CHAP. I. Of the State of the Question.

THe vigour and life of Controversies ariseth from the right and due stating of the Question, which deserveth to be transacted in the first place: therefore I shall shew how the Author stateth the Question, and then lay downe the usuall and genuine state as it hath been laid downe in all engagements in these Points. The Author being a Man of vast reading in the Polemicks of Divinity, attempts to summon the severall statings of the Que­stion to his Test, and saith,

1. [Some say, Jesus Christ dyed for his Elect, and only for them that are Elect to Sonship and Eternall Inheritance, and no other.] Herein the affirmative of the Question is set downe, but no state of the Question: The one side say, Christ dyed for his Elect only, the other side say, that Christ dyed for All; but in neither is the Question stated, only the affirmation barely propoun­ded. I shall expect to heare the Person and Place where this is given as the state of the Question.

2. [Some say, that Christ dyed for all men alike, wrought Redemp­tion for all men alike, with like love, like intention, and for like ends, but this hath no ground in Scripture.] Who they are that thus state the Questi­on I should gladly be informed; if it be found any where, it must be among the most rigid maintainers of his Doctrine, and none more rigid then the Remonstrants do I know, yet they disclaime it: They would have the Love of God to be Common to all, but not equall to all men Corvin. in Mel. cap. 31. Sect. 1. p. 492. [Non volumus [...] ergâ hominum salutem esse equalem sed communem:] And also Arminius himself, Armin. in Perk. pag. 57 [...] [Scio quidem [...] Dei non esse omnimodo equalem, &c.] Yet how they can avoid this I see not; For they say, that out of his naturall goodnesse he propendeth to the salvation of all men, and that indifferently to all, and by his (will) which they call (plenaria voluntas) he wil­leth Salvation to all if they beleeve, and to none if they be incredulous. Now, lest any should thinke that I wrong them, I instance; that his will and intention is to [Page] save every man if they will beleeve and accept of him, is cleare from their words; [Intentio & scopus fuit omnes servare, Coll. Hog. 176. sed aliter evenit propter eorum culpam:] That it was his intention and scope to save all men, but it falleth out otherwise, through their owne default] and also,Corvin. in. Mol c. 27. Sect. 1. Corv. in Mol. Cap. 27. Sect. 4 Acta. Synod. 285. [Nullus omnino hominum est cujus falutem non velit.] And that he dyed to procure life for none, but upon this condition of saith, is evident from them, In that they say, that Christ may have the end of his death entire, though none either beleeve or be saved; and this they say, [Quare etsi nemo credidisset futurum tamen fuisse ut finis mortis Christi constaret, omnino credimus;] and also, [Cum man­danti Deo resistere possunt omnes & singuli, relinquitur profectò, fieri posse ut impetra­tio sarta tecta maneat suisque numeris perfecta constet etiamsi increduli omnes manen­tes, nulli essent foriè qui fructum ejus perciperent:] But this is well knowne to any that have but tasted of those disputes. Now to say that he willeth the Salvation of all (if they beleeve) and the damnation of all if they beleeve not, And so Christ by his death Impetrated Salvation for all, that they might be saved if they beleeve, and yet that none might be saved if they beleeve not, and so (for all any decree of God) all may be incredulous and perish; if this be not to say that Christ dyed for all men alike, for like ends, &c. I know not what is. But yet I say their professe words say no­thing like this, when they come to give the state of the Question: and so to come to my Antagonist againe, if he find it not there, I would know where he findeth it else­where. But besides, I know not how the Author can free himselfe from this ground­lesse assertion: what his judgement is truly, I cannot determine, but so farre as his Discourse may assure us, we may conclude it, for in Cap. 2. where he sets downe the ends of Christ so far as concernes Men, as Pag. 16, 17, 18, 19. he concludeth, [That every particular in that generall was for the (world) (all men) (every man.)] Now, to review these particulars, I say with the Author, Christ sa­tisfied the justice of God for every Son of Adam, and for all indifferently; for no one more than another; he satisfied it for all, and he could but satisfie it for any. So for a second, Christ is the Lord of every man, and not over one more than another, but of all equally: He is absolute Lord and Soveraigne over all, and he can be no more (as Lord) to any. So for a third, He is the Ransome of All, and not of one more than another: That which is done for All and every Man, is done for all alike. That which is done to every man (as men) or as sinners, is done to all, and makes no discrimination among men; but all the former are his owne affirmations: whence any may conclude that Christ dyed for al men alike, for he mentioneth no other end, so farre as Respects Ransome, or Propitiation, but what agreeth to every man alike in his owne reasoning,

3. [Some say, Christ dyed for every man in case every man beleeve on him, and for no man in case they persist in unbeleife, but this is no Scripture sense, &c. Christ hath given himselfe a Ransome whether men beleeve it or no.] I conceive the Author cannot produce any that so state the Question, (the modell of this plea may be drawne out of the Remonstrants, with the greatest probability,) but they say no such thing; they do not leave the act of man in beleeving to determine the act of Christ as done in and by himselfe; For then, they cannot prove that he dyed for any, because in their judgement all may be unbelee­vers and perish, and yet Christ have his end; They say as firmely and perspicuously, that (Christ dyed for all,Acta Synod. 4 [...]. whether men beleeve or no,) as the Author himselfe avouch­eth it; [Phrasis illa (Christus mortuus est) pro omnibus si credant, fupponit, cum [Page] non mortuum esse pro iis quis non credunt, quod falsum est, ideo mortuus est, non si cre­dant: sed ut credant & salventur.] Therefore I conclude that such a state of the Que­stion he cannot produce from any Pen.

4. [Some say, Jesus Christ dyed in some sort for all men, and so as all do receive some benefit thereby: He dyed for all men as a Lord, but he did not dye for all as a Surety, to pay the price for, and become the Propitiation for the sins of all.] The result of his thoughts, is like the errand of Ahimaaz, he seeth something but he knoweth not what, something he meaneth if he could but speake. For,

1. Some he may produce that say that all Men, yea all Creatures receive some benefit by Christs Death; but then he erreth in a twofold respect, they neither give this as the state of the Question, neither do they say that he dyed for all that receive benefit by his Death; he dyed for no other but men, whose nature he undertook, thus Scripture affirmeth; but many more Creatures besides Men have some benefit by Christs Death.

2. Some he may produce that say that he obtained Lordship and Dominion by his Death, and thus the Remonstrants say,Corv in Mol. cap 12. Sect 25 [Non obtinuit ut salvator sed ut Domi­nus & Judex esset,] And some contra Remonst. thus may affirme, but then he erreth in two particulars; for they do not either give this as the state of the Question, neither do any utter such an impolished expression as this: [He dyed for all men as Lord,] this is formed thus in his owne confused braine; it was no Act of Lordship to dye, but rather as a Servant he dyed, Phil. 2.8, 9, 10. But to grant all that he saith, it deserveth a little examination how he dealeth with this state of the Question if any such could be produced: he saith, [The Affirmative is truth, but not the whole truth; but the Negative denyeth the remainder of truth, and what was before affirmed, for if he did not pay their Price and Purchase them, how ac­cording to the Gospell is he their Lord?]

1. Unlesse he will say that every man receiveth all good, and the highest good by Christs Death, (which he cannot prove) he must confesse that it is the whole truth, that every man receiveth some good by his Death.

2. He strongly affirmeth that Christ dyed for every man by way of Surety, which is not proveable either by Scripture, or good reason; It is against the nature of a Surety to doe any thing for one as a Surety, and for the other to be lyable to the same thing: hence the same debt in a way of justice commeth not by any meanes to be re­quired of both the Surety & the Principall: For this would not be (Moripro) but (Mori cum) not to dye for, but to dye with men: (Whether this or a different consideration, I know not) but some such thing made the Remonstr. something shye of this expres­sion of a Surety, and in plaine tearmes do deny that it is so meant.Coll. Hag. p. 175, 176. in Arg. 3. [In Collatione dixe­runt fratres se hanc formulam ita accipere, ut Christus diceretur mortuum esse pro no­bis (vadis instar) ut pro nobis satisfaceret, atqui non ita exprimitur.] So that it is cleare, that they could not affirme that Christ dyed for every man as a Surety; which the Author affirmeth, but doth not prove it to satisfaction.

3. He would prove it by this, (because he is their Lord) for he cannot see how he should become their Lord if he did not dye for them as Surety, but herein he argueth weakely. No eye surely but seeth a wide difference betwixt (purchasing Lordship) and (satisfying for one as a Surety,) These are no way coincident, the one may be where the other is not; The Israelites purchased Lordship over their slaves and [Page] Servants, Lev. 25.44. But they were not said to be Surety for them: So on the other side, Judah was Surety for Beniamin, Gen. 44.33. Paul for Onesimus, Philem. 18. but in neither of these was there any purchasing or Lordship; these are (valde distantia) therefore to argue, He is their Lord, therefore he is their Surety, is weake reasoning.

4. He affirmeth that to deny that Christ dyed for all as a Surety, is contrary to what is before affirmed, and saith, [If he paid not their price and purchased them, how can he be their Lord?] This is grounded on his grosse perversi­on; for he leaveth out the words, (As a Surety) wherein the vigour lyeth; for else his words should run thus, [If he pay not a Price for them as a Surety, how can he be their Lord?] And then their weakenesse would have appeared to any. Lord he might be, and no Surety; pay a Price for them and purchase them to himself he may, and yet be no Surety; but he thus produceth the words, [If he payed not a Price for them, how is he their Lord?] This savours not of ingenuity, or of one who hath his mouth full of Exclamations against perverters of words.

5. [Some say that Christ so dyed for all, that his death is sufficient for all, and applicable to all, but not so as he hath ransomed all men, and become the Propitiation for the Sins.] These, or the like expressions may be patched up out of severall Judgements; but for one man of either side to produce these words as the state of the Question, I dare say the Author cannot produce any Example.

1. That some say, [Christus mortuus est pro omnibus sufficienter;] That is,Coll. Hag. Pag. 124. (That Christ paid a Ransome sufficient for the Salvation of all men) I deny not, but then here the Author erreth, it was rather a dogmaticall assertion, to shew how those words may be received as truth, then a full state of the Question, and it may appeare in that those hot Disputes have not turned upon this hinge.

2. Those that say, [Christ dyed for all sufficiently,] do not admit of the after-expressions, [Applicable to all,] This is the result of the adverse Party. Indeed, the Remonst. scatter such expressions, as [Deus est omnibus placabilis] [res impetrata est omnibus applicabilis] [omnes sunt salvabiles. Corv. in Mol. c. 28. Sect. 22 Pag. 446.] That is, God is placable to all, the thing impetrated applicable to all, all men saveable, and so the Author, Pag. 36. But from any contra Remonst. I thinke he never receiveth any such, and that on good ground I thinke so, because it is not sutable to their Principles. For they that say, [Christ dyed for all sufficiently,] meane it, only sufficiently, and that in oppo­sition to [effectually] therefore they do in the same words deny that he did dye for all (effectually,) and that whether considered really or intentionally, that is, Christ did neither do it, nor intend to redeeme all effectually, and they that so say cannot say and prove too, that the death of Christ, and the good obtained thereby is applica­ble to all, and every man.

3. Those that say, [Christ hath dyed for all sufficiently,] doe not say, [He hath not ransomed all men] for as they say, Christ hath dyed for all sufficiently, so they say al­so, he hath ransomed all sufficiently; Seeing, that to (dye for) and to (ransome) are in Scripture Equipollent. So that we may in this see how the Author hallucinates about other mens words: But to let this passe as a state given by some, let us see how he dealeth with it, and with what plea he waveth it as unsound.

1. He saith, [The Affirmative of this will stand well,] but then he did [Page] not consider that those that say, [Christ dyed for all sufficiently,] do meane it only sufficiently, in opposition to [effectually;] but thus it cannot stand well with the au­thority of his Discourse, which proveth the Death of Christ effectuall for all men. Cap. 21.

2. He saith, [The Negative unsaith the Affirmative,] But how he proveth it shall be examined: he urgeth thus: [What sufficiency is there applicable from Christ, or by his Servants, for, or to any man of any thing that Christ hath no perfectly wrought, and received in himselfe, that he might bestow it according to the Gospell?] This Phrase [applicable to all] is foysted in sophistically, there is no question made of the applicability of any suffici­ency that Christ did not worke out, and will to apply: but yet a sufficiency there is in the Bloud of Christ, worth, and valour to purchase that which it doth not, and for more then he doth effectually redeeme: Were there more worlds, or many more in this world then ever were, or are, or shall be, would any doubt but the Bloud of Christ had worth and sufficiency to ransome them? Nay, if God so pleased to make his Bloud a price for Devils, who would doubt of the sufficiency of it to redeeme them? I hope the Author will not deny the Bloud of Christ to have so much sufficiency in it, as to merit that every man should undoubtedly be saved, but this it doth not effe­ctually, as he confesseth, Pag. 34. His working out Salvation for men was not pro­portioned out to the valour of his Bloud, but to the grace, and good will of God to men; he did not dye for, or ransome so many as he was able, but so many as he pleased.

As for that Phrase, [Psal. 68.18, 19, 20.] being produced to prove that there is not an overplus of worth and sufficiency in the Bloud of Christ beyond what effecteth by it; sheweth what a dexterity the Author hath in being absurd in his Quotations; that place sheweth indeed that he received gifts for rebellions, and what gifts he giveth he received, but that he either giveth or received gifts, even to the top of the worth of his Bloud, that the Text sheweth not.

6. Some say, Christ dyed for all in regard of the kind or generall lumpe of mankind considered, because he tooke the nature of mankind on him, & so dyed for all, but did not dye for all in regard of individuals.] I have not so much credulity as to beleeve that the Author hath any president for such a state of the Question: the expressions are too indigested to come from any knowing man; to dye for the kind and not the individuals, is to dye for the nature, not the Persons of men. I feare when his account is cast up, this will appeare a crude conclusion from more cleare expressions, contracting the grosse Metamorphosis, from his owne braine.

7. [Some say Christ dyed for all men, that they might be saved, and for the Elect that they should undoubtedly be saved.) Is it not possible that any mans Judgement shall passe his Pen without corruption? I beleeve some there are that say, [Christ dyed for the Elect that they should undoubtedly be saved, and for the rest that they might be saved, viz. [possibly.] So some have sought to cut to themselves a way betweene the Calvinists and Remonst. and of this judgement was one of eminent note in Gods Church.Mr. Cotton. But such a state so contradictory as our Author popounds it none ever yet afforded to us; For, let us consider one branch is, [that all men might be saved:] Now, by this is meant (only possibly,) and opposed [Page] to (undoubtedly), or infalibly. Now tell me if all be brought into a (possibility only) what place is here left for any to be in an (undoubted infallibility?) It must argue either that the Elect are not in the number of (all men,) or else that they that are only in a (possibility,) are also in an [undoubted infallibility] of Salvation, both which the Author will say are absurd. Which state of the Question, the Author approveth not as speaking the whole truth. Therefore I shall wave it, and those particulars that he saith follow upon it, yet to meet with them in other places: In all which sta­tings, I wonder he doth so much presse upon the credulity of his Readers, in that he produceth not the persons, and places, by whom, and where the Question is so stated, that we might see how ingenuously he dealeth with them.

8. [Some say, that Christ by shedding of his Bloud, redeemed the world of mankind, satisfied Gods Justice, and obtained a way of Salvation for every man;Dr. Davenant on Heard. Pag 233. (and then adde) But God never intended that the outward Act should ever put man into the possession of pardon, or of a state of Justification and Salvation:] And for this he citeth an Author. Therefore I shall examine this last state, and our Authors expresses thereon; and I shall consider these words in a threefold relation, viz. to the Author whom he citeth, to the former stating which he rejecteth, to the Question of which he pretendeth it is a state. As they relate to the Author cited by him, I answer these two particulars.

1. It cannot be either proved or expected, that these words should be the state of this Question about Redemption: because that was not his Theame, he treateth there of Reprobation, and therefore no rationall man will expect to find in that Discourse a full state of this Question.

2. Our Author hath got the words of that learned man, but hath left us doubtfull of his meaning; for that Phrase [He obtained a way of Salvation for every man,] may have a double meaning.

First, That Christ hath obtained a way. viz. (faith) in which every man that wal­keth, shall and may through it come to life; intimating thus much only, that Salva­tion is not attainable but by Faith and Repentance.

Secondly, That Christ made that a way with a purpose that every man should walk in it, and through it have life. Our Author taketh the words in this second sense, else the words of Dr Davenant serve him not; but thus the words are not taken by him whose words they are, and that for these two Reasons.

Dr. Davenant on Heard. Pag 198.1. He expresly saith thus, [The way that he opened for every one of us to partake the fruit of our Redemption, is by Repentance and Faith,] which saith no more but this, that the way whereby every man partaketh of Salvation, is Faith and Repentance; or that every man that doth beleeve and repent shall come to life, and to this tends his after words, [The Decrees of Election and Reprobation are no obstacles against any that do this,]

2. Because he saith, [Election and Reprobation crosseth not that.] Now let us consider the Decrees of Election and Reprobation, he maketh Repro­bation to be a denying from Eternity Grace and Glory to the most men. And these two, viz. [That God decreed from Eternity to deny both Grace and Glory to the most men;] And that [Christ opens a way for every man, and so for them, as that he intendeth to bring them into life by that way, or that they might be so,] are in my thoughts inconsistent. Thus as these words relate to the Author of them.

Secondly, I shall consider them as they stand compared with the former statings which he rejecteth: And then I demand, what difference there is betwixt this [Page] which he receiveth, and the third which he rejecteth? The third state saith thus: [He dyed for all, that all might be saved if they beleeve, yet they shall not if they beleeve not:] And is not this one and the same with his last state? I cannot see any momentous difference; For between these two, [Christ by his Death impetrated and procured that all men have life if they beleeve, yet so as none but them that beleeve should partake of it;] And this, [Christ by his Bloud redeemed mankind, and ob­tained a way of Salvation for every man, (which way is Faith,) and yet this puts not any man presently into the possession of Salvation unlesse they beleeve;] I need a more piercing Judgement then I have, to find any difference, I shall expect to find one in the Authors next.

Againe, What difference between this which he receiveth, and the first which he rejecteth? For that saith that the Death of Christ is (applicable to all:) Now when this word (applicable) is expressed without Sophistry, it is meant (only applicable) and so in an indifferency either to be applyed or not applyed as the condition is per­formed: So (applicable) is [applicandum si crederent, & non applicandum si non crederent;] That which is only applicable is not to be applied but on condition; and then it is hence Corvinus maketh these two (Deus est placabilis) and (placandus si crederent) to be equipollent tearmes, and this is the true meaning of the word appli­cable. Now betwixt these two, [Christ by his Death hath made his life applicable to all, that is to be applyed if they beleeve, and not applyed if they beleeve not] And this [Christ by his bloudshed hath obtained a way of Salvation for every man, but God never intended that the outward Act put any man into possession unlesse they beleeve;] I cannot see any momentous difference, and the rather I am enduced to thinke so, because the result of the eighth State which he receiveth is but this, [that all men are salvable,] Pag. 36. which is one and the same with [applicable] which he rejecteth.

Againe, I would know what this last state of the Question which he receiveth, dif­fereth from the seventh State which he neglecteth, as not the whole truth: Doth not the first part of the seaventh, viz. [That Christ dyed for all men that they might be saved] equallize and speake as much as this, viz [Christ by his Bloud obtained a way to Salvation for every man,] And what is there in the last, that is not in the first? [To obtain a way to salvation for every man,] (which way is Faith) is no more then to say, [Christ dyed for all men that they might be saved by Faith.] And doth not the second Branch in the seventh viz. [And for the Elect that they should undoubtedly be saved,] equallize and speake as much as the second part in the eighth State? viz. [None but them that enter into that way of Faith and Repentance shall possesse it:] And what is there in this last, that was not couched in that first particular? He pre­tendeth a Plea, which is this: [The distinction betwixt the Redemption wrought by Christ in himself by bloudshed; and that which he worketh in men by application of his Bloud, is not expressed:] But this is empty and groundlesse, because that distinction is not in expresse termes in the eighth State, and by as good consequence in the seventh: herein he appeares not so quicke sighted as he pretendeth.

Thus I have examined the last State given and received by him, in comparison with the former, which he neglecteth, and I can see no cause why the last should be entertained when severall others are rejected.

Thirdly, Let us see this State which he so eagerly fastneth on, how it relateth to, or [Page] looketh on the Question of which it is a State: the result of it is thus, [So that Je­sus Christ hath so dyed and given himselfe a Ransome to God for all men, &c. That in and by himselfe he hath so redeemed and saved all men, that they are given to his dispose, and he will raise them out of the death he dyed for them, and make them alive before him. That, they shall acknowledge him Lord, and come before his judgement Rom. 14.9, 12. &c. And he is so filled with Spirit for them, to make it so knowne, and with such tendernesse, that they might be saved, so all are made savable.] When this is embowelled, we shall see little cause why it should be (after the expunging of so many Statings) entertained with confidence as that which hath most pertinency and light in it; But I shall first examine the mem­bers apart, and then the whole, conjoyned. In this large result, there are included these five particulars.

1. [That they are given to his dipose;] But let the Author seriously consider (His opinion being laid aside a while) whether this Phrase, [To dye for] as it is spoken of Christ, hath the same meaning with (paying a price for) as any man doth, when he purchaseth any person or thing into his dispose; And is this Phrase [Given to his dispose] a fit expression for [Ransome or Redemption?] Ransome or Redemption when spoken of man, alwaies presuppose [misery] and [liberty] as the tearmes, from which, to which, men are ransomed and redeemed, but [being given into ones dis­pose,] requireth neither. The Israelites had the Heathen in their dispose, but they cannot in reason be said to ransome them, nor to bring them from misery, and slavery, to liberty, but rather the contrary: Besides, hath not Christ all the Creatures on Earth, the Angels in Heaven, the Devils in Hell, in his dispose, for the good of his Church? But it would be no Scripture Language to say that he ransomed, redee­med, all Creatures on Earth, Angels in Heaven, Devils in Hell: Therefore this ex­pression, let it stand by a while (as of no worth to expresse ransome or redemption by) till we see what is in the rest.

2. [That he will raise them out of the death he dyed for them, and set them alive before him:] which expression savours much of the confusion of its Author: His meaning herein dubious, and when ever discovered, it will appeare senselesse: He must have one of these two senses, either meaning of the Resurrection at the last day, and so affirming, that being raised out of the dust, and being made alive before him out of the dust, is that ransome or redemption mentioned in Scripture: Or else, that Christ dyed for us the same death which by his Death he freeth us from, but both absurd. For the first, though it be put as a meanes and way to the possession of that inheritance to which we are ransomed and redeemed; Yet no Scripture giveth the Resurrection the name of ransome or redemption, as Christ is said to redeeme or ransome us, and the former very unfit to expresse this latter by, for then those that are raised by his Judiciary power only, and that to receive their eternall and finall doome in hell, may in that Act be said to be ransomed and saved; but this who can beleeve? So for the second, it is not any whit shorter in absurditie: for the death which we are freed from is no way proportioned by the death which he dyed, we are to be freed from the death we were adjudged to, not what death he dyed himself; he came to save us so farre as we were lost, but not to be so farre lost himselfe. Some sutable proportion of sufferings which he endured, to them which we deserved I grant, [Page] but where they wanted indurance it was made up by the excellency of the person suffering; temporary sufferings of that Person that was an infinite God, Act. 20.28. did countervaile eternall sufferings of a finite Creature; we were adjudged to deaths, Temporall, Spirituall, Eternall, but Christ did not dye all these for us, yet freed us from the two last: he dyed the first for us and freed us not from it; he dyed not a Spirituall death, that is (in sin,) for then he had not been an unspotted Lambe: 1 Pet. 1.20. He dyed for our sins, but we read not that he dyed in our sins; and Eter­nally he dyed not, then had he not been justified himselfe, nor justified us, yet he freed us from death both Spirituall and Eternall; therefore this expression of the Author is obscure, confused, and however taken absurdly laid downe, as not reduce­able to any right reason.

3. [They shall acknowledge him Lord, and come before his Judgement Seat:] that all men acknowledge him Lord, and come to be judged by him none yet deny­ed: But that being brought before his judgement seat, and being made to confesse him Lord, is to be ransomed and redeemed, none (before our Author) have ever been so weake to affirme; for in and by eternall destruction men may be caused to acknow­ledge him Lord: but is it a sober expression to say that in eternall destruction we are ransomed and redeemed?

4. [That he is so filled with Spirit for them to make it knowne, and with such ten­dernesse to them that they might be saved.] But what is it which by his Spirit he makes knowne? Scripture telleth us that he is filled with Spirit to preach the Gos­pell, Glad tidings, Liberty. Isa. 61.1. But this is none of that god newes, Gospell, that Christ is to Preach; For these, viz. [all are in his dispose] shall be raised out of the dust] shall acknowledge him Lord, and stand before his Judgement Seat] are no Gospell newes, no glad tidings to them that call to the hils to cover them from the presence of the Lambe, but to such these particulars equally belong with all others.

Againe, He is filled with Spirit to make knowne that which requireth the worke of the Spirit to the actuall enjoying of it, and so filled with Spirit to give Spirit, that men might enjoy that which he maketh knowne. Luk. 4.18. As liberty, opening Prison doores, Remission of sins, eternall life, and to the enjoyment of these the worke of the Spirit is requisite, but to those particulars which he furnisheth us with­all, the workes of the Spirit in the hearts of men are no way requisite; for men are, and shall be brought into his dispose, raised up out of the dust, stand alive before him, acknowledge him Lord, come before his Judgement Seat, though they never feele the worke of the Spirit upon their hearts; therefore why he should be filled with Spi­rit to make any or all of these knowne, I would be enformed.

Againe, To make these known that men might be saved, is not consonant to rea­son or Scripture, seeing these may be done and made known to such men, and at such a time when (in the judgement of all men) they are not salvable. Certainely, herein the Author commeth very short, that which he is filled with Spirit to make knowne, that men might be saved, goeth further than all those particulars.

5. [So that all are made salvable.] This is the Helena on which the Universalists are so enamoured; but this is no congruous expression to expound [Ransome] and [Redemption,] and [Salvation] by: no not in his owne principles; for [Ransome] and [Redemption] is to all and every man, as he urgeth: But to be [salvable] is not attributed to all men, but to the residue that are not Elect. For by [salvable] is meant only [salvable] and not [infallibly to be saved] and so [salvandi] now he saith the Elect are undoubtedly to be saved, and so [salvandi] and the rest they are (salvabiles) [Page] in a possibility of Salvation. Againe, to be but salvable, argues that those are equally damnable; for [salvable] is, and must be taken to be saved if they beleeve, and dam­ned if they beleeve not. Now to say that Christ came to make men salvable only, ar­gues that Condemnation had equall share and interest in his comming with Salvati­on, but this is not Scripture Language. Joh. 16.17. Againe, to be Ransomed, Re­deemed, Saved, as Christ came to Ransome, Redeeme, Save, require the worke of the Spirit of God upon the heart: But to [be in a salvable condition] doth not. Lon­ger might I insist on these, but by this it appeares that no one of those particulars mentioned, nor all of them joyntly, do equall those termes of [Ransome] and [Re­demption,] and therefore not well produced as their definition; and hath the Author ever observed in all his judicious perusall of other mens workes, that when it hath been controverted, Whether Christ hath ransomed and redeemed every man, this hath been the result of their litigations, Whether all are in his dispose, shall be raised at the last day, acknowledge him Lord, appeare before his judgement seat? And doth the Author thinke that this was the judgement of that Learned man whom he eiteth to authorize the last State of the Question? Or doth he thinke that when the Que­stion is propounded, [whether Christ hath dyed for every man] that these should be the result, and the hinge on which Controversies turne? I thinke he cannot be so senselesse. But he herein discovers that he puts the state of the Question in that which the word [Ransome,] [Redemption,] and [dye for] cannot in Scripture Language admit: And as it was never yet by any controverted to this day, therefore how faith­fully and learnedly he hath addressed himselfe to this taske, I leave to any to judge. These might have been passed by as short of the businesse, yet being thus discovered, they let us see some things concerning the Author.

1. His ambitious affectation, in stuffing his Discourse with seeming variety of sta­stings of the Questions, thereby to magnifie his vast reading, (when indeed he can­not produce them from any Pen,) and his peircing judgement in casting out (as by an Index expurgatorius) that which is Heterodoxall, when every State is abused by himselfe for his owne ends.

2. His grosse and dishonest perversion of mens words, producing them in such Formes as may render them ridiculous, and subject to his rejection and correction.

3. His great indiscretion, in troubling the world with an Elaborate Discourse, wherein he commeth not at all to the true state of the Question, nor fully discovers to his Readers what he would have, as if he intended nothing else, but to let the world know how much he can write to no purpose.

But to come to some more perspicuous state of the Question as hath been alwaies given, that so we may see the pertinency and validity of his whole Discourse. I could produce many expressions from many Authors about this businesse, who grant an Universality, but not in favour to his Tenet, but I will not multiply words, lest I run upon the same Rocke on which the Author hath split himselfe; neither shall I insert what I find delivered in a dogmaticall way, [...]ta. Synod. [...]. [...]. iv. Mol. [...] Sect. 1. [...]4. [...] Hag p. 9. nor what is every particular mans judge­ment, for the full state is seldome deduced from such: But I shall rather addresse my selfe to Controversall Discourses, and that to Conferences and Conventions, of many, and those of both sides, where we may presume the Question is stated to the greatest advantage on both sides; and so I give it in these particulars.

[...]s Coron. [...]oll p. 116. [...]es. Anty. [...]0. Sect. 6.First, The Question was never propounded, or the State given in these tearmes: [An Christus mortuus est pro omnibus?] Whether Christ hath dyed for [All] [the World] [the whole World] but thus, [pro omnibus & singulis] as may be seene in all Controversies in this point: and that upon this ground, because [All men] (ne­mine [Page] negante) is taken for all sorts of men, or for every individuall,Twisse vind. grat. lib. 1. Part 2 Sect. 22. p. 255 [...]. the first whereof is granted on all hands, the second in question; therefore men of any ingenuity have waved such equivocall state of the Question: As to say, Christ hath dyed for all men: So that that Discourse, or that proposition that saith no more then this, that he hath ran­somed (all men) (the world) (the whole world) commeth short of the Question.

Secondly, The Question hath not been propounded, or stated in an unlimited or indefinite sense, as [An Christus mortu us est pro omnibus & singulis] and no more, [Whether Christ dyed for all and every man, in any kind, or to procure any good] but these controversies have been restrained to eternall life, and pardon of sin its inseparable prognosticke: And the assertion of the Defendants (on his side) hath been this, [Christus pro omnibus & singulis inpetravit peccatorum remissionem, Corv. in Mol. Cap. 27. Sect. 1. 424. & sa­lutem] as see may any see in the Arminian Tracts: The Testimony of that great and acute Remost. hath it thus; [Morte Christi omnibus & singulis reconciliationem, peccatorum remissionem, ac salutem aeternam esse partam, sententia nostra est:] That is, [That by Christ his Death, there is procured for every man reconciliation, pardon of sin, and eternall Salvation, it is our judgement] Therefore that Discourse, and that Proposition that hold forth no more but this, that he dyed for all and every man, and not signifying the determinate end and good that he impetrated for them, comes short of the genuine state of the Question, and that Question is Equivocally pro­pounded, and the words spoken in pursuance of it are vainly and impertinently pro­duced. That I may a little cleare this businesse, and prove to any understanding that this state of the Question is to be heeded in these Controversies: The word Re­demption is to take its denomination from the misery which we are redeemed from; according to a Temporall, Spirituall, Eternall misery, and Thraledome, there is a Temporall, Spirituall, Eternall Redemption; if spoken of such a misery from which all are redeemed, then it is an universall Redemption: if of such from which some only are redeemed, then it is a speciall Redemption. Now the mi­sery which man in generall and every individuall lay under, was graduall, and a complication of more deaths then one, as our Author confesseth, Pag. 99. where he giveth it the name of deaths in the plurall number, and it is apparant from Scripture, that all kinds of deaths mentioned there, are the fruit of sin, Rom. 5.12. By sin death passed, all death, but we find in Scripture a death Temporall, Spirituall, Eternall: as Joh. 11.4. Eph. 2.11. 1 Joh. 1.16. Rev. 2.11. By Temporall death we were to lose our naturall life, a separation of the Soule from the Body, and in that death to lose all naturall comforts which tended to our comfortable living, and so the whole Creation made for our use to be reduced to its first nothing; By Spirituall death we were to lose our Spirituall good, the Image of God, and his graces, to become dead in sins, alienated from the life of God, and so to be denyed his glorious presence for ever, which makes up the greatest part of Eternall death; this third not being diffe­rent from the second specifically, but only [gradu & duratione.] And to all this there was one degree of misery more, all this was remedilesly (without a Saviour) and incontinently without delay to fall upon man, [In the day thou eatest thou shalt dye the death.] Now had not Christ intervened and interposed, the Justice of God could not have brooked one moments respite. Now here is a great latitude left for Christ by his Death to procure some good for every Creature, for every man, and yet the freedome from Eternall death, and procurement of Eternall life, not to be so generall as to reach to all men. Yea, in this case Christ did interpose, and every man hath benefit by it; Every man is freed from the present incumbency of the mise­ry, and so to a life of nature, and so to the use of the Creatures, they being given to man not quâ (integer) but quâ (homo) and that every man is thus farre redeemed [Page] from the incumbency of the misery none hath denyed, common experience shewes. But then whether or no those are such as Christ in Scripture Phrase is said to (dye for) and to ransome: Or whether to all so, and in such a measure freed, He is said in Scripture to intend Eternall life, it is very questionable, and never yet proved. The end of God and Christ in giving so much to every man, I will not now either examine or determine: But one we may be furnished with from the Author, That though mans condition was such as deserved the present incumbency of the Curse, yet that, and the execution of many of Gods Eternall purposes concerning his Son, and his Elect, could not both have their accomplishment; God having elected his Son Christ to union Hypostaticall, and office of a Mediatour, to give and bestow life to such a number of men whom he had elected to bring infallibly to Grace and Glory, and that absolutely without any foresight of faith, or any good, as he granteth, Pag. 118, 119. 120. Which Decrees could not have been accomplished had the Curse been speedily and presently executed, then had not Christ been borne, he being to come through the multiplication of such a long Genealogie, nor his Elect had any being to have been the Subjects either of Grace or Glory, many of them being to issue from the Loynes of those to whom God had decreed to deny both Grace and Glory: That this was only the sole and chiefe end of Christ in interposing, yea for them that never come to have Eternall life, I will not determine, but leave it to the Author to consi­der, whether there was not ground enough for him to intend some good to every man by his Death, and yet not intend eternall life for them? Therefore to let this passe for granted, that Christ did so far interpose himselfe for every man, as to keepe off from him the present imcumbency of the misery, so to continue to him his forfeited being, a roome in the world, and the Creatures for his subsistence. [And could he make it good from Col. 1.20. that in this sense he hath reconciled the world of Crea­tures (wherewith God was angry for mans delinquency) so far as to have them con­tinued in their borrowed and created being, it could not any thing intrench upon the Question] By vertue of which interposall he hath procured, and every man enjoyeth many benefits, I will not undertake to make a full enumeration of them: but let it go thus far, that every good that any man enjoyeth it is a streame flowing from that bloudy side of our Saviour; And were it so that by vertue of this he might be said to taste of death for every man, as Heb. 2.9. To be the Saviour of all men, as 1 Tim. 4.10. To have bought them that perish with a swift destruction, as 2 Pet. 2.1. And that not only (quodammodo liberati) as the contra Remonst. would supply that Text,Coll. Hag. 143. but that this they have by the vertue of Christs Bloud: Were all this proved and stood firme, I should embrace it, I deny it not: Nay, my thoughts are, that if Christ had not procured it, no man should have had any good, it being as well against justice to give the least mercy, as Eternall life without a Saviour, for [Justitia constat in mi­nimis.] And were the expression such as the Remonst. through the great croud of Notions sometimes let slip in too rude a drought,Acta Synod. P. [...]83. [Effectum Christi mortis est restitu­tio in talem statum in quo Deus nobis & beneficia sua communicare & potest & vult:] That is, [The effect of Christs Death is such that God may bestow his benefits as he seeth good,] leaving the words in such a latitude, that they may admit of a diversity of good to divers persons, some good to every man, some good only to some men; Herein few Adversaries would appeare. He may give many good things, that never intendeth to give Eternall life; But then all this would not satisfie, in all this there would be a double deficiencie.

