Obeying in Submission to suffering; where the Consent or Submission is the direct matter of Obedience, and not the suf­fering it self submitted to.

Prop. IX. Christ did Give his Satisfaction directly and strictly; not to Man for whom he suffered, but to God. whom he satisfied.

Prop. X. Yet he may be said to Give it to men, (especially in their Union with him and Justi­fication) in that he gives them the fruits of it: As a Father is said to give his Son a thousand pound, that layeth it out in Lands for him: Though properly the Seller hath the Mony, and the Son the Lands only.

Prop. XI. It was not the Sins of the Elect only, but of all Mankind fallen, which lay upon Christ▪ satisfying. And to assert the contrary injuri­ously diminisheth the Honour of his Suffer­ings; and hath other desperate ill conse­quences.

[Page 51] Prop. XII. Christs satisfaction was made to God as Legislator and Rector Supremus, and not [...]as Domi­nus absolutus or meer Proprietary.

Prop. XIII. Christ did neither Obey nor Suffer in any Mans stead by a strict proper Representation of his Person in point of Law; so as that the Law should take it as done or suffered by the party himself. But only as a third person, as a Media­tor he voluntarily bore what else the Sinner should have born.

To assert the contrary (specially as to par­ticular persons considered in actual Sin,) is to overthrow all Scripture Theology, and to in­troduce all Antinomianism, to overthrow all possibility of pardon, and assert Justification before we Sinned or were Born; and to make our selves to have satisfied God.

Therefore we must not say that Christ dyed nostro loco so as to personate us, or Represent our Persons in Law Sence; but only to bear what else we must have born.

Prop. XIV. Christ by his Death (and so satisfacti­on to Justice) hath purchased to himself a full Propriety in all the Creatures which were under the Curse, and so is become Dominus Absolutus of all, on a new Title of Redemption, as God was before on the Title of Creation.

Prop. XV. Christ hath hereby purchased also a Su­pream Rectorship (so far as a Derived Power may be called Supream; and God as he is Redeemer is properly Supream) grounded on his Absolute pro­priety; [Page 52] even as Gods Rectorship as Creator was grounded on his Absolute Propriety as Creator. Every man may rule his own according to its Nature and Capacity.

Prop. XVI. Hereupon by actual Rendition, all things are Delivered up to Christ both as Proprie­tary and Rector.

Prop. XVII. As Proprietary or Dominus, Christ over-ruleth the World, and disposeth of all Events and Beings Naturally (as most conduceth to his Redemption Ends.)

Prop. XVIII. As Plenipotent Rector he now Ruleth all inferior Rational Creatures by his Laws, as the Universal Lord-Redeemer.

Prop. XIX. Seeing both the Rational Creature, and the visible frame of the Creation are deliver­ed up to Christ the Redeemer, it must needs follow, that the very Law of Nature (whe­ther it be in Natura rerum, ut signum; or in mente humanâ, ut principia Cognita) is Christs Law: And so that those that are ruled by the meer Law of Nature are ruled by Christ, so far as they do well.

Prop. XX. As God is the Ruler (as to Title and some Legislation and Judgment;) of those very Pagans who know him not, but deny a Godhead; so Christ is so the Ruler of those very Infidels who know him not, but deny the Mediator.

[Page 53] Prop. XXI. In giving up all Propriety and Rule to Christ, God has not divested himself of any thing, save only a Right or (as it were,) an Obligation to punish the pardoned. For as Christ is God himself; so the Father still Possesseth and Ruleth by the Redeemer. As he hath still the Title of Creator, so is he in the Son God-Redeemer.

Prop. XXII. Seeing no Man can fulfill the First Law, or Covenant, and no Man can be saved by a Covenant not kept, and Christ Re­deemed not Man into absolute liberty, (to be from under Law and Rule, which were Misery to him and not liberty) Therefore it hath pleased the Father and Mediator to make to Man a New Law and Covenant suited to his present State of Misery.

Prop. XXIII. The Tenor of this Law is that whosoever will Repent, Thankfully and hear­tily accept Jesus Christ to be his Saviour, Teacher, King and Head, believing him to be the Redeemer, and will Love him (and God in him) above all, and obey him sincerely, to the Death, shall upon his first acceptance be Justified and Adopted, and upon his perseverance be justified at Judgment, saved from Hell, and Glorified: And whosoever rejecteth him, shall bear the Guilt and punishment of all his Sins against the Law, and for his refusal, be far sorelier punish­ed.

[Page 54] Prop. XXIV. By this New Law, or Covenant, Christ hath brought all Men, where it is Pro­mulgate, under the Duty of receiving him, and Life in him: And under a Promise of Life, if they do receive him, and a Threatning of Death if they reject him.

Prep. XXV. The tenour of this New Law in all these Parts is Universal, extending to all, (No Man is excepted out of Precept, Promise, or Threatning) whether the Promulgation be Universal or not.

Prop. XXVI. It can hardly be proved that there is any great Part of the World, that have not heard of Christ, or had some means to have come neerer to the knowledg of him.

Prop. XXVII. All those that have not heard of Christ, have yet much Mercy which they re­ceive from him, and is the Fruit of his Death: According to the well or ill using whereof, it seems probable that God will judg them.

Prop. XXVIII. But it is safest to leave the Case of those that never heard of Christ and their Infants, as a thing unrevealed or so darkly re­vealed that God would not have us know any more of it, than that our condition is far bet­ter than theirs, that so we may be thankful.

Prop. XXIX. It is a course to blind and not to inform Men▪ to lay the main stress in the Doctrine of Redemption, upon our uncertain [Page 55] conclusions of Gods dealing with such as never heard of Christ: Seeing all proof is per noti­ora: And we must reduce points uncertain to the certain, and not the certain to the uncer­tain, in our Trial.

Prop. XXX. Christ may be Ruler de jure, and in Part de facto, where yet Satan prevaileth, and the Sinner shall perish for Rebellion.

Prop. XXXI. In the New Law Christ hath truly given himself with a Conditional Pardon, Justifi­cation, and Conditional Right to Salvation, to all Men in the World without Exception.

Prop. XXXII. This Law giveth Christ to no Man in the World by name (now) nor more then other, antecedently to their believing: But to all if they will believe.

Prop. XXXIII. It is therefore a proper and true Speech to say that Christ dyed for all (es­pecially all that ever heard his Gospel): Seeing that in Law sence he did Dye for them in all the forementioned respects. As the nature of the Law is to constitute Debitum, Dueness; so it constitutes to all Men, 1. The Dueness of Obe­dience, that they accept Christ offered them. 2. The Dueness of the Benefit, if they accept him (a conditional due.) 3. And the Dueness of the punishment if they reject him. So that in Law Sense Christ dyed for all.

Prop. XXXIV. If Christ were not their Redeemer, and his Satisfaction had been no way for them, [Page 56] nor a Mercy to them, then the Damned should not perish for rejecting their Redeemer, nor for refusing the mercy of Redemption; Nor their consciences accuse them for it. But undoubt­edly for this will be their destruction, and for this their consciences will accuse them.

Prop. XXXV. It being not the satisfaction it self that is tendered to Sinners, but the Fruit of it, It cannot by any Minister, nor will not by Christ, be offer'd (in those Fruits) to Men, if it were not first given and accepted for them as well as others (in Law Sence) by God, from the Redeemer. The Rector or Creditor must first receive the satisfaction, before a discharge can be offered to the offendor or Debtor, on consideration of that satisfaction made and ac­cepted: Much more, before Men can be con­demned justly for refusing it. If the satisfacti­on were given and accepted for the Elect on­ly, it could not in the Benefits which wholly presuppose it, be so offered to the Non-Elect, and they judged for refusing the benefit of a satisfaction never made for them.

Prop. XXXVI. Christs dying for Men, is Ante­cedent to their believing in him: Their be­lieving presupposeth his dying for them: His Death saveth them because they believe; but he did not die for them because they be­lieve, but they must believe because he dyed for them. The Act both as performed and commanded here presupposeth the Object. The Command therefore of believing presupposeth that Christdyed for Men.

[Page 57] Prop. XXXVII. No Mans name or Description (so as to difference him from others) being in the offer and promise conditional, but it being made alike to all, it will follow that no Man could have any true ground to believe or accept Christ if he knew not that he is one of those, to whom he is universally offered, and conditionally given; and consequently for whom he satisfied.

Prop. XXXVIII. If the condition on which Christ is given to all (and Life in him) were something of natural proper impossibility, or unreasonable, or if it were long of Christ that the condition is not performed by them, then it were less proper to say, that Christ is given them, or that he dyed for them, in respect to this conditional gift. But seeing the conditi­on is nothing of natural proper impossibility, nor unreasonable, being but their hearty ac­ceptance of Christ as he is offered them and not the least Repensum; requital, price, or repay­ment; and nothing but their own wicked dis­position, and obstinacy can cause their non­performance; so that they may have Christ and Life if they will; therefore it is proper to say that Christ is given them, and conditional Par­don and Life in him; and that Christ there­fore dyed for them.

Prop. XXXIX. It is Gods Law or Covenants which constitute the Right or Dueness of obe­dience, rewards, and punishments, and it is not Election or the meer Decree of God that [Page 58] doth any of these. We have no Right to Christ upon Election, till the Covenant or Law give us Right.

Prop. XL. Elect and Non-Elect therefore have equal Right to Christ, till believing difference them: That is, all have a conditional Right, and none an actual and absolute.

Prop. XLI. The Covenant berween the Father and Mediator (commonly so called) gave Christ a full Power to confer pardon and Life; but gave not to Men any Right ot Title to the benefits.

Prop. XLII. Nor did that Covenant or promise which God made to fallen mankind of sending a Saviour to Redeem them, give this Right actually to these benefits.

Prop. XLIII. Nor doth that promise or Covenant which God hath made, of giving a new and soft Heart to the Elect, give any Man an actual Right to Remission, Justification or Glory: No nor to renewing Grace: it being but a pre­diction what God resolveth to do for the sa­ving of some, known only to himself and so a discovery of his purpose, and not a conferring of Right. Or if it were a Promissum vel Donatio in diem, sine conditione, as some would make it, yet it would not give actual Title till the time come: Non da [...]r actio ante diem in talibus promis­sis inter homines. It is the nature of such gifts that upon (the Donors will) the Right should be as it were in passing from the Donour to the receiver till that day Et si cessit dies, saltem non venit. It is [Page 59] not ours in Title till the Day. But indeed here is no prefixed day, nor proper Gift.

Prop. XLIV. We Must therefore carefully di­stinguish between these three forementioned Covenants, and that universal Law or conditi­onal Covenant of Grace made to all mankind; which is it by which Christ ruleth, and will judge us: And which is his Instrument of con­ferring Right, and so of pardoning, Justifying, and Adopting us.

Prop. XLV. Christ hath a threefold Kingdom: Of one all the World are Subjects, these he over-ruleth, and partly ruleth to restraint at least, by the Law of Nature. Of the other (the visible Church) all professed Christians are members: These he ruleth by his Law of Grace, and Spirit, but differently. Of the third (which is the Souls of believers) only true believers are members: These only Christ ruleth to Salvation; but the rest also, as Re­deemer.

Prop. XLVI. When the Schoolmen and our own Divines say, that Christ dyed for all quoad suf­ficientiam pretii, but not quoad efficientiam; they cannot without absurdity be interpreted to mean, that his Death is sufficient for all if it had been a Price for them; and not a sufficient Price for them; For that were to contradict them­selves. And so Christ could not be said to dye for Men quoad sufficientiam pretii. For it is nei­ther for them, nor a Price, so considered.

[Page 60] Prop. XLVII. It seems an injurious feigning of Christ to suffer much in vain, to say that he paid a Price sufficient for all the World, when yet it shall be no way efficient: Unless they think that Christs sufferings are no greater for all Men, than if he had suffered but for one or few; and that minima guttula sanguinis Christ i sufficit ad redimendum mille mundos, which our Divines disclaim, as a dangerous Error. They therefore that think it, a making Christ to suf­fer in vain, to say, He dyed for some that perish; do themselves make him much more, to suffer in vain, in saying, he paid a Price for some, which was sufficient for all, but shall be no way effici­ent for them.

Prop. XLVIII. Christs Death is a sufficient Price and satisfaction to God for the Sins of all Man­kind: The Efficiency of satisfaction passive is it wherein the sufficiency to further uses, doth con­sist. But it effecteth actual Remission, Justification Adoption, Salvation, only for Believers. This is the plain truth, and the Sense of Divines in saying, that Christ dyed for all quoad sufficien­tiam pretii, non quoad Efficientiam.

Prop. XLIX. It hath not so much as a shew of Injustice or wrong to any for God to punish unbelievers for the same Sins that Christ died for, if we do but understand, 1. The diffe­rence between suffering by our selves or our delegate, substitute or Vicar, and a Mediator suffering for us, 2. And between solutio ejusdem, & satisfactio which is Redditio equivalentis, and so 3. Between a refusable suffering or payment, (as the last is) which doth acquit but on what [Page 61] terms the accepter pleaseth, and not ipso facto; and a not refusable payment, (such 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 [Page 62] 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 [Page 63] 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.

[Page 64] 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; [Page 65] 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, (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 [Page 66] 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. [...]2. Pet. 2. 20. Therefore in his Priestly [Page 67] Office he must (at least) be as far their Me­diator.

CHAP. IV. The First Proposition Asserted.

Prop. I. CHRIST in Suf [...]ering did not strictly and properly bear and represent the per­son of the Sinner, so as Civiliter, Moraliter, Legali­ [...]er, it might be said that [we either satisfied or suffer­ [...]d in or by Christ.]

Explic. I am not willing to make the meer [...]ords here, any matter of quarrel. If any dislike [...]ny term of mine, or like his own; let him ap­ [...]ly himself to the matter in Question, and let [...]e words pass. 1. I deny not that Christ Suf­ [...]ered nostro loco, in our place or stead; suffering [...]at which we deserved, and should else have un­ [...]voidably suffered. 2. I acknowledge and main­ [...]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; [...]at is, he made himself by his own Sponsion ob­ [...]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 e­ [...]eemed of God so to be, and in that sence, sin [...]as not imputed to him. 4. All know that [...] Physico Christ did not bear our persons.

Some will needs extend the phrase, of [bear­ [...]g or representing the person of another] civi­liter, [Page 68] 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 Armini [...] 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.

[Page 69]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 [...]atisfying, as that Legaliter vel Civiliter we may properly be said to have suffered or satisfied in [...]im; so that though it was Christs Person natu­rally, yet it was ours Legally, Morally or Impu­ [...]tively.

The major I prove thus. He that oweth no­thing, or to whom no penalty is due, can have [...]one forgiven him: But he that hath paid all the [...]ebt, or undergone all the punishment that was [...]e, by himself or another that in Law-Sence is himself, doth owe nothing, or to him no penalty [...] due: Therefore he can have none forgiven him. [...]ob. Major, Remissio est Debiti Remissio: There­ [...]re where there is no due, there can be no re­ [...]ssion Prob. Minor To have paid or suffered all, [...] to owe some, are contradictory and incon­stent. Therefore he that hath paid all, owes no­ [...]ing.

[Page 70]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 which denyeth conse­quentially, that we must believe for remission o [...] Sin, or that we are justified by Faith, any other­wise than in our own consciences, is not of God▪ But such is the Doctrine I oppose: Therefore, &c.

The Minor is proved already: For if either there be no such thing as pardon of Sin (which follows the point opposed) or as they say none but at the death of Christ, then the Minor is plain. The main scope of the Gospel confirms the Major. It is the command to believe for remission of Sin [...]. It is the promise, that if we believe we shall be forgiven. It is the threatning, that he that be­lieveth not shall not be forgiven and is condemned already, and the wrath of God abideth on him. And that it is not only in foro conscientiae that Me [...] are justified, (or as Mr. Owen speaks, terminated in conscience) I have fully proved by a multi­tude of Arguments in my Papers to Mr. Laws [...] which therefore I will not now repeat.

[Page 71]3. Arg. That Doctrine which denieth that great benefit of our Union with Christ is not of God; but such is that which I oppose: There­fore, &c.

Pardon and Justification flow from our U­nion with Christ (which is by faith): There­fore to deny them, is to deny a principal part of the benefit of that our Union with him.

4. Arg. That Doctrine which destroyeth a main end of Baptism is not of God. Put such is this opposed. Therefore, &c.

Prob. Min. We are Baptized for Remission of Sin (that is, by sealing more fully to exhibite and confirm our Law Title to Remission): But this overthroweth Remission (at least as the end of Baptism).

5. Arg. That Doctrine which destroyeth Prayer for the Pardon of Sins, yea and teacheth Men not to be thankful for Pardon, nor to ac­knowledg themselves beholden to God for it, nor to need it; is not of God. But such is this op­posed. Therefore, &c. For if it deny pardon, it must needs deny Prayer for it, and thanks, &c.

6. Arg. That Doctrine which maketh Men to be in Christ before they believe, or are en­tered into his Covenant, is not of God: But such is this opposed: Therefore, &c. The Major is plain from the Scope of the Gospel: And if it were needful I might cite an hundred Texts; which shew that unbelievers, are not in Christ, [Page 72] that it is by Faith that we are his Members, and Children of God [...] and not in him till then. The Minor is plain, that they make all the Elect to have been in Law Sence in Christ dying and satis­fying; and so make the Members of Harlots and Satan Members o [...] Christ.

7. Arg. That Doctrine is not of God, which maketh wicked Unbelievers to be in Gods spe­cial favour as reconciled, and from under his wrath, and quite out of debt to him, as to any due punishment. But such is this opposed. There­fore, &c.

Prob. Major. The Scripture saith that we are by nature Children of wrath; that unbelievers are condemned already; and the wrath of God abideth on them; that God hateth all the work­ers of iniquity; that he that justifieth the unrigh­teous is abomination to him; that Men must re­pent, believe, be Baptized and pray for Pardon, that we are justified by Faith. Therefore the contrary Doctrine is not of God.

The Minor's confessed.

8. Arg. That Doctrine is not of God, which consequentially denieth the Justice of his Judg­ments: But such is this opposed. Therefore, &c.

Prob. Min. That Doctrine which chargeth God with punishing those that have made him full payment, doth consequentially deny the justice of his Judgments. But such is the Doctrine in question. Therefore, &c. 1. That it teacheth that we have fully paid the debt in Christ, is past question▪ [...] that God punisheth the Elect [Page 73] 1. Is put out of doubt by frequent express testi­mony of Scripture, 2. And is confessed by them­selves as many as are of competent understand­ing, and moderation. For 1. that paternal Cha­stisements is a species of punishment, is known to all that know what punishment is; viz. Ma­lum Passionis propter malum culpae: V [...]l privatio boni naturalis propter privationem boni moralis: Or suf­fering inflicted for a fault. 2. However, I have met with few of an ordinary understanding, that will deny that God punisheth his Elect, before, Conversion, while they are Children of wrath, and condemned already, and under the Curse of the Law.

The Major is also plain. It is injustice to pu­nish those to whom no punishment is due: But no punishment is due to them that have fully suf­fered for all Sin: Therefore to punish them that have so suffered is injustice. I know God is ab­solute Lord of the Creature, and therefore may in that regard use them as he please: And there­fore I say, as Twisse, that he may without inju­stice torment or afflict the most innocent Crea­ture, (supposing him not to have promised the contrary, and to be only Dominus, & non Rector): But (saith Twisse) he cannot punish the innocent: For that is a contradiction and so impossible. For all punishment is for sin. Affliction is but the matter of punishment and not the form. Besides; God being Rector of the reasonable Creature, and having expressed in his Laws, that he will not punish Men that deserve it not, it is not to be charged on him. If any say, God is not capa­ble of injustice, if you should suppose the breach of his promise? I say, 1. as Abraham Gen. 18. 25. [Page 74] that be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the Righteous with the wicked, and that the Righteous should be as the wicked; that be far from thee: Shall not the judge of all the Earth do Right? 2. We cannot suppose God to re­concile contradictions: Such it is to punish the Innocent.

And that those who have made full payment or suffered all that was due are not guilty, i. e. obligati ad poenam is past dispute.

9. Arg. That Doctrine is not true which saith of the wicked, He is Righteous: But such is this opposed. Therefore, &c. Prob. Major. Prov. 24. 24. He that saith to the wicked thou art Righte­ous. Nations shall Curse him, People shall ab­hor him. Prob. Minor. He that hath fully satisfied for all Sin, is Righteous: But according to this Doctrine, the wicked have fully satisfied for all their Sin: Therefore, &c. Prob. Major. He that hath satisfied for all, oweth nothing, as to punishment and therefore is Righteous. What Law can require more then all? Or what justice can refuse to acquit him that hath paid all that was due? Or to justifie him if he be accused as liable to punishment? If any on the old grounds shall say, that besides the Righteousness Negatiue, (which is not guilty of punishment) there is re­quisite a positive righteousness, to give Right to the reward, and this they want. I reply 1. One righteousness, doth both, I think. 2. If it were not so yet Christs satisfaction is meritorious of the re­ward. 3. If 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 [Page 75] 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, [Page 76] 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 [Page 77] 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 [Page 78] 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 [Page 79] 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 threatning, but was accidental: Either, as some Schoolmen think, for want of power to de­liver or overcome; or as others (and with them Parker and Sanford, I think, not soundly) because of the everlastingness of Sinning. I think none of these much worth the disputing, comparatively: Nor 2. is it de personâ naturali, who he was na­turally that paid the debt, or made the satisfacti­on. It is not therefore de materia debiti, that we enquire, but de formâ: Whether it were the same formally which we owed, and the obligation required? Or only the Value, and not the same full debt? Also you must know that, though we may well use the word [debt] in this Case, be­cause the Scripture doth, yet we must acknow­ledg it but a Metaphor, and the proper terms are, whether Christs sufferings were the same thing that the Law in its threatning required, i. e. obliged unto, and made due? And so a fulfil­ling of that threatning? And this with great averfeness I deny. The question is determined on the determination of the former, having ne­cessary [Page 80] dependance on it, and being tantum non in Sence the same. And therefore all the Ar­guments which I used for the former will serve to this; and therefore I need not repeat any of them, but refer you to them, desiring you to per­use them and apply them to this; for all the same absurdities (or neer all) do follow upon this as on the other. Indeed these two together (that Christ paid the Idem, the debt it self and not the value, by personating us in his sufferings, so that in Law Sence, we satisfied in him) are the very foundation of the whole frame of that Religion commonly called Antinomian, but much more fitly Anti-evangelical. To touch again on some few. It is evident that this Doctrine ut­terly destroyeth all possibility of pardon of Sin, and consequently all repenting and believing, pray­ing for pardon, all thankfulness for it, all Testa­mental or Evangelical Conveyance of it by the promise, all Gospel and Ministerial tenders of pardon; all Sacramental exhibition and obsignati­on of pardon; and a Christians enquiries, exa­mination, and seekings after pardon, and his comforts living or dying in assurance of pardon; and instead of all, asserteth us so righteous, that we need no pardon. You will sure confess, that if this will follow, then almost all Religion is overthrown at a blow. And that it follows, seems to me past doubt. For what can any Law in the World require or any Lawgiver, in exactest justice, but that the Law be perfectly fulfilled? What can any creditor require, but the Idem, the very debt it self which the obligation did con­tain? Can he have all his debt, and remit it too? Is the obligation fulfilled, and remitted or relaxed [Page 81] too? Doth the Judg execute all the penalty; and yet forgive it? Is not he unjust that denieth him an acquittance and the cancelling of the obligati­on, who hath fully paid him all his due? If any shall conceive, with the Socinians, that the same inconveniences will follow, upon the asserting of Christs full satisfaction for us, I answer, Not one of them: Nay there is no way, I think, but this that I now maintain to confute a Socinian, and defend Christs satisfaction. Were it well used, it is a Key into a great part of the Body of Divinity, and helpeth to resolve solidly and satis­factorily a multitude of difficult objections, which without this admit not of solution (though Mr. O. call it my [...]) The Idem, or full debt or suffering, is solutio non recusabilis the Value in ano­ther kind or way, is solutio recusabilis, (stricte dicta satisfactio) more plainly, the proper penalty, which is supplicum delinquentis, is all that can be required to satisfie the Legislator or Law: But that an innocent person should suffer for our Sins, is quid Recusabile; the Legislator may refuse it. If therefore we had paid the Idem, the very debt we had been acquit­ted or to be acquitted ipso facto, as presently righteous, without Remission; but when ano­ther pays it (even the Son of the Law-giver sent by his own Love aud Mercy, who is neerer him then us) these two things follow, 1. That the su­pream Rector may accept it on what terms he please, or not accept it: And that accordingly God did accept it on terms most fitted to his blessed ends in governing the World: Among others, that Man should have the special benefits of this satisfaction conveyed to them only in a le­gal way, in time, on such and such terms or con­ditions [Page 82] as he saw meet, and as is expressed in the tenor of the Covenant of Grace, &c. Nay it was the desire of Christ the satisfier, that these Benefits should only thus be conveyed to the Re­deemer: That so though the Impetration were wholly by him, and absolutely wrought, yet the Application might be in part by themselves and conditional; and the mercy might not cross Gods ends by making them independent and secure, but might further his ends, in drawing them to him, and engaging them to repent, believe, seek, strive, fear, care, &c.

If the Idem, were paid, that is, the delinquent himself had suffered, there had needed no New Covenant, to apply the Benefits, or convey them: But now there doth.

Object. But it may be the Idem, the full due, though not per eundum, by the same person.

Ans. Distinguish (as before) between the Idem Materialiter and Formaliter, also between the full debt and a Part. And so, if it were a debt of Money or the like 1. It may be fully the same materially, and not formally: As a Man may steal that same Money which you owe ano­ther, and pay it to that other as his own debt: 2. Here you must distinguish between Personam Naturalem & Civilem vel Legalem: If you pay all that was in the obligation, by your Servant, Friend or any Delegate or Vicar, the Law will say, you have paid it your self. It was your deli­gates person naturally, but yours Legally or ra­ther your Instrument, Because the obligation required but the thing to be paid in your Name, [Page 83] by what hand soever; and so you are acquitted▪ without remission: For you have discharged the proper debt, and the Creditor can demand no more.

But now in Criminals its otherwise: Because the very Person offending is in the obligation as the subject of the penalty: Noxa Caput sequitur. So that formaliter it is not the suffering which was due to you, which another suffers for you. This I add as a main Argument for my propositi­on.

If the Law do require only supplicium ipsius delinquentis, then Christs sufferings were not the Idem, the same thing which the Law required: Nor is the Law fulfilled thereby. But the Law doth require only supplicium ipsius delinquentis: Therefore, &c. For the Major, or its consequence it needs no proof; for Christ was not ipse delin­quens; He was made Sin, that is, one punishable and punished for Sin; but not really, nor in Law 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 ea [...]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 [Page 84] 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.

[Page 85]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. Bils [...]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 i [...] 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 q [...]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 [Page 87] 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 [Page 88] 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 Law. But, &c. Ergo, &c. Prob. Min. that the Law knoweth no other satisfaction, but fulfilling.

Argu. 1. Satisfaction strictly (as distinct from fulfilling) is Redditio aequivalentis. But the Law, (as continuing the same) cannot commute or sub­stitute the aequivalens vel tantundem, for the Idem or proper Debt.

2. It is essential to the Law to constitute the Debitum vel officij vel Poenae. But it constitutes not the Debitum alterius speciei, vel tantidem; (else it should confound the ipsum debitum with the aequiva­lens.) The Law never imposed it on Christ to satisfie for our sins: This was the obligation of his own Sponsion.

3. Satisfaction which is the giving of the value for the proper Debt, implyeth a relaxation of the Law to its acceptance: But the Law cannot relax it self. Ergo, &c.

4. To admit of satisfaction, is the Act of the Lawgiver or Rector, as he is above Law; there­fore [Page 89] it is no act of the Law. As to make a Law, to pardon an Offender, to abrogate a Law, &c. are acts of one above the Law, so is the relaxing of the Law in pardoning the Sinner, and taking Christs sufferings for ours. Can any obliga­tion dissolve or remit it self?

5. If the Law did neither threaten Christ in the first enacting of it, nor hath power to change it self since, by assuming another sense, then Christs sufferings were neither a fulfilling nor sa­tisfaction to the Law. At verum prius Erg [...]. If the name of Christ were put into the threatning after the Law was made, then the Law was changed, and so is not the same; and it could not change it self. Indeed if another for you pay a Debt, the Bond is satisfied, because it was the ipsum debitum. But if another will bear the Death that you deserve, the Law that threatens you is not satisfied nor fulfilled; But the Law-giver is satisfied, and the ends of the Law attained. But here note, that this relaxation and non fulfilling of the Law, is not total and abso­lute; nor such as derogateth at all from the hon­our of the Law or Lawgiver; but it is a relaxa­tion upon such terms as preserve both fully; the full weight of the threatned Punishment being born or undertaken by the Son of God, before God would relax his Law.

6. To this and the two former together, I add: If the Laws Commination be fulfilled, or if Christ suffered the same that was threatned, or if we sa­tisfied fully in Christ, then we are not by that Law obliged to obedience during this Life. But the consequent is false Ergo, &c.

[Page 90]The reason of the consequence is this. The Law obligeth aut ad obedientiam, aut ad poenam, disjunctively pro eodem tempore, and not & ad obedien­tiam & ad poenam. Now Christ hath satisfied for our sin not only against the Law of Works by Adam, but against all Laws of Nature or Grace since, except the non performance of the condition of the new Covenant, and this to our Death. So that if we have in Christ fully satisfied the threatning for all sin in this Life, then we cannot be bound by the Precept after such satisfaction, till after this Life be ended. To say we are not obliged to the same Ends, is no answer: For that Law can oblige us to no ends, which is fulfilled alrea­dy, and which did never oblige but aut ad obedi­entiam, aut poenam propter obedientiae defectum.

CHAP. VII. Prop. IV. It was not only the Sins of the Elect, but of all, even Elect and Non-elect which were the pro-causa meritoria of Christs sufferings. Or it was not only the Sufferings Due to the Sins of the Elect, but of all, which Christ did undergo. And accordingly hath made satisfaction for all.

IT is necessary that we speak of the efficient Causes of Christs Death, before we handle the Effects. And therefore we must consider quorum loco he Dyed, before we consider how far they shall partake of the Benefits. Here it must be remembred, that we have already proved that [Page 91] Christ did not represent our Persons in satisfying; but yet he bore our sins, that is, the penalty due to them; and so did in a larger sence suffer nostro loco or nostri loco; not as our Delegate or proper [...]carius; but as a voluntary Sponsor, and so sub­stitute in suffering.

Also understand that Christs sufferings had no real proper meritorious Cause: But yet Mans sins were the pro-causa meritoria: He undertook to bear that suffering which for them was due to us, (not to him.) And therefore when I say he bore the sufferings due to us, I mean it materialiter only; such sufferings for kind and weight he bore; but his obligation to bear them was only from his own Sponsion, and not the Law. The Law by constituting the Dueness of punishment to us, was the occasion of his suffering it, but not the obliging cause. I add, that [accordingly he hath satisfied for all:] For this will not be de­nyed, if the first be proved. For he satisfied by suffering what the Sinner deserved: And in whose stead soever he suffered, for them he sa­tisfied.

Now I shall think it meet to stand the longer on this point, because the decision of the main Question [Whether Christ dyed for all men?] dependeth mainly on it. For the strictest sence in which he is said to die for men, is, to die in their stead; or to Die for their Sins as the pro­curing Cause, on his own undertaking. Yield this once, and we shall much easilier agree on the second Part, Pro quorum beneficio, or what the be­nefits be which Christ hath procured to all. At least, no man will think it unmeet to say, that [Christ died for all men] if we can prove [Page 92] that he dyed for the sins, and in the stead of all, and satisfied Gods Justice for all. And if he dyed for them, it is certain that he satisfied for them (as is said) because God doth neither require nor accept the Death of his Righteous Son, but as it is necssa­ry to the satisfaction of his justice for Sin

Lastly, remember that I put the word [all] as contradistinct from the Elect: pleading speci­ally against them that would confine Christs satis­faction only to the Elect: Not that I doubt of Christs sufferings for all, in the utmost universality, but I think it far safer to dispute it as to all that hear the Gospel: For God hath plainlier shewed us how he dealeth with these than the rest; and it is not fair nor profitable to carry the disputation into the obscurest part, to lose it rather than de­termine it: And if any agree with me in this that I prove: [That Christ satisfied for all that hear the Gospel.] I will not trouble them with disput­ing it about the rest, but willingly let them en­joy their opinion, (though contrary to mine) as judging it to be to us of far lesser moment My Arguments shall be first from the scope of Scripture Doctrine; and 2. From some particu­lar Texts, which expresly assert Universal Satis­faction, or Christs Dying for all: And then I shall answer the contrary Arguments.

This First Argument shall be A conditionali remissione, & Jure ad Regnum caelorum omnibus per Testamentum Christi donatis.

Argum. I.

If all men have a Conditional Par­don, Justification, Adoption and Right to Glory, given to them by the New Testament, then Christ suffered and satisfied for all. But the Antecedent [Page 93] is true, therefore so is the consequent. I add by way of Explication, that the Condition is no Na­tural impossibility, or unreasonable thing; but Faith in Christ, or the accepting of the good that is bestowed and offered them; which is such a condition that many Learned Divines (who in­cline to the Antinomian way) say it is no condi­tion, but it is equivalent to an absolute gift; and that it is so Naturally necessary that in the most absolute gift, acceptance is still supposed; and that it is all one to say [I will give thee this be­nefit] and [I will give it thee if thou wilt take it.] I am not of their mind, as to the case in hand; but hereby it may appear how reasonable Gods condition is, when Learned Men do take his gift to be absolute or equivalent.

The Antecedent is proved by multitudes of express Texts of Scripture, John 3. 16. God so loved the World that he gave, &c. That whosoever believeth, &c. 1 John 5. 10, 11. He that believ­eth not God hath made him a Lyar, because he be­lieveth not the reccord that God gave of his Son. And this is the record; that God hath given to 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. Mark 16. 15, 16. Go ye into all the World and Preach the Gospel to every Creature: He that Be­eth and is Baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned. John 7. 37, 38. If any man thirst let him come to me and Drink: He that believeth on me, &c. Acts 13. 39. By him all that believe are Justified, &c. Acts 16. 31. Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved. Rom. 3. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in [Page 94] his Blood, to declare, &c. That he might be the Jus­tifier of him that believeth in Jesus. Rom 4. 24. To whom it shall be imputed if we believe, &c. Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8, 9. But the Righteousness which is of Faith speaketh on this wi [...]e, &c. That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy Heart that God raised him from the Dead, thou shalt be saved. Rev. 22. 17. Whosoever will, let him take the Water of Life freely, Act. 10. 43. 1 Pet. 2. 6. John 5. 24. and 6. 35. 40, 47. and 7. 38. with many the like.

Where note that these are in several respects called a Gift, a Promise, and an Offer. They are Christs Testament, and so properly his Deed of Gift, and do confer Right to the mentioned Benefits, conditionally first, and actual, and ab­solute when the condition is performed. And this is the principal consideration of them, that they are the Premiant act of the New Law, and the Testament of Christ, and his Deed of Gift. They are an Offer of Christ and these benefits, when they are applyed by promulgation to par­ticular Sinners: And this Application or Offer is either by the mee [...] terms of the Written Deed of Gift in Scripture; or else by the further pro­clamation by Christs Ministers and Officers. In the former sence, the Gift and the Offer are ma­terially the same; but formally it is first Gods Conveyance or Deed of Gift, and then afterward in order of Nature, it is his Offer. It is Gods Written Instrument constituting a Conditional Right to Christ and his Benefits; but such an in­strument is a proper Conveyance or Deed of Gift. And the conditional Right must be consti­tuted before it can be offered: Or else the Offer [Page 95] should be an act without its Object. But in re­gard of Actual Absolute Right, the offer is an­tecedent, and supposeth the thing offered not to be his to whom it is offered; but that the Con­dition of Acceptance must first be performed. Yea every man that is the owner himself who doth seriously offer a benefit to any man, with­out any meritorious or retaliating condition, but meerly to be accepted, doth Eodem actu, con­vey or give Right to that Benefit on the said con­dition. Now God doth offer his Son, 1. By his Written Instrument or Word, which must needs be his own act, and consequently his Gift as well as offer. 2. By his Messengers, whose act is morally his own act, in that he hath bid them say what they say, and commanded them to pro­claim it to every Creature. It is called a Pro­mise, not in respect to the Conditional Right but the Absolute, because it promiseth them that if they will accept Christ he shall be theirs with his benefits. And it doth not Promise that God will perform any other Natural Act for Conveiance of the benefit; but that by that same promising Instrument the Right shall be conveyed.

2. It is undeniable that this gift, offer or pro­mise [If thou wilt believe thou shalt be saved] or [Whosoever will, let him take, &c.] is, made to unbelievers, as the Subject. We may not say to a Believer [If thou wilt believe thou shalt be saved] Except we speak of the continu­ance or renewal of Faith. It is properly to Un­believers that God offers or gives Christ, so be it they will accept his gift. Now if it be to unbe­lievers, then it must needs be to all, Elect, and [Page 96] Non-elect: For the Promise makes no difference, nor the Minister knows no difference: God saith not [Thou Elect person shalt be saved if thou believe] For then no Man could apply the pro­mise, nor know whether he have warrant to believe, as not knowing whether he be Elect: But he saith to any Man [If thou wilt believe thou shalt be saved.]

3. Either Christ and his benefits are given conditionally (on condition of believing) to all or to none. To the Non-elect, or not to the Elect. But rhey are given to some, even to the Elect: Therefore to all. The Major is evident in the tenour of the promise. 1. It is Universal, [Who­soever will] [Whosoeve believeth] It is no where limited to the Elect. 2. If it were limited to the Elect, it were useless, because none could know before believing whether he be Elect. Indeed the thing promised is pro­per to the Elect, and so is the Effectual, Actual, Donation, or Conveyance of Right by the pro­mise: But that is not (as to the Sense of the promise) as they are Elect but as believers, or performers of the condition: And in this Sence only Believers are Heirs of the promise, that is, its effectual conveying act, and so to the thing promised.

But the Great doubt is of the Minor with some. For they deny that Christ is given condi­tionally to any Unbeliever Elect or not Elect; but only is decreed for the Elect before time, and given to Believers in time. The Sence is; that there is no conditional promise or deed of Gift, but all absolute. For if it be made only to Men that do believe, their first believing cannot [Page 97] be the condition; and if it be made on con­dtion of First believing, it is made to Men that do not yet believe. But the main Scope of the Gospel proves the Minor, by proving the con­ditional Gift, or promise: As the Texts even now cited, among others. Where note (to put it out of doubt) 1. That the time of Gods en­acting this Law, or making this Testament, Gift or promise, was before we were born and there­fore before we believed. 2. that in its nature, it first speaks to unbelievers as its Subject. For who will offer a gift to us to be accepted that it may be ours, if we have accepted it already? Nay how can it be accepted before it is offered? And how can we consent to have Christ and so be united to him, except he first give himself to us on condition that we will consent? 3. Note, that the promise is made in most proper condi­tional terms [If thou confess with thy Mouth and believe in thy heart, Rom. 10.] That whosoever believeth should not perish, &c. 4. And also note that faith hath here the Definition of a con­dition agreeing to it, i. e. It is an Arbitrary act on which the free Donour hath suspended the efficacy of his Testament or Deed of Gift. (It is Arbitrary conditions that we have here to speak of, which some call Potestative: And not casual, or mixt.) So to suspend the effect of the Instru­ment, that hoc posito efficiet, & donec ponatur non efficiet, that upon the doing or not doing, the Effect shall follow or not follow, and this by the Positive ordination of the Donor is the very es­sence of a Condition in Law-sence. And such [...]s Faith. And what Divine, except Antinomi­ans, doth deny Faith to be the Condition? And [Page 98] if it be so, then the Promise or Conditional Gift, must needs be made to Unbelievers (that it may become effectual when they believe:) For it can be no condition in this proper sence, if it be past already. And therefore it must needs be made to all Unbelievers seeing Scripture limit­teth it not to any, but speaketh; universally. Inded it is a very hard questionhow far the promulgation may be said to be Universal, and how far not: But that is nothing against the Universality of the Tenor of the Law or Gift. And the command to the Promulgators is, [Go into all the World and Preach the Gospel to every Creature.

Next let us prove the consequence of the Ma­jor Proposition; and that thus. The thing condi­tionally given is Pardon purchased by Christs Blood, shed for the Sinner to whom it is Given: Therefore the gift presupposeth the shedding of his Blood for that Sinner.

The Antecedent hath two branches to be proved. 1. That the Pardon conditionally given to all, is a pardon purchased by Christs Blood. 2. That it is by Christs blood as shed for him to whom that pardon is given. For the first, there is no Pardon given any other way but by Christs blood shed, therefore this is from his Blood­shed.

1. If there be Remission which is not purchased by Christs blood shed, then there are two distinct ways of Remission; one by his blood, and ano­ther without. But the consequent is false. Ergo, &c.

[Page 99]2. If there be a remission without Christs blood­shed, then all remission might have been with­out it. But the consequent is false, else Christ Dyed needlesly.

3. Heb. 9. 22. Without shedding of Blood there is no Remission.

4. Heb. 9. 16. [For where a Testament is, there must also of necessity be the Death of the Testa­tor.] But this conditional Gift is Christs Testa­ment: So ver. 15. [For this cause he is the Mediator of the new Testament, that by means of Death for the Redemption of the Transgressi­ons that were under the first Testament, they which are called might receive the promise of Eternal Inheritants;] viz. all that are external­ [...]y called receive the conditional Promise, and Believers the thing promised.

5. Luke 24. 46, 47. [It behoved Christ to [...]uffer and Rise from the Dead the third day, and [...]hat Repentance and Remission of Sins should be reached in his name among all Nations, &c.] [...]o that even Remission Preached, that is, offered [...]n condition of repentance, (and Faith) presup­poseth Christs Death as the Cause.

6. In the Institution of his Supper, he calleth [...]e Cup, the New Testament in his Blood, that this signifieth my Blood which procureth the [...]ew Testament. Now none sure dare say that the [...]omise of Pardon and Life on condition of Be­ [...]ving is not the New Testament either whole or [...]t.

7. And therefore it is called the Blood of the [...]venant (even to them that tread it under [...]t) Heb. 10. 29. and 13. 20. Zech. 9. 11.

[Page 100]8. Justification is by Christs Blood, Rom. 5. 9. [Being Justified by his Blood.] But Justification is the Effect of this Conditional Covenant or Gift, (when the Condition is performed;) therefore the effect of this Covenant is from Christs blood, and consequently the Covenant it self which is an intermediate cause. Though there be other sorts of Justification, yet that this is one, and the first, is undenyable.

9. Actual Remission to Believers is from Christs Blood; Eph. 1. 7. In whom we have Redemption through his Blood the remission of Sins, Col. 1. 14.) therefore conditional remission to unbelievers is from his Blood. The reason of the consequence is, that Christ procureth the Ef­fect of Justification or Remission not immediately by his Blood as shed, but by procuring the Covenant or Promise as the immediate Cause, and the ef­fect by that Cause; and it is the same Gift o [...] Covenant which conditionally Justifieth all, and actually Justifieth Believers; and that without any other [...]tervening act of God: When the condition is performed (whose Nature is to suspend the Effect) then the effect resulteth from tha [...] same Promise, which before did not effect. In­deed Christ giveth his Spirit to causé his Own t [...] perform the condition; but still the justifying a [...] is by the conditional Covenant. If therefore i [...] be the same promise which effectually justifie [...] the Elect, and only conditionally justifieth othe [...] and Christs Blood causeth that promise which e [...] fectually justifieth the Elect, then his Blo [...] caused that promise which conditionally justifie [...] all. John 3. 16. God so loved the World, that he g [...] his only begotten Son (1. For men on the Cr [...] [Page 101] 2. To men by the promise,) that whosoever be­lieve. &c. So that this conditional grant of Life comes from the giving of Christ to Death.

And for the second part of the Antecedent, viz. That it is from Christs Blood as shed for him to whom the Promise is made. And 1. Ab [...]nefficacia, Christs Dying for one man, cannot pro­cure these great benefits to another. It cannot have causality as to such an effect. God doth not forgive Thomas because Christ Dyed for Peter▪ 2. A non necessitate. There was a necessity of Christs Death (as is before proved) to the pro­curing of this pardon. But there was no necessity for procuring pardon to one man, that Christ should Die for another; therefore the necessity was that he Dyed for the person himself. 3. If Christs Death were not necessary to the conditi­onal pardoning of the Non-elect, (but that God doth it without Christs Dying for them; then it was not necessary for the conditional pardoning of the Elect, but God might have done it without Christs Dying for them: But the Consequent is [...]alse, therefore so is the Antecedent. The Major is plain in that there is the same reason both as to their Sin and Case, and Remission.

1. The Sins of the Elect did not differ from [...]hose of the Non-elect, so as that they more [...]eeded a satisfactory Expiation.

2 They were both under the same Law, [...]urse and Wrath of God.

3. The Deed of Gift, or Promise which re­ [...]itteth one, is the same with that which remit­teth the other. The Minor is plain, for if any [...]ould say, that without Christs Death, God [...]ight conditionally have pardoned all Elect and [Page 102] Non-elect; but not Actually. I Answer. 1. Then Christ should Die only to purchase Faith: (which is false.) For God doth perform no new act to make the conditional Gift become actual, but only the giving of Grace to believe and so perform the condition. 2. Then God might have made this new Law and Covenant of Grace, [Be­lieve and be pardoned and saved] or [Whosoe­ver will let him take the Water of Life freely] with­out any expiatory Sacrifice or Satisfaction by Christ; which, 1. So contradicteth it self, (seeing the thing given is a Dead revived Savi­our with his Benefits; and therefore it cannot be given which is not.) 2. And so subverteth Christianity it self, that I think I need not spend more words on it.

Only I add this (which is of considerable mo­ment,) that on the contrary, the great necessity and ends of Christs Death are in respect to God as Rector per leges, and not as Dominus absolutus, or benefactor merè arbitrarius: God received no ad­dition of Love, or Goodwill, nor of Wisdom, or Natural Power by Christs Death: But he re­ceived a Reparation of his honour as Legislator, and a Moral Power (consisting in Convenient [...] rei efficiendae) to pardon sin by making a general act of pardon to all that will accept the Redeem­er and his Benefits. So that the proper use of Christs Death was to be an Expiatory Sacrifice for Sin, offered to God as the offended Rector. And therefore the New Law or Covenant of Grace which followeth hereupon (giving Christ and Pardon to all that will Receive him) must needs be the proper effect of Christs Death. Whereas Faith is given rather by God as Dominus Absolutu [...] [Page 103] arbitrarily doing good to his Creature, then as Legislator; and is said to be purchased by Christs Death but in a more remote sense (as shall anon be shewed.): so that to deny this Conditional Gift, Covenant or Promise to be the fruit of Christs satisfaction, is to deny a very great part of the fruit of it; and tantum non to make Christ to dye in vain.

The Consequence needs no proof, Therefore I pass to the next.

Arg. II.

If God do offer (by his Word and Messengers) Remission, Justification, Adoption and Right to Glorification, to all (Elect and Non-Elect) then Christ hath satisfied for all. But God doth so offer these to All: Ergo, &c.

A Remissione & Salute omnibus Oblatis.

The former Argument was drawn from the Gift, and this is drawn from the Offer: which though it be inseparable from the former, and so implyed in the former Argument, yet I shall an­nex it because of them, who deny the Condi­tional Gift, but confess the Offer. The Antece­dent I think few will question, as to All who hear the Gospel; and God as Legislator hath done his part in offering it to those that yet [...]e [...]er heard it. 1. In making the Tenour of the pro­mise or Offer, of Universal extent. 2. And in Commanding his Officers to go into all the World and Preach the Gospel to every Creature.

The Consequent is proved thus. 1. The Pardon offered is either a Pardon purchased by Christs Satisfaction for them to whom it is offer­ed▪ [Page 104] or else procured some other way: But there is no other way of procurement, Ergo, &c.

1. Not without Christs Blood as is proved.

2. Not by Christ's Blood as shed for others, as is proved.

Object. But it is by his Blood as shed for all that will Believe.

Ans. 1. Believing is not the Condition of Christs Dying for us; but of our participation of the benefits thereby purchased: not of the Im­petration, but of part of the Application. Christ never said, If men (or this man) will Believe, I will dye for them; But, [If thou Believe thou shalt be justified and saved, by him that hath died for thee.] Belief is not presupposed as the Qualification of the subject for whom Christ must dye▪ but is required after, and given freely to his chosen, for the further Application of his Death.

2. His dying for them that will Believe, was either for certain determinate persons who should Believe; or else without a determination of the persons. If the latter only, then he died certain­ly for none. If the former then his dying for one man would not procure pardon for ano­ther.

2. God doth not offer that which he cannot give (for his offer is a gift, on condition of Ac­ceptance: and we must not dare to charge God with illusory or ludicrous actions.) But God can­not give Pardon and Justification and Right to Salvation, to any sinful man for whom Christ never satisfied: When I say [God cannot] [Page 105] I mean not, that he cannot for want of Power, but because of his Wisdom, Good­ness and Justice, He cannot (being Rector of the World) do that which is so Inconve­nient, and such a Monster in Government, and so destructive to the ends of his Government: All grant that quoad potentiam ordinatam now he cannot: that is, He will not. If God may give these to one man, yea to All the Non-Elect to whom they are offered, without Christs satis­faction procuring them, then he may do so by all: but that is not true, Ergo, &c.

Object. But i [...] men will Believe God Can and Will give them what he offers.

Answ. This Objection supposeth the Believing of that person for whom Christ died not, or else it changeth the subject of the question. For the Question now is, Whether God can give Pardon to a Man for whom Christ hath not satisfyed? And it is hereby answered, that He can if that man Believe? To which I reply, that he cannot, or will not, supposing that such a Man should be­lieve. For it is Christs Death that is principally requisite, and that before Believing, without which all the Believing in the World will do no good. But some will say, It may not be suppo­sed that a Non-Redeemed man should Be­lieve. I say, it may well be supposed in dispute: But I shall have occasion fullier to answer this anon.

3. Contradictions are not to be charged upon God: But to offer pardon to one for whom no [Page 106] satisfaction is made, (Consideratis Considerandis) is a contradiction, Ergo, &c. An effect without its necessary cause, is a contradiction: But a Par­don without satisfaction (which is the thing here supposed to be offered) is an effect without its necessary cause, Ergo, &c. The satisfaction must be given to God and Accepted by him, before the fruits of that satisfaction can be (seriously and in plain dealing) offered to the Sinner, that by Acceptance they may become his.

Arg. III. A naturâ Objecti, viz. beneficii oblati.

If it be a Christ who hath satisfied for their sin, who is offered to men to be Received or Believed in, then Christ hath satisfied for the sins of all to whom God doth offer him. But it is [a Christ who hath satisfied for their sin] who is offered to men to be Received, Ergo, &c.

1. Here it will be easily yielded, I suppose, that Christ is offered to the Non-Elect. 2. That himself is the principal Object of this Faith, and his Benefits the consequential. 3. That he is offered to them as a Redeemer and Saviour. 4. That he doth not offer to Redeem them by suffering again. 5. That without suffering for them, he cannot be a Redeemer for them. 6. And therefore he is offered to apply the Benefits of his Death, by actual Justifying, Adopting, Sanctify­ing and Glorifying them. 7. And therefore it must needs follow, that it is presupposed the rest of the work is already done, viz. Satisfaction: Or else Christ is not offered to men as a Redeemer and sufficient Saviour; but he is offered to them for a Redeemer and sufficient Saviour; therefore as one that hath satisfied for them. For he never [Page 107] offered to pardon any Man without satisfaction for his Sins first made. So that the contrary makes Christ either to be offered to Men not as a Redeemer and Saviour, or as one to redeem and save them without dying and satisfying for them both which are untrue and unsufferable Consequents.

Arg. 4th. Ab effectu Universali ad Causam.

If all Men be delivered from the legal necessity of Perishing everlastingly, which was brought on them by the meer breach of the first rigorous Law, then Christ hath suffered and satisfied for all: But the Antecedent is true: Therefore so is the Consequent.

I suppose none will question the Major propo­sition, i. e. the Consequence: Or imagine that there is any other way of freedom from the Le­gal Necesity of Perishing besides Christs satisfacti­on: If they should, the Scripture doth afford full and frequent Testimonies against them.

For the Minor, or Antecedent of the Major, 1. Understand, that I speak not of a deliverance from all necessity of perishing, even for their Sin against the Law: For there may be necessitas Consequentiae which is but necessitas Logica vel Con­clusionis à praemissis Praescientiae & Lecreti Divini, which may remain; & necessitas ex rejectione reme­dii, follow, 2. And I speak not of actual re­mission of Mens Sins against the Law, as if Christ had pardoned all. But I say, all Men are deli­vered from that necessity of Perishing, which the Tenour of the first Law (as standing alone sine lege remediante) did impose. If Men perish now it shall not be meerly, because they did not per­fectly [Page 108] obey: Whether you respect Adams Sin imputed to them, or any Sin of their own consi­sidered meerly as against the Law of Works: Whether this liberation be by a proper Abro­gation of the first Law: upon satisfaction under­taken) (as my Reverend Friend Mr. G. Lawson maintains in some Papers to me) or only by a Relaxation and Remission Per Legem Remediantem, i. e. an Act of Oblivion or Grace, (as I judg) the matter is of no great Moment, nor fit now to be debated: But that God condemneth no Man in the World, directly or meerly because he did not perfectly obey, and because the Law remains without remedy, which saith [obey per­fectly and live] or [he that ever Sinneth shall dye] is plain from all that hath been said already, and from many other plain Texts of Scripture, 1. If Christ command his Gospel to be preached to all (every Creature in the World viz. Rational) that is, Pardon and Life to be offered them, then they remain not under that Legal necessity of pershing, (viz, because all that Sin must dye,) But the Antecedent is proved ergo, &c. 2. If God have given by his New Testament or Law, a conditional pardon to all, then they are not un­der that meer Rigorous Law sine remedio: But &c, ergo, &c. 3. It is impossible that Men should be under the precept of the Gospel, and the meer remediless rigor of the Law of Works both at once: But multitudes of Non-Elect are under the precept of the Gospel Ergo, &c. The Minor is undeniable: It is their duty to be­lieve. The Major is as plain: For the remedi­less rigor of the Law, (I mean the terror of the Law as standing alone, without the Law of Grace [Page 109] to remedy its obligation) saith, Cursed is he that doth not all things, &c. Cursed is he that once Sin­neth: The Gospel saith, Blessed is he that believeth though he hath Sinned a thousand times: Or, he that believeth though a Sinner, shall not dye, nor come into Condemnation: And it commandeth Men to re­ceive Christ as a Saviour, and so to believe that they may not perish. 4. Gods merciful dealing with the very Pagans shews that they are not un­der the meer rigor of the Law of Works: 1. The mercies themselves, 2. The use and end of them shews this, 1. It is not denied (by any that fear to deny God the acknowledgment of his mercies) but that wicked Men even Pagans, have many and great mercies from God. And its undeniable that all those mercies are incon­sistent with the rigorous execution of the threat­ning of the first Law: And therefore that Law is not rigoronsly executed on them. And there­fore it is relaxed to them. And God will not re­laxe or dispense with his Law, but upon a valua­ble consideration, by which the ends of the Law may be attained. 2. And the end and use of these mercies (viz. the use that God requires them to make of them) is to lead Men to repentance, and to return to God from whom they are faln. And such mercies were never given according to the Covenant of Works, but only according to the Covenant of Grace, which is founded in Christs Blood. I do but touch on this because I think anon to speak of it more largely. 5. All Gods descriptions of Judgment in Scripture shew that no Men are under the meer Law of Works, as remediless. Men are not then examined meerly whether ever they Sinned, nor accused meerly [Page 110] as Sinners: But the Question will be of that Sin in Specie which consisteth in refusing to repent or believe, or abusing that mercy which should have led them to repentance. Mat. 25. It is for not im­proving their Talents (which is not the legal reason, as the Law of Works is alone) or for not loving and cherishing Christ Jesus in his Mem­bers: It is for not knowing God, nor obeying the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is true that all their Sins also against the Law shall cause their condemnation; for they were never par­doned: But that is consequentially because they abused the Grace that should have recovered them; and so the Wrath of God abideth on them, that would not yield to his means for removing it. I no where read, that God will make this Rigorous Law alone, the Norma Judicii, and pass sentence on any meerly on these terms [If thou have never Sinned thou shalt be saved, else thou shalt be condemned] so that if we have no dis­covery what way or on what terms in special God will judg them that hear not of Christ; yet we have a plain discovery of the Negative, that he will not deal with them on the forementioned terms of the sole Covenant of Works: And consequently for the affirmative we are sure in general, that he deals with them upon terms of Grace, i. e. Mercy contrary to their desert More of this may be added anon.

Arg. 5. Ab aequitate novae Legis Credendi Debi­tum Constituentis.

The Faith which God requireth of Men to their Justification, hath not a feigned or deceiving object: But it should have such an object if Christ have not satisfied for all who are [Page 111] commanded to belie [...] ergo, &c. Or t [...]s; if Christ have not satisfied for all who are com­manded to believe in him to Justification, then the Faith commanded them should have a feigned or deceiving object. But the Faith commanded them hath not a feigned or deceiving object ergo, &c.