1. All this wants proofe to be meant, when Christ is said to [dye for] and to [Ran­some,] and to [Redeeme,] As if he is said in Scripture Phrase, to dye for them for [Page] whom he procured some good. I thinke Scripture doth not say Christ to have dyed for such, but rather for them that were the chiefe end, and for whose fake he gives such mercies to them that never come to have life; as to instance, He dyed not for them to whom he gives any outward priviledge, but rather for them for whose sakes they were so, that so by that they might come to be, and be brought to repentance, and so to life. And I would entreat the Author to furnish me with some Arguments to prove that all the good he sheweth to those men that never come to life, is not shewne them for the Elects sake chiefly; and that the end why the world is not consumed, is not chiefly that the Elect might in their times and seasons be brought to Repentance.

2. Herein is not the state of the Question, but we are yet besides the Controver­sies, all things have been quiet till they came to say, [That Christ procured life and Salvation for every man] and in the hottest Disputes about this Point I find such ex­pressions as puts the case out of all doubt:Amos. Anty. Synod p. 176. [Si vago sensu quaeratur an Christus pro Electis aliquo modo mortuus sit, an pro omnibus aliquo modo, nulla hic est certa & deter­minata questio, nec sensus & modus determinatus: Neque potest vel posterior pars à no­stris, nec prior à Remonst. absolute negari.] The maine [...] and Question is still where it was, viz. [Whether Christ hath purchased pardon of sin and Eternall life for every individuall man.]

Thirdly, That the state of the Question may fully and clearely appeare, there is some debate in a third particular, and that is about the Act of Christ, as the first was about the object, the second the end: For, that he bringeth all to salvation and eter­nall life, no Remonst. durst ever yet affirme, or that Christ by his death hath procu­red that every man shall infallibly be saved, that they would shake off from them: but this they say, He hath procured that all men may be saved if they beleeve.

Hence we shall find in all their tracts this distinction of

• Impetration
• Application

of Salvation.

The first, for every man: The second for beleevers. But because Impetration is not so familiar to common understandings, we shall find in other tearmes thus: [Intentio & scopus Christi fuit omnes servare, Coll. Hag 176. tamen aliter evenit propter ipsorum culpam.] [That it was Christs intention to save all men, but through their fault it happens otherwise.] But herein they give no satisfaction, but seeme to implicate themselves; for strange it is that anything can (aliter evenire) to Christs intention: and if Corvinus argue rightly it cannot:In Molin. 4 cap 28. Sect. 2 pag 448. [Christus exauditur semper sive salvantur sive non, quia orat [...]cum annexa fidei conditione.] Christ is heard alwaies whether men be saved or no, because his Prayer had a condition annexed. So why any thing should (aliter evenire) and he not have his intent whether men beleeve or no, because his intention is but (annexâ fidei conditione) they cannot clearely shew, but such in­satisfactory implications are no strange things in the best assertors of that Doctrine. But the full state of the Question ariseth out of these particulars thus.

[Whether Christ by his death did intend or purpose to procure remission of sins, and eternall life for every man either absolutely, or upon any condition.] The Affir­mative is the Judgement of Arminius and his Followers: The Negative of the con­tra Remonst. and their Followers. And that Proposition, or that Discourse, or those places that arise not to that height are vainely produced in this Controversie.

As for the Discourse of the Author, it either ariseth not at all, or very obscurely to this state in its genuine Altitude, but I find an interwoven miscellany of expresses, sometimes attempting to rise to this State, sometimes receding from it, pitching his thoughts upon a far lesse degree: As to instance, somtimes he saith, [He hath wrought for all men that they might be eternally saved. Pag. 15.) Sometimes againe, bating of [Page] this, and putting his end in his Death, and the thing to be procured thereby, only [That he might be Lord of all, and have all in his dispose, Pag. 142.] And with ma­ny instances of both kinds the Reader may supply that have perused his Treatise, as if he intended his Discourse [A materia prima capax omnium formarum,] turned any way according to the temper of his Reader: which fluctuating expressions trouble the minds of his Reader, as not able to conclude what he intendeth, and is very un­becomming any who intendeth to be either ingenuous or faithfull in the businesse. But I put the businesse to this issue, Either he ariseth to this state, or not: If he doth not, what need of that grand distinction so long insisted on in the first Chapter, see­ing that to nothing but eternall Salvation (or with reference only to that) can the worke of the Spirit of God in the hearts of men be thought requisite? What need of his busie Discourse if that be not the businesse he intendeth to prove, viz. [That Christ procured eternall Salvation for every Son of Adam?] None ever yet stirred in any other Controversie, neither needed he feare any molestation. And if he do, then my next taske is to examine how his whole Discourse manageth the businesse, and how pertinent his expresses are to the Question thus stated. To which I proceed:

CHAP. II.

Proposition THe Sence (as the words import) appeares to be, [That Jesus Christ by the grace, good will, and favour of God, did taste death for every man, and also so gave him­selfe a ransom to God for all men: and so is become the propitiation for the sins of the World, and the Saviour of the World.] How pertinently these places are produced, any common understanding may perceive. The Proposition may well be received, as proceeding from the Texts alleadged, or with reference to the Contro­versie. But all being joyntly taken, do not touch the true state of the Question.

The first Text, viz. 1 Tim. 2.6. is peccant in the first particular: because it saith not, that he gave himselfe a ransome for every individuall; and this will appeare a cleare allegation, if we consider that the Author denyeth not but that all men, is in Scripture sometimes taken for all sorts of men, sometimes for every individuall; Therefore, Ante factam distinctionem, (as the Logicians speake) before distinction be made it's equivocall. And all that I would have noted here, is, that it is not the plaine words of the Text, or meaning of it, that he gave himselfe a ransome for every In­dividuall: but that must be fetched from his reasonings, the validity of which shall be examined in their proper place.

The second Text, viz. Heb. 2 9. is obnoxious to divers exceptions, as being produced to prove the Quest. For we must refer it to the Author, (or rather to his Oracle) whe­ther there be any such Text or no. Any that well peruseth the words, [...], may well quere, First, Whether those words necessitate such a reading, as [He tasted death for every man.] Secondly, Whether they will not ad­mit a quite distinct and much differing reading, and that most congruous to the context. Thirdly, Whether if all be granted from the words; yet what this is to the Question, because the words say not, neither from them is it urged by the Author, That he tasted death for every man to bring them to Salvation, either absolutely or upon any condition: I say no more of these Texts here, because there are two di­stinct Chapters set apart to treate of these two Texts severally, therefore there I shall say more of them; only here I cannot but advertize the Author, that these words [He tasted death for every man] are not in plaine expresse tearmes in the Text, nor the Tenent, viz. (That Christ intended to bring every man to eternall Salvation by his death, either absolutely, or on any condition) is not in plaine tearmes, and affir­mations in the words, as the Authour falsly suggests to his ignorant Readers, but in both he must be beholding to his owne corrupt inferences and reasonings which (without prejudice to the Scripture,) may be brought to further disquisition.

As for the Proposition resulting from the Texts alleadged, it doth neither good nor hurt; untill it leave those wild generalls, and come to some more particulars, it will neither prove friend or enemy to the Question of either side.

It saith indeed, that Christ did taste death for every man, but if (the words were to be so read) he saith not to bring them to eternall Salvation either absolutely or conditionally; Therfore that an imperfect expression,

It saith indeed, that Christ gave himselfe to God a ransome for all men: But it doth not say that he gave himselfe a ransome for every Individuall man; There­fore this an imperfect expression also.

It saith indeed, That He is become the propitiation for the sins of the World, But it saith not that he is the propitiation for the sins of every Individuall; Therefore imperfect.

It saith indeed, That He is the Saviour of the world, but mentioneth not whether he meaneth Saviour of the world with [eternal salvation,] whether he actual­ly saveth the world eternally, or merited eternall Salvation for the world upon faith and repentance, or whether he meanes any kind of Salvation: neither doth he say that he is the Saviour of every Individuall in the world: this also is an imperfect ex­pression; and what the whole is, may be seene by a view of the severall parts of it; it is all imperfect as not being at all to the Question: And if it should be reduced to a Syllogisme it must run thus.

If Christ by Gods grace tasted death for every man, and also gave himselfe a ransome to God for all men, &c. Then he intended by his death to purchase eternall Salvation for every man, either absolutely, or upon condition.

But he did do the former: go: He did the latter: Then the businesse being thus fra­med, it remaineth our Authors taske to prove the consequence of the Major. So that hitherto we see no plaine affirmations of Scripture in his Tenent, of which we find such a confident boast in his whole Discourse. So that his whole Discourse making out to us no more then he here in the Text pretends, it is no other then a progresse in impertinencies.

But for his better understanding, he promiseth five things, which successively make up five of his first Chapters, all which he mentioneth Pag. 2. The first whereof takes up his first Chapter, and it is the difference betweene,

First, A Redemption, Reconciliation, Salvation wrought by Christ in his owne body with God for men.

2. A Redemption, Reconciliation, Salvation, which he effecteth by his Spirit in men to God.

Which distinction he supposeth will make the matter cleare, which indeed, makes the businesse more full of obscurities then before. For my clearer Answer to this rude distinction, I must also premise some few particulars, if it be possible to reduce the indi­gested conceptions of the Author to some reasonable perspicuity. And they are these.

§. 1. That the word (Salvation) is too wide a field to rove in without a limitation, seeing it is a generall terme applicable to any deliverance from any thing that either is, or was an enemy to mans well being. As,

1. That Sentence that was past upon Adam and all his Sons▪ for the present and speedy execution of it was a grand enemy to mans well being: And the deliverance from it (even in the next moment of reprievall) might deserve the name of Salvation; though I know no one place that speakes of it under this notion of Salvation; nor doth it acknowledg the love of God to be expressed to any only in this, and no further.

2. Any outward temporary misery, thraldome, danger, is an enemy to mans well-being; and a deliverance from such hath in Scripture the name of Salvation. Act. 27.31. Heb. 5.7. 1 Pet 4.18. 1 Pet. 3.20. Jude 5.

3. That ignorance (of God, and Jesus Christ our Peace) which is in us, is an ene­my to our well-being; seeing that without Hearing no Faith, without Faith no Sal­vation by him: therefore the deliverance from this ignorance by the comming of the Gospell, and the preaching of it, is in Scripture called a Salvation. Luk. 3.6. compa­red with Isa. 40.3. Act. 28.28. 2 Cor. 6.2. Heb. 2.3.

4. The wrath of God which he hath conceived against sinners is an enemy to our well-being; and to be delivered from it by Reconciliation is a Salvation: Rom. 11.11. & 15. And if Reconciliation be not a Salvation, why puts the Author them toge­ther, as being Synonimous?

5. The enmity in our hearts against God is an enemy against our well being; and to be delivered from it by Conversion and effectuall Calling is Salvation. 1 Cor. 9.22. Tit. 3.5. Luk. 19, 9. 2 Tim. 2.10. 1 Tim. 1.9. Nay, although it is but a graduall emendation of mens lives in regard of some grosse sins to which they were formerly given, is Salvation. Jude 23.

6. Any want or imperfection comming short of that blessed state of Innocency is an enemy also, therefore to be in consummate and compleat happinesse in Heaven is Salvation [...], 1 Pet. 1.9.

7. Sometimes the word Salvation is comprehending all these, as Math. 1.21. And in any place where Christ is said to come to be the [Saviour of his people.] These being considered, that Discourse that treates of Salvation indefinitely, without a spe­cification of what Salvation it is meant, is but a rambling in obscurities.

§. 2. That to the enjoyment of any one of these, or all these, there are two distinct Acts requisite, viz. Impetration or Merit, and actuall Application, or bestowing of it, according to Merit and Purchase. It is against his wisdome to impetrate a benefit at so deare a rate without applying it, or intention to apply it. It is against his Omni­potency and perfection not to apply that which he intended to apply, and against his Justice to apply any Salvation, without that Application or Salvation applied were first [Page] merited and impetrated. Hence it may be truly said, [Impetratio est applicationis fun­damentum, & applicatio est impetrationis complementum] Impetration is the foun­dation of Application, and Application the Complement and perfection of Impetra­tion, and both together make an entire Salvation. And the first Act, viz. Impetration, or Merit, is not, nor can be called Salvation, Reconciliation, Redemption, any other­wise then Metonimically; as Christ himselfe is called our Salvation, Luke 1. and our Peace. And so it is called Salvation, with reference to the Salvation perfectly ap­plyed, either as actually done, or as infallibly in time to be done. But properly Sal­vation is not wrought perfectly in Christ, for they are (opera ad extra) necessarily requiring an object without, and they must be terminated upon the Creature; as there is no Act without an Object, so no Salvation, or Reconciliation, except there be some that are reconciled: and if they be in the first Act reconciled or saved, in any of the forementioned degrees, the second Act is frustaneous in respect of that degree. And the Remonst. though they gave it the name of Reconciliation, Redemption, Sa­tisfaction, yet they carefully exprest themselves how they meant:Acta Synod. 289 Corv in Mol. cap 28. Sect 11. pag 437. Not that any Sal­vation, or Reconciliation were actually wrought for men, or acted upon the Creature, but that they were in such a condition that God would be reconciled upon such and such conditions, therfore called Salvation, because there may be a Salvation & Recon­ciliation, but not that there is one actually; therefore that Discourse that confidently tearmes that first act done in Christ a salvation, Reconciliation, Redemption, with­out further explanation, evidenceth that the Author is willing to lye under the censure of an Impropriety, that he may lye hid in obscure expressions.

§: 3. That those two Actions viz. Impetration, or Merit, and actuall conferring or applying any of those forementioned salvations belong not both to the same party to do. The first is Christs, and so his as none else, he alone as Mediatour satisfied and merited because he only dyed. But the actuall conferring of any Salvation is so Christs, as it is also the worke of the Father, and so not of Christ as Mediatour, but then his as having a share in the offended Deity: And for this the frequent Testi­monies of the Remonst. are sufficient Testimonies to them that adhere to there prin­ciples: as [Christus impetravit ut Deus possit sua beneficia communicare, Acta. Synod. 283. Corv. in. Mol. c. 28. Sect. 11. p. 437.] and [per mortem Christi via est aperta, ut Deus vult nobis reconciliari;] Where there is a ma­nifest difference betwixt the Agent in Impetration, and the Agent in Communicati­on; but had we no such Testimonies, the Scriptures would plainly evince it, which attributes the active and bestowing the good, merited by Christs Death, to God the offended Party, and that in distinction from Christ the Mediating Party that meri­ted them. As 1 Cor. 5.19. Rom. 3.22.23. Rom 8.33, 34. 2 Thes. 2.13, 1 Joh. 3.1 Eph. 1 5. Wherein we shall find Reconciliation, Justification, Sanctification, Adopti­on, &c. to be done by God as the efficient, in distinction from Christ the Meritorious Cause; Col. 19, 20. This the Author seemes to grant in his first Discourse, wherein he saith, the first Act is done by Christ, the second is done by his Spirit; which second is not so his, but it is also the Act of the Spirit and of the Father also. And the Apo­stle takes in all in one place, Pater nobis benedixit omni benedictione in Christo. The Father of Jesus Christ blessed us with all spirituall blessings in Christ: By which it is plaine, that Impetration belongs to Christ as Mediatour, Application to God the offended Party, and to Christ as he makes one in that Essentiall Paternity that gives all good: And therefore that Discourse that treates of both Acts as done by the same Person in the same respects, is erroneus, as doth his.

§. 4. That the difference was never yet about the distinction of these two Acts, Whether they are Acts distinct or no, none ever yet attempted to confound them, [Page] (neither was there ever any need so to do) but the difference hath been about the division of them, Whether they may be divided one from the other or no? (That is) Whether Christ Impetrated any Salvation for any man to whom it shall not in time be infallibly applyed?Amesiu [...]. Anty. Synod. [...]69. And this may appeare by the decision of Amesius, [Distinctio inter impetrationem & applicationem facile appareat, sed haec decerptio aut seperatio eorum (quâ boni impetratio tatis fingitur, ut (illa posita) fieri possit, ut bonum illud nemini communicetur aut applicetur) est planè Antechristiana:] And therefore that Discourse that is spent in proving these only distinct, (which was never denyed) is labour vainely expended as is his.

§. 5. That to the Act of Christ in purchasing, meriting, or impetrating any Sal­vation for us, or any man, there is requisite, not only his Death, but his Resurrection also, his Ascention, his Session and Intercession, all the Acts of his Mediatorship concurre to make up that one Act of Impetration, without all which it had been im­perfect. The Remonst. not being willing to acknowledge it, have been at great va­riance about the sharing the Impetration and Application, their due share in the stock of Christs Mediatorship,Coll Hag. 147. and have said and unsaid. They of the Conference at Hague, adjudged the Death of Christ to belong to all, as to the Impetration, and his Resurrection to Beleevers only, so by consequence to the applicatory Part: See­ing that is only to Beleevers. But yet not trusting to that, one of that Conference afterward thus saith,Corv. in. Mol. c. 28. Sect. 12, 437, 438. [Fructū nullum nullam (que) mortis efficaciā esse citra Resurrectionē verum est non dicimus Christum pro omnibus mortuum esse tantum, & non pro omnibus resurrexisse▪] So that in their Judgement his Death brought forth no fruit without his Resurrection; and if his Resurrection did concurre to the Impetration of Salva­tion, why all the rest of the Acts of his Life should not, I would be informed. And in reason it will follow that if it be Christs taske as Mediatour only to Impetrate, then all his Acts as Mediatour must go to the perfecting the Impetration? It was not Death barely that did merit Salvation, but the death of such a one as must overcome Death, and so present himselfe before God in Heaven, that could effect that businesse. As in the Law there was Mactatio Sacrificii, and Ostensio Sunguinis, The killing of the Sacrifice, and shewing the Bloud within the veile, Lev. 16.11, 15. Without which no Atonement made, no not so much as appertained to the Priest: So no Atone­ment purchased or merited without the Mactation of the Lambe (on the Crosse,) and the Ostension of his Bloud within the veile in Heaven in his Ascention, which is called his appearing in Heaven for us; Heb. 9.12, 24. And that appearing for, it must needs be part of his Impetration, else should he not answer his Type; the Priest in the Law was to offer a Sacrifice, and to offer Prayers for the People, so Christ also out High Priest. Hence is it that Christ makes this an end of leaving the World, viz. To prepare a place, Joh. 14.2, 3. He saith not to bestow a place, but to prepare; without which ascending to Heaven, and shewing himselfe there that he had shaken off mans sins, and overcommed death, the Kingdome had not been sufficiently pre­pared. And hence is it, as I conceive, that he saith, If I goe not away the Comforter cannot come, either in the powerfull operations of his Grace, or comfortable per­swasions of his Spirit, that he could not scale any comfortable tidings to their hearts that Christ had done for them if he had not ascended, that finishing his Impetration he ascending sent him to them. Thus the Author grants, Pag. 7.

8. He appeares and Advocates for us to procure pardon of sins, &c. And to present himself, and the Covenant of precious Promises, therefore his ascending, and Advoca­tion belongs to the impetration or procuring life. Hence that Discourse that divideth the Acts of Christ about our Salvation, and that as Mediatour, some to Impetra­tion, [Page] others to Application as he doth, is not sound and Orthodox.

Which generals being well considered will make way to the methodicall exami­ning of the Authors distinction, and his Discourse upon it. The distinction followeth.

First, A Salvation, Redemption, Reconciliation, which Christ hath wrought in his body with God for men.

Secondly, A Salvation, Redemption, Reconciliation, which Christ hath effected by his Spirit in men to God.

Which distinction, the Author excudes to that end it might be both heeded and understood, which if he had as really intended as he spake, he would have made it to bring pertinency and perspicuity along with it; pertinency, that it might deserve to have been heeded, and perspicuity with it, that it might be in a capacity of being understood; but so wild are his expressions herein, that his Reader is put to a double taske, both to search out his intricate meaning, and also to refell it; the first being of farre greater difficulty, which savours not of Controversall ingenuity. And that which (by his other expresses) we may conjecture to be his meaning, being granted in its latitude, affords no cleare decision to the Controverted truth, as in the close of this Chapter I shall shew.

It is not easie to determine whether by this distinction, our Author intends to dis­cover two distinct Salvations wrought by Christ, or two distinct Acts in Christ work­ing and effecting one and the same Salvation; which if our Author had heeded to discover, his Discourse had more tended to satisfaction, and been better under­stood.

If he meane distinct Salvations, then he should have discovered what they are, and how distinct; for truth we may grant in this thus taken, That there is a Salvation from the present Incumbency of the misery wrought out and effected by Christ for all men: And there is a Salvation from enmity of heart, by effectuall calling wrought by the Spirit of Christ, and this is to none but Beleevers: But what clearenesse this bringeth to the Controversie in hand, is not yet cleare to me.

Besides if he thus meane, though these Salvations be distinct, yet as his distincti­on is cloathed, with circumstances it falleth to the ground; for his first Salvation he speakes of is so wrought out (for men) that it is not done (in) or (upon men,) but such is not the Salvation from the present incumbency of the Curse, for that is so wrought out (for) that it is also acted (upon) men, applyed to every man, there be­ing nothing requisite to the application of that but what is common to all men: And his second Salvation is so wrought (in men) that is distinct from, and opposed to, wrought out (for men) (els his distinction is not good) but this is false, for no Salvation is wrought in or upon men, but it is wrought out for men, Impetration being the foun­dation of all Application; therefore these two are ill brought as members contra-di­stinct, seeing they are coincident in one and the same Redemption.

But if he meane, his distiction of two Acts concurring to every Salvation, viz. a [working for] and a [bestowing upon] a procuring for, and applying to; As I sup­pose he doth, not only because this distinction is in use in all Arminian Tracts in this Point, as the businesse of their elaborate structures, and the hinge about which they turne: But also from our Authors owne expressions in every leafe almost of his Di­scourse, as to instance, [The pardon procured, and in his hands to bestow, Pag. 42, 43.] [He would work out a Redemption, and procure life, and it is in him for men, Pa. 50.] [If Christ had shed no Bloud to procure remission for them, Page 137.] [He hath pro­cured Salvation, and made them salvable, and calleth them that they might be saved, Pag. 157, 158.] By all which and many more it appeareth plainly, that by his first [Page] Salvation he meaneth no more then the first Act of Christ in procuring or meriting of Salvation: And by the second he meaneth the Actuall applying of it upon such conditions performed; and if this be all, I must enforme him that this hath been well heeded long since, and fully understood, and yet the businesse not cleared be­yond all doubt of his side.

And I would then know, Whether his distinction be not something allied to that of the Arminians of [Impetration and Application] the one for [every Man,] the second for [Beleevers] only, and what difference there is betwixt him and an Arminian? Save only that his expressions are more absurd: though he cryeth out of a heavy Calumny so to be charged. And when our Author gives a more distinct discovery of himselfe, he shall have a more distinct Answer.

In the next place, I shall examine both members of his distinction apart; of the first now, and first to consider his expressions in it: Secondly, the Scriptures he pro­duced to backe it. The members run thus:

[A Salvation, Reconciliation, Redemption, which Christ hath wrought in his Bo­dy, for men, with God.] Wherein,

1. I desire satisfaction, why he calleth the Act of Christ in meriting or procuring life for men A Salvation, without further explanation: Meriting or procuring being an Act, relateth to the Agent, and is terminated in him, but Salvation is a transient Act that runneth into an Object: It is an effect, and therefore must have an object on which it is wrought. Salvation is (opus ad extra) and therefore to say that that is terminated in Christ, is absurd; As it is a worke ad extra, so it might have an ob­ject (ad extra) also,Corv. in Mol. Cap. 28. Sect. 11 and if none be saved, there is no Salvation. Indeed, the Remon­strants called it a [Reconciliation,] but then they explaine themselves, that it is not an actuall Reconciliation: But therefore called so, because Reconciliation is procu­red; and if the Author had so discovered himselfe he had been ingenuous; but here­in in my Reason is not satisfied. That those things that are procured, And in time to come to passe, may be laid downe as being in Act, when they are not so, because of the infallible futurition, I grant: as he that beleeveth not is condemned, and he that beleeveth hath eternall life, Scripture thus speaketh; but that the act of Christ in pro­curing only that men may have life, notwithstanding which most men perish; and the end whereof is not the Salvation of men, that such an act should be Salvation, Reconciliation, Redemption, neither Scripture nor Reason speaketh; therefore I demand a reason of that his expression.

2. Why he so expresseth it, as if the first Act, viz. of Impetration or merit was in Scripture Phrase, as done [in his body,] when the Scripture saith, the second Act, viz. of Application is done [In that body of his flesh,] Col. 1.20. Which place evident­ly treateth of the application of his Death, and Reconciliation of their hearts to God by being brought in to beleeve, who were strangers and enemies in heart to God be­fore, yet notwithstanding this is said to be [ [...]] in that body of his flesh, I ra­ther wonder why our Author should produce such an expression, (making it the seat of Controversie) without further explanation, when it so easily might be explained; Let him tell me how that Reconciliation was wrought [in Christs Body,] Reconcili­ation is a thing subjectated in God,Xanchy in locum. existing only [in mente divina] not in Christs Body. Expositours to cleare this unanimously say, that [ [...]] is put for [ [...]] [In] for [by,] as is most frequent in Scripture, as one saith, [Quasi dicat reconciliavit per oblationem Corporis sui,] And therefore said to be [In his Body,] because it was done by those sufferings which were subjectated in his Body, in which regard he was said to beare our sins in his Body, (that is, the punishment of our sins,) but our Recon­ciliation [Page] properly is not said to be in [his Body.] That indeed whereby he merited it was in his Body. The meanes of our Reconciliation are twofold in Scripture, [His Body,] and [His Bloud,] the one broken, the other shed; but of this latter it is said to be [...], by his Bloud, [as it were to expound the other, that though it be [...], yet to be meant [...], by his Body] Col. 1.20. If this be so, then not the first Redemption, or procuring of Salvation, or Reconciliation only; but the second also, even the application of it is said, and also truly is (In) that is (by his Body) Seeing that we are said to be redeemed [by his Bloud,] Rev. 5.9. Which place our Author averreth to be meant of the application of Christs Death, therefore the cir­cumscribing that first Redemption with this Phrase (In his Body) is groundlesse.

3. We shall view the expressions wherewith this is clothed, that so we may Judge how pertinent his alleadged Scriptures are, [it being his boast that he hath so many plain Texts.] First, It is said to be an Act of Christ as Mediator distinct from God the offended Party. Secondly, to be done [in his body] as opposed to be [done by his spirit.] Thirdly, With God for men, as opposed to [of God upon man.] Fourthly A reconci­ling of God to man as opposed to [reconciling man to God.] Fifthly, This is said to be for every man. Now our next taske is to consider how pertinent his Texts are to make out this. [Joh. 4.42. We know that this is indeed Christ the Savi­our of the World.] The meaning of Which place, if our Author Divine right, must be this; [We know now that this is Christ that worketh out Salvation for the world,] and this exclusively, and confining the word [Saviour] to wo [...]ing it with God, and that opposed to a working a Reconciliation in the hearts of men, an empty exposition very improbable to the meaning of them that so said up­on their being brought in to beleeve as they were 39. And so had the worke of God on their hearts by his Ministry, certainly in such a time; if they say [his is the Sa­viour of the World] they meane such a Salvation as is by faith in Christ: Now what that is let the Authour judge. And he said to be the Saviour of the world, because they knew he it was that came to merit Salvation, so as it should be applyed in time by Faith. Shall we take the liberty thus to expound Scripture, and say, Math. 1.21. [He shall save his people from their sins,] That is, he shall worke out with God a Sal­vation, which yet may not be applyed? And Luk. 1.47. [My Spirit rejoyceth in God my Saviour] thus meant, in him that worketh out Salvation with God for me, not­withstanding which I may perish? How shall we herein perplexe the Word of God? Let the Author shew me where Christ, or God is called Saviours and respect not had to the Application of Salvation either present or to come. Acts 5.37. He is a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance and forgivenesse of sins. Saviour there looketh at the actuall bestowing of Salvation, he then is said to be a Saviour from sins, when he giveth Repentance and Remission; And the nature of a Saviour is clearely set downe, Neh. 9.27. [Gavest them Saviours that saved them.] Now that Christ in procuring life may be called a Saviour I grant, but then it is with reference to the actuall application of it in time to them for whom he procured it. Indeed Corvinus attempts to prove the word [Saviour] in [1 Tim. 4.10.In Molin. c. 29. 468. He is the Saviour of all men] to be thus meant, [Quia quantum in se paratus est omnes salvare,] but he giveth to me but little satisfaction, for he proveth not that this is meant of any other Salvation than what is actually applyed: And that expression, [He is ready to save as much as in him lyeth] is no congruous exposition of this word [Saviour,] for in his Judge­ment, He may be ready to save and yet none be saved, but if none be saved, how Christ should be called a Saviour I cannot comprehend; But to close, I say to this [Page] Text Joh. 4.42. If he meane that this Text includeth and taketh in the Act of Christ in procuring salvation for the world, this I deny not: but this I affirme also, it taketh in, and hath an eye to the application of it to the world, that is, [Men living in the world,] and then it favours him not, for his first Redemption is such as hath no eye to the certaine and infallible application of it.

[1 Joh. 2.2. He is the Propitiation, &c.] The sense of which place he maketh to stand thus; [He hath wrought out remission and reconsiliation for our sins with God, and so for the sins of the whole world, and that in distinction from the application,] but this very short of the meaning of that place; that the word (propitia­tion) hath more in it then a solitary procuring of remission as distinct from appli­cation is plaine from the word it self, and other Scriptures; The word [...] cometh from a word which signifieth to be actually appeased, placated, reconciled, actually to remit the fault; when the Publican prayed [ [...],] did he desire only that God might be in a capacity or possibility to pardon, or that pardon and remission might be wrought out for him with God, notwithstanding which he might want it? certainly he was not content with such a boone; But now for God to be actually pla­cated, reconciled, this is to enjoy the application of Christs Bloud, else is Corvinus short in his reasoning, [Per ejus mortem est placabilu, & placand [...] si credereat,] which intimateth that when he is (placatus) appeased, and reconciled, then is the D [...]th of Christ applyed. Now let us consider the words of the Text; the words are [He is the propitiation.] and the Author must grant a difference betweene these things. First, It is one thing for God to set forth his Son to be a Propitiation. 2. A se­cond, for Christ to do that by vertue of which he is to be a propitiation. 3. A third for Christ by vertue of that done to be a propitiation; the two former do not re­quire Faith [...]o their actuall accomplishment, but the third doth. Hence is he said to be propitiation [through faith,] Rom. 3.25. Which clearely demonstrateth that for Christ to be a Propitiation is the application of his Bloud: Christ by his Death made God only [Placabilem] placable, and this puts no man into actuall possession of remission, as our Author saith Cap. 6. and in his Judgement, not into any certain­ty of its; but this reacheth not so high as for Christ to be a propitiation, but stayeth here, He is to be one, or May be one if men beleeve, for till men have remission actually, or else in a certainty of having it, he is not truly said [to be a Propitia­tion.In Molin. c. 28.445.] No better testimony would I desire in this case than Corvinus himselfe, who on Rom. 3.25. thus saith, [Deum Christum proposuisse propitiatorium, sed tale ut id nobis futurus sit si modo in cum credamus, & docet quomodo Christus futurus sit nobis propitiatorium (viz:) per fidem.] Which clearely bespeaketh that when Christ is a Propitiation,Ibid. that is meant of the application of his Death by Faith, and this he not only averreth, but strongly proveth; thus, [Ista pertinent clarissimè ad applicationem non impetrationem; quomodo enim potest esse ut nobis impetret remissionem per fidem, nisi sides nostra una cum sanguine ejus sit coprotium remissionis, quod est absurdum;] The sense thus, He cannot be said to procure remission by faith, unlesse our faith was a coprice with his Bloud, in meriting remission, which is absurd; therefore this Phrase belongeth to the application, not impetration, and this very pregnant and full, though I conceive against himselfe; for to compare that place to the Text in hands doth not Rom. 3.25. [He is set forth to be a propitiation through faith] clearely affirm that when he is said to be a Propitiation, it is to be meant through Faith, and so of Remission, not only procured but applyed? And doth not the place 1 Joh. 2.1, 2, say He is the Propitiation? it saith not [God hath set him forth to be a Propitiation,] nor yet [He is to be a Propitiation,] but thus [He is a Propitiation,] which is given us [Page] clearely by the Remonstrants owne Confession, to signifie the Application and the [Mortis [...]] and to meane the actuall enjoyment of pardon of sin, which may further appeare if we consider the persons of whom he speakes, viz. such as did beleeve, and had overcome the world by Faith, as in 1 Joh. 4.10. [But that he loved us, and gave his Son apropitiation for our sins,] Let us consider is this all the love that God beareth to Beleevers, to give Christ that he might be in a possibility of being a Propitiation, that he might only procure Reconciliation, notwithstanding which they may misse of it, nay is it not incongruous to say he hath procured recon­ciliation for them that beleeve, if they beleeve? This cannot be the meaning of the word [Propitiation] when spoken of Beleevers, because they do beleeve and so have it applyed: And let the Author shew where he is called a Propitiation, or said to be one, but where mention is made of Beleevers; and these things being considered, I wonder why our Author, or any Remonst. whatever, can (upon their owne princi­ples) produce this Text to prove that which they would have done to all and every man; when it is granted by them that Reconciliation is not applyed to all. Now to conclude this Text, He is said a Propitiation, in that by vertue of his Mediation, Reconciliation is applyed, as he is said to be our Peace, Col. 1.10. and our Redempti­on, and Sanctification, and both metonimically; And that he may be said to be a Propitiation for them that do not yet beleeve, I will not contend against it, but men it is with respect had to the certaine futurition of it, which is all one in this point with the other.

And that this Phrase, [He is a Propitiation,] necessarily presupposeth his meriting and procuring remission, as the ground of application, I grant: But that it doth not principally point at actuall Remission, (whereby he is said to be a Propitiation) the Author should do well to prove. These I transmit to the disquisition of the Author, expecting satisfaction in the Premises, for this will helpe us in two points.

1. That this place doth not favour any such Salvation wrought by Christ with God, distinguished and divisible from the application, and such as may be attribu­ted to, and as done for, every Son of Adam.

2. It will help to allay the Controversy about the Phrase (whole world) and de­termine who are comprehended under it; Whether every man in the world to whom Remission is not applyed, or all beleevers throughout the world to whom it is apply­ed, and so he is a Propitiation.

[2. Cor. 5.19. God was in Christ reconciling the world &c.] The sense of which place, if it second our Authors allegation, must be thus, [Christ was with God working out Reconciliation with God for men, whereby God is recon­ciled to man: and this not to prove any worke of God in man reconciling man to God;] And such a thing if he can extract out of this Text, he will shew himselfe a Divine Chymist, but in this businesse he bewrayeth want of consideration, or common understanding.

1. That which he propoundeth is an Act of Christ with God, an Act of the Me­diator distinct from the offended Party, as appeares by his expressions, [Effecting it with God;] So that if it had spoken his words, it would have run thus, [Christ was with God reconciling the world,] but see a diametricall difference, it saith, [God was in Christ reconciling, &c.]

2. That which he is to prove, is whereby God is reconciled to man, and that oppo­sed to mans being reconciled to God, and so should have run thus, [Christ was re­conciling God to man,] but see a diametricall difference, it saith, [Reconciling the world to himselfe,] and so prevailes with men to God, it saith not [...], but [Page] [...], which belongeth to the second Redemption; as he confesseth P. 11.

3. That which he is to prove, is such a Redemption, Reconciliation, as is separated from the application of it, or at least which may be so, & that because it is done for all.

Now, if it had been cleare for his purpose, it should have run thus: [Christ was with God reconciling God to the world, not, not imputing their sins,] and this it should have been, for his Redemption is such as putteth no man into possession of Remission of sins, as Pag. 33. But see a diametricall difference, [Reconciling the world to himselfe and not imputing sins to them,] and any may see that that text, wherein the Application of Remission is plainely set downe as an attendant, is weake­ly produced to prove such a Redemption from which Remission may be separated, and that because Remission of sins belongs to the Applicatory part, the Remonst. being Judges,Corv. in Mol. Ca. 28 Sect 26 Pag 447. [Si per reconciliationem actualem intelligas remissionem tum non est distin­guenda ab applicatione quia est ipsa opplicatio.]

4. Let us see how he warreth with himselfe: He saith, that the Phrase [God was reconciling us to himselfe,] Ver. 18. Meant of the application of his Death; thus Pag. 66. And yet the same Phrase he admitteth not to the same sense, in Ver. 19. For [...]etwixt these two, viz. [Reconciling us by Christ, committing to us the word of Re­conciliation:] and this, [In Christ reconciling the world to himselfe, putting into us [...]e word of Reconciliation,] I should gladly see any momentous difference: he seemeth to stumble at a twofold difference.

1. That Ver. 18. saith [By him,] but Ver. 19. saith [In him,] so he seemeth to urge Pag 66. But this is of no force, because [...] and [...] are often promiscuously used each for other, and (In him) and (By him) are all one in Scripture, as often appea­reth in my following Discourse.

2. That Ver. 18 saith (us,) Ver. 19. saith the [world,] but this availeth not, be­cause when he saith the [world] he meaneth only (men living in the world,) or the world (quoad partem credentem) in the beleeving part thereof, and then the (world) and (us) are little different.

5. That which he here proveth, is the worke of Christ for men, not of the Spirit in men to God, and so not of the Reconciliation of mens hearts to God. But I ad­mire with what face or plea he could father such an one upon this place. Let us con­sider a while of the time of which it is said, God [was] reconciling; Some I acknow­ledge, (and of worth) hold, that this is meant from Eternity, so he was reconciling, that is, preparing a way to reconcile the world to himselfe, and were the words alone I should subscribe to this, but as the words run I cannot see the necessity or congrui­ty of this Exposition; because the words run, [ [...], Intimating, that then when he was reconciling the world to himselfe, he was also putting into the Apostles the word of Reconciliation, which I conceive not to be done from Eternity but in time.

And happily our Author may say (He was,) that is, when Christ offered himselfe on the Crosse; But neither this congruous, for he put the word into the Apostles before the time of his offering himselfe: I rather for the present conceive, that the Text meaneth of the reconciling of the hearts of men to God by the Gospells Mini­stry: When he was [...]: That is, when he was giving it to them by Commission, and putting it into them by inspiration, then was he reconciling the world to himselfe in that Ministration; And it appeareth to be such a Reconciliation as is effected by the word of Reconciliation, but such is that whereby we are reconciled in our hearts to God: And so it said to be of the (world) that is, men living in the world; and to be (in Christ) as God is said to blesse [Page] us with all Spirituall blessings, (even effectuall Calling and Conversion) in Christ, Ephes. 1.3. And it is said to be the word of Reconciliation, because it is the instru­ment of Reconciliation; and the Argument which he useth here to the Corinthians is fetched; thus; God having this worke for the Gospell, viz. to reconcile us to him­selfe, and this he hath done by it, when he first put it into us, and ever since, so it is expected that by this Ministration ye also should be reconciled.

This sense of the Text I transmit to the Judgement of the Learned, and till I see further, I must conclude that this Text speakes of the Application of Reconciliation, and that of Gods Act (by vertue of Christs merit) in the Gospels Ministry, and not of the Act of Christ with God for men, there is no one word that favoureth such a conceit; and if this be true, then it not only sheweth that where the Scripture spea­keth of the Application of Reconciliation, yet useth such a generall expression as the (world,) which yet in every Judgement is not common to every Son of Adam, there­fore we may conclude that the word (world) doth not imply in it every Son of Adam, which may stand in some stead in this Point: but also it faileth the Author and serveth him not for his purpose, to set forth such a procuring of Reconciliation, as may be separated from the Application.

[Rom. 3.24. Justified through the Redemption in Christ Jesus.] Which place our Author produceth as holding forth the Act of Christ as Mediato [...]r in procuring Remission of sins, and such an one as may be where the Application is not, and so separated from actuall Remission and Justification; but he certainly con­cludeth his Reader too credulous that will assent to this without any proofe, when there is so many leading circumstances to the contrary; his conceit hath no strength neither from the word [Redemption,] nor from the Phrase [In Christ,] nor from both joyntly. Not from the word [Redemption,]

1. If we consider the Authors owne placita upon Rev. 5.9. [Thou hast redeemed us by thy bloud,] In which he saith (though upon small ground) that the word [Re­demption] or [Redeemed] is meant of the Application of his Bloud, being brought in to beleeve, and in this sense brought to backe his second Redemption mentioned Pag. 5. Therefore if the word [Redemption] in his Judgment signifieth the Applica­tion of his Bloud, we cannot beleeve that it signifies his first Redemption, that may be separated from the Application, unlesse he prove it so.

2. If we view the placita of Arminius himselfe, the Master-builder in this Artifice,Arm. in Perk. Pag. 78.79. [Redemptio enim notat non passionem, non actionem ullam Christi, sed passionis & acti­onis apotelesma, eventum fructum (que) &c. Ex applicatione dicuntur redempti, &c. Per illas actiones redemptio impetrata est, & per fidem applicata, itaque demum sunt redempti;] That is, Redemption noteth not the Actions or Passions of Christ, but the event and fruit of both: Men are said to be redeemed by and in the Application, by those Actions he impetrated Redemption, but it is applyed by faith, and then are they said to be redeemed; a faire and full Testimony in this Point.

3. If we consider the Text, and the businesse the Apostle is about to prove, which is, that we are justified by Faith and not by Workes: This he presseth in the former part of this Epistle, and in this Chapter much, as ver. 20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 30. In all which we are said to be justified, ( [...], which are equipollent) by or through faith; Now to me it appeares (and I suppose will to any that looks upon the Text with a serious eye) that this Phrase [ [...], ver. 24. Justified through the Redemption,] speaketh the same thing, with [ [...], Justified by faith, ver. 22.] And so the meaning to be this: We are justified through faith in Christ, as in the next verse followeth, (Faith in his Bloud) and this [Page] called Redemption, because then we are redeemed, being brought into beleeve, in part freed from sin, and in a certainty of Heaven; as Tit. 2.4. Redeemed from vain conversation.

4. If we consider the nature and frequent use of the Word [Redemption] or [Redeemed;] I have not observed the word [...], or [...], or any word from that root to signifie any thing but the application of good, as Rom. 8.23. [...], Redemption of our bodies, that is perfect, and freedome from all vanity. Ephes. 1.14. [...], till the Redemption of the purchased possession] That is, the actuall and perfect enjoyment of heavens glory, and here plainly distin­guisht from the purchase by Christ. Ephes. 4.30 [...], To the day of Redemption,] not the day of Christs procuring or meriting, for that was past, but this to come; and it meaneth the day of restauration of all things, when Beleevers shall possesse actually perfect glory. Tit. 2.4. [...], Redeeme us from our Iniquities,] Is it not expounded by purging us from our sins in the next words? Heb. 19 [...], Obtained Eternall Redemption,] The first word holds forth the Impetration or procuring, therefore the word Redemption must meane the Application, unlesse we will say, [Impetravit impetrationem] which it absurd. But what need I spend time herein? I referre it to the Author to produce any place where the word [...], or any word from that root is used as signifying the Act of Christ in purchasing or procuring that thing that is never applyed: I confesse the word [...] I find used to signifie the price of Redemption, as Exod. 21.30. The Septuagint reade it [...], He shall give the price of ransome for his soule. So 1 Tim. 2, 6 [...], Pretium Redemptionis; But then in both it is so called from the necessary and certaine futurition of the Redemption and Applicati­on, and therefore looked at as done, therefore called [...]: The word [...] with his compounds never signifying [Nummos solvere,] but [Vinculo solvere,] not to solve a price, but to loose the bonds; therefore if the Author will but be constant to him­self, subscribe to his Master, consult with the scope of the Text, or consider the genius of the word [...], or Redemption, he cannot make his Allegation good from this word Redemption.

Secondly, Happily he may give this sense of the word Redemption, because it is said to be [In Christ) but this will prove as empty as the former. For if this be not so to be meant, as [...]; or in the next ver [...], Faith in Christ, or in his bloud: So that as [...] is one with Faith by which we are re­deemed, so (In Christ) is as much as to say the object of our Faith; For which I do not earnestly contend; yet it will appeare, that (In Christ) is no more then (By Christ,) and so shewing the meanes by whom we come to beleeve, as ( [...]) for ( [...]) very often, as Col. 1 16. [...], we say not In him, but By him all things were created: and that by the authority of the Text, for it addes by way of selfe Exposition in the same verse, [...], by whom all things; neither can I thinke the Author trusteth to this, because he is not constant to his expressions here­in; for though he here say, that this first Redemption is in Christ, yet sometimes both together, In and By, seeming to expound the one by the other, as P. 22. Sometimes By, not In, as if he would supply the one with the other, as Pag. 54. But this is not all, (one who though a strong Remonst.) puts it out of doubt in his Judgement, [In Christo, id est, A Lapide in ocu [...]. Per Christum, Haebreum enim [...] id est, (in) significat (per) vel (propter.)] Now if (In Christ) be no more than (By Christ,) then this denotes the Application as well as the Impetration, for so by him we are glorified, nay, blest with all Spirituall blessings in him, Ephes. 1.3. Nay, in this sence Redemption signifies clearely the [Page] Application, for the Application is by him, that is, by his Impetration, so that he hath nothing from (Redemption) or (in Christ) to help him. But let him have it as he desires, that this speakes of the Act of Christ in procuring Remission, and Reconci­liation, and Justification, we shall make it appeare it helps him not, and standeth us in much use: That which is to be proved in these Scriptures, is the Act of Christ done for All, and such an one as may be separated from the Application, such an one as puts not any man into the possession of Justification: so Pag. Cap. 6. No nor yet importeth any future Application, it being done for All, so many are not justified or partake of it, but such a one, this place proveth not, for this speaketh of such a Re­demption as through which we are justified Actually, as we are justified by Faith: as Ver. 21. Which words [through which] noteth a reciprocation, every one that hath that Redemption are justified by or through it, and whoever are justified, are justi­fied through it; which Reciprocation is cleare in Ver. 22.25. Now if this Redemp­tion be meant of Christs Act in procuring for all, and yet such a one as through which men are justified, then all that have that Redemption must be justified; so all and every man must be justified in our Authors reasoning, but this he disclaimes, Pag. 95. In answer to the third Objection; And it is cleare to any eye, that that place that speakes of a Redemption through which we are justified, is vainely produced to prove such a Redemption, notwithstanding which most men may misse of Justificati­on, but such an one is his first Redemption.

Againe, I shall embrace his Exposition, and thus urge: If Redemption here meant be the Impetration or procurement of Christ, and yet it said to be such as through which we are said to be justified Actually, then it must follow that Impe [...]ation is alwaies seconded with Application, and Justification in time applyed to all those for whom it was Impetrated, which how destructive it is to the whole Arminian Fabrick in this Point. Any knowing man may judge:

[1 Pet. 2.24. Who in his owne selfe bare our sins in his owne Body, that we being dead to sin should live, &c.] That this Text holds forth the Act of Christ in procuring Remission and Life, I grant; but that it doth so his owne Principles deny, however that it holds forth such a Redemption as is common to All, or distinct from the Application of his Bloud, he cannot prove.

1. He saith, Where the Person is changed, that place is not to be understood as meant of the first Act for all men, but of the Act of the Spirit in the hearts of men, as being spoke of Beleevers; so he saith, Cap. 10. Pag. 53. And the ground is, because there it is spoken Applicatively, and so not so large as when in the third Person plu­rall and generall, And he instanceth in 2. Cor. 5.21. [He was made sin for (us,)] because there the Person is changed and produced in the second Person plurall, which cannot shew for how many Christ dyed; therefore he concludeth such places speake of the application of his Bloud: And of the same nature is this quoted Text, both in the same Person, and spoken applicatively of Beleevers: Yet this is produced to prove a first Act of Christ as done for All, He must Balaam-like cast about for Divinations to reconcile himselfe to himselfe.

2. That which he is to prove, is such a Redemption as neither brings men into the possession, nor aimes at as its chiefe end; But this Text disavoweth such a worke. For first, That the Application is intended in his bearing our sins is cleare in the after words, [That we might live to righteousnesse,] & Cap. 3.18. [That he might bring us to God;] And secondly, for the Application it selfe, not only as intended, but also effected, Ver. 25. [Ye are returned to the Bishop of your soules,] Therefore how per­tinently [Page] this Text is produced to prove a Redemption, from which the Application and intention thereof, is and may be separated, let any judge.

Heb. 2.9. 1 Tim. 2.6. Of both these I shall have occasion to speake more largely in their proper places, therefore here I wave them.

[Joh. 1.29. That taketh away the sins of the World.] That this place presupposeth the Act of Christ in meriting and procuring Remission, I grant; but to say that it doth not also include the Application thereof seemeth improbable; Can Sin be taken away and the Bloud of Christ not applyed? Isa. 6.7. There taking away Sin is expounded by having sin purged away; but to have Sin purged away is not but by bloud sprinkling, and so in the Authors Divinity the application of the Bloud of Christ. Let the Author consult with Rom. 11.27. And let him tell me whether that taking away sin be the Application of the Death of Christ or no? Happily the Au­thor, or some for him may say, when God taketh away Sin that is the Application, but when Christ takes away Sin that is the Impetration of Remission. Let it be so, but then Christ in his Impetration looked at the Actuall taking away of sin, and it followeth in time, else could not he in that Act of his be said to take away Sinne. All which places being laid together, as being produced to prove his first Redempti­on, are a heape of mistakes; and whereas he professeth himselfe to have read the Scriptures ten times over, I must conclude that he wanteth common understanding to ballance his reading, or by over affecting his cause, willing to betray his under­standing to weak conceits, and for his first Branch we must either have new proofes, or these created. But were they effectuall for his purpose? Yet, why are they produced in this Controversie? They only prove thus much, that Christ did impetrate and pur­chase Remission and Life; this none yet that I know deny but the Socinian, with whom I thinke he engageth not.

Having laid downe his first Redemption; attended with a sufficient Traine of im­pertinent Scriptures, he proceedeth to lay downe the severall particulars or grada­tions by which Christ did ascend to this worke for men: Why, by the way, let the Rea­der observe where they are not proved to be for all and every man, they are imper­tinent, and where he attempteth so to prove, shall be brought to the Test,

[1. To this purpose he appeared, was manifested, came into the world to take away sins, 1 Joh. 3.5.

2. In this appearing and manifestation he was made flesh.] These two may well passe, as not pertinent to decide any part of that Controversie. We grant that he did purchase Life, it was his worke, and to that end he was made flesh and came into the world, and this is true though he purchased Life for none but the Elect; but yet these are not well martialled and ranked: I would know a reason why his being made flesh is set in order as second to his manifestation and comming into the world? He was made flesh in his Conception, but he came not into the world till his Nativity: But it is absurd to say, first he was Borne, secondly, conceived, but of this sort is the Authors Method: as if even those things that did nothing at all engage him, he could not name them without bewraying himselfe.

[3. Being thus in the nature of mankind he was set and stood a publique Person in the Nature and roome of all mankind.] Here lye confounded expressions of a different nature; To be [A publique Person,] and [In the Nature of Mankind,] and in [The roome of all Mankind,] are different one from the other, and all of them short of clearing the truth of his procuring Life for every Son of Adam.

[Page]1. A publique Person he might be, and yet not in the roome of every Individuall: If he had stood in the roome and stead of the Elect only, it had bespoke him a pub­lique Person, in that he represented others and not himselfe only▪ As in State affaires, a Burghes of a Corporation is a publique Person, because he acts not as a private Person, but representing others: But his being a publique Person doth not argue him to stand in the roome of all men in the Kingdome or Country, but of that Cor­paration only where he was chosen.

For the second, [His being in the Nature of mankind,] is a truth, but if produced to prove his procuring Life for every man, is very weake: For if Christ had redeemed far fewer then he doth, yet it would be requisite for him to take upon him the Nature of Man, and stand in the kind, for he could not (as God had decreed it) redeeme any one Person but he must take upon him the nature of Man: Therefore to argue thus, He tooke upon him the nature of man, therefore he stood in the roome of every Individuall, is not valid Argumentation: Yet this is the reasoning of Arminius, Naturam assumpsit humanam omnibus communem, respectu cujus non est inter homines differentia. In Perkin. 74.

For the third, [Standing in the roome of Mankind;] The Expression is either improper or false; for him to stand in the nature of Mankind is true and well expres­sed, because (Naturam assumpsit non personam hominis) he assumed the nature not the person of man, and the nature is rather of the kind or species than of the Individualls, therefore we may say he stood in the nature of mankind: But to say Christ stood in the roome of mankind is improper; for (His standing in the roome of) the effect and benefit of was intended to particulars, Individuals are represented, not the kind of man: Thus we find it expressed in these Disputes,Twisse vind. grat. 266. Corv. in. Mol. cap. 27. 427. [Anne Christus sustinuit personas omnium an electorum tantum?] Whether Christ sustained the persons of all, or the Elect only? It was the persons, not the kind of men, that were adjudged to death, and therefore the persons not the kind must be freed from the same. This Arminius himselfe will teach him; [Salus convenit non generibus sed singulis, In Perkin 192. singulis praeparatur non generibus, singulis negatur non generibus.] And upon better thoughts I know he will say that Christ stood in the roome of Individualls, not the kind, and his owne expression herein improper. But happily by All mankind, he may meane all the Individuals of mankind, but then it is false, and rests still at his unperformed taske to prove, that Christ did stand in the roome of every Individuall. Some­thing I expresse wherein he attempteth to prove it, by some reason and some Scrip­ture, his Reason is this, [As Adam did who was the Figure of him that was to come.] Thus arguing: Adam as publique person, stood in the roome of every Individuall man in the world, whereby all and every individuall comes to be plunged in sin and misery; therefore Christ being to answer him as the Figure, must stand in the room of all Individuals also, but the strength of these I shall examine in a few words. I hope the Author will not say that Adam stood in the roome of any but his Off-sping, and those that should come of his Loynes by naturall propagation, and so those that were to come of him And that he stood in the roome of any man in any other Notion than as comming from him naturally, I would have the Author to prove, and for this reason, that our Saviour though he was an Individuall man, yet not comming by naturall propagation, but supernaturall overshadowing the Virgin, and so without the helpe of man, and so was it that he came out of the Loines of Adam, as the Author saith, Pag 119. Hence was it I say, that he had no sin, he was not under that generall Contagion that lyeth upon all Adams Sons, he was not [Page] defiled from him; and let me put this supposition, If God should now, as at first, Create more men, they not comming from Adam by Propagation, they should not be interested into Adams Sin and Curse, therfore it is cleare that Adam did stand in the roome of men, not as men, but as his Sons, and to come from him. Now let the Comparison go forward, and let Christ answer his Type: Adam as a publique Per­son stood in the roome of all his Posterity, and those that are his Sons and come from him: So Christ standeth in the roome of all those that are his Sons, and come to have a being from him: If he should stand in the roome of more he should not answer his Figure; but this he might do though he stood in the roome of the Elect only, for none else come to have a being from him, and to be his Sons; So that it seemeth cleare, that the Comparison betwixt Adam and Christ lyeth not in the cer­taine and defined number of Individuals, but the relation wherein they stand each kind to their owne root; So that here is little in reason, I shall examine his Scriptures. They are two.

[1 Cor. 15.21, 22, 45, 46. Rom. 5.14, 18, 19.] That these places hold forth thus much, that as Adam was the Fountaine of Death, so Christ of Life: As Adam conveyed Death to all his, so Christ Life to all his, I grant; but if he will have any further, let him bring good probation and I shall examine it; Let us consider his alleaged places severally.

1 Cor. 15.21, 22. [As in Adam all dye, so in Christ shall all be made alive.] Which Text seemeth to speake of the Resurrection at the last day, Ver. 21. Now that every Individuall shall be raised at the last, and so made alive to stand before his Judgment Seat, I grant, and it is nothing to the Quest. But let us see further, I conceive this place speakes not only of Resurrection in generall, but Resurrection to Life, which is only called Resurrection in Scripture, the Resurrection of wicked men to be con­demned for ever, the Scripture honoureth it not with the name of Resurrection, the Members of Christ are called Emphatically the Children of the Resurrection; Luk. 20.36. Now of this Resusurrection the Text seemeth to speake, and of this let the 22. v [...]r. be understood, [As in Adam all dye, so in Christ shall all be made alive.] Is this now to be understood, as if all those who dyed in Adam are made alive by Christ, or only all those that are his and so come of and from him? Let Arminius and Corvinus themselves judge, they do not attempt to prove that all that dyed in Adam were, or shall be made alive by Christ, (as it is there meant) but they expound the place thus,Armin. in Pork. 191. Corv in Mol. c [...]p 27.430. [Quoad locum 1 Cor. 15. non diffitemur ibi Emphasin non esse in voce [omnes] sed in vocibus [in Christo] & sensum esse per Christum vivificabuntur omnes qui vitae restituuntur, & à Christo vita ut ab Adamo mors fuit:] That is, the Empha­sis is not in the word (All) but in the words (In Christ;) and the sense this, as Death came by Adam, so Life by Christ: In which sense it is received by us, but commeth short of this Assertion, [That all that dyed in Adam shall be restored to Life by Christ.] Again, let the Text it selfe judg what is meant by that All that is made alive by Christ, Ver. 23. [First Christs, then they that are Christs at his comming;] And doth the Chapter speake of any other? Who is there that is not perverse, but he may see that the (All) that are made alive by Christ, is all those that are his and come from him, as all that dyed in Adam was all his, and so they answer one the other.

So for the second Text, Rom. 5.18, 19. It is of the same nature with the former, and sets out Christ the Root and Fountaine of Righteousnesse and Life, as Adam was of Sin and Death, as appeares by the Conclusion, Ver. 21. [That as Sin hath raigned unto Death, so might Grace by Jesus Christ,] and further it cannot (in my Judgement) be carried; Indeed it saith, Ver. 18. [As by one, Judgement came on all [Page] men to Condemnation, so by one the free gift on all men to Justification of Life;] But this is not more pregnant then that of 1 Cor. 15.21, 22. And thus I say to this also, All Adams Sons by his Sin Judgement came on them to Condemnation, and so by the righteousnesse of Christ the free gift came upon all them that come from him to Justification of Life: and this appeares in Ver. 27. where this latter (All) is supplyed by [They which receive abundance of Grace, and this gift of righteousnesse,] If the Author will have more from the Text, let him prove it and I shall receive it; There­fore neither of these places confirme this, That Christ stood in the roome of every Individuall Son of Adam. Yet thus far I go with him, All those he redeemeth by his Bloud, in their roomes he stood; and as this is produced as a particular gradation in his worke of procuring and meriting Life and Salvation I grant it; But being produced as that which is done for all and every Son of Adam, it still lyeth under a Non probatum est. Besides to wave all that hath been said, and to grant him that he stood in the roome of every Son of Adam, yet he doth not touch the Question; for then he must prove that he stood in their roome for this end, to procure Remission, and Eternall Life for them which he doth not in all this. Indeed our side have ever been peremptory against Christs standing in the roome of an but the Elect, and they prove it thus, [Quorum personas sustinuit pro illorum pecca [...]s at isfecit, Perkin. A Cat. Twissevn pag 266.] for their sins he satisfied whose persons he sustained. Now I shall not undertake to determine against them (the least dramme of whose worth it would be ambition in me to think to counter-ballance) but to professe my selfe not yet to have attained their light, and to see the necessity of that Argumentation, why he might not stand in the roome of many so far as to procure for them a freedome from the present Incumbency of the misery (without which many of his Elect could not be, nor be brought to Repen­tance) and yet not satisfie for their sins; only Remission and Pardon of Sins, and Eternall Life require a satisfaction for Sin, but the other doth not: And of such a taking their Persons on him as to procure life for them, I suppose they m [...]ne when they say he stood in the roome of the Elect only, and this I subscribe to, and of such is the Question: And though we grant him that Christ for some good did stand in the roome of all, yet he is short of the Question.

4, [Being such a publique Person in the nature and roome of all mankind, he also became for them under the same Law and Obligation in which they were, which charged them with Sin, and bound them over to punishment, by vertue of which all the punishment, the whole Debt of mankind became his] That Christ became under the same Law that they were under, whom he intended to Redeeme, I grant; But this enferreth not that he intended to Redeeme all that were under the same Law: He Redeeming but his Elect only, yet he must become under the same Law that every man lay under, be­cause all men lay under the same Curse and Law. It was never yet questioned whether Christ became under that Law under which every man was, but whether he redeemed every one that was under that Law. He would speake something, and at­tempteth to prove it from Gal. 4.5. [He became under the Law, to redeeme them that were under the Law;] True, Those whom he redeemed were under the Law, else needed no Redemption; but doth the Text say or inferre, that he redeemed All that were under the Law? Let the Author view againe. Thus he useth to argue, He ju­stifieth the ungodly, therefore All the ungodly; And will he say, He hath chosen the foolish things of the world therefore he hath chosen all the foolish things? There­fore his Assertion, [By vertue of which comming under the Law, the whole Debt and [Page] all the Sin and punishment of mankind became his,] wanteth proofes; the whoe Debt of mankind doth not appeare to be his; This I say, that for whose Sins he came (under this Law) to satisfie, He was rightly challenged with their Debt: and that this being under the Law, is a gradation in his procuring Life for men I grant; but that he became so to free every man from the Law, lies still under a Non probatum est.

5. [Being thus in the nature and stead of mankind under the Law for them, God was pleased to challenge the whole Debt of him, and to impute all the Sin the Law could charge mankind withall unto him, and to arest and call him to an account, and enter into judgement with him for all.] Which laboureth with the same deficiency that the former doth.

First, This is little different from the former, for betwixt these two, [All the pu­nishment and whole Debt of mankind became his:] And this, [All the Sin and whole Debt that the Law could charge mankind withall, was challenged of him and imputed to him;] There is no difference.

Secondly, That Christ stood charged with all the sin, and the whole Debt of those whom he intended to redeeme and satisfie for their sins I grant; but that he stood charged with all the Sins of every man, and the whole Debt that the Law could chal­lenge any man withall was challenged of him, this is not yet proved, which only is to the purpose; he attempts to prove it by some Scriptures.

1. [2 Cor. 5.19. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himselfe, not impu­ting their Trespasses to them;] True, he did so to men living in the world; But will our Author say that non-imputation of Sins is every mans priviledge? Is it congru­ous to Scripture Phrase to call every Son of Adam blessed and happy? For so are they that have not their Sins imputed, Psa. 32.1, 2. Such an Assertion as this viz. That Pardon, covering, not imputing Sins, is the priviledge of every Son of Adam, I leave to the Founder of it, and must dissent till I find more cause of embracing it.

2. Isa. 53 6. And made him to be Sin for us. 2 Cor. 5.21. Laid on him the iniquity of us all. 1 Pet. 2.24. He himselfe bare our sins: Hence he concludes, the Iniquities of every man was laid on him, he was made sin for, and bare the sins of every Son of Adam; strange reasoning! Doth the word (us) or (ours) spoken of, and by Beleevers, bring in every Son of Adam? This is not suitable to himselfe; For Cap 10. Pag. 53. He speaking of that very Text, 2 Cor. 5.21. saith, [Speaking of the Application to them that have beleeved, he changeth the Person and faith, He made him to be sin for us.] Yet here this Text is produced to prove that he bare the Sins of every Son of Adam.

3. Psal. 40.12. [Innumerable evils have compassed me, mine iniquities have ta­ken hold on me,] What he will hence infere I cannot well determine; true it is that hence he may inferre that Christ was incompassed with innumerable evills, and that very many Sins had taken hold upon him, and that those Iniquities which he had undertooke to answer for, tooke hold on him, whereby he might say Mine Iniqui­tie hath taken hold on me, But what is this to the Point in hand I know not? If he intend hereby to prove that all the evills of every man had taken hold on him, this is a weake inference: But thus farre I conclude with him, that all those for whose Sins he undertook, he stood charged with all their sins that the Law could charge them with, but that he stood charged with all the sins that the Law could charge any man withall, that is yet to be proved.

6. [Having on him our Sins, God laid on him the punishment and [Page] Curse that was due to us for those sins, and so dyed as a Sinner in the roome of us all.] This is for substance nothing distinct from the former, for be­twixt [His being charged with our Sins] and [Having our Sins imputed to him,] and his [Having the punishment of our Sins laid on him,] there is no difference; Yet here are some improper speeches and fallacies. Improprieties I say in the first words, [Having on him our Sins, God laid on him the punishment of Sins;] It is beyond my capacity to conceive how Christ had on him our Sins, before he had on him the punishment of our Sins; he had not Sin formally, but only imputatively he bare our Sins: True, but that is Metonimically, Sins for the punishment of our Sins, and then was it when he was wounded for our Transgressions, Isa. 35.5. And I remem­ber not where the Scripture ever speaketh Christ to have our Sins on him as distinct from his having the punishment of them on him; Therefore if he make them distinct he must free it from Impropriety, if they be the same, then from a vaine Tauto­logie.

The fallacy is in the next words, [In the roome of us all.] If the Author meanes as the Apostles and Prophets did and must (in the Authors owne Principles from the change of Persons) (us all) that is, we all that are Beleevers, then it is true, but nothing to his purpose; But if by (us all) he would understand [Every Son of Adam,] it would be indeed pertinent to his businesse, but false and destitute of pro­bation, he instanceth in Isa. 55.5. Gal. 3.13. 1 Cor. 15.4. 1 Pet. 3.18. Rom. 5.6. Which cannot cleare that the Apostle speakes of them under the Notion of men, and so in common with all men, but as Beleevers, and so proper to them: And this the Authour puts out of doubt in his owne inference from the change of Persons. And certainly the Apostle writing to Beleevers, saying, He was made sin for us all, can afford no such Interpretation. He attempts to prove it by 2 Cor. 5.15. For we thus judg, that if Christ dyed for all, then are all dead, and he dyed for all, that they which live might not live to themselves, &c.] The sense of which Text, if it favour him, must run thus, For we thus judge, that if Christ dyed for every Son of Adam, then was every Son of Adam dead, and he dyed for every Son of Adam that they that live might not live to themselves but to him that hath dyed for them;] but I leave this to every Intelligent Reader, to judge whether it be not herein set upon the racke: This cannot be produced from the words themselves, nor made well to accord with the foregoing or following words, but he loveth to give us words without any meaning. But I desire the Author or any Reader to examine whether this be not the sense? For we thus judge, that if Christ have dyed for all, [That is in Scripture Phrase, for all whom he intended to bring to Salvation; all those whom his Father had (for that end) given him;] Then have all dyed, [that is, all those for whom he dyed have dyed to sin.] [Now the ground of this is, the Connection betwixt the end of Christ, and the execution of it in the next words:] And he dyed for all, that those that live [not the life of Nature, but of Grace and Faith,] might not live to themselves, but to him that hath dyed and rose againe. Now in this Exposition these two things are only to be proved: Then other things will follow, and they are these; First, That that Phrase [Then are all dead] is meant death not (in) but (to) Sin. Secondly, That the Phrase [That they which live] is meant of a Life of Grace and Faith, not the Life of Nature: Which being cleared, the place will not only not help him, but affoord a good Argument against him; which particulars I shall cleare by these foure particulars.

1. The Apostles scope in this present Chapter, that which he is about in this and [Page] the foregoing Chapter, is to shew the beleeving Corinthians, that he with the rest of the Apostles, did neglect earthly things and were heavenly minded, and desired to approve themselves to God, and for their good, Cap. 4.1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17. Cap. 5.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13. And also to presse the same upon them, Ver. 17. Now that those words, Ver. 14, 15, Containe an Argument to prove and backe this, is evident; and that to shew a ground why they did so, and the Corinthians should do so; and the Argu­ment is drawne from the Death of Christ; [For we thus judge, that if Christ dyed for all, then are all dead;] Now it may be questioned whether this Argument be drawne from the cause, or the effect of Christs Death, that is, whether he meaneth thus, Then were all dead in Sin, and so need to live to God: Or thus, Then have all dyed, that is, in Christ that dyed, in whom the Sins of Beleevers were crucified, as Rom. 6.6. Happily our Author will say the first, but I conceive that is not his Argu­ment in this Text, and that on these two grounds.

1. Because then the Apostles Argument to Beleevers is not so opposite and full, because there was no greater engagement on them to live to God, then upon every Son of Adam; which agreeth not with the whole series of the Word of God,

2. Because then the words of the Apostles should have run thus, Ver. 14. For the Condition of Man constraineth us, and layeth a necessity on us and others to live to God and not as they do. The love of Christ constraineth us; And if the Argu­ment be drawne from the effect of Christs Death, Then it is cleare the meaning is this, Then are all dead; all for whom he dyed for are dead, have their old man cru­cified with him, and so are or shall certainly have sin weakened and killed, and live to God, because he dyed for that end.

2. From the Apostles expresses in the foregoing Chapter, where he mentioneth that Life which he here inserts, and may herein be his own Expositour: Cap. 4.10, 11, 12. That the Life of Jesus Christ might be manifest in our Bodies, &c. Where life is un­doubtedly taken for a Spirituall Life, which he speakes of, Cap. 5.7, We walke by Faith, is nothing but we live by Faith, as Gal. 2.20. And these may expound Ver. 5. where he saith, [That those that live must not live to themselves,] Where it is thus meant, that those that live the life of Christ, &c.

3. From the usuall Phrase of the Apostles in other places when he perswadeth Be­leevers to the same duties, and useth the same Argument, as Rom. 6. the twelve first verses, where from Christs Death he exhorts them to death to Sin, and a life in Righ­teousnesse, but more particularly Ver. 10, 11. Likewise thinke ye also that ye are dead to Sin, but alive to God in Jesus Christ our Lord. So Cap. 7.4. Ye are dead to the Law by the Body of Christ, that ye should live to another, even to him that raised him from the dead.] Now is not this all one, and nothing differing from the Text in hand, yet here is meant a death to Sin and the Law, and Life to God in the Spirit.

4. From the Insatisfactory replies of the Remonst. who have endeavoured to re­move this Exposition.

1. They say, [glossema istud (peccato scilicet) non est in Textu,] That is, that glosse (to sin) is not in the Text:] True, it is not, neither was it affirmed to be in the Text, but to be the meaning of the Text, and this they produce no Argument to evert.

[...]. Hag. 170.2. [Sententia est, quod ii pro quibus Christus mortuus est, in peccato mortui erant,] That is, this is the sense, That all those for whom Christ died were dead in Sin, as Eph. 2.1.5.] That place in Eph. 2.1.5. is not to the Apostles purpose in 2 Cor. 5. there­fore cannot be expected to be in the same sense; Besides in Eph. 2. the Text affirmeth that they were dead in Sin, and by sin, which this place 2 Cor. 5 mentioneth not, that [Page] is a glosse that is not in the Text, we may also affirme with them.

3. Verba illa [omnes qui vivunt] possunt accipi ut omnes homines viventes] That is, those words [Those that live] may be taken for all men living.] True, and we are where we were; we grant that it was that all men living the life of Christ and Grace, might not live to themselves. But this doth not yet please them, they meane all men living the life of Nature, but this is not proved; we find not that every Son of Adam is bound to live to Christ, or that it was his end and intention: They would faine prove it in Acts 3.26. To turne every one of you from your Sins; but from every one of you, meaning Israel, to every Son of Adam one and other, the Argu­ment is invalid. So that by all these particulars it may appeare, that by (are dead) is meant dead to Sin: And by (They that live) is meant life of Christ: Then how this maketh for him let any judge; and thus we may argue.

That all for whom Christ died are dead to Sin, but every Son of Adam neither is, nor shall be so dead, therefore that All doth not take in every Son of Adam. A more cleare sense of the place I shall beglad to receive.

7. [Having thus suffered and died for our sinnes, he rose againe the third day, and rose acquitted of all the Sins imputed to him, and a Triumphant over all the Enemies of our Salvation.] That he did so no man denyeth, he had no Sins imputed to him, but over them he became a Victor; and this is true, though we say he suffered for the Sins of the Elect only: unlesse he prove, that he was acquitted from the Sins of every Son of Adam, and so a Trium­phant over all the Enemies of the Salvation of every Son of Adam, which is his taske to prove, and that which he holds, but this he doth not so much as affirme, much lesse prove, and this is his weakenesse.