All the proof requisite is of the consequence of the Major Proposition. And here we must first know what the justifying Act of Faith is, and then what the object must be, and then the consequence will manifest it self, Divines are not agreed what the justifying Act of Faith is, some think it must be but one Act, and therefore it must be placed but in one faculty: Of these some place it only in the understanding, as Camero and many others: Some only in the Will as Amesius and some few with him. Some and most place it in both faculties and so in divers Acts (and that rightly). And inded it hath divers Acts in each faculty: For as it is more then one particu­lar Truth or exunciation which is the object of Assent, and therefore must have divers Acts of Assent; so it is in more then one shape and pro­fitable respect that the Goodness of the object is presented to the Will, and therefore it must there have several Acts, as consent, affiance, &c. Now let us first enquire after the Acts of the understanding; where I will meddle with none but what is ordinarily by Divines asserted to be justifying or prerequisite thereto. And 1. I will let that pass which Dr. Twiss makes the first Act, viz. To believe Gods word to be true: For if it be not known what that word is here is no ma­terial object of Faith; but the formal object [Page 112] alone. 2. I will pass over the duty of repenting, which Dr. Twiss saith is next required (con­trary to the usual Doctrine) though it is mani­fest that repentance it self as a means to remission, cannot be required but on supposition of satis­faction for Sin. The common answer to the Arminians [Quicquid tenemur credere verum est, &c.] Is, We are all bound to believe that Christ died for all that will believe in him. See what Twiss saith against this Answer in Piscator Vindic. de promiss. lib. 2. Part 2. Sect. 20. Page 475. (Vol. Parv.) 1. Men are not supposed first to be be­lievers, and then Christ to dye for them; nor hath died at random without determining in quo­rum Loco, in whose stead, and left it to their Faith to determine afterwards. He hath not said, either, if thou believe I will die for thee? Or if thou believe, that Death which I have un­dergone shall be tui loco, in thy stead, or for thy Sins, Mans Sin being the loco causae meritoriae of Christs sufferings, it must be determined whose Sins he should suffer for before he suffer: For the meritorious cause is before the effect. And therefore Christ died for them, before they are believers; for else how did he procure them grace to believe. Not only Davenant hath well cleared this (in his dissert de redempt) but Twiss (ubi super P. 474.) could say, Neque enim hujus propositionis veritas [Christus est Redemptor Noster] est veritas consequens fidem nostram: Nec ejus falsitas est falsitas consequens infidelitatem nostram sed antece­dens: Antecedens inquam natura in genere causae mo­ralis, nempe meritoriae; non autem in genere causae Physicae: Quod eo tantum addo, quoniam quod est prius natura in genere causae Physicae, impossibile est ut [Page 113] sit posterius tempore, eo quo prius est natura: At quod est prius natura in genere causae moralis & meritoriae, presertim ex libera Dei constitutione proficiscens, potest esse posterius tempore etiam eo quod est prius naturâ.

2. There must therefore be some former consi­deration of those for whom Christ died, Ante­cedent (Moraliter) to his Death: And that can be nothing, but for Sinners as such: It is therefore for all Sinners, or only for some. And the Doctrine of those that contradict me, is, that it was not indeterminately [for all that will be­lieve] but determinately [to these particular Elect Persons, [that they may believe] for whom Christ satisfied. Now then according to this Doctrine, all Men where the Gospel is preached are bound to believe that Christ satisfied for the Elect to procure them Faith and consequently justification, that by so believing themselves may be justified: But, if they should so believe, this Faith would not justifie them for whom Christ Died not? so that here is a justifying Faith Commanded, without a justifying object; as I shall fullier shew anon. 2. And whereas Dr. Twiss saith, It is only the penitent that are com­manded to believe on Christ for justification, I Answer 1. Then the Impenitent shall not be con­demned for not believing in Christ for justifica­tion (which is false) for the omission is not so much as a Sin, much less damning, if faith be not commanded them. 2. It is nevertheless their duty, because other duties (as suppose repent­ance) are first to be performed. God may con­stitute many duties at once, though they are not to be performed at once but in order. 3. Repen­tance is a change of the Mind from Sin to God [Page 114] and duty. To repent or to turn from unbelief, is the same thing with Faith. 4. If this repentance which he saith goes before Faith be sincere and saving, then sure it is not in an unbeliever and unjustified Man; if not; how comes it to give them a peculiar Right, and occasion their pecu­liar duty, of resting on Christ. 5. I shall shew anon that even repentance can be no duty (tend­ing to pardon) if Christ hath not satisfied for them.

3. Others with great confidence say, that this is it that all are to believe [that there is no other name under Heaven whereby Men must be saved but only by the name of Christ made known in the Gospel] and Men perish for not believing the necessity of a Redeemer and that Jesus is the Redeemer [Or more fully] 1. Men are to re­pent and believe the Gospel to be the word of God to contain his Will, and that Jesus Christ therein revealed is the Wisdom and power of God to Salvation. 2. That there is an insepara­ble connexion between Faith and Salvation, by Gods appointment; Gospel faith carrying a Sin­ner quite out of himself and from off his own Righteousness. 3. That there be a particular conviction by the Spirit of the necessity of a Redeemer to their Souls in particular, whereby they become weary, heavy laden and burdened. 4. A serious full recumbency, and rolling of the Soul upon Christ in the promise of the Gospel as an al-sufficient Saviour, able to deliver and save to the utmost them that come to God by him; ready, able and willing through the pre­tiousness of his Blood, and sufficiency of his Ransome to save every Soul, that shall freely give [Page 115] up themselves to him for that end, amongst whom he is resolved to be] so Mr. Owen Page. 304. 305.

Sure it is, many Acts that are expressed in all these words. But 1. As I have said, every Man that hears the Gospel is obliged to all these; though to be performed in order, and not all at once. 2. A Judas may believe the necessity of a Redeemer. 3. And that Jesus is the Redeemer. 4. That there is no other, is an exclusion, which is necessary to the Faith which justifieth; but will not justify it self. 5. As to that of repen­tance, I have answered before. 6. The Devils believe that Christ is the Wisdom and Power of God to Salvation. No Man can believe that Christ hath Power to save him, that first be­lieveth not that he hath satisfied for him. 7. The Devils may believe truly that there is an insepa­rable connexion between Faith and Salvation. But this is too general a Speech. It must be known in what respect and to what use Faith is so connexed to Salvation: And what Faith it is. No Faith is by God annexed to Salvation, but that which supposeth Christ to have satisfied for the believer. 8. Judas was convinced of the ne­cessity of a Redeemer, and was weary and heavy laden. If it be special godly sorrow and hatred of Sin, that is meant, then such are justified al­ready, and therefore were before obliged to be­lieve to justification. 9. The recumbency men­tioned is an Act of the Will of which we shall speak anon. 10. The promise is made to none that Christ died not for: For it is a promise of the benefits of his Death. 11. Christ is a sufficient Saviour, able and willing to save only those that [Page 116] he died for. Supposing that he satisfied not for any Man, he is not sufficient or willing to save that Man though he should believe. How can it be said that by the sufficiency of his Ransome he is able to save them, for whom it is no Ran­some? Indeed the sufficiency of Christs satis­faction is one principal object of that part of Faith which consisteth in Assent. But I shall shew anon, that if any Man be bound to believe Christs satisfaction sufficient to justifie him for whom it was never paid, he is bound to believe an untruth.

2. But the main answer given by Dr. Twiss and others, is, that the object of justifying Faith is not true, but good. It is Christ, whom they are bound to rest upon for Justification and Sal­vation. The truth is here are several Acts of the will requisite. The first is consent. Christ is offered to all where the Gospel is published, and it is their duty to consent to the Offer. Now if they should consent it would be an Act meerly frivolous, supposing Christ had not satisfied for them. For it is certain that he consents not to be the Head and Saviour of any such. And Mans consent without Christs, would do no good. They are commanded therefore (according to this Doctrine) to do that which if it were done would do no good.

2. The next Act is that Affiance, which some make the only justifying Act. Now according to this Doctrine this would be to many a vain Act: To rest upon Christ to save Men by his Blood which was never shed for them, is to rest on an insufficient Ground, which would deceive them. But (according to this Doctrine) Men [Page 117] are bound to rest on Christ to save them by his Blood which was never shed for them. There­fore according to this Doctrine. Men are bound to rest on an insufficient Ground, which would deceive them.

Let none say, God knows they will not rest on Christ: For we are speaking now but of the Duty. God will never make it any Mans duty to rest for Salvation on that Blood that was never shed for him; or that satisfaction which was ne­ver made for him.

But because this reacheth but to those that have heard the Gospel, the next argument shall reach further.

Arg. 6th. Ab aequitate legis cum sufficientia me­diorum in suo genere.

If Christ hath not satisfied for all, then God hath appointed Men to use those means for their recovery and Salvation, which would do nothing to recover and save them if they were used. But God hath not appointed Men to use such vain and delusory means. Ergo, &c. Here I suppose that God hath appointed to all the World some means which they are to use for their recovery. I avoid the Remonstrants ex­tream: I say not that all have sufficient means or Grace to believe, or to Salvation. And I avoid that fouler extream, which saith that Heathens are under the meer Law of works as it stands without remedy, and have no Means appointed them, or helps afforded them towards their recovery. I shall after prove that they have much mercy from Christs Blood: But now I am to prove that God hath not so left them remediless, but that he hath appointed to all Men some means of their [Page 118] recovery. And 1. It is apparent they have much of the Light and Law of Nature: They have the Book of the Creatures wherein they may read much of God. 2. They have teaching pro­vidences, Mercies and Judgments. By these they may know that there is a God, and that he is the governor of the World, true, Just, Merciful, &c. That we owe him perfect obedience; that Sin deserves his wrath. By experience they may easily know that they are Sinners, and so liable to misery: By Gods Judgments, Sickness, Death, &c. they may know that God will punish: That the Soul is immortal, and punishments and re­wards are specially in the Life to come, most Pagans do acknowledg. Gods abundant Mer­cies to them may acquaint them that he deals not with them in rigorous severity, and on terms of meer justice, but in mercy: And his not execu­ting his Judgments on them according to desert, but shewing so much mercy to them, is some kind of pardoning them. Hence they may see that some way God hath for shewing mercy to the un­deserving, and for pardoning Sinners, without any wrong to the Honour of his Justice, and Holiness, or to the ends of his Government. And hence they may see that they are not certainly help less, and remediless nor their condition desperate Though they discover not the meritorious cause they may discern Gods mercy, the principal Effi­cient moving cause. Natural self-love bindeth Men in misery to seek out after remedy, and to discover what it is, and how they may attain it. All this the Heathens have manifested to us unde­niably, in that all ages and Countries of them have confessed Gods being and Soveraignty, the [Page 119] Duty of our obeying him, and that they were Sinners and deserved his Wrath, in this Life and that to come; especially for greater Sins; and that their condition was not hopeless, but Gods mercy had a way to help them; and there­fore they plyed him with their Prayers and Sacrifices.

Arg. 1. If those that never heard of Christ are bound to take their case for desperate, then they are bound to believe an untruth; (for Christ may be discovered to them, and they saved.) But, &c. Ergo, &c.

2. If they are bound to judge their case remedi­less, then they are bound to contradict the expe­rience of Gods merciful dealing with them; (which are an actual remedy to part of their mi­sery and may give them hope of more from the same cause, if they will seek it.) But, &c. Ergo, &c,

3. If they are bound to judge their case reme­diless, or not to judge that there is some remedy; then they should not be bound to use any means, (Praying, Repenting. sending abroad to enquire after the Remedy in more knowing Coun­tries, &c.) for the attaining Remedy. But the consequent is false. Ergo, &c.

If a Star appearing brought the wise men so far to seek Christ, and if men, will travail all over the World for Riches by way of Merchandize; How diligently should men that find themselves miserable, enquire far and near for a remedy? And if it were not their duty to use means for recovery, then it is not their Sin that they do not use them. But he that dare tell them so, [Page 120] let him, for I dare not; but the contrary I dare tell them.

4. If all such men are not bound to judge their case remediable, and cureable, but hopeless; then God should lose all that common honour and service that he hath from them, and the World would be as Hell, full of nothing but ha­tred of God, and blaspheming him, and sinning to the utmost without any self-restraint. For he that hath no hope, will use no means, nor forbear any evil, but hate God as his Enemy.

5. The Ninevites discerned a remedy and some hope, and Repentance and Humiliation was Gods means, by which they were actually reco­vered, I am sure, from under some of Gods wrath, which else would have broke out on them; whether from eternal wrath, I know not; but its most probable; For they believed God, Jonah 3. 5. and Repented, Mat. 12. 41. Luke 11. 32. Yet there is no intimation that Jonah Preached Christ to them, or that they ever heard of him. Men therefore that hear not of Christ are bound to use means for remedy. And indeed the sa­tisfaction of Christ is of greater necessity to mans Salvation, than our knowledge of Christ, or Faith in him: God can save them that never knew Christ, if he will, (witness the case of In­fants; and else there were but few saved before Christs coming) but morally we may say, he cannot save them without Christs satisfaction for their Sin.

6. Acts 17. 27. It is the duty of all Pagans To seek the Lord, if happly they might feel after him and find him. And doubtless this is to seek the reco­very [Page 121] of his favour, and not to seek it in despair, as the Devils.

7. Acts 14. 17. Gods giving rain and fruitful seasons, and filling mens hearts with food and gladness, and doing them good, is his witness a­mong them. And sure it witnesseth his mercy to them, and consequently their duty.

8. Rom. 2. 4. The Holy Ghost expresly telleth us that men should know that the forbearance, long-suffering and goodness of God leadeth to Repentance; that is, is a help thereto, and mani­festeth it to be their duty to Repent: And doubt­less this Repentance is not a hellish despairing Re­pentance; (for Judgments are fitter to move to that than Mercy,) but a Repentance which is to be used as a means to recovery.

9. It is the description of wicked men, that they seek not after God, Rom. 3. 11. Psal. 14. 2 God looks to see if there be any that seeks him.

10. Many Texts in the Prophets shew it to be all mens duty to seek the Lord, in order to their finding mercy; (and to deny it, is to turn out the remnants of obedience, or all seeds of Religion from the World:) And that God calls them all to Repentance, and to that end that they may not Die, but escape his wrath and be reco­vered. And that he hath sworn That he hath no pleasure in the Death of him that Dieth, but rather that he Repent and Live. So that I think it is clear that God appointed even to those that hear not the Gospel, certain means toward their Recove­ry: Much more evident is it of all those where the Gospel is preached.

[Page 122]I say not that he commandeth all the former, or any directly to believe in Christ; but it must be understood, that all men are many degrees distant from Christ, before he draweth them ef­fectually to himself. Now the Pagans are more degrees from him than professed Christians (mostly:) It is not Christs way to bring men to himself per saltum, but by those Degrees of Recovery, which are the particular cure of their degrees of distance. One wicked man knows of Christ and doth half entertain him, but sticks at some pleasing Sin. Another knows not that he is miserable by sin, nor ever considered how to be recovered, nor ever prayed God to shew him a way to escape his wrath, nor ever heard of Christ: This latter must receive much of Christs mercy before he be brought so near to Christ as the former. Christ loved one wicked man as not being far from the Kingdom of God; and some with Agrippa, are almost perswaded to be Christians. Those that be not come so far must (ordinarily) by degrees be brought to this, be­fore they can go further. If you be in a higher room, and call your Servants to you, you intend they shall come up the stairs step by step; and if one be two stories distant from you, and another but one, the former must go up all the first stairs before he come as near you as the latter is. The Gentiles that believed not, are further off, and more strangers to God than the common Jews were. Now God hath not given them that hear not of Christ sufficient means or help to Believe (nor hath he given any believer sufficient Grace for Salvation, till he saveth him.) But he pre­scribeth some means to all men in the World [Page 123] which they are to use, to bring them nearer Christ and Faith, and to remove impediments: As to consider of what the Book of Nature and daily providences teach them of God: To study him in his mercies and Judgments. To study their own hearts till they find their Sin and misery: To use all their interest and utmost endeavours to enquire what remedy God hath revealed to the World: To continue in Prayer, fasting and Alms deeds as Cornelius did, and to break off their Sins by repentance. These are their duties: And for not doing these, in the improvement of their Talents, they shall be condemned by Christ the Redeemer at the Bar of grace, (as opposed to that of Justice according to the sole Law of works.) And (though that belong not to this con­troversie) I doubt not but they have sufficient help which is not effectual to the doing of more in these means then they do; and so they will be left unexcusable at Judgment. Even as the Ignorant and ungodly where the Gospel is preached, have sufficient power (which is not effectual through their own wilfulness) to hear the word, to come into better company and to use more means to get Faith then they do, though they have not power or grace sufficient to believe. And the duty of hearing, &c. Goes in order before that of be­lieving.

All this being thus evinced (That God hath prescribed to all Men, means of recovery) I come to the Argument. And for the Minor I think I need not stand to prove it (That God hath not appointed Men delusory means, which if us­ed according to his appointmennt would not do any thing towards the attainment of the end) [Page 124] so apparently is such a conceit injurious to the Wisdom, goodness and faithfulness of God.

And for the Major it seems to me as plain, (That no means can do any thing to the recove­ry or Salvation of that Man, for whom Christ made not satisfaction by his Death) Supposing this means were used never so rightly.) For 1. The use of all means is but to apply or convey the benefits of Christs Satisfaction. Therefore where Christ hath made no satisfaction for a Man, there it is impossible that any means should give him to participate of the benefits of his satisfaction: At least of Pardon and Salvation. 2. Else you make a Saviour of the means, or make them more necessary then Christs Satis­faction: For if by means that Man may be saved that Christ dyed not for, then he is saved with­out Christs Death. And if God might do so by all the Non Elect, why not by all the rest.

If any say, It is certain that they will not use the means rightly and therefore will not be sa­ved; I answer 1. This shall be anon further con­sidered 2. That is nothing to the matter. The question is, Why these Men are not saved? Whether it be not for want of a right use of the means? But according to the Doctrin opposed, it is not: For no means could save them, if they were never so well used. 1. No Prayer can be heard if satisfaction be not first made for the Sins of the Petitioner. 2. Repentance can be no means, but only a Concomitant of desperation if satisfaction for Sin go not before it. 3. Faith is but resting for Salvation on one that never re­deemed the Person, and so cannot save him, if satisfaction for that Person go not before it. [Page 125] 4. Hope would be wholly ungrounded, and de­ceitful like the hopes of the wicked, if there were no satisfaction. 5. Love to Christ as our Redeemer, and gratitude for satisfaction, would be a mistaken Act, as being for a mercy never re­ceived. 6. Nay should the Non-redeemed live as holily as any Saint on Earth, yea as innocent­ly as an Angel, it would not save him; because of the guilt which he hath already contracted. So that by this Doctrin all the means which God hath appointed most Men for their pardon and Salvation, would be delusory and vain if never so well performed: Which is not true, nor tolle­rable.

Arg. 7th. A veritate promissionis, & fidei condi­tionalitate.

If Christ satisfied not for all those to whom God promiseth pardon and Life on condition of believing, then God maketh promises which he would not, nor could he fulfill though the con­dition were performed. But the consequent is false: Therefore so is the Antecedent.

There is nothing here requires any proof but the consequence of the Major proposition: And that is proved thus. God would not nor could give pardon and Life to any Man for whom Christ hath not satisfied. Therefore the consequence is good. 1. Else God should give pardon and Life without a Redeemer: Which he will not. 2. And he should do that which in the Judgment of most Divines he cannot do: (Not through im­potence, but because of the inconvenience and unfitness of the thing:) For though he can al­ter [Page 126] the nature of the Creatures, and so make that to be fit which now is unfit, yet stante rerum na­turâ he cannot make those things fit, which ex natura rei are unfit: Nor can God do that which is unfit. And if it had not been unfit for the su­pream Rector of the World to pardon Mans Sin without satisfaction, God would not so dearly have satisfied his own justice. Yea all say, that quoad potentiam ordinatam, God would not for­give Sin without satisfaction, whatsoever he might have done quoad potentiam absolutam. Now how gross is it, for any Man to imagine, that God should make so solemn a promise, in form of a Law of Grace, that he will pardon and save Men if they will believe, when if they could and should believe, he neither would nor could pardon or save them, for want of satisfaction to his Justice! Yea that he should require his Mi­nisters so importunately, and unweariedly to in­treat Men in his name to believe and be recon­ciled to him, and to tell them from him Man by Man [If thou wilt believe thou shalt be saved] When yet if he did believe he should not be sa­ved.

Object. But if he should believe then he is one that Christ satisfied for; and therefore should be saved.

Ans. The Persons are determined of long ago for whom Christ satisfied. Either he hath satis­fied for me or he hath not, before my Faith. If he have not, then my Faith will not cause him to satisfie for me, either by suffering again, or [Page 127] by making that satisfaction to have been paid for me, which was not.

Object. But it is a thing that never will be, for one to believe for whom Christ did not satisfie: And therefore it is a thing not to be supposed.

Ans. 1. Things may and must be supposed in dispute that never will be. That the Elect should have the desert of their Sin, or be unredeemed, or be forsaken of God, or deprived of any mer­cy which God will give them, are all things that never will be: And yet a Christian may argue on supposition they had been or should be, to raise his thankfulness: What if God should have denied me his Grace? Or his Redemption? Or let me perish in my Sin, and State of nature? What a Case would my Sin have brought me under.

2. If it be a thing not to be supposed in dis­pute, that a Man should believe for whom Christ satisfied not, then it is because it implieth a con­tradiction. (Else it may be supposed.) But it implieth no contradiction, Ergo, &c.

Object. It is a contradiction: Because Christ pur­chased Faith for all those for whom he satisfied; and therefore for a Man to believe for whom Christ purchased not Faith is a contradicti­on.

Ans. 1. I shall take it as a groundless fancy till it be proved, that Christ purchased Faith to be eventually certainly given to all those for whom he satisfied. 2. If he had, this argument [Page 128] is not from satisfaction as such, but as it is me­ritorious of Faith. 3. still it is no contradiction, because it implyeth no contradiction for a man to believe without that Grace which Christ hath purchased; though it be a thing that will never be done. 4. They that will still affirm the contrary do the more destroy their own Cause. For they then assert, that all Gods commands by his Laws and Ministers to the unredeemed, (as they sup­pose them) for believing in Christ, do require meer impossibilities, and such contradictions as are not to be so much as supposed in dispute, which I think few sober men will grant; but rather avoid that opinion that is the ground of such an assertion. 5. And (which is more) the same absurdity will follow, as to all other means whatsoever, (as well as Faith) which God hath prescribed to such men for pardon and salvation; (as they are means) and so bring this reproach on the whole New Law, as made to all such Men.

Object. But the same may be said against Gods Foreknowledge or Decree. For if God Fore-know or Decree that men shall certainly perish, then it may as well be said, that though they should be­lieve, God neither would nor could save them.

Answ. 1. As to the Power of God, it is not straitened by his Decree. It follows not [God will not do such a thing, therefore he cannot,] The same Divines whom I now argue against, use to argue thus about Physical Predetermina­tion [Gods Determination of his own will, de­stroyeth not his Power or liberty to the contrary [Page 129] act; therefore his determination of our wills, destroyeth not our Power or Liberty to the con­trary acts] whereby they grant that God can save those that he decreeth not to save; and so can give them Faith. &c. and that he is still free to do it or not do it.

Object. If he should believe and be saved, whom God hath foreknow nor decreed to be condemned for Unbelief, then God should be deceived or change. But it is impossible for God to be deceived or change; therefore it is impossible for him to be­lieve and be saved whom God hath foreknown or decreed to condemn for unbelief.

Answ. It is a vicious Argument. There's more in the conclusion than in the premises. No more will follow but this, [therefore he will not believe and be saved whom God, &c.] not [it is impossible] for God never foreknew or decreed that it should be impossible for him to believe and be saved, but only that he would not eventually believe and be saved.

2. When I speak (before in the Argument) of Gods will, it is not of his will of Decree, but of his will as he is in the relation of Rector per Leges and so giveth that Salvation as executor of his Laws and Sentence, which by his Laws he first gave Right to. God as Rector and Legisla­tor neither will nor can give Salvation to any that Christ dyed not for, if they should believe: But God as Legislator or Rector would give sal­vation to all that Christ Dyed for if they believe, though it were supposed that he had foreknown or decreed that such men would not believe. On­ly [Page 130] it would follow that God was mistaken▪ And therefore such a thing will never come to pass▪ for God will not be mistaken. It is God as [...]e­gislator to whom it belongs to be true, in mak­ing good his promises, which is the thing in Question.

3. The want of an expiatory sacrifice doth morally necessitate the Damnation of Man, though he should believe both in respect of the Law of works (as [...]hrists Death is Causa necessaria libera­tionis; as want of a Ransome may be said to ne­cessitate a Captives perishing) and properly in respect to the new Law, whose Penalty is, 1. Non-liberation. 2. And a sorer punishment. For the chief cause of that Non-liberation or Non-salvation must needs be the defect of that which should be the chief cause of Deliverance and Salvation rather than the defect of (Faith) a subservie [...] cause or condition which ever sup­poseth th [...] former cause. If two men at Christs bar be [...]leaded as lyable to Damnation; and it be [...]d to one [Thou hast no Right to Salvation for Christ never Dyed for thee] and to the other, [thou hast no right, because thou didst not believe; is not the former more valid, then the latter; or as valid: But to say, [Thou hast no right because God did decree the contrary is not right arguing. 4. We must not argue a minus notis, as the Decrees are, as shall be shewed.

Arg. 8th. A Causa pereundi negativè.

If Christ hath not satisfied for all men, then the cause of mens perishing is for want of an ex­piatory [Page 131] s [...]cri [...]i [...]e But the want of an expiatory [...] is not the cause of mens [...] there­fore Christ hath satisfied for all. By [...] cause▪ I mean not the meritorious cause, for that no doubt must be some sin of Man:) And I suppose that Unbelievers are not condemned according to the first Law of works▪ as standing without Remedy, that is, not meerly because they did not perfectly obey; but at the Redeemers bar, because they believed not, and would not have Christ to Reign over them, or because they im­proved not their Talents of Grace, (that is, of mercy given contrary to desert) And of those that hear the Gospel, this is undenyable; (and I think it is certainly true of all others.) So that it is perishing in reference to a Gospel Judgment at the Mediators Bar that we mean; and speci­cially in a comparative sence: And by [cause] I mean, the Reason of their perishing to be al­ledged: So that if you ask, seeing all are equally condemned by the Law of works, and mercy hath found out a Remedy, what is the reason that this man is condemned at the Redeemers Bar, when that is acquit? Or that this Man (Judas) is not delivered and saved as well as that (Peter?) Is it because Christ Dyed only for one, or that one only believed and the other refused Christ? Here according to the Doctrine which denyeth Universal Satisfaction, it must be said that either the only or the principal rea­son that men perish when others are saved, is for want of an expiatory sacrifice, or satisfaction for their Sin; i. e. because they had no Redeemer when others had, or no Christ to Die for them. [Page 132] But this is contrary to the Scripture. The con­sequence is evident, that it is more principally, the want of a Saviour or satisfaction then the want of Faith that is the reason of their perishing, if Christ satisfied not for them. 1. Because satis­faction is prerequisite to the efficacy or usefulness of Faith: Sed non è contra. 2. Satisfaction hath the greatest work to do, and is the greatest cause: And faith hath a far and a lower work; and is a lesser cause, or indeed no cause at all, but a meer condition. 3. God could not fitly save Sin­ners without satisfaction: But he could, if he had pleased, have saved them for that satisfaction, without a personal Faith as he doth Infants, and as he saved the Church before Christs Incarnation, without that Faith which now justifieth. viz. Be­lieving that this Jesus is the Christ; and without believing in any Articles of our Creed. If two Men be mortally sick, and one be healed, and the other not, because one had a costly Cordial, and the other had none prepared for him, but only a nonimal offer without the thing; though this Man refuse that nominal or feigned offer, yet the chief cause why he was not healed was the want of the medicament, rather then his refusal.

And for the Minor, its plain through the whole New Testament that the cause of Mens perish­ing is not for want of an expiatory Sacrifice, but for want of Faith to receive the Redeemer and his benefits, Mat. 23. 37. How oft would I have gathered thee, &c. ye would not, Isa. 5. 4. What could have been done more to my Vineyard, &c. Mat. 24. 4. 5. Tell them which are bidden, behold I have prepared my dinner. My Oxen and Fatlings are killed and all things are ready [Page 133] Come unto the Marriage. But they made light of it, &c. verse 8. The Wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy, i. e. There is no want on Christs Part, his Sacri­fice and satisfaction is sufficient: But they lost the benefits for want of believing, Mat. 25. 1. 2. All the Virgins might have been accepted at the Marriage, if their own sloath had not shut out the foolish, verse 14. All the Servants had Talents (mercies purchased by Christs Death) but it was, not well using them that condemned one. Men treade under Foot the Blood of the Cove­nant wherewith they were sanctified: And deny the Lord that bought them, Mens destruction is of themselves. But in God (through Christ) is their help. All the Scripture shews this, that Men perish for their rejecting a Redeemer and not for want of the Price of Redemption: For quoad pretium, Christ hath taken away the Sins of the World.

Arg. 9th. A Sufficientià pretii pro omnibus.

If Christ died for all Men quoad sufficientiam pretii, then he hath satisfied for all. But he died for all Men quoad sufficientiam pretii Ergo, &c. The Minor is maintained by the generality of our Ancienter Protestant Divines, who use ordi­narily this distinction to solve the doubt, whe­ther Christ died for all? viz. he died for all sufficiently, and for the Elect only effectually. And indeed this one distinction rightly under­stood, and this answer thence fitted, is most full and apt for the resolution of the question. The Schoolmen go the same way.

[Page 134]The consequence of the Major proposition is acknowledged by our late most rigid Anti-Armi­nians, who on that reason do deny the Minor. For our new Divines have utterly forsaken the old common opinion, and in stead of saying that [Christ died for all Men sufficienter] They will not so much as say that [His Death was sufficiens pretium pro omnibus] But only that [It is sufficient to have been a price for all.] For all our former Divines (and the most of these times; so far as I can discern) who acknowledg that Christ died for all Men quoad sufficientiam pretii, and for the Elect quoad efficaciam; they say the same, and as much as I; and therefore I need not say much more to them. For Christ cannot dye for Men sufficienter and yet not die for them at all, or not satisfie for them. I may well take up with this one argu­ment. If Christs Death be a sufficient price for all, then it is a Price for all: But Christs Death is (by their confession) a sufficient Price for all: Therefore it is a Price for all. Here understand that it is first in order of nature a Sacrifice expia­tory, or a satisfaction, before it is meritorious of further benefits, or is a Price for them. Had it not been to satisfie Justice, God would have been so far from taking his Sons Death for meri­torious, that he would have been utterly dis­pleased in it: For he delighteth not in the Death of him that dieth; how much less of the inno­cent; and lest of all of his only Son.

Note here also in what sence we say, Christs Death is sufficient, and in what sence it is called effectual: There is a double effect of Christs Death, and so a double efficacy, and so a double sufficiency to those effects. The first effect is to [Page 135] be a satisfaction to the offended Justice of God, and a demonstration of his legal Justice. The sufficiency to this effect was in the dignity of the Person, and greatness of the suffering, supposing Gods voluntary Acceptation of it, instead of the Sinners own suffering. The efficacy im­mediately followed the suffering: Yea it went long before it, upon the undertaking and the acceptation as in Moral Causes it is not unusual. The 2d. sort of effects, are more remote, even the actual good of the Sinner: Of these some are general and common, (as the freeing of all Men from that necessity of perishing, which lay on them by the Curse of the first Law as it stood without remedy, &c.) And so Christs Death is sufficient for all and effectual too. Some fruits of his Death are special and follow the perfor­mance of the condition imposed on us (Faith and Repentance) such are Pardon, Justification, Adoption, Sanctification, Glorification. These being the main effects of Christs Death which Scripture most frequently mentioneth, and to which the rest are but general preparatives, there­fore our Divines use to call these peculiarly [Re­demption] and [the Effects of Christ Death] and they say his Death is effectual, when these effects are produced. And so I conclude that as to the first effect of satisfaction to God, Christs Death is both sufficient and effectual for all: Or else he could not be said to die for all, quoad sufficienciam pretii. For it is impossible that Christ should intend it as a Price, and make it a sufficient Price, and yet that God should not accept it as such: Seeing Christ is God; and the will of the Father and the Son is one. And the like I [Page 136] say of the General Common benefits. And as for the great particular special benefits of Pardon and Sanctification and Glory. I say Christs Death is sufficient for all; but effectual only for the Elect. And this must needs be the meaning of our forementioned Divines. For the sufficiency to Justification and Salvation, containeth the efficacy and effect in point of satisfaction.

But our new more rigid Divines will make me more work: And therefore to them I must forme my Argument otherwise, or else they will say, I beg the question: With them therefore I argue thus.

If Christs Death be sufficient for all, then Christ satisfied for all: But Christs Death is suf­ficient for all: Ergo, &c.

In these terms they use to acknowledg the Mi­nor proposition themselves. And as to the several effects, 1. They frequently say that Christs Death is sufficient for the Pardon and Salvation of all Men in the World, if they will believe. Where the Words [if they will believe] must needs be referred to the effect [Pardon and Sal­vation] and not to [sufficient:] For Mans be­lief addeth not to the sufficiency of Christs Death. Nor will Faith make it sufficient, if it were not so before. The sufficiency goes before Faith: But that which is sufficient to justifie men, shall not actually do it till Men believe 2. They say, that Christs Death is sufficient ut esset pretium pro om­nibus, to have been a Price for all. But then they say, that it is not sufficiens pretium a sufficient price for all, because no price for all. Now I shall prove that both their concessions do warrant my consequence; and, 1. That If Christs Death be sufficient for the Pardon of all, if they would be­lieve, [Page 137] then he hath satisfied for all; and it was all Mens Sins that procured his punishment, and which he bore on the Cross: Or that Christs Death is insufficient to the Pardon of any one for whom he hath not satisfied. 1. That which hath not sa­tisfied offended Majesty, is not sufficient to the pardon of Mans Sin though he should believe. But Christs Death (As these Men say) Hath not satisfied the offended Majestie: Therefore it is not sufficient, &c. He that denieth the con­sequence must hold, that Sin may be pardoned without Christs satisfaction 2. That which leaveth the great impediment of Mens Remission unre­moved, and not removeable by Faith, is not suf­ficient to the Pardon of Men, though they should believe. But Christs Death, if it be not suffered for Men, o [...] have not satisfied for their Sin, doth leave the great impediment of remission unre­moved, and not removable by Faith: Therefore it is not sufficient to the pardon of these Men though they should believe.

The impediment I mean, is in a word all that which did necessitate or require satisfaction: That Faith, cannot satisfie God instead of Christs Death, is undeniable: Nor yet can it make that satisfaction or be mine that was never made for me. There is neither in the nature of Faith, nor in the Office which God hath appointed it, any sufficiency to be instead of a Redeemer, or satisfaction. And therefore it is not merely nor chiefly for want of faith that such would perish, but through the insufficiency of Christs Death. If they shall still say, that it is not to be supposed that the Non­redeemed should believe: I Answer: Do not they suppose it themselves when they say that, [Page 138] the Death of Christ is sufficient for the Pardon and Salvation of all Men, if they would believe.

3. That which leaveth the strongest Faith (supposing it were) both without ground, and use or profit. is not sufficient to remission or Sal­vation, though Men should believe: But so doth Christs Death, if it be not suffered for Men, and have not satisfied for them: Ergo, &c. 1. If all the Faith in Christ that is in all Men in the World were confined to one Man, it would not do the least good to his Justification or Salvation, if Christ have not satisfied for him as is already proved. 2. Nay indeed such a Faith would be but an ungrounded fancy or presumption. To expect pardon from a satisfaction that was never made for me, is a vain expectation.

4. If Christs Death have no more conducibili­ty, or virtue for any Mens remission and Salvati­on, then if he had never died at all; then it is not sufficient to Pardon those Men if they will believe. But if Christ hath not satisfied for Men, his Death hath no more conducibility or vertue for the Remission of those Mens Sins, or for their Salvation then if he had never died at all: Therefore his Death is not sufficient to the Par­don or Salvation of those Men, though they should believe.

The Major is clear: The Minor is proved, in that satisfaction is the first and great effect of Christs Death, and where that is not made, there is nothing done by it that can any way Conduce to the Remission of Sin: And if that satisfaction be not already made, it never will be; for there is no more Sacrifice for Sin. So that methinks I may confidently conclude, that they deny the Suffici­ency [Page 139] of Christs Death for the Pardon of all Mens Sins though they should believe, who say, he did not suffer and satisfie for all.

And that this is unsound Doctrine I will now prove only by their Judgments who are the owners of it: 1. Mr. Owen of Redemption Lib. 4. c. 1. Page 173. saith, [The maintaining and declaring of this (dignity, worth, precious­ness and infinite value of the Blood and Death of Jesus Christ) is doubtless especially to be con­sidered: And every opinion that doth but seem­ingly clash against it, is exceedingly prejudiced, at least deservedly suspected; yea presently to be rejected by Christians, if upon search it be found so do [...] really and indeed, as that which is inju­rious and Derogatory to the merit and honour of Jesus Christ. The Scripture also to this purpose is exceeding full and frequent in setting forth the Excellency and Dignity of his Death and Sa­crifice, &c.] And Page 174. [But its true worth consists in the immediate effects products and Issues of it, with what in its own nature it is fit and able to do,] Is it not therefore strange that this Author should (Page 175. 176) say, [1. That this fulness and sufficiency of the merit of the Death of Christ, is a foundation for the general publishing of the Gospel to all Nations, with the right that it hath to be preached to every creature; because the way of Salvation which it declares is wide enough for all to walk in: There is enough in the remedy it brings to light to heal all their diseases, to deliver them from all their evils, If there were 1000 Worlds the Gospel of Christ might on this ground be Preached to them all, there being enough in [Page 140] Christ for the Salvation of them all, if so be they will derive vertue from him by touching him by Faith; the only way to draw [refreshment from this Fountain of Salvation] [2. That the Teachers of the Gospel in their particular Con­gregations, &c. may from hence justifiably call upon every Man to believe, with assurance of Salvation to every Man in particular upon his doing. knowing and being fully perswaded of this, that there is enough in the death of Christ to save every one that shall so do.] To all which I briefly reply 1. I have disproved this in what is said before; and shewed that Christs death cannot be affirmed sufficient for any Mans Salva­tion, for whom it never satisfied, though he should believe 2. How can he say [there is suffi­cient merit] where there is no merit at all. The Death of Christ hath no merit as to the Par­don of Devils, or any for whom it was never suf­fered. 3. How can he call any thing [a way of Sal­vation wide enough] which presupposeth not Christs satisfaction for the person? Can Men walk to Heaven by Faith without a Redeemer? Or is there such a true Faith? 4. How can he truely say [there is enough in the remedy] Which is as to them no Remedy? Is there enough in that remedy to heal the Devils if they believed? 5. How can there be enough in it, or how can it be any remedy, to heal all diseases, and deliver from all evils, before it have made satisfaction? Must it not do that before it can heal any other disease? 6. How can he say, [There is enough in Christ for the Salvation of them all, if so be they will derive virtue from him by touching him by Faith?] Must not the [Page 141] application be first to God by satisfying him be­fore it can be made to Man by believing? Is not the Salvation of Men the Fruit of Christs dying for them? And can there be the effect without the cause? Hath Christ virtue to be derived for the saving of any that he died not for? Will be­lieving make Christ to die for them that he hath not died for already. 7. In plain truth your ground of preaching Christ to all, is your foreknowledge that only the Elect will believe, and not the suf­ficiency of Christs Death, knowing that there is nothing in Christs Death to save any man that he did not Die and Satisfie for, though he should be­lieve never so strongly.

2. But let us come to the first effect of Christs Death, and see whether it were sufficient to that, viz. to be a satisfaction for the Sins of all: And here they do maintain that it is only materially or aptitudinally sufficient, (as the money which my rich neighbour hath in his purse, is sufficient to pay my debt, which he resolveth never to pay: Or as the Ransome paid for one man, was enough to have redeemed another also, if it had been paid for him.) And what the better is he for whom it was never paid? And what diffe­rence (as to their ransome) between most men, and Devils? For the form of a satisfaction or Price for all, they affirm, that Christs Death hath it not sufficiently or at all. These men must once more therefore new moddel their Doctrine, or reform their expressions, and give over saying that [Christs death is sufficient for the pardon of all if they would believe,] for that is notorious­ly false (according to them;) seeing the effect­ing of satisfaction, is that wherein the sufficiency [Page 142] of it lyes as to remission: But they must hereaf­ter say only that [Christs Death was sufficient to have procured pardon for all men, if he would have suffered it for all.] And I will give them this encouragement so far to innovate, viz. Though they speak not only against Scripture and the Primitive Fathers, and the Church of Christ in all Ages, and the generallity of our most se­vere Protestant Divines; yet because, 1. It is against Arminius, an adversary: 2. And tendeth to extreams. 3. And so is agreeable to Nature; they shall perhaps with applause, at least with far less wounding of their Reputation, raise up these novelties, than a Sober, Moderate, Judicious Divine shall beat them down again, or revive any one Truth which extreams have clouded, laid by and trodden under foot.

But I will not stay here to shew the absurdity of mens so confident asserting Christs death to be aptitudinally sufficient for so many for whom it was never suffered, seeing I shall deal on this purposely in the next Argument: But how use­less this sufficiency is, and no foundation at all for our general offer of Christ and mercy to all if they will believe, may be seen in what is said before. And how useless and insufficient it is to encourage any man to believe, we shall yet further have occasion to shew anon. In the mean time, I think the unsoundness of their Doctrine, who deny Universal Satisfaction is manifest hence, in that it fully overthrows the sufficiency of Christs Death for the pardon of all mens sins if they should believe, which yet the generality of our Divines do maintain.

Arg. 10th. Ab absurdo: & injurià coutrariae Doctrinae in Christum.

If Christ have paid a Price of satisfaction, suf­ficient for the sins of all the World, and yet paid it not for all the World, then he suffered much in vain. But he suffered not any thing in vain. Ergo, &c.

The Minor none will deny that is a Chri­stian.

The consequence of the Major is proved ad hominem by the concessions of them of the contra­ry Opinion.

For, 1. No Reformed Divine doth deny but that as one part of the value of Christs sufferings was from the Dignity of the person, so the other (and a necessary part) was from the greatness of his sufferings.

2. And all conclude that there was more suf­fering necessary for the expiation of the sins of all the World than for one particular sin, or then for one mans sins; and so more necessary to expiate the sins of all men, then of the few only that are chosen: And consequently, if Christ suffered no more than was sufficient for the Redemption of the Elect, then it was not sufficient for the Redempti­on of all. And if it were sufficient for the Redemp­tion of all (materially) then it was more than was sufficient for the Redemption of the Elect. Our Divines generally disclaim and exclaim against that presumptuous fancy of the Fryers that say, Minima guttula sanguinis Christi sufficeret ad redi­mendos mille mundos. Vid. Parker de Descens. l. 3. p. 107, 108. And I meet yet with few that like [Page 144] John Geodwins conceit, of the sufficiency of Christs meer willingness and readiness to suffer, without any actual suffering. They that say, the same degree of suffering is sufficient for a thousand men as for one may, as well say next, that one sigh or groan, or one drop of Christs Blood had been sufficient for all: And next they may as well say, it had been sufficient though he had only been willing to suffer; and next, that his suffering was needless. Socinianism, if not Infide­lity, may easily creep in at this Gap.

3. And as thus it is evident that Christs suffer­ing for some, had been enough to have redeemed all, doth make him to suffer in vain as to the proper end of his suffering (viz. Expiation of Sin) so they that go this way, have not yet shewed us, to what other end or use, such great sufferings of Christ were necessary: And till they have done that we must take it as if they charged Christ with suffering in vain.

4. Moreover, the consequence is fully granted by themselves. For they accuse those that main­tain Universal Satisfaction, as making Christ to suffer in vain, if he suffered for those that after perish (though we can easily repel that vain ob­jection by shewing them many excellent ends and effects of those his sufferings.) How much more evidently do they themselves make him suffer in vain, that feign him to have suffered the same de­gree of Punishment, even enough for all the World; when yet (they say) he suffered it not so much as in the stead of all, nor as any satis­faction for their sins. We say his Death was for all, in some kind, and therefore not vain. They say, it was for them in no kind, and yet enough [Page 145] for them; and therefore he suffered Super­fluously.

Arg. 11th. Ab absurdo, & injuriâ contra Justitiam Divinam.

If Christ suffered enough for to have been a sa­tisfaction for all, and yet not for all, then God did inflict on him more sufferings than were due to him. But God did not inflict on Christ more sufferings than were due, Ergo, &c.

He that denyeth the Minor doth directly accuse God of injustice.

The consequence of the Major is proved thus: He that inflicteth that, or requireth as much for the Sins of the Elect only as is due for the sins of all the World, doth inflict and require more than is due (for there is not so much due for the sins of the Elect only as for the sins of all the World) But thus they suppose God to have done, (which is not to be supposed,) Ergo, &c. They that will fly from the force of these Argu­ments by flat denying even the Material and Hypothetical sufficiency of Christs satisfaction for all men, will fall under many and great inconveniencies before intimated and also under the force of this next Argument. (Read my Answer to their Fourth Argument as­serted.

Arg. 12th. Ab injuriosa negatione Passionum Christi.

It is very injurious to Christ for men to ex­tenuate or deny his sufferings, but so do they [Page 146] that deny that he hath satisfied for all men. Ergo, &c.

When God hath laid upon him the Iniquity of us all, and he hath born the sins of the whole World, and was a Propitiation for them, doth not that man vilifie (that I say not blaspheme) his sufferings, who shall say it is not so; he bore the Sins but of the few that are chosen; he suf­fered no more than was due to them; he paid no more than would discharge their Debt. If he that denyeth all Christs satisfaction, do sin so damnably, then sure he that denyeth the greatest part both of his satisfaction formally, and his suffering materially, doth not lightly offend. If he should sin so hainously that should deny God to be Creator of the greater part of the World, and so rob him of the honour of the most of his Workmanship, then it cannot be a trifle to deny the greatest part of Christs suffer­ings and satisfaction, and so rob him of so much of the honour of the work of Redemption, by the extenuation of his sufferings: For God hath set up the work of Redemption, as that wherein he expecteth to be as much honoured as in the work of Creation. Sup­pose the Kings Messengers, Mat. 22. should have told those whom they invited, [Though we are commanded to invite you all to the Wed­ding, yet the truth is, there is not half provision enough made ready for you all, if you should come, but yet we are commanded to perswade you all, because the King knows your minds that you will not come] should these Messengers have deserved thanks for such a Message.

Arg. 13. A Debito Amoris & gratitudinis erga Redemptorem.

If all Men do owe Love and thankfulness to Christ for his satisfying for their Sins, and for the Fruits of that satisfaction, then he hath satis­fied for all, But all Men do owe him love and thankfulness, &c. ergo, &c.

I mean, all Men that hear of Christ, are bound to love him as Redeemer, and be thankful to him for making satisfaction for them, and those that never heard of him are bound to love Deum Mise­recordem, God as merciful to them and to be thankful for those mercies which are the Fruits of Christs Death.

The Antecedent hath two Parts, 1. That all are bound to love and gratitude 2. That they owe these for Christs dying for them. And as to the debt it self. I hope few Christians will deny it: For if they do, 1. They will deny a great part of the Law of Christ, and if such a curse be denounced against him that addeth or di­minisheth, as to the Law of ceremonies, what shall be due to him that wipeth out so great a part of the Gospel at a dash? 2. It is plainly High Treason, to discharge so many of Christs Sub­jects of their Allegiance, or of the chief part of their duty, even Love and Gratitude: His Subjects I may call them, though Rebellious; because though they acknowledg him not, or not sincerely, yet he is their rightful Lord. 3. It is no­torious compliance with Satan, to say, Duty is no Duty, and that so great Duties as these; and that Sin is no Sin, and that such hainous Sins. [Page 148] 4. If tendeth most desperately to the Damnation of Souls, by drawing them to neglect these du­ties, and hardening them in impenitency when they have done. For if it be no duty to Love Christ for Redeeming them, and to be thankful for it, then it is no Sin not to love him, and not to be thankful, and if it be no Sin, they need not repent of it. 5. They will wickedly justifie Men from the Accusation of the guilt of these Sins, at the Bar of Christ, and dare any that now boldly maintain this cause in dispute, un­dertake to justifie and vindicate them at Judg­ment, and prove, that it was never their duty to love Christ, or be thankful to him for Re­deeming them, and therefore that it was not their Sin, that they did it not? This will be a harder task, then it is now to find a flourish of words which seem to prove it. 6. And worse then all this, They will condemn Christ for con­demning them for these Sins. When he hath sentenced them, [Go you cursed] For not lov­ing him and shewing it to his Members, Mat. 25. And pronounced that Man Anathema Maranatha that loves not the Lord Jesus; if these Men can prove that it was none of their duty, then they must accuse Christ and his Law of injustice, and condemn his condemnatory sentence.

2. And as they owe Christ this Love and Gratitude, so the thing that they owe it for, is his Redeeming them, or dying in their stead, or satisfying for their Sin: For 1. It is doubtless that they owe it him, not only as Creator but as Redeemer, and if so, it is ei­ther for Redeeming others, or themselves. Not only for Redeeming others: For 1. The nature [Page 149] of gratitude is to respect some benefits that our selves receive, (either in our own Persons, or in those whose welfare is part of ours) And 2. Man is naturally so near to himself, and the love of himself, so deeply rooted by God in his nature, that he naturally looks at himself before others, and values things as they respect himself. 3. Others good is no mercy to us, further then we participate with them in the benefit; Yea Divines generally conclude, that it will be so far from comforting the damned to see that the Godly are in Heaven, that it will encrease their torment. 4. Else it would lay no greater an obligation on these Men to love Christ and be thankful to him, than it doth on the Devils, that Men are redeem­ed, or than they owe God, that the good Angels are preserved while themselves are condemned. 5. Scripture not only alloweth Men to love and be thankful in reference to our selves, even for that which is good to us, but shews it to be our duty, and the nature of those affections; and that for our own mercies received, we are obliged hereto, 2 Thes. 2. 10 Men are forsaken and damned for not receiving the love of the Truth that they might be saved. How oft are the Israe­lites (all of them) Commanded to love the Lord with all their Hearts, as their Redeemer from Egypt, which was both an effect and Type of Christs work of Redemption. Deut. 6. 5. and 10. 12. and 11. 1, 13, 22. and 19. 9. and 30. 16. 20. Yea all Gods mercies as well as this deliverance from Egypt, is made, in divers of these Texts, the motive that should provoke them to love and thankfulness: And doubtless, these are all effects of the Death of Christ for them. To love for [Page 150] love and for benefits is that which Sinners do, Luk. 6. 32. Not as Sinners, but from the common humanity that is left in them. We love him, because he first loved us, 1 Job. 4. 19. This [because] is not meant only Effectivè, but also objectivè, as to Gods love. The first love of the Soul to Christ cannot be moved from the know­ledg of Christs special love to the Soul: (For 1. Love accompanieth justifying Faith in the same moment, (And indeed in some Sense is part of it) And doth not stay till the Soul dis­cern his own believing, and thence discern Gods special love. 2. There is a love of desire, which goes before the knowledg of Gods special love 3. Many a poor Christian loves Christ long be­fore they know the special love of Christ) And therefore this first sincere love must needs be raised from the apprehension of Christs excellen­cy as to us, and his general love to mankind: Which can be no other then that which is mani­fested in their Redemption.

Object: Wicked Men are bound first to believe and thtn to love, when they know by their believing that Christ died for them.

Ans. They are bound immediately in the same instant to love Christ as to believe; and not to delay their love till they try their Faith, or by discerning it get assurance of Gods favour. They are bound to accept Christ as good for them, when he is offered them: And that acceptance is essentially love, as it is said to be in the rational appetite. He that loveth not truly, believeth not truly. And how can any Man prove Gods [Page 151] special love by the evidence of a false Faith? Must Men first believe without love that by the Mark of such a Faith they may have ground for love? That will be a deceitful ground, as it is a deceitfull Mark.

Object At least, Men are bound to be humbled first, and believe that there is no other name un­der Heaven but Christs, by which they can be sa­ved; and then to rest on him, and love him.

Ans. This is answered before. If the humi­liation and Assent that they mention be proper to the Regenerate, and so be a true note of Gods special love 1. Then it will follow that other Graces go before that Faith which unites us to Christ, (Which few will grant) 2. Then Men must find special Marks Antecedent to Faith that from thence they may gather a warrant to believe: Which is false Doctrine, I think, in the judg­ment of all 2. But if these Antecedent Acts be common and such as reprobates also may per­form, then either every Man that performs them is bound to love Christ as his Redeemer (And to rest on him for pardon) Or only some: If eve­ry Man, then some reprobates are bound to love Christ as their Redeemer (And to rest on him for pardon by his Blood-shed for them) And to be thankful for his satisfaction: And then cer­tainly Christ did Redeem them by satisfying for them. If but some, then how shall any Man know that he is one of them. So that I think I may conclude, that they that deny universal satis­faction by Christs bloodshed, do leave Men no ground for their first special love to Christ as [Page 152] Redeemer: For that first love, must be raised upon the knowledg of Christs general love and mercy, or be groundless, Seeing there is no knowledg of special love and Mercy Antece­dent.

Object But how can the knowledg of Christs com­mon love cause in us a special love to him. Then we must love him first with a special love.

Ans. Christ hath a special love to us, before we have a special love to him: But we cannot know it, and therefore cannot love him for it. His special love is the efficient cause of our love to him, but not the objective or moving cause of our first love. The love of Christ is not the less because its manifestation is general. And there­fore that glorious mercy of general satisfaction, though common, not only may be, but is, the ground or motive of our first special love, if it be orderly and rightly raised: though Christs spe­cial love be the efficient.

Object Then none do love God a right at first but those that hold Universal Redemption.

Ans. 1. Yet they may love him sincerely, though they are brought to it (through the fault of their Teachers) in a disadvantageous and disorderly way, 2. Young Converts are not used so soon to be troubled with the Con­troversy of Universal Redemption. 3. I have known few in my observation, but at their first closing with Christ, they have had the same judg­ment of the Universality of Christs satisfaction [Page 153] (so as to be sufficient for all Sinners and want­ing only their own Faith to make it effectual to Remission) which I plead for. 4. It is the usu­al way of Preachers in their popular Sermons to speak far more soundly in these points then in their disputations: And indeed their way of Preaching for the Conversion of Sinners, doth plainly intimate Universal satisfaction; For they use to lay all the blame on the Wills of Sinners (and justly) as that only which can de­prive them of the benefits of Christs sufferings, and to urge them to accept him, and to let them know that their case is not left remediless and des­perate: Yea and to tell them plainly that Christs Death is sufficient for all, to pardon all their Sins be they never so many or great, and if they will believe they shall have the Fruits of it: Which is in other words▪ to say [Christ hath satisfied for all] So that upon these right grounds they use to bring Men to believe and love Christ at the first, and then they must have some longer time before they can pervert them again, by working out these apprehensions, and acquaint­ing them, that Christ hath not satisfied for all, but for the Elect only.

Object Mens first love to Christ, is not to him for what he hath done, but for what he can do for us, and as he is to us a desirable good; be­cause it is but Amor Concupiscentiae.

Ans. It is also a love of gratitude: And all the good that we can expect from him for the fu­ture, or desire him for, is but the fruit of what he hath done for us already, and therefore pre­supposeth [Page 154] it: And he that looketh for Mercy from Christ as not procured by his satisfactory sufferings, knows not the Gospel nor what he expecteth. The Gospel at its first Preaching is glad tidings, and brings news first of what Christ hath done for Men, and next, of what he will further do.

Object But it is not for Dying [for me in parti­cular] that I am first obliged to love Christ; but for paying a sufficient price.

Ans. 1. If by [For me in particular] you mean [more for me then others] I grant it: But it is for dying and satisfying for fallen Man­kind in general, of whom I am a Member. 2. I have shewed that according to this New Doctrin, Christs Death is not sufficient to pardon all, if they did repent; nor formally a sufficient price but only materially or Aptitudinally, sufficient to have been a price. Now that this can engage any to love or thankfulness is past my reach to apprehend: For it is not a benefit, (to such as for whom it was no price.) If 100 Men lie in Prison for debt, and one shall pay as much for the debt and discharge often of them as was suf­ficient to have satisfied for the debts of them all, and yet would not pay it for them, but rather give it superfluously then that they should have any benefit by it, how doth this oblige these Pri­soners to love and thankfulness to this Man? At least, not as any Redeemer or Friend of theirs? Rather they will think him envious and an Ene­my to them, that would rather cast away his Mo­ny [Page 155] (Giving for one that which was sufficient for all) then they should have any benefit by it.

Object But it is not for his Death, that Men are bound at first to love Christ and be thankful, but for the free and general offer of himself and his benesits to them in the Gospel.

Ans. 1. The negative is wicked and Unchri­stian 2. The part affirmed is a contradiction to their denial of Universal satisfaction. For Christ is offered to Men as their Redeemer only. And the Word [Redeemer] signifies 1. One that hath paid a price for them already 2. One that will recover them by the effectual convey­ance of his benefits, if they accept his offer. And the later always implies the former: The effect cannot be without its cause. He is no Redeemer to them for whom he suffered not. And he cannot be a Redeemer to them by Pardon and Salvation, for whom he hath not been al­ready a Redeemer by satisfaction. And he doth not offer to satisfie for them de futuro, a new, and therefore the offer certainly proves a gene­ral satisfaction, as is shewed before. 3. And if Christ offer himself to any Men, as their Re­deemer whom he never did Redeem, no nor can Redeem by Remission and Salvation, because he hath not first Redeemed them by price and satisfaction, charging the refusal upon them to their deep damnation, doth this oblige Men to love and gratitude? If he procure by his Death no possibility of their Salvation, but induce a ne­cessity of their deep condemnation? If he offer them the benefits of a death never suffered for [Page 156] them, (that is effects without their cause) and which he cannot give them, and destroy them for not receiving them; Is this all the obliga­tion?

Object But it is the Law of God that obligeth them to love and gratitude: And therefore they are obliged, though Christ be none of their Redeemer, and though his Death were not a benefit to them.

Ans. 1. These are duties that result ex natura rei, viz. boni oblati, & beneficii [...]ollati, and so from the Law of nature, and not from a meer posi­tive Law. Love and gratitude are not ceremo­nies, and therefore where the nature of the thing obligeth not, there is no obligation. 2. There must be an objective cause of love and gratitude, as well as an efficient, and exemplary cause; And therefore our question is only of the objective cause. God doth not alter the nature of love and gratitude by commanding them; He doth not command love that hath not good for its object (for there is no such thing in rerum na­tura) nor doth he command a gratitude that is not for a benefit.

Object But it is unknown to them whether Christ died for them or not, For ought they know he did, And therefore they are bound to love and gratitude.

Ans. 1. An unknown benefit bindeth not to love and thankfulness. 2. It is Real favours and not feigned, that Christ obligeth Men by: As it [Page 157] is real love and thanks and not feigned that he ex­pecteth from them. 3. Else that common love and thankfulness which the Non-elect do give Christ as their Redeemer, would be a mistake. 4. And when their Eyes were opened in Hell, they would repent that they loved Christ at all, and were thankful to him at all, seeing they would then discern it was upon a mistake, and for a benefit that was never given them or for them: Whereas contrarily they will be convinced then of their Sin and folly in loving Christ no more, and being no more thankful.

Yet further, that these Men are bound to love and gratitude to Christ as their Redeemer, I will add some more Scripture proof. 1. If the Non-elect are not bound to love Christ for Redeeming them or not dying for them, then the Elect are not bound to it, till they know themselves to be Elect; But the consequent is false, therefore so is the Ante­cedent. He that dare say, No Man in the World is bound to love Christ and be thankful to him for dying for him, till he know he is Elect (That is, have assurance of Salvation which so so few at­tain to at all, or at least so many Christians want) Dare say that which I dare not, Rom 5. 8. But God commended his love to us, in that while we were yet sinners Chrift died for us. Joh. 3. 16. God so loved the World, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever, &c. 1. If Gods love to the World and Sinners before Conversion, in his Redeeming them by Christ, be propounded to the considera­tion of unconverted Sinners, then it is to manifest that they owe him love again and thankfulness for it: But the Antecedent is true, therefore so is the consequent.

[Page 158]These Texts and many other do propound the consideration of Gods love, in Redeeming them, to Men before Conversion (as might abundant­ly be proved) and that must need intimate their duty of love and gratitude, or else the Law of nature is abrogated, which bindeth us to re­turn love and thankfulness for love and benefits. 2. Let me add one other Argument for the Minor (viz. that the Elect are bound to love and gratitude to Christ as their Redeemer, be­fore they know themselves to be Elect) and it is such a one, as I think, makes the case so clear, that it will be hard for the most prejudi­diced not to discern it, if they will consider it.

If the Elect are not bound to love and grati­tude for Christs Redeeming them, before they know themselves to be Elect, then they are never bound to it at all, (and so never ought to perform it) But the consequent is intollera­ble, Ergo, &c.

The consequence is proved thus. They can­not know themselves to be elect (unless by ex­traordinary Revelation) till they first know their love and gratitude to Christ for Redeem­ing them; Therefore if they are not bound to love and gratitude before they know themselves Elect, then they are never bounnd to it. The reason of the consequence is, that the same thing cannot be, [Before] and [Not before] before their knowledg of Election, and not before it. If it must go before the knowledg of Election, then they were obliged to it before (for that we are not obliged to, is no duty and that which is no duty, is no Mark of Election:) but it must go be­fore, Ergo &c.

[Page 159]The Antecedent is proved thus, There is no other sign without this love and gratitude which is sufficient to discover a Man to be Elect; Therefore no Man can know himself to be elect (by ordinary means) without the knowledg of these.

Two things will be replied, to this. 1. That Faith is before love and gratitude, and a suffici­ent sign. 2. That it may be known without signs by the Testimony of the Spirit.

To these in order. And 1. For Faith, as it is in the will and is the acceptance of an offered Christ, is the same thing with love, as love is in the rational appetite, as I have elsewhere fully proved; & Aquinas oft expresseth this love to be but velle bonum. 2. If love be distinct (as it is exercised on the same object, for else there's no question of it) Yet it is certain that it is con­comitant, and doth not in one moment of time come after Faith: Much less so long as that a Man must first by reflection discern his Faith be­fore he be obliged to love. 3. Faith is no true Faith that is not accompanied with love, and a false faith can be no true sign of Election, as is said before. The Acts of Justifying Faith in the Will are principally these two. 1. To ac­cept of Christ as he is offered; Now he is offer­ed as a Redeemer, i. e. 1. As one that for the time past hath paid the price of our Redempti­on. 2. And for the time to come will give us the benefits of it, on his own terms. Now Christ cannot be received as a Redeemer, with­out respect to both. He that receiveth him to pardon and save him any other way then by the price of his Blood already shed, doth not receive [Page 160] him as he is offered, nor as the Redeemer; And if it be necessary that he must be received in re­spect to what he hath done for us, as well as what he will do, then it is as necessary that he be loving and thankfully received. For as bonum re­cipitur volendo, which is our love; and cannot possibly be received qud bonum but lovingly; so bonum preteritum is the object of this Amor Grati­tudinis, (The benefit may remain, but the act of the benefactor is past) as bonum futurum is the object of Amor Concupiscentiae, & Bonum Presens, of Amor Complacentiae. So that no Man living can know that he hath received Christ as a Re­deemer, if he do not know that he hath lovingly and thankfully received him. And no Man can know the good that Christ will do for the future, nor receive it, without knowing the good that he hath done in his Sacrifice for the time past, and thankfully acknowledging it. 2. After ac­ceptance of an offered Christ, the next Act, is affiance (which most Divines make the Princi­pal, and some the only justifying Act) And this presupposing the loving consent, acceptance, the Velle, before mentioned, I do not need to prove, that affiance is no certain Mark of Election, without love; Nay moreover, as it presuppos­eth love, so it containeth love in its own na­ture, as every Act of the will toward goodness, must needs do. I rest on Christ as one to do me good for the future by virtue of his ransome already paid; and so here is still the double good, past and present, which affiance doth res­pect, or else it is not in Christ as Redeemer that we have affiance. 3. The like I might easily shew in respect of desire after Christ: An early Grace, [Page 161] and before which none finds a distinct certain sign of his Election: Yet goodness is its object, and love is in its nature; from whence we use the term of Amor Concupiscentiae.

Object. But you said before, that the Faith and Love of 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 [...]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, [Page 162] 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 [Page 163] 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 alls 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.

[Page 146]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 [Page 165] 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 Workmanship) But he loveth man after his Faith and Love to him as Rector per Leges, as putting on the resem­blance of goodness, and justice in civil Sense, and as he now stands in that Relation to them, in which he is by his own Law, as it were oblig­ed to do them good: Note this difference of Christs love, Prov. 8. 17. I love those that love me, and those that seek me early shall find me. So ver. 21. Luke 7. 47. Many sins are forgiven, for she loved much. If it be meant [therefore she loved much] yet it would not make against this.

[Page 166]From John 3. 19. I argue thus. If men are condemned for loving darkness rather than Light, (and Christ is this Light) then they were obliged to love Christ the Light. But, &c. Ergo, &c.

And I have shewed it is as Redeemer that he must be loved: For to Love Christ as an excellent Prophet only, that a Turk may do, for Mahomet so confesseth him to be, Mat. 10. 37. It is Christs condition propounded to all, That if they love not him better than Father, Mother, House, Land or Life they cannot be his Disciples; So that those that are not yet his Disciples, are obliged at once to love him above all, and become his Disciples. 1 Cor. 16. 22. If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ let him be Anathema, Maran-atha.

And then more specially for Gratitude (be­cause I have hitherto insisted on the other species, Love) there are many Parables in the Gospel that shew that wicked men are condemned for in­gratitude to their Redeemer, Mat. 21. 37, 40. &c. Christ convinceth his Auditors, that those un­thankful Husband-men, that refused to pay the Fruits, and killed the Son that was sent to them; (he was sent to be entertained as Redeemer) would deservedly be destroyed with a miserable destruction, and the Vineyard let out to others, i. e. that the Kingdom of God should be taken from them and given to a Nation bringing forth the Fruits thereof. And what is that Kingdom (here meant) but the Gospel? The proclaiming and offer of Christ as Redeemer, and of mercy in and with him? Mat. 22. 8. It is unthankful refusal of the feast prepared, when all things were ready, and they invited which was the unworthi­ness [Page 167] that there is mentioned, which shut out those Guests, Mat. 18. 32. Unthankfulness is intima­mated as part of the Sin of that wicked Servant, who took his fellow Servant by the throat for 100. Pence, when himself had been forgiven 10000 Talents: [I forgave thee all the debt] sig­nifieth such a mercy as Men may have that per­ish (as is plain verse 34. 35.) and yet certainly presupposeth Christs dying for them, and oblig­eth them to thankfulness: If any ask the sense of the Text, I shall give it after by it self more fitly.

Let me therefore conclude thus. That Doccrin which subverteth a very great part of Religion is not of God: But so doth this which denieth Universal satisfaction: Therefore it is not of God. The Minor is proved from what is said: It destroyeth the ground of all Mens first love to Christ for Redeeming them: It justifieth all the Non-Elect in their ingratitude and not loving Christ as their Redeemer: Besides what was said before of its destroying the use of repentance and all Means. But we shall recollect more of these consequences in the end, and shew you more fully the face of the Doctrin which I dispute against.

I have proved that all Men that hear the Gospel, owe Christ love and thankfulness for Redeem­ing them by dying for them. I should next shew that all Men in the World do owe God love and thankfulness for those mercies which are the ef­fects of Christs satisfaction: But especially those within the Church who have in the New Cove­nant, made over to them a conditional re­mission of their Sins, and adoption, and ever­lasting life, viz. If they will accept Christ with his benefits: Those that are sanctified with [Page 168] the Blood of the Covenant, and are made par­takers of the Holy Ghost and were escaped from the pollutions of the World through the know­ledg of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and and have tasted the good word of God and the Powers of the World to come, &c. Certainly these have received the fruits of Christs satis­faction for which they were bound to be thank­ful. But of those more particularly in their place.

Arg. 14th. Acertitudine fidei, & possibilitate rectè credendi.

If Christ hath not satisfied for the Sins of all, then no Man hath a sufficient ground for his first justifying Faith: (All Men are left at an utter uncomfortable uncertainty whether they may believe to Justification or not) But the conse­quent is false: Therefore so is the Antece­dent.

That which is said before doth shew so much of the grounds of this Argument, that I shall be the shorter in it now. All the doubt is of the consequence of the Major, and to clear that, I suppose it is granted that all firm, sufficient Faith for justification, must not only have a com­mand to warrant it, but also a fit object about which it must be exercised. God commandeth no Man to believe a falshood to make it become true by believing it, nor to trust to a person or promise that is not to be trusted, as being not on­ly fallible, but certainly will deceive. As for the Act of affiance or recumbency, commonly called the justifying Act, no Man can groundedly or [Page 169] comfortably rest on Christ for justification by his Blood, who doth not first know that his Blood was shed for him, and hath satisfied for him: Else he must rest on that which he knows not to be sufficient for him to rest upon: For it hath been proved that Christs death is not sufficient to justifie any for whom it was not suffered, though they should believe. He suffered not su­perfluously, as I have shewed: Take the con­fession of a Divine that for fear of Arminianism joyned Hands with the Antimonians, Maccovius colleg. disp. de justif. disp. 5. §. 22. Quoad substantiam poenae nihil olus perpessus est Christus quam per legem de­bebatur: Ne (que) enim vel Amor Patris, vel etiam justi­tia permittere potuit, plura ut filio imponerentur, quam quae illi necessariò tanquam sponsori ferenda erant; Quoad circumstantias autem, patientis personam, patiendi causam, passionis efficaciam plusquam sufficiens satisfactio Christi. Neque enim lex requirebat ut Deus moreretur, neque ut sine peccato proprio quis moreretur, neque morstalis quae suffecisset pro peccatis totius mundi, sive pro omnibus & singulis hominibus. Here he con­fesseth that Christ suffered no more than was due by Law, and than was necessary for him to suffer as Sponsor: And yet that his Death was suffici­ent for the Sins of all the World, even for all Men and every Man. And if so, then either he suffered as Sponsor for all: Or else circumstances did make that Death sufficient for all, which yet quoad substantiâ poenae (as he calls it) had none of that which the Law required, and was neces­sary for the Sponsor to undergo. And thus I think (with that added which is said before) it is evi­dent that none have ground to rest on Christs Blood to justifie them, or on Christ to justifie [Page 170] them by his Blood, till they know that his Blood was shed for them seeing it is sufficient for no more. But no Man before justifying Faith knows that Christs Blood was shed for him any more then for others that shall never be justified by it, therefore no Man hath ground thus to be­lieve. And for the intellectual Act of Faith, if it be that which Maccovius saith it is ibid. disput. 3. §. 17. Fides in Christum quae requiritur a nobis ad nostri justificationem est, ut credamus pro redemptio­nem & sanguinem nos justificari & salvari, then most Men are bound to believe an untruth, if they are bound to believe to justification. If it be said that, it [...] believe that Christs Death is sufficient to pardon him if he believe, I answer that no Man can truly believe that neither, but he that first knows that he died for him, which none can do but he that knows that he died for all. I marvail how such Divines (as Twiss and Maccovius who hold the main Antimonian Prin­ciples) who say that Faith justifieth only as we are ascertained, or receive the knowledg of justi­fication already past at Christs death, can tell how to Salve this. How can they choose but say, that either God doth not command all where the Gospel comes to believe to justification, or else, that he commands most Men to believe a falshood: Or else, that all Men are justified by Christs death.

Let me add here (for I will not make another Argument of it, being built on the same grounds with the former) that if Christ died not for all, then not only all Men at their first invitation, but even all true believers whenever they loose the fight of their evidences, that is, of their [Page 171] own Faith and other Graces, have no ground left them to renew an Act of justifying Faith, nor to cast their Souls with any confidence on Christ: For as long as he knows not himself to be Elect and a true believer, he cannot tell whether, Christ died for him, and consequently he knows not whether he may rest on him as a sufficient Re­deemer, as not knowing whether he satisfied for him or not. If any say, he must believe that he may know, I answer 1. It must be a revealed truth before it is believed. 2. Believing will not make it true, if it were not true before. We are not to believe that Christ may die for us, but to believe that he did die for us. Hear Mac­covius his confession of that also, Ibid disp. 9. §. 16. At toto caelo errat Haereticus (Socinus) Ne­que enim fidem requiri ad hoc dicimus, ut pro nobis sa­tisfiat; sed ut pro fidem satisfactio ista Christi quae perac to est ante fidem nobis innotescat (so that when God commandeth Men to believe, he commandeth them to take knowledg of Christs satisfaction for them before made: And surely men cannot know that which is not true, unless it be to know it to be false.) And thus it seems plain to me that many, if not most true believers will be left without any sufficient ground to believe, through a great part of their lives. For I think, assurance is not so common a thing as some imagine, nor so constant with them that have it: Though Mac­covius saith (as one Error draws on another.) Ibid. disp. 9. §. 11. Respondeo, (salvo aliorum judicio) ne­gando sensum illum (qui in nobis oritur ex agnitione nostrae Iustificationis) aliquando tolli penitus in homi­ne: Our Divines that teach poor Souls to use their Faith of Adherence when they want evidence, [Page 172] do go another way to work; and suppose an Uni­versal promise and before that an Universal satis­faction: Or else Adherence without evidence hath no sufficient object or ground, and then farewel the Christians most constant stay.

Arg. 15. Ab ordine credendi perverso.

If Christ satisfied not for all, then the know­ledg or assurance that we have justifying Faith must go before justifying Faith: But that is im­possible as being a contradiction, Ergo, &c.

The reason of the consequence is plain in what was said on the last argument. For no Man can believe to justification, but by believing that Christ is a sufficient Redeemer, and hath made sufficient satisfaction for his Sins, and by accept­ing him as offered to apply the fruits of that sa­tisfaction to us, and by resting on him for those fruits. Now all this hath no ground till a Man knows that Christ hath already died and satisfied for him: And that cannot be known (if Christ died not for all) till Men first know themselves to be Elect and believers, and that cannot be known till after we do believe; For if the thing to be believed is that Christ died for believers, and for me if I believe, I must know that I be­lieve before I can know that he died for me, and yet I must know that he hath died and satisfied for me before I can believe to Justification. See what contradictions are here, and how Men are put upon impossibilities, I know the necessity of believing that Christ hath satisfied for me, is denied but I have proved it before.

Arg. 16. A peccatorum aggravatione.

If it be the great aggravation of all Mens Sins committed against that mercy which tendeth to their Recovery, that they are against the Lord that died for them, then Christ did die for all such Men: But the Antecedent is true, Ergo, &c.

Only the Antecedent requires proof; That wicked Men do partake of Mercy tending to­wards their recovery, (as to the nature of the mercy, and in Gods legal Ordination) I think I need not prove among Christians; And that they Sin against such mercy, is a thing that needs as little proof; The main proof of the Antecedent [that these mens Sins are aggravated, in that they are against Christ that died for them] will be from several Texts of Scripture which do thus aggravate such Mens Sin, which because I in­tend to handle particularly, I will refer you thereto, and now pass them by. Further, 1. It is confessed that these Mens Sin is aggravated in that they are against the Blood of Christ as offer­ed to them in its Fruits, and as against Christ himself offered to them as Crucified and as Re­deemer, and as against the offers of pardon, Adop­tion and Salvation, which are all Fruits of Christs satisfaction. But all these imply satisfaction for them to whom they are offered, as is proved already, Ergo &c. Many of our Divines (as Perkins Reform. Cathol. of Justif. and others) say that in this we differ from the Papists, that they make Christs satisfaction to be but the meritori­ous cause of our Righteousness, but not our Righteousness it self as we affirm it (I do not now [Page 174] judg of these words, but) if Christs satisfaction be our very Righteousness or any part of it, then certainly Christ satisfied for all to whom he offers his Righteousness: But that he offers his Righte­ousness to all without exception is beyond doubt: And he would never offer them a Non-ens, that which is not: He doth not offer to one Man the satisfaction made only for another and not for him, for that would be no Righteousness for him: But it is Righteousness that Christ offers, and therefore it is satisfaction for that sinner him­self which is offered to that sinner, to be his Righteousness. Now the offer supposeth the be­ing of the thing offered, except it were only an offer to do or give something hereafter, which is not the case here. And for them that say, [Christ is only offered to Men if they will receive him, or believe] it is idle: For Christ is offered to Men whether they will receive him or not, but none but receivers do enjoy him. God doth not make our receiving the condition of his offer­ing, as to say [I will offer thee Christs satisfacti­on if thou wilt receive it] but he makes it the condition of our attaining the good offered q. d, [Christ with his benefits offered to thee shall be thine if thou wilt receive him.]

2. If it be only the Blood of Christ shed for others, and not for them which unbelievers sin against, then the sin of Devils might (as to this re­spect) be as well aggravated from the Blood of Christ sinned against as theirs: But the conse­quence is palpably absurd, Ergo &c.

3. Consider what hainous consequents will follow, if you deny this aggravation of the Sins of unbelievers. 1. You harden them in the most [Page 175] desperate impenitency: For they cannot repent of that which they know not to be a Sin, and they cannot know that they have sinned against him that dyed for them, till they know that he did die for them; and who dare say to all the World, that yet know not that they are true be­lievers, [you ought not to repent for any Sin as being committed against him that died for you.] Perkins Treat. of repentance, and multitudes of our godly English Writers when they press Men to repentance, do use this as the greatest motive, to consider what our Sins did cost the Lord Je­sus, They cost him Blood, and should they not cost us tears? and should we make light of that which lay so heavy on him? Such arguings are common in almost all Writers and Preachers: Now if Christ did not bear all Mens Sins, and if all Mens Sins did not cost Christ so dear, then this Argument or Motive to repentance can be used to no Man, nor by any Man but only those that have got assurance of a special interest in Christ. 2. Hereby you deny that God may justly aggravate Mens Sins, or condemn Men for Sinning against Christ that died for them. 3. Hereby you perswade Men that their consciences shall not thus agravate them in Hell, nor tor­ment them for Sinning against him that suffered for them, all which I shall shew anon, to be false. 4. Hereby you forbid Ministers from thus aggra­vating their Peoples Sins, and so from using the most effectual motive to draw them to repent­ance. And hereby you condemn almost all the most powerful Preachers in England, who ge­nerally take this course. And you reject the most powerful Books and Sermons which God [Page 176] hath blest to the Conversion of many Souls. I mention this, the rather because some still ob­ject that those who are against Universal Redemp­tion succeed as much in their Ministry to the Conversion of Souls, as those that are for it: The reason is, because they commonly Preach for it, or on grounds that suppose it, in their practical Sermons, when in their disputes they speak against it. That you may see I wrong them not, I will instance in one, learned, Holy Per­kins: who hath writ more confidently against Universal Redemption then he? And when he comes to win Men to Repentance and to Christ, see how he Writes, in particular in that excel­lent short Treatise, the choicest piece I think that ever he wrote, I am sure a piece that hath long agoe workt more on my own Heart then most, if not then any that ever I read, and which I have cause to thank God that ever I saw: I mean his Treat. of the Right Knowledg of Christ Crucifi­ed in the first Vol. of his Works, Page 626, &c. I will transcribe some passages Page 626. When he hath shewed that we must feel the need of Christ, and desire him, he adds [The ad. Part of knowledg is Application (every Man is bound to apply Christ) whereby thou must know and believe, not only that Christ was Crucified, but that he was Crucified for thee, for thee I say in particular. Here two rules must be remem­bred and practised, one that Christ on the Cross was thy pledg and surety in particular, that he stood there in the very room and place in which thou thy self in thy own person shouldest have stood: That thy very personal and particular Sins were imputed and applied to him: That he [Page 177] stood guilty as a Malefactor for them, and suffered the very Pangs of Hell: And that his sufferings are as much in acceptation with God as if thou hadst born the curse of the Law in thy own person eternally. The holding and believing of this point is the very foundation of Religion, as also of the Church of God, &c. The 2d. Rule is, that Christ Crucified is thine, being really given thee of God the Father; even as truly as Houses and Lands are given of Earthly Fathers to their Children: And hence it is that the benefits of Christ are before God ours indeed, for our justi­fication and Salvation] and Page 630. [First of all, the serious consideration of this, that the very Son of God himself suffered all the pains and torments of Hell on the Cross for our Sins, is the proper and most effectual means to stir up our Hearts to a godly sorrow for them. And that this thing may come to pass, every Man must be setled without doubt that he was the Man that Crucified Christ; that he is to be blamed as well as Judas, Herod, Pilate, or the Jews, and that his Sins should be the Nails, the Spears and the Thorns that pierced him. When this meditation begins to take place, bit­terness of Spirit with Wailing and Mourning takes place in like manner, Zach 12. 10. And they shall look upon him whom they have pierced, and they shall lament for him, as one lamenteth for his only Son. (What a Doctrin then is it that teacheth us, that none but they that know themselves to be Elect, should once accuse themselves of this, that their Sins did Crucifie Christ?) Peter in his first Sermon struck the Jews as with a Thunder­clap from Heaven, when he said unto them, ye have Crucified the Lord of glory: So that at [Page 178] the same time 3000 Men were pricked in their Hearts and said Act. 2. 37. Men and Brethren what shall we do to be saved? Again, if Christ for our Sins shed his Heart Blood, and if our Sins made him sweat water and Blood, O then why should not we our selves shed bitter tears, and why should not our Hearts bleed for them? He that finds himself so dull and hardened that the Passion of Christ doth not humble him, is in a la­mentable ease, for there is no Faith in the Death of Christ effectual in him as yet. (These words shew that Perkins speaks not this only to belie­vers.) 2. The meditation of the passion of Christ is a most notable means to breed repent­ance and reformation of Life in time to come. For when we begin to think that Christ Cru­cified, by suffering the first and 2d. Death hath procured to us remission of all our Sins past, and freed us from Hell. Death and damnation; then if there be but a spark of Grace in us we begin to be of another mind, and to reason thus with our selves, what? hath the Lord been thus merciful to me that am of my self but a firebrand of Hell, as to free me from deserved destruction, and to receive me to favour in Christ? Yea; no doubt he hath, His name be blessed therefore: I will not therefore Sin any more as I have done, but rather endeavour hereafter to keep my self from every evil way.] 3. The right knowledg of our selves ariseth from the knowledg of Christ Cru­cified in whom, and by whom we come to know five special things of our selves. The first, how grievous our Sins are, and therefore how misera­ble we are in regard of them. If we consider our offences in themselves and as they are in us, [Page 179] we may soon be deceived, &c. But if Sin be considered in the Death and passion of Christ whereof it was the cause, and the vileness there­of measured by the unspeakable torments endur­ed by the Son of God; and if the greatness of the offence of Man be esteemed by the endless satisfaction made to the justice of God; the least Sin that is, will appear to be a Sin indeed, and that most grievous and ugly. Therefore Christ Crucified must be used by us as a mirror or Look­ing-Glass in which we may fully take a view of our wretchedness, &c. And before [and for our Neighbors, those specially that are of Christs Church, they are to be known of us on this man­ner: When we are to do any duty to them, we must not barely respect their Persons, but Christ Crucified in them, and them in Christ.] And Page 631.] The 5th. point is that we owe to Christ an endless debt, for he was Crucified only as our surety and pledg; and in that Specta­cle of his passion we must consider our selves as the chief debtors, and that the very discharge of our debt, that is, the Sins which are inherent in us, were the proper cause of all the endless pains and torments that Christ endured, that he might set us most miserable Bankrupts at liberty from Hell. Death and damnation. For this his unspeakable goodness, if we do but once think of it seriously, we must needs confess that we owe our selves our Souls and Bodies and all that we have as a debt due unto him. And so soon as any Man begins to know Christ Crucified, he knows his own debt and thinks of the payment of it.] And that you may be sure that Perkins speaks not only of the Elect, see Page 631. Col. 2. [The [Page 180] common Protestant likewise cometh short here­in for 3 Causes. 1. Whereas in word they ac­knowledg him to be their Saviour (this he blam­eth not in them) that hath redeemed them from their evil Conversation, yet indeed they make him a patron of their Sins. The Thief makes him the receiver: The Murderer makes him his refuge, The Adulterer (be it spoken with reverence to his Majesty) makes him the Bawd, &c. Thus Christ that came to abolish Sin is made a main­tainer thereof, and the common Packhorle of the World to bear every Mans burden. 2. Men are content to take knowledg of the merit of Christs passion, for the remission of their Sins, but in the mean season, the virtue of Christs Death for the mortifying of Sin, is little regarded, &c. 3. Men usually content themselves generally and confusedly to know Christ to be their Redeemer (it seems then, that it is true) never once seeking in every particular Estate and condition of Life, and in every particular bles­sing of God to feel the benefit of his passion. What is the cause that almost all the World live in security never almost touched for their horri­ble Sins? Surely the reason is because they did ne­ver yet seriously consider that Christ in the Gar­den lay grouling upon the Earth, sweating Wa­ter and Blood for their offences. (Can a Man speak plainer for Christs dying for all?) Again all such as by fraud and oppression or any kind of hard dealing suck the Blood of poor Men, never yet knew that their Sins drew out the Heart Blood of Christ! And proud Men and Women that are puffed up by reason of their attire, which is the badg of their shame, and never cease hunting af­ter [Page 181] strange fashions, consider not that Christ was not Crucified in gay attire, but naked, that he might bear the whole shame and curse of the Law for us. These and such like, whatsoever they say in word, are flat Enemies of the Cross of Christ, and tread his precious Blood under their Feet. Now then considering this so weighty and special a point of Religion is so much neg­lected, O Man or Woman, high or low, young or old, if thou have been wanting this way be­gin for very shame to learn, and learning to know Christ Crucified: That thou mayest attain to this, behold him often, &c. 1. Look on him as a glass or spectacle in which thou shalt see Gods Glory greater in thy Redemption then in thy Creation. &c. 2. Thou must behold him as the full price of thy Redemption and perfect Reconciliation with God: And pray earnestly to God that he would Seal up the same in thy con­science by his Spirit. 3. Thou must behold Christ as an example to whom thou must conform thy self by Regeneration, &c. Read the History of Christs passion: Observe all the parts and cir­cumstances thereof, and apply them to thy self for thy full Conversion. When thou readest that Christ went to the Garden as his custom was where the Jews might soon attack him, consider that he went to the death of the Cross for thy Sins willingly, and not of constraint and that therefore thou for thy part shouldest do him all service freely, Psal. 110. 3. When thou hearest that in his agony his Soul was heavy unto death, know it was for thy Sins; and thou shouldest much more conceive heaviness of Heart for the same: Again that this sorrow of his is joy and rejoycing to thee [Page 182] if thou wilt believe in him: When thou readest that in the Garden he prayed lying grovling on his Face, sweating Water and Blood, begin to think seriously, what an unspeakable measure of Gods wrath was upon thy blessed Saviour, that did prostrate his Body upon the Earth, and cause the Blood to follow; and think that thy Sins must needs be most hainous that brought such bloody and grievous pains upon him. Also think it is a shame for thee to carry thy Head to Hea­ven with haughty looks, to wallow in thy plea­sures, and to draw the innocent Blood of thy poor brethren by oppression and deceit, for whom, Christ Sweat Water and Blood; and take an occasion from Christs agony to lay aside the pride of thy Heart, yea, even to bleed for thy own offences, &c. When thou readest that Christ was taken and bound, think that thy very Sins brought him into the power of his Enemies, and were the very bonds wherewith he was tied: Think, that thou shouldst have been bound in the very same manner unless he had been a surety and pledg for thee: Think also that thou in the same manner art bound and tied with the Chains of thy own Sins, &c. Lastly think and believe that the bonds of Christ serve to purchase thy liberty from Hell, death and damnation When thou hearest that he was brought before Annas and Cai­phas, think, it was meet that thy surety and pledg who was to suffer the Condemnation due to thee should by the High Priest as by the Mouth of God, be condemned: And wonder at this that the very Coessential, and Eternal Son of God, even the Soveraign judg of the World; stands to be judged, and that by wicked Men, perswad­ing [Page 183] thy self that this so great confusion comes of thy Sins: Whereupon being further amazed at thy fearful state, humble thy self in dust and ashes, and pray God to soften thy stony Heart, that thou maist turn to him, and by true Faith lay hold on Christ, &c. When thou readest that Barrabas, the murderer was preferred before Christ &c. Thy very Sins pulled on him that shameful reproach: and in that for thy cause he was esteemed worse than Barrabas, &c. When thou readest that he was openly and judicially condemned to the curs­ed death of the Cross, consider what is the wrath and fury of God against Sin, and how great is his mercy to Sinners; and in this Spectacle look on thy self and with groans of Heart say, O good God, what settest thou before mine Eyes, I even I have sinned, I am guilty and worthy of damnati­on! Whence comes this change that thy blessed Son is in my room but of thy unspeakable mercy! Wretch that I am? How have I forgotten my self and thee my God: O Son of God how low hast thou abased thy self for me! Therefore give me grace O God that beholding my own Estate in the person of my Saviour, thus condemned, I may detest my Sins that were the cause thereof and by a lively Faith embrace that absolution which thou offerest me in him who was condemned in my stead and room. O Lord Jesus, Saviour of the World give me that Holy Spirit, that I may judg my self and be as vile in my own Eyes as thou wast vile before the Jews: Unite me unto thee by the same Spirit, that in thee I may be as worthy to be accepted before God, as I am worthy in my self to be detested for my Sins, &c. When thou readest that he was script of his [Page 184] cloathing, think, it was that he being naked might bear thy shame ou the Cross, &c. When thou readest of the complaint of Christ that he was forsaken of his Father, consider how he suf­fered the pangs and torments of Hell as thy Pledge and Surety, &c, When thou readest of his Death consider that thy Sins were the cause of it, &c.

Thus far Mr. Perkins, whose words I have thus largely set doown, both as a pattern for Mi­nisters how to Preach the Doctrine of Redemp­tion, and to shew the necessity there is that Mi­nisters and People do see (and discover to others) their Sin in this great aggravation, [as they were the crucifiers of Christ] and to shew you what English Ministers Preach to the People whatever they speak in Disputes; and what kind of Preach­ing it is which hath succeeded so in England for the conversion of Souls! If this be not a plain Preaching of Universal Redemption or Satitfacti­on, as to all that hear the Gospel (whom he requires so oft to consider that Their sins crucified Christ) then I know not what is. And if any quirke may be produced to wrest so plain words to a contrary sense; I am sure the poor sinners to whom it is Preached know not ordinarily those evasions, but receive it in the plain sense. I could fill a Volume with the like passages as this, out of our most powerful and successful Preachers.

Here then are two distinct aggravations of sin, both necessarr to every penitent Soul, both which are denyed by the denyal of Universal satisfacti­on; The first is that our sins killed Christ as be­ing the cause of his Death. Is not a man bound to mourn over him whom his sins have pierced [Page 185] before he knoweth himself to be Elect? How few then of the Elect themselves should do it? 2. The second aggravation is that all our sins against recovering mercies, are committed against him that Died for us: He that denyeth both these aggravations of sin doth not a little wrong Christ and mens Souls.

Lastly, I argue thus; If without those fore­mentioned aggravations of sin, no man can truly and savingly Repent, then all men are bound thus to aggravate their sins (in their self accusa­tions.) But without these there can be no saving Repentance, Ergo, &c.

The consequence of the Major is proved, in that all men are bound truly to Repentance, even with that which is called Repentance unto Life.

The Antecedent or Minor is proved.

1. In that else it can be but a Legal Repen­tance and not an Evangelical if it be not for sin as the crucifier of Christ, and for sin as against our Redeemer.

2. From the description of true Gospel Re­pentance, Zech. 12. 10. They shall look on him whom they have pierced, and mourn over him, &c. Or if it were proved that there is besides this a true Repentance foregoing, yet it is but part of that great work, seeing this Evangelical Repentance must go close with it. And if any say tha tmen are bound first to believe before they are bound to this evangelical repentance for sinning against the blood of Christ. I answer. 1. They are bound to both at once; and the Apostles prest both at once on men, To Repent and Believe. 2. Most Divines make Repentance with Faith to go before Justi­fication. [Page 186] 3. Some have writ whole Volumes to prove that it goes before Faith it self. 4. All acknowledge that it goes before assurance or knowledge of our Election. And if Christ died only for the Elect, then no man could repent of his sins as that which killed Christ. or as against his blood, till he first knew himself to be Elect, and then many true Christians should never so repent in this Life, and always the Gospel Repentance would not only follow Justi­fication, but even the knowledge of Justification: Whereas Amesius and most of ours do make it with Faith, go before both Justification and Sanctification.

Argum. 17th. A novo jure Dominii & im­perii.

If Christ have a new Dominion and Empire over all men, grounded (quoad meritum) on his redeeming of all, (or satisfying for all,) then he did Redeem (or make satisfaction for) all: But the Antecedent is true, Ergo, &c.

I might have used these as two distinct Me­diums; but for brevity I will conjoin them, and argue specially a jure imperii, which in order of Nature followeth the jus Dominii, and is ground­ed on it: Man being made a rational Creature, there was a necessity he should have a Govern­ment Moral according to his Nature; and God being his Lord and Owner it was therefore neces­sary that he should be his Supream Rector: For the right of disposure belongs to him that is ab­solute Owner, or full Propietary: And Regi­ment is part of the disposure of the reasonable [Page 187] Creature. So then the necessit as regiminis passivè considerati, is founded in the Nature of Man; but the jus imperii is founded in the jure Dominii (in our present case.) So that where ever God hath as Redeeemer the jus imperii, it is necessary necessitate consequente & Consequentiae, that he have the jus dominii: And wherever he hath the jus dominii, it is necessary necessitate Antecedente & consequentioe that he have the jus imperii; if so be that the Creature be capable of Government Mo­ral, else not; for the jus supposeth that capacity. And therefore Christs Dominion is larger than his Empire. I still here take the term [Domini [...]m] in the strict sense, as it signifieth meer Propriety, and not in the large sense as it comprehendeth both Propriety and Empire, as its parts. As Gods Rectorship is founded in his Propriety, so his Legislation presupposeth his Rectorship: So that in natural order he is first Dominns Absolutus and then secondly, Rector Supremus; and then ex jure imperii, he is Legislator. Now God at first was owner of the World as Creator, and thence had a right to Govern the World as Creator; and thence made them that perfect Law fitted to the state of a perfect Creature, and expressing the perfection of the Creator, Ruler and Law-maker. Upon the breach of this Law, and the ruin of the World thereby, the maker becomes the re­pairer; Christ redeemeth the World: And here­by hath first a novum jus Dominii, a new Propriety in it. 2. A novum jus imperii, a new right to Govern it. 3. And hence he is novus Legislator, he doth make new Laws, even the Laws of Grace and Faith. Now as Gods Creation of all was the ground of his right of Governing of all [Page 188] and that Right was the ground of his actual Government of all, So Christs redeeming of all is the ground of his new Right to Govern all, and that Right is the ground of his actual Govern­ment. And as God had not a propriety in one Man, or a Right to govern him, because he made another Man, but because he made that Man, so Christ hath not his new propriety in Reprobates or his new Right to govern them, meerly from his redeeming other Men, viz. The Elect, but from his redeeming all Men, and them among the rest: And as God had his jus imperii by Crea­tion over the Rebellions as well as the obedient (for God lost not his right when Adam did Re­bel) so hath Christ by Redemption his jus impe­rii over Unbelievers, as well as over the faith­ful. And as, if God had let the World go on, under the meer Regiment of the Law of Crea­tion, it would not follow that God would cer­tainly save all Men, because he made all (for then the Devils would be saved, and none could be damned) so under the Administration of Christ according to the Law of Redemption, it will no more follow. that Christ will save all, because he redeemed all. For Gods Creation had gracious or favourable ends for the Creature, as well as his Redemption: And he might as truly be said to create them to Life, as to Redeem them to Life: Nay, he gave all Men in our first Parents actual possession of Paradise, of Righte­ousness and Holiness and the favour of God, which is Mans happiness, and yet he permitted them to lose it: So Redem [...]tion obligeth not the Re­deemer to save all the redeemed: nor doth ne­cessarily infer their future Salvation. Yet here [Page 189] is no ground for that charge which is laid on the Arminians, to be laid on this Doctrin, viz. that then Christs Blood might be lost; for Gods de­crees will see to that. Gods foreknowledg de­nominates the Salvation of the Elect, infallibly certain: His decree of Predestination makes their Salvation future: Redemption is a part of the execution of that Decree; and it is (as Creation was) not a part peculiar to the Elect, and inse­parable from Salvation, but a general part, com­mon to all, and laying the necessary ground­work for the more special parts of execution.

And therefore when the Apostle saith [whom he foreknew them he did Predestinate to be conformed, &c. And whom he did Predestinate, them he called; whom he called, them he justified: And whom he justified, them he Glorified, Rom. 8. 30.] he never saith, [whom he died for, or whom he redeemed them he called, or justified or glorified] no more then [whom he Created] so that Re­demption as presupposing the Predetermination of Election is an infallible means of attaining the Salvation of the redeemed that were so Elect; the infallibility and futurition being not properly from Redemption as such, but from Predestination and foreknowledg, and so from Redemption as joyned thereto; (that is, from Gods Intention, or purpose de hoc eventu.) But Redemption doth not presuppose all the redeemed to be Elect by decree, and therefore doth not necessarily infer the Salvation of all the redeemed. They do there­fore sorely mistake that suppose Redemption hath this for its direct end, viz. The Salvation of the redeemed; or that it is its end at all, that all the redeemed shall be infallibly, eventually saved: [Page 190] But Redemption layeth first the ground of Christs new Empire, and Administration to all the World: Upon this groundwork is the whole Government of the World built, and all the Ju­dicial proceeding, and execution at the last day: And therefore they that deny Universal Redemp­tion know not what they do: They deny the Foundation of Gods Dominion as Redeemer, and of his new Empire, and Legislation, and Judg­ment. Redemption now, is necessarily Antece­dent to the Condemnation of perishing Unbe­lievers, as well as causal of the Salvation of Be­lievers.

Obj. Then it may be said, that Christ Redeemed Unbelievers to the day of evil; for it is said God made the wicked Man for the Day of evil, Prov. 16. 4.

Ans. In the same Sence as one is spoken, the other may be spoken truly: For if it be spoken of Gods Legislative Will, or legal ordination, then as it is true that [God by his Law hath made the day of evil, that is, of punishment, for wicked Men] or that [God when he had Created Man, ordained by his Law that the wicked should be punished] so the same may be said of the Redeemed [When he had Redeem­ed all Men, he ordained that all that reject so great Salvation shall undergo a far sorer punish­ment] or if the meaning be of Gods Decretive will de eventu [God when he made Man, did in­tend to destroy the Non-Elect for their wicked­ness] so it is as true of Redeemed ones [God Redeemer when he Redeemed Man, did intend [Page 191] to destroy the Non-Elect for their rejecting of his mercy] But as it is not the meaning of the Text, that [Mens damnation was Gods end in creating them] (as Twiss hath fully proved) so is it not true, that Mens damnation was Christs end in Redeeming. It is no effect therefore of Redemp­tion, but an accidental consequent: And there­fore Christ saith he came not into the World to condemn the World, but that the World though him might be saved: that is, the Salvation of all was, 1. The end of Christs Legislative will, that is, the end propounded to Man, 2. And Redemption hath the nature of a means (suffici­ent in suo genere) for all Mens Salvation, and so God might be said, not to Create the World that he might condemn it, but that the World through him might be saved: Though yet even­tually they are not saved: Christ intended in suffer­ing for Mans Sin, that his satisfaction should re­move that great impediment of their Salvation, viz. The dissatisfaction of the offended Crea­tor, as he was Rector according to the first Law: And that it should be the ground of his New Law whereby he gives freely Remission and Sal­vation to all Men, on condition they will accept himself and his benefits with him. So that as it would be intollerable delusion of Mens Souls, for any Preacher to tell Men, that all that are Created shall be saved, so is it to tell them that are Redeemed (as to the price and satisfaction made) shall be saved: For then when they find in Scrip­ture that Christ died for all, and is a propitiation for the Sins of the whole World, they will con­clude that they shall certainly be saved.

[Page 192]Thus much I thought meet to say for the ground work of my Argumentation, by way of explication; because I find that Truth is some­times better let in by the clear unfolding of it, then driven in by force of arguing.

To proceed to the Argument; It must be un­derstood that we speak not here of the old right of Dominion and Government, which Christ as God Creator and one with the Father, had be­fore the Sin of Man; And then that which I have to prove is 1. That Christ hath a new right of Dominion and Government, and that over all Men whatsoever. 2. Yet this right is founded in his work of redemption, and the Fathers de­livering all to him as in the relation of Re­deemer. 3. That his right to Dominion and rule over all, is not meerly from Redemption of the Elect, but of all, even of each person to whom he hath this right.

As for the first, I hope few Christians will deny it, if any do I prove it thus. 1. If Christ have not as Redeemer a right to govern all, then he may not make Universal Laws for the Govern­ment of all, But Christ hath made such Univer­sal Laws, Ergo, &c. His Laws command all Men every where to repent, and all that hear the Gos­pel to believe: And promise and threaten ac­cordingly.

Obj. The Indians never heard his Laws.

Ans. 1. That restriction is ex parte promulgan­tis for want of publication, but not ex parte le­gem ferentis for want of Enacting a Universal Law; The Law excludes none in the tenor of it but [Page 193] commands all to believe without exception. 2. The Officers or Heralds of Christ have authority to publish it to all the World. 3. Christ hath more Laws then the written or published Gos­pel in fulness. The dispensation of all things by, providential disposal, are Christs Law, that is, they are the signs and discoveries of mercy and Mans duty: They shew the World 1. That they are not left under that helpless, remediless case that they were in by the desert of their own Sin: For the rigid Law of works never allowed to them that had violated it, and were cursed by it, so great mercies as all Men now enjoy, and daily find flowing in upon them â Deo Miserecorde, and that to such ends as their repentance and re­covery. 2. These mercies and other works of Christ, do shew the World the duty of repent­ing: Paul saith that the mercies of God lead them to repentance. Now repentance is not here taken for hellish despairing repentance, as the Text plainly shews: But for that which hath a tendency to recovery, and is joyned with such a hope as excludeth utter despair, and may en­courage to the use of means as means and that which thus revealeth Christs mercy and Mans du­ty and means, is sure Christs Law.

2. Arg. If Christ as Redeemer hath not a right to Govern all Men, then he may not command his Messengers to go into all the World and preach the Gospel to every Creature: But he hath so commanded them, Mat. 16. 15, 16. Where Christ hath not Authority to Rule, there he hath not Authority to bid his Messenger Rule under him, or publish his Laws, or command Men to obey him.

[Page 194]3. Arg. If Christ as Redeemer have not Autho­rity to rule all to whom the Gospel comes, then all such are not bound to take him for their King and Lord; But all such are bound to take him as their King and Lord, Ergo, &c. (4.) If Christ as Redeemer have not right of governing all that hear the Gospel, then there are no Rebels (for Rebellion is only against a rightful Power) nor do they Sin in actual disobeying him when he commands as Redeemer. But the consequents are wicked and intollerable, Ergo, &c. Luke 19. 27. Those mine Enemies that would not I should Reign over them, bring hither and slay them before me. (5.) If Christ have not this right over all the World then all the World is not guilty of Sinning against him; But all the World is guilty of Sin­ning against the Redeemers Laws, Ergo, &c. They Sin against those mercies which lead to repentance (6.) A multitude of plain Texts prove Christs Universal Dominion and Empire. Mat. 28. 19. All power is given to me in Heaven and Earth, Joh. 13. 3. All things are delivered unto him of the Father: delivered into his Hand, Joh. 5. 22. The Father judgeth no Man; but hath given all judgment to the Son, &c. Phil. 2. 7. 8. 9. Rom. 14. 9.

2. That this Right is founded on Redempti­on, is proved by all that is said in the foremen­tioned Arguments and Texts; and I think few Christians will deny it, Rom. 14. 9. For this end he both died, rose and revived, that he might be Lord, of the dead and of the living. If it were the end of his death and resurrection to obtain this Dominion, then surely this Dominion is ground­ed [Page 195] in that Death and Resurrection, and belongs to him as a Redeemer, Phil. 2. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. he became obedient to Death, even the Death of the Cross: Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, &c.

3. And that it is not Christs dying only for the Elect that is the ground of his Dominion and Empire over all, I prove thus. 1. The Domini­on of Christ and his Jus Imperii over the Non-Elect is of the same kind with his Dominion and Jus Imperii over the Elect, and therefore hath the same cause. It is not such as his Domi­nion over Devils or Brutes, as we shall further shew anon. I say not that Christ exerciseth his Imperial power in the same way over all, but the relation of Rex or Imperator which Christ hath rightfully over all, is the same to all: And the relation of Subjects to Christ, which all stand in to him quod debitum veljus, is the same relation; all Men as well as the Elect, to whom his Laws are promulgate, are bound to acknow­ledg him their King and Lord in the same sence as the Elect are: And are bound to give up them­selves to him as his subjects in the same sense as the Elect are, and with a subjection of the same kind: For the New Law which constituteth the duty, is general, and distinguisheth not, as to this, between Elect and Non-Elect. 2. It is ma­nifest that Christs Blood cannot be purchasing of Dominion or Empire immediately, but only meante virtute satisfactoria, as it is a placament or propitiatory Sacrifice to the offended Majesty; For were not Christs Blood first necessary to this expiatory use, it would be so far from being pur­chasing or meritorious of any further benefit, [Page 196] that it would not be acceptable to God at all: For he is not bloodthirsty, he takes not pleasure in the Blood of the innocent, Nay, he is averse from it. So that Christs Death must needs be first satisfactory to Justice in order of nature, be­fore it purchase Dominion or Empire. Now if he may have this right to a peculiar Dominion and Empire over most of the World without satis­fying for them, then either his right over most is immediate without flowing from satisfaction (which is evidently false) or else it is founded in his satisfaction for others, viz. the Elect: And if so then why might not he as well have right of Dominion and Empire over the Elect without satisfying for them, as over all others without satisfying for them? And if so, then he might do all that which now he doth as Lord and Rector, without satisfaction Antecedent. And if so, then he might make his New Law which now he hath made, wherein he Repeals the bondage of Ceremonies and provideth a remedy against the curse, and whereby he gives pardon, and glory to all if they will receive him; But this may not be granted.

3. It is also proved hence, that Christs rule over all Men is founded in his satisfaction of Re­deeming of those same Men; because when he is offered to them and they commanded to re­ceive him, it is in the Relation of Lord Re­deemer: All are commanded to take him for their Lord Jesus Christ, no Man is commanded to take him as Lord and King only, and not as Redeemer and Saviour: Nay, our Divines com­monly make the act of justifying Faith to confist only in receiving Christ as Redeemer or satisfier­or [Page 197] Saviour, as saving us by his Blood from guilt; excluding the reception of him as King and Lord from being the justifying Act of Faith (wherein yet I am forced as zealouly to contradict them as in almost any one point) only they confess it is of absolute necessity that Christ at the same time be received as Lord, when he is received as Re­deemer. Now all Men are bound (that hear the Gospel) to believe to justification, that's gene­rally granted: And if so, then all Men are bound to receive Christ as their Lord-Redeemer, and not as Lord to them and Redeemer to others: And if so, then doubtless Christ is their Lord-Redeemer. Now Redemption hath two parts, the first is the paying of the Price that is, satis­faction by dying for us: The 2d. is, applying or conferring the benefits of that satisfaction, by actual delivering or Redeeming from the guilt and power of Sin: The first is that chief part of Redemption from whence the whole is chiefly denominated. Now the first part is past and done whether Men believe or not and is not offer­ed to be done on any condition, nor to be done for our Sins: Christ doth not say, I will pay the price of thy Redemption, if thou wil [...] take me for thy Redeemer, it is paid already, but it is the 2d. part of Redemption that is of­fered on condition. The first is general and absolure: The second is generally given on condition; and special as to the actual Collation by Christ and fruition by Man. So that when Christ saith to a Man, [take me for thy Re­deemer] it is as much as to say, [take me for one that hath made satisfaction for thy Sins and if thou wilt receive me I will pardon and save [Page 198] thee thereby] now if Christ did not Redeem Men, by satisfying, and yet require them to take him as their Redeemer, then he requires them to take him to be that which he is not, and to have done that which he hath not: For Christ cannot be a Redeemer to any Man that he hath not paid the paid the price of Redemption for: Which if it be not done, Faith will not cause it to be done, So that it being certain, that the Lordship and Empire of Christ which he hath right to over all, and which all are commanded to acknow­ledg and submit to, is inseparably conjoyned with his Redemption, he being offered to no Man as Lord, to whom he is not also offerd as Redeemer, it is evident that his Jus novum Dominii & imperiii, his new right of propriety and Rule over all Men, doth presuppose his Redeeming all, as to the price and satisfaction.

Obj. But if that be so, then he Redeemed or died for Bruits, Devils and good Angels: For he hath a Right of Dominion and Rule over these.

Ans. This Objection, though otherwise scarce worthy to be taken notice of, hath been so enter­tained, yielded to and confidently managed by some, that it is become necessary to make a dis­covery of its vanity. 1. Christ hath not a 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 [Page 199] 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 [Page 200] 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 [...] 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 Coun­trim [...] 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 [Page 201] 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 [Page 202] he ransomed you all] this is no unsound argu­ing: And would you confute it b [...] 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 Death of Christ▪ and that Men should have so great mercies, for whom he never died (of which before 2. That Christs Office should be so divided, as that he should be their King and Head for whom he never died: It is their use to argue on the Contrary that Christ died not for Men whom he doth not sanctifie and save, be­cause [Page 203] the parts of his work are not divided: Though this be no better arguing then to say, God created no Angel or Man, putting them un­der a Covenant, and in a way of Life, but only those that attain to Life hereby: Yet it is an un­deniable consequence on the other side, that Christ died for Men because they receive such Priviledges and benefits and because he is become their Head or King, even as it follows that God Created Adam to Life by that Covenant, if he had attained Life thereby.

And it is not inconsiderable how they lay them­selves open to the Lashes of one another by their error in this point; When those that are for Dis­cipline have pleaded the Jus Divinum of their work, as from Christ as the King or Head of the Church visible, the Erastians tell them that Christ is not King where he is not Priest; he is not the King of any but the Elect, or Saints be­cause he died for none but the Elect, See what Ludovicus Molinaeus (who would unite the Erasti­ans and Independents against the Presbyterians) saith Paraenes. Page 68. Etenim primum dubitari potest an Christus qua Caput & Rex Electorum seu Corporis mystici, qualis hic in foro interno describi­tur, rectè statuatur in alio foro, eoque externo potesta­tem legislationis & jurisdictionis committere personis circares & causas, quarum judicium & cognitio, non sub est judicio & Cognitioni illius, qui sumus est judex in foro externo. This Book is newly Printed many Years since this Disputation was written, though I here insert this passage.

Ad hominem, I am sure this Argument is not contemptible: There is no Evasion but by say­ing that Christ is not the King or Head of the [...] [Page 202] [...] [Page 203] [Page 204] unregenerate part of the Church visible, as he is mediator, but purely as God: But that's as de­structive to their cause as if they denied him to be their King at all; For they will never evince that he taketh Men into the Gospel Covenant, and becomes their King and makes them Saints, Adopted, Christians, Believers, &c. and all this meerly as he is God and not as he is Mediator.

Arg. 18th. A Beneficiis in omnes Collatis, quâ satisfactionis sunt effecta.

If Christ give to all Men those mercies which are the effects of his dying for them, then Christ died (or satisfied) for all Men: But Christ doth give to all Men those mercies which are the ef­fects of his dying for them, Ergo, &c.

The Minor only requires proof, and here I have these three things to prove. 1. That Christ giveth mercies to all. 2. That these mercies are the effects of his Death and satisfaction. 3. That they are the effects of his Death for those Men to whom they are given. For I look to meet with three sorts of opposers. 1. Such as say, wicked Men have no mercy (viz. The Non-Elect) for all is given them in judgment and wrath, and shall but ag­gravate their condemnation. 2. Such as say, They have mercies, but it is from Gods com­mon providence, and not from Christs Blood. 3. Such as say, their mercies are from Christs Blood, but only as shed for the Elect, and not for them.

1. For the first, It is so openly blasphemous against God and his providence, for Men to say, that God is merciful to none but the Elect, that one would think no Christian should ever own [Page 205] such an Assertion. 1. If none but the Elect have any mercy from God, then none else are obliged by mercy to repentance: But the mercies of God lead others to repentance, Rom. 2. Even those that by hardheartedness and impenitency do heap up wrath against the day of wrath and Revelation of the righteous judgment of God. 2. Else none but the Elect should be obliged to love and thank­fulness for mercy, which is false and wicked. 3. Else none but the Elect should be guilty of sinning against mercy, or should need to confess any such Sin, or need pardon of such, or can be accused, condemned or punished for any such, which are all false. 4. Their own words do con­fute themselves, for whereas they say, that Re­probates have no true mercy because all do but encrease their condemnation and misery; It is evident that if they were not real mercies, no Mans condemnation or punishment could be ag­gravated by the abuse or rejecting of mercy, Jo [...]. 4. 2. God had mercy on more Ninevites then were Elect, Jon. 3. 10. and 4. 11. Christ him­self saith God is kind to the unthankful and the Evil, Luk. 6. 35. and commandeth us to imitate him in loving our Enemies and being merciful as he is mer­ciful, Psal. 106. 7. Psal. 145. 9. His tender mercies are over all his Works, Act. 14. 17. Mat. 5. 45. 48. Mat. 25. throughout; sure those that deny the Non-Elect to partake of any mercy on Earth, think it no mercy to be out of Hell, to have Christ and pardon and glory given them, on condition of acceptance, they would hardly yield then that God is merciful to the very damned in Hell, and yet our own Di­vines and Papists say it is past doubt. See Ursin Ca­tech. Page 68. Edit. Parai posthum. & Robert. Baronius [Page 206] disput. de peccat Mortali & Veniali Pag. 75. Aquin. 1. q. 32. a. 4. c. & 1. & 1. q. 21: a. 4. 1. Scot. in 4. dist. 46. Pag. (mihi) 250. &c. Bradwardin, de causa Dei lib. 1. Cap. 34. So Cajetan, Lorinus, Paes, Feuerdentius Salmeron, Genebrard, &c. (I say as Jac. Laurentius in Jac. 2. 12.) And our most judicious Brittish Divines in the Synod of Dor [...] do well conclude, that Gods mercies must not be denied or accounted less because wicked Men yet perish through their abuse of them.

2. And that these mercies are the effects of Christs Blood and satisfaction, is proved thus. 1. Of some of them it is expresly affirmed, Heb. 10. 29. [hath counted the Blood of the Covenant wherewith he was sanctified an Unholy thing] 2. God cannot according to the tenor of the Covenant of Works (voluntate saltem ordinatâ) give Men so much mercy as they all receive: For that Covenant curseth them, and sentenceth them to Death, and leaveth no proper mercy, at least none that hath a conducibility to repen­tance and recovery: Dare any Man think that all the mercies temporal, and the offers of Christ and Grace, and the Word and other means, and the common gifts of the Spirit, and the conditi­onal pardon of the Non-Elect, and the patience, and long-suffering of God inviting and beseeching them to be reconciled to him, promising them Life and Glory if they will believe, that all 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, [Page 207] 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, [Page 208] 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 [Page 209] 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, [Page 210] 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, nisi virtute satisfactionis plenae Deo anteapro nobis presentatae. Ne (que) quidquam per nos facit, [Page 211] quod ipsemet antea satis & perfecte fecit. 3. Per Causas secundas Deus non operatur Creationem ex nihilo: sed Satisfactio & Redemptio eundem locum habent in ordine Gratiae quem Creatio habet in ordine naturae (& p. 172. Deus aliquando parcit iis quibus non est propriè reconciliatus, &c.)