8. [All this Oblation of this his Sacrifice he did dignifie through the onenesse of his will with his Fathers, &c. which is more then if every man had suffered, and accepted of God as if all had suffered.] Herein we agree that it was with God as if all for whom he dyed had suffered; but herein still is he deficient, he proves not that it was as if every Son of Adam had suffered: Certainly then no man should suffer againe, for Justice it selfe requireth not a double suffering for the same Sins. So that now to reasume these particulars, I say againe, That his being made flesh, his comming into the world, being made in the nature of mankind, standing in the roome of mankind, made under the Law, having the Sins of men imputed to him, and enduring the punishment that was due to them, and standing acquited of them, and that in all these his will to be one with his Fathers, all these are requisite to his procuring of life: Herein we agree, and herein the Controversie not touched; but that any of these, or all of these were done for every Son of Adam to procure life Eternall for them, he doth not yet prove, and therefore comes short of his generall Doctrine.

Having spoke of his generall Redemption, he comes to speake of his speciall, the particulars whereof (though lyable to exception) yet are not pertinent to the Con­troversie: yet some I shall insert of greatest concernment; He to prove the Applica­tion of the Death of Christ by the Spirit of God in the hearts of men, he produceth Rev. 5.9. [Thou wast slaine and hast redemed us by thy Bloud out of every tongue and Nation.] Now, The Reader must understand that this Text is produced by us against his generall Redemption; and thus we urge, that if he redeemed them out of tongues and nations, then all were not so redeemed, for some there are & must be out of whom [Page] they are said to be so redeemed. Now upon this ground the Author cunningly shuffles this Text in among others, treating of the Application of Christs Death, that so it might unsuspectedly be taken in the same sense, but this a foule perversion. Now that the Text speaketh of the Act of Christ in procuring Life and Redemption, and that by bloudshed, I am enduced to conclude from these grounds.

1. From the word in the Text, which though we read it, [Thou hast redeemed,] which word may be distorted to that sense; yet the word is [...], Thou hast bought us, which word plainly relateth to the price paying, which was his Bloud as shed; which word I conceive cannot be produced in the whole Scripture in any other sense, and is not this word pressed by our Adversaries in that sense? in 2 Pet. 2.1. denying the Lord [...], that bought them; but surely those were not redeemed by Bloudsprinkling, and why they should put any other sense upon the word then in that place they themselves plead for, I cannot see.

2. From circumstantiating expressions in the Text: as that he is said to redeeme by Bloud. Now the Application of the Bloud of Christ to the hearts of men is done by Spirit: But between Spirit and Bloud there is a wide difference; the one is the effi­cient, the other the meritorious cause of the Application. But he saith, [True it is by Bloud; but it is Bloudsprinkling;] but this glosse is not in the Text; and should we say so he would presently aske us what belongs to them that adde to the Scripture, but he doth not only say that which the Word saith not, but that which it explodes; As for his expression [by Bloudsprinkling] it is a quite distinct thing from Bloud, because the sprinkling of Bloud is the Act of the Spirit; and the Text saith, [Thou wast slaine and hast redeemed by Bloud,] which referreth that Redemption by Bloud to his Death and Bloudshed.

3. Because the Act of Application by Bloudsprinkling is so the Act of the Son, as that it is also the Act of the Father, and the holy Spirit; but that which is here said [The Lambe, thou art worthy, &c. because thou was killed and hast redeemed us by thy Bloud, &c.] Cannot be said of any but Christ, and that as by his Bloudshed procured life for us.

The Authors reply may draw more from me, but herein he savours strong of an Arminian; thus they envade the Text, as if it spake o [...] such to whom the Bloud of Christ was Applyed,Acta. Synod. 360. and in whom it had its full efficacy, [Quis non videt hic agi de illis quibus non tantum impetravit, sed per sidem applicavit, &c] But this solves it not; the Application is inserted in the next verse, but the Impetration only in the 9. verse, which impetration did tend to a further Act.

Againe, as he did set downe divers particulars that conduced to the effecting of the first, so he doth now some that conduce to this second, and thus goeth on:

[For effecting of which Redemption Jesus Christ was exalted at his Fathers right hand, Acts 2.33. Act 5.31.] But herein I am unsatisfied, why his exalting to his Fathers right hand is made an Act of Application, more then his Resurrection from Death, I thinke he hath no ground to disjoyne them, they are conjoyned by the Apostle, Rom. 8.34. Certainly all the Acts of his Exaltation tend the same way.

2. I conceive (as I have formerly hinted) that all the Acts of Christ mentioned Rom. 8.34. Tend to perfect his Impetration and procurement of Salvation; For if he had not Risen, Ascended, Interceded, the Purchase had not been made, or Sal­vation impetrated for men; though nothing else was to be paid as Price but Bloud; yet something else was to be done, there was to be [Ascensio Sacerdotis & ostensio [Page] sanguinis,] The Priest was to ascend into the veile and shew the Bloud, else no Atonement procured by the Priest: Therefore this is not well divided from the other in the first Redemption, or procuring of Salvation.

And why may not he as well say that he dyed to effect that Redemption, as he was exalted to his Fathers right hand? For both came under the same Notion of effecting that Reconciliation. And the cited place Act. 2.33. speaketh no more then this, that he was not only to dye, but to be raised againe and exalted, else could he not as God, give them Repentance and Remission of Sins. All this proveth not that his Session at his Fathers right hand is an Act of Application, or tended more to it than his Death and Passion. As for his subdivided particulars in Pag 6. I grant them as being no­thing to the Controversie: untill he come in the 7. Pag. wherein he delivereth some­thing that deserveth examination, which is this;

[In some sort interceding and putting in for Transgressors, even the Sons of men, yet in, and of the world: Isa. 53.12. Joh. 17.21.23, That so the men of the world might be convinced and allured, &c. But in a speciall manner doth he intercede, being Advocate for his cho­sen ones, &c. and presenteth them to his Father holy and spotlesse, Eph. 5.22.] Wherein are sublime discoveries worth our notice.

1. Whereas he saith, [Puting in for Transgressors, &c. but in a speciall manner interceding for his chosen ones,] seemes to intimate that [Transgressors] and [chosen ones] are not coincident; which is not only contrary to the truth, but himselfe, in Pag. 120. And what speciall favour interceded for, or manner of interceding that he doth not use for Transgressors? This is a nicity beyond my reason, and I feare his owne too.

2. Why should Intercession be so ranged as to make a part of his Application? He seemeth to be touched with Arminius his Magneticke, who saith, Sacrificatio per­tinet ad meritum, intercessio ad applicationem, meritum acquisivit sacrificio, pro appli­catione intercedit. In Perk 70. But it is against reason, for if he Intercede it must be with God, and for men; And doth not Reason and his owne Principles tell us that this must appertaine to his Impetration? Nay, doth not he say, Pag. 8. [By this he procureth the grant of Dispensation?] And why should that which the Author pleades Is (for all) be produced as an ingredient into that Redemption which is proper only to Beleevers?

3. I demand one place or places of Scripture, that hold forth the distinction of generall and speciall Intercession, especially now he is at his Fathers right hand, for so he urgeth both kinds, nay at any time, this is a streame from the Arminian foun­taine, but not from the Sacred Fountaine of Gods word, those Texts alleadged come short as not proving that he Interceded for all and every Transgressor, or Crucifier.

4. Why doth he Connexe [Allure] and [Convince?] As if alwaies and whom God intendeth to convince he intendeth to allure: The World (Joh. 17.21.23.) he would have convinced, that Christ was the true Messiah: but that he would have them allured to come to him is a presuming on the Text to affirme. The Devills beleeve that, and are convinced; Mark. 3.11. But he never intended to allure them: Many souls are not convinced that Jehovah is God till and by their destruction, Ps. 83. last. But then I cannot think that God allures them; Many are not convinced that Christ was sent till hell seaze on them, and then they shall [every Tongue confesse] [Page] but then God intendeth not to allure them, it is too late; and therefore though we grant that Christ prayed for his, that the world might be convinced, yet it will not follow that he prayed that they might be allured: And for his generall Inter­cession for all, seeing so many Texts confine his Intercession to Beleevers, as Rom. 8.34. Maketh Intercession for us, Heb. 7.25. Makes intercession for them that come to God by him, Heb 6.20. He entered into the heavens for us, viz. Heires of Promise, ver. 17. Heb. 9.24. Who appeareth in heaven for us. 1 John 2.1, 2. We have an Advocate with the Father: And by our Author Pag. 54. it is urged as a privilege of Beleevers; and not one place in the whole Scripture that maketh out a generall Intercession, I can­not but judge it an Oracle of flesh and bloud, and not of God.

5. I would know a ground why he changeth the termes? When he speaketh of the generall, and for Transgressors, he giveth it the name of Intercession only: But when he speaketh of the speciall, for his Chosen Ones, he giveth the title of Ad­vocation, as the Reader may observe: As if there was some momentous difference betwixt an Intercessour and an Advocate, which the Scripture affordeth not, for that in Rom. 8.34. Maketh Intercession for us; And that 1 Job 21. We have an Advocate, are all one, And can this flourish with Phrasiologies tend to any thing but to bleate the eyes of his ignorant Readers?

6. I would know a reason why to the second, viz. his Advocation, He confineth his presenting them holy to his Father; as if he did intercede for some in heaven whom he did not so present: And herein I demand one Text to shew where Christ appeares in heaven for any, either as Intercessor, or Advocate, and doth not present the Persons of such holy to his Father? That he intercedes in heaven for all, and yet presents but some holy to his Father, is the Language only of our Author, not of Scripture, and when these particulars are duly scanned, his simple jumbling and confounding Notions, beyond either his owne understanding, or any mans else, will clearely appeare: From which jumbling and confused Discourse he comes to raise a double Salvation; and he thus speaketh;

[1. One common, the other speciall and eternall of each it is fit distinctly to mention.] That it is so sit to speake of them distinctly I grant, & it would be well he would speak as distinctly as he pretends, that we might under­stand it; he should have explained what he meaneth by that speciall and eternall Salvation; if he meane by it our perfect glorification in heaven, which in Scripture Phrase is called eternall Salvation. Heb 5.9. Then it seemeth he intendeth Grace and Faith to belong to the common, not speciall Salvation, which is contrary to himselfe in many Pages of his Discourse: But if by it he meane Grace and Glory, Faith, and the Inheritance, then doth he speake of Faith and beleeving as not being an eter­nall Salvation, as Pag. 10. [Yea with some he goeth further, so as that they beleeve, though departing from this grace they may perish, &c] Hereby we see because he speaketh not distinctly he speaketh not as is fit. But he addeth,

[The one Christ worketh for all men, Pag. 9. The other he workes in men to God, Pag. 12.] O that the confused braine of the Author could pro­duce it selfe in any reasonable perspicuity; why doth he say, that the common Salva­tion is wrought only for men? Is it not bestowed on men? As to instance in his par­ticulars, as the preservation of the Creatures, the patience of God, meanes of know­ledge, &c. Are they not given to men? And acted upon men? Have they them not? Why then are they set downe as only wrought out for men? Certainely herein he could not promise himselfe satisfaction. And so for the speciall Salvation wrought [Page] in the hearts of men by his Spirit, why doth he say it was only wrought in men? Was it not also wrought for men by his Bloud, before it was wrought in men by his Spirit? I thinke the purchase of Christ is the foundation of every spirituall good whether Grace or Glory, Eph. 1.3. His expresses herein therefore are preposterous, but herein is his mistake, he should have made his distinction run betweene the Acts of Christ in procuring and applying; but he speaketh of a distinct good bestowed some to all, some not to all, which is not only uselesse in this Controversie, but also admits not of his Expressions: Seeing those things which are speciall are wrought out for those that have them, and those that are common are not only wrought for, but con­ferred on men.

But he inserteth severall particulars as branches of this common Salvation, Which I shall examine.

1. [The earth and Inhabitants thereof which by Sin are dissolved he beareth up the pillers of it, Psal. 75.3, 4. Heb. 1.3. And the frame of the Creatures for mans use preserved, Psal. 145.8, 9. Math. 5.45. Col. 1.18. And this a witnesse of his goodnesse, Act. 14.17. & 17.24.31.] That the Fabricke of the world, and the Creatures thereof (by sinne forfeited) are againe restored and sustained, and continued for mans use, and that by vertue of Christs Sacrifice and interposall, I verily beleeve, and needs it must so be, man being upheld in his being, the Creatures must be so for his subsistence: and that man is so, is cleare, and must be so (if for no other end, yet) for this, that his Elect might come to have a being, and so come to Repentance: Thus far I have formerly granted, and grant this generall Salvation; And this is the Hellena on which he seemeth so enamoured, but it serves him not, it is nothing to the Question, this he might do and yet have no thoughts to bring most men to Grace or Glory.

But if I had an inclination to deny it, his quoted Texts prove it not, there is not any one of those places alleaged, except Col. 1.18. that hath any shew of proving that Christ as Mediatour procured the being of the world, and the Creatures therein; few of them speake of Christ, but God essentially, the living God, Creatour of all things, as Psal. 75.3, 4. Psal. 145.8.9. Math. 5.45. Nay with expresse distinction from Christ, God man, as Acts 17.24.31. The rest of Christ as God, and as Crea­tor and Preserver of all things, as Heb. 1.3. Therefore I could advise him to seeke out more pertinent Texts for his purpose.

2. [By him is procured patience and long suffering of God, and much bounty in many mercies to men, as 2 Pet. 3.9. Rev. 2.21. Psal. 19.14. Psalm. 136.25. And this to lead men to Repentance. Rom. 2.4.] That patience and long-suffering is procured for every man, that is, that the Curse is not incontinently executed on them, and the world dissolved, I will not contend: But his Texts prove it not, they speake of the efficient, not the meritorious cause, who is so patient, not who procured it, but grant it, this is not pertinent to the [...]oint in hand: He may be patient and long-suffering to all, and yet not intend the Salvati­on of all to whom he is so patient, neither is God patient to every Son of Adam to leade them to Repentance: Could he prove that God or Christ intended the Re­pentance of every man, I would confesse and prove too that he intended the eternall Salvation of every man; For Repentance of any is not willed but as meanes to that end, and it is considered as meanes in tendency to the end: But the former he [Page] proveth not, as for that Text, Rom. 2.4. It speaketh of another patience then what every Son of Adam partaketh of, viz. the patient waiting of God in the Gospells Ministry, or such a deferring of Judgement, as hath the Gospell annexed, as appea­reth in the whole Chapter, but such an one every Son of Adam hath not enjoyed: Besides this patience and long suffering of God leadeth to Repentance; that Morali­ter, not physice, by swasion not efficiency worketh not Repentance, but admonisheth to Repentance; and so this place is expounded Act. 17.30. Now he admonisheth every man to Repent, which sheweth that the patience of God without the Word is no fit meanes to bring men to Repentance: Now this place which denoteth such a longsuffering that every Son of Adam hath not, is not well produced to prove such a worke, as is common for every Son of Adam; and that God intendeth by his patience to bring every Son of Adam to Repentance, it is not easie to grant, and as hard for the Author to prove.

3. [By him is procured some meanes, with some light, therein, and according thereto, to lead men to Repentance, &c. though to some more darke, some more clearely.] First, to remove such generalities and inde­finite Expressions fit only to deceive; then his Expresses will the better appeare: That Christ did procure meanes, and Light, and Spirit, to lead men to Repentance whoever yet denied? This commeth too short of his Doctrine, for that he procured meanes to bring every Son of Adam to Repentance, this neither he nor any else hath yet proved; That he procured meanes, and God gives such meanes to every man whereby they may know something of God I grant; but that he giveth to every one so much as leadeth them to Repentance, this is doubtfull, every measure of the know­ledge of God serves not for this businesse: I would know what he thinketh of those that have only Verbum rei, the Book of the Creatures to read on? True, They may know something of God, as Rom. 1.20. As his Power, and Godhead; yea, so much seene of him (the Text saith not as to bring them to Repentance, but) as may leave them without excuse; and that (not for not Repenting, but) for their Idolatry, be­cause there is so much seene in the Creatures as may convince men of the Deity of God, that he is not made with hands, nor any such Creature as they worshipped, Ver. 23. But how will he prove hence that the Creatures are fit meanes to bring men to Repentance? To bring men to Repentance there must concurre these things; A fight of Sin to be Sin, A sense of our condition without it, A Hell to af­fright, with other things; but which of these are obnoxius to them that have but the light of Nature only? For the knowledge of Sin to be Sin, the Booke of the Crea­tures discovers not: St. Paul said, I had not known sin, but by the Law, Rom. 7.7. And that not the Law of Nature, or any thing written only in Nature, but lex super­addita, A Law that was not alwaies knowne, that said (Thou shalt not lust,) Besides that men repent, it is requisite that men should know it is a duty to Repent; For that which discovereth not that, cannot be said any way to lead to Repentance: But doth the Creature or the light of Nature command this? The time before the Gospell commeth admonishing to Repent, is a time of ignorance of that duty, Act. 17.30. Againe, it is requisite that men know the danger of not repenting, the punishment due to Sin, that shew men the necessity of repenting: But how doth the Creatures dictate any such thing? Therefore that which discovereth not Sin to be Sin, nor it to be our duty to repent, nor the danger of not repenting, or the benefit of repenting; such a thing is not a fit meanes to leade us to Repentance. But at the end of this his Assertion I find some Scriptures annexed, I shall perpend them to see if they affirme [Page] any such thing, as that God giveth to every man such means as may, and to that end to lead them to Repentance.

[Rom. 1.19. Because that which may be knowne of God is manifest in them, &c.] And what is there in that Text but this, viz. That something of God is seene in the Creatures, as his Power and Godhead? which might keep them from Idolatry, or wor­shiping of such things as they did worship, but not so much as to bring them to Re­pentance for that Idolatry, the Text saith no such thing.

[Acts 17.24, 30. Now he admonisheth all men every where to repent.] This is the same nature with the former; It is spoken of those, and to those that worshiped the unknown God; as Ver. 23. To which he addeth these words, and tells them that God Created the Worlds, and placed the bounds of our Habitations, as Ver. 24, 25, 26. and this [...], Ver. 27. That they might enquire after the Lord to know so much of him as to convince them that the Godhead is not like to Silver or Gold, or the worke of mans hands, as ver. 29. But that it was for such an end as to bring them to Repentance, the Text owneth not, nay it altogether disclaimes; as Ve. 30. (The time of this ignorance God regarded not,) as if he should have said, when there is only the Creatures and light of Nature in regard of the duty of Repentance, it could be no other but the time of Ignorance, seeing that by that light they neither knew that they should, nor how they should Repent. But now he admonisheth all to Re­pent, no such admonition by the Creatures, then had his words (But now he admo­nisheth) beene to no purpose: Therefore his joyning 24. and 30. verses together, as if he intended to prove that by the Creatures God intended to lead men to Repen­tance is very weake and frivolous.

Now if he shall reply, that Rom. 2. saith, The Gentiles did the things contained in the Law and that by nature; and therefore why not Repent? I answer, Let the Text be well weighed and we shall see a difference betwixt (Legem implere,) and (Ea quae legis sunt facere,) to do things that the Law commands, and to fulfill the Law. The second requires that what is done, be done out of obedience to a knowne Law, the other not: The Gentiles might do something that the Law commanded, as Se­neca, Plutarch, who gave good rules of life, but not out of obedience to any Law of God; but was it otherwise, though the Law of Nature taught what to do, yet it tea­cheth not Repentance for not doing of it, because the first Law of God admitteth it not; He commanded to do or else adjudged to suffer the Curse. To come to happinesse by Faith and Repentance is a secret of the Gospell, which all the light of Nature is never able to discover, nor the severity of the Law did ever admit.

[Rom. 10.18. No doubt their sound went through all the earth.] Which place he alleadgeth to prove that the Gospell is preached to every Son of Adam to bring them to Repentance, or else I know not to what end, but of this it falleth short; To passe by the severall Judgements of men on this place, for it is not very cleare what the Apostle meaneth by the 18. ver. But admit that we grant that the Gospell is gone out through the world, yet that Text is not of greater. Latitude than that of Col. 1.6. Where the Apostle saith the Gospel had commed to all the world, and brought forth fruit, but he will not say that the Gospell had commed to, and brought forth fruit in every Son of Adam: And I leave it to be the Authors taske to prove hence that the sound of the Gospell commeth to the eares of every Son of Adam, that was, is, or shall be; So that yet it is not cleare that Christ procuring meanes for every Son of Adam to bring them to Repentance.

4. [By him is sent forth at one time or other some Supernaturall light [Page] and motion of his Spirit, &c. Tending to, and striving with them to re­prove them of sin, moving to Repentance, seeking after God, &c. Joh. 1.5.9. Pro. 1.23. Joh. 16.8, 9. Gen. 6.3. Mic. 2.7. And thus he calleth many, yea, all the Sons of Men.]

1 If (By him) denote Christ the Bestower, and efficient in sending that super­naturall light, as I conceive he doth by Joh. 1.5.9. then it is nothing to his purpose, for then it plainely belongeth to the Applicatory part; but that which he is to prove and illustrate is the Impetration, and procuring, as all the former particulars run: Therefore I would know a ground of the change of his expressions, seeing this with the other set forth the same Act of Christ.

[...]mnes homines [...]igna vocati­ [...]e vocantur. Arm. in Perk. 59.2. I am yet to seeke for proofe from tht Author, or else where, That every Son of Adam hath Supernaturall light to bring them to Repentance: What will he say of those that have only the light of Nature, and perish without Law, Rom. 2. Will he say that such have supernaturall light? Certaine those that Act meerely by nature, and naturall light, have not a supernaturall light, for then naturall light should be supernaturall: Yet he urgeth that God calleth every Son of man to Repentance, A stiffe Arminian; His Scriptures I shall examine.

Acts 17.30. [Now he commandeth all men every where to Repent.] Hence in­ferring he calleth every Son of Adam: But let us wave what men may possibly raise to please themselves, let any sober mind judge, whether the Text meaneth every Son of Adam, or those only, and that All to whom the Gospell comes, and then when it was preached: Else why should he say, (But now he admonisheth?) if that any were called to Repentance, to whom that Gospell came not, as well might they have been admonished before it came: And so that word (Now) been Uselesse: Or can we thinke that the admonition of some to Repent, could beget an Obligation in every Son of Adam to Repent though command came not to them? Certainely not, be­cause the time of the Gentiles ignorance God regarded not, & their non-repentance, though the Jewes were before both by John, Math. 3. And by Christ himselfe, admo­nished to Repent, as if it were not their duty till that command came to them: ac­cording to the Remost. rule, Lex non lata non obligat.

Math. 23.14. [The word of the Gospell shall be preached through the whole world] Not now to stand on the Phrase (whole world,) I shall give him the Phrase in the de­sired Latitude. And what doth the Text affirme? No more but this, that the Gospell shall be in the last daies preached through the world; this we may expect, and pray for, but yet it is not so, much lesse can he prove that God by the Gospell hath, doth, and will call every Son of Adam, that have, are, or shall be, this he is to prove, but yet hath not proved it: have not Millions dyed and known nothing of Christ? And are not many now without that knowledge, and yet in little probability of enjoying it?

Prov. 8.4, 5.31.34. [O men I call unto you.] And doth this place prove any more then this, that wisedome strives with those to whom she utters her voice, and those are men, yea, simple men and fooles? And this is no more then this, Now he commandeth every man to Repent, Acts 17.30. But how doth he prove hence that wisdome stri­veth with those to whom she utters not her voice? Or that she utters her voice to every Son of Adam?

Isa. 45 22. [Looke unto me and ye shall be saved, all the ends of the earth shall be saved.] And will our Author inferre hence that every Son of Adam shall be saved? If not? then I say this Phrase (The ends of the earth) doth not imply every Son of Adam, and if not, this Text is nothing to the purpose: This Phrase signifies no more [Page] then those that were far remote, as Isa. 5.26. Where (Nations from far,) and (ends of the earth,) are equipollent, So Isa. 43.6. [From far] and [from the ends of the earth] speake one thing, and this Phrase sometimes meaneth the Gentiles which were many of them far remote from Jerusalem, and so they speaking of them called them the ends of the earth, as Isa. 49.6. to be [a light of the Gentiles,] and [Salvation to the ends of the earth] are Synonimous: So Jer. 16.19. And what doth this Text prove more then this? That those that are a far off, Gentiles, Sons of the earth, shall have Salvation as well as those that were neare Jerusalem; and so calleth them that are a far off to him: But what is this to Gods calling every Son of Adam to Repentance? He may call them that are a far off, and yet not call every man that is a farre off; but of this stampe are the most of his inferences.

5, [By him is procured and sent forth to men, whilst they yeeld to, and do that which by this light, and these motions of his Spirit he lea­deth to, an encrease of mercies, &c. Gen. 20. totum. 2 Chron. 11.17. 2 King. 10.30. Rom. 2.14, 15. Prov. 1.33. Prov. 8.32, 35. Joh. 8.31, 32. Act. 10.1.] The Authors expresses herein are something darke and obscure, for his words may have a double sense.

First, That God by him sends forth to men whilst they yeeld to, or in yeelding to that light which he formerly gave them, (to which yeelding to that former light he himselfe enabled them) an encrease of Grace and Spirit; this I grant as a truth, and this he doth to men; but then this is not full for his purpose, for thus he doth not to every Son of Adam; for then every Son of Adam must have some light of Grace and Spirit, which he cannot prove, and so be enabled to improve it to any increase, and so at last be saved; but this he will not owne.

Secondly, He may be thus taken, That God by Christ sends an encrease, and so hath tyed himselfe to give an encrease of light and Spirit if men use it well which they have; which being thus generall, comes not up to the Authors mind, for this pro­veth not that he calleth every Son of Adam to Repentance, nor that every Son of Adam hath this Light and Spirit given to them to improve; but I thinke rather he meaneth, as he must if he speake to his purpose, That God hath given to every man some light of Nature and Gospell, which if they improve well they shall have further light till they come to be saved, according to that Saving, [Habenti dabitur, to him that hath shall be given,] As his Master Arminius hath done before him,In Perkin. 218. [Vide mihi an non in isto dicto (Habenti dabitur) promissio ista contineatur, qua Deus spondet se gratia su­pernaturali illuminaturum, qui lumine naturali rectè utetur?] If this be his meaning, then I demand whether men have a power and ability to use naturall light well? His decision herein will be usefull to us. 2. I say that though God sometimes use this Me­thod of giving to them that improve, and taking from them that abuse; yet this is not alwaies his Course, it is no unbended rule, as if Grace should be dispensed according to workes; Sometimes he is found of them that sought him not, Isa 65.1, 2. Capernanm that abused both the light of Nature and Gospell had meanes, when Tyre and Sydon that would have repented wanted them, Math. 11.21. Debauched Sinners against Nature and Grace have enjoyed converting Grace, when more morall men have been passed by: This the Remonst, confesse, Deum pro liberrimo arbitratu saepenumero populos quosdam licet profanissimos, & peccatis plurimis implicitos, & rectae rationis dictamini non obtemperantes, è reliqua turba deligere & ad vocationem Evangelii vocare. Antidot. Remonst. 73. Many Morall men, as Plutarch, Plato, Socrates, Phocion, whose rules are admirable, and lives blamelesse, and improving the light of nature [Page] as well as any, yet we never find that Supernaturall Grace was given to them. When many so abused Nature and Grace, as to become Idolaters, Adulterers, Fornicators, Buggerers, Theeves, Drunkards, yet for such to be Sanctified, Justified, Washed, is no strange thing; 1 Cor. 6.11. Where was the stop in the former, that they had not an encrease of Light and Grace? And where was the improvement in the other, that deserved a new supply of Grace in Conversion? And as for these Texts cited, they prove but this, that God sometimes rewardeth an improvement of Evangelicall Grace with more Grace: But they prove not that is Gods unbended Method in giving or denying Grace; neither is this any thing to this purpose, to prove Christ procuring Life and Salvation for every Son of Adam, because every man hath not that upon the improvement of which he promiseth more Grace.

6. [Yea, with some, where the Gospell comes, he goeth further, so enlightening them to understand the report of the Gospell that they do beleeve.] That he doth so is a truth, but why inserted I see not.

1. Hath he to soone forgotten that the thing which he pursues is such as is done for all, and to cleare it, he giveth us a taste of that which he saith expresly he giveth but to some; this cannot be pertinent.

2. He here supposeth that the Gospell is but dispensed to some, which is no pro­pitious Assertion to his former, viz. That God by the Gospell calleth every Sonne of Adam, one time or other, in some degree or other.

3. Whereas he speaketh of a (further illumination,) either he meaneth of such as have used their first meanes well, or with such as doe not; if the former, then this is nothing different from the former, viz. [If they abide in his call they shall know the truth,] and therefore deserved not to be ranged as a new particular: If he meane the second; then that Method of God for prounded in dispensing Grace is here in­fringed; Therefore this must either be (at least) a Tautology, or a contradiction to his first particular.

4. Hath he so soone forgotten, that the thing which he is to prove, is the procuring and working out with God for men? And he here produceth an Actuall bestowing and applying of the Bloud of Christ, if to the enlightned and brought in to beleeve, be to have the Bloud of Christ applyed? All that might be said may not, I may not fol­low him so farre in his extravagancies as I might, sufficient is it to take notice that this is not opposite to his purpose, it being done only for some, and not for all and every Son of Adam.

We may reasume the whole number of his particulars, and stand to wonder what light they bring to this Point, or what he helpeth mean understandings in these darke Controversies by the perspicuity of his Method and order: That we may review them alitle joyntly, that which he is to illustrate to them is the common Salvation, which is Christs working out with God for men Remission, and Eternall Salvation, and such as is done for all, and as it is a working out for men, distinct from working in and upon men: His first and his last particulars are not opposite, because they are such as are effected on, and in men, as it is to be for all men. So all the rest inter­mediate particulars are not opposite, seeing they are not, nor by him proved to be procured, or to be dispensed to all and every man; take them alltogether, and what do they cleare? What do they prove? Nothing certainly, and serve for nothing, but deceive and confound his Readers: and thus I conclude, Let him numerate never so many particulars procured for, or bestowed on men, if they be not such as are meanes in Gods series of Dispensing Eternall Life, I shall not contend, but passe [Page] them by, as not pertinent to the Question, and leave them to him as not only procu­red for, but actually conferred upon men, but if he produce any such things as are the meanes to bring us to life, as Grace, Supernaturall light, the call of the Gospell, &c. Then I deny that such things are either procured for, or bestowed upon every Son of Adam, which he often affirmeth, but never yet proved.

Having thus immethodically propounded and displayed the particulars of his Common Salvation, he proceeds thus to affirme.

[In some sense, and in truth all may be said to be Reconciled, Re­deemed, Saved, yea Justified, in him, though most be destitute of eve­ry of these.] Which is as much as to say, Those may truly be said to be reconci­led, &c. that neither are, nor shall be reconciled, &c. Indeed, I find sometimes that God calleth things that are not as if they were. Rom 4 17. And Faith hath this privilege, to see at a distance things that are not as if they were; but then let us consider what they are, not meerely possible but future, such as God by his power can, and his unbended purpose hath determined, and his faithfull Promises hath as­sured us shall come to passe; for such things to appeare to God, or a faithfull eye, as if they were, is no strange thing: But for such things as are never to come to reality, no nor ever was so intended, as the Reconciliation, Justification, and Salvation of many were not intended by Christ in his Death, as the Remonst. say; and for such as neither are, nor shall be effected, for such to be called as done, and to say that such men are Reconciled, &c. which neither are so, nor shall be so in time, seemes to me an incredible absurdity. But he will happily say, They may be said to be so, because they may be so: They are under such conditions which if they performe, God is ready to do all those. Well, be it so: Why then should they rather be said Saved, then dam­ned, till the condition be performed: I hope the way is indifferent to Damnation as Salvation, as the Parties beleeve or not beleeve, for the Gospell saith beleeve and be saved, and also beleeve not and be damned, and men may accidentally contract a sorer Condemnation if they beleeve not; Therfore why they should rather be said to be reconciled and saved, because they may be saved by Faith, then that they are damned because they may be damned by unbeleefe: Nay, why may not men conclude sooner that they are not reconciled and redeemed, (especially casting an impartiall eye up­on themselves) seeing they find themselves more prone to reject him then to receive him: to stand out then to beleeve in him, I see not.

Againe, It is not sutable to denominate them Justified and Reconciled that nei­ther are nor shall be endued with Faith: And why may not men be as well said to be Glorified in Christ, as Justified and Reconciled: Yet it is no sober expression to say that every man, yea, the damned Spirits are glorified in Christ; Certainely the Scripture calleth none Reconciled, Justified, Redeemed, Saved, but such as are so, or shall in Gods time be so,

But againe, how he can thus conclude for every man from the Premises I see not: He produceth not one particular which he can prove to be common to every Son of Adam; but the first viz. an upholding in their being, both man, and the world of Creatures; But are all said to be Reconciled, Redeemed, Saved, Justified, because they have their being continued, and the world of Creatures also for their use? Certainely, there is no necessary dependance, or because some are made partakers of Supernaturall light, the Gospell, and an encrease of light, are all and every Son of Adam said thereby to be Justified, &c? But he attempts to backe it both by Scripture and Reason, I shall examine both: His Scriptures are two.

[Rom. 3.22, 23, 24.] Herein I need not call out the disquisition of more piercing eyes to search out his fallacy, but any common capacity to explode his palpable ab­surdity; doth the Text speake of a Potentiall Justification, wherewith all may be said Justified, and yet all misse of it, and yet be justified? The Text speakes of a justifi­cation by Faith, which is an Actuall Justification, and there is none so justified but they partake of it. If the Text had favoured him it should have run thus, [The righ­teousnesse of God for all with God.] But it saith, The righteousnesse of God unto all and upon all. Againe, the Text saith, It is unto and upon all: But doth the Text meane All and every Son of Adam whether beleeving, or not beleeving? Let him view the Text: That Justification by which every man is said justified, is such as is with­out Faith; But the Text owneth none such, it saith upon all them that beleeve; that is the Circumcision and uncircumcision, Jew and Gentile, as ver. 30. there is no dif­ference, but the beleeving Gentile as well as the beleeving Jew is justified freely: This the Remonst. acknowledge with the Scripture, Nullus nisi fidelis & quâ fidelis est justificatur, sive à condemnatione absolvitur. Ant. 87. Strange it is to me that the Authour should dreame that this Text should call every Son of Adam justified.

[Rom. 5.14.18.] As for the 14. ver. I cannot apprehend any shew of Reason, the dint is in the 18. ver. where the Text saith, [By the justifying of one the benefit aboun­ded towards all to justification of life.] But

1. First, Here we see not any shew of reason to say that all are justified: The Text (from any thing that Christ did) doth not say every Son of Adam may be called ju­stified: where is there any such word?

2. This place speakes not of any potentiall justification, by which those may be said justified that Actually are not so; but is an Actuall Justification, and that op­posed to an Actuall Condemnation, and expounded in the 19. ver. by being made righteous, and that as in Adam were made sinners: that Justification which he is to prove hence, is such as is appropriated to them that are not, nor ever shall be justifi­ed: But let him shew and prove where any word in that Chapter seconds such an one as that.