2. Sadeel is full this way, Adversus humanas Satisfactiones, p 211. he saith, [Aut Christus me­rito mortis suae delet culpam peccatorum venialium (ut vocant) aut non delet; Si dicant, non delere: Ergo Christus non pro omnibus peccatis mortuus est, sed tantum pro mortalibus. O blasphemos homines si qui­dem id dixerint! & quid est aliud delere ac remittere culpam ejus peccati, quod ex ipsorum sententia poenas temporales promeretur, quam nullas exigere poenas tem­porales propter illud peccatum promeritas. Nesciunt profectò isti homines quid sit peccati culpa, nec adver­tunt poenam peccati non posse definiri abs (que) mentione culpae. (So that sin it self may be said so far to be pardoned, as the punishment is remitted: and therefore he saith it was only the punishment and not the fault that Christ bore) p. 215. At quomodo Christus satisfecit Deo pro peccatis nostris, An non id factum est quia Christus peccatorum nostro­rum, non culpam pertulit sed poenam. Sic. p. 228. Nam Chrisius (ut nostram non nostris, sed Augusti­ni verbis explicemus sententiam) suscipiendo poenam & non suscipiendo culpam, & culpam delevit & poenam.]

3. So Chamier at large, shews that it is only through Christ's Satisfaction that fault or punish­ment is remitted, and that God cannot remit without satisfaction, Tom. 3. l. 23. c. 2. § 22. Ita (que) in genere concedo, non posse Deum impunita pec­cata [Page 212] dimittere, id est, nisi puniantur vel in peccatore vel in Mediatore: (of which Voetius in his Thesis is full) and § 31. Nihil ergo rectius quam luisse pro nobis Christum poenas: num aliquas tantum, an vero omnes? &c. si non luisset omnes, neminem liberant ab omnibus. So that he takes the argument to be good a liberatione ad solutionem per Christum, and § 27. Remissio opponitur exactioni poenarum. Now I have proved that God remitteth much punish­ment to wicked men not Elect: yea even in Scripture phrase, the remitting of that punish­ment is called, the Remission of their sin, as is shewed before, and lest any should say, it is but a delay of their punishment till the Life to come: I answer, 1. Is not punishment due to them both in this Life and that to come? And therefore to remit one is true remission. 2. No Scripture intimateth that God will lay so much the more on them in Hell, meerly because he punished them not more on Earth, but for their abuse of Mercy on Earth. 3. Doth not Christ himself expresly speak of not forgiv­ing sin in this life or that to come? 4. Many have so much remission here, as tends to the great abatement of their everlasting torments: for Christ gives them that freedom from temp­tations, and such means, and common Grace, as brings them to be almost Christians, and almost Saved, and such as the man whom he is said to have loved, and said to him, thou art not far from the Kingdom of God. Whereas doubtless the ri­gorous execution of the Curse of the Law re­quires that men be wholly forsaken of God, as to any such Grace or Mercy, and consequently given up to the prevalency of their own Lusts.

[Page 213]And it is a doubt whether they that make all this Remission and Mercy to the Non-Elect, to befal them without the satisfaction of Christ, do not wrong Christ somewhat more than the Pa­pists themselves (who in their vile Doctrine of Satisfaction and Indulgence) do ascribe all to Christ radically and remotely, and to man di­rectly; saying that for temporal punishments Christ satisfieth in and by man, to whom he hath procured that power by his own immediate sa­tisfaction. These give Christ some part of the honour, but the other none at all.

And that a conditional remission of the eternal pu­nishment is given in the Gospel to the Non-Elect, under Gods hand, is so plain, that he that knows it not, knows not the plain tenour of the Gospel.

Besides, if it be said that all this can be given to the Non-Elect without Christs satisfying for them, then it would follow that it may be given to the Elect also without Christs satisfying for them, but all our Divines call that Impious and blasphemous (in their disputes against Purgato­ry, Indulgences, and humane Satisfactions.) Nay mark well, that the same conditional deed of Gift of Christ and his Benefits, which is un­effectual to Unbelievers, because they perform not the condition, is the same that becomes effectual to the Justification and Adoption of Believers, and that without any new additional real act of God.

Lastly, Satisfaction for one man will not serve to the remitting of any part of the Debt of ano­ther; so that I may conclude that Christ satisfied for All, seeing all receive the fruits of that satis­faction. The effects cannot be without their cause.

Arg. 19. A comparatione Legis Gratiae cum Lege operum.

[Page 214]If Christ Died not for all (to whom the Gospel comes) then the Law of Grace doth contain far harder terms than the Law of Works. But the con­sequent is false, therefore so is the Antecedent.

The Consequence of the Major Proposition I prove thus: The Law of Works, as given to man in Innocency, required nothing that was Im­possible for man in that state to do: But (if Christ satisfied not for all) the Law of Grace should require Impossibilities, and condemn men for want of them, and so should contain much harder terms than the Law of Works; Yea the Law of Works as given to fallen man (if so it were) contained nothing contradictory, and so impossible in it self, though man through sin was disabled to perform it: But the Law of Grace, should, if this Doctrine opposed were true. If the Law of Grace require men to take him for their Redeemer, and rest on him as their Re­deemer, that never redeemed them, it should contain a contradiction. If according to this Law, men must be everlastingly condemned be­cause they did not receive him as their Lord-Re­deemer, that never paid for them any price of Redemption; and because they did not receive and apply to themselves the effects and benefits of a satisfaction, which was never made for them▪ and so could not possibly be a cause of such effects▪ and because they did not rest on Christ to Justifie and Save them by his Blood which was never shed for them; these are impossibilities, and far harder terms than those of the Law of Works. Yea, if when man is already condemned, the Law of Grace say, that he shall undergo a far sorer punishment, and it shall be easier for Sodom [Page 215] and Gomorrah in the day of Judgment than him, except he will do these impossibilities, this is still harder. It is not all the believing in the World (supposing it were performed) that would make Christs Death, which is past, to be suffered for those that it was not suffered for. This makes Christ to come into the World to condemn the World, and that to a far sorer punishment than the Law of Works did oblige them to, without procuring them any possibility of escaping; For there's no possibility of that mans escape, for whom no price of Redemption is paid. Nay it lays an absolute necessity ab extra, and unavoidable, on men of perishing under this double damnation. For he that before I am born makes a Law, that I shall dye except I have part in a payment that was made 1000 years ago and that only for others and not at all for me, he doth necessitate my Death by that Law: For it is impossible that I should ever have part in it, if it were not paid for me. Now I know our Divines speak of Gods necessitating mans Damnation by Fore­knowledge and Decree, which they call only Ne­cessitas Antecedentis, non Causae: But who ever affir­med that Christ in giving the New Law [He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned] did necessitate and that Causally, and that Antecedenter ad Culpam, the far greater damnation of miserable wretches that were condemned already.

And that the Gospel is not so much harder than the Law I prove: Mat. 11. 27, 28, 30. My Yoak is easie, and my Burden is light, Heb. 8. 6. Jesus is the Mediator of a better Covenant stablished on better promises [Heb. 7. 22. And the Author of a better Testament] Rom. 5. 14, 15, 20. Where sin [Page 216] abounded, Grace much more abounded, John 3. 16. God so loved the World, that he gave, &c. Eph. 3. 19, 20. Heb. 11. 40. His service is a reasonable service: His Commandments are not grievous: His tender mercy is over all his Works. He is kind to the unthankful and unjust. His mercies lead men to Repentance: He delighteth not in the death of him that dyeth but rather that he Repent and Live: He calleth all men every where to repent and seek after God: All the day long doth he stretch out his hand to a froward and gain-saying generation: He deal­eth not with us after our sins: He inviteth the Non Elect to the Wedding Feast and telleth them that all things are ready: and some of them he compelleth to come in: as he did him that had not on the Wedding Garment: he chargeth his Mes­sengers to beseech men in his stead to be recon­ciled unto God: He would gather under his Wings even as a Hen gathereth her Chickens, those that Will not be gathered. All these with a multitude the like, are the Scripture expressions, of Gods gentle and merciful dealing with men under the Law of Grace. And so much of the execution as we see is answerable. He offers mer­cy to all in the Church: and confers much Mercy on every man in the World; He dealeth with no man according to the strict rigour of the un­remedied Curse of the Law of Works. Abuse of the Talents of undeserved Mercy, is the thing that men must be condemned and perish for. No one sinner on Earth is excepted or excluded by him out of his Offer and Promise of Mercy, so be it, they will themselves consent, whoever Will may have the Living Waters freely, with­out [Page 217] Money and without Price: and if their sins be as red as Scarlet, he offers to make them as white as Snow; and to cast them all behind his back, and bury them in the depths of the Sea: He calls to them, return; why will ye dye? How long ye simple ones will ye love simplicity! and ye scorners delight in scorning and fools hate knowledge? Turn you at my reproof, behold I will pour out my spirit unto you; I will make known my words unto you, Prov. 1. 22, 23. He hath received Gifts for men, even for the Re­bellious that the Lord may dwell among them God hath sent his Son Jesus to you (saith the Apostle Act. 3. last) to bless you, in turning eve­ry one of you from his iniquities. And when men will not hear, he saith, O that my People had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my mays, Psal. 81. 13. O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and their Children for ever. Deut. 5. 29.

Can any man then believe that the tenour of the new Law or Covenant, is so much harder than ever was the Law of Works, as is before expressed? As for them that say, the New Co­venant is no Law, and Wicked men or the Non-Elect are not under it, they manifest so great ignorance, and go against so full light of express Scripture, that I think them not worthy a confutation: Only I would have the Lutheran Divines remember, that near to the Apostles times, it was not only an unquestioned truth, but also was part of the Christian Creed, [Chri­stum predicasse Novam legem, & novam promissionem Regni Caelorum] Tertullian. de Prescription cap.

Arg. 20. A Legis Mosaicae Abrogatione.

If all men (that were any way under it) are freed by the blood of Christ, from the Bondage of the Mosaical Law of Ceremonies, then Christ died for All such, (and consequently not only for the Elect:) But the Antecedent is certain. Ergo, &c.

Some Divines say, that All the World were thus far subject to the Jewish Law, that they could not be saved without knowing it, and submit­ting to it in obedience, because God had then no other Church nor stablished way of Worship. If this be true, then all the World hath a delive­rance in the Abrogation of that Law. Others say, that it obliged only the Jews and Proselites; and that others at the remotest distance should not have been obliged by that Law, if they had known it. If that be so, then it was only the Jews and Proselytes (such as had opportunity to incorporate with them, or joyn to them) that had this deliverence. However, it is evident it was to all the Jews, and so to more than the Elect: and then almost all the Arguments against Uni­versal Satisfaction are hereby overthrown, for they are built on this, that Christ died only for the Elect.

Here I must prove, 1. That Moses Ceremonial Law is abrogate. 2. That it was done by the shedding of Christ's Blood for those that were un­der it. 3. That it is abrogated to All.

1. And for the first, it is so generally acknow­ledged, and the Scripture so express in it, (specially Act. 15. and all the Epistle to the Galatians) [Page 219] that I may spare that labour, only some doubt whether the Moral Law as part of Moses Law be abrogate. But as long as we acknowledge. 1. That the same Moral Law standeth as it was part of Christ's New Law (which most confess) 2. And also as part of the Law of Works or Nature given to Adam (as most think) we need not much mat­ter the former; Though I think that all Moses Law is Abrogated. 1. Because the Matter cannot stand as part of that Law when the Form ceaseth (for with the form, the essence and name is gone) and most (if not all) confess that the form of Moses Law (as it is specifically distinct from the Law of Grace) is abrogated. 2. The Apostle expresly saith (2 Cor. 3. 7, 11.) that [The Mini­stration of death, written and engraven in Stones, was glorious (and that was only the Decalogue) so that the Children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the Face of Moses, for the glory of his Countenance, which was to be done away. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious] some say, it was the Glory and not the Law that was done away, but it was not the glorious which ver. 11. is called glorious, but the Law, from the manner of delivery, and therefore it was not the Glory only, but the Law that is done away.

Obj. But it was only the manner of delivery then that is done away, and not the Law.

Answ. That was a transient act, and ceas­ed at the time, and was not done away by Christ. The Moral Law therefore as part of Moses Law is abrogated, because it is impossible the matter [Page 220] should remain without the Form, as part of that Compositum. But the same Moral Law is in force as much as ever, as it is the matter of another Compositum, viz. the Law of Christ proper to the Gospel times. The Law is in force still quae fuit materia Legis Mosaicae; sed non quâ materia Legis Mosaicae. But for this, if any think other­wise, I will not contend with them. It sufficeth to my present purpose that it is granted that the Law of Ceremonies is abrogated. And that this Law was a burden and bondage is plain; even such as the Church was not able to bear, Act. 15. 10. see Gal. 3. 23. & 21. & 4. 21. & 5. 3. &c.

2. And that it was Christs dying for men, that freed them from the Law, is proved Gal. 4. 3, 4, 5. When we were Children we were in bon­dage under the Elements of the World, but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent his Son, made of a Woman, made under the Law, to Redeem them that were under the Law &c. Gal. 3. 13. Christ hath Redeemed us from the Curse of the Law, being made a Curse for us, Col. 2. 14. Blotting out the hand writing of Ordinances which was against us, which was con­trary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his Cross, see ver. 20, 21. Ephes. 2. 13, 14, 15, 16. But now in Christ Jesus, ye who sometimes were afar off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ, for he is our peace who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle Wall of Partition between us: having abolished in his Flesh the enmity, even the Law of Command­ments, contained in Ordinances, for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making Peace. [Page 221] And that he might reconcile both unto God in one Body, by the Cross, having slain the Enmi­ty thereby.

3. And for the 3d. point that Christ hath abrogated Moses Law to all, Elect and Non-Elect without difference, is evident, in that all are for­bidden to keep it: And that which is abrogated is abrogate to all, because the Word signifieth the total nulling of it, and destroying of its Es­sence, and that which is not, doth not bind. 1. Else the Non-Elect Jews (at least) should still be bound to offer all the Sacrifices, and use all the Ceremonies prescribed by the Law: But I never yet heard or read any Divine Preaching such Doctrin, and I hope never shall do. He that reads, Act. 15. and the Epist. to the Gal. and Heb. sure will not believe it to be true Doctrin, if he understand what he readeth. 2. Nay the very curse is so far taken away for all, that it now lyeth not on them as the unremedied curse of the Law, but is put into the power of the Lord-Redeemer, who hath by the tenour of his Testament or New Law, taken it away from all Men, on condition they will accept him: And this may be said also of the Law of Works as given to Adam; So that he that saith, Christ died only for the Elect, must needs say, (I think, if he will not contradict himself) that all the Non Elect must turn Jews, and be circumcised, and keep all the Law of Moses: And consequently that all the Elect themselves must do so, till God assure them that they are Elect and so that Christ died for them, Because they cannot avoid the duty upon a ground that is wholly to them unknown.

Arg. 21. Ab officio praedicantium Doctrinam Evangelii.

If the whole or main work of the Preachers of the Gospel do suppose Christs Universal sa­tisfaction as its ground, then Christ hath satis­fied for all: But the Antecedent is true, there­fore so is the consequent.

It is only the Antecedent of the Major propo­sition that requires proof. To which end let us enumerate the parts of the Work of Preaching: And the enumeration is to be taken from the enumeration of the parts of the New Law, for that is the subject which we must preach of: Now the Law, is, first a Declaration of the Occasion, or Narration of the matter of Fact, as an Intro­duction to the more essential parts. 2. Those parts themselves which are 1. The precept con­stituting duty: To which I joyn the prohibition, as one part of it, being but preceptum de non agen­do. 2. The constitution of the debitum premii vel beneficii. 1. By an absolute promise. 2. By a con­ditional promise or gift. 3. The constitution of the condition as such. 4. The constitution of the debitum Poenae, by the threatning. This much quoad materiam. And then quoad finem, the Preacher must manage all these. 1. To the glo­rifying of God for the great work of Redempti­on. 2. For the winning of Souls to Christ, and confirming them in the Faith: This is the Mi­nisterial Work.

Now. 1. For the Narration or Declarative part of the Gospel, which is matter of Assent; I have already shewed that if his Universal satis­faction [Page 223] be not declared, the main part is left out, that should honour the Redeemer; and there is nothing declared that can groundedly encourage a Sinner to believe, and rest on Christ as a suffi­cient Saviour. 2. The precept is, that Men be­lieve in Christ and rest on him as their Redeemer, for justification by his Blood: And the contrary unbelief and distrust is forbidden. Now what ground can a Minister have to press all Men to believe in Christ as their Redeemer, when they know he redeemed but the smallest part? Or to charge them to rest on his Blood for Remission, when he knows it was shed for the smaller num­ber, and will profit none but those whom it was shed for? Yea how can he urge any to rest on Christ at all? For till they know they are Elect, they know not that Christ died for them (accor­ding to the opposed Doctrin: And till they know that Christ died for them, they cannot rest on him as their Redeemer, nor on his Blood as suf­ficient to procure their pardon, seeing (as is confessed) it is but materially and not formally sufficient, to pardon them if they should believe. And they cannot know that they are Elect or that Christ died for them, till they rest on him: And therefore I see not how any Minister can press Men groundedly to rest on Christ, by a justifying Faith, or to accept him as their Lord-Redeemer. And then for the duties of repentance, Love and Thankfulness to Christ for redeeming them, I have shewed before how this Doctrin evacuates them all, and so that no Minister can groundedly press them. 3. And for the promise, how can any Minister in Christs Name assure a sinner of pardon by that Blood which was never shed for [Page 224] him, on condition he will believe. As if you should say to a Debtor, believe that such a Man hath paid thy debt or trust him, and then thy debt shall be discharged, when you know he hath not paid it, or know not that he hath? Indeed a Man may come off with some kind of truth in his words, if he certainly know that the Party will not believe. But the certain knowledg that Men will not believe, is not the reason why God calls them to believe, and offers them Christ and Life. 4. And for the threaten­ing, with what Heart can a Minister tell Sinners, [Christ is a Redeemer but to the Elect, yet all the rest of you shall perish for not taking him for your Redeemer, and for not resting on that Blood that was never shed for you.] And that as to the ends of preaching. 1. How will the divulging of these, glorify God? When he hath purposely designed the glorifying of Love and Mercy directly, and justice accidentally, by this great work of the Redemption of the World; and hath unhinged the Sabbath which was for Commemoration of the work of Creation, to the first day of the Week for the Commemorati­on of the Work of Redemption, which he will now have admired as his most glorious work, which (as Ames. in the place cited in Argument 18. saith) is to the works of Grace the same that Creation is to the works of Nature, and so is the ground of Gods New Right of Dominion and Empire, and of his governing and judging the World: And how is this glory eclipsed by the opposed Doctrin? 2. And for Mans Convesiron to the Faith, I have shewed how unfurnished a Minister is, rightly to endeavour it on the op­posed [Page 225] grounds. Whereto let me add this: The Soul is never closed to Christ sincerely, till it close in Love: (Love [...]eing, as all Divines say, at the same moment of time as Faith, produced: And as Maccovius before-cited truly saith (and so doth Chamier and many more) Love to the Redeemer the object of Faith, is of the Essence of justifying Faith it self.) Now it is Love that must cause Love, I mean objectively, and not only efficienter. He cannot close in Love with Christ that knoweth nothing of Christs Love to him, though he know it to others, (so near is Man to himself; and Christ is to be received as my Redeemer, and not only as another Mans.) Now no Man can know that Christ loveth him with a special love, before he know that he him­self loveth Christ (that's past question.) And yet no Man can soundly love Christ as Redeemer, that knows not Christs love to him: What re­mains therefore but that it must be Christs com­mon love in redeeming the World, and making the conditional gift of pardon and Life, and this offered to me in particular among others, that must first cause my grounded love to Christ. Let us see what Scripture saith of the ground of Ministerial duties, Math. 22. The work of the Mi­nisters was to invite the Guests, and compel them to come in: And the ground was, all things are ready: Else might not the Guests have said. [If we should come, there is nothing for us, we may go as we come You do but take this advantage to jeer us, be­cause you know our minds that we will not come] 2 Cor. 5. 18, 19, 20. The work of Preachers is, the Ministry of teconciliation: And wherein lies it? vers. 20. Now then we are Embassadors for [Page 226] Christ, as though God did beseech you by us, we pray you in Christs stead, be ye Reconciled to God, so then the work of the Ministry is, to beseech Men in Christs stead and Gods name to be reconciled to God. But on what ground is this? verse 19, 21. To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the World unto himself not imputing their Trespasses to them, and hath committed to us the word of Recon­ciliation (which Text we shall afterwards further explain and vindicate.) Is there not an absolute necessity that the price of Reconciliation be first paid to God and accepted by him, before any Sinner can be intreated to be reconciled to God on the ground of that price paid and accepted? Let me desire Ministers seriously to consider, with what Face they can stand up in the name of the Lord Jesus to beseech poor Sinners to be re­conciled to God, and tell them that else they shall be doubly miserable, when yet there is no price paid for making them way to God, nor Gods justice satisfied for their Sin, which is supposed before any of their own endeavours can do any thing towards Reconciliation. Let me imagine such a Dialogue as this between such a Teacher and a Sinner?

Minister, Sinner I beseech thee in Christs stead be reconciled to God.

Sinner, I have Sinned so much that he will not be reconciled to me: All that I can do, will do nothing to bring me again into his favour.

Min. Christ hath satisfied for all the Elect.

Sinner. But what's that to me, unless I knew my self to be Elect.

M. But Christ hath satisfied for all if they will believe?

Sinner, Did you not tell me he satisfied only for the Elect, and that determined by name? Either [Page 227] he hath satisfied for me before I believe or not? if not my believing will not satisfie, nor cause him to do it now. If he have, how shall I know it?

Min. You must believe first, and then you shall know it afterwards: For God hath ordained insepara­ble connexion between Christs dying for Men, and their believing: And therefore for all my beseeching you to believe, if you be not one that Christ died for, you nei­ther will nor can believe, for none is able but those for whom he purchased it: But if you can believe it will be a sign to you ab effectu that Christ died for you.

Sinner, Alas! Then all that are not redeemed (and I, if I be one of them) are far worse then hopeless and remediless: For they have neither any price paid for them, nor any one hath redeemed them, nor are they able, nor can be able to believe, and yet their torment must be multiplied for ever because they did not believe, and take him for their redeemer that never paid one farthing of their debt: But what is it that you would have me believe?

Min. That Christ hath died for all that will believe.

Sinner. Will that justifie? When the Devils be­lieve that.

Min. That Christs Death is sufficient to pardon all, if they would believe.

Sinner. Then I should believe an untruth, for [...]is all should believe, it is not sufficient to par­don them, because it was not suffered for them. Besides▪ the Devils do believe the sufficiency of Christs Death, as far as it is true.

Min. But they believe not that it is sufficient for themselves.

Sinner. Nor can I, except I knew that it was suf­fered for me.

Min. But you must rest on Christ as a sufficient Re­deemer, [Page 228] and then by reflecting on that Act you may know as by a certain sign that he redeemed you.

Sinner. Then I must believe a Proposition of un­certain truth, that I may know it to be true, and rest on an uncertain ground of trust, that I may have a Sign of its certainty: And so my first faith must be groundless and uncertain. But, as it is not in my power of my self to believe, so I have long been endeavouring to believe and trying my Faith, and though I find I have some Faith (and so had many that perish) yet I cannot find whether it be sincere and saving: And I know many (yea most that seem godly) that never are sure all their life time, that their Faith is that which is justifying and proper to the Elect, and more then the un­rooted Faith of temperaries: How shall I then, or any that are uncertain of the truth of their Faith, know that Christ died for them?

Min. You must labour for assurance of the Truth of your Faith, that you may know that Christ died for you.

Sinner. I no where find the Scripture using that motive to perswade Men to believe, or to get as­surance: But what must I do in the mean time? and all such as I that never come to assurance?

Min. Adhere to Christ as thy Redeemer, sufficient and willing to save.

Sinner. But I have no knowledg whether he be either my Redeemer, or sufficient, or willing? And must I still continue that groundless Act? and that meerly to get a Sign, when yet it will be no sign till I attain assurance of the truth of my Faith▪ And must I never love Christ as my Redeemer▪ nor be thankful to him, nor praise him for it▪ till I have assurance? Respondeat qui potest.

Arg. 22. A differenti statu h [...]minum non-electo­rum, & Daemonum.

If Christ died only for the Elect. then all the rest have no more remedy provided for their misery then the Devils (nor are in any more ca­pacity or possibility of Salvation) But the Con­sequent is false, therefore so is the Antece­dent.

Only the Minor requires proof, for the con­sequence of the Major is evident: For he that hath no expiatory Sacrifice or satisfaction made for his Sin, is left utterly remediless: To say, he is not remediless, because Christ is offered him, is but to deride him, while they say withal, that he is offered only an interest in the satisfaction that was never made for him, that so by not believing as by a sign he might manifest that it was not made for him, and so that Christ did not purchase him Faith; And can the Devils be left worse then remediless.

Now that Christ hath not left the Non-Elect as remediless as the Devils appears. 1. Christ speaketh of his coming into the World and exe­cuting his office, as having such ends to all Men, as they had not to the Devils, as he was the 2d. Adam, and took on him our nature and not the nature of Angels; so he never saith that he came into the World to save Devils, but he saith that he came into the World, not to judg the World but to save the World, of whom he ex­presseth unbelievers to be part Joh. 12. 47. 48. And God sent his Son into the World not to judg the World, but that the World by him might [Page 230] be saved: Even that World which in the next verse is distinguished into believers and unbe­lievers, Joh. 3. 16, 17, 18. It is never said that God sent his Jesus to bless the Devils in turning every one of them from their iniquities: But it is said so of every one of the Jews (Elect or not) to whom the Apostle spake Act 3 last, unbelievers perish not for want of an expiatory Sacrifice, but for rejecting it, not for want of a Jesus, but for want of Faith: But it cannot be said so of the Devils, God sendeth Men in his stead to be­seech unbelievers to be reconciled to God (upon supposition of the payment of the price of Re­conciliation by Christ to the Father:) But he doth not so to the Devils. All say Christs Death is sufficient to pardon all Men if they will be­lieve (Ames. cont. Bel [...]ar. saith we never doubt­ed of it: Sadeel cont. human. satisfact. saith, let him be blotted out from among the number of Christians that denieth it.) But I know none that dare say [...]o of the Devils. To unbelievers is given Christ himself and all his benefits, by Gods Act and Deed on condition they will receive him: But who can shew such a deed of gift to the Devils? Giving Christ (though but on condition of acceptance to any one,) implieth and presupposeth, giving him on the Cross for them. God entreateth wicked Men daily to ac­cept of Christ that they may live, but he never did so by the Devils. The Spirit of Christ con­vinceth and soliciteth some of the Non-elect to believe, and striveth with them till they grieve and quench it: But so he doth not by the Devils. All Men in the Church Elect and Non-Elect are called on to take heed lest a promise being left [Page 231] them of entering into rest, any of them should prove to come short of it through unbelief Heb. 4. 1. The wicked are condemned and everlasting­ly punished, for refusing a Redeemer, and not coming in to the [...]east when all things were rea­dy, and for neglecting so great Salvation, and treading under Foot the Blood of the Covenant, and because they would not have Christ to Raign over them; But it is far otherwise with the De­vils, the wicked will be left unexcusable at the Redeemers Bar, when they are judged according to the New Law for refusing Christ that bought them: But the Devils would have excuse enough if they were judged on those Terms. So that I may well conclude, that the Doctrin is not sound which makes Christ to have died no more to expiate the Sins of the Non-Elect, then of the Devils but left them equally remediless: But such is the Doctrin now opposed, Ergo, &c.

Argum. 23d. A statu hominum saltem non pejore statu Daemonum.

If Christ Died not for all, (that hear the Gos­pel) then Gods dealing with the Non-elect part of fallen Man is much harder than his dealing with the Devils, but the Consequent is false, therefore so is the Antecedent.

The Minor I think I need not prove, all ac­knowledge it that ever I heard or read, on this subject: If they should think that God dealt alike with the Non-elect and the Devils, yet sure none will say that he deals far hardlier with the Non-elect: Hell is prepared for the Devil and his Angels, they are reserved in Chains of Darkness [Page 232] to the Judgment of the great Day; till then they believe and tremble, and look for the time of their full torment without any hope of escape: Compare with this, but what I have before proved to be Gods dealing with men, even them that perish, and you will see that their case is not worse than the Devils.

And for the Consequence of the Major Propo­sition, I prove it thus; by comparing both to­gether. When the Devils had fallen from their first estate, God leaves them without re­medy or hope of recovery. But when man is fallen, (according to the Doctrine which I op­pose) God doth not only leave him remediless but also makes a new Law that shall oblige him to suffer a far sorer punishment, except he will believe in a Redeemer that is not his Redeemer, and trust for salvation to that Blood that was ne­ver shed for him, and accept the benefits of a satisfaction that was never made for him, even effects without a cause: Yea and causeth his Son to make a satisfaction materially sufficient for the sins of all; and yet had rather it were superfluous and vain, and meerly lost, then that it should be paid for him: As if he would rather when three Men owe 100 l. a piece, pay 300 l. for one of the three, than the other 200 l. should be tendred for the rest; And when he knows that Christ never satisfied for any of the Non-elect, yet doth he follow them with daily sollicitations by his Word, Spirit and Embassadors, beseeching them to come in and accept of Christ, ordaining and resolving that all these beseechings, shall harden them, or at least aggravate their sin and and misery, that it may be easier with Sodom and [Page 233] Gomorrah in the day of Judgment than with them that refuse these Offers. And thus Christ shall necessitate them causally by his Law to a far greater torment, as if their misery were not sad enough before without procuring them any possi­bility of escape, (for there is no such possibility without satisfaction to God's justice,) If God should make a Law, that the Devils who are miserable already, should have [...]ar sorer pu­nishment if they would not believe in Christ as their Redeemer who never redeemed them, would not this be harder dealing than now God useth toward them? when all the offer is on sup­position that they cannot and therefore will not believe, and if it were possible to believe it would do them no good. If then this would be harder dealing with them, than those are hardlier used than the Devils with whom God so deals, and therefore he dealeth so with none.

Arg. 24. A beneficâ Naturâ Evangelii.

If Christ died only for the Elect, then should the Gospel to most men where it comes be of it self directly one of the greatest plagues and signs of God's wrath that ever he sendeth on a People on earth, but the Gospel is no such Curse, but a great blessing, Ergo, &c.

The Consequence is thus proved, That which brings an unavoidable obligation to a far sorer punishment, (without giving any possiblity either of escaping former misery, or this additional mi­sery) must needs be one of the greatest Curses and Plagues in the World, and so the sign of Gods greatest wrath; but such were the Gospel [Page 234] (or new Law) to most men where it comes (if the opposed Doctrine were true), Ergo, &c.

Let him that denys the Major, shew me a so­rer Plague that ever God inflicted on any man on Earth, if he can.

Object. Is not the Gospel the savour of death to some? and Christ a stumbling stone, and Rock of offence?

Answ. That is not of his own nature, nor of the nature of the Gospel, nor yet as a proper Cause per se, but as an occasion, and by accident, through Mans own wickedness▪ and wilful re­jection and abuse. A Man may burn himself with the fire that should warm him, or choak him­self with the food that should nourish him.

Object. But doth not God decree it?

Answ. His decree causeth not the thing, any more than his foreknowledge, having no influence into the Object; as our Divines, actus immanens nihil ponit in objectio. Predestinatio [...]i [...]l ponit in praedestinato. It imposeth no causal necessity as all confess, only as foreknowledge, so decree hath a Logical necessity, in ordine argumentandi, called Necessitas Consequentiae, Twisse himself saith▪ there is no more, and the Schoolmen are of his mind in that, and affirm no more.

And for the minor, its evident in each part. 1. The new Law obligeth all that believe not, to damnation, because they believe not, and to a far sorer punishment than before was due to them, Heb. 10. 29. Mar. 16. 16. Joh. 3. 18, 19. Mat. 25. last. 2. And that it is an unavoidable obli­gation [Page 235] appears, 1, In that God made the Law whether Man will or not, Man could not hinder that▪ 2. And it is an impossibility which the Law is feigned to require: To accept a Redeemer that never Redeemed them, to rest on a satis­faction for their justification and pardon which is no satisfaction, for as to them it is none: It be­ing maintain'd by them whom I oppose, that it is none, and that it is only materially sufficient, that is, matter (of suffering) sufficient to have made a satisfaction if God would; but not formally sufficient; that is, indeed it is no price or satis­faction (as to their debt) at all; for if my Neigh­bour and I owe each of us 20 l. he that pays his debt, though he over-pay, doth no more thereby to the discharge of mine, than if he had done no­thing at all. I have proved before, that here is no sufficient ground for that faith, supposing Christ satisfied not for the Believer. And even those whom I argue against, will not endure to have it supposed that any Man should believe for whom Christ dyed not. Or if they will let us sppose such a thing, then it is undeniable that such a Man would be never the more pardoned or saved, because there is no Salvation withont a Saviour, and no Remission without satisfaction: And as in those that are pardoned and saved, the efficacy of Christ's satisfaction is before all pos­sibility of any power or snccess of Man's Faith: So in those that perish (if they had no price of satisfaction paid for them) the want of a Re­deemer would be the first want, concluding their damnation and non-deliverance from former mi­sery, and the want of Faith could be but the se­condary consequential want, which Faith if it [Page 236] were present would not satisfie or save, no more than believing now would save the Devils. And thus it is evident that on the grounds opposed, the Gospel would causally per [...]e, unavoidably be the greatest plague on earth to all where it comes, except the Elect; and not only accidentally by their own Sin.

Now for the Minor (that the Gospel is not so,) I prove from Scripture; it is called the glad ti­dings of the Kingdom of God▪ Luke 8. 1. Before men are Converted, the Apostles say▪ we declare unto you glad tidings, Acts 13. 32. 33. The Preachers of it bring glad tidings of good things, preaching the Gospel of peace, Rom. 10. 15. even the unsanctified, receive the word with joy, Mat. 13. 20. (and not so great joy as they had cause) so Mark 4. 16. it is called the Gospel of the grace of God, Acts 20. 24. it is a Wedding-Feast, even ready for those that would not come to it, who are therefore said to be unworthy of it; and so it was to him that came without the Wed­ding garment, Mat. 22. if it were not a mercy, then Men did not sin against mercy in rejecting it, which who dare say? It gives men promises of entring into rest, who yet by wilful unbelief may come short of it, Heb. 4. 1, 2, 3, &c. See 1 Cor. 10. to the 13th, God sent Jesus to bless the Jews (more than Elect) in turning every one of them from his Iniquity, Acts 3. last. The unthankful Ser­vant had his debt freely pardoned him, (and that was a mercy) who after took his fellow by the throat, and by ingratitude lost that pardon which he had: It declareth God's tender Mercies over all his works, and such mercies as are to lead all men to Repentance, Psal. 145. 9. Rom. 2. It is [Page 237] good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people, Acts 2. 10. It freely giveth to all the water of life, if they refuse not the gift, Rev. 22. It is the Gospel that bringeth Salvation to all men, Tit. 12. 11.

A hundred Texts might be brought to prove how great a blessing of it self the Gospel is to that People to whom it is given, and if it be turned to a Judgment and hurt them, it is meerly acciden­tally, through their wilful rejecting it, or turning the grace of God into wantonness, or sinning, be­cause Grace hath abounded; and not from any thing in it, nor for want of a reality in the bene­fit which it offereth.

Arg. 25. A differentiâ status damnatorum & via­torum.

If Christ dyed not for all men, then the state of most men (all that he dyed not for) were as de­plorate and remediless as the State of the Dam­ned: But the consequent is false, therefore so is the Antecedent.

The Consequence of the Major proposition is plain, in that the state of all men that Christ dyed not for must needs be utterly hopeless, and re­mediless, for there is no other satisfaction to be hoped for besides that made by the blood of Je­sus, and that is nothing to them, nor is there any hope or possibility that ever they should have part in a satisfaction that is no satisfaction for them; without blood there is no remission: If they should believe, and repent, and pray for mercy night and day, it would be but as the Rich Epi­cure in Hell pray'd for a drop of water, all in vain, [Page 238] for betwixt God and them is so great a gulf or distance by sin, that nothing without a Re­deemer can do them any good, as to the least hope of Salvation. If you say, it is not to be supposed that they can believe, repent, and pray, I answer, that is (in your own sense) because it is supposed they are not redeemed, and the im­possibility of their not repenting and believing shews the more fully the impossibility of their Salvation. And the reason why they do not actually despair, is not because they have any more remedy than the Damned, or cause to hope; but only because they are yet ignorant of the hopelesness of their own Condition, and as soon as they know the truth they will fully despair. So that there is no more possibility that a Man for whom Christ dyed not should be pardoned or sa­ved, than that the Damned should, for both are equally impossible; If any say that God can find out another remedy besides and without Christs satisfaction, though he will not, and therefore it is not impossible. I will not examine the truth of that now, but if it be true of them on Earth, why not also of them in Hell? When once Men are in that state that there is no Sacrifice for their sin, then there remaineth nothing but the fearful expectation of Judgment, and Fire that shall de­vour the Adver [...]ary.

Object But doth not God's foreknowledge and de­cree make mens Salvation impossible, as well as Christs not Dying for them? and so your argument is as much against them.

Answ. No, They do nihil ponere in Objecto; nor are the removal or denyal of any efficient cause of Salvation, they infer only Necessitatem Conse­quentiae, they make no Mans Salvation impossible, [Page 239] but only prove it not future: And as it is not omne Possible that is futurum, so neither omne non futurum that is Impossibile. And it is agreed that foreknowledge presupposeth the futurition or non futurition of the thing foreknown. But there is much more necessary to be said to resolve this doubt which I may not now insist on, only I add, that the matter of God's Decrees, and the futuri­tion of things as depending thereon, are so high, and so far above us, that it becomes us not to be too inquisitive into them, much less so peremptori­ly to determine of them as some do, and least of all to try plainer Cases by such determinations, and reduce certainties to uncertainties, when we should tather reduce uncertainties to certainties.

And for the Minor, (that the state of most men even in the Church, is not so hopeless, deplo­rate and remediless as is the case of the Damned) I prove it thus. They might be saved who are yet on Earth, if they would but receive the love of the truth, 2 Thes. 2. 9, 10. If they would believe they might all be justified, and should not perish, but have everlasting life; whoever of them will, may have the water of Life freely, and it is of­fered them, and they intreated to take it, and if they have it not, it is because they will not, and not because there was no object or ground for their willing, or no Sacrifice for their sin. God offers them pardon and Salvation, but God offers no other Pardon or Salvation but what is purcha­sed by Christ's Blood: He that tells us there neither is nor can be any other Remission or Salvation, but what Christ purchaseth, will not offer any o­ther to men, and urge them to accept it, yea, Pardon and Life (as purchased by Christ) are in Gods deed of gift, together with Christ himself, [Page 240] conditionally bestowed on all, even if they will have them, (a Condition which among men is seldom thought worthy the name of a Condi­tion, it being supposed in nature that every man is willing of his own good, and so of all excellent advantages thereto.) Is all this so with those in Hell? Christ is neither given, nor Pardon and Life offered to them; they are not commanded to repent and believe to this end, that they may be justified and saved: But those on Earth are, and therefore their Pardon and Salvation is pos­sible, for God will not command them to seek or to accept of an impossibility, and then Condemn them for not seeking and not accepting it. If the Damned could repent or believe, it would not save them, but it would save them on Earth. Nor is their belief it self such an impossibility, as is the Damneds believing. Moreover, Christ saith now, how oft would I have gathered you? But he would not gather the Damned. God would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, but he saith not that he would have the Damned to be saved. This Life is called the day of their Visitation, the day of grace, the acceptable time, the day of Salvation; and they are called on to hear the voice of God, to day, while it is called to day, and not to harden their hearts, least he swear in his wrath that they shall not enter into his rest; that is, least their case become desperate, and their Salvation im­possible, therefore it was not so before. They are warned to take heed, least sinning wilfully af­ter the knowledge of the truth▪ there remain no more Sacrifice for Sin, &c. Implying, that before there is a Sacrifice for their sin, it is said that it [Page 241] is impossible to renew them by repentance, who tread under foot the blood of the Covenant, and do despight to the Spirit of Grace, implying, that before it was not impossible; and also that they might have had (if they had not) a share in that blood and that Spirit. They have a promise left them of entring into his rest, Heb. 4 1. and a Salvation proclaimed to them, and if they pe­rish, it will be for neglecting so great Salvation, Heb. 3. 2. They are invited to come in because all things are ready; they are commanded to seek the Lord while he may be found, and call upon him while he is near: None of this is so with the Damned, God is not near them, nor may be found of them, nor have they any day of Grace, Visitation or Salvation, where the word is preached, it is [that they might be saved,] 1 Thes. 2. 16. Paul sought the profit of many, and to please all men, that they might be saved, 1 Cor. 10. 33. Even when men are delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, it is that the Spirit might be saved, 1 Cor. 5. 5. yea, God sent his Son into the World, that the World thro him might be saved (that World which consi­steth of Believers and Unbelievers) Joh. 3. 16. 17. when Jesus was proving his Mediatorship to the Jews, he saith [These things I say that ye might be saved] Joh. 5. 34. so that Mens Salvation is possible while they are on Earth (till they have sinned against the Holy Ghost, or totally Apo­statiz'd by abrenunciation of Christ,) else what business have Preachers with them? Why do we intreat them to be reconciled to God? Do we not tell them daily (and truly) that yet there is time, yet there is hope, and advise them to take [Page 242] time while they have it; and let not slip the Day of Grace and Salvation, 2 Cor. 6. 1, 2. We beseech them that they receive not the Grace of God in vain: for behold, now is the accepted time: behold, now is the day of Salvation. And Christ saith, weeping, over Jerusalem, If thou hadst known, at least in this thy day, the things that belong to thy Peace, but now they are hid from thine eyes, &c. Because thou knewest not the time of thy Visitation, Luk. 19. 41, 42, 43, 44. An hundred places more might be produced to prove, that men on Earth are not left as desperate, deplorate, or remediles as those in Hell, which yet they must be if they had no Redeemer, or no Sacri­fice for their sin.

Arg. 26. A processu Judiciali & causa con­demnationis.

If Christ himself shall therefore condemn men in Judgment, because they received him not as their Lord-Redeemer, or because they abused the fruits of his Death, suffered for them, then he died for All men: But Christ will con­demn men in Judgment because they received him not as their Lord-Redeemer, or because they abused the said fruits of his Death: Therefore he died for All-men.

That he will condemn all the Unbelievers that heard his Gospel, because they did not be­lieve in him nor receive him for their Redeem­er and Saviour, and Lord to Reign over them, nor rest on him for Salvation, is confessed by all, and past dispute, Luke 21. 27. Joh. 1. 10, 11, 12▪ & 3. 18. 1 Joh. 5. 11. 2 Thes. 1. 8. & 2. 10, 11, 12▪ Mar. 16. 16. Job. 5. 22. Mat. 25. per totum.

[Page 243]That all men shall be judged according to their well or ill usage of the Talents of Mercy bestow­ed on them, and repenting or not repenting in the day of Grace, is plain in Mat. 25. in the Para­ble of the ten Virgins and of the Talents. I have proved before that these Talents are Grace (i. e. Miserecordiae contra meritum, effectus) and procured by Christs satisfaction, and not given without Christs satisfaction.

The consequence therefore of the Major pro­position is evident. For shall any man dare, (without better proof) to affirm that Christ will sit as Lord-Redeemer in Judgment, and condemn most of the World to everlasting flames, for re­fusing a Redeemer that was not their Redeemer? and for not believing in him to save them by his death, who never died for them? and for not resting for Salvation, on him that never made the least satisfaction for them, and therefore was not a sufficient stay to rest on; and for not believing, where, if they had believed, Faith would do no good. And where it is objected (as before) they should have believed, that it might have been a sign to them that Christ died for them. I answer (besides what I answered before) 1. It being first granted that Christ did not dye for them, then if they had believed it would have been no sign that he died for them, for it cannot be a sign of that which was not. And Christs dying or not dying for them, for it cannot be a sign of that which was not. 2. Never Judge did pass sentence upon a sign instead of a cause: or make the want of a sign to be the cause of condemnation. Then the principal cause should be [non Redimi:] that Christ died not for us, [Page 244] and the signal (which is our not believing) must be the less principal, And so the Sentence should pass thus [I adjudge thee to Hell Fire, for not being redeemed by my blood, and consequently for not having that faith which might have been a sign that I redeemed thee.] But who dare feign Christ Jesus to pass such a Sentence; Saith Abra­ham far be it from thee, to destroy the Righ­teous with the Wicked! shall not the Judge of all the World do righteously?

Also how could Christ condemn Pagans or any for not improving his Talents of Mercy, if they had none? And if Christ died not for them, they had none. For I have proved, it could not come any other way: Grace, as I said, proper to the Gospel, is [Mercy contrary to Merit] as Grace to the first man new created, was, [Mercy without Merit] now common or special Gospel Grace (contrary to merit) comes all from Christs Blood, and can come no otherwise. The Law came by Moses, but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ, of his fulness we all receive, and Grace for Grace. All the gifts in the Church, of Tongues, Miracles, casting out Devils, Healing, Prophesying (all which, those may have that shall perish) are yet from one and the same Spi­rit, even the Spirit of the Son, procured by his Blood. In him it is that God blesseth us with all spiritual blessings (common or special.) Now if men have none of the Talents which Christ's Death hath purchased them, how can he con­demn them for abusing that which they had not?

I know, some reply, that God may condemn and torment his Creature without any fault, if [Page 245] he please, and that justly, because his Will is the rule of Justice. To which I answer as he is Dominus Absolutus he may do with his own as he please, and therefore may torment the Creature as he please (at least he might have done, before he undertook to dispose of them as Rector ac­cording to his Laws) but as he is Ruler of the Rational Creature, he will not, and therefore cannot condemn or punish any but for sin; see­ing every punishment is essential for a fault. And therefore if God should torment the unde­serving Creature, it would be but an Affliction or meer Suffering (which is the matter of Punish­ment without the form) but no punishment: And therefore it would be neither just nor unjust, being not capable of either Title: But to say that God as Judge can condemn or punish a man without desert, is plain Blasphemy.

Arg. 27. A condemnandorum inexcusabilitate.

If Christ died not for all, then the condemned would not be left without any just excuse, But the condemned shallbe left without a just excuse, therefore Christ died for All.

The Minor is plain in Scripture. All mouths shall be stopped, and all the World be guilty before God, Rom. 3. 19. And Christ saith, They have no Cloak for their sin. See Rom. 1. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, &c.

And for the consequence of the Major, there is enough said to prove it before. And further let me add for explication a few words. Excuse is contrary to Accusation: As there are there­fore divers sorts of Accusation, so is there of Excusation: Men may be Accused at the Bar of [Page 246] God. 1. Upon the grounds afforded in the Law of Works. 2. Or according to the Mediators new Law, or the Law of Grace. According to the Law of Works men may be accused. 1. Of violating the Precept. 2. Of being liable to the penalty: For the first of these no man on Earth hath any just excuse, for all have sinned, and must confess it, and he that saith he hath no sin is a lyer. 2. If any man be accused of being liable to penalty according to the tenour of the Law of Works, this also must be confessed and hath no excuse: no not for them that Christ died for in the strictest sense, or that are Justified. 2. And for Accusation in the reference to the Law of Grace, either men will be accused, 1. Of not performing the duties of that Law, as command­ed. 2. Or of not performing the condition of it, as it is a condition. 3. Or of being liable to the penalty, 1. Privative. 2. Positive. 1. For the first, all men must confess that they are guil­ty: For though in the Law of Nature the Duty commanded, and the condition, were the same, yet in the Law of Grace, the Duty commanded is of larger extent than the condition. For per­fect obedience is commanded, though only faith and sincere obedience be the condition: Only the Duty commanded is the matter about which sincere obedience, which is part of the condition is exercised. Now here no man can excuse him­self by saying that he hath done all that Christ commanded him: But the non-redeemed may excuse themselves for not doing it: For against every part of the Precepts proper to the Gospel, they have excuse, as will appear anon, when we speak of the conditions. 2. The condition of [Page 247] the new Law or Covenant is, Faith working by Love, Repentance. Thankfulness and sincere Obe­dience. He that performeth not these must perish. Now if an unredeemed person shall be accused for not performing these, though he must confess the non-performance, yet he hath these reasons to give for his excuse. 1. Where there is no gift, there can be no condition, in proper sense, of ob­taining: But Christs blood was not given to us, and consequently not the proper fruits of it. Therefore 2. How could we believe in, or re­ceive Christ as our Redeemer, who never Re­deemed us? Or trust to his Blood for Justifica­tion, which was never shed for us? And there­fore would not have been sufficient to save us, had it been possible for us to have believed in it, or had we actually believed? Moreover believ­ing to Justification, is but the accepting or re­ceiving Christ as an offered Saviour and Head, or as conditionally given us, viz. if we will receive him (this is commonly confest:) now how can there be a receiving or accepting without a giv­ing? Is there any contradiction more palpable? We therefore to whom Christ was not given could not receive him: and if he were not given for us, he could not be given to us: seeing the latter doth presuppose the former. 3. Repen­tance to Life presupposeth some hope of Life gi­ven (I mean, spem possibilitatis, & probabilitatis, & si non spem certitudinis.) But there is no hope given to any, but in and by the blood of Jesus Christ shed for them: for there is no other name by which they can be saved; without this hope we might have an Infernal despairing tormenting Repentance, but could not possibly have a Re­pentance [Page 248] unto Life, or such as could be to us any means of our recovery (as all Gospel Repen­tance is.) And it was not in our power to give hope to our selves by causing Christs blood to be shed for us, had we been never so willing. 4. How could we love God as merciful in Redeem­ing us, or love Christ as our Redeemer when we knew him not to be our Redeemer; and it now appears he never was our Redeemer. 5. How could we love the Brethren as our members of the same body, and our fellow-redeemed ones (which is the new commandment) when they were none of our Brethren in that sense, nor could we prove that they should be so? 6. Why should we be thankful to Christ for Redeeming us, when he did not at all redeem us, Should we be thankful for nothing? 7. How could we obey Christ as our Lord-redeemer, who was not our Lord-redeemer? How could we hear him as such, and call on him as such, or trust him as such,? If his offices are all of equal extent, and it be certain that he was no Priest to us, as not offering himself a sacrifice for us at all; then he could be no King or Pro­phet to us. And why then should we obey a King that is not our King? Or, Why then should we hear that Prophet who was no Prophet to us?

3. And then as to the last accusation; if men be accused as being lyable or obliged to the penalty, for non-performance of the condi­tion; or for want of a Saviour: Every true Believer hath two things to answer for his full Justification: 1. That Christ hath satisfied for him (and therefore the Laws obligation [Page 249] is justly dissolved.) 2. That he hath himself performed the condition of the new Covenant? (and therefore hath part in Christs satisfaction, and is not to be condemned as an Unbeliever) or ungrateful Rebel, and therefore ought not to be deprived of the reward or benefit given, (which is deliverance from the Curse of the Law and the guilt of sin and deserved punish­ment, together with a greater superadded glory:) Nor yet to suffer the positive penalty (which is both the Non-liberation from the foresaid misery, and the greater torment threat­ned to unbelievers.) Now the unredeemed may all plead that the said penalties are not due to them. 1. Because no redeemer did ever satisfie for them; and they could not satisfie for themselves, nor cause Christ to satisfie for them; which is ever presupposed to their own believing; seeing believing is but to give them a right to the satisfaction and benefits of Christ, and not to be our righteousness as of worth in it self; now all the believing in the World would not make that satisfaction to be for me, which was never made for me, but only for a­nother, no more than believing that another man hath paid my debt, would make it true; or make a payment to be for me which was only for another: As Mr. Perkins saith [and least any should imagine that the very act of Faith in apprehending Christ justifieth, we are to un­derstand that Faith doth not apprehend by power from it self, but by virtue of the Cove­nant: If a man believe the Kingdom of France to be his, it is not therefore his: Yet if he be­lieve Christ and the Kingdom of Heaven by [Page 250] Christ to be his, it is his indeed: Not simply because he believes, but because he believes up­on promise and commandment; for in the tenor of the covenant God promiseth to impute the obedience of Christ to us if we believe.] Vol. 1. True Gain. page 662. So that the un­believer hath this excuse, that his believing supposed the Gift and Promise, and he could not by believing have made satisfaction to Gods Justice (Faith having no such worth, nor be­ing ordained to that end) nor yet could he get interest in a satisfaction never made for him: Nor would God have imputed such a satisfacti­on or obedience to him, had he never so much believed. Indeed he deserves the misery threatned by the first Law for sin against the Creator, or for sin as sin; but not the penalty proper to the new Law; either privative con­sisting in non-liberation, or positive, as in sorer punishment. 2. Besides he is excused by the former reasons which excuse him for non-per­formance of the conditions; for then he can­not be punished for that non-performance. If the Devils were accused for not believing in Christ as their Redeemer, and consequently being obliged to the penalties of the new Covenant, would not they have all this excuse?

Argum. 28th. A natura poenae infernalis positivae.

If Christ Died not for all (but only the Elect) then Conscience will not torment the Damned for rejecting Christ their Lord-Re­deemer, [Page 251] or the fruits of his Redemption: But Conscience will torment them for so rejecting Christ and his benefits (and thereby wilfully procuring that destruction which else they might have avoided) Ergo, &c.

The Argument seems to me so clear that I need not say much in confirmation of any part of it.

1. For the Minor it is generally granted,

1. That the Torment of Hell lieth much in the Horrors and Accusations of Con­science.

2. And that this is a right judging, and not an erring Conscience. It is not melancholy mistakes that torment poor Souls in Hell (as to think they have sinned when they have not) but the apprehensions of real evils in and upon them.

3. Conscience will never torment men for that which never was in their power to avoid, (directly or indirectly, in it self or in the means) though he had been never so willing. Did you ever see a rational man wounded in Conscience for not being an Angel, or not seeing God face to face, or not redeeming his own Soul? But it is for wilful sinning that mens Consciences scourge them. When there was a possibility of being saved, yea a probabi­lity put into our hands, yea a certainty if we would yield to Christs conditions; and yet men did negligently and wilfully slight all, this will wound them everlastingly: This will feed the never-dying Worm, and make them cry out against themselves for ever, O what a fool, what a wilful wicked self-hater was I, that had [Page 252] a price in my hands, but had not a heart to im­prove it! That had a Redeemer offered me that suffered for my sins, and had not a heart to receive him: That had his blood tendered me for the washing of my Soul, and the heal­ing of my Wounds, and had not a will to ac­cept it! That might have had Christ, and Pardon, and Adoption, and Salvation, and would not! I thought my pleasures and pro­fits better than Christ and Glory! I chose dung and dross before the Crown of Life. How justly am I now excluded from that blessedness, which I set so light by, and endure that misery which I wilfully run into. (See more of this in the Third Part of my Book of Rest, in the aggravations of the Damneds Torments.

But if the damned should then truly know that there was never any possibility of their re­covery; and that Christ never died at all for them; nor was their Redeemer; and that if they could have or had believed, it would not have saved them; yea that Christ being never given for them, could not consequently be given to them, and consequently could not be accepted or received as being not an object ca­prble of being received; yea that God could not give them pardon and Salvation as purchased by that Blood that was never shed for them, had they believed never so much; will not this take of all the accusations of conscience, and turn all their clamors against God himself? And so make Hell thus far to be no Hell? If a great Man come to a poor Prisoner, and say, take me for the payer of thy debt, (as having al­ready done it) and thou shalt be free, and [Page 253] moreover advanced, but otherwise thy impri­sonment and punishment shall be far sorer] suppose the Man believes him not, and there­upon is closer imprisoned and grievously punish­ed: If the offer were real upon a true discharge of his debt, the Prisoner will blame himself: But if it be certainly known to him that there was no such discharge or payment, and that it was offered meerly to increase his misery, be­cause the offerer had some foreknowledg that he would not believe him, and that if he had believed him he had been never the better, be­cause no payment was made, would this Man blame himself? Or would he not approve of his ow [...] unbelief, and say, why should I have trusted such a one? And would he not have cried out on the offerer as a deceiver, and unjust and cruel? Consider and judg. And thus with the Minor I have also confirmed the Major Proposi­tion. Christ told the Jews, If he had not come and spoak to them (and done the Works that no Man else could do) they had not had Sin (in not believing on him) but now they had no Cloak for their Sin. But if Christ had not redeemed Men nor been an object for their Faith, then much more evidently may it be said that they had not had Sin who had not believed in him or taken him as their Redeemer: For defect of an object will more excuse then de­fect of evidence. If the Works of God disco­vering his invisible things, leave Sinners (Hea­thens, as most Exspositors judg) without excuse; and so they had been excusable but for those works; much more excusable would unbe­lievers be, if they had no Redeemer to believe [Page 254] in, whatever proclamations of him were made to the World: And consequently conscience would excuse the damned, and so would not torment them, for an excusing conscience tormenteth none. But whatever Men may say now, I am certain that those miserable damned Souls will have no such alleviation of their misery: They shall not be able then to stop the Mouth of conscience by all the Arguments against their Redemption that now seem so strong; nor to say, what should I vex my self for that which I could never help, if I would; and torment my self or accuse my self for not accepting a Redeemer that never was given me? Or for not redeeming my own Soul.

Arg. 29th. A natura Poenae infernalis Privativae.

If Christ died not for all (but only for the Elect) then the punishment of the damned should not at all consist in a Privation of the But Fruits of Christs Sacrifice (or satisfaction.) the punishment of the damned (at least many, if not all) will consist in a privation of the Fruits of Christs satisfaction, Ergo, &c.

For the better understanding of the force of this Argument you must know, 1. That there may be a Privation of that which we are but in a possibility or probability of enjoying, much more if we have a certainty on some easie, and reasonable condition; specially if the condition be but the accepting of a free gift; as well as there may be a Privation of what is actually en­joyed. [Page 255] 2. Though some that understand not the nature of the New Covenant or Law do deny that it hath any peculiar penalty, yet it is a clear truth beyond doubt. For 1. It is an en­tire law, and therefore doth promise and threa­ten, and consequently doth premiare & punire re­ward and punish. 2. It is that Law by which we shall be judged at the Redeemers bar, and therefore it doth reward and punish, that is, constitute the dueness of rewards and punish­ments: else it could not possibly be Norma judi­cii in Absolution, and condemnation. 3. It is said expresly, Heb. 10. 22. Of how much so­rer punishment shall they be thought worthy that tread under Foot the Son of God, &c. And therefore the punishment of unbelievers in the New Testament is expressed to be in unquenchable Fire prepared for the Devil and his Angels, whereas the punishment of the old Law was expressed but by the name of Death, or at least not so hideously as the other. Not that I am any whit of their opinion that think, there was no actual everlasting pain threatned by the old Law, but only annihilation: Nor will I contest against any Man that saith, it is only a punishment gradually different (as to the positive part, and much of the privative) from that of the first Law which is threatned by the second: For a gradual natural diffe­rence may constitute a moral specifical diffe­rence: It is but in degree of pain that a prick with a pin differs from Caesars stabs in the Se­nate House, or from the pulling of a Mans Flesh of his Back with Nails or hot Pincers. Yet some of the privative, and objective of the [Page 256] positive torments of the two Laws do differ in specie. For as to the positive, the conscien­ces of the damned shall torment them for re­jecting a Redeemer, and pardon, Adoption, and Glory with him: But according to the first Law, conscience should only torment Men for casting away that Life that Adam did enjoy (or if more were promised, for not obeying perfectly that they might attain it.) 4. And it is undeniable that this New Law hath a punish­ment privative specifically distinct in Natura rei from that of the old Law. That is, the pri­vation of Christ as their Head, and of pardon, justification by him, Adoption by him, and Salvation from deserved misery, beside, the loss of a greater promised glory, yea and a second loss of their first happiness. If any therefore shall say, that because Men are condemned already and the Gospel doth only Non-liberare not save unbelievers; therefore it is a meer promise, and not a Law, and so hath no proper penalty of its own; I answer. 1. I have shewed it hath a sorer punishment as its po­sitive penalty. 2. The denial of a greater glory, which Christ giveth by the New Law, above what the old Law gave, is a proper and grievous punishment. 3. The denial of those blessed Relations of [a Member of Christ and in him an adopted Son of God, and Heir of Heaven, &c.] is a sore and proper punishment. 4. The Privation even of that Life which was given by the first Law, is a proper penalty of the se­cond, because the New Law, doth restore to all Men their lost right to Life, on an easy con­dition, and therefore as the Privation of Life [Page 257] is first given or promised in the first Law, was the penalty of that Law, so the Privation of the same Life as redeemed and restored by the Mediator, is the penalty of the new Law: So that it is a recovered happiness that they this way lose, and so are twice dead, as Jude speaks. 5. The very Non-Liberation of the new Law, in denial of Remission and Salvation, is a great and proper penalty: As the Non-continuation of Adams happiness in paradise was a penalty of that Law (and the not-giving of a greater, if that Law did promise a greater.) If a Prince make an Act of pardon and oblivion for a company of imprisoned condemned Malefactors in these terms, that if they will repent and thankfully accept his favour, they shall all be pardoned, and also dignified to be Princes and his Favourites: If they will not, none of them shall be pardon­ed, but all shall die by a more cruel Death. Here this Law of Grace hath as its peculiar pe­nalty. 1. Their Non-liberation, and so their first deserved Death, not as first deserved, but as confirmed, and peremptorily adjudged to them for their ingratitude; and so. 2. The loss of Life, as it was conditionally restored, and was in Law, as it were, a new Life. 3. And the loss of the promised offered dignities. 4. And the sorer kind of death, so is it in the case in Hand.

For the confirmation of the Minor, I need not to say much more, seeing for ought I know it is generally granted. I never met yet with any, that durst say that all the Non-Elect do under­go none of the fore described penalties of the new Law; but only the meer penalties of the [Page 258] first Law: Doubtless God is offended specially at their unbelief, and will destroy them as Christs Enemies because they would not that he should Reign over them, Luke 21. 27. and Christ will come in flaming fire rendring ven­geance to them for not knowing God, and not obeying the Gospel of our Lord Jesus 2. Thes. 1. 7. 8. 9. and he will damn them all that obey­ed not the Truth (of the Gospel) but had pleasure in unrighteousness, 1 Thes. 2. 10. 11. 12. And this is the condemnation that Light is come into the World and Men love darkness rather then light because their deeds were evil: And because when Christ came to his own, his own received him not, Joh. 1. 10. 21, 11. For it shall come to pass that every Soul that heareth not the voice of this Prophet shall be destroyed, Acts 3. 23.

And they that believe not Jesus is the Christ shall dye in their sins; And except men repent, they shall all perish, Luk. 13. 3, 5. yea who­ever believeth not shall be damned, Mar. 16. 16. For he is the Author of Eternal Salvation to them (only) that obey him, Heb. 5. 9. So that as men suffer for sin against the new, so also from the obligation of that Law binding them over to Judgment: and therefore they are judged by that Law, Mat. 25. yea I doubt not but all the World shall be judged by the Redeemer, for misimploying his Talents of Grace (those that perish) and not only for not perfect fulfilling the Law of Works: none is condemned meer­ly for that. And if it be so, then the same Law of Christ must needs constitute the penalty to be executed. Nor did I ever meet with [Page 259] any that durst say that it was no punishment to Unbelievers, to be denied Pardon and Justifi­cation and Salvation from their deserved dam­nation, which were all offered to them in the Gospel, and which Believers do receive: much less should any say, that the additional torments of such, and the loss of the greater promised glory are no punishments. Yea even in this life the non-elect receive of the punishments proper to the new Law, viz. non remission and non reconciliation, and the forsaking of God, when he casts them off, and gives them up to themselves because they would none of him, Psal. 81. 11, 12. and leaves them deso­late because when Christ would have gathered them to him in tender mercy, they would not, Mat. 23. 37, 38. and gives them over to believe lyes because they received not the love of the Truth that they might be saved, 2 Thes. 2. 10, 11. and takes his holy Spirit from them, because they grieved and quenched it.

And all this will be out of doubt if we con­sider the definition of Punishment, which is a natural evil inflicted because of a Moral: or the hurt of our persons inflicted for sin. Now there is no doubt but all these forementioned are evils to us, or hurtful to mens persons; and no doubt but they are inflicted for sin: and then as to the species; They are inflicted for sins against the Law of Christ, by force of the obligation of the commination of that Law, and the sentence past by Christ as Redeemer and Author of that Law. Yea what if I said that strictly and directly men suffer not at all the penalty of the Law of Works? For all are [Page 260] delivered from that penalty on condition they Repent and Believe, and so the obligation of that Law is suspended to all, (though not strict­ly abrogated) and transferred, and as it were sequestred into the hands of Christ to be dispo­sed of by him, (inflicting or not inflicting it) as men deal with him according to his terms of Grace, so that now, the penalty is immediate­ly and strictly the penalty of the Law of Christ, as it doth both non-liberare and peremptorily bind men over to it; and it is properly the loss of a Life recovered by Christs blood, which is the punishment; though remotely it be also from the obligation of the first Law, which being but suspended by Christ, and con­ditionally dissolved, remaineth in force upon the non-performance of the condition, as soon as the time of performance is expired. So that it is undeniable that the damned suffer the pri­vation of the fruits of Christs death and satis­faction: yea and of his satisfaction for them in perticular. For as it is certain that there is no remission without blood, and no Justification or Salvation without Christs satisfaction; so it is as much beyond doubt with all sober men, that Christs satisfaction for one man will not procure Pardon and Salvation for another. So that the Minor is fully clear.

And for the Major proposition it is as clear. For there can be no effects without a cause: As no man can receive the effects of Christs Death, but those for whom he died; so no man can lose or be deprived of those effects, but those for whom he died; for the cause is presupposed. A Negation is no Punishment. [Page 261] It is not a punishment to a Stone that it is not a Man, that it is mute, liveless, &c. nor to a Beast, not to be saved, nor to an Angel not to be Redeemed, nor to the Devils, not to be partakers of Christ, and of Pardon and Salva­tion by him. Now its true, the Pardon of the Damned, and their Salvation was not actually effected, but the meritorious cause was full and perfect in Christs satisfaction (and moral causes go long before the effects sometimes, and may do all their part, and yet the effect not follow through the defect of some other,) and the effects were conditionally given or produ­ced by the New Covenant, and thereby be­come not only possible and probable, but cer­tain if the condition were performed: So that here is a proper privation, and not a bare Ne­gation. Nor is it the meer matter of such effects that men are deprived of, but formally as they were effects conditionally granted, and were to have been effects actually of the death of Christ. They should have been such effects, if they had done their part to procure them by performing the condition as Christ did in the Cause; for he required not them to effect it as concauses, but only suspended the effects of his own full sufficient (but Moral) cause, on their condition, which all Lawyers, and all that know what a Moral Cause is, or what a proper condition is, know to be most usual. Now if you suppose that Christ died not, and satisfied not for these men, then the loss of Par­don, Adoption, Membership of Christ, final Absolution, Salvation, besides all the greater Glory, and all the Spirits Graces and Work­ings [Page 262] in this life, cannot possibly be punishments to them, for they cannot be Privations. For there was never any cause to procure them, and therefore they were never possible, much less due: and Mans Faith was not required by God to be the meritorious cause, or to satisfie Gods Justice, nor yet to procure Christ or any other to satisfie it, nor yet to make that satisfaction to be now for us, which was made for others and not for us: to none of these ends was Faith requir­ed, but only to be the condition of our enjoying Christ, and the fruits of his satisfaction; on performance whereof the Moral Cause which was long before in full being, should produce its effect, or else not (as to us) so that satisfacti­on as the Cause is necessarily supposed to Faith as the condition, seeing the office of the con­dition is, that on it the effect of the cause be suspended, till that condition be performed: And therefore there can be no condition where there is not first the Moral Cause: I mean there can neither be condition constituted by Law, Testament, Deed of Gift, or Covenant, nor yet condition performed, for it cannot have the form of a condition. Or if that be dispu­table as to any other case, I am sure it is not in the case in hand; No man will say that the non-remission, non-salvation of the Devils by the Blood of Christ, is a Punishment to them.

Object. That is because it was never offered or conditionally given them by Covenant, as it was to the Unbelievers.

[Page 263] Answ. Nor could it have been given so to Unbelievers, if Christ had not died for them. Could God give them Christ as a Satisfier and Redeemer, who never had satisfied for them or redeemed? Or could he make over to them effects which had no Cause, viz. the effects of his dying for them, when he did not dye for them? Would the New Covenant serve to pardon men without Christs Sacrifice and Sa­tisfaction? Nay is it not beyond all doubt that this which I call the New Covenant or Testa­ment, He that believeth shall be saved, &c. is the Redeemers Law and Testament, and presup­poseth his Death and Satisfaction, in esse Morali at least: It is the New Testament in his Blood, he first buyeth men to be his own by satisfacti­on, and then dealeth with them as his own by Promise and Legislation: Only the Promise of God to give Christ for a Redeemer to the World, and his Prophesies of him therein, are in order of nature before the Moral being of Christs death, but so is not the Law of Grace. I know nothing that hath any great shew of Reason that can be said against this Argu­ment, which so clearly evinceth the truth of Universal Redemption, and for vain objections, I will not trouble my self and the Reader with them.

Arg. 30. A Comparatione doctrinae universa­lem satisfactionem affirmantis cum doctrin [...] eandem negante.

If they who assert Universal Redemption (quoad satisfactionem & pretium) have all these fore­mentioned [Page 264] Arguments from Scripture for their cause, and a multitude of express Texts, and no one ill consequence following their doctrine, nor one sound Reason, nor one text of Scrip­ture against them; And if the deniers of Uni­versal Satisfaction have all the contrary disad­vantages; then they that affirm Universal Sa­tisfaction are in the right, and they that deny it do err. But the antecedent is true, Ergo. &c.

Here I will 1. Look over these Arguments again, and from thence shew you the face of the consequents of the denial of Universal Sa­tisfaction.

2. I will lay you down together the express Texts that are for Universal Satisfaction.

3. And also the Texts that are brought against it.

4. And then the particular search of those texts on both sides, and the answer to all the Arguments that are usually brought against Universal Satisfaction, I intend shall follow afterward in their own places more fully.

The Doctrine which denyeth Universal Sa­tisfaction hath all these inconveniences, and ab­surd consequents, following, therefore it is not of God, nor true.

1. It either denieth the Universal Promise or Conditional Gift of Pardon and Life to all men if they will believe, and then it overturn­eth the substance of Christs Law and Gospel promise: or else it maketh God to give con­ditionally to all men a Pardon and Salvation which Christ never purchased, and without his dying for men.

[Page 265]2. It maketh God either not to offer the effects of Christs satisfaction (Pardon and Life) to all, but only to the Elect: or else to offer that which is not, and which he cannot give.

3. It denieth the direct object of Faith, and of Gods offer, that is Christum qui satisfecit, [a Christ that hath satisfied.]

4. It either denieth the Non-Elects delive­rance from that flat necessity of perishing, which came on man for sinning against the first Law, by its remediless unsuspended obligation, (and so neither, Christ, Gospel or Mercy, had ever any nature of a remedy to them, nor any more done toward their deliverance then towards the deliverance of the Devils:) Or else it maketh this deliverance and remedy to be with­out satisfaction by Christ for them.

5. It either denieth that God commandeth all to believe (but only the Elect: Or else maketh God to assign them a deceiving Object for their Faith, commanding them to believe in that which never was, and to trust that which would deceive them if they did trust it.

6. It maketh God, either to have appointed and commanded the Non-Elect to use no means at all for their Recovery and Salvation, or else to have appointed them means which are all ut­terly useless and insufficient for want of a pre­requisite cause without them, yea which im­ply a contradiction.

7. It maketh the True and Righteous God to make promises of Pardon and Salvation to all men on condition of believing, which he nei­ther would nor could perform (for want of such [Page 266] satisfaction to his Justice) if they did believe.

8. It denieth the true sufficiency of Christs Death, for the pardoning and saving of all men, if they did believe.

9. It makes the cause of mens Damnation to be principally for want of an expiatory Sa­crifice and of a Saviour, and not of believing.

10. It maketh Christ to have suffered much in vain, enduring as much for the sins of the Elect only, as if the sins of all men had layen on him.

11. Or else it dangerously extenuateth and denieth the sufferings of Christ, as if he did not suffer as much as was due for the sins of all and it extenuateth his love, as if he took on him only the sins of the Elect.

12. It either denieth that any but the Elect should love Christ or be thankful to him as their Redeemer (yea or any Elect that have not the knowledg of their Election) and so should not repent of the want of this love and thankfulness, or else that they should love him and be thankful for that which never was true, and never was done for them or given them.

13. It maketh God to have inflicted more on Christ then was due, even as much for the Sins of the Elect only, as was due for the Sins of all the World.

14. It leaveth all the World, Elect as well as others, without any ground and object for their first justifying Faith, and in an utter un­certainty whether they may believe to justifica­tion or not.

15. It maketh the knowledg that we have justi­fying Faith to go before the having of that Faith.

16. It denieth the most necessary humbling [Page 267] aggravation of Mens Sins, so that neither the Minister can tell wicked Men that they have sinned against him that bought them, nor can any wicked Man so accuse himself, no nor any Man that doth not know himself to be Elect: They cannot say, my Sins put Christ to Death, and were the Cause of his sufferings: Nay a Mi­nister cannot tell any Man in the World certain­ly,] thy Sins put Christ to death] because he is not certain who is Elect or sincere in the Faith.

17. It subverteth Christs new Dominion and Government of the World, and his gene­ral legislation, and Judgment according to his Law, which is now founded in his Title of Re­demption, as the first Dominion and Govern­ment was on the Title of Creation.

18. It maketh all the benefits that the Non-Elect receive, whether Spiritual or corporal, and so even the relaxation of the curse of the Law (without which relaxation no Man could have such mercies) to befall Men without the satisfaction of Christ, and so either make satis­faction, as to all those mercies, needless, or else must find another Satisfier.

19. It maketh the Law of Grace to contain far harder terms then the Law of Works did in its utmost rigor.

20. It maketh the Law of Moses either to bind all the Non-Elect still to all Ceremonies and bondage-ordinances (and so sets up judaism) or else to be abrogated and taken down, and Men delivered from it, without Christs suffer­ing for them.

21. It destroys almost the whole work of the Ministry, disabling Ministers either to hum­ble [Page 268] Men by the chiefest aggravations of their Sins, and to convince them of ingratitude and unkind dealing with Christ, or to shew them any hopes to draw them to repentance, or any love and mercy tending to Salvation, to melt and win them to the Love of Christ; or any sufficient object for their Faith and affiance, or any means to be used for pardon or Salvation, or any promise to encourage them to come in, or any threatening to deter them.

22. It makes God and the Redeemer to have done no more for the remedying of the misery of most of faln mankind, then for the Devils, nor to have put them into any more possibility of pardon or Salvation.

23. Nay it makes God to have dealt far hard­lier with most Men then with the Devils; making them a Law which requireth their be­lieving in one that never died for them, and taking him for their Redeemer that never re­deemed them, and that on the meer foresight that they would not believe it, or decree that they should not; and so to create by that Law a necessity of their far sorer punishment, with­out procuring them any possibility of avoiding it.

24. It makes the Gospel of its own Nature to be the greatest Plague and Judgment to most of Men that receive it, that ever God sendeth to Men on Earth, by binding them over to a greater punishment, and aggravating their Sin, without giving them any possibility of remedy.

25. It maketh the case of all the World ex­cept the Elect as deplorate, remediless and hope­less, as the Case of the damned, and so denieth them to have any day of Grace, Visitation or [Page 269] Salvation, or any price for happiness put into their Hands.

26. It maketh Christ to condemn Men to Hell Fire for not receiving him for their Re­deemer that never redeemed them, and for not resting on him for Salvation by his Blood, which was never shed for them, and for not repenting unto life, when they had no hope of mercy, and Faith, and repentance could not have saved them.

27. It putteth sufficient excuses into the Mouths of the condemned.

28. It maketh the torments of conscience in Hell to be none at all, and teacheth the damned to put away all their sorrows and self accusati­ons.

29. It denieth all the privative part of those torments which Men are obliged to suffer by the obligation of Christs Law, and so maketh Hell either no Hell at all, or next to none.

30. And I shall anon shew how it leads to Infidelity and other Sins, And after this, what Face of Religion is left, unsub­verted? Not that I charge those that deny Uni­versal satisfaction with holding all these abomi­nations, but their Doctrin of introducing them by necessary consequence: It is the opinion and not the Men that I accuse.

2. Next let me give you some express Texts of Scripture, which I shall anon run over more fully and vindicate, and see which opinion is the truth of God, Joh. 3. 16. God so loved the World, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting Life, 2 Pet. 2. 1, 20, 21. But there were false Prophets also among the People, even [Page 270] as there shall be false teachers among you, who privi­ly shall bring in damnable Heresies even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction, 20. 21. And as Jude hath it. 4. There are certain Men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly Men, turning the Grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Tim. 2. 5. 6. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a Ransom for all, to be testified in due time. 1 Job. 2. 2. He is the Propitiation for our Sins, and not for ours on­ly, but also for the Sins of the whole World, Rom. 5. 18. Therefore as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all Men to condemnation, Even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all Men to justification of Life, Heb. 2. 9. That he by the Grace of God should tast Death for every Man, Tit. 2. 11. For the Grace of God that bringeth Salva­tion, hath appeared to all Men, 1 Tim. 2. 3, 4. Who will have all Men to be saved, and to come to the knowledg of the truth, Joh. 3. 17. 18. 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 in 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 then light, because their deeds were evil. 2 Cor. 5. 14, 15. For the love of Christ constraineth us, be­cause we thus judg, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, [Page 271] but unto him which died for them, and rose again. 1 lim. 4. 10. We trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all Men, specially of those that be­lieve. Mat. 22. 2, 3, 4. 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 hidden to the Wedding, and they would not come. And he sent forth other Servants, saying tell them, that are bidden, behold, I have prepared my dinner, my Oxen and Fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: Come unto the Marriage. And vers. 8. Then said he to his Servants, The Wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not wor­thy. Add vers. 12. 13. So 2 Cor, 5. 18, 19, 20, 21. And all things are of God who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation, to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the World unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, and hath committed unto us the word of Reconciliation. Now then we are Embassadors for Christ, as though God did heseech you by us, We pray you in Christs stead, be reconciled to God. For God made him sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Joh. 4. 42. This is indeed the Christ the Saviour of the World. 1 Joh. 4 14. 15. And we have seen and do testify that God sent his Son to be the Saviour of the World: Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him and he in God, 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 [Page 272] 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. Heb. 6. 4, 5. 6. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the Heavenly Gift, and were made partakers of the Ho­ly Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the World to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again to Repentance, see­ing they crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to open shame. Heb. 10. 26, 27. 28, 29. For if we sin willfully after that we have re­ceived the knowledg of the Truth, there remaineth no more Sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful look­ing for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the Adversaries. He that despised Moses Law, died without mercy, under two or three Wit­nesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the Blood of the Govenant wherewith he was sanctified, an un­holy thing, and hath done despight unto the Spirit of Grace, Heb. 4. 1. 2. Let us therefore take heed lest a promise being left us of entering into his rest any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the Gospel preached as well as unto them: But the Gospel preached did not profit them, not being mixed with Faith in them that heard it. Heb. 2. 3. How shall we escape if we neglect so great Salvation, &c. Joh. 12. 47, 48. And if any▪ man hear my words and believe not, I judg him not: For I came not to judg the World, but to save the World. He that rejecteth me and receiveth not my words he hath one that judgeth him: The word that I have spoken the [Page 271] same shall judg him at the last day. Luke 13. 39. How oft would I have gathered thy Children toge­ther as a Hen gathereth her Brood under her Wings, and ye would not. Behold your House is left unto you desolate, &c. Mar. 16. 15. Go ye into all the World and Preach the Gospel to every creature: He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved but he that believeth not, shall be damned. Act. 13. 38. 39, 40, 41. Be it known to you therefore Men and Brethren, that through this Man is preached unto you the forgiveness of Sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses. Beware there­fore least that come, &c. Behold ye despisers and won­der, &c. Verse. 46. Seeing ye have put it from you, and judged your selves unworthy of Everlasting Life, &c. Mar. 18. 27, 32, 34, 35. Then the Lord of that Servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him and forgave him the debt, &c. Then his Lord, after that he had called him said unto him, O thou wicked Servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me, shouldst not thou al­so have had compassion on thy fellow Servant even as I had pitty on thee; And his Lord was wroth and de­livered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my Heavenly Fa­ther do also unto you if ye from your Hearts forgive not every one his Brother their Trespasses. Joh. 6. 51. I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven: If any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever: And the Bread that I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the Life of the World. So verse 33. 34, 35. Joh. 1. 29. Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the Sin of the World 1 Cor. 15. 21, 22. For as by Man came Death, by Man came also the Resurrection of [Page 274] the Dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. Rom. 14. 15. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died, 1 Cor. 8. 11. And through thy knowledg shall thy weak Brother perish, for whom Christ died? Heb. 9. 15. 16. And for this cause he is the Mediator of the new Testament, that by means of Death, for the Redemption of the trans­gressions under the first Testament, they which are called might receive the promise of Eternal inheri­tance. For where a Testament is, there must also of necessity be the Death of the Testator. Col. 1. 20. And having made peace through the Blood of his Cross by him to reconcile all things unto him­self by him, whether they be things in Earth or things in Heaven. Col. 2. 14. Blotting out the handwrit­ing of ordinances that was against us, which was con­trary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his Cross, Act. 3. last unto you first, God having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. Hos. 7. 13. Though I have redeemed them, yet they have spoken lies against me. Destruction to them, &c. Isa. 53. 6. He laid on him the iniquity of us all, Rom. 14. 9. For to this end Christ both died, rose and revived that he might be Lord both of the Dead and of the living. Isa. 45. 21, 22. There is no God else beside me, a just God and a Saviour, there is none beside me, look unto me and be ye saved all the ends of the Earth, Joh. 1. 7. The same came for a Witness to bear Witness of the Light, that all Men through him might believe, See 1 Cor. 10. 1. 2. to the 13th. John 3. 17. And as Moses lifted up the Serpent in the Wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have Eternal Life, Rev. 22. 17. Who­soever [Page 275] will, let him take the water of Life freely, Col. 2. 28, whom we Preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus, John 5. 22, 23, 26, 27, 28. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son, that all men should honour the Son, even as they ho­nour the Father, &c. For as the Father hath Life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have Life in himself, and hath given him Authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of Man. Mar­vel not at this, for the hour is coming in which all that are in the Graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth, they that have done good to the Resur­rection of Life, and they that have done evil to the Resurrection of Damnation, Acts 3. 22, 23. A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your Brethren like unto me, him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you, and it shall come to pass that every Soul that will not hear that Prophet shall be destroyed from among the People, Luke 20. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. Then said the Lord of the Vineyard what shall I do? I will send my beloved Son, it may be they will reverence him when they see him, &c. The Stone which the Builders rejected is become the head of the Corner, whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken, but on whomsoever it shall fall it will grind him to Powder 1 Cor. 6. 20. And ye are not your own, ye are bought with a Price, therefore glorifie God in your Body and in your Spirit, which are Gods, Deut. 32. 4, 5, 6. They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his Children, they are a perverse and crooked Generation, do you thus requite the Lord, O foolish People and unwise? is not he thy Father that hath bought thee? hath he not [Page 274] made thee and established thee? ver. 15. Then he forsook God that made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his Salvation, see Psal. 78. throughout, ver. 35, 36. They remembred that God was their Rock and the high God their Redeemer, neverthe­less they flattered him with their mouth, and lyed unto him with their tongues, for their heart was not right with him, neither were they stedfast in his Co­venant, but he being full of compassion forgave their iniquity, &c. Isa. 63. 8, 9, 10, He said, surely they are my People, Children that will not lye; so he was their Saviour, in all their afflictions, he was aff [...]icted, and the Angel of his presence saved them in his love and in his pity he redeemed them, and he bare them and carried them all the days of old, but they rebelled and vexed his Holy Spirit, wherefore he was turned to be their Enemy, and fought against them, see Rom. 10. 6. to the 14th. Acts 13. 23. 26. 32. Of this Mans Seed God according to his promise hath raised unto Israel a Saviour Jesus. Men and Brethren, Children of the stock of Abraham, and who ever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this Salvation sent, and we declare unto you glad tidings, &c. see ver. 38, 39, 40, 46. before cited: And compare this with Luke 1. 67, 68, 69, &c. Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he hath visited and redeemed his People, and hath rai­sed up an horn of Salvation for us in the Honse of his Servant David, &c. Mat. 25. throughout.

Mat. 28. 19, 20. All Power is given to me in Heaven and Earth, go ye therefore and Preach, &c. Acts 10. 36. 43. And this contains power to forgive Sins, Mat. 9. 6. So that you see what the Scrip­ture saith to this point.

[Page 275]3. And then there is neither one Text of Scripture, nor one solid Reason against it, nor any ill consequence at all that followeth on it.

1. There is not one Text of Scripture that saith Christ died not for all, or Christ dyed only for his Chosen, or any thing equivalent. The Texts commonly alledged, are, John 17. 9. I pray for them, I pray not for the World, 19. and for their sakes I sanctifie my self, Joh. 10, 11, The good Shepherd giveth his Life for his Sheep, Rom. 8. 32. He that spared not his Son, but gave him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things, 1 Cor. 5. 18. God was in Christ reconciling the World unto himself, not im­puting to them their Trespasses, Rom. 5. 8, 9, 10. For if when we were Enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more being recon­ciled we shall be saved by his life, John 11. 51, 52. That Jesus should dye for that Nation, and not for that Nation only, but that also he should gather to­gether in one the Children of God that were scattered abroad, Mat. 1. 21. for he shall save his People from their Sins, Joh. 15. 13. Greater Love hath no man than this, that a man to lay down his life for his friends, 1 John 3. 16. Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us, Rom. 8. 34. who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that dyed, yea rather, &c. 1 Pet. 3. 18. Christ hath once suffered for Sin, the just for the [...]njust, that he might bring us to God, 1 Pet. 1. 18, 19. knowing that you are not redeemed with corruptible things, as Silver and Gold from your vain conversation, received by Tradition from your Fathers, but with the precious blood of Jesus Christ, [Page 278] 1 Pet. 2. 29. He bore our sins on the Tree, that me being dead to sin should live to Righteousness, Tit. 2. 14. That he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purifie to himself a peculiar People zealous of good works, Eph. 5. 25, 26. Even as Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it that he might pre­sent it to himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle, &c. Isa. 53. 11. By his knowledge shall my righteous Servant justifie many, for he shall bear their iniquities, John 17. 2. Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give Eternal Life to as many as thou hast given him, Mat. 7. 23. Depart from me, I never knew you, &c. Heb. 9. 28. Christ was once offered to bear the Sins of many, &c. Heb. 10. 14. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified, Psal. 16 9. Their drink offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take up their name into my lips, Gen. 3. 15. The Seed of the Woman shall break the Serpents head, and his seed bruise her heel, Mat. 11. 25. I thank thee O Father, Lord of Heaven and Earth, because tho [...] hast hid these things from the Wise and Prudent, and hast revealed them to Babes, Eph. 1. 7. In whom we have Redemption through his blood the for­giveness of sins, 2 Cor. 5. 21. For he made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

These are all the Texts that at present I can remember, or find used by those that write a­gainst Universal Redemption, which have any considerable shew of a proof. of all which there is not one that excludeth the Non-Elect▪ nor any in the World from being the Persons for whom Christ dyed, as we shall see when we come to review them more particularly.

[Page 279]Nor is there any ill consequence following the Doctrine of Universal Satisfaction, but all that terrifies men from it, is seeming ill Conse­quences for want of right understanding it: most men think (who go that way) that Uni­versal Redemption is inconsistent with absolute Election, and with special differencing Grace, and with Christs special intention of calling and saving his Chosen, whereas indeed it is so far from being inconsistent, that it is necessarily con­comitant and supposed, and they may as well think that Universal Creation is inconsistent with Election and special grace. Indeed God hath in admirable wisdom laid Universal Grace as a ground work, and built special grace (as to the executive part) thereupon, and to deny the Universal Common grace, is to de­stroy the ground-work of special grace. If this were well understood, there would few sober Divines be against Universal Redemption, and therefore I still say, that it is a clear explica­tion that must do more here (and is more need­ful) than argumentation. Yet because some do so importunately call for Arguments I have gi­ven these Thirty (and might add many more) and shall now proceed to those that are drawn from particular Texts of Scriptures having first laid down one or two more general considera­tions from the Scripture Language in this par­ticular.

That Election and Redemption are not of the same extent, and not all Elected that are Re­deemed, but Redemption is Universal, and E­lection special may be strongly evinced by com­paring [Page 278] together the language of the Scripture, con­cerning one and the other▪ how differently it speaks.

1. We find God charging Men to give all di­ligence to make sure their Calling and Election, 2 Pet. 1. 10. But not one word in all the Scrip­ture to command or perswade Men to make sure that they are redeemed (unless we meant it not of the price, but the fruits:) Paul saith to his Converts, 2 Cor. 13. 5. Examine your selves whether you be in the Faith, know ye not your own selves that Jesus Christ is in you except ye be Re­probates? But he never bid any man, examine thy self whether thou be redeemed, or whether Christ dyed for thee? or whether thou be one of those for whom Christ dyed? we have marks given in Scripture to know by, whether we are the Children of God or no? whether sanctified, justified, pardoned, or no, but never a mark laid down in Scripture to know by, whether we are of those that Christ dyed for; no more than there is to know whether we are of those that God Created. And would not the perfect holy word of God have given marks of this, or bid men make sure of this, and try it if it were needful, and were not unquestionable because universal.

2. We find the Saints (as David) complain­ing of God's hiding his face, and seeming their Enemy, and writing bitter things against them, and groaning under that burthen of Sin, and crying for Pardon, and saying God had forsaken and forgotten them, &c. But we never find any Man good or bad (that believed Gods word to be true) to doubt whether Christ dyed for him, or whether he were Redeemed, or com­plaining [Page 279] of his danger for want of a Redeemer, or Expiatory Sacrifice.

3. We find God ordinarily saying of Christ Jesus, that he is the Saviour of the World, and came not to condemn the World, but to save the World, and took away the sins of the World, and is a propitiation for the fins of the whole World, and dyed for all, tasted death for every man, and was a ransom for all, &c. But we have no one word in Scripture that saith he predestinated all to Salvation, or decreed to save the whole World: Nay, the very term of E­lection contradicteth Universality, for it is no chusing if it be all, and if some be not left.

4. We find Wicked Men condemned, and their sin aggravated for denying the Lord that bought them, 2 Pet. 2. 1. But never for denying the Lord that Elected them.

5. We find Christians by the Apostles war­ned that they destroy not their weak Brethren for whom Christ dyed; and saying, through thy 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, [Page 282] 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; [Page 283] 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 [Page 282] 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 [Page 283] 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 [Page 286] going from that plain sense. Some here will tell me, then we must say Christ is a Door, a Way, a Vine, and the Bread is his Body, &c. But this is nothing to what I am speaking of: For I did never say that we must take the literal sense in opposition to the figurative, but only the plain obvious sense in opposition to a wyer­drawn extorted sense. Some figurative speeches are so usual, or plain and well known, that he that should interpret them literally would be derided by any Plowman: And every ignorant man useth figurative speeches in his common talk, and use makes the true sence as plain and obvious as if they were not figurative. You can scarce hear three sentences from any Coun­tryman, but will convince you of this. If any man of common reason had heard Christ say; [I am the way to the Father] would he have thought his plain obvious sense to be [I am an Earthly or other Material way to be trodden on by the Feet of them to come to God?] What will not the lust of contradicting persuade men to? Now I would know of any man, would you believe that Christ died for all men if the Scripture plainly speak it? If you would, do but tell me, what words can you devise or would you wish more plain for it than are there used; Is it not enough that Christ is called the Saviour of the World? You'l say, but is it of the whole World? Yes, it saith, He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole World? Will you say, but it is not for All men in the World; yes it saith he died for All men, as well as for all the World. But will you say, it saith not for every man? Yes that it doth, he [Page 287] tasted death for every man. But you may say, It means all the Elect, if it said so of any Non-Elect I would believe. Yes, it speaks of those that denied the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And yet all this seems nothing to men prejudiced.

3. Furthermore, it deserves consideration, whether men can considerately go against the plain light of so many express Texts of Scripture without some reluctancy and regret of Judgment? And then, whether using a mans Judgment to such a course, to bear down the evidence of of many express texts of Scripture, be not a matter of a dangerous nature, both symptoma­tically and effectually. Doth it not signifie a defect in our belief of the truth of Scripture? Or at least of our reverend esteem of it, when we dare use it as a Leaden rule, and Nose of Wax (as the Papists presumptuously call it.) He that can think it will endure such bending, is in danger of thinking it may endure breaking. Hath it not too plain a tendency to infidelity and disobedience? It is the truth of this word that must preserve us from both. And he that thinks so meanly of the Scripture, as that it will patiently endure such violence and stretch­ing, is in great danger of being drawn to question whether it be Gods Word or no, and of ventu­ring over its bounds in practicals, in case of temptation. For what have we to persuade us that Christ is the eternal God but plain Scrip­ture? And is it plainer in this than in its affirm­ing that Christ died for All? All tender con­scionable Christians should be as fearful to ad­venture [Page 286] against the plain meaning of Scripture in the matter of Faith, as to adventure against its plain precepts and prohibitions in matter of practice. And therefore I conclude that when God saith so expresly that Christ died for All, and tasted death for every man, and is the Ran­fom for all and the propitiation for the sins of the whole World, It beseems every Christian rather to explain in what sense Christ died for All men, then flatly to deny it.

The first text of Scripture ordinarily used, and which I shall insist on, is Job. 3. 16. God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life. Here it is plainly ex­pressed that the giving of Christ proceeded from Gods Love to the World as the principal efficient, and that it was to this end, that who­soever of this World believe in him should be saved. One would think all were plain here, yet men have found or made almost as many knots as words. If a King had his whole Ar­my prove false to him and turn to the Enemy; and when they are in his power the Enemy Imprisoneth them, and maketh them Slaves, in this misery the King saith of them [I so love my Army that I give so much money or my own Son in Ransom, that whosoever will thankfully accept my kindness, and return to his Allegiance, shall not remain in slavery but be delivered fully into my favour and their dig­nities] would not ordinary men easily under­stand this speech? Would so many doubts be raised, whether he mean the whole Army or part? What is meant by [Love] by [Whoso­ever] [Page 287] &c. yet here we have such a dust raised in as plain a case, or as plain words as such Di­vine mysteries could well be expressed by.

1. It is doubted what is meant by [the World.]

2. And then what is meant by [Loved.]

3. And what is meant by [Whosoever.]

The 4. What is meant by [Believeth in him] we need not here stand on.

And for the first some say by the VVorld, is meant the Elect part of the VVorld: some say (as Dr. Twiss and others) it is meant of Mankind as distinct from Angels, excluding none, and not of the Elect only; and withal that it speaks only of the sufficiency of Christ's Satisfaction; which if it were not sufficient for All, there were no place for the General Pro­mise, Whoever believeth shall be Saved. There is more truth and soundness in this exposition, than will stand with some other contradictory passages in the same Authors. For my part I stand to this exposition of Dr. Twiss (as you may find him industriously explaining this text, Vindic. Grat. lib. 1. part. 2. § 7. pag. (mihi) 203.) I will repeat part of his words, [Ad locum illum (Joh. 3. 16.) quod attinet, negamus ex his evinci posse [Mundum] eo in loco significare [Electos] in mundo degentes. Ad cujus loci majorem elucida­tionem, observandum est cum decrevisset Fidem & Rescipiscentiam electis suis non modo concedere, sed & easdem modo naturae ipsorum rationali convenien­tissimo, nempe per Suasionem & exhortationem in ipsis operari & consequenter Evangelium sub generali invitationis formâ proponendum esset in hunc modum [Quisquis crediderit, salvus erit: qui non, damnabitur] [Page 288] hinc evincitur mittendi Mediatoris duplicem Deo habendam fuisse rationem, alteram Pretii; alteram Efficaciae Nam & Pretium oportuit sufficiens esse re­dimendis omnibus; alias enim tam generali promis­sioni [quisquis crediderit salvus erit] locus nullus fuisset: & rursus oportuit 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. Its 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 [Page 289] 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.

[Page 290]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 [Page 291] 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 [Page 292] 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 [Page 293] 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.

[Page 294] 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 [Page 295] 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.

[Page 296]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.

[Page 297] 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 [Page 298] 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.

[Page 299] 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 [...]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 [Page 300] 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.

[Page 301]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)

[Page 302]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.]

[Page 303]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 [Page 304] 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.

[Page 305]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 Will de eventu, and of God as absolute Lord above Laws, without them disposing of his own. (The prediction of Events doth collaterally and secundum quid belong to his Law: But not per se and directly.)

And 6. Consider, that if it be never so much denied that God hath properly a conditional Will de rerum eventu, yet it is beyond all que­stion [Page 306] true, that he hath a conditional Will de debito, (officii, Praemii & Poenae) and so his Law is contidional most commonly. He hath constituted the Debitum praemii, the dueness of Salvation on condition of believing, loving and sincerely obeying Christ. And therefore they must not deny conditional promises and threatnings, though they deny conditional, de­crees. This I add, because I know they here usually answer that God intendeth no end con­ditionally, but where he intendeth also the condition it self, that so it may be equivalent to absolute: But he intendeth as Legislator that Faith shall be the prescribed means to Glory, and Glory the end promised to all that perform that condition; and so conditionally giveth it.

7. Consider also that even in regard of Gods Will de Eventu, our Divines generally with the Schoolmen confess and maintain that God hath a conditional Will in this Sense.

That is, that he willeth such a thing shall be a condition of the accomplishing, giving or event of another thing; and so that he willeth Faith shall be a condition of Salvation: Though nothing be the condition of Gods Act of Wil­ling. So that ex parte voliti it is conditional, though not ex parte actus volentis.

This Dr. Twiss saith o [...]t consid. of Tilenus Si­nod of Dort and Arlis reduced Page 61. He saith [Ger. Vossius interpreteth the Will of God touching the Salvation of all, of a conditional Will, thus: God will have all to be saved, to wit, in case they believe: Which conditional Will in this Sense, neither Austin did, nor we do deny] And Page 143, 144. I willingly pro­fess [Page 307] that Christ died for all, in respect of pro­curing the benefit, (of Pardon and Salvation) conditionally on condition of their Faith] and against Cotton p. 74 [Still you prove that which no man denieth, viz. that God purpo­sed Life to the World upon condition of Obe­dience and Repentance, provided that you un­derstand it right; viz. that Obedience and Re­pentance is ordained of God, as a condition of Life, not of Gods purpose.

8. And lastly, Let it be considered that Christ being man, we may the better speak after the manner of man concerning him; and so ascribe to him a Velleity, or a VVill which attains not the thing willed in a sense beyond all those senses before mentioned.

All this I have laid here together that it may serve when the like question or text falls again in our way, and so I must take leave to refer you hither. And by this may very many Scrip­tures be interpreted, which ascribe such Vel­leities and Unaccomplished willings to God: Yea were these few lines given in answer to this question well weighed, (if through partia­lity I over-value them not) I think they might give much light to shew the true mean in the greatest of the Arminian Controversies.

The second Reason they give, that it is the Elect only that are here meant by the VVorld, is, because the most of men were at that instant actually damned.

Did he send his Son that they might be saved?

Ans. This is anon to be answered by it self as a great argument against Universal Re­demption; and I am loath to repeat one thing [Page 308] oftener than needs I must. Only I say, when Christ died Millions of Men were actually sav­ed: Did God send his Son to save them that were saved already? yes, no doubt: even to do that which he had undertaken to do presently on the fall, to pay a sufficient satisfaction for the sins of all, whether since that undertaking they be saved or damned.

Thirdly, They say, Christ was appointed for the fall of some, therefore not that all and every one might be saved, Luke 2. 34.

Ans. Themselves will fasten no other sense on that of Luke but this [God hath decreed to permit many through their own wilfulness to stumble and fall on Christ: and so he shall by accident, or as an occasion, be their ruine] Now this is no whit inconsistent with Gods ordaining him to be per se and directly a means for all mens Salvation, in the sense before fully opened.

4. They say, the end of God in sending Christ was not contrary to any of Gods De­crees; which were eternally fixed concerning the condemnation of some for their sins: Did he send his Son to Save such?

Ans. 1. As it is no contradiction for God to command an action, and to decree the non-futu­rition of that action; so it is no contradiction for God as Legislator by his Law or Testament to ordain that Salvation shall be to every man the end prescribed him when he is command­ed to believe; and faith a means to that end; and to give him Salvation under his hand in his Testament on condition of believing; and to purpose accordingly that he shall be saved if he will believe; and yet at the same time either [Page 309] not to Decree to give him Faith, or to Decree not to give him Faith, and consequently not actually de eventu to save him.

2. Do not these men know that they vent all these confident zealous insultings, directly against the Scripture expressions, as well as against ours? Doth not Christ say to Hierusalem, How oft would I have gathered thee, as a Hen gathereth her Chickens under her Wings, and ye would not? yet did not God decree their not being so gathered? Are you sure that all those Jews were Elected and Saved to whom Peter saith Act. 3. last. To you first God sent his Son Jesus to bless you, in turning every one of you from his Iniquities? Or rather, is it not spoken of the end of Gods Legislative Will, and so is meant of a conditional gift? God will so bless you, if you are willing or reject it not? For by turn­ing from Iniquity there is meant the work of Sanctification following the first act of Faith, and perhaps of Justification too. Multitudes of such expressions may be found in the Scripture, which I am loath needlesly to tire my self and the Reader with the recital of.

The third Text which I shall alledge is that of the same importance with both the former, John 12. 47, 48. And if any man hear my words and believe not, I judge him not, for I came not to judge the World, but to save the World. He that rejecteth me and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, that same shall Judge him at the last day. An ordinary wit would think that Christ had spoken here so plain and full as to stop the passage against all sober exceptions; For,

[Page 310]1. In the 46 verse Christ saith, I am come a Light into the World, thereby shewing that he is an Universal Cause, as the Sun is of Light, which is the same in its shining to all, though some are blind, and therefore see not by its Light, yet that is not either for want of Light in the Sun, or because it shineth differently to one and to the other, but because their Eyes are not capable of enjoying and using its Lights so is Christ as a Satisfier and as the object of justifying Faith; though efficienter as the Au­thor of Faith by his Spirit, he worketh diffe­rently.

2. It is the World into which and among whom Christ is said to come as a Light.

3. The end of his coming is the conditional Illumination of all. That whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.

4. This World containeth such as [hear Christs words and believe not.]

5. Lest any should have a pretence to think, that the World, which he came to be a Light to, was only the Elect, and those that believ­ed not were no part of them▪ he repeateth all again more plainly, saying, he came not to judge the World but to save the World.

6. To put all out of doubt that Unbelievers were part of this World that he came to save, he addeth the causal conjunction [For] proving that, or giving it as a reason why, he would not Judge Unbelievers, because he came not to judge the VVorld (what force was in that reason, if they were none of that VVorld) but that to save the VVorld. VVas it any proof that he would not judge Unbelievers [Page 311] because he came not to judge but to save the Elect?

7. Yet that there might be no place for doubting left, he again sheweth that Unbelie­vers are part of this VVorld that he came not to Judge but to Save, saying, He that rejecteth me and receiveth not my words, hath one that Judg­eth him, which is plainly opposed to the former negation, I judge him not, and, for I came not to Judge the World.

I know not what can be said against this, but the former objection, that it is only the VVorld of the Elect that Christ came to save: But I have said enough in answer to that, and shall, say more anon. As for their feigned [...] here are expressions plain enough to ex­clude it: and were it granted, it would do them no good; except withal they prove not only that by the VVorld, v. 46. is meant the Earth (which yet is unsound) but that by the VVorld in both parts of the 47. v. is meant only the Elect; which they will, I think, never be able to prove. And indeed their pretended [...] doth make Christs reason to be in­valid, and so contradicteth the Text.

The fourth Text to the same sense is, Joh. 6. 32, 33, 35, 36, 40, 51, 64, 66. compared; where note,

1. That the persons he spake to were many unbelieving murmuring Jews, yea and many of his own Disciples which yet believed not, ver. 60. 61, 64. that is, such as followed him and professed to be his Disciples; & yet did not hearti­ly and firmly believe, and therefore they then [Page 312] went back and walked no more with him, v. 66.

Yet 2. Note, That to all these Christ saith, ver. 32. My Father giveth you the true Bread from Heaven. For the Bread of God is he which cometh down from Heaven and giveth Life to the World; yet ver. 36. he tells them, that they believe not, and ver. 51. I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven. If any man eat of this Bread he shall Live forever, and the Bread that I will give is my Flesh, which I will give for the Life of the World. Where note, not only that the gift is universal for the Life of the World; but also that he puts the giving his Flesh for the VVorld.

1. As that which he will do absolutely with­out any condition.

2. And which he puts in order of nature, before the second act, which is the giving his Flesh to men to eat (which is the application of the benefits of his death.)

3. And then comes their eating or not eat­ing, and so living or not living after both these. At least it is undeniable that Christ here gives his Flesh to more than do take and eat it, even to them that believe not, but forsake him from that day. And therefore the Jews say, ver. 52. How can this man give us his Flesh to eat? Now what is said against this? The answer I find in these words in one VVriter [‘That the VVorld here cannot signifie All and Eve­ry one, that ever were or should be, is as manifest as if it were written with the beams of the Sun, and that because it is made the ob­ject of Christs intendments to purchase for them, and bestow upon them Life and Sal­vation. [Page 313] Now I ask, Whether any man, not bereaved of all Spiritual and Natural sense, can imagine that Christ in his Oblation in­tended to purchase Life and Salvation for all them whom he knew to be damned many ages before? or who dares affirm once that Christ gave himself for the Life of them, who not­withstanding that, by his disappointment do come short of it to eternity? so that if we had no other place to manifest that the word [VVorld] doth not always signifie All, but only some of all sorts, as the Elect are, but this one produced by our Adversaries, to the contrary, I hope with all equitable Readers our defence would receive no prejudice.’]

Ans. If this be true, I must confess my self, bereaved of all Spiritual and Natural sense; which yet I am not willing to do, seeing by one I should confess my self no Christian, and by the other, not a man, at least to have no rea­son in exercise. This is a heavy charge on all the Fathers, and later Divines and Godly Peo­ple that differ from this Author. Specially unless his Reasons were stronger; for I confess his Sun-beams are wholly clouded to me. His first reason is answered briefly already, and must be fully afterward by it self. The flesh of Christ was Morally given presently on the fall, before any of the VVorld was in Hell: and therefore it must be physically given on the Cross in time, according to that undertaking which was the moral gift and satisfaction.

2. His second Reason is also answered fully before, and shall be after. If Christ give Sal­vation to all on condition they will receive it [Page 314] in him, then we may dare to affirm that this is the fruit of the giving himself on the Cross: may we not dare to affirm that God created all mankind in Adam, that they may live to him and so be blessed, (as Ursine and multitudes of our Divines do affirm) though yet, he knew that man would do otherwise eventually? For God commanded him to live to him, and gave him means, and promised him everlasting Happiness if he obeyed. And why may we not as well say Christ Redeemed men to Salvation, that yet for rejecting it are not saved? As shewing themselves unworthy of eternal Life. But I like not his phrase, that men come short of Salvation by Gods disap­pointment. Gods not giving them Faith, nor yet his adjudging Unbelievers to Death, are neither of them to be called his disappointing them of Life. But because he asks, who dare say this? let us next see whether the Holy Ghost dare not.

The fifth Text which I shall insist on is 2 Pet. 2. 1. But there were false Prophets also among the People, even as there shall be false Teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damna­ble Heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And verse 20, &c. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the World through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again intangled therein and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning: For it had been better for [Page 315] them not to have known the way of Righteous­ness, then after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them: But it is happened to them according to the true Proverb, The Dog is turned to his own Vomit again, and the Sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.] VVhereto for fuller ex­plication add but Jude's words of the same men, ver. 4. Ungodly men, turning the Grace of our God into Lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ,] put all these together because they all speak of the same men.

Now 1. The Text expresly saith, they de­nied the Lord that bought them.

2. That it is the Lord Jesus that is this Lord, appears,

1. In that it is expresly said in the 20. ver. that it was by the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, that they escaped the pol­lutions of the VVorld.

2. Jude expresly saith, They denied the Lord Jesus Christ.

3. There have been few that have denied God among all Apostates in comparison of those that have denied Christ: Nay, it is a great doubt whether it can be proved of any, directly that were in those times.

4. Their Apostacy is described by turning from the holy Commandment delivered to them, which is called the way of Righteousness, and to their former Vomit (which must needs be the state they were in before they turned Christi­ans) and to the mire, after they were washed; And this state of Apostacy is opposed to escaping the pollutions of the World, by the knowledge of the [Page 316] Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, so that it is left past doubt that it is the Lord Jesus Christ that bought them whom they are said to deny. And Jude saith of them, that they are twice dead, plucked up by the roots, by which it ap­pears that after their first death, they had re­ceived some kind of new Life by Christ.

Lastly, Note, that here are many benefits which they received, which could not have befallen them, but through the Death of Christ; They could no other way have been washed, and have escaped the worlds pollutions, and have known the way of Righteousness, &c. yea Jude saith, They turn the Grace of God into Lasci­viousness, therefore it was a sin against Grace: and all Grace is by the blood of Christ: yea it seems they had themselves some Grace, that is, (Mercy contrary to merit and tending to a re­covery) which they so turned into Lascivious­ness. And Peter in the next chapter shews that their Apostacy lay in a not-believing Christs second coming, because of his seeming delay, and therefore they gave themselves up to their Lusts, and said mockingly, Where is the promise of his coming? so that it is both evident that they were purchased by Christ, and that it is Christ that bought them whom they are said to deny.

Yet as plain as the Holy Ghost hath here spo­ken, what industry is used to raise a Dust, and compel these words to receive an alien sense.

1. It is said that ‘all things for Universal Redemption are here Uncertain: but against it, this is certain.’

[Page 317]1. ‘That there are no spiritual distinguish­ing fruits of Redemption ascribed to those false Teachers, but only common gifts of light and knowledge which Christ hath purchased for many for whom he did not make his Soul a Ransom.’

2. ‘That else the Redemption of any by the blood of Christ, cannot be a peculiar aggrava­tion of the sins of any, because they say, he died for all: and yet this buying of the false Teachers is held out as an aggravation of their sin in particular.’

Ans. 1. It is here meerly beg'd and never was yet proved, that Christ hath purchased common gifts of light and knowledge for men without making his Soul a Ransom, i. e. his Life a satisfaction for them, and that all that he satisfied for have distinguishing fruits of Re­demption. It is easier to take these as certain­ties than to prove them so.

2. Redemption is no aggravation of that mans Apostacy, that never was an Apostate. It cannot be said, that they deny the Lord that bought them, who never denied him: And therefore it is a common aggravation of the sin of all that do sin against him, and of all their denial that do deny him: but all do not deny him. May not that be an aggravation of these mens sins in particular, which would also aggra­vate the sins of any other, according to the se­veral quality of the sin? May it not be said of an Atheist▪ [He denieth the God that made him,] as an aggravation of his particular sin? and will you by force of VVit thence prove that God made not all men? Now to the uncer­tainties.

[Page 318] ‘And 1. They say it is uncertain whether Christ as Mediator be here intended as Lord or no; there is not any thing in the Text to enforce us so to conceive.’

Answ. It may enforce the unprejudiced I think; review what I have produced out of the Text to prove it. But they give these reasons against it.

1. God only, as God with his dealing toward such, is mentioned, of Christ not a word.

Answ. 1. Is not Christ God? And from this Text Divines have proved it (joined with Jude 4.) against the Arrians; and must we give up that argument for nothing? 2. I have before shewed special mention of Christ.

2. They say [the name [...] properly Herus, attended by Dominion and Soveraignty, is not usually if at all given to our Saviour in the new Testament, &c. Nay is the name pro­per for our Saviour in the work of Redemp­tion? [...] is such a Lord and Master as re­fers to servants and subjection.

Answ. 1. I hope we must not also deny Christs Dominion and Soveraignty, and deny our selves to be his Servants and Subjects, (as he is Mediator) only that we may the better deny his Universal Sacrifice and Satisfaction: If we do, it will be a dear bought conclusion. All power in Heaven and Earth is given to him, and the Father hath committed all judgment to him, and for that end he Died, Rose, and Revived, that he might be Lord of the Dead and Living, Matth. 28. 19. John 5. 22. Rom 14. 9.

2. It is sufficient if here it be evident that [...] is applied to Christ; seeing there is no [Page 319] disswading reason can be brought from the word. It is undoubtedly true of the reign of the Mediator, in the largest sense; (now all power is given to him) that [...] as it is said of God, Psal. 103. 19. by the Sept. Erasmus saith, siquid interest [...] privati juris nomen est, [...] honoris & authoritatis: And then we may see that both both belong to Christ, and yet no wonder if he be more often called [...].

3. If it were God the Father that is here cal­led Lord, yet all is one to the main point, for he [...] Deus Redemptor, and he bought them by the blood of his Son, but that's the next Que­stion.

2. They say it is uncertain that by [buying] is meant purchasing with the ransom of his blood.]

Answ. 1. What other price than Christs blood doth God buy men with?

2. I have proved it before, that it was pur­chasing with Christ's blood; both in that Jude mentioneth the Lord Jesus Christ (and some think that the former Title (the only Lord God) is given of Christ too, and the place invincible to prove Christs Godhead;) and in that the bene­fits received by them could come no other way. But let us see their Reasons.

1. They say the Apostle insisteth on a Com­parison with the times of the Old Testament, and the False Prophets that were then among the People.

[Page 320] Answ. What of that?

1. Is not the Comparison clear, as those false Prophets were part of the Typical Redeemed People, so are these of the truly Redeemed.

2. That Typical Redemption out of Egypt was not only a Type, but also a Fruit of Christs Redemption, in its moral being considered.

1. They say the word [...], signifieth pri­marily the buying of things, translatitiously the Redemption of Persons.

Answ. 1. It signifies any buying in the Mar­ket for a price, whether thing or person. And what other buying with a price can you here devise?

2. It's well known the Holy Ghost useth it to signifie Christ's purchasing of us by his blood, what means it, Rev. 5. 9. [...] and Rev. 14. 3. [...] And 1 Cor. 6. 20. [...], Rev. 14. 4. with many the like.