3. The Text saith indeed, [Free gift came upon all men to justification of life.] But what is that (All?) To be taken with, or without a limitation? Let us compare the Apostle with himselfe; The businesse of Justification by Faith in Christ Jesus, is a thing that the Apostle takes often occasion to treate of in this Epistle; yea, it is his maine drift in this former part of his Epistle, and this he had said before was upon all, Cap. 3.22. but it was upon all that beleeve, and that the Promise thereof might be made sure to an All, Cap. 4.16. But it was sure to all the seed, and when he speaketh of the same thing in the same Epistle, that it is upon (all men) why should we take him in any other sense then he explaineth himselfe about the same businesse? Even they seeme to be spoken with the same breath; and so no other sense to be given to this place but this, (upon all men,) that is, on all them that beleeve; and that as the Condemnation came on all them that come from Adam, so the righteousnesse of one came on all men that come from him, and here lyeth the perfect Analogie betwixt Christ and Adam; and this will more appeare if we well consider the Text: That Redemption and Justification which he gives to every Son of Adam, is such as only is wrought out for men, but not on men, for this is to partake of Actuall Justification; but of this latter the Text speakes, it saith, [It commeth on all men] but Justification is upon none but Beleevers, Rom. 3.22, 23, 24. Againe this Righteousnesse is said to come upon all, as the Condemnation came upon all by Adams Sin, but Condemna­tion came Actually upon all, so that they were without a Saviour, in an infallibility of [Page] perishing. So this comming of Righteousnesse on all must be Actuall too, and so as all on whom it so commeth shall infallibly come to glory and life Eternall, but so Righteousnesse commeth not on every Son of Adam, but Beleevers only. Againe, This (All men) in Ver. 18. is supplied and expounded Ver. 17. by those that receive abundance of Grace, and the gift of Righteousnesse, which maketh it appeare that is an Actuall Justification which the Apostle speaketh of here, and therefore fa­voureth not such an one, which may be though none partake of Justification; and such an one as none can be truly said to be justified with, but those that Beleeve, therefore owneth not such an one as is competible to every Son of Adam; So that the validity of his Scriptures I see not, I shall examine his Reason.

[It may be understood and beleeved as well as this, that all men were made righteous in the first Adam, and were truly righteous in him, of which Righteousnesse none ever yet felt or partaked, Rom. 5.12. And so though all recovered, &c.] The Question is not how it may be be­leeved and understood if it was so in truth, but whether it be so or no.

Secondly, We may grant the whole, both may be understood alike, that is neither of them at all. I know no Scripture that saith all the Sons and Posterity of Adam were made righteous. That Text Eccles. 7.29. faith no more but that man was made righteous, which is true in that Adam and Evah were so, Not that every Son of Adam was made holy; none were made holy but those that were Created, but his Posterity were not created; holinesse was not derived to any by propagation. A ground why every Son of Adam is not said in Scripture to be righteous in Adam, I con­ceive is this, to be made righteous as Adam was, is a reall denomination and quali­ty induced into the Patient, and that by a transient Action, passing from the Agent into the Patient, but such an Action there cannot be [In subjecto nondum existente] In a Subject that hath not actuall existence; So that our Author must cleare this to us before he can make it the standard of our beliefe of the former, that every Son of Adam is Reconciled and Justified in Christ.

Thirdly, I shall grant him that all are, or were made righteous in Adam; yet I cannot subscribe to the other, neither is it any way explicatory of this, that All Adams Sons are made alive and justified in Christ; for let us consider, there were none made righteous (or could be so said) but those that were to come from him by propagation (and under that notion as comming from him) he was made righ­teous, and betrusted with Grace as a publique Person to convey to his Posterity and such as came from him, so that all that come from him, his off-spring, we shal grant for Conference sake that they were made righteous in him: Now will this inferre or help us to understand that all were justified in Christ? It helps us to beleeve that all that do, or are to come from him were made righteous in him, but no further; for what ground can be deduced from Scripture or Reason, that (as Adams Figure) Christ makes more righteous in him, then come from him to have a being from, and in him? let us grant him that all the Sons of Adam were made righteous in him, because they were to come from him; yet we cannot yet yeeld or understand that every Son of Adam is justified in Christ, because they have not, nor ever are to have a being from him. Having laid down his reason, he produces a dissimilitude betwixt Adam & Christ, thus.

[As the first Adam being a living Soule and of the earth, He lost all our soules in his Fall, without remedy on his part: So the second Adam is a quickening Spirit, the Lord from heaven, and loseth none, but who [Page] ever now perisheth, destroyeth himselfe, and loseth his owne soule.] The absurdities and obscurity of these expresses far exceed the pertinency or useful­nesse to the Point in hand.

1. The Author pretendeth a dissimilitude, but yet he brings an (As,) (So,) As the first Adam lost: So the second Adam loseth none. Now there is none but knoweth that these words (As,) (So,) set forth a similitude, as the Apostle when he would shew a Similitude betwixt Adam and Christ, Rom. 5.18, 19, 21. he saith, As by offence of one, &c. So Righteousnesse, &c. But when he sheweth a dissimilitude, he useth other expressions, as (For,) (But,) as Ver. 16. For the judgement was by one, &c. But the free gift is of many, &c. But we may expect no better from the Author, but this Obiter.

2. He saith, The Scripture sheweth that dissimilitude, but he sheweth not where. The Apostle Paul, who undertaketh the businesse of the difference and similitude be­twixt Adam and Christ, Rom. 5. yet this he mentioneth not.

3. This Phrase [Loseth none,] is very fallacious and doubtfully laid downe, it may be taken either Actively or Passively, Actively to cast away or to destroy; so it is taken when he saith Adam lost himselfe and us all; if he thus take it then Scripture neither doth nor can, set downe such a difference, Adam destroyed, but Christ de­stroyeth none: differences are (Inter Entia) positive beings do usually afford diffe­rences; and we shall find that when the Apostles shew discrepances betwixt Adam and Christ, they give them still betwixt Adams losing, and Christs saving, not Adams losing, and Christs not losing, this would import that Christs Office was only not to destroy. Againe secondly, It may be taken Passively, that is, He suffers none to pe­rish, and thus is it taken when Christ is said not to lose; as Joh. 6.39. & 18.9. So Christs not losing is nothing but his not suffering to perish, if it be thus taken, then the dissimilitude must run thus, As Adam lost all, so Christ recovers all: And as all were lost by Adam without remedy, so Christ recovered all infallibly, and without feare of being taken out of his hands, he shall suffer none to be lost, no not to lose themselves, (for then are they lost) and therefore he removes all externall and inter­nall principles that might destroy us. Joh. 10.28, 29. Now if this be his dissimilitude the Scripture no where owneth it; Indeed we read that Christ loseth none of them whom his Father giveth to him, or those who come to him, but that he suffered none to perish I read not: So that if by (Christ loseth none) he meaneth that Christ de­stroyeth none, it is in vaine produced Against them that grant that he came not to condemne the world but to save; But it by it he meane that Christ suffers none to perish, or hath done what in him lyeth to save every Son of Adam, this he must prove. That after plea (Whoever perisheth destroyeth his owne selfe) seemes to appeare under the face of an Argument to prove that Christ hath done what in him lyeth to save every man, but it is not valid, for men may destroy themselves and yet Christ suffer them to perish, and if he suffer them to perish, he doth not what in him lyeth to save them; We might destroy our selves though Christ doe nothing for us, nay, our destroying of our Soules was the occasion of Christs comming to save us, there­fore the destroying of our Soules hath no dependance of Christs saving of us.

Having thus vented his Paradox, and as he thinketh, backed it, be comes to reas­sume his former position, which seemes to be the result of his mind and thoughts, thus.

[He hath so saved all men, &c. that he makes all salvable, so as there is a possibility in, and through, and with Christ, for all men to come in into him, to beleeve on him, and be eternally saved in beleeving.] [Page] He hath not produced any thing as done for all, and proved it also to have been done for, or to all, that may bring every Son of Adam under a possibility of beleeving, and so of being saved: This I see is that on which many seeme to dote, therefore I shall a little expatiate my selfe herein; First, I must remove all Equivocation, when he saith [possibility] he meaneth, I hope, only a possibility, for otherwise we may say that Christ intended to make Salvation possible, that is, in making of Salvation cer­taine he made it possible, certainty including a possibility, but not è contra. But his expresses herein seeme to averre, that the chiefe and first end of the Death of Christ (so farre as it respected man) was that he might make the Salvation of man possible, nothing different from the result of Arminian exercitations, wherein we shall find thus, [Christus impetravit ut Deus possit & velit communicare sua beneficia, Acta Synod. [...]83 In Molin. c. 27. Sect. 3. certa lege & modo,] And this latter word (velit) is no more then (possit velle,) that he might be able to will and to bestow good things, as appeares by Corvinus, [Finis proximus mortis Christi fuit ut Deus possit hominem peccatorem velle salvare,] That is, The immediate end of Christs death was that God might will to save Sinners, and save his Justice; but seeing the Author disclaimeth the Arminian, therefore I passe this by with this monition, That he be wary lest he fall into their Doctrine; and to returne to our Author again, it seemes to me erroneous that the end of Christs Death should be to make mens Salvations possible, and that on these grounds.

1. The Scripture furnisheth us with no such Phrase as (Possibility of Salvation) but it treateth of the end of Christs Death often, Math. 1.22. He shall save his people from their sins. Joh. 1.29. He taketh away the sins of the world. Math. 18.11. He is come to save; It doth not say that he might possibly save, or to procure a possibi­lity of Salvation, this is no where found.

2. If he propounded to himselfe only a possibility of Salvation, then though none be saved, yet Christ hath the end and travell of his soule; for though none be saved or beleeve actually, yet the possibility remaineth entire,Acta. Synod. 285. and this will be found the sowrest peeces of Arminianisme: Thus they say, [Impetratio sarta tecta manet perfecta suis numeris constat etsi omnes maneant increduli, &c.] But how harsh this may be to any Christian Eare, let any Reader judge, and I wish the Author be not driven to say that Christ in being Lord of all (which may be without the Salvation of any,) he seeth the travell of his Soule, as he seemeth Pag. 142. And this to defend this meere possibility the end of Christs death.

3. Let us consider, was there not a possibility for God to bring men to Salvation and happinesse, yea Sinners, without the Death of Christ? Was God tyed under such an impossibility that he could not save Sinners (to which he was naturally propense) till Christ by his Death released him? I have not observed any that deny the former, or affirme the latter; The Remonst, (who would accept of such a help if they durst leane thereon) say thus; [Si potestas & jus salvandi consideretur in Deo absolute, Corv. in Mol. c. 28 Sect. 11 tum Deus si voluisset, potuisset nos salvare citra Christi satisfactionem.] And there­fore seeme to wave this as the end, viz. to procure a possibility: So the same,Cap. 27. Sect. 3 [Non dicimus Deo impetratam simpliciter potestatem salvandi acsi Deus pro absolutâ suâ potestate, &c.] That is, we say not that Christ procured only a possibility of saving; as if God could not without Christ save Sinners. But happily it may be said, true, God could by his absolute power, but not in justice, save Sinners without satisfaction, Deus etiamsi pro sua omnipotentia facilè possit, non vult tamen tales [...] & apo­statas salvare. Ant. 68. To this I answer, In that he could by his power, he could his justice notwithstanding; for God cannot by his absolute power do any thing against his Justice, no more then he can sin or deny himselfe; or cease to be God, this [Page] would be impotency, not Omnipotency. Therefore in saying he can do it, we (In eo­dem instanti rationis,) affirme he can do it his justice notwithstanding, and this followes upon the principles of Arminius, In Perk. p. 2, 3. [Ex hoc antecedente Deus hoc fecit, sequi­tur necessario ergo juste,] If God do it, it is enough to conclude it just. Againe, It may be said that Christ did not procure a power to save, but a possibility to will to save, as Corvinus inserteth, [Ʋt posset peccatorem velle salvare salva justitia,] That he might will to save, and yet his Justice safe. To this I answer, If he had a power to save, he had a power to will to save without Christ, for he cannot do any thing that he cannot will; and this is true in Arminius Reason, Ʋaum includic alterum, nemo potest credere, nisi potest velle credere, quia nemo credit nolens. In Perkin. 592. So I ar­gue, Deus non potest salvare nisi possit velle salvare, quia Deus nominem salvat nolens. And if he can will to save us without Christ, then he can will to save without Christ, Salva justitia, otherwise he cannot will it, he cannot will to do any thing injustly. And that he had a possibility to save, and to will to save without Christs Death, and that his Justice safe, to me seemeth evident, because neither a possibility to save, nor a possibi­lity to will to save, no nor a will to save, is against the Justice of God; this I have pro­pounded to let the Author see, that seing God had a possibility to save Sinners with­out Christ, & their Salvation was possible before, and without Christs Death; then to let him consider how derogatory to Christs wisdome it is to say that his end in dying was to make the Salvation of man possible, I cannot conceive that he would shed his bloud to procure that which was in being before, and without his Death.

4. For his expressions associated with this, viz. [A possiblenesse of mens comming in to Christ and beleeving.] It is a farre different thing from the former; when our Salvation is said to be possible, we meane in regard of God, that God can bring us to Salvation: but when our faith is said to be possible, it may be referred either to God or man: That God can by absolute power bring men in to beleeve, or else that we have a power to come in or beleeve, what he meaneth is very dubious: The ground of coupelling these together is yet obscure, for our Salvation eternall may be possi­ble, and yet faith not possible, for God can bring us to Salvation without Faith if he please; and if by the possibility of our beleeving he meane only a power in God to bring all men in to beleeve, I grant there is such a possibility, as there is a possibi­lite of more worlds being created, but then this is too rude and indetermined to make either the end or effect of Christs Death.

Neither is it cleare that Christ prepared a possibility on mans part to beleeue, be­cause he did not procure that all should enjoy the Gospell without which men cannot beleeve. Rom. 10.14, 15. A possibility to beleeve is too unworthy a thing for Christ to purchase at so deare a rate: Christ purchased Grace, not Nature, for us, but Posse credere est naturae, A possibility to beleeve, is a Priviledge of Nature, not Grace. I desire a more cleare explication of himselfe, then shall he have a more perspicuous Answer.

He having summed up the particulars of this common Salvation, (but weakely seeing they cannot be proved to be the share of every Son of Adam) he comes to re­peat his speciall, what he doth for Beleevers, and that in Pag. 11, 12, 13. with seve­rall unjustifiable expressions, which because they are not pertinent to the Question I wave them till he come in the 14 Page to give us a Summ. total. and entire result of this elaborate Chapter thus.

[Now betweene these two Salvations, that with God for men, and that in men to God, &c. the Scripture doth often and many waies distinguish.]

Behold the issue of this fruitlesse peece, hath he been in so long a travell of oppo­sition and hath brought forth nothing but what every man grants? Let me againe interrogate, where doth he find it denyed that the purchasing and applying, the pro­curing for, and bestowing upon men any good, are two distinct Acts? Nay, What Treatise findeth he, where it is not strongly asserted? and therefore he needed not to have been at so much paines to prove it; But by this foundation we may guesse what structure we shall find. But yet the manner of their distinction, as he layeth it down, is something observable, and such as we find no where else, as followeth.

1. [The former is called a reconciliation by his Death, the other a sa­ving by his life. Ro. 5.10.] that his procuring reconciliation by his death, should be here set downe under being reconciled by his Death, is something distorted and improbable; Doth the Author conceive that those words do not denote actuall Recon­ciliation? If they do, (as it is cleare they do) then this is the second Act, not the first, only Application, not procurement of it; The Text saith not, If he merited Recon­ciliation for us, much more shall we be saved by his life, If the Text had favoured this conceit, it would have run thus: If he hath procured Reconciliation by his Death, then shall we be actually reconciled by his life, but it runs not thus; the inference is not from Impetration to Application, but from Reconciliation to Salvation, two di­stinct degrees of good applyed, the Scripture yields no such difference, because both Impetration, and Application of all good, is said to be by his Death, and by his Bloud.

2. [The former was a Reconciliation wrought for the world by God in Christ: The latter a Reconciliation of some to God by Christ. 2 Cor. 5.18, 19.] Herein lyeth a twofold difference couched, but both absurd.

1. He saith, The one is (For men,) the other (In men:) But this is no difference, for herein they both agree; The second, viz. the Application is wrought out for men, as to instance, the Grace and Faith that is given to some by which they are overcome, is also wrought for, else how comes it to be applyed, or how can it be called the Appli­cation or Sprinkling of Christ, if the Bloud of Christ did not procure the Application?

2. He saith, The former is wrought by God, the latter by Jesus Christ; As if he should say, the Impetration or procurement was done by God, the Application was done by Jesus Christ; which foppery discovers it selfe sufficiently, the contrary of is most true, the Impetration is Christs Act, the Application is Gods, if this be true [Christus Impetravit ut Deus possit, &c] And herein is one difference, the procu­ring is the Act of Christ as of one that dyed, the Application is Gods the offended Party.

3. [In effecting the former he came from the Father, for the effe­cting of the other, hee went againe to his Father. Joh. 16.28.] Herein can lye no difference, because his comming from the Father, and going to his Father, both were requisite to his first Act, viz. Impetration or procurement, else are not his owne expresses Orthodox, Pag. 8. where speaking of things done af­ter his going up to his Father, he saith, [Thereby he doth present before his Father, &c. and so procures the grant of dispensation, &c.] Which evidently cleareth that his Ascending is no part of his Application, but an Act that tendeth to the perfecting of his procurement, and that done as Mediatour. Againe, His comming from the Fa­ther was not tyed only to Impetration, but it was also for the effecting of Application. [Page] He came to save them that were lost. Math. 18.11. And he dyed not to procure pur­ging only, but that he might Sanctifie, to Sanctifie to himselfe a peculiar People. Ephes. 5.25. So that if the parts of his distinction be so coincident, that we may say, For the effecting of the former he ascended also to his Father, and for the latter he came downe from the Father, then his difference falleth to the ground: as for that Text Joh. 16.28. it sheweth only that Christ both came from, and also goeth to the Father; but it saith not, that he came downe only to procure, and went to him to ap­ply the good things procured: So that we may see what libertie he takes to distortour Saviours words to apply them to his owne conceits without ground; Nay our Saviour seemes to disclaime it, for there is more the soly Application, when he saith, [I go to prepare a place for you.] Joh. 14.2. His third is the same with this, therefore I mention it not.

3. [The one is a Redemption (for us) in Christ: Rom. 3.24. The other a Redemption (of us) in Soule and body. Luk. 1.74.] Many leaves would not serve sufficiently to display the vanity of this distinction. First, This de­notes that the Redemption of our soules and bodies was not wrought out for us, which is erroneous; if he import not so much, his distinction is frivolous. Secondly, That de­noteth that the Application of Christs Bloud is not effected or showne till our soules and bodies be glorified, which is false; the giving of any Mercy, the means of Grace, his Patience, is the Application of his Bloud; And if he meane not the former, he weakely expresseth the latter, by the Redemption of us in our soules and bodies. 3. The first he saith is only (for us) when in his sixth particular he produceth Christs Lordship, Patience, Goodnesse of God to men, as this first Redemption, but these are not only for us, but of us, and to us; endlesse are his absurdities, but I close with this other, that Text Rom. 3.24. is abused, that mentioneth not this Phrase (For us,) there­fore serveth him not for his purpose; there is no expression there but what agreeth to the second Redemption, viz. Application, therefore serveth not to prove a discri­mination. I shall use only one more.

4. [The former is affirmed in Scripture to be for all men: Joh. 3.17. The latter is for and to Beleevers only,] To this I Answer.

If he can carry this by Scripture, then his weakenesse appeares in expressing him­selfe so remissely, as to contend in this Chapter only for this, that they are distinct; if the first be for all, the second for Beleevers only, then they are not only distinct, but separable one from the other, and one may be where the other never is; and this is a degree beyond distinction.

2. Whereas he saith, (That the latter, viz. the Application of his Death is only for Beleevers,) how diflonant is it from himselfe and his best friends the Remonst. who unanimous that Remission of Sins and Eternall Salvation is procured for all men, not only for Beleevers? Indeed they say it is only (to them) but (for all,) for if they be confined to Beleevers, not only (to them) in regard of enjoyment, but (for them) also, in regard of procurement, his common Redemption will be but a meere Chy­maera.

3. If he say, That the Impetration or procuring of Remission and Eternall Life be for all and every Son of Adam, then he must prove it by Scripture, that Text, Joh. 3.17. proveth it not, it speakes not of such a Redemption, Salvation, as may be divided from Eternall Life, no nor barely of Impetration, but as it relateth to Appli­cation to follow, as when he saith, I come to save that which was lost, and he shall save his people from their Sins, Math. 1.21. Neither doth the world World there meane [Page] every Son of Adam, but he came to save the World, that is Men living in the World: his inference here from is no plaine Text, but a corrupt reasoning from a cleare Text. Againe, that Text Joh. 3.16. confirmeth me in this Point, that Christ did not procure life for every Son of Adam, because he there saith, it was that only Beleevers might not perish: It saith not that every one might not perish if they beleeve, but that those that beleeve, the number of which was well knowne to him. Now if Christs will was one and concentricall with his Fathers, he procured life for none but Beleevers: So that then not only the Application is to, but the Impetration for Beleevers only, what then becommeth of his Doctrine, That he procured life for all men whether they be­leeve or no? I see not; this is no Scripture Language. So that now having examined his particulars of distinction, and finding them full of confusion, and not distinct enough to be understood, I shall give the Reader a taste of some new Divinity.

1. That Christ dyed for some for whom he did not live againe, as in the first.

2. That he came from the Father for some, for whom he went not to the Father againe, as in the second.

3. That he was abased for some for whom he was not exalted, as in the third.

4. That he shed his Bloud for some for whom he presented not his Bloud as shed, as in the fifth. All these he averreth, in that he saith, the former of all is done for all and every man, the latter only for Beleevers.

Thus have I embowelled the distinction, the Chapter that treateth of it, his expres­sions therein. And little perspicuity or pertinency to the Question can I find there­in, and so confused that I feare few of his Readers can gather from it what he holds, or what they should close withall, neither can any ingenuous man shew what he hath gotten of his Adversary herein; that which is truth in it no man denyeth, yet a miscel­lany of Obscurities, Errours, Contradictions, interwoven, it is the basis of the whole Discourse, therefore I have been more prolix in dissecting it, lest I should over-looke any pertinent truth; (they are so few) tedious I know it must be to them that are verst in more polite Notions; but the Nature of my Antagonist requires it; things of lesse concernment shall be passed over with lesse disquisition; And what he delivers herein appeares to me not to be the meaning of 1 Tim. 2.4, 6. Heb. 2.9. And his Proposition being taken in this sence here delivered, is not made out in those Texts: And what provision he is supplyed with from this distinction so prose­cuted, for the taking downe of the edge of our Arguments, shall be seene in its proper place.

CHAP. III. Of divers ends of Christs Death, and of which is here meant.

THe Author conceiving to find strength from the consideration of the ends of Christs Death, enters this Point, And I confesse it helps much to decide this Controversie, therefore I shall (to my Talent) bend my thoughts to exa­mine what he delivereth herein. He saith thus.

• 1. The first end and that which is generall, and of largest extent was [Page] to be a Ransome, Sacrifice and Propitiation; and this hath three di­stinct ends in it.
  • 1. In respect of God offended, that his Justice might be satisfied.
  • 2. In respect of Jesus Christ, that he might be Lord of all, and have all in his dispose.
  • 3. In respect of Mankind, to take out of the way all that stood be­tweene God and Man, and kept back streames of mercy,
• 2. To seale and confirme the New-Testament of pretious Promises. Math. 26.28. Luk. 22.20.
• 3. To be a witnesse-bearing to the Truth. Joh. 18.37.

Wherein the Authour doth well to pitch upon the first and maine end of Christs Death, (and that in regard of the Creature,) for to treate of intermediate ends would have been but obscure and impertinent to this Point: because when we speake of inter­mediate ends, they are such as are but media, meanes in relation to the first end; but to treate of meanes when the question is of the end, is something preposterous. When we treate of the end of Christs Death, it is presupposed that we mean that which in relation to man is considered under no other Notion but as end, therefore he doth well to speake of a first end; but whether he do so well, to say that that (which he layeth downe) is Christs first end in dying, must be further enquired into.

Now when he saith, (First end,) I hope he meaneth, first in Gods intention, and Christs, for from the intention of Agents is the priority and posteriority of ends dedu­ced. Now I say, [to be a Ransome, a Sacrifice, a Propitiation] are not the first end of Christ in dying, or of God in giving his Son; and this is cleare, in that these all do [Tendore in finem ulteriorem,] Tend to a further end, for he is all these that men might be eternally saved; Himselfe is cleare for this, [His being a Ransome and Propitiation was that all men might be eternally saved: Pag. 18, 19.] And if he did not, Reason would presently convince him, as shall afterwards appeare; these then tending to a further end, are not the first end, in that they tend to a further end, they are meanes, and in so being, they are not first in intention: then should God intend first the meanes, then the end, which is absurd.

Againe, if the Author will have the procuring life and Salvation, and opening a doore, that men only may enter, and to make men salvable only, (for thus he inter­preteth his Phrases of Ransome, Propitiation,) to be the first end in Christ, then I hope he will give us some Scripture that so speaketh: Scripture seemeth to speake otherwise, Joh. 3.17. I came not to condemne but to save. Math. 18.11. He came to save that which was lost. 1 Tim. 1.15. He came to save Sinners; which places I know the Author would thus temper, to make them salvable; but this is an unwarrantable perversion, and all these which he produceth they are but subservient to this first end; as to instance, As God had (out of his free constitution) designed a way of his own dispensations, before man can partake of heaven the Justice of God must be satisfied, Enmity taken away, we Reconciled, Hence this made end of God and Christ in his Death, Col. 1.20. To reconcile us, which suppose Justice satisfied, but this is not wil­led for it selfe but in tendency to a further end, and is not the first end; but that Text gives a further, Ver. 22. To present you holy and unblameable to him.

Againe, That we may be partakers of hapinesse, the hand-writing against us must be blotted out, and every thing that stands crosse must be taken away: So that this [Page] is an end of Christs Death; Col. 2.14. But this was not done, or intended only for it selfe, but in tendency to eternall Salvation, and the actuall enjoyment of it, for only to this is our sinfull estate contrary, and therefore a further end appeares, Cap. 3, 4. to which this serves but as meanes, [Yee shall appeare with him in glory.]

Againe, That men partake of heaven, the staine and power of Sin must be ta­ken away, and we Sanctified, and Regenerate; So that this also is an end of Christs Death, Eph. 5.25, 26. but this not for it selfe, but with a tendency to further end: Ver. 27. that he might present it glorious [...], not [Ʋt sistere possit,] but [Ʋt sisteret,] to cause it to stand before him glorious, denoting that the actuall enjoy­ment of heaven, and as certaine, is his first end.

Againe, That men be glorified, it is requisite that Christ be Lord of all, and have power over all flesh; this therefore is an end of his Death, Rom. 14 9. but this not for it selfe intended, but a tendency to the first end, Joh. 17.2. He gave him power over all flesh that he might give eternall life to as many as thou hast given, [...], It is not [Ʋt dare possit,] but [ut dacet] that he might actually, certain­ly give eternall life. And more intermediate ends may be produced, which may be called ends in regard of his Death, but yet not the first end, but rather as meanes tending to the first end, and so all these three particulars under his generall they all cannot make up a first end, but are as meanes to the first end: Therefore his setting downe them as the first end is not Orthodox.

Againe, That to procure life, that is, that men may have it, is not the end of Christs Death, that is the first end, and maine end: Then it must follow, that though none be actually saved, yet Christ hath his end full and entire, and as much as he desired, this indeed the Remost, say, but I cannot yet see it the Language of Scrip­ture.

Againe, it is a rule that [Acquisito fine quiescit movens,] when any Agent hath attained his end it rests with it, but Christ and God do not rest with a possibility of mans Salvation, or in a doore being opened, but they go on further, Actually to lead into that doore, to invite, sollicite, expostulate, perswade, that they might actually be saved: He saith not, Why O Israel will not ye come into a possibility of Salva­tion? But why will ye dye? Why will ye not be Actually saved? Nay, the Author grants, that he doth not only propound meanes, give the Gospell, and so open a doore by morall swasion, but also overcome and over-power, by Physicall efficiency, the hearts of his Elect, and bring them in to beleeve, and bring them into his King­dome; thus Pag. 120. Now I demand, whether Christ did procure this? Whether Christ and God aimed at this in Christs Death, and so propounded it as an end? If not? Quo pacto is it applyed? Is it not the sprinkling of the Bloud of Jesus? If it be so, then that was not the first and maine end of Christ and God to make Salvation possi­ble, but that Salvation should be certain and Actuall. So that we may see how in con­siderately the Author expresseth himselfe about the ends of Christs Death. My next taske will be to examine what influence these expresses have upon the Question in hand, and also of what ends, whether intermediate, or ultimate, these Texts, 1 Tim. 2.6. Heb. 2.9. treate.

For the first, I conceive that this Treatise of the end of Christ in his Death doth not only not help, but utterly overthroweth his Doctrine. Herein I shall examine, first, whether the maine end (Actuall and certaine Salvation) was intended for every man: Let this be my Query, When Christ gave himselfe, or determined to give him, was it for this end, to make Salvation of every man Actuall and certaine? If it was? Then I say, if all do not come to Salvation, he misseth of his end, which is not [Page] to be appropriated to any rationall Agent, that hath power to do what he willeth, and to bring about his purposes. Herein I suggest to my selfe some Remonst. denying that an Actuall, certaine, and absolute Salvation of any is the end of God or Christ in his Death: as Arminius, [Non actualis peccatorum ablatio, non actualis remissio, non justificatio, In Perk. 77. non actualis horum aut illorum redemptio, quae absque fide & spiritu Christi nemini contingunt, &c. That is, not Actuall Remission, Justification, Re­demption, (so no Salvation) which happen to none without Faith:] or with Corvinus, [Quod ad applicationem salutis attinet non intendit eam pracise & absolute, In Molin. c. 28. Sect. 8. sed volu­it intercedere fidem hominis, As for the Application of Salvation, God willed it not absolutely, because he willed Faith to come betweene, viz. Christs Death and Sal­vation;] For the assertion it selfe, I have proved that the Actuall and certaine en­joyment of heaven is the (finis ultimus) in regard of the Creatures: because all the rest, even Impetration it selfe is but an intermediate end; It remaines that I reassume their reason whereby they prove it is not; and they are unanimous in their reasons, and it is this, Because God willed that men should be saved by Faith; I shall not ex­pect to vye Authority with them; whose Learning and moderation I may admire; yet I must freely accknowledge that the strength of that Reason is not cleare to me, no more then this. A man intendeth not a thing absolutely, because he will effect it (per m [...]dia) by meanes; or this, A man doth not absolutely intend to dwell in a house, because he intended to build it first, or being built, to cleanse and garnish it first; but these are not valid, because he may intend to act the meanes, and then why he may not absolutely will to act the end I see not; so if God intend absolutely to give and worke faith, which is the meanes of Salvation, then he may be said to will Salva­tion of men absolutely, though he willeth Faith to intervene.

Againe, I can suggest to my selfe my Antagonist answering thus: [As for his Elect he propounds their certaine and actuall Salvation as his end, but for the rest, His end is that they may be saved.] Therefore to engage with this, for that is my taske to encounter my Antagonist. For the rest of men that are not Elect, what is his end? That there may be a salvability, or possiblenesse with God of their Salvation? This I have before shewed cannot be the end of Christ to procure it, because such was without Christs Death, and that he might do it too and yet be just if he pleased; no man will purchase his owne Land, nor Christ by his Bloud procure that which all­waies was without that procurement: I am yet to learne that any thing obligeth God to punish Sin without satisfaction, but his free constitution and determination, whereby he becometh a Law to himselfe: But God no where hath revealed that he willeth, that without satisfaction mans Salvation shall not be possible; indeed, he hath tyed himselfe not to save actually without satisfaction.

Againe secondly, I desire a proofe from Scripture of this twofold end of Christ, one for his Elect, that their Salvation may be certaine, a second for all the rest, that their Salvation may be possible, which if he can do he will performe a great taske.

Thirdly, I demand how this end can stand with that Decree of God, and that from Eternity, of giving those that are not Elect up to destruction, for contempt of means (which he foreseeth) as the Author averreth Pag. 120. leaving no way in Gods purpose for the possibility of their Salvation? Now if Christ propounded this as an end to procure life for them, how is his Will one with his Fathers?

Fourthly, Concerning the possibility of mens Salvation, I know he fetcheth it from the meanes of life propounded, it is to be had upon condition, Beleeve and thou shalt be saved. Now if Christs end, first and chiefe end, was this, that man might have life, and misse of it upon unbeleefe, and so be dealt withall according to the [Page] Tenour of the Gospell, or as the Author saith, [That he might condemne or pardon as he saw [...]t, Pag. 17.] Then it will follow, that Condemnation will have equall share in his end with Salvation; but this is no Scripture Language, which saith, I came not to condemne the world, Joh. 3.17.

But if this draw more from the Author, I shall answer more, by this it seemes not probable that the maine end viz. the certaine and actuall enjoyment of life, was not in Christ for all, and every Son of Adam.

Againe, Let us see whether those intermediate ends which he reckoneth up often, can be said to be for all, and every Son of Adam; and herein we must consider that the satisfaction of Justice, taking away Sin, abolishing Death, slaying enmity, be­comming Lord, these are as meanes conducing to that end, Now ends are desired for themselves, meanes but for the end, certainly then they run in an even aequi­page; those things which are willed but for another thing, are willed but in the same respect with the other, for time, place, person, manner, for if he should will the meanes to more then he willeth the end, then his will must be carried on the meanes without an end, or stronglier to the meanes then to the end, both which are absurd, and so Christ be said to satisfie his Fathers Justice, to take away Sin, to take away all that stood crosse to our Salvation, to abolish enmity, and that at so deare a rate, when he never intended to bring in any to partake of life; which cannot, I conceive, be received but with detriment to Christ in his unspeakeable wisdome. No neither is Im­petration the first end. (As I conceive) the Question may be asked, Why Christ did Impetrate? And if the Answer be given, it sheweth plainly that the Impetration is not the first end: If we say that Christ impetrated, that it might be applyed, the Remonst. do not oppose, but leave it in dubio. An applicatio fit Impetrationis finis non dispute. Corv. in Mol. Cap. 28. Sect. 8. Nay, all that he produceth against its being the abso­lute and procise end, is this, that he intended Faith to come betweene, Finem istum non esse absolute intentum sed ita ut ad applicationem requisita est conditio. Which in my judgement, do not se invicem destruere, for Faith may be requisite and yet the Application absolutely intended.

I might take every particular by it selfe, and dwell upon the absurdities that at­tend every one of them, but I must not be so voluminous; As when he saith, [The first end was to take away Sin before God for men, Pag. 16.] And this he saith is for all men, every Son of Adam: both false. It is not the first end, for may not the Que­stion be asked, Why he taketh away Sin from before God? The Answer, if he will give it, confuteth him, and telleth him there is a further end: neither is it done for all, the expression it selfe is rude and absurd (to take away Sin before God for man,) the word (to take away) must have a terme from which, and that must be either man or God: And can he take away Sin from before God, or from Man, and Man not be possest of Justification? this is a mystery; Is it not all one for Sin to be taken away from before God, and for it not to be found when it is sought for? Jer. 50.20. But is this the priviledge of all, or of Gods reserve only? Let the Author in his next give me one place and prove it too, where this or any of the attendants is said to be done for every Son of Adam? Many things I leave to the intelligent Reader to save me a labour in; I conceive that this consideration of the end of Christ helpeth him little, I shall examine if his next do more.

CHAP. IIII. Of the divers manner of mentioning these ends in Scripture.

HE thinketh to extract much from the divers manner of propound­ing the Death of Christ with the ends of it; as in that some­times more ends are joyned, sometimes one only: Also the Ransome is considered as in it selfe made, or as made known, or as men are convinced by it: Also, it is delivered in a diffe­rent Person, sometimes in first, sometimes second, sometimes third Chapter: These are the Allegations of his whole Chap­ter; but what matter there is in all these I shall Examine.

[Sometimes that end of his Death which was for Propitiation, or Ransome, is coupled with the end which was to testifie love, and faith­fulnesse in his Ministration, propounded for our example, and then such generall words, as [world,] [all men,] are not used, because his Mi­nistration on earth did not reach to all the world.]

1. This seemes to affirme that the Ransome and Ministration of Christ are di­stinct ends and not coincident, which I see not cleare, seeing his giving life a Ran­some is the greatest peece of Service that he did for us, in doing this he did all: And this was not only one, but the greatest peece of his Ministration. In that our Saviour saith, [I came to serve, and give my life a Ransome for many;] He doth not in his latter words discover a distinct end, but rather it is an explanation of the service of which he speaketh; to any eye it may appeare, that to [Serve,] and to [give his life a Ransome,] speake one and the same thing: Christs words otherwhere seemeth to cleare it, Luk. 22.27. Having eaten the Supper with his Disciples, taking his last leave, bequeathing himselfe to his Crosse, he saith, (I am as he that serveth,) which to me referreth to his Death that was shortly to ensue; And do not the Apostles words cleare it, Phil. 2.6, 7, 8. where he makes the Death of Christ, and his being obedient to the Death of the Crosse, the explanation of his being a Servant? Nay, do not the Authors words cleare it: He saith, Pag. 21. [His faithfulnesse in Ministration is set downe as an example to us to lay downe our lives for the Brethren: 1 Joh. 3.16.] Now what is that which moves us to lay downe our lives for the Brethren all along in Scripture, is it not Christs laying downe his life? Yea, that Text plainly speakes of it as this Argument to move us; whereby it appeares, that to serve, and to give his life a Ransome, are one, and not distinct ends, therefore his expresses are not consonant to truth: As if he testified greater love and faithfulnesse, or more preva­lently moved us to give our lives for the Brethren, in any thing than in this giving his life a Ransome.

[Page]2. Whereas he saith, [Such generall words are not used because his Ministration reaches not to all.] This is nobis causam tradere, to give us the Question: If his giving his life a Ransome was his serving, and his serving reach not to all, how can the other? where is his Doctrine then? And till he can prove that his serving, and his giving his life a Ransome are distinct, I shall accept his position, viz. his Ministration reached not to all the world, so neither his giving his Life a Ran­some.

[Sometimes that end which was for Ransome, is coupled together with that end which was for sealing the New-Testament, which be­long not to all men, but his chosen ones, that have partaken of his hea­venly Call; and then such generall words as cannot in any sense be appropriated to some particular, as (world) (all men) are not used, nor yet such a word as may not be applyed so generally, but so as his word may be applyed to either or both senses as occasion shall serve. Hence Math. 26.28. This is my Bloud of the New-Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of Sins,]

1. Whereas he speaketh of a [New-Testament, and the sealing thereof, which belongeth not to all;] either I understand him not, or he understandeth not him­selfe: First, I understand not whether he meaneth not the Testament it selfe, or the sealing thereof belongs not to all: for he loveth to lurke in ambiguities, (though but poor shelter,) If he meane the latter, then he intimateth that the Covenant is not sealed to so many as it is made, which is not probable: If he meane the first, I am yet to seeke what he meaneth by the New-Testament; if I understand him, he meaneth nothing but the new Covenant promised to Abraham, and Adam, and preached by Christ and his Apostles. Now that Covenant and Testament are Synonimous is cleare from Scripture, Heb. 8. in many places mentioneth the Old and New-Testament, in 8, 9, 10. verses, which allude to Jer. 31.31, 32, 33. but there the Text runneth Covenant, not Testament; Nay, some Translations read Heb, 8.8, 9, 10. Covenant, some read Testament; where ever the word Covenant or Testament is used, it is by the word [...], So Matth. 26.28. it is [...], And Gal. 4.24. some read it two Testa­ments, but it is [...], And in that Text cited by him Heb. 9.14, 15. Mediatour of the New-Testament, yet it is [...]. So it is cleare that Covenant and Testament is all one. Indeed every Covenant is not a Testament, but in this case every Covenant that God makes with us is made in Christ, and sealed with the death of the Covenant-maker, therefore a Testament. And this appeares by his own words, [All which being by Covenant,Pag 20. or as in a Will and Testament plainely re­corded, are called the New Testament.] Now if I understand him in all this, he speaketh thus much, that [The new Covenant belongs not to all, but to his chosen ones;] but herein I thinke he doth not well understand himselfe. Now that he thus meaneth appeareth by his own words, Pag. 20. [For such as beleeve, and so come in to Christ, there are for them many gracious Promises from Christ and his Father, contained in one generall, viz. Eternall life:] But here he engageth the Remonst. against him, they contend that God doth (Novum foedus inire cum onibus,) Enter into a new treaty with every man; and Corvinus labours in vaine when he thus pro­veth,In Molin, c. 29. Sect. 15. [Quare quum primum foedus pertinuerit ad omnes quia cum primo homine ut ge­ner is bumani stirpe fuit initum, oportet ut eadem sit ratio secundi foederis;] That is, As the first Covenant was to all men, seeing made to the first Man, as the Stock or Root [Page] of all; So it is requisite it should be in the second;] & it hath hitherto been the taske of the contra-Remonstrants to prove that the new Covenant belongeth only to some, as appeares in that from Gen 3.Ibid. Molin pleades it to be peculiar, but Corvinus answereth, [Merito dicimus esse generalem quum non probas eam restringi.] But now the Author saves us that labour, we have it ex confesso; but that I may in a few words present him with the consequences of this his Assertion, I would have him shew me what is the new Covenant? I know he will say the Promise of eternall life; so he intimateth Pag. 20 and of those things that conduce to it: Then I aske how this life is promised, absolutely, or upon condition? I know he will say upon the condition of Faith, Be­leeve and thou shalt be saved: and so all the conducements to eternall life, and life it selfe, as Pag. 20. are by the new Covenant tyed to Faith in Jesus Christ. Now let him tell me, are not all under this Covenant? Do not all come under the Noti­on of salvability by vertue of this Covenant, because they may have life upon beleeving? Are not all under the Command of beleeving? And doth the Com­mand go without the Promise? Let him stand to his owne principles, and speake out. Can every man be said to be Reconciled, Redeemed, Justified, Saved, if they be not under such a Covenant or Promise of having Actuall Reconciliation, Re­demption, Justification, Salvation, if they beleeve? What is that new Treaty that he speakes of Pag. 17. into which God brings all men? Nay, this overthrow­eth his whole Discourse. What Gospell is there to be preached to them that are not under the Covenant? The Gospell saith, Beleeve and live; but is this to be prea­ched to them that are not under the Covenant of having life upon Faith? These if he be fixed to his owne principles are of some force. It is not enough to say that the Co­venant belongs only to Beleevers, that they shall not perish, for he holds that yet every particular it is true of them that they shall have life (and it is so promised) upon beleeving, as he urgeth, Pag. 130. [It is so a truth for mankind, that it is a truth for them all, that whoever of them beleeve shall not perish but have everlasting life.] And what is this but to be under the Covenant? The businesse must come to this issue, that there are two new Covenants, the one under which the Elect is, the other under which the rest are, which will be hard to prove; or else that all men are under the Covenant of Grace; or thirdly, that God hath not entered into a new Covenant and Treaty by Christ with every man, according to which God may conferre and deny life, both which latter are dissonant to himselfe, and destructive to his cause: This I say, not to oppose his Assertion, viz. [That the New-Testament belongs not to all:] If it had not been his, it should have been mine; But I herein discover, when a man understandeth not himselfe, how soone he may cut his throat with his owne knife, and strangle his opinion with his owne words.

2. Whereas he saith, [Belong not to all, but to his chosen ones] he is here so confu­sed and indistinct, because his chosen ones may be all men in the Authors Divinity, for he makes an Election to Service, with which all are Elected to Service, Pag. 118.

3. Whereas he explaineth (Chosen ones) by [partaking of the heavenly Call.] Herein he needeth an Interpreter,Pag. 9. because in many places of his Discourse he con­tendeth for this, that all men partake of the heauenly Call, as [Thus he calls in some degree or other all the Sons of men;] And to this end, that they might be con­vinced of Sin: Pag. 23. There is a difference between partaking of the Call, and the efficacie thereof, in being by it wrought upon to beleeve; the latter I confesse he saith is not to all, but the first is, if he divine right; Therefore for him to say, [To his chosen ones that partake of his heavenly Call,] unlesse he will have all to be chosen, involveth himselfe, and if he will, he doth no lesse for to say (it belongs not to all, [Page] but to his chosen ones, and those that partake of the heavenly Call,) which may take in (all) is absurd: But any may see he seekes so to temper his Pen, that his Reader may mould him either way according to his owne temper, but this becomes impostors rather then those that pretend they preach Christ.

4. Whereas he saith, [And then such generall words as (world,) (all men,) which cannot be (in any sence) applyed to some only, are not used;] wherein he tacitely implyeth that the words [World,] [All men,] are never taken for some only; The proper decision of which will fall in another place; therefore I shall only put him in mind of his owne words, Pag 30. where he saith, [The Phrase (All men) is used so, as it cannot be meant of Gods people, good men, hearers of the Word, &c. nor the Elect of God.] Certainely then if all the Elect of God, and all Beleevers, and Hearers of the Word of God be excluded, this Phrase is to be meant but of some: and now his taske will be to give a good Reason why the words (All men,) may not meane, all the Good, excluding the Bad, as well as all the Bad, excluding the Good; the propriety of Language is indifferent to either; Nay, shame will not suffer him to prevaricate, but he confesseth Pag. 31. [That there is an All of upright and Belee­vers,] as 1 Cor. 4.5. Every man shall have praise of God, as well as an All of Bad, 2 Thes. 2.3. So that I need not oppose him in his Assertion, he doth it effectually for me himselfe.

5. Whereas he saith, [He so speaketh as the words may be taken in either or both senses, as occasion shall serve,] Is an affirmation concerning Scripture beyond all president, that one word (like Rebecca her wombe) should containe in the bowels of it two such different senses as (All,) and (but some only,) and that to serve two Sen­tences, as men shall refer it to one or the other, this is to make his owne Calumny that he groundlesly laid on our backs to be his own burthen: that is, to make the Word of God like the Heathen Oracles, true whether way soever we take them; neither is there any need in this place so to torture the words of Scripture, for both Phrases, viz. (Bloud in the New-Testament,) and [Shed for Remission of Sins,] will both agree in (many) taken in one sence, and that taken as signifying only some. But whether all this tendeth, it is not easie to determine, but I conjecture it is this, to prove that where he speakes of Christ Death, and useth this word (Many) it is no argument against him, because (All) are (Many,) and the word (Many) may comprehend (All) Thus the Remonst, speake, and I suppose he intendeth: but then he must know this is brought but as a probable Argument, that seeing the Scripture saith (All,) some­times (Many;) it is probable that (All) is expounded by (Many,) and herein it is still in force, that seeing more places may be brought (yet hundreds to one) where the word Many excludes All, then where it taketh in All, we are to follow most frequent acceptation of Scripture unlesse we find some let from other Scriptures, or the Analo­gy of Faith.

Again, He urgeth something from the various consideration of the Ransome, thus.

1. [As made in Christ with for God men, without the knowledg of men.

2. As made knowne in the Gospell, that they may be convinced.

3. As men thereby wrought upon to receive him, and submit to him, and beleeve on him; the two first are common and generall, the last pe­culiar not common.]

Here we have many words to little purpose; in this Controversie ransome was never yet taken in any other sence then as made in Christ, and made known in the Gospell: [Page] It was never yet questioned whether the Application of it was common, or whether every man was wrought upon by the Gospell to receive him, therefore he might have reserved his decision in these words, [The last is peculiar not common,] till it had been seasonable. And this he saith is common to all, and every Son of Adam, but he proveth it not.

2. As for the second, viz. (The making of it known in the Gospell,) he affirmeth it to be generall, and done to every Son of Adam, but he produceth not one Text that proveth it: Yea, he elsewhere affirmeth, that every man hath so much light as that he may be thereby convinced, because he hath not beleeved, as P. 23. But this wanteth its proofe from the Word of God: Certainely if some shall be judged without the Law, some shall be judged without the Gospell, for those that are judged without Law, are judged meerely by the light of Nature, but such are judged without Go­spell, for Nature meerely so, discovereth no Gospell, and why those that never knew it a duty to beleeve, can be said to have so much light as to convince them for not be­leeving, I see not. Certainely that which doth not convince me that it is my duty to beleeve, cannot convince me it is my Sin not to beleeve; the Remonst. durst not rise so high as to say that every man had so much light;Arm. in Pork. 158, 159. but thus, he either hath or might have had, if he had used naturals well, or had it not been for their Predecessors that refused Grace and supernaturall Light, as [Causa cur Deus non omnibus & sin­gulis hominibus Christum revelet, haec est, quod parentes illorum verbum Evangelii repudiaverunt.] And if instead of proving the third not to be common, (which he un­dertaketh) he had proved the former two to be common to, and for every man, he had better quit himselfe. As for that Expression, [He shall so farre see the travell of his Soule,] argues that either he seeth not some part of his travell, because he in­serts that diminutive (so far;) or else that Christ in his bitter Passion travelled with nothing but this, that men might be convinced that Christ is their Lord, either in Salvation or Condemnation: both which are absurd. Now by this distinction he hath gotten nothing, because that the hearts of all men are wrought on by the Gospell to receive Christ, no man hath said: and that the Ransome was made in Christ with God for every man, or discovered to every man and Son of Adam, no man (that I know of) ever yet proved.

Having dispatched a twofold diversity, he comes to third, and more elaborate, but as little successefull, and that is from the diversity of Person, and he saith thus.

[The Ransome in himselfe [as the Creation of men by Christ] is mentioned diversly in respect of Person.] Herein I may not passe by his falla­cious jumbling together Creation and Redemption, which are not of equall latitude and extent, which I should not have noted here (seeing there is a particular Chapter for it,) but that his fallacy herein may dazle the eyes of his non-discerning Readers, therefore I only now say thus much, that betwixt Creation and Redempti­on there is no proportion nor Argument validly drawne, either Negative or Affirma­tive; as if all those were Redeemed that were created; Certainly if Creation should be the measure of Redemption, then all Creatures should be Redeemed, yea devils; and those Creatures that had the preheminence in the Creation should have it also in Redemption, but we see it in both contrary, in that the fallen Angels are not redee­med at all; and these two [He hath Created all things, Col. 1.16.] and [He hath recon­ciled all things.] Ver. 20. Are not of the same latitude: For take the latter in the largest sense you can desire, yet it will come short of the former; in that he crea­ted all things, yea Thrones, Principallities, even Angels that fell: but no Scripture [Page] saith that he reconciled them. Besides whom he Reconciled he dyed for; but it is no Scripture Language to say that he dyed for all things, or for all that he Created, but only for man, in so much as he assumed no other but mans nature; of this more in its place, only this I desire, that he will stand to his principles, Pag. 31. [That the mat­ter treated of alters the sence of the same words,] and so from Creation to Redemp­tion, the Argument will not follow; this being considered I proceed.

[Sometimes in the first Person singular, concerning the speaker, Gal. 1.20. Who gave himselfe for me. Job 10.8. Thy hands have made me; no reasonable understanding can inferre hence, therefore no other.] The drift of this is to take away the force of those places, Joh. 10. I lay downe my life for my sheepe. Ephes. 5.25. Gave himselfe for his Church; and this Allegation is framed to his hand in the Conference at Hague, where the Remonst. seeking to evade such Texts, answer thus, true, [Mortum est pro ovibus, pro populo, Co [...] Hog. 1 [...] anne ergo pro solis ovibus, pro solo populo? sic Gal. 2.20. Paulus dixit Christus tradidit se pro me, anne licebit concludere ergò pro nemine praeterea?] That is, [Christ dyed for his Sheep, for his People, but will it therefore follow that he dyed for his Sheep and People only? so Paul saith Gal. 2.20. Christ gave himselfe for me, will it follow that he gave him­selfe for none besides?] And is not this the current in which the Author runneth? But let the Author know that still those Texts are valid to prove that Christ dyed for his Sheep only, for we must know there is a difference betwixt Individuals, and a species or kind in this way of arguing, as when we say, [Petrus est rationalis,] and when we say, [homo est rationalis:] It is one thing to say [Peter is rationall,] another to say [Man is rationall] In the first, it is not Peter only, but in the other, it is man only; to instance in that Text Gal. 2.20. he saith, I am Crucified with Christ, and I live by Faith in the Son of God, none will inferre hence, that only Paul was, and did so; but if he had said, Beleevers are Crucified with Christ, and live by Faith, then I hope it is as valid as if he had said Beleevers only. Now Peter is rationall because a man, and Rationality agreeth first to man, and then to Peter because a man, so though not Peter only, yet Man only is rationall: So Paul is redeemed be­cause a Sheepe, but being Redeemed, agrees first to the Sheep of Christ, then to Paul being one of them: Therefore though not Paul only, yet for his Sheepe only, and this place contradicteth it not. And if the Authors understanding had been but of a reasonable size he might have seen this.

[Sometimes in the first Person Plurall, where the Speaker couples those he speakes to with himself, as he delivered him up for us all, Rom. 8, 31. Propitiation for our Sins. 1 Joh. 2.1. No right reasoning can infer hence, therefore no other.] To this I answer, That seeing the Apostles in their particular Epistles wrote to particular Beleevers, as in Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, those Expressions do not argue that he gave himselfe for no other Beleevers then those to whom he wrote, yet herein he toucheth not the force of the fore alleadged places: for (this notwithstanding) yet those places speaking of his dying for his Sheep which comprehendeth all Beleevers, Such places may be understood as if he had said for his Sheepe only. I remember not where his cited Texts are produced by us as argu­ments on our side; yet there is more in them then he discovereth or refelleth: As for that Text Rom. 8.32. It is plaine he wrote to Beleevers, and Saints, Rom. 1.7. Now the Question is, whether he speake those things of them as (Men,) or as Beleevers? As to instance, [If God be for us who can be against us?] Ver. 31. Let the Author [Page] tell me, Is it the Interrogation of every man or men, or of Beleevers as so? this will de­cide it, to consider, whether the first words [If God be one our side] be to be taken Hypothetically, or Categorically? It cannot be taken Hypothetically, only upon supposition, if God be on our side who is against us: For thus Reprobate men, de­sperate devils, condemned sinners, may say, if God were on our side who could be against us? but certainely there is more in the Apostles words then what the Devils may say; no certainly the words are to be meant as affirming that God was for them, therefore certainly concluding none could be against them, and for this I find the authority of a strong Remonst. and one of our Authors Judgement, who calleth these Texts [Impenetrabile sanctorum scutum] an impregnable shield of Saints, not men as men, [...]orn. a lap. [...]n locum. and he giveth the sense thus, [Quis daemonum vel hominum insurgat ut no­stram impediat salutem, cum Deus eam cu [...]at per aeternam praedestinationis propositum, vocationem, justificationem & glorificationem suam.] But if he did not so say, the Text doth evince it; seeing all the after particulars, as Ver. 32, 33, 34. runne all positively, he hath done so and so, therefore who shall condemne: Now let us con­sider, can Beleevers, or all men generally say, as Vers. 31, 32, 33, 34. who can be against us? Who shall lay any thing to our charge? who shall condeme? What shall seperate? we are more then Conquerours over all those; Certainly only Beleevers and (qua tales) can draw such conclusions.

2. Verse 32. saith, [Shall he not much more give us all things,] which containe all things necessary to Salvation, and Salvation it selfe; But is this the deduct that every man may make, [If he spared not his owne Son, much more shall he not give us all things?] Their owne principles admit it not; therefore it is cleare that when he saith, He gave him up for (us,) much more will he give (us) all things with him, he meaneth himselfe, and them to whom he wrote, as Beleevers, so as to take in all Be­leevers, and (as Beleevers,) and it must follow, that such things do agree omnibus, yet solis, to all, yet only to Beleevers.

3. If he had taken the words (us) in the former verses, in such a Latitude as that it might take in every man, and Son of Adam, Certainly then his query in the 33. ver. [Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect?] had been short of his pur­pose, and very impertinent; from that it is cleare, that by (us) he meanes Beleevers, (for so Elect and Beleevers are termes Convertible, that is Elect, and such as are, or shall be Beleevers, are one in signification;) and he seemes not to stay his Expresses in their Persons, but rather their condition and qualification, which being con­sidered, let us come to right reasoning, which the Author pleadeth much for, but affordeth as little as may be; Let but the Author take any Expression where he useth the word (us) from the 31. to the 34. Verse, or elsewhere in the Chapter, for it is often repeated, and tell we whether the Apostle doth not plainly define (not how many, but) what kind of men they are, for whome such things are done, and of whom such things were spoken, as [...]o instance, [What shall we say then?] [...]hat indeed doth not number the Individuals, but it defineth the condition, and that with a discri­mination, viz. none but Beleevers, and they all may make such conclusions. So in this, [God being for us who can be against us?] This argueth not that only them to whom he wrote, were out of the verge of any adverse thing, it clearely affirmeth that only Beleevers are in such a condition as nothing shall prevaile against them. So in this, [He delivered him up for us all.] This denoteth not the precise number, nor argueth that he was given up only for them to whom he wrote being Romans, but thus far it is firme that he was given up for Beleevers only, and this [Page] sufficeth us. So that when the Author saith, [No right reasoning can inferre hence therefore no other,] It is true if he meane no other Individuals, for he was so given up for them, as that he was also for all other Beleevers; but right rea­soning may inferre that he was given up for none other but Beleevers; and where is the obliquity of this reasoning?

[Sometimes in the second Person with personall Application, as my Bloud which is shed for you, Luk. 22.20. 1 Pet. 1.18 19, &c. Reason must yield, such sayings shew not how many he redeemed.] This is of the same nature with the former, therefore the same answer is to be given; Th [...]se Texts shew not the precise number, but the condition of them that are so redeemed, as that Text, 1 Pet. 1.18, 19. [Ye were redeemed from vaine conversation,] none ever said that this Text doth shew the number of them that were redeemed from vaine con­versations, for many Gentiles were to whom he wrote not; neither hath any denyed but that this limiteth the condition, that only Beleevers are Redeemed from vaine Conversations, as in the next verse, [And he was manifested in the last times for you.] It doth not shew for how many, but yet it doth for whom he was revea­led, viz. Beleevers, as appeares in the next words, [Who by him beleeve in God,] hereby any may see through those mists which he casteth before cleare truths.

[Sometime in the third Person with speciall Application, and that sometimes to the better part, as Joh. 10.15. (I lay down my life for my Sheep,) Sometimes to the worse part, as 1 Cor. 8.11. (the weake bro­ther for whom Christ dyed,) no sober mind will say that any of these alone resolve the Question for how many Christ dyed.]

1. For his expresses, I demand why he putteth a weake Brother in the number of the worse part? methinkes the name of Brother (though weake) should have got him a place in the better ranke.

2. As for his assertion, [No sober mind will say that any of these alone shew for how many he dyed [It is weake and impertinent, we never yet at­tempted to define the precise number, but the condition of them for whom he dyed, we say only for Beleevers, we meddle not for how many Beleevers, or Sheepe he dyed. Now if he deny that the Text, Joh. 10.15. shews for whom only he dyed, he hath drunke so deepe in Arminius his Cup, that he is not sober yet; and to cleare it, let us view expressions of the like nature, that in this we may follow the genious of Scripture; Rom. 4.11. Abraham is there called the Father of them that beleeve. Now doth not this denote that he is the father of none else? as that Phrase (of being Father) is there meant, we must so grant it, if we compare it with Gal. 3.7.29. And in that it saith he is the Father of them that beleeve, it is exclusive of such as beleeve not.

[John 3.16. He sent his Son that those that beleeve might not perish but have everlasting life.] Let the Author tell me, doth not this Text so confine eternall life to Beleevers, as that none but Beleevers shall have it?

[Ezek. 34.11. I will search my Sheep and bind them up, and bring them againe,] doth not this so confine these to his Sheep as that he will do them to none else?

[Matth. 25.33. He setteth his Sheepe on his right hand.] Is not this cleare that he setteth none but his Sheep on the right hand? Nay, in this Chapter, take any [Page] verse or part of a verse where the word Sheepe is, where they are said to do any thing for him, or Christ to do any thing for them, and tell me if such be not exclusive of all other, as firmly as if the word (only) had been exprest; as my Sheepe here my voice; He calleth his shape by name; his sheepe follow him; I know my sheepe; doth not all this speak thus much, that none but Sheepe heare his voice, he calleth none by name and leadeth them out but Sheep, none but Sheep follow him, he knoweth none but Sheep? for of others he saith, I know you not, nay, in that Phrase, [The good Shepheard layeth downe his life for his Sheep] doth it not exclude all that are not his Sheepe? doth any Shepheard venture his life in the behalfe of the Woolfe, or any Sheep that is not under his charge? Now seeing this Phrase runnes so in so many places in that Chapter, I say that no sober mind will say that just in this verse it should admit such a latitude as that he may be there said to lay downe for any but his Sheep, such ex­pressions in Scripture have Materiam necessariam, and [...], the termes are convertible. But that I may cleare it fully, in the same section there is something that will seeme repugnant to this, and the objection may be thus framed.

[It cannot be meant so as if Christ dyed for none but his Sheep, because the Scrip­ture saith, he dyed for some that may perish, 1 Cor. 8.11. &c. And thus the Armini­ans in the Conference at Hague object, Non pro ovibus solis, quia Paulus dicit pro me se tradidit, sed non pro illo solo, ac Scriptura testatur Christum mortuum pro eo cui contingit perdi & qui velox judicium sibi accersunt. 1 Cor. 8.11. 2 Pet. 2.2.] Which though it be unworthy of such objectours, because the argument is weake according to their owne principles; for Christ may dye for his Sheepe only, and yet dye for them that may perish, because with them this is truth, that they that are sheepe may perish if Corvinus be right,In Molin. c. 21. Sect. 6. when he saith, [Justificati possunt reprobari,] But it is worthy an Answer from us because we hold no such thing; but this Obiter.

To answer to 1 Cor. 8.11. whence our Author would prove that our weake may pe­rish for whom Christ dyed.

1. Was it so, this would not disprove that Christ dyed for his Sheepe only, only it would averre that some for whom Christ dyed may perish; for certainly in that he calleth him here a Brother, he granteth him a Sheep, he should have produced a place that he dyed for some that are not sheepe.

2. But no such things follow from this Text, it questions, Shall he perish? And commandeth, Let him not perish, but it affirmeth nothing that he may or may not. Now we must be wary what Enunciatives we deduce from Intergatories or Manda­tories: Suppose the Text had gone further,, even to an affirmation, and said, [Thou hast caused him to perish for whom Christ dyed,] this would not argue any effect to be transient into the Patient, but to be with the Agent as if it had been done, as Heb. 6.6. [Seeing they crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh:] This argueth no re-action upon the body of Christ in heaven; but that a fresh they brought the guilt of that Act upon them, in that they testifie they would crucifie if oportunity served. So Matth 5.28. He that looketh on a woman to lust [...] he hath commit­ted adultery, this doth not argue any actuall deflouring, this cannot be meerly by the eye of another, that would be a mans or womans inevitable misery to be in­volved in the guilt of anothers obliquity, yeelding neither direct nor indirect concurence: But it meaneth for his part he hath done that which is before God Adultery, having gone so farre in the fact as opportunity will give leave; so in this case (destroy not thy Brother,) argues not that a Brother may perish Actually, but that a man by offensive and scandalous walking may bring the guilt of a brothers destruction on him, because such an one that will needlesly be a scandall to his Bro­ther, [Page] doth not much care though his Brother perish, As for that Text, 2 Pet. 2.1. I might produce many expositions that are given to it, and all with great probability, any of which shew the weakenesse of his reasoning: but herein I am no way inga­ged thereto. If our Author will but consider that the question is, whether Christ purchased life and Salvation for his Sheepe only? we affirme it, he denyeth it upon this ground, because he (bought) others; but this is a weake Inference, he bought them, therefore he purchased Eternall life for them: Emption doth no way suppose Redemption, he may buy them into his dispose and be their Lord, and never intend eternall life for them.

[Sometimes in the third Person generall without any application re­straining, as to be the Saviour of the world: 1 Joh. 4.14. He dyed for all: 2 Cor. 5.14, 15. And such sayings fully answer the Question, for how many Christ dyed; the like may be said, how many have sinned, shall dye, rise againe.] That such generall termes are used I grant, that therein it is shewes for whom, (when he saith for how many, I thinke he mistaketh, for from thence hee cannot give mee the number) I grant, but that there is a further thing contained in these generalls than was in the former, I deny, the Apostles (All) and yet expressions lesse generall are equipollent as I have shewen, and after shall. And whereas he croudes that expression, [He hath dyed for all,] among these, All have sinned, All must dye, All must rise, as if the word All must have the same signi­fication in all them, is fallacious, and against his owne Judgement he saith that the same Phrase used about divers things hath not the same sense, so Pag. 31. [The Scrip­ture speaking on divers occasions, of divers Persons, to divers purposes, &c. Take the words (All men,) (Every man,) in a scanter or larger sense▪] he must not then blame us if we swallow not that downe, which he hath not the immodesty to owne, though much advantagious to his cause. And whereas he saith, [These generall places are not to be opposed by those with restrictive application.] True, but they are to be explained by them, that they are expositours one of another; we need not doubt but the generall cannot expound particulars, but the particulars may the generall, and that 1 Tim. 2.6. Heb. 2.9. speake generally I grant, but that they settle us in the sense without comparing with other places I question: So in all this what he hath strengthned himselfe, or weakened us, let any judge.

CHAP. V. Of divers waies of propounding the Death of Christ in Scripture, and how here in 1 Tim. 2.6. Heb. 2.9.

HE begins with such waies of propounding, as (he saith) do not shew for how many Christ dyed.

1. [Sometimes for an example to Beleevers to follow in love, and as a motive thereto, Eph. 5.1, 2.] This is a truth, but then let us consider the manner of propounding, when the Apostle propounds the duty of love, we may assure our selves he useth the most forcible arguments, and that would [Page] be the great love of God, for certaine it is, the greater the love of God appeares to us, the more forcible argument it is to love others; but in our Authors judgement, the love of God is then magnified when it appeares to be to all and every man; there­fore certainly the Apostle would have used this argument if it had been truth that Christ gave himselfe for every Son of Adam. When our Saviour exhorteth to love of Enemies (though a sufficient argument he might have had from the love of God to some being enemies) he useth this argument, because in truth he might, that Gods love is to all, Sun shineth on just and unjust, Math 5.44, 45. Then did he magnifie the goodnesse of God: Certainly then if it had been so that Christ had given him­selfe for all, he would have expressed it, as the most forcible argument of love.

[If the love be of Beleevers one to another, then he thus sets it forth, as having loved us.] True, but then we must consider what kind of love it is that he exhorteth to, it is not such as is common to all with Beleevers, but a love peculiar to Beleevers: Eph. 5 1, 2. Walke in love one to another; we are to beare some de­gree of love to all as to compassionate them, but inward love of complacency we owe only to the Saints. Col. 1.4. Now let us consider what is a sutable argument to move to this, a love that is common to all, or a peculiar love? Certainly a common love cannot be a fit argument to move to a speciall love, it seemes consonant to reason, that as it was a peculiar love he exhorted them to, so it was a peculiar love he exhor­ted them by. Now if he exhort them by a peculiar love, and this love is limited to, and exprest by, his giving himselfe for them, it cannot be meant of such a giving for them that is common to all with them.

[If the love be to be enlarged to any relation, as Husband and Wife, then thus; hath loved his Church and given himselfe for it, Eph. 5.25.] True, But let us consider that the love of Husbands is to be such to their Wives as excludeth love to any other; Then certainly the love by which he moveth to it is such as is to h [...]s Church and no other: for that love which is common to all cannot be a fit argument to a peculiar love to our Wives only; he saith not, Husbands love your Wives, for God is good, he loveth all, causeth Sun to shine on good and bad, then might a man thus argue.

I must love my Wife as Christ loved his Church: But Christ loved his Church so as that he loved every man else, therefore I may love my Wife yet so as to love every woman, what would this open a doore unto and follow our Author? and this cannot be avoyded; therefore his giving himselfe for his Church, being an argument to move to a speciall love, cannot be thought to be in common to all.

[If the love be to be exercised to unbeleeving ones, or Adversaries, then it is thus, he hath suffered for us, 1 Pet. 2.18, 24. for the unjust, 1 Pet. 3.14, 18.] The Author mistaketh those Texts, they shew not our duty to love Adversaries, but to be obedient to froward Masters, and to be patient under sufferings for well-doing, and as an argument he useth Christs Death for Sinners, and for them being Sinners. But to take his argument as it is laid downe by him, the love is a generall love to all, even enemies. Now certainly if the thing had been true, he would have used this as an argument, for he dyed or suffered for all, but this he no where doth, no nor by a division which taketh in all, as he dyed for just and unjust, but only unjust; not meaning all unjust, but them Beleevers who were un­just when Christ dyed for them: Therefore considering that in such a case it is a most pregnant argument, and he not using it, it may appeare that it is not a truth that [Page] Christ gave himselfe for all and every man. Under this ranke of Scriptures there are few others that require any answer, they being not places used by us, therefore might be passed by; but one place or two I shall mention.

[1 Cor 8.11, 13.] Which place, he saith, containeth an argument to make love operative to Brethren. But let us consider the expression: If the Authors Doctrine had been truth, certaine it would have run thus, [Shall a man perish for whom Christ dyed?] Because he saith that Christ dyed for all men as men: But he saith, [shall a Brother perish for whom Christ dyed?] As if he dyed for none but such as come under the notion of Brother.

[2. Cor. 5.14.] Which he saith is an argument to make love operative to all men, but therein he is deceived, there is no such duty commanded in that Text. But the Author discovers his ingenuity in that he bringeth this Text in the number of them that do not shew how many he dyed for, when they say he dyed for all, and in other places is produced as a proofe for his first Redemption for all and every man; one more there is of some consequence.

[Sometimes it is propounded to such as are overseers of Congrega­tions, as to admonish them to keep this Doctrine firmely, and teach it. 1 Tim. 1.11.15. To provoke them to watchfulnesse over them. Act. 20.28. To constancy in sufferings. 2 Tim. 3.8. But these shew not how many he dyed for.]

1. As for that Text, I wonder that he should say that that place, 1 Tim. 1.15. sheweth not how many he dyed for, what was the reason that in Pag. 3. he brings this place to prove the first Redemption for all and every one? And that place that proves that, certainly sheweth for how many he dyed, for he dyed not for more then All, however the Author hath lost his memory in the croud of Notions.

2. For that Text Act. 20.28. We must first consider that this is a speciall and pe­culiar care that the Apostle exhorteth to, and the arguments by which he moveth is twofold: First, Their Charge, they were made overseers. Secondly, Christs Pur­chase, he purchased them with his owne Bloud. Now cleare it is that that care the Apostle exhorteth them to was a peculiar care, and that first argument from their Charge was a peculiar and speciall Charge, and so must the second be also of Christs Purchase, for still I ground my reason upon this, [Aequalis acquisitio non potest esse fundamentum inaequalis curae.] What reason can be shewen why the Death of Christ, and the Purchase with his Bloud, can be given as an argument to move the Elders to a peculiar care over the slocke above others, if he equally purchased others with them. It is not congruous with Scripture to give such Heterogenious arguments; when God commanded not to shed the bloud of men, he saith not because he is a Creature, for this being common with other Creatures moves no more to the care of mans life, then to care for any Creatures life; But thus, for he is the Image of God, and this is peculiar to man from other Creatures. Let the Author search the Scripture, and see whether it gives any argument from a common thing to move to a speciall duty and faithfulnesse over such and such. Till I heare further I shall conclude that Christ purchased none but the Flocke.

So that these places produced by him, although they do not define how many he dyed for, yet they clearely say that he did not dye for all, and by cleare and strong intimation averre that he did not give himselfe for every man in the world.

A second sort of waies of propounding follows, wherein he saith, that we have it shewne for how many Christ dyed, as followes,

[Sometimes it is laid downe as the foundation laid to offer life, and bring in such as knew it not, to beleeve. Joh. 1.29. & 3.16, 17. Some­time to such as beleeve, to shew what Gospell was preached among them, 1 Joh. 4.14, &c. To be a ground of praise for such as beleeve not. 1 Tim. 2.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. And here shall we find the question resolved how many he dyed for.]

Whereas he saith, [It is propounded as a ground to offer life, and bring in men to beleeve,] He seems to averre these three things, all which want truth, how­ever probation.

1. That wheresoever the Death of Christ is propounded as a ground of offering life, it is propounded in generall termes, as All men, Every man, The world: But this is false, for it is laid downe as a ground of Faith and offering life, Joh. 3.16, 17. 1 Tim. 1.15. Math. 1.21. Joh. 11.51. In all these it is as plainly propounded for a ground of offering life as any he can produce, yet not in generall termes.

2. That where it is propounded in generall termes, it is propounded as a ground of Faith and offering life: but this is false, for in 1 Tim 2.6. there it is in generall termes, but it not to offer life, or beget Faith, but to move Beleevers to love, and to exercise it in praise for all men: as Ver. 1, 2.