2. They say [Here is no mention of blood, death, price, or offering of Jesus Christ, as in other places where proper Redemption is treated on.]

Answ. 1. As if [...] did not alone signifie to buy with a price.

2. Hath every place that treats of proper Re­demption such an addition? View those before cited, and be convinced of the contrary, what's added, Rev. 14. 3.

The third Reason is, that [the Apostle af­firms their deliverance to consist in the escaping [Page 321] of the pollution of the World, as Idolatry, false Worship, and the like, by the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, plainly declaring that their buying was only in respect of the enjoyment of the knowledge of the truth, but of the washing in the blood of the Lamb, he is wholly silent.

Answ. The question is of the satisfaction by Sacrifice, whether Christ bought them thereby: This Reason is from the effects and application, if they had not so much as escaped this pollution of the World, it would not follow that Christ did not buye them by his satisfaction, but only that they received not this benefit of it.

2. It is easier beg'd than prov'd, that Christ satisfied for none but those that are washed by his blood.

3. If it had been said that they were washed in the blood of the Lamb, had it not been easie for the same wit to have found another interpre­tation? and to have said it was spoken but [...], because they professed it to be so?

4. He that will well prove that God can and doth so far relax his Law, as to give all these mercies without Christ's satisfying for them to whom they are given, viz. washing, escaping the Worlds pollutions by the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour; yea, clean escaping from them who live in errour, ver. 18. &c.) will do the Socinians a greater pleasure, and say more a­gainst the necessity of Christ's satisfaction, than ever I saw yet done by any.

And here I would have one strange passage observed in very many Divines, that it may ap­pear [Page 322] how prejudice & studium partium, prevails in Mens Studies, and how much the Will can command the Understanding. When we plead that God doth in pardoning Sin for Christ's Sacrifice relax his Law, or dispence with it, and not properly execute it according to its sense, they stifly deny it, and say that it is but an interpreting it [...] according to its reserved exception, and that Christ's suffering was the proper fulfilling of the Law, and the Rea­son they give is, because they think it of flat necessity that the Law be executed according to its sense, or else it should not be true; or at least God should not be just; (even Essenius himself forsakes Grotius in this point,) and yet these same Men will maintain either that God doth without any satisfaction at all so far relax the same Law to wicked men, as to give them all the mercies which they enjoy (viz. illumina­tion, a tast of the good word of God, and the powers of the World to come, to be made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and believe for a time, and be sanctified by the blood of the Co­venant, and loved of Christ, and clean escape from them that live in errour, and to escape the World's pollutions, and be washed, &c.) or else that God doth this without relaxing his Law, and so, that by the rigorous Law of Works Sinners are not deprived of these Mer­cies. To the Non-Elect God relaxeth that Law without satisfaction, which to the Elect he doth not, yea cannot relax upon satisfaction. These things are harder to me than to be well digested.

[Page 323]Before I come to their last Reason, I will give you the Judgment of some Orthodox In­terpreters on this Text, that you may see whe­ther it be the Mediator Christ, or the Father only, whom they are here said to deny; and whether it be meant of proper Redeeming, or some mercy which they had without Christ's dying for them.

1. And the first shall be Calvin, whom I hope in this Controversie none will except against, his words are these, in loc. [Etiam Dominum qui illos redemit. Tame [...]si variis modis abnegatur Chri­stus, eum tamen hic meo judicio attingit Petrus, qui extrimitur apud Judam; nempe dum Gratia D [...]i in l [...]sciviam convertitur. Redemit enim nos Christus, ut populum haberet segregatum ab omnibus mundi in­quinamentis, addictum 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 Red [...]mpti fuerant, diabolo se rursus mancipantes, incomparali [...]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. [Page 324] [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 [Page 325] 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 [Page 326] 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, [Page 327] 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 who are true spiritual Members of the same, as to be Saints, Elect, Redeemed, &c.

Answ. 1. All professed Christians are Saints by separation from the World to the Church Visible, and Elect or chosen to that Condi­tion.

2. Scripture speaks thus of none but those that seem to be such; the Penmen of Scripture therein speaking of men that knew not the heart.

[Page 328]3. But when by denying Christ they manifest the contrary, doth the Scripture say yet that they were Elect Saints, &c. or rather that they were before of old ordained to this Condem­nation?

4. Why else may not we still use this Lan­guage, if it be true that it is the perpetual course of Scripture? Be not then offended with us if we write and say that Christ redeemed by his blood all professed Christians; Nay, then we might say Julian was a Saint Elect, and so was Judas, &c.

5. I would our Brethren of the separation would speak in the same Language when they are judging of Church-Members, and Commu­nicants, as they do when they use these Argu­ments against Christs Universal Ransom, or at least come near to this charitable vein, laying by the delusory part.

2. But the great prop of this Cause is, that they will prove from other Texts that the Scrip­ture speaketh thus. And three Texts I find urged, and I may safely say sadly abused.

The first is, Mat. 27. 53. Hierusalem is called the Holy City, because it was so in esteem and appearance] saith my Author.

Answ. Must we needs take his bare word for this, when we know it was Holy by Gods own separation of it from the rest of the World, for the principal place of his publick Worship, and residence of his Church and Priests, and so de­nominated by himself? What Man then will believe that it was called Holy, meerly from the Peoples professing to be Holy?

[Page 329]The Second Text is John 5. 18. It is said of Christ that he had broken the Sabbath, which he only did in the corrupt Opinion of the blin­ded Pharisees.

Answ. 1. The words seem to speak only of the Jews accusation of him, i. e. what they charged him to have done, and not what he did, [therefore they sought to lay hands on him, not only because he had broken the Sabbath, &c.]

2. Distinguish between breaking the rest of the Sabbath naturally (by Natural actions, con­trary to rest but without sin) and breaking it morally by sin. The former way Christ did break the Sabbath, the latter he did not, take this distinction from Christ himself, who tells you, that the Priests in the Temple brake the Sabbath (viz. the external rest of it, by labour) and are blameless (and therefore broke it not morally.)

But the Text that I find alledged most fre­quently and confidently by very many Learned Men, is 2 Chron. 28. 23. (and I desire God to forgive me, that in my ignorance I have oft so abused it my self) The words are these [For he Sacrificed to the Gods of Damascus that smote him; and he said, because the Gods of the King of Syria help them, therefore will I sacrifice to them, that they may help me] The last words are confess'd to be the false words of the delu­ded Idolater Ahaz; but all the question is of the former words, which are the words of the Holy Ghost [He Sacrificed to the Gods of Da­mascus that smote him,] where by supine over­sight, [Page 330] Men have taken it, as if the Text made this smiting the act of the Gods, whereas it makes it the act of Damascus, or the Men of Da­mascus. It was Damascus that smote him, and not the Gods of Damascus, according to the Text.

Tremelius and Junius render it thus plainly, [Sacrificavit enim Diis Damascenorum percutientium ipsum] not Diis Damascenorum percutientienti­bus ipsum. And would one think now that so great a stress should be laid by prudent sober men, on such an oversight. Darmesek being a collective, the Cities name put for the Peoples (than which nothing more usual when there is mention of the acts of Cities and Countries) did truly smite Ahaz: As England did smite Scotland: Or Rome conquered so much of the World: And Venice holds War with the Turk.

2. What if it had been otherwise? May not God give power to those Devils which were the Gods of Damascus, really to smite Ahaz? As well as he gave the Devil power to smite Job a better man.

3. And what if all that they supposed of this Text had been true? If God had spoke in so strange a language once in all the Bible? If we shall thence take liberty to interpret him so elsewhere, without proving this to be the sense, we may then indeed make any thing of the Scripture. And though I doubt not but God in mercy will bear with the weakness of good men that by the power of prejudice do run on such expositions, having a zeal for God, though not according to knowledge, and supposing [Page 331] themselves necessitated to it; yet certainly the proper natural tendency of such violent dealing with Scripture is to infidelity it self, and the questioning of the truth of Scripture: and if we escape that, we lie fair open to the inva­sion of Popery, to conceit a necessity of an Earthly final Judge of the sense of Scripture as being insufficient to manifest its own sense. In the mean time, how do we gratifie Papists and Scepticks by this dealing.

But inded the Text is plain; though I confess the Septuagint; and some Translators might give occasion to some of this common mistake.

The sixth Text that I shall alledge is, Heb. 6. 4▪ 5, 6. For it is impossible for those who were once inlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the World to come, if they shall fall away to renew them again to Repentance; seeing they crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to open shame.

Here these Apostates are said to crucifie the Son of God afresh [...] It is not barely to crucifie Christ again, but to crucifie him to themselves again: That is, either finaliter (as some expound it) or efficien­ter (as others) which way soever it be, it is not efficaciter, but quantum in se.

1. If it be the first, then the meaning is this: If such be saved, then it must be by a new Sacri­fice, and so they bring themselves into that case that Christs Death on the terms that first it was accepted, will not serve to save them, [Page 332] (because he died not to satisfie for that sin.) So Paraeus expoundeth it; sed quomodo hoc faci­endo Christum denuò crucifigunt sibimetipsis? Quia filium Dei semel crucifixum abnegando, nolunt salva­ri ejus morte ex qua sola dependet resipiscentia & salus. Si igitur resipiscere & servari deberent, de­nuò crucifigendus esset eis Christus; quod est impossi­bile, quia amplius mori non potest. Sic infra cap. 10. Videtur declarare, non est eis reliqua hostia pro peccato postquam unicam Christi hostiam semel ab­jecerunt & conculcarunt. Impossible igitur est eos resipiscere & servari.

So Calvin also: Porro haec ratio est cur iterum dicat Christum crucifigi, quia nos hâc conditione illi commorimur, ut meditemur perpetuam vitae novita­tem. Qui [...] ergo in mortem recidunt, opus habent secundo sacrificio, ut capite decimo habebimus. Cru­cifigentes sibi; hoc est, quantum in se est.

Yea Beza himself who seeing what might be said for Universal Redemption from this Text endeavours to put in a bar, yet concludeth thus: Et fortasse sic potest ista sententia explicari acsi de­claretur istos non posse rursum renovari, quoniam rursus oporteret Christum crucifigi & illis ludibriis exponi, quod fieri amplius non potest, illo semel pro mortuis credituris crucifixo, nec in gratiam istorum apostatarum rursum crucifigendo: quam sententiam si amplectamur uti sane probablis & commoda mihi videtur, &c.] I will add no more (though many more might be added. Now according to this exposition it is evident that it is implied that Christ died for these men: or else there seems no force in the Argument to prove their sin unpardonable, and themselves unrecover­able. For the Holy Ghost here plainly inti­mateth [Page 333] that this unrecoverableness is the fruit of their Apostacy; and that they were not unreco­verable before they were Apostates; and yet the reason of their uncureableness lies in this, that it is necessary to their pardon and cure that Christ should die again, which cannot be: Now it implieth that he died for them as they were in their state before Apostacy, or else on this rea­son it might be said as well that their recovery and pardon was as impossible then, and so their Apostacy should not be the reason, but Christs not dying for them at all should be it: Which is plainly contrary to the Text.

But if any will needs deny this most prob­able interpretation, and expound it efficienter, [that they do as much as they can to kill Christ again by their malice and contempt, and making him to be but as a malefactor, do approve of the Jews crucifying him] (as Grotius and many more expound it) still it intimates that their sin did put him to Death once before or else, what force is there in the Argument? For it seems to run thus, [they, that as much as in them lieth, put Christ to Death twice (or a se­cond time) are remediless: But so do these Apostates, Ergo, &c.]

Now if their sin (as the pro-causa meritoria) had no hand in his Death at first, how can they be therefore remediless for endeavouring it a second time? For it was but once by them. And if the same sin was pardonable in those that not only in desire but in act, did put him to Death, viz. the Jews; then it appears that it was a pardonable sin: And that the same sin, [Page 334] (nay the Conatus or meer desire of it) which was pardonable then, should become un­pardonable since, as it is a fancy, and hath no Scripture proof; so it is apparently false, seeing it supposeth that the Law of Christ is not now the same as then, which is false.

A second Argument for Universal satisfacti­on, this Text affordeth us: Christ satisfied for all those who are inlightened, and have tasted of the Heavenly Gift, and are made partakers of the Holy Ghost, &c. But some Non-Elect are such: Therefore Christ sa­tisfied for some Non Elect, and consequently for all.

This Argument is urged before, therefore I shall say little to it. Some answer to the Minor that it is to be denied, because this Text doth nihil ponere sed tantum supponere.

Answer, But it doth not suppose that which never was nor will be, nor is possible. Most Interpreters (almost all) that are against Universal satisfaction, do expound this Text of those gifts which may and oft are really lost: The number is so many that I will cite none

2. It is further said by some, that these bene­fits presuppose not Christs dying for them.

Answer, This is answered already. They that can prove that God can, will and doth give all these without satisfaction to his Justice first made, are but a step from Socinianism, and [Page 333] may next say, he can and will give pardon without satisfaction: And then they are within a step of infidelity, and next in danger of saying, that Christ Died in vain, surely the Holy Ghost is given by Christ Crucified, and I think only to them for whom he was Crucified. The Devils are not therefore uncurable (for ought any Scripture reveals) because they would put Christ to Death, through malice, if it were in their power; nor had they ever these fruits of his Death. But according to their sense against whom I argue, the Devils might hence be said to be unpardonable as well as Apostates. Which is no Scripture Doctrine.

The 7th. Text, which I shall urge is, Heb. 10. 26, 27, 28, 29. For if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledg of the Truth, there remaineth no more Sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indigna­tion, which shall devour the Adversaries. He that despised Moses Law, died without mercy, under two or three Witnesses: Of how much sorer punish­ment suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden nunder Foot the Son of God, and hath counted the Blood of the Covenant wherewith he was Sancti­fied, an unholy thing, and hath done despight to the Spirit of Grace? Hence I raise two Ar­guments.

1. Those who receive the mercies here men­tioned are of the number of them for whom Christ diéd: But such are some Non-elect, Ergo, &c. The Blood of the Covenant is shed before it is sprinkled, or Sanctifieth (shed Physically or morally) and it cannot sanctifie Men, be­fore [Page 334] it is shed for them. For Sanctification, being some degree of application, presupposeth it shed for them: I mean, If by Sanctification, be meant, either separation relative from the World to the Church, and to Christ secundum quid: Or else Sanctification real, by giving Men a temporary Faith and other Graces pro­portionable, and their escaping the pollutions of the World by that Faith. But some think that by Sanctification is meant that cleansing which immediately followed the Sacrifice (the word being used from the Jewish Sanctifyings;) and so by Sanctification, should be meant that conditional justification, or cleansing which all Men have immediately from Christ crucified before any further Personal application. And if this be so, then the Case is plain and past question.

The 2d. Argument is from those words [there remaineth no more Sacrifice for sins, but, &c.] Here the Apostle proveth the uncurableness and desperateness of their Case, in that there re­maineth no more Sacrifice: And this is proper to them when they are Apostates. Now if there were never any Sacrifice for their Sins, then this reason will prove their case no more de­sperate since their Apostacy than before; nor will it prove the Case of Apostates any more desperate than the Case of all wicked Men for whom Christ died not. But that is contrary to the Text. It is either their own sin or the Elects sin, or some other Mens for whom the Apostle saith, there remaineth no more Sacri­fice. If other Mens, then that proves not their [Page 335] case any more desperate than it was: For a Sa­crifice for other Mens sins hinders not their Case from being desperate before: Besides, it is no loss to them to lose the Hopes of Life by such a Sacrifice: For they could be no hopes. But it is mentioned here as their loss, and the sad con­sequent of their Apostacy. If 100 Soldiers be taken Prisoners by the Enemy, and their for­mer Prince shall Redeem 50 of them by a Ran­som, and when he hath done shall send to all the 100 to come to him, and be true Soldiers again; and hereupon they all come (though not all alike affected to him) and he tells them all [if ever you sleep on your watch and so be taken by the Enemy again, or if you for­sake my Colours and perfidiously turn to the Enemy, there remains no more Ransom for you,] would not any Man wonder both how the 50 not ransomed should come out of Prison at all? Or why the Prince should tell them, There remained no more Ransom for them when they were never ransomed at all? Doubtless the Holy Ghost doth not pro­nounce these Apostates to be therefore misera­ble, because there remained no more Sacrifice for other Mens sins: As if you should say to a man in a Consumption, There is now no hope of your Life, because the Physitian hath given one effectual Receipt to your sick Neighbor, and will give him no more.

But if it be acknowledged (as it must be) that the Text means, there is no more Sacrifice for the sins of these Apostates; then it plainly in­timates that there was once a Sacrifice for their sin till they by Rejection, deprived themselves of the benefit of it.

[Page 336] Obj. There was a Sacrifice sufficient for their sin before their Apostacy.

Ans. 1. And was it not sufficient materially after? Sure according to the opinion of the opponents it was.

2. If it were only sufficient to have been a Sacrifice for them, but was not a Sacrifice for them at all, (which is their Sense;) then their condition was as remediless before their Aposta­cy as after; and then this could be no part of their misery procured by Apostacy.

3. The Apostle saith not [there remained no more sufficiency for them in the Sacrifice] but [there remaineth no more Sacrifice.]

Obj. They did now fully discover that Christ died not for them, which was never discovered be­fore; and therefore they are more miserable.]

Ans. Then all the inconvenience that Aposta­cy brought on them was but a disclosing of the truth (that they had never any remedy or Sacri­fice for their sin) a little sooner than it should else have been disclosed. But that's a far smal­ler matter than the Apostle intendeth. And then it should rather be said [there is no more ground left for false hopes and mistakes: All this while you falsly thought Christ died for you, but now because you have denied him, it is dis­closed to you that he never died for you.] In­deed this Doctrine suits well with the Anti­nomian fancies, which make our love and obe­dience [Page 337] to Christ to have no more tendency to Salvation than as meer signs and duties.

2. The Text plainly intimates the contrary to what this objection affirmeth: For it saith not [there is no more false conceits of a Sacrifice for sin] but [there is no more Sacrifice for sins.]

Obj. It was before offered them by the Word and general conditional promise: But after their Apostacy it is offered them no more; and therefore it is said, there is no more Sacri­fice.

Ans. 1. It cannot be offered to them, with a possibility of their acceptance or benefit, till it be first offered for them to the Father: That which is offered is [a Christ that hath redeem­ed us; with his benefits] A Christ that hath not redeemed or ransomed us, is a gift that would not save us, if he were offered by God and accepted by us.

2. Indeed Christs Sacrifice for sin was offered only to the Father, and is not at all offered to us. Christ himself is offered to us, but not as a Sacrifice, but as a Ransomer, or one that was a Sacrifice offered to God for us, and now would be a Head and Husband to us. His benefits al­so by this Sacrifice merited are offered to us, but not the Sacrifice it self.

Calvin on the Text saith thus [Hostiam ergo iis residuam esse negat qui a Christi morte discedunt; quod non fit particulari aliquo delicto, sed abjecta in totum fide, &c. Nam quum mors Christi unicum sit Remedium quo ab aeterna morte liberamur, qui vi [...] [Page 338] illius atque beneficium quantum in se est abolent, nonne digni sunt quibus preter desperationem nihil reliquum fiat? Qui in Christo manent, eas ad quotidianam reconciliationem Deus invitat: Quotidie irrigantur Christi sanguine: Quotidie expiantur eorum peccata perpetuo ejus Sacrificio, si extra eam non est quaeren­da salus, ne miremur omnes qui eum sponte relin­quent, omni spe veniae privari, &c. Eos igitur solos notat Apostolus qui Christum impiè deferendo mortis ejus beneficio se privant.

Paraeus makes it to be the Apostacy it self that had no Sacrifice, [si ab agnita veritate Evan­gelii ad judaicas hostias mali [...]iose relabantur, nulla eis reliqua sit hostia pro [...] peccato expiando.] And comparing this Text with Heb 6 6. And shewing that they speak of the same thing, he shews that this is the punishment of Apostates, that [there is no more Sacrifice for sin.] But certainly if there were never any Sacrifice for their sin at all, that could not be as a punish­ment for their Apostacy: Christ did not pu­nish Mens Apostacy on the Cross by not dying for them, Paraeus adds [Hostiam pro peccato in­telligit expiatoriam propter quam Deus placatus re­mittat eis peccata. Negando hanc reliquam esse Apo­statis, negat spem remissionis, veniae, gratiae aut salu­tis ullam eis superesse. Negando enim causam negat affectum: Quaeris cur nulla supersit? Quia non est nisi unica Hostia peccatorum expiatrix, nempe Ponti­ficis Christi hactenus ad longum demonstrata: Hanc vero abjiciunt Apostatae. Nulla igitur alia eis est re­liqua.) So that there was a Sacrifice remaining to them for their sin, before their Aposta­cy.

[Page 339] Bullingar in loc. saith [Jam vero cum non sit alia nisi una pro peccatis hostia, illi autem hanc uni­cam contemnant; certè aliam non invenient ullam.] Marlorat adds [talibus ergo contemptoribus nulla s [...]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 [Page 340] 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.]

[Page 341] 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.

[Page 342]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?

[Page 343]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 Death offered by the Gospel. The kil­ling of the Fatling most say, doth intimate the killing of Christ that he may be to us the Bread of Life, and his Flesh Meat indeed, and his Blood Drink indeed. The Messengers are Preachers: The message is the Gospel Invita­tion or Offer. Hence therefore I thus argue; [Page 344] If all the things are ready before hand which upon coming in to Christ are to be received, yea and ready for those that refused to come, and only their not coming, or not coming pre­paredly do hinder their participation, then Christ was a Sacrifice made ready even for all that refused to come. But, &c. Ergo, &c.

I mean not that Christ was appointed to save final refusers considered as such: But he was a Sacrifice for all the Sins of the same Men, ex­cept their final refusal, and thereby made rea­dy for them all those saving benefits, which upon coming in they were to receive. This message any Minister of the Gospel may now deliver to unbelievers: Come in to Christ; accept him as a Redeemer, Lord and Saviour, and with him pardon and Salvation; for all this is ready: All that is prerequisite to believing or coming in, is done by Christ, as far as con­cerned him as a Sacrifice and a Donor of his Testamentory benefits; and as far as unsatisfied Justice did require: All things that are requisite objectively to your believing are ready. Now this could not be a truth; if Christ had not been a Sacrifice for these Mens Sins: For how is all ready when the very first and most needful thing is unready, that is, an expiatory Sacrifice for sin? When satisfaction to justice is unready? Can they make this? Or are they called to make it? Or would their coming in make it, which was not before made? Or would coming in serve turn without satisfaction? Rather it should be said to them (as to the Devils) come not, for nothing is ready. For where Christ is not ready, and satisfaction for sin not ready, there [Page 345] nothing is ready which a sinner is called to by the Gospel. The Cause being wanting, all the Effects must needs be wanting.

Obj. All may be said to be ready, in that Christs Death is sufficient for All.

Ans. That's true; and I desire no more; if you understand it as Divines have hitherto done, and as this Text proves it; that is, that it is a sufficient Ransom, Sacrifice, Price, Sa­tisfaction for all. But then this implieth that it is a Ransom, Sacrifice, &c. for All. But according to the new futile evasion, it is false, viz. that Christs Death was only sufficient to have been a Sacrifice or Ransom for All, if God or Christ had so been willing: but indeed was no Ransom for them at all. For is this making all ready? Is Christ any readier for those he died not for, than for the Devils? or than if he had never died at all? VVill you send to a Prisoner and say, I have paid 1000 l. for thy fellow Prisoner that owed but 500 l. the sum is sufficient to have discharged thy debt too, if I had ever intended it, therefore come and receive a discharge, for all is ready? Or will you bid your Servant go to all the Town and say, I have killed and dressed meat enough for you all, resolving that some of you shall never tast of it on any conditions, therefore come now and partake of it all, for all things are ready? The Readiness that Christ speaks of here is such, as supposeth all things to be ready except receiving by Faith: nothing but coming is wanting.

[Page 346] Obj. But Faith it self is not ready, therefore Christ died not for them.

Ans. A false consequence which yet bears the whole fabrick of the opposers Cause.

1. Doth not the Text plainly distinguish here between Faith and all the Benefits that by Faith we are partakers of? Doth it not plainly say, that all things (else) are ready; when yet Faith in them was unready, for they would not? But the Invitation was come, for all things are ready▪ what a silly cavil would men put into the mouths of the invited, teaching them to say, my coming is not ready; therefore all things are not ready: nay nothing is made ready for me. This Text expresly distinguisheth between all other things, and coming: and so shews, that when men will not come, yet all things were ready, and nothing but Faith was wanting to their participation. And therefore Christ may be a Sacrifice made ready for those, that have not Faith, and therefore receive him not.

2. And you might see some of the reason of this in the Text: The King in one Relation prepares the feast: and in a further invites his Guests: and in a further compels them to come in; God and the Redeemer as preparer of the feast, (which is 1. By satisfying Justice. 2. By enact­ing the New Law) have made all things ready. But to give Faith belongeth not to him in either of these respects.

2. God and Christ as the Inviter of his Guests, doth all things requisite to the invited.

[Page 347]3. But God as one that resolveth de Eventu, what particular persons shall be compelled to come in, gives that Faith, or so compels them. Faith follows this compelling (which, say Inter­preters truly and generally, is an importunate prevailing persuasion) Now may not God

1. Make Christ a Sacrifice for all, ready?

2. And by Legislation or conditional Dona­tion, make a free gift of Christ to all that will have him?

3. And invite multitudes that will refuse; and yet compel but his chosen only to come in? Here it is that special differencing Grace begins, in the execution; and it confoundeth men in the whole body of Theology when they will needs suppose it to begin where it doth not, that is, in Redemption by Sacrifice. All men shall one day confess, all things were ready: if I would have come in I had been saved: it was my own wilful refusal that deprived me.

Obj. But why doth not God compel all to come in as well as some?

Ans. 1. O man! who art thou that disputest against God? May he not do with his own as he list? He compelleth some from the super­abundance of his Mercy: He inviteth the rest in great mercy also.

2. This will be no excuse to the refusers: what if God had only invited all, and compelled none? What if he had suffered all to perish in their wilfulness? would that have been any ease to any? and if he compel some, is that any wrong to the rest? will not Conscience say ano­ther [Page 348] day, I perish justly, that would not be saved? must I need compulsion to accept of a Redeemer and Salvation with him?

Obj. But it is not in my Power to come: I can­not.

Ans. There's no man that would come that can say so: if you will you can; yea you do come. If you will not, who will you blame but your self, you may come if you will. As your will-not may be called a cannot, so it's true, you cannot: your cannot and will-not is all one. As for those men that open their mouths against the most High, and say, that [if God give not willingness and faith to men, he doth but de­lude them to tell them that Christ died for them, and to give them Christ, if they will.] I intreat them to consider,

1. God hath laid the cause of mens perdi­tion on their own will, still in his word, and will do at Judgment.

2. God hath taught all men naturally to ac­cuse themselves when their wilfulness was the cause.

3. The light of Nature teacheth all Nations under Heaven to lay the blame on the wilful, and to make all their Laws, and execute all their Judgments on that ground; acquitting men so far as they can be discovered to have been forced and involuntary, excusing him that can say [I did it against my Will] condemning those that did it willingly: Deny this therefore and you deny, 1. The Law of God in Scripture. 2. The Law of natural Conscience. 3. And [Page 349] overthrow all Laws of Nature and Nations, and all Churches and Commonwealths. Did ever any sober Prince say, I will not condemn a man for wilful Murther, because he hath not free-will, nor power to forbear it, except God give it him? Or did ever wise Judge absolve an offen­der on that ground? If a VVhore-monger or Drunkard so accustom themselves to those sins that they have contracted a habit, and can­not forbear them, did ever any Law-giver, Judge or Wise man, take that for an excuse? Or rather for the most hainous aggravation of his fault? God and Nature hath taught all men, in their enquiries after the cause of sin, to stop at mans Will and lay the blame there. In in­treat wise godly men therefore, that they would not shut the very eyes of Nature it self, and overthrow all order of things for their by-conceits; and when they have done to fly in Gods Face with such horrid desperate unre­verence and presumption, as to say, God deceives and deludes men, if he give a Ransom for them, and give them Christ and Pardon on condition of their willingness, except he also make them willing. I have before shewed it (without any participation with Pelagius) that all men that perish do suffer for abuse of Grace, sufficient to its immediate use and end: and if God will not suffer all so to perish, but compel some to come in, when he doth but invite others; our Eye must not be evil because he is good. He deals mercifully with all, but more mercifully with some: those therefore shall for ever glorifie his Mercy, and the rest be [Page 350] left without all just excuse, and be speech­less.

The 9th Text is Mat. 18. 27, 32, 34, 35. Then the Lord of that Servant was moved with compassion and loosed him and forgave him the Debt. &c. Then his Lord after that he had called him said unto him: O thou wicked Servant, I for­gave thee all that debt because thou desiredst me: shouldst not thou also have had compassion on thy fellow Servant, even as I had pity on thee? And his Lord was wroth and delivered him to the Tor­mentors till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my Heavenly Father do also to you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his Brother their trespasses. Here it's plainly said by Christ himself, that the debt was forgiven him, who afterward perished. Whence I argue ab offectu ad causam, therefore Christ died for him. For without Blood there is no remission.

Two things are said against this. 1. That Theologia parabolica non est Argumentativ [...].

Ans. And I am sure that Christ's Theology is not delusory or false. If he taught by Pa­rables, then his Parables were and are teaching; and if teaching, then we may argue from them. But consider, though it's certain that nothing in Parables is to be stretched beyond the intent, yet this is the plain sense and intent; Christ shewing that those that have received mercy for their own sins, must forgive others, or else they shall perish as ungrateful for what they had received, and as unmerciful to others.

1. It is twice over expresly said that, [he forgave him the Debt.]

[Page 351]2. The effect followed, he loosed him, viz. from Prison.

3. It is the aggravation of his following sin, to be ungrateful for his own pardon; and there is no ingratitude possible, if it had not been true that he received that mercy himself.

4. Christ expresly openeth and applieth all this to his own Disciples, saying, so also will my Heavenly Father do to you, if you from your Hearts forgive not, &c. so that it is past doubt that this forgiveness was real.

2. The other objection is this: Those that are forgiven never fall away or perish: and therefore this parable is not so to be under­stood.

Ans. The text saith plainly, the debt was forgiven: and therefore it is certainly true. There is a fourfold forgiveness of sin; which I desire may be well observed. First, upon Christs undertaking to suffer, and so his moral satisfying, God the Father as the offended Le­gislator of the Law of Nature, remitted his right of punishing and advantage of honouring his Justice, meerly on that ground, and in that Relation; suspending the obligation of that Law, and delivering up the sinner and all his Debts into the full power or hands of him that Redeemed him, giving him authority to give remission to whom he pleased on terms of Grace: so that as Christ and not man did satisfie Justice; so it seemed most meet to the Wis­dom of God, that Christ and not man himself should be the first receiver of the pardon and other benefits: but with this difference.

[Page 352]1. Christ receiveth them eminenter in potestate conferendi, as he hath power to confer them on the Redeemed: But we receive them from Christ formaliter, in themselves.

2. Christ receiveth them for our good; It is not the pardon of any sins of his own that he receiveth. But we receive them for our own good. So that God hath given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son: and he that hath the Son hath life: God hath put a Pardon for us into Christs hands, in giving him this Power: and Christ must be the conveyer to us, in the ex­ercise of his Power, For as the Father Judgeth no man, but hath committed all Judgment to the Son; so he Absolveth no man, but hath com­mitted all Absolution to the Son: For Absolu­tion is one half of Judgment. That is, God as the Rector according to the meer Law of Nature, and as meer Creator, on the first ground judgeth no man: But now he judgeth all as Redeemer on terms of Mercy, by him that Redeemed us; and so Absolveth.

So then the first pardon of sin, was in Potentia Remittendi, virtual, put into the hand of Christ only, for his Sacrifice and Satisfaction; and not to the sinner immediately himself.

2. The second Pardon, is by Christ thus Au­thorized: and it is by him as 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.

[Page 353]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 non­performance 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 [Page 354] 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.

[Page 355]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 in [...]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, [Page 356] 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 [Page 357] 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 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.

[Page 358] 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, [Page 359] 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 [Page 360] 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 [Page 361] 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.

[Page 362] 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 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 [Page 363] 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 [Page 364] 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 [Page 365] 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

[Page 366]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 o [...] their not performing the 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 [Page 367] 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, [...] Tim. 4. 9, 10, 11. This is a Faithful Saying, and worthy of all acceptation: For therefore we both la­ [...] 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, [...]um controversiam dirimit. De vocat. Gent. li. 2. [...]. 31.

Here its left past dispute, that by [all Men] [...] meant more than believers, for it is such an [Page 368] [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 De [...] Redemptore, and not only of God as preserver o [...] Mens Bodies, I prove.

1. The word [...], say then the generallity o [...] Criticks, signifieth moren then Servator, ye [...] 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 [Page 369] 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 [...]e God, and one Mediator between God and Man, [...]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 [...]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 [...]e as in the same Sense? If one Scripture must interpret another, sure it is. On 1 Tim. 1. 1. [...]scator himself can expound the same Phrase [...]us [observa nomen [...] servatoris etiam Patri [...]ribui. Is enim servat nos per Filium: Quippe [...]m salutis nostrae causd misit, & per quem nos sibi [...]conciliavit, per quem etiam Spiritum Sanctum [...] nos mittit. [And will not an impartial Man [...]en expound the same Phrase here in the [...]me manner? Specially there being no rea­ [...] to be brought from the Text to the contra­ [...]. Even so doth Calvin expound 1 Tim. 1. 1. [...]d 2. 3. and generally all interpreters that I have observed. Yea let every place in the New [...]estament be examined where God the Father [...] called a Saviour, and it will be found to have [...]ference to Everlasting Salvation, and not to [...]poral only. Tit 2. 10. That they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things. For the [...]ce of God that bringeth Salvation, hath appeared [...]all Men; Tit. 3. 4. But after that the kindness [Page 370] 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 o [...] the Old Testament for exposition of the New who knows and hath well weighed, how seldom and darkly Eternal Salvation in Heaven i [...] mentioned in the Old Testament.

3. It seems manifest to me from the contex [...] 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 abi [...] him: Yet did he not regard this, nor accou [...] his Life dear, that he might finish his cour [...] with joy. And on this ground he perswade Christians to be stedfast, unmovable, alwa [...] abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmu [...] as they know that their labour was not in va [...] in the Lord: When as if in this Life only [...] had hope in Christ we were of all Men m [...] miserable.

[Page 371]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 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. [Page 372] 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.

[Page 373]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 [Page 374] 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 [Page 375] 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 [Page 376] 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 [Page 377] 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 [Page 378] 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, [Page 379] 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 [Page 380] 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 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 [Page 381] 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 [Page 382] 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 [Page 383] 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 non­performance of the Condition of Salvation.

[Page 384] 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 is not found in those he suffered for, but it is directly à volunt ate Dei Redemptoris & [...] Natura peccati, because God would not accept, nor Christ give any satisfaction for that kind of Sin, (or for any sin so qualified or circumstan­tiated,) but the Antecedent is certain, there­fore I prove the Antecedent thus: It is the very Nature of every Condition added to any Do­nation, Condonation, Premiant Law, &c. that it be or contain an exception of the Non-per­formance of that Condition from among the [...] of those things that are given, forgi­ven, constituted, due, &c. (Because the Con­dition [Page 385] is to suspend the Gift 'till it be performed.) But the New Law or Testament as made to all (Elect, or Non-Elect) doth constitute this its Condition, viz. That all that will be Justified, Repent, and Believe, and take Christ affectio­nately, and thankfully for their only Lord and Saviour; and that all that will be Saved do per­severe herein, and in adding further sincere O­bedience to God's Laws: Therefore by making these the Conditions, the Law excepteth the non-performance thereof from among the num­ber of those things that are given, forgiven, or granted thereby. And Consequently these sins are excepted from among the sins that Christ bore on the Cross, or satisfied for: For whatso­ever kind of sin he hath satified for, he bestow­eth the Pardon of it, Conditionally at least, (and that in his Law to them to whom his Law is made,) so far is he from making an express ex­ception of that from among the number of par­donable sins: But these he excepteth from a­mong that number.

If a Man by Legacy give you 1000l. per an­num, on Condition you pay his Heir out of it an 100l. per annum, Rent: Here this 100l. per annum is expresly excepted from the Sum gi­ven, because the payment of it is required as the Condition of enjoying the rest.

If a Man to whom you owe 1000l. make you an Acquittance and Discharge, on Condition you pay him a Penny in token of thankfulness, here that Penny is plainly excepted from among the number, or from the Sum given, or for­given.

[Page 386]If a King pass an Act for the pardoning of all Offences committed against him, on Con­dition Men will thankfully acknowledge his Clemency; here the not acknowledging it thankfully is plainly excepted from among the number of Faults Pardoned.

2. Moreover this Law being thus constituted for all, (Elect as well as others) it is undoubted, that if we may suppose an Elect man to be guilty of final unbelief, or impenitency, it would be to him an unpardonable sin, and conse­quently Christ dyed not for it..

If you say, this is not to be supposed, I Answer,

1. It is supponendum, though not ponendum.

2. The Holy Ghost supposeth it possible (etsi non futurum) in that the Law is made to them as well as others; and in that he expresly requires them so oft to take heed lest they fall, and come short of the Promised Rest, through unbelief, &c.

And therefore we also may put such a Suppo­sition. Do not those that oppose us in this, use so to Expound such Scriptures, frequently, both about Redemption, and when they Dis­pute against the Apostacy of the Saints; and say it is supposed only; but Suppositio nil ponit in esse: Moreover the Scripture makes it plain, that these Sins of Total Apostacy, and other un­pardonable (because uncurable) Sins, are in them for whom Christ dyed: For they bring on themselves swift Destruction, by denying the Lord that bought them: They tread under foot the Blood by which they were Sanctified, and do de­spite to the Spirit of Grace; and so there remain­eth [Page 387] no more Sacrifice for (their) Sin, but a fear­ful looking for of Judgment. So that is is plain that Christ dyed not for all the Sins of all Men for whom he dyed, excepting by his new Law, the final Non-performance of the Condi­tions of the Promise, in whomsoever without exception. Yea, Christ's real giving all Men under his hand the Pardon of all their Sins, on Condition they Repent and Believe; shews be­yond all doubt, that he bore on the Cross all their other Sins, but bore no Man's final Impe­nitency, or Unbelief.

2. And the other Principle, which is suppo­sed in this Argument of Christ's satisfying God to a full Reconciliation) is as false as the for­mer, and in the best Sense needs cautelous ex­plication.

1. It is certain that no Man is actually recon­ciled to God, Pardoned or Justified 'till he be­lieve, (or others Believe for him, as Infants at least so far as is revealed,) God still hateth all the workers of Iniquity, and we are all by Na­ture the Children of Wrath. By receiving Christ, we receive power to become the Sons of God, and by Faith only are we justified, and not before we believe: And who but the Antinomians will say the contrary?

2. The end to which God (as Legislator of the Old Law) accepted satisfaction, was that the impediments of Remission being taken out of the way, he might (without any derogation from the honour of himself, or his Law, and without frustration of the ends of that Law) give out in a New Law, a Free Pardon and Salvation with Christ to all that will accept [Page 388] them. So that the end of satisfaction as such, and not any accidental or collateral effect must direct us to judge of its extent and suffi­ciency.

3. To this end Christ hath made full satisfa­ction to God's Justice, and Mens After-Suffer­ings, are not from any defect in Christ's satis­faction. God hath granted a Pardon under his hand to all that will accept it in and with Christ, and for Mens final rejecting of Christ and Mer­cy he received no satisfaction. God may not be said properly to be conditionally satisfied: He is satisfied actually and absolutely, as far as ever he required satisfaction. But the Benefits of that satisfaction are only conditionally given out to the Ransomed, and not absolutely. If it be objected that God is so far satisfied as to give Faith it self, which is the Condition to all for whom he is satisfied.

I answ. 1. It is untrue: and never was prov­ed, nor ever will be.

2. Faith is a remote effect of Satisfaction, and not the proper direct effect: It floweth not from Satisfaction as Satisfaction; but from Satisfaction as connexed with Election, as I shall anon more fully open, and therefore de­sire the Reader, to peruse what we shall pur­posely write of that point by it self.

I deny therefore their great Medium, that [God cannot in Justice punish one sin twice] that is [for one sin] (for it is not the sin that is punished, but the man for the sin.) Though I easily grant that if the violated Law be once fully executed, it cannot be again or in a double measure executed (for that's impossible as be­ing [Page 389] a contradiction: for it is no execution of the Law, which goes beyond the sense of the Law.)

But consider 1. The Law was not executed on Christ in his sufferings; and therefore may well be executed on all Unbelievers in their own damnation. Christ did by his Sufferings only pay, as it were that which is a valuable consideration, for the non-execution of the Law as to all that will perform the conditions of the Gospel or New Law.

Obj. Did not Christ bear the Curse of the Law for us, that he might Redeem them that were under the Law?

Answ. Yes, he bore the Curse of the Law Materially; that is, that Cursed Death which the Law threatned; But he bore it not ex for­mali Legis obligatione, sed tantum ex obligatione sponsionis propriae, & precepti paterni; The Law obliged us to punishment, but it never obliged Christ to Punishment; only its obliging us to it, was the occasion of Christs Obligation, be­cause it occasioned him to Oblige himself by his own voluntary sponsion, that he might free us. But still it was only his own sponsion that obliged him (together with that peculiar will of his Father, that he should undertake and discharge our debt;) so that you see the Law is but once executed, even on the Damned (as to full execution, for mans mortality and suf­ferings here, are a small part of the Execution which Christ saw it not meet to take off.) And so the ipsum Debitum is paid but once; Christs [Page 390] Sufferings being not solutio ejusdem, sed satisfactio, i. e. solutio aequivalentis alias indebiti.

2. Nay, consider further, that the equivalency lay not in the proportion of Punishment (pain or loss) equal to that which was due to all or to the Elect; but in the sufficient aptitude of that Degree or Punishment, which Christ bore (be­coming a publick spectacle of shame, for the demonstration of Justice, &c.) from the ex­ceeding Dignity of the person, to be a means to Gods obtaining the remote ends of his Law, (viz. the demonstration of Justice, and right governing the Creature, and preserving the Authority of the Lawgiver) though the nearest ends of that Law were not attained (viz. the personal obedience of man, and for want of that, his personal suffering.) Many Learned Divines have written largeiy to prove that Christ did not properly suffer the pains of Hell on his Soul; I will not meddle much with that question; But doubtless it was a very great part of our punishment which Christ was uncapable of undergoing; much less may any dare to affirm that his Sufferings Materially were as great as All the Sufferings of All that he died for should have been. The Death due to us was Temporal, Spiritual, and Eter­nal. The Temporal Death is so much the least, that many Divines will not be persuaded that it hath now to the Godly any nature of Punish­ment, but is only materially a suffering. The Spiritual Death, so far as it consisted in the loss of Gods Image, and privation of Holiness, and Dominion of Sin and Slavery to Satan, Christ bore not at all. Nor yet as it lay in any Tor­ments [Page 391] or Gripes of Conscience, which are the fruits only of personal proper guilt, in the re­membrance of the Folly, or Wilfulness, or Negligence, or Unkindness, or the like Evils manifested in Sinning. Christ had no sin of his own to look on to torment him: and other mens Sins could not procure to him the gripes of a Guilty Conscience. Nor yet was his Soul or Body so deprived of Gods Love as are the wicked, nor so hated by God, nor at all dis­united from God: For upon the loss of Union with God, and Spiritual Communion with him, would have followed, the loss of Grace, and depravation of the Soul, and prevalency of sin: nor yet were any of Christs sufferings Eternal. Yet did he endure that debasedness and publick shame, and that forsaking of God by the denial of Spiritual Comforts, and by giving him up to the Will of his Enemies, and by an inward sense of Gods displeasure, in trouble of Soul, which was a full satisfaction to Justice, or a Sa­crifice sufficient for God to do what he did, upon the reception of it. But you see that quoad Mate­riale poenae there was much difference between Christs Sufferings and the Damneds in Hell.

3. Consider Christs sufferings being not solu­tio ipsius Debiti but satisfactio; as is before ex­plained, therefore it was solutio recusabilis, God might have chosen to accept it; and there must intercede, as it were, a new agreement for its acceptance. Now God did accept it, and Christ suffer it only on these terms, that none should for all that have the Pardon of his sins, till he accepted Christ as his Lord Redeemer and Re­pented of his sins: and this is the true reason why [Page 392] Christs Satisfaction, is no hinderance to the pu­nishment of those that reject him and his favours.

4. The Satisfaction of Christ is sufficient and perfect ad suum finem, to all its own ends, but not ad omnem finem, to every use and end: and it was not its use and end to acquit ipso facto any sinner, but only to acquit all on condition of Repenting and Believing, (it being also the full intent of God to give that condition to all his Elect, as shall be anon opened.) Some very Wise, Godly, and Learned men that I have spoke with, wish that the Word [Satisfaction] had been never here used, but instead of it the terms of [an Expiatory or Propitiatory Sacri­fice:] because the last is the Scripture phrase and the first is not: But yet Satisfaction is no such unfit term but that it may well be used, though still Scripture phrase I confess is better.

5. As Christ hath satisfied the Father, so the Father hath satisfied Christ (in the larger sense, i. e. he hath fulfilled his desire.) It was not man himself that satisfied, but Christ for man; nor did Christ satisfie in our person, as a delegate pays a Debt in the Debtors name, so as in Law­sense Civiliter, it is the Debtor himself that pays it; For then it should have been Solutio not Satisfactio; There being no Vicarius Poenae al­lowed by the Law, it is indeed impossible, for such a solution to be made; For it should be the Idem and not the Idem quod debetur, quia non naturaliter per eundem, and consequently not civiliter per eundem. Yet a satisfaction may be made by suffering alterius loco; and so Christ did. But as Christ suffered in his own person, viz. Sponsoris, and not our selves; so the effect that [Page 393] he desired was, that he might himself be the first Recipient of the fruits of that satisfaction (in that sense as he is capable of receiving them) that he might be the Head and the publick Trea­sury of all the Mercy procured by his Death; and being made Lord of all, might give them out to whom, and when, and how he pleased; and in special, that he might make a general Deed of Gift of himself, and Pardon and Salvation to All that would accept it, and might send forth the Spirit and Word to bring in men to himself in what measure he please; and in particular in an infallible prevalency to his chosen: And that none might perish merely on the old score, or be judged meerly by the Old Law; but all stand or fall according to their improvement or abuse of recovering Mercy. And all this God hath here­upon granted to his Son: And so he hath satis­faction for his satisfaction; though many that he hath satisfied for do perish.

6. Besides consider, though men be punished for the same sins that Christ suffered for, yet as to God, the same do become new sins, and so men suffer for them as it were, as for new sins: For,

1. The old Obligation was so far made void or disabled, that of it self it could never more bind them to punishment, by reason of the ad­dition of a remedying grant.

2. God did quantum in se as Legislator of the old Law, forgive them all the debt, (except the sins of non-performance of the Gospel con­ditions, which God still excepted and Christ never suffered for) for God hath delivered the obligation out of his own hand (as standing in [Page 394] that first Relation of Rector secundum Legem Naturae s [...]lum) and given it up into the hand of the Redeemer, to give Remission to whom he please. He hath also made a free Deed of Gift of an Universal Pardon, to all that will accept it. So that though men be not actually pardon­ed, yet God may conveniently be said to have pardoned them, in that he did his part as Rector secundum Leges. As he saith to Israel, I have healed thee and thou art not healed. When a true Believer is actually Pardoned, God doth put forth no new act to Pardon him, but doth it by the general Grant or Act of Oblivion, where­by he Pardoned All men conditionally as well as them. The Law, saith a man, hath done a thing or given a benefit when he hath done his part, though the effect follow not, and the Work be yet undone: For Moral Causes may do all their part, and [...]et the effect not follow, for want of the performance of conditions in the receiver, or because con-causes do not their part. And therefore if the effect follow not, the Law enquires, Who it is long of? Whose fault was it? if of the Patient or Receiver, then the Donor or Agent is said to have done the thing, though yet it be not done. For as to him moraliter vel Civiliter it is done: There be­ing no default on his part. If any say that God followeth not the Rules of Humane Laws. I answer, God is the Fountain of all right Laws, and Reason, and Justice, and I speak not of any unjust or mistaking Laws. This is an ill pretence for men to judge their Maker by; when they will not allow him that reasonable apology, nor make that construction of his [Page 395] ways according to common undeniable equity, as they will do of the ways of men. Right Reason, and the Laws made thereby, are a beam of Gods perfect Wisdom and Justice. If any say that God doth not Totum quod ad se attinet, all his part, in making a Deed of Gift of Christ and Pardon, and Glory, to all that will accept it, unless he also give Faith which is the accept­ance it self. I shall now only say this much (till we come to the point by it self) that God doth Totum quod ad se attinet ut Legislatorem vel Rectorem juxta Leges, all that belongs to him as Rector according to Laws; (though not all that belongs to him as absolute Lord and Dispo­ser of events and all Creatures.) And it is in that Respect, sub [...] Rectoris that Christ made satisfaction to him, and not in the [...] the Re­lation of an Eternal-Elector or Absolute Pro­prietary and Disposer of all.

So that you see now that quoad Deum all men are pardoned all their sins (except those excepted in the conditions of the Grant,) though quoad delinquentis Receptionem they are still un­pardoned. They may have Christ and Pardon if they will. And when they are deprived of the Gift meerly because they will not have it, no Reason can say, God did not give it, or Christ did not procure it, or that God is unjust in that they are without it. So that it is not now meerly the obligation of the first Law, as unremedied that binds them over to punishment, nor as it is in the Hands of God as Creator or Rector secundum Legem operum; but it is the Obligation of the new Law primarily (He that believeth not shall not be forgiven nor be sav­ed) [Page 396] and consequently of the Old Law, as the obligation is in the Redeemers hands to be charged only on the Rejecters of Grace. It is not primarily for sin as sin, according to this Law; [Whosoever sinneth shall dye,] but it is prima­rily for Rejecting the Remedy, and then that sin, by necessary consequence remains unpar­doned: so that it is not directly because they were guilty of Death by the first Law, but propter rejectam Remissionem for despising the Re­mission of that guilt. So that quoad Deum it may be called the return of Sin or Guilt Re­mitted, and so to be more properly ex novd obligatione from the New Obligation of the Law of Christ, binding all their sins again up­on them; though as to them and their recep­tion it is both from the New Obligation and the old. And therefore Jude calleth such, twice dead, and pluckt up by the Roots. If an hundred Traytors be condemned, and the Prince Ransom them all at a Price, agreeing in the payment of it, that they shall now be all his own, and none of them be delivered for all that, who will not thankfully own him and acknowledge his favour: Here it is just that all the Refusers of Pardon yet perish: And their Death is directly for the refusing of the Re­medy, and secondarily from their old crime because they would not have it remedied. So that though Materialiter they lose but one Life, yet it may be said that the Life they now lose, Civiliter is not the same that before they lost; but it is vitam de novo donatam, a Life newly given them, for they were dead in Law, and the King gave them a new Life, Moraliter etsi non [Page 397] Naturaliter. And it is the rejecting of the Gift by which they lose their former Natural Life, and their New-given Mortal Life. And will any man be so ill advised in this case as to say, that it is injustice in the King or Prince to punish the same persons that were before Ransomed? Yea if it were not by Money but by suffering publick shame that the Prince had Ransomed them.

Having thus Explained the Case, and An­swered the Argument, I will (looking at Edi­fication, and not the usual form of Disputing) go beyond the task of a meer Respondent, and give you two or three Arguments to prove that it is no injustice in God to punish those for whom Christ hath satisfied, or for whose sins he was a sacrifice.

And, 1. I argue thus; If it be no injustice in God to oblige men to punishment for all Christs satisfaction, then it is no injustice actually to punish men for all Christs satis­faction. But the former is true, therefore so is the latter.

First, I will prove the consequence of the Major Proposition thus; from the essential of­fices of the Law.

1. The Law is Juris constitutiva, vel saltem de­clarativa. It constituteth Right, or at least de­clareth right; (I put in the latter [declareth] not as my own sense, but to prevent the quar­rel of any that may think this or any Right was constituted from Eternity before there was any Law, or at least before that which we say obligeth sinners to punishment: Though indeed [Page 398] the Law doth constitute before it declare.) And so the Law is Regula jussiti [...]; vel saltem re­gula justa: And if so, then to execute such a Law can be no injustice.

2. The Law is Norma judicii; that's past question. I speak of a Law in force, and as to the subjects to whom it is in force. And if so, then it can be no injustice to execute it. But I think few sober men will deny the Major, and therefore I leave that. And one would think none should doubt of the Minor: Whether it be any injustice in God, by his Law to oblige to punishment those that Christ Died for? But because the Antinomians deny it, let us prove it. If God do de facto oblige to punishment those for whom Christ Died, then it is no injustice so to do: But God doth so actually, Ergo, &c.

I hope if we prove that God doth it, none dare say it is unjust. If he be not Just he is not God. And that God doth it I prove thus.

1. Those that God Hateth, and are Children of Wrath, and without Hope, and without God in the World, and Strangers to the Covenant of Promises, and Aliens to the Common-Wealth of Israel, &c. are certainly obliged to punish­ment: But such many have been and still are, for whom Christ Died, Ergo &c. God hateth all the workers of Iniquity, and they are all by Na­ture Children of Wrath, &c. But many that Christ Died for, are before Regeneration workers of Iniquity, Ergo, &c.

2. All that are under the Curse of the Law are obliged to punishment. But many that Christ Died for, were under the Curse of the [Page 399] Law since his Death, undertaken (when his satisfaction was in force) yea since his actual suffering; Ergo. &c. Many Scriptures shew both that we were under the Curse of the Law when Christ actually suffered, and that all the Elect are under it still as well as others, till their con­version. I am loth to trouble the Reader in heaping up Testimonies.

3. All that are condemned already, and the Wrath of God abideth on them, are doubtless obliged to punishment. But such are many for whom Christ Died; (even all the Elect as well as others, while they are unbelievers, John 3. 18.

4. All that are guilty are obliged to punish­ment: (Proved, Reatus est obligatio ad poenam, they are all one thing) But some that Christ Died for are Guilty. Ergo, &c. Even all be­fore pardon, and that is all before Conversion are guilty.

5. All those whose sins Christ doth pardon were first guilty or obliged to punishment. But, some that Christ Died for have their sins par­doned. Ergo, &c.

The Major is proved beyond all doubt from the formal Nature of Pardon, which is the Re­mitting of Guilt, or the Dissolving of an Obli­gation to punishment; therefore where is no such obligation there can be no Dissolution of it: For that which is not, cannot be dissol­ved: And so there is no capacity for pardon; no more than a living man can be raised from the Dead, or a Man cured of a Disease, which he never had. The like may be said of Justifi­cation also. Our Divines have fully proved [Page 400] against the Antinomians, that we are unpardon­ed, and unjustified till we believe: We are Justified by Faith, and therefore were unjustifi­ed before Faith.

6. If none be obliged to punishment for whom. Christ Died, then none such may pray for Pardon, nor confess that they need any Pardon from Christ. (For Pardon being the dissol­ving of an obligation to punishment, there can be no pardon, where there is no obligation; and therefore no need of it, nor of prayer for it) But the consequent is very wicked: We must daily pray, Forgive us our Debts and Trespasses: Ergo, &c.

The Second Argument is this, If God do actually punish those for whom Christ Died, then he may justly punish them. But God doth actually punish such: Ergo, &c.

The Major is unquestionable.

The Minor is fully proved thus.

1. The express words of Scripture shew it, Lev. 26. 41, 43. Lam. 3 39. and 4. 6, 22. Amos 1. 3, 6, 9, 11, 13. and 2. 1, 4, 6. 2 Cor. 2. 6. 1 Pet. 2. 14. Jer. 44. 13. Ezra. 9. 13. Hos. 4. 9, 15. Jer. 9 25. Read the places.

2. The execution of that sentence, Gen. 3. 16, 17, 18 19. is certainly punishment. [I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy Conception, in sorrow thou shalt bring forth Children, &c. Cursed is the ground for thy sake▪ in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy Life, &c. Dust thou art, and to Dust shalt thou return.] But this sentence is executed on those that Christ Died for, Ergo, &c.

[Page 401]3. Those whom God chastiseth he punisheth: But he chastiseth those whom Christ Died for▪ Ergo, &c.

The Major is undeniable to all that know what chastisement and punishment is: Punish­ment is the Genus (being a Natural Evil, or the privation of a Natural Good, inflicted for a Moral Evil, the privation of a Moral Good:) Rigorous vindictive Punishment tending most to the ruine of the Sinner, is one species of it, Chastisement is another species, which, by the hurt of a sinner tendeth to his good. And though this be called Paternal, yet, 1. Chastise­ment is not the proper act of Parents. Masters may Chastise Servants, and Princes their Sub­jects. 2. It is Metaphorically called Paternal in one respect, as God exerciseth it; when yet in other respects it is the act of God as Rector per Leg [...]s, for so all Gods Chastisements are accor­ding to his Laws.

Object. All shall work together for good to them that Love God, to the Called, &c. therefore no­thing is Punishment.

Answ. 1. The best Interpreters (according to the plain truth) expound that Text of Afflicti­on only, and most of such Affliction as is suffered for Christs cause, or at least not for hainous sin­ning against God. And it is unlikely it should be otherwise.

1. Because the defect of Love to God seems excepted in limiting it to them that love God: But one that Christ Died for may be defective [Page 402] in love to God, therefore that is not promised to work for good.

2. Every Man dieth in some sin, and how that should do him good is hard to discern.

3. If we had a Promise that sin and all should work for the best, then we had no evil to fear, nor avoid, nor pray against, nor lament; but that is not true.