3. That there is no ground to offer life unlesse it be propounded in generall termes: but this is false, for that in Joh. 3.16. is a firme ground of offering life, and the mar­row of the Gospell, yet no generall termes: Though this be true, that Christ purcha­sed life and Salvation but for some of all sorts, yet this is ground enough of offering life to all of all sorts, and to admonish every man to repent.

So for the rest much may be said to them, but in all there is not the least beame of light added to the Truth, multitude of words serve only to bleare the eyes of his Reader, and this advantage he hath by them, the Truth hath none; and cleare it is that those Texts 1 Tim. 2.6. Heb. 2.9. are to be explained by places that are pro­pounded to the same end, which do not at all necessitate them to be taken in that ge­nerall seace.

CHAP. VI. Of the differences of the extent of the same word, when spoken of and by men, and when of and by God, also when the opposition is betwixt men and men, and when betwixt God and men.

THe end of the Author in this Chap. (as I conceive) is this: Seeing the Seat of much Controversy is placed in these words (All,) (Every,) (World,) urged in all places cited by them, to be taken in an absolute generall sense, taking in all the Individualls in the world: But by us they are urged to have a limited sense, as we instance in many Scriptures, where­in they cannot be taken so largely; His intent therefore is to shew the weakenesse of [Page] our Allegations, and that our places are not to be rules for the expounding of theirs because ours are spoken of and by men, theirs of and by God; but how he quits him­selfe herein I shall in few words examine. Now wherein we both agree is as followeth:

[That the same words in divers Sentences may differ much in signi­fication and extent, and yet by the Sentence the signification will clear­ly appeare; thus he saith Pag. 28.] This I acknowledge and shall improve, for then,

1. Why doth the Author say that (All,) when spoken of Creation, and when of Re­demption, must be taken in the same sence and latitude, will he not be so farre fixed to his principles as to suffer the divers matter treated of to alter the signification of the same word?

2. It deserveth examination, whether the matter treated of in those places doth suffer the words to be taken in that large sense, which light is to be fetched from Scriptures, which teacheth us that the word (All) when spoken of Redemption is to to be taken so largely, or else what he saith will want proofe.

Againe we agree in this.

[It is ungodly and unequall to compare God and man, and to make them to be alike and equall, Isa. 40.13, 14. and mere ungodlines to com­pare the words, workes, and thoughts of God with mans, and to make them equall and alike, Isa. 55.8, 9.] Thus he urgeth Pag. 29.

This I grant: But then I must advertise the Author of two things.

1. It is one thing to compare the beings of man and God together, of which his quoted Text speaketh, which cannot be alike, and another to compare Gods Actions and words, which may be alike sometimes, as we are commanded to be like our hea­venly father, this last is no such ungodlinesse as he pretendeth.

2. There is a difference betwixt mans words as comming from man and opposed to Gods, and mans words as comming from God and the dictate of his Spirit, of this second sort it is no ungodlinesse to compare them to Gods, for they are his own, which will be usefull to us.

Thirdly we further agree in this.

[It is easie for men to understand a difference in the extent of the same word spoken of and by God, and spoken of and by men, and when the opposition is betwixt God and men, and when between men and men.] This I grant, for 1. Joh. 2.20. he saith (ye know all things,) and Cap. 3.20. he saith, (He (viz. God) knoweth all things,) no reason will hence conclude that God knoweth no more then man knoweth, or that man is omniscient,

2. It is easie also to know the difference of the same word when spoken of and by God, if so be it be concerning divers Actions, as 1 Joh. 2. [The Spirit shall teach you all things,] and Cap. 3. he saith, [He knoweth all things:] So Joh. 2.24. [He know­eth all men:] and Joh. 12.32. [I will draw all men to me;] No reason will infer that he will draw all, or so many as in that place he is said to know; so when he is said to create all things, and to reconcile all things, Col. 1 16.20. both cannot be taken in the same latitude and extent, because he made the fallen Angels, but he never reconciled them.

3. It is also cleare that many places speakes of God, and is spoken by God, and holy men inspired by God, which is all one as if it was Gods immediate word, yet [Page] those words (All,) &c. cannot beare that large extent, as Matth. 2.3. Mark. 13.13. Luk. 16.16. Ioh. 12.32. Acts 2.44. 1 Cor. 14.5. 2 Cor. 3.2. Phil. 2.21. Col. 1.28. But what need I fill Paper and trouble the Reader, when my Adversary confesseth that the word (all) is sometimes taken for all upright, sometimes for all ungodly: certainly then those words when spoken of and by God are not alwaies to extend themselves to that large sense he pretendeth, which being true, sheweth the weakenesse of that distinction, and freeth those following examples from that ignorance, rashnesse, which he out of greater ignorance and rashnesse chargeth them with.

And still I admit,

[That if a man spake of a Family, and say this man governes all, it is to be meant of all in the Family, so of a Corporation and a Kingdome,] But he must observe this, that so we could not understand unlesse that the word (All) in propriety might have a limited sence.

And we grant also, [That if we say God governeth all, we meane all in the World,] But if our Author had gone on to make his matter out he should have said, [So if we should say Christ redeemed all, we must meane all in the world.] Herein he would have erred, seeing there is no proportion betwixt his Gubernation and his Redemption, the difference of matter treated of admits of a difference in the signification of the same word, according to his owne principles. And herein the Author is at a losse in all this, for all that he hath said in this businesse is to make way for this, That where God or Christ is said to Redeeme or Ransome all, it must be all and every man in the world; but this will not be admitted, though when we say God governeth all, we meane all things in the world. Now to proceed to the Texts alleaged by us, Luk. 2.1. & 15.1. Ioh. 3.26. Act. 2.8. Where we urge that world, whole world, all men, every man, are not to be taken in that large and ge­nerall senses; therefore without further reason we cannot grant those places alleadged by him to be so generall; he thus answers, [It will be found either ignorance or rashnesse to compare, and make of like large extent the word (world) in Luk. 2.1. and the word (world) in 1 Joh. 2.2.] But it will be found an ignorant Calumny so to charge us, we make them not of like large ex­tent, as if he were the Propitiation for the sins of no more then was in the Roman Empire, or went then to be taxed, this is absurd to affirme, and a wilfull injury to fasten it on us; but thus we say, that as the word (world) in Luk. 2.1. (being spoken by the Evangelist inspired by God) doth not take in all and every Individuall in the world: So neither the word (World) in 1 Ioh. 2.2. though spoken of God and Christ; and where is the ignorance and rashnesse in all this?

As for that Text Luk. 2.1. [There went a Decree that all the world should be Taxed.] If it had run thus [that all should be taxed] it had suted with his expressions, and we might easily apprehend it to extend to no further then all of the Roman Em­pire: But this more Emphaticall [that all the world should be taxed.] Let the Author tell me why, when the Spirit of God is to speake of some only in the Roman Empire, he should use such a generall word as (All the world) it this Phrase might not be ta­ken in a limited sence even when it is spoken of and by God. So the (All) that came to Christ, Luk. 15.1. we make not of large and like and equall extent with the (All) he dyed for: 2 Cor. 5.14. As if he dyed for no more then at that time came to Jesus. But thus we say, that if when the Evangelist saith, All came to him, it taketh not in every Individuall Sinner in the world: So when the Apostle saith Christ dyed for all, it is [Page] not necessarily taken in that large sence which the Author pretends; and all this sheweth no weakenesse in our cause, the weakenesse may be easily seene elsewhere. In the close of this Chapter he descendeth to shew how many waies those Phrases (All men,) (Every man,) (World,) (Whole world,) are taken: But no whit perti­nent to his businesse in this Chapter, yet I shall recite them, happily some may be ad­vantagious to us.

1. [For every one of mankind without exception, as all are gone out of the way, all have sinned, all must appeare before God.] This we grant, but he cannot prove that the Scripture affirmeth Christ to have dyed for (All,) or that those places wherein Christ is said to dye for (All) to be taken in this sence.

2. [For one another, rich and poore, Beleevers and unbeleevers.]

If he meane all and every one of those kinds, then it is the same with the first, and so a vaine repetition, and if but some of those kinds, then it is nothing against us, for that is still a limited sense, and we grant that he dyed for all; and those places that say Christ dyed for all we willingly grant them in this sense, whether spoken by men, or by God.

3. [So as not meant of Gods people, good men, Beleevers.] True, and more opposite proofes might be produced then he bringeth; but this is not against us, or for him, because he himselfe will not say that Christ dyed for this All, and so to exclude his People and Beleevers, or any place so to be taken whether spoken by man or God.

4. [For all upright, Beleevers, spirituall men.] Which he doth not plain­ly set downe as a fourth acceptation of the Phrase (All men,) which had been honest and ingenuous dealing, but he tacitely implyeth it, as if he would not have that taken notice of, as any may see Pag. 31. and he had good reason so to expresse himselfe, for it doth not a little helpe us, for it that place 1 Cor. 4.5. where (All men) is used, doth not take in every individuall man in the world, even then when it is spoken of God, it may also be that those places, 1 Tim. 2.6. Heb. 2.9. though spoken of Christ, are not taken in that large sence that he pretendeth: And then to what issue all his words in this Chapter come, let the wise judge. Something I find in Pag 31, 32. purposely set downe to prevent mistakes and cavills, he saith thus, [The Death of Christ as a Ransome is to be understood of the Death of Christ as risen, and ascended,] Which words have neither pertinency nor perspicuity, they are of no use at all in this Chapter, or the businesse treated of in it, neither can they well be understood, therefore they no way conduce to prevent mistakes, rather to raise them: his words are so laid downe as that no man can tell whether he make his Resurrection and Ascension conduce to his Impetration or Purchase, to his Application, to say, [That it was the Death of Christ as he is risen again and ascended,] May admit of either, there is a difference betwixt things associated and coupled in the same Action: The manhood of Christ with his Divinity suffered, but not the manhood and the Divinity: Faith with Workes justified, but not Faith and Workes: So his Death with his Resurrection was the means of Purchase or Ransome, but hence it doth not follow that his Resurrection and Ascension are themselves meanes of procure­ment, or belong to the Impetration; And this ambiguous way of expression he bor­roweth from the Arminians, as Corvinus, [Cum amissae salutis Impetratio immediatus fructus est Christi mortis talis mors omnino intelligitur quae resurrectionem habeat con­junctam.] And that to serve at need their contradictions in this point,In Molin, cap. 28.438. sometimes [Page] affirming, sometimes denying, that his Resurrection and Ascension belong to his Impetration: But this I say as formerly, that Resurrection and Ascension is so con­joyned with his Death that it hath equall share in the Impetration, and hath no share in the Application, as in every bargaine the bare depositing so much money as is agreed for any where, is no true payment, but the bringing of it to his house to whom it is paid, or at a place appointed, so in this, though nothing more was to be paid as price, yet something else was to be done viz. presenting that Bloud as shed, without which no perfect Impetration, as in the Law there there was as we I ostensio as mactatio, the shewing as the shedding of Bloud.

But to returne to the Author, either his Resurrection and Ascension belong to the Impetration, or not? if not? whether tend these words? [His Death, Resurrecti­on are herein comprehended. Pag. 32.] Meaning his first Redemption, and such as is done for all, which in his Language is the Purchase or procurement, and if it do, whether tend these words? as [For effecting the other, viz. the second Redemp­tion (which is the Application) he left the world and went to his Father.] In one part he affirmeth them to belong to the Impetratory part, in another to belong to the Ap­plicatory part: and is this to prevent doubts and cavills. Whoever followes the Au­thor shall run into uncertainties and contradictions; and as carefull as he is to pre­vent mistakes, and confident that any that will may understand, yet I dare avouch, that not any of his admiring Readers can give a good account of him, neither do they know whereof he affirmeth, I wish he himselfe knew better.

In his seventh Chapter, I find the Authours Catechisme wherein he hath the pri­viledge of framing both Questions and Answers: But therein there is nothing but what is spoken of elsewhere, therefore there being nothing worth repeating I passe over to the next, which is more materiall.

CHAP. VII. Of the more enlarged proofe of the Proposition.

THe Authors scope in this Chapter is to prove his assertion by the place that Christ stood in, viz. of a publike Person, and that as he was to answer his figure Adam who was a publique Per­son, and his inference is this; As the first Adam being a publique Person stood in the place of every individuall man, so Christ as a Publique Person must stand in the roome of so many, else he answereth not his Figure, and this is the summe of this Chap­ter▪ but how strongly this argueth for him I shall briefly exa­mine. But before he treate of the Comparison it selfe he gives us some premises which deserve a little examination.

[Page]1. [The businesse which we are to view is the worke of Redemp­tion wrought by Jesus, and so of those workes from God, outward, and towards his Creatures, and so not of those workes which are in himselfe, so only in Christ, and for Christ, as his secret Counsels of Election, &c.]

First, This premise altogether needlesse, because the businesse we are about is Redemption, he need not therefore feare that any would translate the Controversie to Election.

2. Why would he rather dispute of Gods Acts upon the Creatures, then his Acts in himselfe concerning the Creature, doth not he know that he worketh according to his Will? and doth not he say Pag. 120 121. [Looke how his word declareth him to proceed in his workes, such we may be sure was his Purpose and Decree?] There­fore I thinke it is as safe to dispute the case whether God decreed to redeeme all. As whether he hath Redeemed all by Christ, therefore in this case this premise is but Empty.

3. His expresses seeme to infeere, that only his Decrees or Election are in Christ, and for Christ; but this untrue, for all spirituall blessings are in Christ, Eph. 1.3. but no Scripture saith that Gods Decrees are for Christ, of this may be seen more fully afterward.

4. What use this premise hath in pursuit of that publique place Christ stood in, and proving herefrom that he dyed for all and every man, It is not easie for any to determine, and I can count it no other but verbosity, that the Reader from multitude of words might conclude abundance of matter.

2. [However Christ was figured by Adam in the common place he stood in, &c. yet there is a great difference between those two Adams and their worke: the first was a living soule, might have stood, and all his with him, but no power to rise and live againe, but the se­cond was a quickning Spirit.] This premise might well have been spared, as I beleeve he will say in the close. For,

1. I thinke there is none so blinded with his errour, as to thinke that Christ and Adam agree in all things as publique persons.

2. It being granted, yet I shall improve it to cleare these three particulars,

• 1. Adam and Christ as they are publique Persons are not equall and alike in all things.
• 2. If we find not the particular things wherein they agree, and wherein they differ, much may be said in this Point to little purpose.
• 3. That it deserveth examination, whether the precise number of Individuals be not one thing, wherein they differ, and whatsoever is brought to prove it must not be the comparison it selfe or publique place, but something that proveth particularly that they agree in this, or else he saith nothing.

3. [There is an abundance in Christ beyond that appearing in the Type, so that therein Christ commeth not short, but goeth beyond the Figure in that wherein it figured him.] This is but one and the same with the former, for in that he said, they were not alike in some things, he presupposed that he went beyond in some things, and came short in some things, or both. But,

[Page]1. That difference from Rom. 5.16. I grant, by one offence sin entered: But the Pardon is of many offences; But this giveth no light to the deciding of this Con­troversie, whether Christ procured Pardon for every Son of Adam or no?

2. As for his second, viz [Christ leadeth to a better life than Adam by Sin over­threw,] I cannot assent unto, because Adams integrity and holinesse lead him to an eternall glory in heaven, and Christ leadeth to no more, and that Text, Rom. 5.17, 19, 20. is abused by him being quoted to this purpose.

3. As for the third, viz. [That the benefit of Christ redounds to more then the fall of Adam did damnifie,] Lyeth under a (non liquet,) for I conceive the Act of Christ as Mediatour is only restorative. Now in such an Act how could he restore more then Adam hurt? None else needed Christ; I conceive by his Texts alleadged that he meaneth the Angels: But that they have any benefit by Christs restoring Act, or stood in need of any such, his Scriptures prove not at all, for how Christ should do Angels good, being in the nature of man, more then he could do man good in the nature of Angells, I see not: If Christ did Angells good it was in regard of their stability, but why Christ should have a hand by way of merit in their stabi­lity, more than he should have had in Adams stability if he had stood, I see not: But I suppose if Adam had not sinned there had been no place for Christs merits.

4. It deserveth examination, Whether Christ may not come short of his Figure in some things, as well as exceed in some things, and yet answer his Figure, and so his comming short in the precise number of Individuals, and yet answer his Figure well enough? Not now to insist upon the Impertinency to the Authors present busi­nesse, I shall examine the Comparison it selfe, Adam and Christ as two publique Persons, he urgeth thus:

[The first Adam stood in a publique place not singly for himselfe alone, but in the roome of all mankind, &c. not only as they were in his loynes, but by vertue of the account and worke of God, and Co­venant between God and Adam, so what God did to him he did to all mankind: So the second Adam stood in publique place, not for him­selfe alone, or for some, but all mankind, all fallen; else had he been short of his Figure, whereas God did more honour to Christ then Adam.] Herein we have the summe of the Argument, what is in it shall appeare, and first I shall shew wherein we agree, then wherein we differ, we agree in these things.

1. That as Adam stood as a publipue person not singly for himselfe as one, but for others, so Christ as a publique person not for himselfe but others.

2. As Adam by vertue of his publique place stood in the roome of so many as God by vertue of that Covenant betwixt Adam and God appointed he should: So Christ stood in the roome of so many as God appointed in that Covenant betwixt him and Christ, thus farre we agree. But he would have them go one thus farre, that as Adam stood in the roome of all that came from his Loines, so Christ as publique person should stand in the roome of all that came from the first Adams Loines, and herein we differ; and as he saith, [As Adam stood in the roome of all that came from his Loines, so Christ stood in the roome of all that came from Adams Loines,] making the Analogie to run thus. So we say, That as Adam stood in the roome of all that came from him, so Christ stood in the roome of all that have a being from himselfe; And is not the Analogie betwixt Christ and his Figure as cleare and full in our Assertion [Page] as in his? So that though they for whom Adam stood, and they for whom Christ stood, differ in the precise number, yet they agree (in aliquo tertio,) being both the pecu­liar issue from their owne root, receiving from the one death, the other life.

This he hath no way to enervate but by affirming, [That Adam stood in the roome of mankind, not as because they came from his Loines, for so they were after his fall, and losse therein of the vertue of that publique place, but by vertue of the Account, Covenant, agreement, betweene him and God,] Wherein we have his assertion it selfe, then the reasons to backe it: The assertion, viz. [That Adam stood in the roome of mankind, not as or because they came from his Loynes,] This is contrary,

1. To reason, because Adam as a root could propagate neither life nor death, but to such as came from him and as so; to what can a root communicate either good or bad sap but to such branches as grow out of it selfe, by vertue of which comming out of it, it hath a meane to conveying such to it as it hath it selfe?

2. It is contrary to all mens Judgements both dogmaticall, and polemicall, they all grant, that Adam was betrusted with no more than came from his Loines, but the testimony of the Remonst. are the most convincing in this case;I [...] Molin c. 9 Sect. 1. See Corvinus [Ita representavit genus humanum in origine, ut sibi & posteris simul peccaverit, That he did so represent mankind as in the root, that he sinned for himselfe and his Posterity.] See Spiscopius, [Communicatio homini facta est ut stirpi generis humani, Part. 2. disp. 15. Sect 4. cujus inobedientia reatus ad omnes posteros lege naturae perveniret, That the Commu­nication was to man as the roote, that the guilt of the Law of nature is to come to his Posterity.] See Arminius, Disp. privat. Thes 31. Sect. 9 He speaking of that stipulation betwixt Adam and God, saith that God betrusted with Grace for himselfe, and that those gifts [Ad po­steros transmitterentur,] and that he wanting them, [posteri etiam iis carerent,] and thence concludeth [Hinc accidit ut omnes homines qui naturalter ex ipsis propa­gandi fuerint morti obnoxii evaserint,] That is, those that come of them by naturall propagation, all which clearely demonstrate thus much, that Adam as publique per­son conveyed death to mankind as comming from his Loynes, and to so many as come from his Loynes and no more.

3. This assertion is contrary to himselfe, Pag. 119. where he saith, that [the first man was made a publique person in the roome and place of all mankind, to stand or fall for all that came from him by propagation;] what is this but to say that he was a publique person for them as comming from his Loines? So Pag. 48.

4. Yet further it apeares that he stood as a publique person for them, not as men, but as such as came from his loynes, because though Christ was truly man yet by vertue of his publike place, he neither had profited him if he had stood, nor did hurt him by his fall, did not convey sin and death to him as to his posterity, and the reason of this is because he came from him not by propagation, but super­naturall overshadowing, and something in his owne words there as to this purpose, Pag. 119. [He decreed that all the rest of mankind should come from this first Adam by propagation, except his Son Christ.] Having thus examined his assertion, I shall perpend his Reasons and they are weake as that false.

The first is this, [For so they were after his fall,] arguing, that because they came from him by propagation after his fall; therefore by his loines: strong reasoning! If our Author will not have it, because they came from his loynes, it must be because they were mankind: But is not reason as valid against this? thus, not as mankind, because so they were after his fall? nay, doth it strongly overthrow him, for seeing now after the fall men are his off-spring, and all such, and none but [Page] such as come from his Loynes are guilty of sin and death, doth it not appeare that he was a publique person for all such as came out of his Loynes, and under that ve­ry notion?

His second reason is this, [It was by vertue of the Covenant between God and Adam.] A fond and weake reason to oppose these two, and say, [not as comming from his Loynes, but by vertue of the Covenant,] they agree very well: and we may say twas for them as, or because, they came from his loynes, because it was the agreement betwixt God and Adam, that he stood as a publique person for himselfe and his Posterity, and such as came from his Loynes: If he will beleeve any thing Arminius himselfe, [Ratio faderis a Deo cum hominibus primis initi haec fuit, ut si ipsi ingratid permonerent, ad posteros dona transmitterentur, si se indignos face­rent, posteri vero [...]s carcrent; hinc accidit ut omnes ex ipsis propagandi, morti ob­noxit evaser [...]nt.] So that now reduce the Authors assertion to truth, and let us say, That Adam stood as a publique pe [...] in the room of all that came from his Loynes, and under that very notion; And then the Analogie will come to this, even so doth Christ the second Adam stand in the roome of all those that come to have a being from him; And if the Author would have it driven any further he must prove it: In­deed he would fain conclude as [In this his publique place he is not betrusted with fewer than Adam.] And he would prove by such Arguments, [Else will he come short of his Figure.] But this is no convincing Argument; for first it is no paradox to say that in some things Christ comes short of his Figure, for in our Authors Judgement they are not alike in all things. Now in the rules of pro­portion, it is no more discrepant to come short than to exceed: And upon this ground that can be no reason against his comming short in this particular, because he is to an­swer his Figure; for this notwithstanding he may exceed and go beyond, in our Au­thors Judgement. Secondly, If he stand in the roome of all them that come to have a being from him, he answers his Figure that stood in the roome of all that had a be­ing from him, although he did not stand in the roome of every Individuall, or the precise number of Individualls. And if a part of Scripture did affirme that unlesse Christ stood in the roome of the precise number of Individualls, he should come short of his Figure, I should yeeld to him in this point, but till then he must give me leave to thinke this Reason of no force.

A second Reason by which he proveth it is this, [God honoured Christ more then Adam.] True, and herein, Adam was a root of Life and Death, life if he had stood, and death if he fell: But Christ was to convey only life, herein Christ was more honoured than Adam. But the honour of Christ is not placed in the precise number of them for whom he stood, so as that he that stands in the room God should honour most, for then in that God honoured Christ more than Adam, it must follow that Christ stood in the place and roome of more than Adam lost, or that came from his Loines, which is absurd.

As for the second particular which he observeth in this Similitude betwixt Adam and Christ, Pag. 44. is not pertinent or usefull to the Controversie at all, therefore I shall wave it.

A third which he observeth is the [Effect and fruit of this publique businesse, It was publique, and concerned all mankind, the disobedience of the first Adam, overthrew all mankind, so as in and by him they were all [Page] deprived of life, &c. So the obedience of the second Adam hath reco­vered and restored all mankind, so as in him they are restored, redee­med, and made righteous.] It matters not what comes from the Authors Pen, but what proceeds from the mouth of Scripture; but this no Scripture speaketh.

1. No Scripture speaketh that Adam stood in the roome of all mankind, that is, of every individuall man, the Author confesseth that he stood not in the roome of Christ.

2. Adams sin lost not every man, he lost not Christ himselfe, but only such as came of him by propagation, which Christ did not: both these particulars are con­cealed, if not denyed, by him, though contrary to himselfe.

3. No Scripture saith, That as Adam lost all that came from his Loynes, so Christ recovered all that came from the first Adams Loynes.

4. No Scripture saith, that Christs recovery concerned all that came out of Adams Loynes.

5. The Scripture no where saith, that if as Adams losse concerned all that came from his Loynes, so Christs recovery must concerne all that came from Adams Loynes, rather the contrary: 1 Cor. 15. [All dyed in Adam, so in Christ all shall be made alive.] The All in the former part is Adam, and all that came from him: but the All in the second part, is not all that came from the first, but the second Adam, Vers 23. First Christ, and then Christs at his comming. So that what is here­in spoken the Author speaketh, but not Scripture; he produceth some places, Rom 3.24, 22. where it saith, All are justified, and the righteousnesse of God on (All) but herein he diabolically clippes the Text willfully, leaveth out that which would de­cide the Controversie, it is not all that came from Adams Loynes, but all that be­leeve. So Rom. 5.18. [Free gift came on all men to Justification of life.] True, but it is on the All that is mentioned Cap. 3.22, 24. as may appeare by the 17. verse, it saith, not on all Adams Sons, or all that came from Adams Loynes.

A fourth particular which he observeth from this comparison is this, in regard of the vertue and operation of this publique businesse, thus; [When any commeth to have a being from the first Adam, they do necessarily in that parti­cipation of his nature partake of the guilt, &c. So when any do come by a spirituall birth to have a being in Christ, in that participation, &c. He now freely imputeth it to them,] This being well considered will shew his weakenesse, and the truth at once: For,

1. How is it that every man in and by partaking of Adams nature, and comming from him, partaketh of the guilt, if he stood not as a publique for mankind as com­ming from his Loynes, which he even now denyed?

2. I demand, Why those that come to have a being from the first Adam partake of his guilt and misery, is it not because he stood in their roome? And is it upon this ground, that as it was intended in his standing in publique, so it taketh place in them that partake of his nature: And as they that come to partake of his nature come to par­take of his sin, because he stood in the roome of them that should partake of his Na­ture; So must it not A pari follow, if a reason being demanded why them that have a being from Christ come to partake of his righteousnesse? Is it not to be answered, because he stood a publique person for them? What is this but to averre, that as Adam stood a publique person for all his: So did Christ for all his, and all that were to have a being from him. Which falleth short of what the Author intendeth, and what [Page] he hath obtained in all this pursuance of this Comparison, only thus much appeares, that herein they agreed, both conveyed their proper influence to them that came of them, but they did both to the precise number of Individuals, he proveth not in one word of his Discourse, nor one place of Scripture. And all this, and all that which followeth being of the same stampe with what went before, riseth not so high, as to prove that Christ obtained life for all that came from the first Adams Loynes.

CHAP. VIII. Of the joynt mention of Creation, and Redemption by Christ.

HIs scope in this Chapter, is to prove his Assertion by the joynt mention of Creation and Redemption, thence inferring they are of equall extent, because mentioned together, and thus urgeth, [His great love appea­reth to mankind, in that when Adam lost himselfe, and all mankind, &c. He would not suffer him to perish in his death, &c. but would worke a recovery for him what ever it cost him.] Thus in the beginning of the Gospell he puts in this, [All things were Created by him, and that light was the life of men; what can be lesse seene than this,

1. That God made the Creatures for man, yea so loved him that though he was fallen, yet he would worke out a Redemption and procure life.

2. That it is for men that were made by him, as his Creatures, not a part but the whole.] And herein is the top of the Authors reason in this Chapter: But,

1. How doth the Author prove, that either in 3. or 4. verses of John 1. the Text mentioneth the worke of Redemption, I conceive he cannot prove it to speake of any thing but Creation: No not vers. 4. [In him was life and that was the light of men;] speakes only thus much, that in the Word there was life, even when he made the world, and that life was the light of men, from that life came the light of men: and till he make this cleare, this Text serves him not.

[Page]2. Grant this, yet doth the joynt mention in the Text argue an equality of exten [...] Let us then follow this rule, and say from Verse 10. [The world was made by him, and the world knew him not.] What doth this lesse inferre than this, That the world that knew him not was as large as the world that was made by him? but this is false, if any at all in those times knew him, which Scripture tells us there did. So from Col. 1.16.18. [By him were all things Created, and he is the head of his Body;] We may say his Body and Headship is as large as his Creatures, or the things that were Created by him, this would be strange reasoning, and of the same mould is his inference fron John 1.2, 3, 4. But if he had minded the Text he might have seen some thing against this Inference, for speaking of Creation, it saith, (All things) were Created by him: but in the other it saith, that light was the life of (Men,) and if it come short in this, it may come shorter; yet no violence to the joynt mention of Creation, and Redemption.

Againe, Speaking of the recovery of Man, and of the Creatures to their purity for mans use, &c. he thus speaketh,] [And is not all this affirmed in the Gospell, where Creation and Redemption are mentioned toge­ther? Col. 1.16, 20. And where this generall tearme (All things) is mentioned in Creation, Vers. 16. Reconciliation, Vers. 20. Preser­vation, Vers. 17. and what lesse doth this inferre, then that the peace wrought for mankind, is as large as Creation and Preservation of man­kind?] I willingly acknowledge with his Query, that nothing can be lesse seene in those places than that; For where it speakes of Creation it takes in the fallen Angels, and the rest of the Creatures: but where it speaketh of Reconciliation it cannot. For the fallen Angels I know the Author will say he never did reconcile, and for the rest of the Creatures it is not sutable to Scripture to say he reconciled them; He created the bruit Beasts, but Scripture no where said that he reconciled the bruit Creatures, for whom he reconciled he dyed for, but Scripture saith no where that he dyed for bruit Creatures; he being in the nature of men, dyed only for men, and reconciled only men, and so from that place it doth appeare that the (All things) Created, and the (All things) Reconciled are not of the same latitude and extent.

That which is of moment is in Pag. 52. as followeth, [In that Creation is used as an Argument to induce us to Faith and Confidence, Job 10.8, 13. and 14.14. Psalm. 129.16, 17. 1 Pet. 4.16. And coupled with Re­demption in this businesse, Isay 43.1. Now if he hath not wrought a Redemption as large as mankind created by him, what force can there be in this Argument grounded on his Creation?] The worke of Crea­tion indeed is used as an argument of a threefold duty.

1. Of uprightnesse, as Psa. 139.16, 17. and this is such as every man may use, I am his Creature therefore I ought to serve him uprightly.

2. Of prevailing in Prayer to move God to take away his hand, because we are his Creatures and not able to endure his hand. So Job 10.8, 13. And with this sometimes God is moved; The extravagancies of their lives, Psalm. 103.9, 14, 15. But this is such an argument as every one cannot urge, as if God was alwaies moved towards every one that he made, he may do much for his Children because they are weake Creatures.

[Page]3. Of confidence in Gods power, and ability to save, as Isa. 40.9, 10, 11, 12, &c. And the Argument thus framed, he is as able to save us as to create us: But all these are nothing to his purpose, because the worke of Redemption is not in any of those places joyned with Creation; And I never observed that the Creation is used as an Argument to perswade us of Gods willingnesse to save, as if he would save because he did Create, much lesse that he maketh Creation an Argument to perswade us of Redemption, as if he would Redeeme us because hee Created us.

But where both are joyned together, as Isa. 43.1. there is a perfect Argu­ment both of his Power and Will, but his Power is drawne from the Creation, and his Will from Redemption. So 1 Pet. 4.19. He is able because Creator, willing because faithfull. Now these are Arguments that his owne Children may make, and to perswade them of his Power to save (which is common) may use the Creation which is common, and to perswade them of his willingnesse, which is peculiar, they use his Redemption, and what of all this? It doth not yet inferre Redemption to bee as large as Creation, for the All Created goeth beyond the All Redeemed: And the more the Reader observeth, the more he shall see of the Authors weakenesse herein; force enough is there in Creation to evince Gods Power, although his Redemption be not so large.

CHAP. IX. Of the constant changeing of the person, when having mentioned the generall, it mentioneth the especiall.

THe Author his scope in this Chapter, is to make it appeare that those places that are produced by us, with applicative restriction, are nothing against him; being such as treat of the speciall favours of beleivers, which is not the businesse he trea­teth of, and this he doth by suggestion to his reader: that where the Scripture spea­keth of ransome and redemption wrought in him, it speakes in generall termes, but where it speaketh of choice benefits, it speakes in applicative expressions.

But when I prove these three particulars that follow, this will prove invalid.

1. The Scripture useth not this method in those Scriptures which he urgeth, and his Scriptures are these, 2 Cor 5.19, 20, 21. where he saith [Reconciling is to the (world) and that is the redemption wrought in him: and ver. 21. He was made sinne for us; there is the speciall benefit of believers] wherein he intimated these two things. 1 That the word (reconciling) in the 19 verse is meant of Christs act as Mediatour, working out a reconciliation with God for men, but this is a non probatum. I shewed the contrary in the foregoing part of this discourse: that word both 18 and 19 verses, whether to be understood of Gods actuall reconci­ling himselfe to us, not imputing our sinnes, or his reconciling us to himselfe: it is to be meant of the application of his death, and the choice benefits of beleivers, as is confessed by him elsewhere; yet this is said to be the (world) that is men living in the world 2. He would have hence, that ver. 21. [He hath made him to be sinne for us.] speaketh of the choice benefits of beleivers; this I approve not; but minde him of these two things. 1. His selfe-contradictions; for when he was treating of the first redemption, for all, and as wrought in Christ, page 4. he produceth this place to prove it, and here speaking of the second which is applicative to beleivers, be brings this place to prove it, we may see with what judgement the Author speaketh. 2. This phrase plainely denoteth the death of Christ and redemption wrought by it; for to (die for) and (to be made sinne for) are termes of the same signification, yet this is said to be for (us) and not in generall termes. Nay it is plaine, that the first words speake of the death of Christ, and the second viz. [That we might be made the righ­teousnesse of God] denote the application; but here is no change of person: both in the same; he made him sinne for (us) that (we) &c. Therefore his device on this place falleth.

[Gal. 4.4.5. Speaking of that which he did for all, he saith, redee­med them that were under the Law; but speaking of the especiall pri­viledges of Adoption he changeth the person, and saith, that we might receive the adoption of sonnes] wherein he would them, the first words to be without a restriction, and in generall termes; but he doth not here, nor elsewhere prove it, in redeeming them that receive the Adoption; he redeemed them that were under the Law, and the Text saith not that he redeemed all that were under the law.

[Page 142]2. He supposeth that adoption is a more speciall benefit then redemption, which the Apostle owneth not; he puts as great emphasis and dignity on the one as the o­ther, both spirituall blessings, with which he blesseth Beleivers, Ephes. 1.7. Col. 1.14. So for the rest of his texts, they are a little invalid: and let the sober-minded reader view those texts in his sense. He reconcileth every man, that we might be made the righteousnesse of God: He redeemed every man under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of sonnes. He suffered for all unjust, that he might bring us to God; is this a probable interpretation? as if that God, that he might bring some to God, should redeeme and reconcile all, and then view them in our sense. He reconciled us, being men living in the world, that we might be the righteousnesse of God in him; he redee­med us being under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of sons, he suffered for us being unjust, that he might bring us to God. And now let the reader judge which is most commodious, and if this second, then any may see both parts relateth to the same persons.

2. The Scripture doth not onely not follow that method in these cited places, but also in other places, as Iohn. 10.15. 1 Th [...]s. 5.8, 9, 10. Where speaking of his death, he maketh it not to runne in generall termes, but with a restriction.

3. Suppose it was so, yet the one is but to explaine the other, as, He hath suffered for the unjust, that is for us unjust, that he might being us to God; so that his invented me­thod herein, and arguments thereon fall to the ground.

CHAP. X. Of the Consideration of 1 Tim. 2.6.