4. Such a Promise would be a dangerous en­couragement to sin; if every Christian knew by promise before hand that how much soever they sinn'd it should be better for them than if they had not sinned.

5. The good of a Christian lyeth in the enjoy­ment of God, by knowledge, love, joy, &c. therefore his want of knowledge, love, &c. is not that which is Promised shall work for the best.

6. It is possible for a believer by Revolting to decline in Grace, and consequently in Happi­ness; (else we need not fear declining nor lament it.) But if sin should all work for the best to them, then it were impossible their Happiness could decline: for nothing but sin, or so much as sin can cause it.

7. They that have least improved their Ta­lents, and have least Grace, shall have least Glo­ry: God is enjoyed hereafter in various degrees according to mens various capacities; therefore that defect of Grace, or that sin here which caused their less degree of Glory did not work for their greater good. Yet I confess, 1. That God may and oft doth make sin an occasion of good to his People. 2. And always brings good out of it to his own Glory; But he hath not [Page 403] Promised that every believers sin shall work together for good to him.

8. The word [working together] expres­seth a causality, and a concausality with God, which cannot be ascribed to sin, it being at the best but an occasion of good.

2. If this Promise were so to be understood, it were nothing against what I say: And if it do extend to all sufferings as well as those for Christ, yet it is not against it. For it proves no more but that they are chastisements that shall produce a greater good than the suffering is evil. But yet chastisements are punishments, and the evil is still evil though it occasion good: It is evil in it self or directly, it doth us good but by accident. Or whatsoever you conclude of chas­tisements in suffering, certainly it is a heavy Punishment when God permitteth his People to sin (as he did David, Peter, &c.) yet such as Christ hath Died for do suffer this Punishment. Again, is not Original sin the loss of Gods Image, and the pravity of Nature a Punishment for the first sin? I mean Gods withdrawing his Grace, which is the Antecedent.

Lastly, If all this were nothing as to the Re­generate, yet who ever said that God never punisheth any of his Elect while they are Unre­generate? Are none of their sins Original or Actual, nor any of their sufferings or disunion from Christ and Alienation from God, punish­ments to them? It is beyond all dispute. I con­clude therefore that it is a point of undenyable evidence, that God doth actually punish some, yea all for whom Christ Died; and he doth it justly. And therefore it is not injustice to [Page 404] punish men that Christ Died for, (meerly as if God could not do it, lest he punish twice for one sin.

Object. But the great Punishment of everlasting Death, would be injustice, though lesser be not.

Answ. Degrees here make but a gradual differ­ence. If it be therefore injustice to inflict punishment because Christ hath satisfied for the sin, then a lesser punishment would be a lesser injustice: But God is as uncapable of the least in­justice as of the greatest.

3. The Third Argument; It is no injustice in God to make a Law to those that Christ Died for, which threatneth Punishment to them con­ditionally, and commandeth them to fear it, and avoid it; therefore it is no injustice in God to punish some for whom Christ Died. The Antecedent is doubtless because God doth actu­ally make such Laws as threaten to all both Temporary and Everlasting punishments. If it be said that [they threaten none but final Un­believers; and Christ Died for none such.] I answer, (to omit the begging of the Question in this Objection) Gods new Law threatneth Temporal Punishment to those that are not such Unbelievers, and Eternal Punishment conditi­onally to All; viz. If they believe not: And it threatneth no man but conditionally, for the discovery of absolute Non-election, and the certainty of the perishing of all the Non-elect, is not properly a threatning but a Prediction; yet improperly may be called a threatning: Even as the discovery of absolute Election, and [Page 405] of the certainty of the Salvation of all the Elect, is improperly called a Covenant or Pro­mise; which is properly a Prediction de eventu only, not constitutive of any Right. If the whole New Law (He that believeth shall be Sav­ed, and he that believeth not shall be Damned) be made to all, Elect as well as others; and must be preached or promulgate to every Creature, then the comminatory part is made to all, Elect, as well as others: But the Antecedent is true, Ergo, &c.

2. For the Consequence of the Argument, I need not say much more than is said already in the first Argument.

Object. But the Elect will all certainly Believe, and therefore God cannot justly execute that threatning on them.

Answ. 1. But he may on others, for whom Christ satisfied.

2. The reason why he cannot on them, is not properly because they are satisfied for, but because they believe, and so are not the proper subjects of the penalty.

3. They will certainly believe; not meerly or directly because Christ satisfied for them; but because God hath chosen them to Faith and Salvation, and Christ in Dying for them had a peculiar intent of saving them infallibly, and giving them Faith to that end; they being given him peculiarly by his Father.

4. The Fourth Argument is the same that I have elsewhere handled, viz. If it be injurious [Page 406] or unjust to punish the same man for whom Christ Died, then it is injurious to some one: But it is injurious to no one; therefore it is not un­just or injurious at all.

The Major is evident. All injury is an in­jury to some, and so is all injustice injurious to some.

Object. It may be that injustice which is contrary to Vertue or Universal Justice, though it be inju­rious to none.

Answ. That's not so; for that Unrighteous­ness is injurious to God, and perturbeth the or­der of Nature, and is injurious to our selves. But this God is not to be conceived as capable of, seeing it consisteth in a disconformity to his will.

And, 2. It's apparent that it is Gods distri­butive Justice, as to men, and his commutative Justice as to Christ, which is here pleaded by Divines to prove a necessity of the Salvation of all that Christ Died for.

Let us therefore go to the proof of the Minor Proposition: And it is proved thus.

If Gods punishing the same men that Christ Died for be injustice or injurious, then it is ei­ther a wrong to God himself or to Christ the Redeemer, or else to the Sinners that perish: But it is no wrong to God the Father, Christ the Redeemer, nor the Sinner: Therefore it is no injustice nor wrong at all.

The Major consisteth of two parts, both which are beyond dispute.

[Page 407]1. That whatsoever is injurious, is injurious to some person or Society.

2. That the enumeration is sufficient in the present Case. None else can be imagined to be wronged but God, or the Redeemer, or the Sinner.

And, 1. That it is no wrong to God him­self is past doubt, for God cannot and will not wrong himself.

Object. But it would be contrary to the goodness of his Nature, and so contrary to himself, and to Universal Righteousness.

Answ. Not so: There can nothing in Gods Nature be manifested which should necessitate or cause him certainly to save all that Christ Died for. Not his Justice, for that requires him to give every Man his Right. But I shall shew you that this was never the Right of all that Christ Died for, nay, I have shewed already that all of them are after Christs Dying for them actually obliged to punishment; so that punish­ment was then their Right. Not his truth: For he hath no where promised it.

2. It is no injury to Christ that some should perish for whom he Died.

1. Because it is his own will: He never in­tended to save any that he Died for, but only those that accept him and his benefits.

2. It is according to the contract (as we may improperly call it) between him and the Father. God never required nor accepted satis­faction, nor did Christ ever give it, but on these terms, that only those should be saved by it that [Page 408] accept him and it. God hath done what he pro­mised to the Redeemer. He hath delivered up all mens Obligations into the hands (i. e. the power and dispose) of Christ; and so hath re­mitted the Debt to all that will accept it: Christ may now give pardon to whom he please. It was not we, but Christ that made the satis­faction; and therefore it is not to us immedi­ately that God hath delivered up the Obligation; but to Christ that satisfied. As it is usual a­mong men, for a friend that is surety for another to have his obligation delivered to him for his own security. So hath Christ, that if Sinners prove unthankful rejecters of his kindness, he may punish them for it accordingly.

3. It is Christs own doing to condemn those for whom he Died: And he will not wrong himself. And he therefore doth it, because they will not accept him and his favour, nor thankfully acknowledge what he hath done for them.

4. No man can shew one word in Scripture where God hath promised Christ to save all that he Died for. I conclude therefore that God is no more bound to save all that Christ Redeem­ed, than to save all that himself Created: And the vulgar Argument of the Prophane [God did not make us to Damn us] or [God made us; therefore he will not Damn us] is as good as this [Christ Died for us; therefore he will not Damn us.]

3. That it is no injury or injustice to the Damned themselves is as easily manifested: (and yet here is all the shew of injury that is.)

[Page 409]1. It is no wrong to give men their due: But Damnation is the due of all Unbelievers; even those that Christ Died for: Therefore it is no wrong for God to Damn them. The Major is past doubt. The Minor is as clear as any point that I know in the Gospel. A single obligation makes it their due: but here is a double obligation.

1. That of the Law of Works, obliging them to Death as Sinners: which is not dissolved because they accepted not of Pardon in and with Christ: and so they are condemned al­ready: For none is pardoned till he Believeth: and Punishment remaineth due, till men be Pardoned.

2. The obligation of the new Law both bind­ing their former guilt on them by a peremptory irreversible Decree, and condemning them for contempt of recovering Mercy, to a sorer Pu­nishment: This last I mention as belonging on­ly to final Unbelievers. The first obligation lyeth on the Elect themselves till they Believe: And moreover the New Law pronounceth them all that time, non-liberatos, unpardoned, and doth not give them any remission; though it pass not on them the peremptory irreversible Sentence.

Obj. If this be so, then God should do the Elect themselves no wrong if he did damn them before they Believe.

Answ. None at all; nor dare any [...]ober knowing man tell God, that he had wronged him if he had so done: But on the contrary [Page 410] it's the use of all Godly Orthodox men, Mini­sters or private persons (so far as ever I could observe) to confess to God in their Prayers, that he might justly have cut them off before their Regeneration, and have cast them into Hell; and that it was then their due; yea, that he might have sent them to Damnation from the Womb: yet it followeth not that God might Damn the Elect: For he hath Decreed the con­trary: But the Purpose or Decree of God doth no more give them a Right to Pardon or Salva­tion, than my Purpose to make such a man my Heir, or to give him 100 l. doth give him right to that 100 l. or to my Inheritance. So that God Damns not any of his Elect: but the reason is not because that Damnation was not due to them before they believed, or because God could not damn them in Justice, or with­out wronging them; but because he cannot change his Purpose or Will; which properly is to say, God will not Damn the Elect, rather than, He cannot.

Obj. But it would be a wrong to Christ: for they are given him to save effectually, by the Covenant between God and Him.

Answ. I am indifferent how this is answered, seeing we are agreed in the sense, that God never will condemn his Elect: But by [the Co­venant between the Father and Son] either they mean, somewhat from eternity, or before the Fall; and this is but Gods Decree; and is no more a Covenant indeed, than any other [Page 411] Decree of God is: Doth God make Covenants with himself?

2. Or else they mean the Prophecies and Promises in the Old Testament (or Scriptures before Christs Incarnation) made to or of Christ as God-man to be Incarnate: and these are more properly Predictions de suturo, as other Pro­phecies are, (which God cannot but fulfil be­cause he is immutable and infallible) than the Divine Obligations, (which God must fulfil be­cause he is Just:) or if any will say, that they are strictly obligations (about which I will not contend) yet the Elect are not named or indivi­duals mentioned in them: Or suppose that the Individuals names be implied, yet this is nothing to the time before such promises were made▪ Or if they had been made in the beginning, still this is nothing to the point in question. If God were obliged to Christ to save all the Elect, yet he was never obliged to them, till they believed; (I speak of Obligation in such an imperfect sense as it may be applied to God.) Much less did he ever oblige himself to save all that Christ died for.

2. And that Christs actual suffering gives no man right, appears from what was said on the former Proposition, It was not man himself, that sinned who was the sufferer or satisfier, either in sensu Naturali or Civili. And there­fore he cannot have the benefit till it be made over to him by some further conveyance.

3. And therefore it is no wrong to the sinner to suffer; because he suffereth but once, and suffereth no more than he deserved. So much [Page 412] against the first argument, as most forcibly ma­naged.

The second Argument against Universal Satis­faction answered.

Arg. II. Christ hath purchased Faith infallibly to be given to all that he died (or satisfied) for: But Christ hath not purchased Faith infallibly to be given to all men, but only to the Elect, Therefore Christ died not for all men, but only for the Elect.

The Major is thus proved. Christ hath pur­chased all things necessary to the Salvation of all he died for: But Faith infallibly to be given, is necessary to their Salvation, Ergo, &c. The Major is thus proved, Christ is a perfect Saviour to all those to whom he is a Saviour or Redeemer: Therefore he hath purchased for them all things necessary to their Salva­tion.

The Minor of the main Argument is proved by experience.

Ans. The Major is not true, nor can be prov­ed from Scripture; but the contrary may abun­dantly be proved. The argument by which they would prove the Major, is sick of the same disease; viz. Its Major is false: and the Minor if not well explained is false too. To the Major I say▪

First, Christ hath done all that belonged to him as a Redeemer by dying, or as a Satisfier, or all that for which properly an expiatory Sa­crifice [Page 413] was required, for all those for whom he died: But I shall anon shew that the thing in question is not such.

Secondly, Christ did not purchase all things necessary to Salvation, for all that he died for: I wait the proof of the affirmative. In the mean time I mind the arguers, that themselves con­fess▪

1. He did not purchase Predestination.

2. Nor that Love which caused God to send Christ.

3. Nor Creation and our Natural Being.

4. Nor his own Death and Merits: He pur­chased not these for any man.

For the Minor, if it mean, [Personal Faith] which it saith is necessary to Salvation; It is not true of Infants: If it mean the same Faith, which now is necessary to our Justification (to believe that Jesus is the Christ, that he Died, Rose, Ascended, &c.) this was not necessary to the Salvation of all before Christs Incarna­tion.

As to the Argument by which they would prove the Major, I answer to it.

I. To the Major, by distinguishing [Christ is called a perfect Saviour] in several respects.

1. As to his plenary Power and Authority: so we confess he is a perfect Saviour.

2. As to the sufficiency of his Satisfaction, or expiatory Sacrifice, or of whatsoever he was to do as satisfier of Justice: and so I confess he is a perfect Saviour. And do not all the op­posers confess that Christs Death was sufficient for All men? and all till a few of late do con­fess that Christ died for all men quoad sufficien­tiam [Page 414] pretii: And if it be sufficient for all men, even for those that perish, then he is quoad sa­tisfactionis vel pretii sufficientiam a perfect Saviour to all men: For they perish not through any Imperfection or Insufficiency in Christs Satis­faction or Sacrifice.

3. Or else it is in regard of the Application of his benefits, and conveyance of the fruits of his Death, that he is said to be [a perfect Saviour to all that he died for.]

And so 1. Distinguish still of the term [Sa­viour] as it signifieth [a satisfier of Justice, or Redemptor per sacrificium expiatorium] Christ is perfect quoad opus, as to his Work; and not only in himself and ability, and the material sufficiency of his Sacrifice: but, this is not to the present point.

2. A [a Saviour] signifieth, an actual Deli­verer, by personal application and collation of his benefits; so again Christ is to be considered in a double Relation.

1. As Dominus Absolutus ex novo Jure Redemp­tionis.

2. Ut Rector per leges ex eodem novo Jure: As he is become the Absolute Owner or Proprie­tary of all: Or as he is become the Rector and so the Legislator, (for under one of these two respects he maketh over all his benefits.)

II. And accordingly you must distinguish of those benefits which Christ is to convey as Rector per Leges; and those which he is to con­vey as Dominus Absolutus, and as above or be­sides his Laws arbitrarily without pre-engage­ment. And so I answer, that Christ doth all that belongs to him as Legislator and Recto [...] [Page 415] according to the Tenour of the New Law and Covenant, perfectly to all, as well as to the Elect: But he doth not all that he may do, (and mans necessity requires that he should do) as absolute Proprietary or Owner; either to all, or equally to the Elect: yet is he not therefore an imperfect Saviour: For that belongs not to the making of him a perfect Saviour, though it belong to the perfection of the Sinners Salva­tion. And therefore the consequence of this Enthymeme is denied on these grounds.

That these things may be yet more clear, I shall briefly open a little further, the Nature of these distinctions, and the difference be­tween these several effects of Christs Death; and so shew you that he is a perfect Saviour though he give not Faith to all that he died for; having shewed you in what sense Christ may be said to have purchased for us the Habit or Act of Faith. For I find that a good explica­tion lets in more light into the understanding, and prepares it more for the entertainment of Truth, than doth the most subtle Argumen­tation.

And 1. You must understand that the first main distribution of the Works of Christ in our Redemption (comprizing the whole) is into the work which he did for the satisfying of Gods Justice, in offering himself a Sacrifice for sin.

2. And those which were to be done here­upon, for the sake of this: and that,

I. By God the Father.

1. To Christ, (accepting his sacrifice, acquit­ [...]ing him, making him Owner and Ruler.)

[Page 416]2. To us, Delivering us,

1. From our Legal necessity of Perishing.

2. To Christ as our Lord and Ruler, to be dealt with on terms that have a tendency to our recovery.

II. By Christ the Redeemer, who being thus made both Owner and Rector of us all, doth according to these two respects give out all the following Fruits of his death to Mankind.

So that Christ's first work of satisfaction which is terminated as it were on God, is a perfect entire work of it self. And (as Dr. Ames. saith in the place before cited, Anti-Bellarm.) it is to the work of Grace, as Creation is to the work of Nature.

And therefore as none can deny but the Non-Elect have common grace, as Conditional Par­don, Illumination, the Holy Ghost, &c. (else how do they turn grace into wantonness?) so none can well deny but they have it from the general Fountain of Redemption.

Let us then consider what is the proper use of satisfaction as such, and what it was that made satisfaction necessary.

And it is evident that it was the justice of God Creator, as Rector according to the Law of Works, and the misery of Man that ha [...] offended God by the breach of that Law, and was become liable to the Penalty, which he could not bear without his everlasting undoing These made satisfaction necessary.; God's Justice required that either the Sinner must peris [...] or satisfaction by an Expiatory Sacrifice must b [...] made, by which the remote and main ends [...] the violated Law might be as well attained [...] [Page 417] by the Sinners Damnation they would have been; so that it was the death which was become due to Mankind which required the death of Christ their Sacrifice, (as on Man's part;) and God's Justice which would not remit sin but on a va­luable consideration for the demonstration of its self, and of God's Holiness, which required it on God's part; so that you see, that on our part, which required a Sacrifice was guilt, that is, obligation to everlasting punishment. And it doth not belong to the satisfier as such, to see that the guilt be actually done away quoad even­tum, or that the Damnation be actually escaped: but that a sufficient Sacrifice or satisfaction be given, on consideration whereof Remission and Salvation may be given on the terms as the Le­gislators and Redeemers Wisdom shall ap­point.

How Christ doth give out this Pardon we shall shew you anon, de quadruplici Remissione, so that it is apparent that the want of the act or habit of Faith, or the want of the Holy Ghost to effect Faith, is not the thing that required sa­tisfaction to God's Justice directly; but that Faith is only a remote effect of this satisfaction, and such an effect as hath no such Natural Con­nection with this Cause, but that the Cause (ma­terially) may be and oft is without that effect in many; and the effect might have been with­out that cause from another, if God had so pleased.

To manifest this (that it is not want of Faith that required satisfaction as such; and that sa­tisfaction may be made for those that shall ne­ver believe) observe these things.

[Page 418]1. That Man's Suffering is not a thing pleasing to God in and for it self, but for its end, viz. The Demonstration of Justice and Right Go­verning of the World. God professeth that he hath no pleasure in the death of a Sinner, Ezek. 18. nor in the death of him that dyeth, Ezek. 33. but rather that he repent and live. Much less hath he pleasure in the death of the innocent, and least of all in the death of his own Son. God is not blood-thirsty, who abhorreth the blood-thirsty man.

2 It is not therefore for Christ's Sufferings as in themselves considered, that God doth give men either Faith or any Mercy. God doth not sell his mercies for blood, as if he would give the World Remission of Sins, on condition he might put his Son to so much torment.

And therefore Faith is not the immediate effect of Christ's death in sensu morali: It comes not from his death, as death or suffering; nor may it without Blasphemy be conceived that ever God made such an agreement with his Son, as to give Faith to Men meerly on Condition that Christ would suffer death without first consider­ing somewhat else that required that suffering, and something that put a value upon it.

3. So that the thing which did require Christs Suffering was (as is said before) the obligation to punishment, called guilt, on mans part, and vindictive justice on God's part. Unbelief as Unbelief did not necessarily require it, but the guilt of unbelief, or any other sin did require it, if ever it be pardonable.

4. So that the following effects of Christ's death do all presuppose the satisfaction of Ju­stice, [Page 419] and hence Christs death becomes so plea­sing to God, not as death, but as satisfaction, and so a means fitted to the attainment of his ends.

And because this means so pleaseth him, he esteemeth Christs satisfaction meritorious of further benefits, (joyned with his meritorious obedience) upon which estimation and his own will (called the Covenant with Christ) he an­nexeth further benefits thereto. For the end why he satisfied his justice by the Sacrifice of his Son, was that he might honourably, wisely, and justly give out the following benefits which he giveth out hereupon. So that Christs death is as to God, first satisfactory, and then merito­rious of further benefits. Now Faith very re­motely followeth all this, as shall be shewn.

5. The thing that God could not do without satisfaction, was the remitting of sin, and free­ing the delinquent from punishment: it was not directly, nor in its self the bestowing of Faith.

6. For I would desire any Judicious Man to consider, whether if Christ had by his death sa­tisfied God's justice for mans guilt, and had not at all done any more by his death for the me­riting of Faith, might not God have given man Faith at his own pleasure, without the least shew of injustice, or any other prohibiting inconve­nience? though Christ de facto did merit more, yet we may well in dispute for searching out the truth, separate in our thoughts guilt of sin, and want of Faith in Christ; and we may sup­pose that Christ had done no more by his death, [Page 420] than to satisfie God's justice for man's guilt, by bearing that which was due to man.

Now I would fain know▪ this being once done, why God or the Redeemer might not give Faith to whom he will: Is there a further necessity of any new death or suffering to merit Faith for us? If there be, what is that necessity? It is no in­justice in God to do it: There is no Law stand­ing in the way by which he is obliged to the contrary.

Perhaps some will object, that the same may be said of Pardon and Salvation, that there needs no new suffering to merit them, if once Justice be satisfied, and yet Christ dyed for our Justifi­cation, and Salvation.

To which I answer, All this is true, but then observe the difference; separate in your thoughts Remission, Justification, and Salvation on one side, from Faith in Christ on the other side, (as we by supposition may well do in disputation;) and you will find that God could not give Remis­sion, Justification, and Salvation from Punish­ment without Christ's satisfaction; but he could have given Faith in Christ (if you will suppose it to go alone without the former benefits) with­out satisfaction, I say, he could not give the for­mer; not by reason of any impotency or imper­fection in God, but by reason of the perfection of his Wisdom, Justice, and Holiness.

For them that deny this (as Twisse, and some others do, to the great hardning of Socinians, and Infidels) at present I refer them to the Writings of Divines that have proved it: As Voetius in Thesibus, Camero Passim; specially ex­cellent [Page 421] well by Mos. Amyraldus in Thesib. Sal­m [...]riens. Vol. 1. de satisfactione: and Essenius, Joh. Junius, and most against the Socinians on that point, say somewhat to it, and something I have elsewhere said my self, and therefore will not now so far digress.

But on the other side, that God might have given Faith (separated from these benefits) without satisfaction, is evident.

1. In that there is no injustice or other pro­hibiting inconvenience in it.

2. God doth give the Devils a belief that God is, and that he is a Rewarder of them that seek him diligently, and that Christ is the Son of God, and the Saviour of the World, and that he was Incarnate, dyed for Sin, Rose and As­cended, and sitteth at the right hand of God, and shall come again to judge the World, some to life, and some to death, and that all the Scrip­ture is Gods word, and all true, and that who­soever of Mankind believeth shall be saved, (for the Devil believeth the connection between Faith and Salvation,) all this Faith God giveth to those that look to the nature of things more than to bare words, and can see through the vail of metaphorical expressions, will not make any question of this; especially if they have so far studied the Civil Law and Politicks as is requi­site for the right understanding of the nature and extent of these two relations. Indeed Christ is called a Father, but that signifieth but

1. His special propriety in us, as Fathers have in their Children (which is a branch of propri­ety in general.)

[Page 422]2. And his Authority over us, as a Father hath over his Children, which is part of his Rector­ship. And withal it signifieth that special love of Christ to those to whom he is thus rela­ted.

So he is called a Husband, which expressed the same special Propriety and Rectorship with the singular love accompanying them. He is called a Prophet, but that term expresseth but the manner of his applying himself to men in the exercise of his Dominion and Rule; for he that teacheth them, doth not teach them as a pri­vate man, but with Authority, and as their rightful King, whether they acknowledge him or no;) even as a King doth offer mercy to Re­bels, and perswade them earnestly to accept it, shewing them the danger of standing out against him: Or as he teacheth his Subjects their duty; you may call this Man a Teacher, but the mean­ing only is this, he is a Teaching King, and so his Teaching is part of his Ruling, or subordi­nate to it: It signifieth but the manner of his applying himself to them, so Christ's Pro­phetical Office in its self belongeth to his Rector­ship: Not that all Teaching is Ruling, but in all his Teaching he doth it as their Ruler, in right at least, if not in exercise. For that Teaching by which he converteth Sinners, is not pro­perly an act of moral ruling those Sinners; but yet it is the Act of a King perswading Rebels to come in that they may be Ruled; and as their King doth he perswade them.

And then the diversity of the degrees of Gos­pel Light and Motions, (some having more, some less, some none,) is from Christ as abso­lute [Page 423] owner of all, that may do with his own as his list.

It were easie to manifest how all his other Office-Titles and Relations are reducible to these two, at least as he is signified in relation to the Creature; For in his intercession he stands in a double relation.

The one is to God, with whom he inter­cedeth, and so he intercedeth as the Son of his Love, who having satisfied his Justice, hath all delivered up to him, and therefore is Owner and Ruler of all.

The other Relation is to the Creature for whom he intercedeth; and that is as their Owner and Ruler, and for his own chosen as their Owner and Ruler in a stricter sense than the rest, even as they are his Jewels, and spe­cially beloved.

More is said of this in another place: peruse the Table of the effects of Christ's death.

Now let us see how it is that Christ hath purchased Faith, and how he giveth it, having satisfied God's Justice by dying for all Mankind, God giveth up all men to him as their Owner and Ruler by Redemption-Title (and giveth up also into his hands the former obligation, as is said,) hereupon Christ hath full power,

1. To alter the Law, or to make new Laws for them, and by these Laws to confer Salva­tion, and other Benefits, by ordaining on what terms they shall be obtained, and so giving right to them.

2. To give further mercies, over and above what he giveth right to by that Law, being absolute [Page 424] Lord, he may do with his own as he list; (still supposing that his Fathers Will is his Will.)

Now Christ having received this Plenipo­tency, as Rector per Leges, he makes a free Uni­versal Conveyance or Grant of Pardon, Justifi­cation, Reconciliation, Adoption, Sanctification, in the common Scripture sense) and Glorifica­tion to all Men on Condition they Repent, and Believe.

But he hath no where made any Conveyance of the first effectual Grace, or of Faith to any Man. He hath indeed prophesied or foretold us that he will infallibly give it to his Chosen, but he hath not named or described them by any antecedent distinguishing Character; so that no man can beforehand say this belongs to me, nor hath he by this Prediction made over to them any right to the thing, but only foretold that he will give them right hereafter.

Only he hath prescribed certain means to all men, either for the immediate obtaining of Grace to believe, or at least for the obtaining of Grace conducing thereto, which may bring them into a nearer capacity, who before were further off than the rest of the World. And he hath given them sufficient encouragement to use those means without despairing of success, even so much, as that no man that hath the use of Rea­son, can be named by the tongue of Man that did his best in the use of means to get Faith, or to get nearer to Christ, and yet lost his la­bour.

Yet hath not Christ thought meet to engage or oblige himself to any Unbeliever to give him Faith; but when he doth it, he will do it as Do­minus [Page 425] Absolutus, and as not obliged; and indeed doth it only to those whom he had an absolute purpose to save, and were given him to be infal­libly brought home to God.

So that Christ gives not Faith (the first Faith) as Rector per Leges, but as Dominus Absolutus. Those Mercies (if special) that are thus given, are said by some Divines to flow from Prede­stination alone, as did the gift of a Saviour to fallen Mankind; but no doubt, it is mediante Sanguine Christi, and in a remote sense are fruits of Christ's death.

By what hath been said it may appear that Faith is not the proper effect of satisfaction as satisfaction, nor is it any neer or inseparable effect of satisfaction as it is meritorious. God did not give Christ Faith for his bloodshed in ex­change; the thing that God was to give the Son for his satisfaction, was Dominion and Rule of the Redeemed Creature, and power therein to use what means he saw fit for the bringing in of Souls to himself, even to send forth so much of his word and Spirit as he pleased; both the Fa­ther and Son resolving from Eternity to prevail infallibly with all the Elect. But never did Christ desire at his Fathers hands, that all whom he satisfied for, should be infallibly and irrisistibly brought to believe; nor did God ever grant or promise any such thing. Jesus Christ as a Ran­som dyed for all, and as Rector per Leges, or Le­gislator he hath conveyed the Fruits of his death to all; that is, those Fruits which it apper­tained to him as Legislator to convey, which is right to what his New Law or Covenant doth promise. But those Mercies which he gives as [Page 426] Dominus Absolutus, arbitrarily besides or above his engagement, he neither gives nor ever intended to give to all that he dyed for; no nor to all his Elect doth he give all those fruits of his death, nor for ought I know to any in the same degree; for these are but remotely the Fruits of Christ's death, and not constant nor inseparable Fruits. Peruse the foresaid Table of the Fruits of Christs death, and it will shew you which the mercies be that Christ gives by Law, and which arbitra­rily, as besides his engagement.

Is it not manifest then that it is a desperate charge against the Lord Christ to say, that he is an imperfect Saviour, if he do not perfectly save all that he Died for; or convey to them all the fruits of his Death?

The Preaching of the Gospel expresly, is a fruit of Christs Death: Some have this in great power, clearness and constancy; some but weakly, darkly, or seldom; and some not at all. Shall they that have been at one or two dark Sermons of Christ in all their Lives say, That either Christ Died not for them, or else was an imperfect Saviour? Some are endowed with the gift of Prophecy, Tongues, Miracles, as fruits of Christs Death; shall all that receive not these say, that Christ is an imperfect Savi­our, because he gave them none of these fruits of his Death? Some are made Kings and Rulers, and some Apostles, Evangelists, Pastors, Teach­ers, &c. and all are fruits of Christs Death: Yet all are not Apostles, Pastors, Teachers, &c: Some have Learning and some none: Some have good Parents, and good Education, and some bad: Some of the Elect have Health of Body, [Page 427] and Helps, Opportunities and Advantages to to serve God, which others want: Some are permitted to live long in sin, as Manasses: And others converted in the morning of their Days: Some are preserved in a more even and comfort­able walking with God: And some are permit­ted to fall into most hainous scandalous sins, to the great dishonour of God and their Profession, and to walk sadly for it all their Days, Nay, some to suffer Death by the hands of publick justice; Shall all these say, Christ is an imper­fect Saviour to them? Some are kept in vigor and growth in grace, and some remain Infants; and some lose their first degree of Love, and grow more luke-warm, and Die in a very low ebb of Grace, Comfort and Assurance. Some enjoy much fellowship with the Father and Son in the Spirit: And others are almost wholly strangers to it. Some are made instru­ments of doing God abundance of service and the Church much good, and bringing home or building up many Souls, and that to the end of their Lives: Others are kept without parts and gifts, next to useless, if not burdensome. Some Distracted, and after a Godly Life fall into stark madness, and so spend their days as being un­capable of making use of their Affliction or of any Mercy: And some are cut off in Infancy or in the Womb, before they did ever believe or love God, or do him any service. And is Christ an imperfect Saviour to all these? Nay, and he hath revealed to us, that according to this diversity here in degrees of Grace, Holiness and Obedience; so will be the diversity in the degrees of glory: One shall be Ruler of ten [Page 428] Cities, and another but of two: For he will reward every Man according to his works. How vast a difference then is there like to be between the Glory of an Infant, that being born of a weak believer, Died from the Womb, and the Glory of Peter, John, Paul, or those to whom it shall be given to sit on Christs Right Hand and Left Hand in his Kingdom. And yet all these are Elect. Where is it then that the force of the Argument lyeth that would prove that all must needs have Faith for whom Christ Died? If he be an imperfect Saviour except he save all alike, or give to all that he Died for, all the fruits of his Death, then such a charge might as truly be grounded on his dealings with the Elect themselves as with others.

Object. But he saveth all the Elect, though not all alike: He bringeth them all safe to Heaven at last; but so he doth not others.

Answ. That's true: But then,

1. It's yielded that it belongs not to the per­fection of Christs Office or Work to give all the fruits of his Death (quoad speciem) to all that he Died for.

2. It belongs as truly to his office of saving, to save men from sin, and to give them a full degree of Grace and Glory, as to give men Faith: And yet it belongs not to his office ne­cessarily to give these to all that he Died for. No doubt a greater measure of Glory is a grea­ter good than that small measure which some enjoy. (Specially if the joy of some saved In­fants were no greater than Nazianzene (Orat. 40.) [Page 429] and other antients did think the pain of some condemned Infants would be.)

3. Some of these parts of Salvation which the Elect themselves do come short of, are penally denied them, (and so are given by Christ as Legislator) being propounded on a con­dition, and they not performing the condition; (to the performance whereof Grace was necessa­ry to assist them.) If then Christ may give good things by a conditional grant (as Legislator) to his Elect, and yet not give them that Grace which may cause them infallibly to perform the condition, and so deny them the benefit condi­tionally given, for want of that performance, what reason can be given, why he may not do so by the Non-Elect, in respect of Salvation and Faith, and Repentance, the Conditions thereof?

So that all the weight of their Argument lyeth on this supposition, that Christ bore not Punishment for any mans sins but those whom he intended infallibly to bring to Heaven: which they have never yet proved, nor ever will do, there being no Word of God that pro­miseth to save all that Christ died for.

Lay all this together and you will see the truth of these Conclusions.

1. That it was not the absence of Faith in Christ the Remedy, but the Old Laws Obliga­tion of us to Punishment, or the guilt of sin, which required Christ's satisfaction to God's Justice.

2. That Christ by this satisfaction did not immediately merit Faith it self, but only those intermediate causes, from whence the Faith of [Page 430] his Elect is produced, that is, He purchased all men from the Legal necessity of perishing that they were in, into his own Power, as their Owner and Ruler, that so he might make over Reconciliation. Remission and Salvation to all, if they will believe; and might send forth suf­ficient means and help of Grace to draw all men towards him: resolving to draw his Elect Infallibly to him.

3. That it is therefore an improper and unfit phrase to say, that [Christ Died to purchase us Faith] though rightly explained it hath truth in it: But rather, that [Faith is an effect or fruit of Christ's Death,] viz. where Faith is given. For the former phrase would intimate as if Faith were the thing that God was to give in requital of Christ for his Bloodshed, and that directly: and so Faith should be given by God as Legislator of the Old Law: For the stipula­tion supposed to be between the Father and Son, was made by the Father on his part, not as Re­deemer, or Legislator of the New Law; but as the offended Rector according to the Law of Creation, now treating with the Mediator about mans Recovery. Though these things spoken after our manner, do but signifie Gods Decrees, yet they shew us in what Relation God stood towards Man and towards the Re­deemer, when he required and accepted of Satisfaction. Whereas the thing given to Christ was Power of Dominion and Rectorship, and so the Redeemed delivered to him (not all to one final end, nor with a like intent.) And so Faith is procured by Christ only in this remote sense, in that he procured full power to use [Page 431] the fittest means to draw men to him, in the season and degrees he please; with a full reso­lution in his own mind to make all this effectual upon his chosen, that he might attain the full end of his Blood-shed. So that Faith is the effect of that degree of Grace which from his Plenipotency he gives, lest his chosen should miss of the intended Salvation; and therefore is improperly said to be purchased by Christs Blood, though yet it be a remote effect of his Blood to those that have it, and none could have had it without the Intervention of his Blood, because there would have been no saving use of Faith without that Blood: otherwise they might, if we look to Faith, but as such an act considered without its object given.

4. And therefore the Scripture no where useth any such phrase, as to say, that Christ Died to purchase us Faith: But ordinarily that he died to purge or put away sin, &c. And in controverted cases it is safest to speak in Scrip­ture Language: Suppose a man pay 1000 l. to Ransom certain Prisoners that owed that sum, and upon the Ransom it is agreed that they shall now be delivered up to him, as his Ransomed ones, to dispose of at his pleasure; yet both parties agree that only those shall be actually delivered into freedom who thankfully accept the favour, and the Ransomer as their Lord: The Redeemer knows that these are men of such stubborn hearts that they will refuse his offer: yet he resolves to send them under his hand a conditional discharge, that all shall come forth that will accept him and his offer; and to tell them, that all the rest shall by him be [Page 432] still detained, and as his Prisoners suffer greater misery: Yet out of a special love to some of them, he resolves to send a friend who is so effectual an Orator, as will certainly prevail with them to lay by their obstinacy and yield to his motion. Doth it seem a proper phrase in this case, to say, that this man paid 1000 l. to purchase for these men a yielding Heart, or to purchase their consent to accept him and his kindness? Rather he did it to purchase their Freedom from Prison; which he gives to all, as far as belongs to him as Ransomer. But he sends this Orator with a resolution to prevail, in another superadded relation, viz. as one that beareth a special love to those particular men above the rest; or as one at least that is resolved to attain infallibly that fruit of his Ransom, even the actual deliverance of those men. Nor can it therefore be concluded, that he paid not the debt of any of the rest, because he will not as importunately solicite them to accept of his offer.

5. We must therefore distinguish of meer Ransoming or Redemption by Sacrifice; and the same Sacrifice or Redemption as it is con­joyned with Election, and is subordinate to it: Effectual Grace to work Faith infallibly, pro­ceeds from Redemption as it is accompanied with Election, or with a special absolute reso­lution, of saving those particular persons: but it comes not from mere Redemption by Sacri­fice, as divided from Election; and therefore is common to all the Elect, but not common to all the Redeemed. For God hath means of two different sorts for the accomplishing his [Page 433] Decree of Election, as to execution: First ge­neral means, and secondly special means: and the general is the Foundation on which he means to build the special.

Let us again remember Amesius's words, that Redemption is to the whole work of Grace (viz. both common and special) what Creation is to the work of Nature. Nay, better we may say, what Creation was to Gods Governing Administrations under the first Law, that is, Re­demption to Gods Governing Administrations under the Second or New Law. For in Crea­tion God did two things.

1. He gave man his Being, that he might be a Subject fit for Government.

2. He gave him his Right Being Real and Relative; making him after his Image, in his favour, and in a state of happiness: and in this state he made a Law with him, (even with all mankind in Adam and Eve,) promising him fur­ther everlasting life on condition of obedience. Now here Gods Creation of man in his favour and in rectitude, was a common work; and so was his giving him that Law: But so was not the fulfilling of its Promise, which implieth the Intervention of mans performance of the con­dition. Suppose now that man had been mul­tiplied by propagation before the fall of any, and then one half of mankind had kept this Law of Works, and the other had broke it: Had it been fit for any man to say, that God did not Create any of those that fell, in his favour, or placed them not in happiness, or set them not in the way to a further happiness, because he did not infallibly cause them to keep his Law, [Page 434] which was the condition of further happiness? No more can it be truly said that Christ did not Redeem them because he did not cause them infallibly to believe. Indeed it may be said of both, that God in Creating or in Redeeming had not the same Decree or Absolute Resolu­tion to save them, as he had to save the Elect whom he causeth to perform the condition. And yet our Divines use commonly to say, that God created all Mankind in Adam in a state of happiness, and to a further happiness: that is, as Legislator, set them in a way to a further happiness, and conditionally promised it to them (whether it were any greater happi­ness, or only the perpetuation of the same, I will not now dispute.) And so hath Christ done all for men that pertains to a satisfier of Justice, and setteth them in a way to full deli­verance from the misery that they were fallen into, and conditionally promiseth it to them, with an additional happiness.

6. And Lastly, Besides all this let it be well considered, that if there be any man on Earth (that hath the use of Reason, of whom only actual Faith is required) that doth not actually Believe in Christ, it is their own fault, and is not long of Christ: He will not condemn them meerly for their sin against that Law of works which saith [obey perfectly, or dye] but for rejecting recovering Grace, and that sufficient in its kind, and to its own work. I say it again confidently, all men that perish (who have the use of reason) do perish directly for rejecting sufficient Recovering Grace. By Grace I mean, mercy contrary to merit: by recovering, I [Page 435] mean, such as tendeth in its own nature toward their Recovery, and leadeth or helpeth them thereto. By sufficient I mean, not sufficient directly to save them; (for such none of the Elect have till they are saved) nor yet sufficient to give them Faith, or cause them savingly to Believe: But it is sufficient to bring them nearer Christ than they are, though not to put them into immediate possession of Christ by Union with him, as Faith would do. It is an easie truth, that all men naturally are far from Christ, and 2. That some by custom in sinning, for want of informing, and restraining means, are much further from him than others (as the Heathens are.) 3. And that it is not Gods usual way, (nor to be expected) to bring these men to Christ at once by one act, or without any preparation, or first bringing them nearer to him. It is a similitude used by some that oppose what I now say: suppose a man in a lower room, and another in a room below him, and you stand at the Stair head, and call them both up to you and offer them somewhat if they will come: It is not your intent that they should leap up at one leap, but come up step by step: nor do you mean that he in the lower room should go no more steps than he in the middle room: He must go many steps before he come to be as near you as the other is. Now suppose you of­fer to take them by the hand when they come to the upper Stairs, and give them some other suffi­cient help to come up the lower steps: If these men will not use the help given them to ascend the first steps (though intreated) who can be blamed but themselves if they come not to the [Page 436] top? It is not your fault but theirs that they have not your hand to lift them up at the last step. So is our present case. Worldlings, and sen­sual ignorant sinners, have many steps to ascend before they come to Justifying Faith: and Hea­thens have many steps before they come as far as ungodly Christians (as might easily be mani­fested by enumeration of several necessary par­ticulars.) Now if these will not use that suffi­cient help that Christ gives them to come the first or second or third step, who is it long of that they have not Faith?

Obj. But here you vent two points of Armi­nianism, one, that there is sufficient Grace which is not effectual: The other, that God will give men Spiritual Blessings on the good use of natural.

Answ. No Arminianism at all.

I. I say not that God giveth all men sufficient Grace to Salvation, or to Believe.

II. That there is such a thing in rerum naturâ, as sufficient Grace, not effectual, as it is con­fessed by Dr. Twiss, so it is undeniably proved.

1. In the case of Adam, who had sufficient Grace to have stood (or else all the sin and mi­sery in the World must come principally from Gods denial of sufficient Grace, before ever man did trespass.) Yet the event shewed that hat Grace was not effectual.

2. From the Case of the Godly, who have sufficient Grace to think, speak, and do more good, and less evil than they do.

[Page 437]3. From the Case of the Wicked, who have sufficient Grace to enable them to do less evil than they do, and use more means for the get­ing of Grace to Salvation. They might pass by an Ale-house Door, and might go to a Ser­mon when they go to a Whore: and might go among good company when they go to bad.

To the second point I answer.

I. I say not that God gives Spirituals, on our right use of Naturals: but that God gives Spe­cial Grace, on our right use of Common Grace; Or rather that he may most justly deny men special Grace, that will not make that use of Common Grace as they might.

II. And I do not say, that God hath any where promised to give men Special Grace, if they will use well their Common Grace. For God hath not thought meet to make any such Cove­nant with Unbelievers; nor to engage himself to them, but when he giveth the first Special Grace for Repenting and Believing he doth it as not pre-engaged to do it; and therefore as Dominus Absolutus, and not per legem premiantem. (And therefore the Papists in their Language say, the first Grace is not of merit, at least of Condignity.)

Obj. Then they that come not the first step are excusable; for if they had come to the step next Believing, they had no assurance that Christ would have given them Faith.

Ans. No such matter: For though they had no assurance, they had both Gods Command to seek more Grace, and sufficient encourage­ment [Page 438] thereto: They had such as Mr. Cotton calls half promises, that is a discovery of a possibi­lity, and high degree of probability of obtain­ing; as Peter to Simon [Pray if perhaps the thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven.]

They may think God will not appoint men vain means, and he hath appointed some means to all men to get more grace, and bring them nearer Christ than they are. Yea, no man can name that man since the World was made, that did his best in the use of these means, and lost his labour.

So that if all men have not Faith, it is their own fault; not only as Originally Sinners, but as rejecting sufficient Grace to have brought them nearer Christ than they were; for which it is that they justly perish (as is more fully opened in the Dispute of sufficient Grace.

I think now I may fafely conclude, that there is no proof yet brought that Christ will give Faith to all that he dyed for, but the contrary I have proved.

Argument 3. Against Universal Satisfaction.

Christ dyed not for those who were in Hell at the time of his Death, therefore he dyed not for all.

Answ. I cannot discern any strong appear­ance of proof that can be brought for the Ante­cedent, however it take with very many, as I confess in the time of my ignorance it did with me.

[Page 439]1. Jesus Christ satisfied God's Justice.

1. Morally, at his first undertaking, interpo­sing, or engagement (according to our appre­hension) presently upon mans fall.

2. By that Natural Suffering which he had before undertaken, and this was in the fulness of time.

It is usual for moral effects to go before the natural part of the Cause, but the Cause is in esse morali, in moral being. Many a man upon his word to pay so much money such a day, or upon earnest given, hath the thing bought deli­vered to him, tho' he pay not the price till long after: So may a man redeem Slaves by such an undertaking. So did Christ undertake to bear the punishment due to the Sins of all; and this undertaking satisfied God, not without his suf­fering, but by its respect to his future suffering, giving it a moral Being before hand; so that when Christs satisfaction was in its first moral being, no man (of this World) was in Hea­ven, or in Hell.

2. It was necessary, for Christ having under­taken to suffer the punishment due to their sins, before they were Condemned to perform his undertaking after they are Condemned.

If you give earnest for the buying of Beasts, or Slaves, and take them into your possession, and promise such a day to make payment, though they dye the while, you must pay the price.

3. Christ had as much of his ends obtained in those that perished by Rejecting Grace, before his death, as he hath for those that perish for the same cause since.

[Page 440]4. The Wicked that perished before Christ's death, had the same benefits by it, as those that perish after his death, (allowing the difference that the clear discovery of the mystery of Salva­tion now doth cause;) they had mercy offered them, and Remission and Salvation given them on Condition of repenting and believing, and sufficient grace to have brought them nearer God than they were, which if they had obeyed, they had a high probability of having more added.

5. All this presupposeth Christ then a suffi­cient Object for their Faith; that is, Christ who had satisfied for them, as to his Underta­king, and must and would do it afterwards in performance, was then the Object propounded for them to believe in; and therefore their Un­belief was Consequential, and not Antecedent to Christ's moral satisfaction, and suffering for them; even as the Faith of the Godly also was.

6. It is as good arguing, to say, some were in Heaven when Christ dyed, therefore he dyed not for them, as to say, some were in Hell, therefore he dyed not for them. For it may as wisely be said, those in Heaven were past all need of satisfaction, as that those in Hell were past all hope and remedy.

The time was, when they had hope from that satisfaction set before them, and when it was a sufficient remedy for them, and wanted nothing but their own consent to make it fully effectual: As the time was when those now in Heaven had need of it, and did accept it offered them.

[Page 441] Abraham saw Christ's day and rejoyced, and Moses counted the reproaches of Christ greater Riches than the Treasures of Egypt: But the im­penitent then refused Christ, and his Govern­ment, and therefore were justly denied his fur­ther Mercies.

7. Only this much may be concluded by this arguing; that Christ at the time of his dying, did not intend the Saving of those that were then in Hell; and so it is as true, that Christ at his death did not intend for the future to give Re­generation, the first Reconciliation, Pardon, Adoption, Union with him, or Glory to those in Heaven; for they had received them all long before, as the Damned had lost them all before by their Rejection.

But it follows not hence, that therefore Christ bore not the punishment of all mens sins, ac­cording to his first undertaking.

I know great dissimilitudes are pretended be­tween the Cases of the Saved and the Damned when Christ dyed, as to this Argument, but they are but pretended, and none is shewed; and I think it needless to strive against meer words.

But a fore-mentioned Disputer undertaketh to shew, that the Answer drawn from the state of them that were Saved when Christ dyed, will not hold, and why?

1. He saith. [Those that were saved, were saved on this ground, that Christ should cer­tainly suffer for them in due time, which suffer­ing was as effectual in the purpose and promise as in the execution and accomplishment, &c.

[Page 442] Answ. 1. And those that were Damned, had Pardon and Salvation given them freely, if they would have accepted them on God's terms; and this was on the same consideration, of Christ's future dying for them.

2. And consequently they who were then Damned for unbelief, were Damned for reject­ing a Christ that had undertaken to dye for them, and the mercy purchased by his underta­ken death.

2. This Author produceth such a Simile as I mentioned even now, [of one that undertaketh the ransom of Prisoners, and sendeth to them thereupon to come forth, for he that detaineth them taketh his word: Now if some come forth, and the rest refuse, and be dead in Prison, and others hear not of that, and that according to his appointment, and were dead long since; when the Ransomer comes to pay the Debt or Ransom, doth he intend it for them that dyed ob­stinately in Prison? or only for those that came forth? doubtless only for these last.]

Answ. 1. (To answer as confidently) doubt­less it is the Debt and Ransom undertaken for all, and paid according to the undertaking.

2. Bring home the Similitude nearer the case, from payment of money, to suffering of the punishment which they should have suffered, or some other ad fines Rectoris equivalent, and doubtless then he suffered Loco omnium; instead even of those that are dead in Prison, or else he is not a man of his word, if his action answer not his undertaking: But he did not at his actual suffering intend it for the further good of the dead, not in bonum ulterius omnium, supposing [Page 443] what good they had before received by it, and might have received a full deliverance if they would; (And to make them willing and reaso­nable might belong to him in another respect to do if he pleased, but it did not belong to him either as Ransomer or Ruler of them.

Nor did he at the time of his payment intend to them that were before gone out of Prison at his command, any further good by his Ransom than what be gave to the obstinate that dyed, so be it they would accept it.

3. The said Author argued thus; (If Christ dyed instead of all men, and made satisfaction for their sins, then he did it for all their sins, or for some only. If for some only, who then can be saved, &c?

Answ. 1. He dyed for all the sins not ex­cepted by himself in his conditional grant of pardon and life; [If thou believe and repent thou shalt be justified and saved.] That is, for all, except final impenitency, infidelity, or re­jecting Christ.

And yet for all this, all true Believers shall be saved; For he is become the Author of Eternal Salvation to all them that obey him, Heb. 5. 9. He is able to save to the utmost all that come to God by him, Heb. 7. 25.] He dyed for tempo­rary unbelief, that it may be done away by con­sequent Faith; but we may say more of this in a fitter place.

Argument 4. Against Universal Satisfaction.

4. If Christ dyed for those that shall be Dam­ned, and never receive that Remission or Salva­tion, [Page 444] which he dyed to procure, then he suffered much in vain, (or cast away his blood) but the consequent is false, Ergo, &c.

Answ. 1. This is a strange Objection for those Men to make, who say that Christ suffered e­nough for all, or paid a Ransom sufficient for all, without any intent that it should be loco omnium in their stead, or should satisfie God's Justice for all.

They suppose Christ to have suffered or paid as much as we do affirm; we say it was because all mens sins lay upon him, they say no, and give us no reason why Christ should suffer enough for all, when he undertook to suffer only for the sins of the Elect.

I should think that the Objection lay stronger against them, that they feign Christ to suffer in vain; but how these same men can fair­ly object this to others, who assign so many effects of Universal Satisfaction, I cannot yet discern.

And let me add this much, lest I be mistaken in my tenth and eleventh Arguments against them (most of which is ad homines,) that I do not think it can be proved that the degree of Christ's pain was so punctually proportioned to the number of sins or sinners for whom he died, that if there had been one more sin or sinner he must have suffered more (or one 1000,) and if there had been one less, he must have suffered less; (though yet I think it was necessary that his suffering were so great and reproachful, as might be a full demonstration of Gods Justice, [Page 445] and might serve to the attainment of the ends of the Law: And not as the Fryars say, that the least drop of Christs blood might have served to redeem a thousand Worlds.) I suppose it is clear that Christ did give himself a ransom for Fallen Mankind in general, and that if it had been but for a few persons, less might have sa­tisfied God's Justice than Christ did undergo: But that his Sufferings were so proportioned to the number of Sins or Persons undertaken for, let them prove that can, for I cannot, or that be­lieve it, for I do not.

1. Because the principal Dignity of his suffer­ings which made them satisfactory, and equiva­lent to all mens sufferings, was not the degree of the pain, but the dignity of the sufferer; and next to that was the relative part, even the publick shame and infamy to which he conde­scended,

2. May we not think that as it was Christ as Man who suffered, so Christ as Man knew what he suffered for. And is it not doubtful whether Christ as Man in his suffering (before he was glorified) did know every Person, yea, or all the Elect for whom he dyed.

In his Infancy he did not; and when he saith, that the Son of man himself knew not the day or hour of his coming to Judgment, may it not intimate that he knew not just how long the World should last, and consequently that he knew not just how many, or who should be born (Elect or others) before the End: But this I will not insist on, as speaking with some fear of intruding too far into unrevealed things, and not doubting but that Christ as God knew [Page 446] all men by name. But it is most unquestiona­ble that Christ as man intended his Sacrifice in suffering to be in the stead and for the sins of Mankind in the general; whether he so in­tended it with a nomination of each particular Person or not.

2. I further Answer to this Objection, That it is high arrogance and presumption for us silly Bats and Moles to charge God with doing any thing in vain, or to charge Christ as suffering in vain, meerly because we cannot reach to the knowledge of his ends. As if he might not have many glorious ends that we know not of.

3. I further Answer, That it is most evi­dently discovered, that it is not in vain, nor one drop of Christs blood lost, tho' many that he dyed for do come short of Salvation. For that which is the means to these ends following (which Christ attaineth) is not in vain.

1. He hath attained the effectual satisfaction of Justice for all, viz. according to the First Law.

2. He hath delivered the Sinner from the le­gal necessity of perishing that he was then under.

3. He hath laid the Foundation of his new right of Dominion, as owner of all men: For to this end he both dyed, rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and the living, Rom. 14. 9. And if this were his end, and this end attained, then it was not in vain.

4. He hath laid the Foundation of his new right of Rectorship, as the forementioned Text more directly proveth; (for [...] more re­specteth him as Rector than as Owner,) God [Page 44] being minded to change the Government of the World, did lay the whole Foundation of the New Government in Christs Universal Redemp­tion, even as he laid the Foundation of the Old Government, in the Creation of Man after his Image.

Our Divines say, God Created Man to Life and Happiness, so be it he would obey; and un­doubtedly he Created him in a state of happi­ness, and put him in a way to obtain either the enjoyment of a greater, or at least the perpetua­tion of that which he did enjoy, and made him an implicite promise of it.

Now shall any man say, that because God foreknew or decreed that Adam would sin, and never obtain that life to which he was so Crea­ted, or which was so promised him, that there­fore God made him capable of it in vain, or promised it in vain, or prescribed him means to the attainment of it in vain? (for his attaining Life after by Christ, is nothing against his losing it in the first way?) Most certainly those that see not the glory of Christs new Administra­tion in the Government of the World in general, (in Title, and so legislation, judgment, and execution) as it differs from the Administration of the former Government, they do rob God of a very great part of the glory of the work of Redemption; and if they overlook so glorious an effect of this work (which should be part of the matter of their weekly solemn Praises on the Lords days in the Church As­semblies, for which the day was translated from the seventh, which was for the commemoration of the Creation, as the cause of our being, and ground of the former Government) no wonder [Page 448] if they speak and write again Universal Re­demption.

The whole World is now governed by Christ, and so by God, as he is God Re­deemer. And it is no small flaw or errour in their Theology, that deny the Foundation of the whole Government, and then cry out, that we make Christ to dye in vain, if he bring not all infallibly to Heaven that he dyed for.

5. And also he hath (in subordination hereto) attained this by his death, that he hath power to abrogate or alter the Law that was against us: And that men before their believing, are now his Prisoners, and not the Fathers, as Rector ac­cording to the first Law unremedied, and so they are Prisoners of hope, and not of de­spair.

6. He giveth them under his hand a Condi­tional Remission and grant of Salvation: If they will have him, and Life with him they may, For this is the Record (which men perish for not believing) 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 (for all that gift) hath not Life, 1 John 5. 10, 11, 12. This end Christ attained, and therefore dyed not in vain.

7. He putteth men in a way towards reco­very, appointing them some means to be used thereto, and giving them sufficient grace or help to that use of those means which he first requi­reth of them.

8. These men do actually partake of a mul­titude of mercies in this Life, besides the fore­mentioned: They enjoy a comfortable, health­ful [Page 449] Life, with the supply of their wants, being provided for with necessaries, and usually with delightful abundance; having the service and use of all the Creatures. They are kept from all cause of desparation, and the self-torment­ings of Conscience which are its inseperable concommitants; and which those that feel do often call the torments of Hell within them. They are not only kept out of Hell it self, but (as is said) have a possibility of everlasting escaping it; and if they will not reject it, they shall certainly enjoy Eternal Life. All the mer­cies (in one word) which ever they receive are from the Blood of Christ; and therefore as to them, he Died not in vain. Their Lives in­deed might have been continued according to the tenour of the first violated Law, but it would only have been as a fit subject of misery: It would not have been such a Life of Hope, Delights, and Abundant Mercies.

9. They shall all have their Bodies raised up at the Resurrection Day, and that by the power of Christ as the Redeemer.

10. They shall all be judged by Christ as their Lord-Redeemer, and so acknowledge him be­fore all the World.

11. They shall be judged according to the Talents of Mercy which they abused, and the Grace which they rejected, after the tenour of the Redeemers Law; and not according to the un­remedied Law of works: And so shall be left without all just excuse, even at the bar of Grace: To their greater shame, and the Re­deemers greater glory, than if they had been judged according to the meer Law of works, [Page 450] by God-Creator, as the Legislator of that Law.

12. Lastly, They shall in their just everlast­ing Damnation bring double Glory to Gods Justice, as Belilevers in their Salvation shall bring a double Glory to his Mercy. As in our Salvation God will not be honoured only as Creator and Rector according to the first Law; but also as Redeemer and Rector accor­ding to the New Law: So in the Damnation of Unbelievers, it is not only the Justice of God as Creator and Rector according to the first Law, but it is specially the supereminent Jus­tice of Christ and God as Redeemer and Rec­tor, according to the new Law, which will be everlastingly glorified on the rejectors of Grace. They will then fully acknowledge that Christ died for them and Redeemed them, and that in mercy; and that for the undervaluing and re­jecting of that mercy, they do justly suffer: So that here will be a more glorious advantage for the demonstration of Gods Justice, than ever could have been according to the tenour of the first Law, and without Christs satisfaction for the Sinners. And I think if Christ attain his own and his Fathers Glory, he Dieth not in vain, and loseth not the fruits of his Blood-shed. He knows how to manage the business so as that he shall be no loser, let men prove as ungrateful and obstinate as they please. All these ends Christ actually obtains, for they are ends fully intended by himself. But then the very Salvation of all men, is finis prescriptus & propositus, propounded to man to be intended, and Christs satisfaction is made a sufficient [Page 451] means thereto, in suo genere, and so this may be called the end of Gods Legislative will, though he attain it not (as is said before.)

Argument the Fifth against Universal Satis­faction.

5. All those for whom Christ Died (or satis­fied) have the Gospel Preached to them. But all men have not the Gospel Preached to them: Therefore Christ Died not for all men.

The Major is proved thus:

1. Christs Dying for men would be in vain, if it should never be revealed to them that they might believe: But Christ doth not Die for any in vain; Ergo, &c.

2. For whomsoever Christ Died, for them did he procure Remission, Salvation, and all means necessary thereto. But the Preaching of the Gospel is a means necessary thereto, Ergo, &c. Proved in that the Preaching of the Gospel is a necessary means to believing, and Faith is a necessary means of Remission and Salvation.

The Minor of the main Argument is proved by experience.

Answ. 1. Let it be observed that this Ar­gument makes nothing against the Redemption of all men that hear the Gospel, Elect and Non-Elect; but only of those Pagans or others that never hear it; And if they grant that Christ sa­tisfied for all that hear the Gospel, few will con­tend much with them about others; as judging [Page 452] it partly so far beyond us, and partly so little to concern us, as not to be worth much conten­tion. Yet, for my part, I think the Argument weak and the Conclusion untrue.

2. Davenant in his Dissertation of Universal Redemption, Thes. 4. Cap. 6. per tot. page 65. ad. p. 87 hath said so much to this pointt▪ hat I may well refer the Reader thither for satisfaction, without adding any more.

3. Yet I shall first briefly Answer the Ar­gument, and then more fully open the truth about this point in certain conclusions.

And, 1. We must distinguish of several terms in the Arguments, and some other neces­sary to be here considered.

1. Christ is said to Die for men, 1. Dying in their stead and for their sin, as lying on him in the undertaken suffering:

2. Or else final it er in eorum bonum. Which is,

1. Common.

2. Or Special. And both.

1. Either given as Legislator quoad jus, by a conditional grant.

2. Or given as Dominus absolutus and the disposer of all things quoad eventus.

Prop. When I say Christ Died for all men, I mean not that he finally intended as Dominus ab­solutus, eventually to save all by his Death: But that he Died in the stead of all, suffering the punishment which by the Law of works was due to all mankind: And how far he died in bonum ominum, for the good of all is shew­ed before, and shall be shewed more anon.

[Page 453]Secondly, We must distinguish betwixt the [the Gospel as it signifieth the Covenant of Grace with its grounds and fruits fully expressed] and as it signifieth [only some particular Gos­pel truths, which go before the full revelation of the said Covenant Grounds and Effects; as the Break of Day goeth before the Sun Rising: and the Revealing of some of the fruits of Christ's Death, by which streams, men should be drawn to enquire after the Fountain] in the later sense all have the Gospel; In the former, all have it not.

Thirdly, We must distinguish of [Preaching] which is either taken in general for any way of Revelation; or specially for a Revelation by Writing or Speaking. The former All have, the later not, (when I say [All men] I still mean [All that have the use of their senses and reason] and not Infants, Mad Men, Ideots, or Senseless, of whom more anon.) By this much you may see in what sense we acknowledge or deny the Truth both of Major and Minor pro­position of the Argument. And hence also you may see how far I deny the Major of the next subservient Argument if withal you distin­guish.

3. Between, Frustra, being in vain, absolute­ly as to all ends and uses, (yea Gods chiefest ends) or in vain to the particular end of the Sin­ners own Salvation.

4. And, (as to the cause hereof) you must distinguish between [being in vain through any defect of Christ's Satisfaction, or on his part] and [being in vain, (as to their Salvation) meerly through their own fault.] According [Page 454] to the last members of these two distinctions we confess Christ's Death is in vain to all that perish, but not according to either of the for­mer.

5. We distinguish between [Christs procur­ing Remission and Salvation to be made over to all by him as Legislator in the tenour of his Conditional Grant.] And [being eventually conferred on all by God as the disposer of events.]

6. We must distinguish between [the extent of the new Law or Grant of it, as to its own Tenour or Sense] and [the extent of it as to the Promulgation.]

7. Also between [promulgation initial, im­perfect, and full and perfect.]

8. And between [means sufficient to the first Duties that Christ by Gospel Truths calls men to] and [all means absolutely necessary or suffi­cient to Faith and Salvation.] And so I answer to the second Prosyllogisme; that Christ did not procure that all he died for should eventually receive Remission and Salvation, or sufficient means thereto; nor yet that the Covenant of Grace which conferreth Right to these should be, as to the Infallible event, fully promulgate or revealed to all. But he hath procured, not only that all mens sins be made pardonable (in a nearer sense than they were before his satis­faction) but also that, as to the tenour of his Law, or Covenant, Remission, and Salvation be conferred on all so be it they will not re­ject it: and also that some part of his Gospel Truth (and the effects of Christs Death) be re­vealed in some measure to all, and so some part [Page 455] of his New Law promulgate to all; and all have sufficient means to help to perform the Duties which he thus calls them first to perform.

9 We must distinguish between [Believing that God is, and that he is reconciled to man so far as that he will reward them that dili­gently seek him] and believing that Jesus Christ was Incarnate and satisfied by his Death.]

10. And between [Necessary to Salvation Necessitate Precepti] and [Necessitate Medii] and so I answer to the last confirmation: that Faith in the first sense is necessary to the Salvation of all that have the use of reason, both necessitate precepti & medii: but faith in the last sense is neither necessary to Ideots, Mad-men, Infants, nor yet to those that never heard the Gospel, necessitate precepti: And whether or no it be ne­cessary necessitate medii, etsi non prescripti, we shall say more to anon.

So much directly to the Argument.

Next I shall for the fuller opening of my Judgment on this point, lay down what I con­ceive to be the truth in these following Propo­sitions.

Proposition I. As Christ hath born the sins of all, and done all for them which pertaineth to the Ransomer by an expiatory Sacrifice; and hath obtained thereby a new Title of Lordship and Soveraignty over all, and all are delivered to him accordingly; so doth he faithfully per­form the office of a Soveraign Redeemer to all, governing them as his Ransomed ones, by such Laws and Ways of undeserved Mercy, as have a natural tendency and conducibility to their Salvation. Though still, as Absolute Lord, [Page 456] he giveth out the Mercies which belong to him to bestow in that Relation, with great diversity, to all the World; but yet a great measure even of these doth he give to all men.

Prop. II. Christ dealeth not with any Hea­thens on the meer terms of the Law of works, as it was given to Adam, or stood without the connexion of any Remedy: These are not the full terms on which God deals with them [If you perfectly obey (without any sin) you shall live: If you ever sin you shall dye.] This will be proved in that which follows: and might easily be proved more largely were it not so plain as to prohibit such vain endeavours.

Prop. III. Christ is not properly said to be in mutual Covenant with all that he died for; and I think he is not so in Covenant with any Un­believer, as to a true mutual Covenanting, nor to any that never heard the Gospel, as to the Legal promissory Covenant.

The Covenant of Christ is taken in several senses: Among others for the two here men­tioned.

1. For his New Law, Testament, Gospel Promise, or Conditional Gift of Pardon and Life: (call it what you will.) By this he 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. [Page 457] 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 [Page 458] 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 Covenant­terms. 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.

[Page 459]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.

[Page 460]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) [Page 461] 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 little know we of the History of those remote parts of the World, that have not now the Gospel among them, that it is very hard for any man to know that those Countries never had the Gospel in any measure revealed to them. We may discern that now they want it, and that they know not themselves that ever they had it: But how far their contempt of it may in many places cause God to give them up to that Barbarism and Sottishness as may obliterate all former Revelations, and bury them in obli­vion; this we cannot tell, the rather because that the Apostles (and many other Christians) of that Age did travel so far in execution of their Office, and the Gospel is then said to be Preached to all Nations, and the sound of it to have gone to the ends of the Earth, and through all the World: and because there hath been so much entercourse between some Christians or other, and most of these Nations since then, yet is it most probable that there are many savage parts where the name of Christ was never revealed with a competent sufficiency, yea, or at all.

Prop. VIII. The Heathens that never heard the Name of Jesus, have yet sufficient means afforded them to know (among many others) these following Truths.

1. That there is a God, and only one God.

2. That this God is Infinite in Being, Immense and Eternal, and Infinite in Wisdom (Omni­scient) [Page 462] Goodness and Power, (and so Omnipo­tent.

3. That he is the Maker, Preserver, and Go­vernour of all, and therefore that all men do by the strongest obligations owe him the most per­fect obedience.

4. That he being Ruler must needs give us a Law, that is, some sign of his Will, constituting our duty, and determining what shall be our reward and punishment.

5. That God being perfectly Holy and Just, he must needs make a wide difference between the Righteous and the Wicked; and cause Ma­lum Passionis vel Physicum, ordinarily to follow Malum Morale vel Actionis, vel Omissionis: ut benè tandem sit bonis & male malis. And that the same Cause which was for the enacting of his Penal Laws, requireth the execution of them ordinarily, at least in as high a measure, as Worldly Princes are engaged to execute all their Laws.

6. That the Soul of Man shall in another World everlastingly partake of exceeding mi­sery or happiness, according to what they have done in this World.

7. That therefore it should be every mans chief care to provide for his Everlasting Salva­tion, and to escape everlasting Damnation or Misery; and that all things in this World are vanity, and will not satisfie the Soul, or make men happy; and therefore that our care and la­bour for this World, and our Love of it should be nothing in comparison of our love to that to come, and of our care and labour for it, and that no man can be too diligent in seeking after his Everlasting Happiness.

[Page 463]8. That God is to be loved, honoured, o­beyed, trusted, feared, and that above all Creatures whatsoever; and that he is the most happy man that is most in his favour; and that we should Worship him frequently, reverently, and heartily, and that according to his own will, and that we should honour our Superiors, and love our Equals also, and do no wrong to any man, in Soul, Body, Friends, Name, State, or Chastity; but do as we would be done by.

9. That all men are Sinners, and every man for himself may know by experience, not only that he hath broke these Laws, but often and heinously broke them, yea, breaketh them e­very day.

10. That a very grievous punishment is due to them for these sins.

11. That God being the Righteous Judge and Governour of the World, it beseemeth him to do Justice on those that so offend him, and to adjudge them to their deserved misery, except on some valuable Consideration he forgive them.

12. That it is past their reach to discover of themselves what such a valuable Consideration may be, or what God will accept of as sufficient to be a ground for Remission of this Sin and Punishment.

13. That it is past their own power to make any satisfaction, seeing all that they can do which is good, is but the remainder of their duty, (which yet is depraved by the daily mix­ture of Sin,) and all that they can suffer here, is but part of their desert.

[Page 464]All this the light of Nature may shew them, as is evident by the clear deductions and infer­ences of Reason, and all this is Antecedent to any thing Evangelical.

But besides all this, God's Providential deal­ings may teach them some things of another Na­ture, even concerning God's mercy, and their own Recovery. As particularly.

1. That God doth not deal with Man­kind in general, or themselves in particular ac­cording to their desert. This they may find by his patience, and the multitude of mercies that they enjoy.

2. Nay, that he dealeth with them so much contrary to their desert, as to give them abun­dance of precious mercies through all their lives, when they had deserved the greatest mi­sery.

3. That therefore God hath found out some sufficient means, grounds or terms on which he both may and doth actually dispense with the rigour of exact Justice.

4. That therefore their case is not utterly desperate, and remediless.

5. That they cannot of themselves discover what those satisfactory grounds are, on which God so suspendeth the rigour of Justice, and dealeth with them so contrary to their deser­ving.

6. That therefore they should use all possible means and industry for the fuller knowing of these great things, and therefore send to enquire of all others in the World, as far as is possible, who are likely to know more of them than they.

[Page 465]7. That they should for the time to come repent unfeignedly of all their sins, not only as they are hurtful to themselves, but as against the publick Ruler of the World to whom they were so many ways obliged; and that for the time to come they should to the utmost of their power sin no more.

8. That they ought frequently and fervently to pray to God, both to reveal to them fully their Case, and his Will concerning their Re­covery and Duty, and importunately day by day to beg mercy at his hands.

9. That all this must not be done in despera­tion, but as a means to their own deliverance, and God is to be sought and worshiped by them as a merciful God, as having proved him so to be, and that the use of his means is not like to be in vain.

10. That [...] careful seeking, and diligent obe­dience they should continue to the death, against all Temptations to the contrary.

All these Truths may those come to know, by the use of Reason, from the Creatures, and Providences, and specially their own experi­ences, who never heard of Christ or Scripture. And how much Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus, Seneca, Cicero, Plutarch, &c. did know, may partly be seen in the Monuments of their Know­ledge.

Prop. IX. All this Revelation is some part of the Law of Jesus Christ, and so these Truths are discovered, and this light sent by him as the Lord Redeemer of the World, or as Rector upon his Redemption Title. For all things be­ing now delivered into his hands, and the whole [Page 466] frame of Government being laid on his shoul­ders, and built on his Redemption, even on Christ the head Corner Stone; the very moral Law now is his Law, and its obligation to obe­dience is his obligation; yea, the very Law of Works obligeth to punishment now, not as it was at first given, and remaineth in the hands of an offended unsatisfied Creator, but as it is sus­pended and delivered up into the hands of the Satisfier or Redeemer, to remit wholly, or exe­cute only, conditionally, as men shall receive or reject the grace of Redemption; so that as God ruleth among those blindest of Heathens that yet know him not, so doth Christ Rule a­mong them that know not him.

Prop. X. The Ten last Particulars before mentioned, which these men may know, are properly Gospel Truths, for the Law of Works sheweth nothing of Mercy contrary to desert, nor of any hope of Recovery.

Object. But how can the meer light of Nature discern Gospel Truths, without a supernatural Revelation?

Answ. The Light of Nature is either Reason it self, which is the Souls vi [...]ive faculty.

2. Or the External Light which in the na­ture of things shines forth.

3. Or the Species and Knowledge received by Reason through the mediation of this External Light. Also supernatural Revelation is,

1. Either the Rectitude of the Soul as a Reci­pient Power or Faculty, which was natural to [Page 467] Adam, and may be called supernatural to us, because it is not born with us, and because it is not wrought but by a supernatural efficient, though it be most natural to us, as a thing con­gruous to our Natures welfare, as health is to our Bodies.

2. Or it is the Objective Extrinsical Revela­tion by a supernatural way, and that either as distinct from that which should have been ac­cording to the Tenor of the first Law, or from that which is ordinary by common Causes, tho' beyond the former.

3. Lastly, it is taken for the actual efficient impressing of the Species on the Intellect by a supernatural Assisting Power.

On these distinctions I Answer.

1. Natural Reason, or the Intellectual faculty is the recipient of all Revelations, natural, or supernatural.

2. There are many Objective Revelations su­pernatural, as being such as according to the first Law of Nature would never have been ma­nifested, which yet are not supernatural as Mi­racles are in opposition to a natural Causality in the way of Revealing. And so Rain, and Fruitful Seasons, Health, Wealth, Deliveran­ces, &c. are Mercies that come in a natural way of Causality, and yet they may teach a Sinner those Truths which the meer Law of Nature never taught him; Mercies and such Mercies gi­ven to those that deserve Misery, and are obli­ged to extremity of Punishment by Law, do teach us that there is Remission of Sin, and a way found out for the Relaxing the obligation that mens deserts do not fall upon them. These [Page 468] Providences therefore are so far supernatural, as being the clear effects of the Law of Grace, which relaxeth the obligation of the Law of Nature.

Prop. XI. It is not proper or fit to say, that [the Gospel is Preached to these Heathens that never heard of Christ,] because that the word [Gospel] most properly signifieth the main heart and substance of it: viz The discovery of Christs Incarnation, Life, Death, Resurrec­tion, Ascention, Dignity, Office, and the full New Covenant. But yet it may truly be said, that some Gospel Truths, and so some small part of the Gospel is revealed to these men; viz. the ten particulars forementioned. No doubt Paul Preached part of the Gospel to the Hea­thens at Lystra, Acts 14. 7, 15. &c. when he mentioned Jesus Christ, ver. 23. Heb. 4. 2, 3. It is said that the Gospel was Preached to the Jews in the Wilderness, who yet had little of that which now is the substance of our Creed about Christ.

Prop. XII. That Repentance which God re­quirerh now of all men (even them that never heard the Gospel) is not a Hellish, Judas-like despairing Repentance; (such as was due ac­cording to the violated Law of works:) but it is a Repentance that is appointed as means to­ward recovery, and therefore hath a tendency to Salvation. Gods mercies lead to Repentance, but not to a despairing Repentance; for they contradict that. All the precepts of Repen­tance prove this, and the course of Gods deal­ings. And indeed, else all the remnants of Religion would be banished out of the World. For despairing men will not Worship God, nor seek to please him, nor forbear sinning; [Page 469] but will hate God and live like Devils, and sin while they may, without voluntary restraint. All the Sacrifices that the Heathens offered, and all their Prayers and Conscience of Sinning shewed that they apprehended God merciful and placable, and their case remediable. Hope did keep up all that remnant of Religion which all Nations of the World have maintained, which else had been extinguished long ago, and Earth been like Hell.

Prop. XIII. These Heathens do all of them receive some Grace which was purchased by the Blood of Christ, and there is a Natural aptitude in it as in other effects, to lead the enquirer to the knowledge of the cause and fountain, caeteris concurrentibus; Grace is Mercy contrary to Merit. Heathens have much Mercy contra­ry to Merit, therefore they have some Grace.

Now all such Grace is inseparable from some Revelation of Gospel Truths: Nay, indeed it is a Revelation there of it self.

Prop. XIV. Though Christ giveth not to these Heathens sufficient Grace to believe in his name, yet he giveth them sufficient Grace, or merciful aid to receive and obey those (or some of those) Truths fore-mentioned which he doth reveal to them, and so to come nearer to Christ than before they were. I have before shewed, that all men are far from Christ Natu­rally, and that they must be brought divers steps or degrees nearer him, before they are brought to the very act of Faith which unites men to him; specially Heathens that are at the remotest distance. Also I have shewed that there is such a thing as sufficient Grace, not [Page 470] effectual as to the event; and that both from the example, of Adam, of the wicked now, and fot he Godly themselves. I shall therefore now suppose what is already proved. I have shewed also, that though God thought it not meet to engage himself in Covenant with such, nor to make any thing short of true Faith, to be the condition of his Promise, yet he hath appointed means to others that yet have not Faith, which they are bound to use towards the getting of it; and he hath given them sufficient encouragement to ad­dress themselves cheerfully and vigorously to the use of those means, with hope to speed. So that if they neglect them they are left without excuse.

Prop. XV. It belongeth to Christ in drawing men towards Salvation by his Rectorship, to reveal-oft times some of the forementioned Gospel Truths by way of preparation, and to draw men nearer him, before he reveal the full substance of his Covenant, or fully promulgate his Law. As the Sun sendeth forth some light before it appeareth it self at its rising, which light yet comes from the same Sun: So doth the Gospel oft-times.

Prop. XVI. Those that have the forementi­oned truths revealed to them with hearing the Gospel, are bound in all reason for the safety of their Souls, to use all possible diligence to make a fuller discovery; which is not likely that any Indians or others have done: Had they been as diligent in improving the truth received till they had been civilized, and then in sending to all others for information where there was a probability of receiving information even [Page 471] as men are diligent in trading tedious Voyages for Merchandize and Worldly Gain, it's like there is no Nation under Heaven but might have had the Gospel ere now.

Prop. XVII. If men will wilfully reject and abuse that measure of light and help which they do injoy, which was sufficient to that end where­to it was given. (to have brought them nearer Christ than they were:) And if they will not use the means for getting of the Gospel, which they have sufficient help to use; then it is appa­rently just with Christ; even as Rector accord­ing to the Law of Grace, to condemn such men after he hath Died for them. And if his Death prove in vain, as to their Salvation, the fault is only in themselves, and themselves, shall they blame for ever. And this is the case of these men.

Prop. XVIII. Nay in this case the very Law of Grace, commanding Faith in Christ Cruci­fied doth oblige these men remotely to the Duty, and to punishment for neglect of the Duty. For though a Law not promulgate cannot oblige, yet the Question is, Who it was long of? Or, Who was the faulty cause that it was not Published? If the Law-giver, then it cannot oblige: But if it were the subject, then it doth actually, though remotely oblige. For no man is to receive benefit (saith the Civil Law) by his own fault. Who knows not that among us if a Man will lie in an Ale-House and never come to hear the word, God will judge him guilty of being Ignorant of all the Truths which he might have there learnt? And of neglecting all the Duties which he might have been informed of? And if a man [Page 472] know some few preparatory Truths here, (as that he is a sinner, and miserable, and ought to seek out for remedy, and should come to hear the word, and forsake his known sin, and keep good company, &c.) and yet he despise or disobey these, shall we say this Man was ne­ver bound to believe? I say, he is bound [remotely] that is, first to do some other Du­ties which tend towards the obtaining of the Gos­pel; and then to believe: For the obligation to both Duties lyeth on him at once; but not an obligation to perform both Duties at once.

Object. But if they should improve their degree of Light and sufficient Grace, they have no certainty ty (because no promise) that the Gospel shall be given them.

Answ. That's no excuse as long as they have so full encouragement, as is before expressed. Should a man in danger of Death do nothing for his own safety without a certainty of success? Should not the least hope of probability (much more so high a probability) be enough to ex­cite men to seek the saving of their own lives? Suppose a King having past an Act of Oblivion (upon a ransom to that end) for a whole Na­tion of Traytors (as Ireland,) should send his Herald to proclaim it to all: But to some of them he sendeth before hand some inferior mes­senger, telling them in the Kings Name, that he is placable, and their case remediable, and he requires them to use certain means (as Submis­sion, Petition, Laying down Arms, &c.) and [Page 473] try what the King will do? If these men reject unthankfully this favour, and abuse the messen­ger, and persist in Rebellion, is it not just with the King to forbid the Herald, that he proclaim not to them the act of oblivion? And is it not long of themselves if they never hear it, nor have any benefit by it? so is it in the present case. By the abuse of sufficient Grace to have come nearer Christ, do the Pagans forfeit all other fruits of his blood. So that Christ may truly be said to have done his part even as Le­gislator; and to have promulgated his new Law among them, in that he did his part, and so it's promulgate moraliter vel Reputativè, though it was not actualiter & perfectè through their own fault. It is not long of Christ but of them­selves that it was not done fully, in that they ungratefully rejected his Precursors or Harbin­gers that came before the Gospel. Seeing they would not make use of the Twilight or Day­break, Christ justly denieth them the Sun-Rising.

Prop. XIX. It seems most probable that it was not only Adams first sin that is imputable to his Posterity, but that we are all still guilty of all our Parents sin to this Day; and that therefore God may justly deprive a whole Na­tion of the light of the Gospel for their Proge­nitors sins, and that not only according to the Law of Works, but even according to the Law of Grace.

I will not stand now on the proof of this, any further than to tell you;

1. That the same solid Arguments which prove the imputableness of Adams sin, seem to [Page 474] me to prove this; and by denying this we over­throw the grounds of the Doctrine of the said Imputation.

2. And that the Second Commandment, with all those Examples of Gods destroying the Chil­dren with the Parents, and for their sin, do seem fully to prove it; together with the prac­tice of Godly men to humble themselves for their Fathers Sins. Yet understand me thus, that though according to the Law of Works we are guilty of all our Parents Sins; yet the Law of Grace Promiseth that no man shall be de­stroyed for them, who disowneth them by true Repentance and taking a contrary course (in obedience) when he comes to Age. (This is the sense of Ezek. 33. and 18.) And so the guilt is cut off, and the Child by the Covenant of Grace taken in with its Parents, and so is looked on as in his immediate Parents, and the sin of former Parents forgiven him; though yet that guilt will return if when he comes to Age he ungratefully reject the mercy by re­nouncing the Covenant of Grace.

I do but propound this to Divines to consi­der: For certainly if we prove all guilty of all our Parents Sins; it is sad that the Church hath no better understood it, and that we have none almost that ever bewailed▪ acknowledged, or pray'd for Remission of such a Guilt; nor any Ministers that ever acquainted them with it (yet Ursine and some few I find make it doubt­ful) yet here is no ground for their objection, who say, that then for the Sin of Cain or Cham, God may destroy all their present Posterity.

[Page 475]To which I Answer.

1. According to the Law of Works, he may.

2. According to the Law of Grace, if there have been no Godly intermediate Progenitors. (which is false or improbable.)

3. Or if the Children prove wicked and re­bellious themselves, God may bring on that Generation the Evlis deserved by the forego­ing. Yet is there a great difference in degree between guilt from Progenitors, and guilt from our own Personal voluntary Actions; and therefore God never imputeth the former where men are personally obedient and penitent; but lays it as an addition to their personal guilt, on the Impenitent and Disobedient.

Prop. XX. I cannot find in Scripture where it is clearly revealed to us, on what terms God will Judge those that heard not of Christ. In general we find that he will judge them ac­cording to their usage of the Talents of Mercy received, and not according to the rigour of the Law of works as it stands alone; but particu­larly how God will proceed with them, or whether any Heathen be ever saved? I cannot find that he hath revealed. For indeed it doth not concern us to know it. I dare not say that any of them (Socrates, Seneca, Plato, &c.) are saved: Nor dare I say that I am certain they are not: They that are certain let them be thankful for their knowledge, and not be angry with me for confessing my Ignorance. And I hope they will distinguish between Igno­rance and Error, and therefore not charge me with Error in this. It seems to me that these [Page 476] men being not under any conditional Promise of Life, (for Faith is the condition) therefore they cannot lay claim to Salvation by the Tenour of the Covenant. (Though some think that the Promise of Pardon and Life to them that Re­pent may give them an interest:) But yet God is not engaged to the contrary, but dealeth Ar­bitrarily with them, and therefore we can­not know his dealings particularly and fully herein.

Prop. XXI. Those Scriptures that speak of the necessity of Christ to mans Salvation (for satisfying Justice) do plainly extend it to all men in the World, but those that speak of the necessity of believing seem to limit it to them that hear the Gospel, or might have heard it but for their own fault. It is true of all men, that there is no other name given under Heaven by which they can be saved, but the Name of Jesus: There is no Remission but by his Blood, nor Acceptance with God but for the sake of his Satisfaction and Merits. But it may be observed from the Context, that when it is said [He that believeth not shall be Dam­ned] it is plainly fore-implyed, that they are such as are called to believe. It hath the Na­ture of a threatning and therefore presupposeth the sin of Unbelief, and that it be not meer Negative Unbelief, but Privative; and that supposeth the duty of believing, and that sup­poseth the command constituting the Duty, and that supposeth Natural Power▪ in Man, (though not Moral) and the Natural possibili­ty of obeying. Peruse each particular Text of this Nature and you will find this true.

[Page 477] Prop. XXII. Personal Believing was never commanded to Infants or Ideots, nor required as necessary to their Salvation.

Prop. XXIII. The same Faith which is now among us of absolute necessity to our Justifica­tion and Salvation, was not so to those before Christ; therefore it is not per se of absolute ne­cessity to Justification by Christ: Therefore if God so please, those that hear not the Gospel may be Justified without that Faith which to us is necessary. If we believe not that Jesus is the Christ we shall Die in our sins. But this was not necessary to the Jews before Christs coming: Nay, it appears by divers passages in the Gospel, that Christs own Twelve Apostles after they had long heard his Teaching, and seen his Mira­cles▪ did not believe that Christ should be put to Death, and be made a Sacrifice for Sin; much less his Resurrection, &c. And how un­likely is it then that all the true believers of the World long before should believe this? (How­ever some Prophets might discern much of it.) Do but well peruse every example of believing in, Heb. 11. and see what Faith it was that then saved them. Yet to think that the same would save us now, were a desperate mis­take.

Prop. XXIV. God can if he please pardon and save men for the sake of Christs satis­faction, without letting them once know that Christ satisfied for them, else he cannot save an Infant or an Ideot. Some Divines (as Twisse, &c.) are so bold as to say, that God could have pardoned Sin without Christs satis­faction: [Page 478] I dare not say so: But methinks the same men should never make mans knowledge or belief of Christs satisfaction, to be absolutely necessary to Salvation, if the satisfaction it self be not: Dare any say, [My own Faith was more necessary than Christs Death? I could have been saved without Christ, but▪ not without Faith.] God could have forgiven men absolutely if he would, or else have made some other condition, when once his Justice was satis­fied: And therefore we cannot conclude that this is the condition to any further than Scrip­ture saith so.

Prop. XXV. Yet is Repentance, Belief in God, Love to him, and sincere Obedience, of Natural necessity. For God cannot be enjoyed in Glory but by these Graces; nor as a Just Rector can he save them that love him not, and that Rebel against him.

Prop. XXVI. Those who think it possible for a Socrates, Seneca, &c. to be saved, (or one that never heard the Gospel) do not hereby equal Heathenism with Christianity, nor make our Religion needless: For they,

1. Make their Salvation less certain, and ours most certain.

2. And their Salvation most difficult (as for a man to hit a narrow way in the dark;) and ours incomparably more easie (as for a man to hit the right way by day-light.)

3. And that therefore they are very few of them that are Saved; but Multitudes with us.

4. That their Glory shall be lesser (as his that improved the two Talents;) and ours [Page 479] greater, (as his that improved the ten:) Besides many more differences.

Prop. XXVII. If all the Heathen be Damned, though their loss will be materially equal with ours, yet formally as a privation (for they were never in our capacity of Glory;) and their poena sensus, will not be near equal to ours either materially or formally. For their Consciences will never torment them for the refusal of Christ revealed, and Heaven offered to them, or any other sins which they were not capable of committing. Nay, if it were true that some teach, that they had no Gospel Mercy or Grace given 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.

[Page 480]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 [Page 482] 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,] [Page 483] 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 [Page 484] 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 I intend not here to determine or meddle with.

3. We anumerate Salvation, that is, Glorifi­cation, to these intended effects of Christ's Death for his chosen, this being the End of all the former, and therefore we imply that Perse­verance in Faith, and a State of Justification was intended infallibly and certainly to be gi­ven them.

[Page 485]Tenthly, Observe that we do not here en­quire after the present immediate effects of Christ's Death as a satisfaction to Justice: For I doubt not but the sins of the Non-Elect did lye upon him, as the pro meritorious Cause of his Suffering as well as the sins of the Elect, and consequent­ly that he made Satisfaction for them to God, and purchased them by his Blood.

Eleventh and Lastly, Observe, that in affirm­ing this Infallible, Immutable, purpose of God, to save his Elect and them only, we do not deny his Purpose of giving Pardon and Life in Christ Condi­tionally to those that are not Elect: For that which he hath done in Time, he Purposed before Time (and so did Christ at his Death.) But in Time he hath made such a general Conditional Grant or Gift of Christ and Life, (as is legible in the Gospel beyond all exceptions,) Ergo, &c. And therefore according to his (Legislative Will, antecedently, God would have all men to be saved; tho' consequently considering many as finally Im­penitent Unbelievers, he Wills as a Righteous Judge, their Damnation. Nor will I dispute, whether as we ascribe a Volition to God as the cause of his Effectual Grace; so we may ascribe a Velleity to him (as Lud. Crocius and other of our Divines do) as the cause of that Grace which proveth not-effectual: in both, speaking of him from the manner of man.

Upon this very cursory explication, I pro­ceed to prove the Thesis, thus,

Argum. I. If Christ Died with a Special Inten­tion to bring his chosen Infallibly to Believe, and to give them Justification and Glorification on con­dition of believing, then he died with a special In­tention [Page 486] of bringing infallibly certain chosen persons, to Faith, Justification and Salvation. But the Antecedent is true, therefore so is the consequent.

That which we have to prove therefore is, that he had a Special Intent to give Faith to some Infallibly, and then there will be no more question of Justification and Glorification. And that I prove thus.

Whatever Grace Christ giveth absolutely and in­fallibly, that he purposed before to give absolutely and infallibly. But Christ giveth the Grace of Faith (and Repentance) to his chosen (and them only) absolutely and infallibly. Ergo, &c.

By [giving] in this Argument I mean, the actual Causation or Collation of faith it self, and not merely a Legal giving a right to it, of which anon.

The Major I think, no sober Christian will deny. For how can the Omniscient, Immutable God, be suddenly surprized with a new purpose which never came into his mind before our be­ing Believers?

The Minor is proved 1. From the visible Event. 2. From Scripture.

1. We see und [...]niably that some men have Faith, and others have not: therefore we know that God giveth it absolutely and infallibly to those only.

Obj God gave it to all alike, but the rest refu­sed it.

Answ. I. If that were true of God's Moral Civil way of giving, yet it cannot be true of his Physical gift or operation which we now speak [Page 487] of: for that giving is ever connexed with re­ceiving: As God never giveth a Soul to any Body, nor health to any Sick man, but those that receive them, so he never thus gives Faith, Re­pentance, a New-heart, to any but those that re­ceive them.

Obj. He offereth Christ and Grace to believe in him to All: and offering is conditional giving: and he doth no more to any, but on supposition of their Reception, or performance of the Con­dition.

Answ. I. It's false, that he actually offers Christ to all, tho' as to the tenour of the Gift he doth, which without the Promulgation (which extends not to Millions of Heathens) is no actual offer.

II. Much less, or as little, doth he offer them Faith.

III. It's false, that he doth no more but offer Faith conditionally to his chosen: For he effecteth it absolutely. To [offer Conditionally] is a Civil act, and we are speaking of a Physical Causing: This objection therefore flatly denieth that God is the Author of any man's Faith.

We therefore prove it out of Scripture, Eph. 2. 8. By Grace ye are saved through Faith, and that not of your selves, it is the gift of God. The Expositors that are most against the Doctrine which I defend, do confess that it is Faith, (and not Salvatiin only) that is here called, the Gift of God; but they say, God giveth it, by giving the object, Christ and the Gospel. Answ. That is somewhat towards the giving of Faith, but that [Page 488] is not the giving of Faith, if there be no more. Do these men think that the unrenewed faculty hath need of no Grace but an object or perswasion from without, to cause it to believe? Many have the Gospel that have not Faith: therefore God hath not caused such to believe.

1 Pet. 1. 5. Who are kept by the Power of God, through Faith unto Salvation. God's Power is ex­ercised in keeping us in Faith as the means to Sal­vation the end: And he that by his mighty Power keeps us in Faith, no doubt did cause it.

2 Pet. 1. 3. According as his Divine Power hath given to us all things that pertain to Life and Godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to Glory and Virtue. If he give us all things pertaining to Life, then he gives us Faith.

Obj. Faith is expresly excepted, in the Words [through the knowledge of him that hath called us] that is, through our own believing.

Answ. I. It is distinguished from the rest, as a Gift which is a means to the other gifts, but not excepted.

II. Our following acts of Faith seem to be in­cluded in the [All things] here mentioned, viz. Through our first believing God giveth us Christ, the Spirit, and all following Grace. And if the following acts of Faith are the gifts of God, then no doubt the first was so, which was re­quired of us when we were less able of our selves to perform it, then when we are Sancti­fied.

Heb. 12. 2. Jesus is the Author and Finisher of our Faith.

[Page 489] Obj. That's meant of the Doctrine of our belief, and Objects of Faith; the Christian Religion.

Answ. I. Then to be the Finisher and to be the Author would be all one. For as soon as Christ was the Author of Christian Doctrine, he was the Finisher: but not so about our own Faith.

II. If it were so, yet may it be meant of Faith as it contains both, even the whole work of our Christianity and Salvation.

Phil. 1. 29. For to you it is given on the behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake. From this Text Grotius him­self confesseth that it is proved that Faith is the gift of God.

Joh. 3. 27. A man can receive nothing except it be given him from Heaven.

If nothing, then not Faith. If they say, they received it not, the Apostles question may shame them. What hast thou which thou hast not re­ceived?

Obj. That's meant of gifts that were for Edifi­cation.

Answ. I. Much more of Faith, which is a special Grace.

II. It is General, implying that we have no­thing that we received not, that thence he might conclude [Therefore not such Gifts.]

Joh. 6. 44. No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him, ver. 65. Therefore said I unto you, No man can come unto me except it were given to him of my Father.

[Page 490] Obj. God drawing Morally those that will not follow him.

Answ. I. The Drawing here mentioned is the same with [giving to come to him.]

II. It is given as the Reason why some Believ­ed not, because none can come except it be given them, and they be drawn. Those that believed not had your Moral drawing which was uneffectual, but it is evident, they had not the drawing which Christ mentioneth.

Luk. 17. 5. Lord increase our Faith. There­fore he must give it.

Obj. That is a Faith of Miracles.

Answ. Saving Faith is as much Gods Gift as that: and the Soul as unapt to it till he give it.

Mark 9. 24. Lord I believe: help thou mine Unbelief. He that must Help our Unbelief, that is, give us more Faith, must help our total Unbe­lief, by giving us our first Faith, which we are most unable to perform of our selves.

Gal. 5. 22. The fruit of the Spirit is Love, Faith, &c.

Obj. That's meant of Fidelity.

Answ. I. That's unproved; that it's only meant of that.

II. If common fidelity must be wrought by the Spirit, much more Saving Faith in Christ.

To all these it's further objected, that God [Page 491] giveth Faith equally to All, that is, his help to Be­lieve: but it is only the Materia Disposita that receiveth it, and the reason why some have it not, is because they are not disposed or prepared.

Ans. 1. If this be so, that this is the Reason of his denying faith to some, yet the contrary disposition is not the Reason of his giving faith to others. And therefore the Undisposedness is only a Reason sufficient to Justifie God's denial of Grace, but not Disabling him to give it, or necessitating him to deny it. Else all men should perish, who are undisposed unless they dispose themselves. And this is plain Semi-Polagianism, that Grace is tyed to such Dispositions of our own.

2. Prove if you can that ever God hath made a Promise of Faith, to men on condition of any prerequisite Dispositions. I find no such thing in the Word.

3. Are those Dispositions Gods Gifts or not? If not, then all is ultimately resolved into mans will, and we have something that we have not re­ceived. If they be, then they are given Abso­lutely or Conditionally. If Absolutely, then they are not so given to All, else All should have them and so Believe. If Conditionally;

1. What is the Condition? They say our Non­resistance: But our Resistance is either Habitual or Actual. The Actual is our Actual Ni [...]ing; The Habitual is our Habitual Unwillingness, Deadness, &c. Must we cure all this of our selves, before God will give us Faith? I will not say as Dr. Twisse, that Non-resistance is Cre­dere, that is, Faith it self that is the contrary to this Resistance or Unwillingness; because you may tell me, that to be unwilling of Christ as offered, [Page 492] and to be Unwilling that God should make me wil­ling of Christ, or give me Faith, by the means of my hearing, is not all one. But this I say, that the best did resist and were unwilling both of Christ and Faith, till God did overcome their Re­sistance. And that God hath not promised Faith on condition of mans Non-resistance that I know of.

2. Is this Non-resistance or Willingness to Be­lieve the Gift of God or not? If not, then we have somewhat which we did not receive, and then all Grace still is ultimately resolved (with the Pelagians) into mans will; and man makes himself to differ, which I disproved in the last days Exercise. If it be Gods Gift, then ei­ther Absolute (and so proper to some:) Or Conditional, and then that must have a Condition; and so in infinitum, till you stop in some Abso­lute Gift not common to all.

Object. God is not the total, but partial Cause, and therefore he doth quantum in se give Faith to all, and that some are yet with­out it, is long of themselves.

Answ. I. I confess that it is long of them­selves that any are Unbelievers.

II. Though man believe, yet it seems to me that God is not to be called Causa partialis, but totalis in that Supream Causality which he exer­ciseth.

III. That God doth quantum in se give all men Faith, may be understood either.

1. Quantum in se quoad potentiam, as much as [...]e can: But that's Blasphemy.

[Page 493]2. Quantum in se quoad Decentiam, as much as is meet for him to do. But who dare say that it is unmeet for God to give men such effectual grace as shall Infallibly cause them to Believe? He gi­veth such to his Elect, and therein doth not any thing that is unmeet.

3. Or else it is meant, that God giveth so much help to unbelievers, as leaves all the blame of their unbelief upon themselves, and justifieth him from being the culpable deficient or efficient Cause: And this I grant, but this is no advan­tage to the Adversary. But I have been too long on this first Argument.

Arg. II. Jesus Christ dying intended the Infal­lible Glorification of Gods free grace in the certain Regeneration, Justification and Glorification of cer­tain men, therefore he intended the infallible cer­tain Regeneration (or Faith) and Justification and Glorification of those men

That Christ came into the World with a cer­tain intention to accomplish the glorifying of God as his end; is undoubted. For to say either that he undertook so great a work without an end, or that the glory of Gods grace and love was not that end, are both impious. And as certain is it that it was the glory of Gods grace in the cer­tain Salvation of some men that was intended. For as there is no other way of this full glorifica­tion of Gods grace, manifested to us, but only by mans Salvation, so the Scripture most frequently tells us that this is the way, and this was God's design, and therefore Christ is stiled the Saviour, which certainly implyeth that he hath some infal­libly to save, and that he came to seek and to save [Page 494] that which was lost. And if it were not the Salvation of Determinate Persons that God in­tended to glorify himself in, then was it not in the Salvation of any man at all: for all Salvation is some ones Salvation. Accidents exist not with­out a Subject. And if it were not a certain ob­taining of this end by this means that Christ in­tended, then Christ came upon an uncertain er­rand into the World, and intended not the cer­tain attainment of Gods glory herein, which is unreasonable to imagine. So admirably was this design of Redemption laid, such a wonde­rous Mystery is it to Angels and Men, that it is apparent God intended infallibly the attaining of his blessed ends thereby. And so precious was the blood of Jesus Christ, that it is impious to imagine that he had no certain end in the shed­ing of it, or that it might have been lost as to the glory of Gods grace, and the Salvation of any persons, for any thing that he intended to the contrary.

Arg. III. What Christ intended from all Eter­nity, that he intended in dying (which was yet future) but Christ did from all Eternity intend the certain justification and glorification of his Chosen, and giving them faith to that end, therefore he in­tended it on the Cross, and at his undertaking.

This Argument divolves the whole Contro­versie to the point of Predestination, where it is plain that it lyeth, which because our Divines have fully vindicated, I will now pass by.

Arg. IV. God hath made an ab olute Promise that he will infallibly Convert, Pardon and save some, viz. his Chosen,) which he hath not made [Page 495] concerning others, therefore he intended the certain Conversion, Remission, and Salvation of those some, and not of others (in giving Christ, and so did Christ in giving his Life.)

Jer. 31. 33. This is my Covenant, &c. I will put my Law in their minds, and write it in their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my People. So I will take the hard heart out of their body, and give them an heart of flesh, a new heart, one heart, &c. And I will put my fear into their hearts that they shall not depart from me. Such Promises are not to all, nor Conditional: If they are, what is the Condition? Now what God Promiseth, [...]he Performeth, and intended to Per­form.

Arg. V. If Christ intended not the certain Con­version, Justification, and Glorification of his Cho­sen, more than of others, then those in Heaven are no more beholden to his intention or his death, than those in Hell, nor the Regenerate, than the Unrege­nerate. But the Consequent is intollerable, therefore so is the Antecedent. At least it will follow that they are no more beholden to him for their Faith, than they that never had it.

Arg. VI. Either God Purposed (in giving his Son, and Christ in dying) the certain Salvation (and so Conversion) of All, of None, or of Some only. Not of All, for then All should be Saved. Not of None, for then either None should be Saved, or else they should be Saved without or against Gods Purpose. Not against it, as will be acknow­ledged. Not without it, for,

1. He who Saveth them in Time, Purposed it from Eternity, for he worketh all things after the counsel of his own Will.

[Page 496]2. He whose Providence extendeth to the falling of a Sparrow, and the cloathing of the Grass, doth sure provide and regard the Salvation of Mankind, and saveth not man without his own purpose to save him.

3. If it be a Performed Act, and not a Purpo­sed Act, for God to Convert and Save, then it would be either an Irrational Act which had no end, or else that purpose must be new in him, which was not at Christs dying; both which are intollerable.

If they say that he purposed it Conditionally, or quantum in se, determining nothing Absolutely of the Event, I have answered enough to that before.

Arg. VII. Ad hominem: The Adversaries grant in effect the substance of our Conclusion; for,

1. They grant, That God Infallibly decreed to Save all that would believe, &c.

2. That God knew from Eternity who would Be­lieve, and who not, and that Christ knew this at his undertaking to dye, and at his death.

3. They grant that he doth not absolutely purpose the saving of any other.

4. They grant, That as Christ dyed not from Eternity, so we are to look on him as under­taking to dye for us, and entring upon the Media­tory work, not from Eternity (upon his meer de­cree,) but presently upon Mans fall, when the Pro­mise was made: for the Relation and Extrinsic a Denomination might then begin, tho' no new Act of Gods Will.

Lay all this together, that God resolved to save all Believers, and knew each of them by name that would believe, and who would not▪ [Page 497] and intended to save no other than Believers, and that after this Christ undertook and performed the satisfaction by his death; and I think, the main that we plead for is granted, as to the Intent of Christ infallibly to justifie, and save some determi­nate Persons only. Nor can they deny this with any modesty, in consistency with their conces­sions.

But then its true, that they yield not that he Intended the giving of Faith infallibly and Abso­lutely to some only, because they say, he intended not so to give it to any, but only offer them suf­ficient help to believe, and leave it to their own wills whether to make it effectual or to frustrate it: And withal they say, that it was upon the foresight that some would Believe, and others not, that he intended the Salvation of some determinate Persons, and condemnation of others.

But having spoke to this already, I only now add,

1. Yet still this grants that Christ dyed with a special intent of saving those determinate Persons and them only, tho' they suppose this Intent to be upon a foresight of their own Faith, or Un­belief.

2. I demand whether God could not without wrong to any of his Attributes, have caused those to Believe, whom he foresaw would be Un­believers, and so having decreed to cause them to believe as well as others, have foreseen that they would Believe. They that dare say, God could not have given any such Unbeliever Grace to Believe (in­fallibly,) do most audaciously abuse Gods power, goodness, and wisdom.

[Page 498]3. And doth not God do more for Peter, than for Judas, for the Elect than the Reprobate, antecedently to their Faith? all the Arminians are not bold enough to deny it.

4. Arminius himself grants, that after the a­buse and rejecting of grace▪ God gives up some, as Pharaoh, Ahab &c. to fill up the measure of their sin, and penally forsakes them; and I think they will grant that some others as bad are not so forsaken nor given up, but Converted, as Manasseh.

And if God shew this undeserved Mercy to a Manasseh, which he denyeth to a Pharaoh, is it not his free grace that makes Manasseh to differ? And if God may do so in one, why not in others?

Lastly, The Schoolmen, and most Papists will acknowledge, that Christ dyed for all men as to the sufficiency of his death, and for some men only efficiently; that is, to effect some mens Salvation.

And doth not this grant that he dyed not for all alike, and that he had a special intent of Saving some, which he had not as to others.

We easily grant that he hath effected sa­tisfaction for all, but he that intended only the Saving of Believers, could not intend to save those Persons actually by his death, who he knew would not believe, but perish in unbelief.

From these Reasons we proceed to some from particular Texts of Scripture.

First, John 17. 2. As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give Eternal [Page 499] Life to as many as thou hast given him. Here Christs Authority as Redeemer is said to be over all flesh, and so all are his purchased ones; but the purpose of giving actually Eternal Life, is expresly restrained to those that are spe­cially given him by the Father.

Object. By Giving is not meant absolute E­lecting from Eternity, but giving them by Vocation to Christ as true Disciples.

Answ. Suppose that be so:

1. That Giving them to be true Disciples, can import no less than God's making them Dis­ciples, that is, Believers: And so it is not Man that gives himself to Christ primarily, or makes himself a Believer: And God makes not all Dis­ciples, which he could do if he pleased.

2. And if God give men to Christ by effect­ual Vocation in time, then no doubt he decreed so to do from Eternity.

Secondly, Eph. 1. 22, 23. And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the Church.

Here the intent of God in giving Christ, is expressed to be, that he might be the head over all, but not the Head of All, but of the Church only. And it is he that makes his Church, and not the Church itself principally.

Thirdly, John 10. 15. I lay down my Life for the sheep, which implyeth that it is laid down with a special intent for them, more than for others.

[Page 500] Object. The Sheep are Believers, undeterminate as to Individuals.

Answ. 1. Men are Believers before Christ's Par­doning of them, but not before Christ's laying down his Life for them; nor so considered; else the Act of Faith should be before, and without its Object.

2. It's confessed that God knew who the Per­sons were that would believe; therefore his purpose was of determinate Individuals.

Fourthly, Tit. 2. 14. Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purifie to himself a peculiar People, zealous of good works.

1. If he did not intend to purifie every man, and make them zealous of good works (eventually,) then he intended this much more to his chosen than to others. But, &c. Ergo, &c.

2. If he intended the separating of some as a peculiar people, from others, then he dyed not with equal Intentions to all. But, &c Ergo, &c.

Fifthly, John 11. 51, 52. He Prophecied that Jesus should dye for that Nation, and not for that Nation only, but that also he should gather together in one, the Children of God that were scattered abroad. Here is expressed a peculiar intention of gathering God's Children, which was not of others.

Object. God's Children are Believers.

Answ. 1. It seems rather, that they are called Children, because they are decreed to be actually Children, and will be such: (and not as Grotius [Page 501] of them, and of the Sheep, Joh. 10. 16. as if it were from some disposition of mind, antecedent to Faith.)

2. However still it is Determinate Individuals, else it were indeed none at all.

Sixthly, Acts 13. 48 And as many as were ordain­ed to Eternal Life believed. The wriglings and shift­ings of those that would pervert this Text, and their new devised strained expositions of the word [Ordained] I shall not now stand to detect and confute.

Seventhly, The instances of the Conversion of Manasseh, Paul, the Thief on the Cross, and other particular Sinners, do plainly tell us that Faith and Conversion proceedeth from God's differencing grace, Acts 26. 16. & 22. 14. Paul was called, because first chosen. So Rom. 8. 30. Whom he predestinated, them he called, &c.

But in the Conclusion, I must say, that even in this point of notable difference between the Re­monstrants, and the Contra-remonstrants, the difference is not so great as some imagine or pre­tend. It is confessed by the understanding sort on both sides, that Christ at his death had a spe­cial intention to bring certain individual persons to a state of Justification and Salvation. But then they say that this was only upon the foresight of their believing: yea, some of them say that God purposed to give the grace of Faith to some indi­viduals only, but they say that it was upon the foresight of their non-resistance, or of their vo­luntary disposedness to receive it, or of their right use of former preparing grace; so that the same decree, as to these gifts, is confessed on both sides; and it cannot be denyed but that the [Page 502] foresight which they presuppose is from Eternity, and therefore Mans fall, or Christs Mediator­ship; and that there is no priority or posterio­rity of Time between the foreknowledge and the Decree, but only in Nature: And then it is com­monly confessed that though Knowledge and Will in Man are two things, yet in God they are but one; and are only distinguished denominatione ex­trinsecâ by Man for the accommodation of his narrow imperfect apprehension. Therefore (though) I confess that a difference still re­maineth, yet let it not be thought to be greater than it is.

Yea more, not only many, yea, most of the Schoolmen confess an Absolute Election to Faith, and so to Salvation, and so hold in this the same that we do; but also many of the Jesuites, and Moderate Lutherans and Arminians hold the same, (though not an Absolute Repro­bation) which was also Augustine's, Prosper's, and Fulgentius's Opinion. And I have elsewhere yet more contracted this Controversie.


BOOKS Printed for John Salisbury at the Rising-Sun in Cornhil.

THe End of Doctrinal Controversies which have lately troubled the Churches by re­conciling explication without much Dispu­ting.

The Certainty of the Worlds of Spirits, fully Evinced by unquestionable Histories of Apparitions and Witchcrafts, Operations, Voi­ces, &c. proving the Immortality of Souls, the malice and misery of the Devils, and Damned, and the blessedness of the Justified; both by Mr. Richard Baxter.

The Protestant Religion truly stated and ju­stified by the Late Reverend Divine Mr. Ri­chard Baxter. Whereunto is added by way of an Epistle some account of the Learned Author, never before published; by Mr. Matthew Syl­vester, and Mr. Daniel Williams.

The Christians Converse with God, or the insufficiency and uncertainty of Human Friend­ship, and the improvement of Solitude in Con­verse with God; with some of the Authors [Page] Breathings after him; by Mr. Richard Baxter, Recommended to the Readers serious thoughts when at the House of Mourning and Retire­ment; by Mr. Matthew Sylvester.

A Plea for Scripture Ordination, or, Ten Arguments from Scripture and Antiquity, pro­ving Ordination by Presbyters without Bishops to be valid▪ by J. Owen, Minister of the Gospel.

To which is prefix'd an Epistle by the Reve­rend Mr. Daniel Williams.

The Harmony of the Divine Attributes in the contrivance and accomplishment of Mans Re­demption by the Lord Jesus Christ; or Dis­courses, wherein is shewed how the Wisdom, Mercy, Justice, Holiness, Power, and Truth of God are glorified in that great and blessed work; by William Bates, D. D.

The Christian Laver, or a Discourse opening the Nature of Participation with, and Demon­strating the Necessity of Purification by Christ, by T. Cruso

The Duty and Blessing of a Tender Consci­ence plainly stated, and earnestly recommended to all that regard acceptance with God, and the prosperity of their Souls, by the same Author.

Four Sermons on various Occasions, by the same Author.

Some Passages of the Life and Death of the Right Honourable John Earl of Roch [...]ster, written by his own direction on his Death-Bed; by Gilbert Lord Bishop of Sarum.

[Page]Practical Reflections on the late Earth­quakes in Jamaica, England, Sicily, Malta, &c. Anno 1692. with a particular Historical Ac­count of those and divers other Earthquakes; by John S [...]ower.

Earthquakes explained, and practically im­proved, occasioned by the Earthquake on Sep­tember the 8th, 1692. in London, many other parts in England, and Beyond-sea; by Thomas Doolittle, M. A.

A Practical Discourse of Silence and Submis­sion, shewing that good Men should possess their Souls in patience under the severest Providen­ces, and particularly in the loss of Dear Rela­tions; Preached at St. Thoma's Hospital South­wark, by William Hughes, Hospitaler there.

The Changeableness of this World, with respect to Nations, Families, and particular Persons, with a practical Application thereof to the various Conditions of this Mortal Life, in a Funeral Discourse occasioned by the Death of Mr. Edmond Hill, who dyed April 16. 1692. by Timothy Rogers, M. A.

The Mourners Memorial in two Sermons on the death of the truly Pious Mrs. Susanna Soame, late Wife of Bartholomew Soame of Thurlow, Esquire, who Deceased February the 14th, 1691/2. With some account of her Life and Death, by Timothy Wright, and Robert Fleming, Ministers of the Gospel.

Mr. William Oughtred's Key of the Mathe­maticks, newly Translated from the best Edi­tion, with Notes rendring it easie and intel­ligible to less skillful Readers; in which also [Page] some Problems left unanswered by the Author are Resolved; absolutely necessary for all Gaugers, Surveyors, Gunners, Military Offi­cers, Mariners, &c. Recommended by Mr. E. Halley, Fellow of the Royal Society.

Barbarian Cruelty, being a true History of the Distressed Condition of the Christian Cap­tives, under the Tyranny of Mully Ishmael Em­peror of Morocco, &c. by Francis Brooks.


PAge 43. l. 3. r. violated. p. 45. l. 4. r. as. p. 129. l. 8. r. foreknown or. p. 139. l. 15. r. to do so. p. 157. l. 17. del. not. p. 160. l. 5. r. lovingly. p. 171. l. 18. r. per. p. 198. l. 7. del. the paid. p. 203. l. 29. r. summus. p. 224. l. 33. r. conversion [convesiron.] p. 234. l. 20. r. objecto [objectio.] p. 254. l. 6. r. I am. l. 21. del. but. and l. 22. r. But the punishment, &c. p. 303. l. 29. r. sense are. p. 331. l. 24. r. [...]. p. 338. l. 28. r. effectum. p. 470. l. 2. r. and of the. p. 479. l. 23. r. per.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.