HEre we are come to the grand Text of difference, where Christ is said to give himselfe a [Ransome for all men.] Now to the transaction of this Text, I shall place the controversie onely about the phrase [all men] and the reader may know that the author would have it meant, [de singulis generûm] as to take in every individu­all of every kind. We on the other side, would have it meant [de generibus singulorum,] so as to take in onely all the sorts and kinds of men, and herein stands the controversie about this Text: now how strongly he proveth his interpretation, it is my next taske to examine. And herein he hath a threefold field to runne in, viz. the force of the words themselves, the circumstances, the scope of the Text; and he think [...]s all these and every one of these is sufficient to evince it, that this Text is to be understood of all Adams sons. First he saith,

[For the sense of the word it selfe (All,) appeareth to be meant of Adam and all his sonnes, because the opposition is betweene God and men.]

First, the sense of the word it selfe cannot carry it to that meaning, because the Au­thor himselfe confesseth that the word (All) is many wayes taken, so as not to take in every of Adams sonnes, as page 30. Therefore that word or phrase that is indiffe­rent to be meant of all and every sonne of Adam, or of some, or in a sense not so large, cannot of it selfe be any convincing argument of its owne signification; in any place the matter treated of must administer light herein, as the Author confesseth page 31. [Page 143] Neither is that plea of the (opposition betwixt God and men) of any force; by this phrastologie he meaneth when God is said to doe any thing for man, or men, or eve­ry man, then it meaneth all Adams sonnes; but this is very empty; when Christ is said to draw all men to him, doth it take in every sonne of Adam, and when 1 Cor. 4.14. The Apostle saith, (all men shall have praise of God) doth this take in all A­dams sonnes? and will he follow his absurd reasoning and say. [Every man, so all were created by him, every man, and all that have being from Adam, and so his na­ture, being men, &c.] with many such frothy expressions as he doth. page 55. How would this wrack the Scripture, and so in page 56. He pursues this phrase (All men) with the many acceptations of it, but to small purpose he showes that sometimes it is taken for all Adams sonnes, and sometimes not, but this is not wisely inserted here, he affirming that the sense of the word it self will carry it to all Adams sons. And he gives us some occasion to thinke that he hath deserted this sense of the word, and hath found out another more probable but lesse propitious to his doctrine: in the end of page 56. the Reader may observe he hath changed the face of his assertion, and in that the question. For in page 55. he giveth it thus: [this word all, meaneth Adam and all his sonnes.] But in page 56. he gives it thus, [All men, 1 Tim. 2.6. principally is meant of naturall men, sinners, sonnes of Adam, unbeleevers, unregenerate men. He would hereby insinuate to his unwary reader that we deny, and he is to prove that Christ gave himself a ransome for naturall men, sonnes of Adam, sinners; when he and all know that it is his taske to prove, and his former assertion that he gave himselfe a ransome for All [naturall men,] [All Adams sonnes,] [all sinners,] this is no faire dealing, but egregious and unjustifiable dissimulation, and all those reasons in the former part of page 57. being onely to prove the reversed face of his assertion, are impertinent and not worth reciting; yet we may see his grosse and bold impu­dence, that after he had propounded the place, as meant of [naturall men] [sonnes of Adam] [sinners] without this particle, All, and proves no more: yet page 57. he shamelessely triumpheth. That it appeareth that the words (All men,) are meant of Adam and all his sonnes; it is too frequent with him to carry all in his conclusion, and nothing in his premises. Having thus fruitlesly traversed the first field of proba­tion, viz. the sense of the words (All men;) he steps in to the second, viz. the cir­cumstances of the Text that attend these words; he produceth many circumstances as followes.

[1. It is the Apostle that exhorteth Timothy and the Churches to pray for all men; and they are beleivers that are to pray for all men, and they are others, even all men, in the third person generally that are to be prayed for, he saith not for some of all sorts, but for all men: and naming but one sort of them, he saith all of them] Indeed I finde the Remon. thus arguing, [proquibus orare nos vult Deus, act. Syno. 323. pro illis mort [...] est Christ­us; at vult nos orare pro omnibus] that is, for whom he commands us to pray, for them he gave himselfe a ransome: but he bids us pray for all, ergo,] but our Authors words are so confused, that it is farre more difficult to forme his words into an argu­ment, then to answer it. But to this I say, (though it may be questioned,) I shall grant it, that all in the first verse, for whom we are to pray, is of the same extent with the all, in ver. 6. for whom Christ was a ransome; this proveth not that (All men) ver. 6. taketh in all Adams sonnes, because the All in ver. 1. doth not so. But will some say, are we not to pray for Adams sonnes? I answer, in some cases not; [Page 144] but admit we are, it is a truth, veritate rei, not veritate loci, Scripture elsewhere hap­pily may; but this place dictateth not thus much to us. And all that the Author inser­teth, I grant; he bids beleevers to pray for all men, but this is to repeate, not prove, or however to prove Idem per Idem, as to say, All men, is to be understood of all A­dams sonnes, because it saith all men; excellent probation. And whereas he saith, [It saith not of all sorts some, but all men;] it is unworthy the nameing, so I may say: it saith not [all Adams sonnes, every individuall, but all men] it saith neither [of all sorts some] nor [all of every sort] but useth a phrase that will admit either meaning; now this is the question which is meant? let the Text determine: it run­neth not into Individuals, as [Nero, Caesar,] &c. but into kinds; as [Kings and such as are in authority under them:] because all sorts were ordained to be usefull to the Church; and he instanceth in Kings, because they have the greatest influence into the growth of the Gospel; therefore it is probable, that though he say (All men) he mea­neth [All sorts of men.] And whereas he saith, [naming but one sort, he ex­presly saith all of them,] it is an expresse falsity; he saith not for (All Kings) but all such as are in authority under them: that is, all degrees or kindes of power under Kings: But he attempteth to answer objections, page 57. the first whereof is not ma­teriall, the second is worth examining.

[Objection. May we pray for such as we know have sinned the sinne against the Ho­ly Ghost?

Answer, No, &c. For then they are separated from the All men, &c.]

Reply, But doth the sin against the Holy Ghost, make him that commits it to cease to be one of Adams sonnes, or of men, or naturall men, or unbeleivers? certainely not. Indeed it maketh him to cease being one of that all which we are to pray for; but then, doth it not clearely evince that, the phrase (All men) doth not take in eve­ry sonne of Adam? for, if the Church or a beleever may pray for all men, and so obey the Apostles command, though one or many be left out that have sinned unto death, what is more cleare then that the All in ver. 1. doth not take in every individuall son of Adam?

CHAP. XI. Of the sentence in Heb. 2.9.

AS for the persons to whom the Epistle was writ, the occasion of writing, the per­son writing, the reason why his name is concealed, &c. are such circumstances as no way cometh within the verge of our enquiry; in this point I shall consider the words from which he fetcheth so much strength to his doctrine as he conceiveth: in so much as he makes it a champion text in his frontispiece to defend the whole work.

His words are these.

[That by the grace of God he might taste death for every man.] The whole verse is thus, being directly rendred from the Originall. [We see Jesus made little lower then the Angels, through the suffering of death, crowned with honour and glory, that by the grace of God, &c.] Now here are two things affirmed of Christ. First, that he was made a little lower then the Angels. Secondly, that through death he was crowned with honour and glory; now it would give some light into the after words, if we could tell on which of these two they depend, or to which they relate: I must confesse it very obscure; The Author page 65. seemes to make them relate to both, as if he was made little lowet then the Angels, that he might taste death; and also crowned with honour and glory, because he tasted death for every man; but this least probable; for then the word [...] must signifie both, (ut) and (quia) both (that) and (because) which is not likely; but let the dependance be what it will: for the words themselves, I propound these following Queries. First, whether these words [ [...]] be well rendred thus. [That by the grace of God he might taste death for every man.] And whether it may not beare this reading, [That by the grace of God he might taste of every death, or (de tota morte) of all or whole death:] That he might taste [...]. This reading I shall cleare to be no way contrary to the Scripture or Grammaticall construction; then that the context clearely leadeth to it; the most forcible objection from Grammer, is that [...], being a verbe of sense, governeth a genitive case without [...]. But although this be true, yet it is well knowne that this language delights in such pleonasmes, and redundancy of prepositions is the elegancy of this language, when yet the word will go­verne the genetive case without them.

But some may say, that if it had been so meant, the words would have been thus pla­ced, [...], but to this I answer; that in the chapter there are two, and in the verse one president, for placing the verbe between the adjective or relative, and the substantive.

And the [...] or [...] is often for totus not omnis: as Ephes. 4.16. [...] the whole body; so [...] whole death: so that here is not one word rendred but justifiably by Scripture.

Secondly this is most agreeing with the context; for if the Author will have these words to relate to his [being made lower then the Angels, and suffering death,] it very [Page 150] well agreeth thereto; for, if it be asked why he suffered such a death, which death is not confined to the perfective act, when his soule was separated from his body, but ex­tendeth to all the acts of his humiliation, from his incarnation, to his expiration; for so all this was the death for which he was crowned, as appeareth, Phil 2.7.8, 9. His taking on him the forme of a servant, as well as his submitting to the crosse, was that which got him that name; now if it be asked why he suffered such a death, of such la­titude and extent, it was that he might taste [...], of whole death, both top and dregs, no part of that death we lie under shall be untasted off. Or if we will have them relate to those words, [He was crowned with honour,] it well agreeth with them; for if the question be asked how he came to be crowned with honour and glory as he now is; the answer is not to be given, or the cause fetched from the lati­tude of the persons for whom he was humbled, because his first act of humiliation, viz. his taking our nature upon him, was [...], for every man for whom he after­ward died; and if the ground of his glory was drawne from the latitude of persons for whom he suffered, his Father had as good ground to glorifie him at his Incarnati­on, as at his expiration, but that he did not: but the ground is fetched from the la­titude of sufferings; when he had taken our nature on him, and undergone a series and method of sufferings in his life, and the dregs of all at his death, and so drunke his potion, and done his worke by tasting [...] of all or whole death; then and therefore he was crowned; having so much suffered, he entred into glory; and so we see it well agreeing with the words foregoing.

And it well agreeth with the words that follow. [For it behooved him &c. to make the Captaine of their salvation perfect through sufferings.] Now that word (For) sheweth that this 10. verse relateth to the 9. and that he did [...], that he might be perfect through sufferings; now when is Christ perfect through sufferings? whether when he hath suffered for all men, or when he hath tasted of all sufferings, or whole death? certainely if the former, then he might in his very incarnation be said to be perfect through sufferings, for that he was for all for whom he died; but this neither reason nor Scripture teacheth, and it is most congruous to both to affirme the latter: and so Heb. 5.9. saith and seemeth to refer this perfection to the ultimate act, and then he was made the author of salvation. Nay, further we finde verse 17. that [it behooved him to be like unto us in all things.] still expounding his being perfect in sufferings, that is when he hath sufferings that we were lyable to, and so might know how to helpe us in all afflictions, he being like to us [...] in every death or affliction, then is he perfect through sufferings. This I deter­mine not, but desire the Author to transmit it to his oracle; and I leave it to the judg­ment of the learned: and if it be found congruous, then this Text maketh but little for him.

Query. (2) Wave the former sense; how can the Author fetch his generall ex­pression from these words, [...], as if it was to be read for every man? the sub­stantive is not expressed, but left so as indifferent to be rendred, every beleever or son of God, as every man, or sonne of Adam: the word [...] or any word from it, when set alone is not alwayes to be rendred All men, or every man, as John. 12.32. [...], it is not I will draw all men, that is not verified, but plainely from Iohn. 3.15. [where it saith, [the sonne of man is lift up that whoever beleeveth might have eter­nall life] appeareth to be meant of every one that beleeveth, and so 1 Cor. 4.5. [...], praise shall be given, is not [...] to every man, but [...] to every faithfull man, as verse 2. So that he will have it thus [...], [Page 151] for every one that beleeveth, as John. 3.16. Rom. 1.16. or [...] for every faithfull man, as 1 Cor. 4.5. or [...] for every sonne, as Heb. 2.10. for every such man I grant he tasted death; but if he will have it so large as every man, or that pertaketh of humane nature, that he must prove.

Quere, (3) But if it was [...] for every man; how would he prove it to extend any further then 1 Tim. 2.6. all men; and so not to mean men of every kinde? for so, sonnes he hath of all sorts of men, of which sonnes he speaketh, verse 10. certaine it is the word [ [...]] in the singular, Heb 2.9. cannot more intimate the particulars in any kinde, then the word [ [...]] in the plurall, 1 Tim. 2.6. Ther­fore his first conclusion page 64. needeth no ecce, it is so empty; So that if the questi­on be asked, for how many Christ tasted death, it cannot be answered from the Text, for (every man) that is as the Author expoundeth it, Every individuall sonne of Adam.

CHAP. XII. Of the Consideration of like Scriptures speaking in like manner.

HIs drift in this Chapter, is to borrow some strength from other Scriptures, pre­tending that it is the ordinary language of Scripture, and not of 1 Tim. 2.6. Heb. 2.9. therefore his severall Texts I shall examine.

[2 Cor. 5.19. God was in Christ reconciling the World to him­selfe, not imputing their trespasses.] This text I have formerly treated of in my second Chapter, and there showne that this Text favoureth him not for two reasons. First, because this Text speaketh of the application of the blood of Christ, as I have showne by foure particulars in the second Chapter, to which I referre the Rea­der, which the Author is very averse to, and strongly denieth, but weakely dispro­veth. His reasons why this meaneth not of the application by his spirit is twofold; [1. It saith not God will be reconciling the world to himselfe, as speaking of the worke of his Spirit;] as if no worke of God upon the hearts of men by his Spirit was done and past, so that it might not be said he was so working; certainely he had reconciled many mens hearts to himselfe by the Gospel, long before the Apostle spoke these words; so that though he spake of that act of his spirit, he might say [...], God was reconciling; therefore this is no convincing argument. [2. It saith not God was in the world reconciling, as if he spake of the application in the hearts of men.] Neither is it so to be meant [in Christ] as if God working in the heart of Christ. But in Christ, as no more then [by Christ] and [for Christ] but this phrase is as suitable to the applicati­on of his blood, as well as the procurement by his blood, if the Apostle say true, Ephes. 1.3. If all spirituall blessings be given us in him, then surely reconcileing our hearts, being one, is also in him, and in verse 10. he plainely saith, that the faithfull are ga­thered together in one in Christ: therefore though it saith not in the world, but in Christ, it may well be meant of the application of Christs blood in the hearts of men.

A second reason why this place favoureth him not, is; Because though it did speake of the Act of Christ as mediatour procuring reconciliation; yet it doth not say for all, or every sonne of Adam, but for the world: which phrase is taken in Scripture not so largely, as 1 John. 5.19. [The whole world lieth in wickednesse;] this cannot take in every sonne of Adam, because may are affirmed to be of God in the same verse, and so not to sinne, however not to lie in sinne. So Colos. 1.6. though the Gospel brought forth fruite in all the world, yet not in every sonne of Adam, 1 Tim. 3.16. beleeved on in the world, but not of every sonne of Adam, but men living in the world.

Some reasons he attempts to produce, to prove that this world meanes all Adams sonnes, and those reasons he draweth from, 2 Cor. 5. his generall deduction is this, [What world it is that he reconciled, let the Text shew,] so I say also, he urgeth thus. [The world of mankinde, verse 11. we perswade men;] it is true he perswaded men, not God, as Gal. 1.10. and the world of mankinde, men living in the world; and thus we grant that God was in Christ reconciling men. But our Author would have (men) in verse 11. to denote every individuall man, but this without ground; for this phrase, [He perswades men] is of like sense with Luke. 5.10. [thou shalt catch men.] and 1 Cor. 14.3. [he that prophesieth speaketh unto men] but these take not in every sonne of Adam, nor can be so meant.

2. He thus urgeth, [And these men that must appeare before the Judge­ment seat of Christ.] Verse 10. true, and such we grant God in Christ reconci­led, but not all that must so appeare; for though all shall appeare, yet he speaketh not of all that shall appeare: it is we that have the earnest of the spirit, verse 5. wee that walke by faith not sight, verse 7. we that love to dwell with the Lord, verse 8. we that covet to be acceptable to the Lord, verse 9. it is the same we that he saith must appeare before Christs judgement; and the same wee, we grant, are reconciled in Christ. But none of all these former take in all the sonnes of Adam; therefore are not well produced to prove the word World, verse 19. to take in every individuall son of Adam.

[3. He urgeth, And those men that were dead, verse 14.] True, let him well understand the Text, and I grant it; all that were dead to sinne, as I have showen in the second Chapter, and then I grant that Christ reconciled the All in the world that died to sinne and themselves: but this taketh not in every sonne of Adam. And so for the rest that he saith in this point, from what I said in Chap. 2. may ap­peare not to availe any thing to prove the word world in verse 19. to take in every in­dividuall son of Adam: So that this Text helpeth him not.

A second Text is,

Iohn, 1.9. He is the true light that enlightneth every man that co­meth into the world.] And his deduction here from Is this, [through the ransome given there is some light afforded to every man.] Lombard ci­ting this Text, giveth this sense, [Non quod nullus sit qui non illuminetur, sed quia nisi ab illo nullus illuminatur;] and this with no little probability.

But Secondly, the Authour should have showen what enlightning this speaketh of; it may be so understood as no way to favour him, as not speaking of the same thing whereof he affirmeth: it seemeth to speake of the light that he put into men in the creation, as may appeare from verse 5. and 10. immediately after these words; we find the world was made by him, he cannot (I beleeve) prove it to be understood of the re­demption.

And herein he proceeds to show, how many wayes the Scripture affirmeth the same of the world.

1. Of the world in generall. John. 1.29. & 3.17.] I know what he meaneth by (generall) if he meane as it is a totum aggregatum, of which an action may be predicated, yet it agrees but to one part of it; as the world is said to lie in wicked­nesse, when it agreeth onely to the unbeleeving part, and so he shall convince the world of sin, that is, the unbeleeving part: so on the other side, he taketh away the sins of the world, that is, of the unbeleeving part thereof, this I grant.

2. Of the world distributed into its parts, some beleeving, some not. John. 3.16.18.] But will the Author say that he came to save both parts of the world? the Text saith no such thing, but that those that beleeve might not pe­rish. God is said to love the world, it is true; but distribute this world into its parts, and what love doth the Text set forth to both its parts? his love to the world, as (to­tum quid) is there intimated, and showne in his love to the beleeving part thereof, and to the beleeving part in that they shall be saved: but wherein is the love of God exprest to the unbeleeving part, let the Text, or the Author from the Text speake. So that though he be here said to love the world, and that is distributed into parts, yet no love is expressed to both parts of that distribution.

3. Of the world opposed to Beleevers, in the world. 1 John, 2.1.] It is cleare to every eye that there is no opposition at all in that Text, onely a diversifi­cation. (2.) Neither can he prove that there is a distinction of beleevers from unbe­leevers, but onely of some beleevers, to whom he wrote from beleevers all over the world. (3.) For such an assertion as this, that Christ gave himselfe a ransome for a world opposed to beleevers, it is such as cannot be found in any beside our Author: the Remonstrants that have made the number as large as may either by shew of reason or Scripture; yet they professe that [In horum numero censeri non debent impaenitentes, Act. Synod. 285. 286. incre­duli, rebelles, &c. qua tales,] that is, in this number of All, the unbeleeving and im­penitent, are not to be reckoned; and thus, [Infidelibus & rebellibus quâ talibus gratia impetrata non est:] that is, grace was not impetrated or procured for the unbeleevers, as so. But if our Authors words be true, that he died for the world opposed to be­leevers; then he dyed for unbeleevers as so considered; but this no Scripture spea­keth.

4. Of the world divided and such particulars set out as cannot be the Elect of God. John. 12.47.48.] We had before in the second accepta­tion, the world distributed into its parts, and now we have it divided into its parts; here is judicious distinction betwixt distributed and divided. (2.) That Text doth not say that he came to save that part of the world, which he saith cannot be meant of the Elect of God. (3.) It is not evident that that place speaketh of such as are not the Elect: many may not receive the word of Christ for the present, yet be one of Gods chosen, and thus much the Author confesseth page 69. thus, [Yea even among these are many of Gods Elect and chosen, to whom these sayings agree,] and one of these sayings is this, [neither receiveth nor perceiveth the things of the Spirit.] Yet now this expres­sion, (he that heareth my words and beleeveth not) must needs set out such as cannot be Gods elect and chosen ones.

5. Of the world, as the Elect are in due time called out of the fellow­ship of it and distinguisht from it, whilest many of the Elect are in it.] [Page 154] He produceth many Texts wherein the word (world) is thus taken; but he produceth not one place wherein it is said that Christ came to save that world, and therefore he herein requireth no answer; yet I say of that world he may be said to be the Saviour, yet in respect of them that shall be called out in time; but that he is the Saviour of that world, out of which all his Elect are t [...]ken, no Scripture speaketh; and therefore that fond flourish which he maketh in those after words, the Reader may see he hath little ground whereas he saith [Of the World every way taken he is the Saviour,] he cannot, nor hath he proved that he is the Saviour of both parts, beleeving and unbeleeving, nor the world opposed to beleevers, nor such as cannot be called the elect of God, nor that world out of which all the elect are chosen.

But after this spacious digression upon the word (World) he comes to affirme that [the Elect is never called the World:] something like that of the Remonstrants, [vox mundus in Scripturis nunquam electos significat] that is,act. Synod. 301. the word World doth never signifie the Elect, which I shall not at this time disprove, but content my selfe with this, that there is no need to prove it; sufficient it is now to prove that the word All doth not take in every sonne of Adam, and that that thing is said to be done to, and by, and in the World, that is done but to and by and in the beleeving part of the world: and this is not hard, Col. 1 6. 1 Tim. 3.19. Rom. 4.12.13. with others, in which places I thinke also the word World denoteth onely the Elect of God, if beleevers be such. But still in prosecution of this, he hath severall Queries, as

[If we looke at such as stumble at Christ, doth not the Scripture say, such perish for whom Christ died?] To which I answer no; no Scripture af­firmeth any such thing, not that Text, 1 Corinth. 8.11. It is not affirmative but in­terrogatory.

And bring upon themselves swift destruction, denying the Lord that bought them. 2 Pet. 2.1. I have said something upon this text before, but because it againe offereth it selfe, I shall adde a few words more; true it is they are said to deny the Lord that bought them; that is, as it is generally received [...], according to their owne and others judgement; as Ahaz is said to sacrifice to the Gods of Damascus that smote him 2 Chron. 28.23. And how can the Author prove that Christ did ransome or buy them any more them the Gods of Damascus did smite Ahaz: the one saith they denied the Lord that bought them, and the other sacrificed to the gods that smote him; but I know the Author will not say that the Gods of Damascus did really and indeed hurt or smite Ahaz, but he thought so. This I overthrow not, but to it I adde thus much, it was not only as they thought, but [Secundum vanam jactan­tiam,] as they boasted, they spake proud swelling word, spake much of Christ and his ransome; now it is frequent in Scripture to upbraid the sonnes of men with such things as they boast of, as if they were so indeed, as Ezek 28.12. and so making their boasting an aggravation of their sinne, as Rom. 3.17.23. thou that gloriest in God, and in the Law, dost thou by breaking of the Law dishonour God? So it was not an ordinary sinne that these false Prophets are branding, not barely denying him that bought them, for so every unbeleever doth in his judgement, but this is more then e­very unbeleever is charged withall; seeing he that names Christ is tyed thereby to de­part from iniquity, 2 Tim. 2.19. And they boasting of Christ they were more obli­ged then others not to deny him, but they did deny the Lord that bought them, that is not that the Text lookes at the reality of the thing, but their boasting that it was so, which made it be an aggravated sin in those false Prophets; and how this agreeth [Page 155] with the persons spoke of and other Scriptures, let the Author perpend, and if so taken, how much it serveth his turne let him also judge.

Are they not said to have troden under foote the Sonne of God?] Thus the Remonstrant urges, [Apostatae dic [...]ur filium dei conculcare, act. Synod. &c. ergo filius dei illis aliquo modo est datus, fangu [...] testamenti ad aliquod gratiae faedus cum illis constituendum effusus, &c.] That is they tread under foote the Sonne of God, therefore he is in some way given to them, and his blood shed to make some covenant of Grace with them; the strength of which inferences I am not able to see; for they being gathered to the Church, and so hearing Christ preached, so outwardly professing him, they afterward falling off and not applying themselves to beleeve on him for salvation, tread under foote the Sonne of God; and this they may doe though Christ did never purchase life and salvation for them; as a man may kicke the image of his Soveraigne in his coine, though it was never intended for him.

Are they not said to be trees twice dead, Jude, 12.] Yes we read so, but whether the argument framed therefrom be valid, I question; for thus he reasoneth, they are twice dead, once in Adam, now a second time by their sinnes: now this second death supposeth a life intervening which they have from Christ; but this is extorted, and not the sense of this nor any other Scriptures. For

1. For this supposeth all Adams sonnes to be made alive, and to be alive, with a life that is beside what of nature: for this spirituall death in sin, is opposed to a spirituall life; but this is not the language of Scripture, not one place that I know that saith all A­dams sons are alive.

2. It is frequent with Scripture to speake of things that doe appeare onely as if they were, as Saint Paul, Rom. 7.9. Without the Law I was alive, that is I thought so, but when the Law came I died: here is a second death, but that is opposed to an appa­rent life; so why may not this Text meane a death opposed to an apparent life of grace, which by their seeming holinesse they seemed to live, but when they discovered them­selves, they are said to die the second time? and this seemes backed by the context, Clouds without water; Trees without fruite, twice dead.

3. Scripture phrase speaketh that condemnation in Hell is the second death, Rev. 20.14. cum 6. and this spoken of men as if it was actually so, when yet it meaneth but thus, that it infallibly shall be so; as he that beleeveth not is condemned, that is, shall be in condemnation: he that beleeveth hath everlasting life, that is, shall have it infallibly. So this twice dead, that is, they are such as shall certainely die the second death.

4. It is usuall with Scripture, speaking of that which is throughly done, or done indeed, to expresse it by twice done, or done doubly, Jer. 17.18. Destroy them with a double destruction, is destroy them throughly, or to the purpose, or destroy them in­deed. So twice dead is dead indeed, throughly dead, dead every way; to this Mr. Perkins in his exposition propendes.

5. The Authors Argument makes death in sinne to be second death, but this Scrip­ture speaketh not, Rev. 2. Rev. 20.6.14. Therefore the sense of his cannot stand, nor his argument from it.

CHAP. XIII. Of answering the most usuall and strongest objections against this truth.

ANy that looketh upon this title, and his first lines of this Chapter, could promise himselfe no lesse then these three particulars. First, that the Author taketh these arguments that are most usuall, and those that are of the greatest force. Secondly, that he propoundeth such in their proper force and vigour, as they are propounded by his adversaries. Thirdly, that he giveth to these pertinent and satisfactory answers; but that he in all these commeth short, shall appeare by the following discourse.

The first Argument that he seemeth to answer, he propoundeth thus.

[The Scripture in such places as 1 Tim. 1.6. &c. are not to be un­derstood in the sense they import:] Wherein he perswadeth his readers that this is produced by us as an argument to prove the contrary to his assertion; but this is false and bewrayeth his ignorance; it is produced as an answer to the arguments for­med on their parts, thereby putting them to prove that those Texts are taken as he pre­tendeth: seeing Scripture is not alway taken as it seemeth to import. This responso­ry assertion of ours so much intrencheth upon his over confident concluding upon ma­ny Scriptures, that he rejecteth it as many wayes obnoxious, and affirmeth the contra­ry thus. [The Scripture speaketh sometimes plainely, sometimes me­taphorically, parabolically, yet alwayes truly, and so as the words import, for God is a God of truth, Psalm. 31.5.] The weaknesse of which expressions may appeare to any; for it may be understood, that when we say some Scriptures are not to be understood as they seeme to import, we meane not that they are not to be understood as the Spirit it selfe meaneth, or as they are used by him to expresse his meaning, but not so as they seeme to us to import; not alwayes accor­ding to the nature and ordinary signification of the word which the Spirit useth. Now let us see how he oppugneth this.

1. He saith the Scripture sometimes speaketh (plainely) sometimes metaphorical­ly, parabolically.] Now in that he saith it speaketh sometimes plainely, it granteth that sometimes it speaketh not plainly; now when the Scripture speaketh plainely, we know, viz. when the sense of the words is so applied to the words in their native and common signification, that he that knowes the one, may know the other. But when doe they speake not plainely, certainely it is when he that knoweth the nature and usu­all acceptation of the words used, and followeth that and so mistaketh the true sense, when the sense is beyond the native and usuall sense of the word, then the Scripture speaketh not plainely: as to instance with the Author in metaphoricall &c. speeches, such are tropicall and changed from their native signification, unto a foraigne signifi­cation; (as his paedagogicall rudiments may informe him) but when they are so chan­ged, they mean not as they seeme to import; but thus many Scriptures speake as the Author confesseth; now thus to say, is no way to confute us, but to confirme us.

2. That expression [He speaketh alwayes truly,] is no argument against us, because though he meaneth not as the words seeme to import, yet he speaketh truly; the truth [Page 157] of his words are so deduced from the conformity of the sense to his owne mind, not to the native use of the words.

He afterwards thus argueth.

[When the Scripture saith that by the grace of God he tasted death for every man, and gave himselfe a ransome for all men, &c. That any of us should say his words have not the sense they seeme to import!] Wherein he seemeth to wonder that any should presume so to say, but it is groundlesse; for the sense that Thomas Moore putteth upon those Scriptures, is that Christ by his death procured eternall life for every sonne of Adam, and this sense the words seeme to im­port, else he forgeth it without any ground; but that is not indeed the sense, my whole discourse showeth; therefore we may well say, they have not the sense they seeme to im­port. Againe be thus urgeth.

[The mysteriousnesse of the Scripture stands not in any equivocall hiddennesse or doubtfulnesse of speech, as the Oracles of the Heathen Gods, that might be made true which way so ever taken, though con­trary to what they imported; but Scriptures though mysterious are so full of unchangeable truth, that when by the Spirit the knowledge thereof is given, it will appeare to be right and plaine, according to the words in which it is expressed.] But all this is not against us; for, 1. True, they are not equivocall, that is, relating to the minde of the speaker; now God ne­ver meant to deceive as the Heathen Oracles, yet may the Scripture have a sense beyond what the words import, or seem to export, because they are mysterious. 2. He is mistaken in the Heathen Oracles, they were not made true contrary to what they im­ported, because they were so framed as that they might import either way; as, [Aio te Aeacida Romanos vincere posse.] 3. The truth of the Scripture is unchangeable wee grant, but it will not thence follow that some places have not a sense beyond what the words naturally import; and when we know the sense, we shall say that it is true according to the words in a tropicall or figurative transmutation, yet not true as the words naturally import: but it matters not how plaine the sense is when we know it; but how is the sense obvious to us before it be revealed? Whether may we not follow the native sense and import of the words, so far as to take up a sense contrary to the meaning of Christ? if so, all that that he saith is but empty; but that we may, is cleare from Nicodemus, John. 3.4. the disciples. Mark 8.15.16. the Jewes, Iohn. 2.19.20. in which places they judged of his speeches by the naturall import of the words, but in so doing cried. But this assertion of ours, viz. [That the Scripture hath not alway the sense that the words import or seeme to import,] is backed with foure severall rea­sons as he produceth it, which he attempts to disprove, but how he performeth I shall examine.

CHAP. XIIII. Of answering a second Objection.

THe second Argument which he undertaketh to refute as he produceth, it is this.

[Saint Iohn makes it an infallible marke of the love of Christ to them for whom he died and laid down his life, 1 Iohn. 3.16.

But God hath not loved every man in the world, for he hated Esau, Rom. 9, 13. but his Church whom he loveth to the end, Ephes. 5.25.

Ergo, Christ did not die for every man.] The former which he produ­ced, was no argument; and this so miserably abused, that any intelligent man may be ashamed to owne it, and confident I am he cannot produce it from any pen, unlesse such as himselfe, propounding it purposely to make it vile and odious; that wherin the vigour of the argument lyeth, is left out, and a superfluity of confusion intermin­gled, which giveth us a taste of his faithfulnesse in this businesse, which he at first promised; if he do it willingly, he is to be blamed; if ignorantly, he will not I hope thinke much to be informed: the argument in its genuine shape runs thus, and it was the sixth in order in the conscience at Hague.

[Those for whom Christ died, he loved them (some) with the top and greatest love that is showne to man,

But so he loveth not all and every man with his greatest love.

Ergo, He died not for every man,] that is for every son of Adam.]

The major proposition, is grounded on many Texts, wherein the love of Christ in dying for us is not set downe as an expression of love barely, but with an emphasis and transcendebly, as Rom. 5.8. a love with all commendation or magnification, 1 Iohn. 3.16. He so loved the world; not great love onely but greatest, John 15.13. no greater love then for a man to lay downe his life for his friend; but Christs greater, in that he did it when we were enemies; therefore we propound it not so remissely as he fallaciously, [whom he dieth for he loveth,] and no more, but loveth eminently with the greatest love.

The minor is undeniable; for that God should love every man most and with his great­est love, yea the damned with so great, as beloveth the saved withall, the Arminians durst never yet affirme, Scripture no where speaketh, and the Author himselfe over­throweth, page 89. [to some more especiall love is showne.] Now any may see the [Page 171] wide difference betwixt the argument in its genuine force, and as he propoundes it, and all his answers fall to the ground, being apted not to the argument, but his per­versions of it, yet I shall reply that I may reduce him to truth.

As for that Text 1 Iohn, 3.16. it is picked out of purpose by himself, it is not so clear­ly holding f [...]ith the force of the argument as many others; yet to take it as it lieth, let us consider that it meaneth that transcendent love, beyond the greatest of mans. Hereby perceive we that love, Cap. 4.10, 11. and if he so loved us, and behold what love. Cap. 3 ver. 1. Now can every son of Adam? say, I perceive the greatest love of God to me in that Christ died for me; if every man perceiveth the greatest love, then no roome for his expresse, page 89. [to some more speciall favour i [...] showne.]

His after-plea [The place speakes of the perception of love by beleivers,] helpeth not, because it speaketh of no other perception then what arose from the for­mer assertion: [Christ hath died for us,] it is a conclusion from infallible premises which any may conclude that can so premise; there is such a connexion betwixt his dying for and his greatest love, that every one that affirmeth the one, doth (in eodem instanti) affirme the other; it is no speciall priviledge of some to perceive his greatest love in dying for them, but of all for whom he died. Thus for the major.

He then violently assaulteth the minor thus,

[The assumption is full of infidelity and blasphemy.] A heavy charge, if he can make his charge good; but like [...]ailing Ra [...]shekah, he oftner barketh then biteth; but how great is his impudence and injury to misalledge his adversary into infidelity and blasphemy? let him take the assumption as he should propound it. viz. [God loveth not every man with his greatest love,] then either it is not infidelity and blas­phemy, or else he is equally guilty with us: for he saith, page 89. [God giveth to some more speciall love] if so, then he loveth not every man with his speciall and greatest love; nay, yet further he saith, page 90. [If it had been God loveth not every man in the world, it might be granted and proved,] which is more then he can prove; but if it be a truth that he loveth not every man in the world, then certainely it is far from infidelity and blasphemy, to say that he loveth not every man with his transcen­dent and greatest love; no nor ever hath loved every man with his greatest love. Nei­ther is it such blasphemy as he pretendeth, to say, that he hath not nor doth love any but his Church with his transcendent or greatest love; the Apostle giveth great rea­son so to affirme, Ephes. 5.25, 26. He therefore exhorteth to conjugall affection, which is the greatest and strongest of all relations, and to the greatest and highest de­gree of that kinde; and the patterne of this he fetcheth from Christ to his Church, and that expressed in giving up himselfe to death for them; is it not cleare that he lo­veth his Church with his transcendent and greatest love? nay, this he plainely affir­meth, page 9 [...]. from this very Text Ephes. 5.25. where he saith, [That Text speakes of higher ends of giving himselfe then ransome, even of the speciall fruits of applica­tion, ver. 26. so the Author, page 94.] So intimating that the application holds forth, greater love then the giving his life to procure; but this is groundlesse; for though the Text speaketh of the application of his blood, yet the specimen of his tran­scendent love is not in that, but his giving himselfe to that end, [In that he loved it and gave himselfe for it.] Besides Scripture speaketh as if to give his life to procure, is a signe of greater love, then to give his spirit to sanctifie; the Apostle inforceth from the greater to the lesse, if he gave us him to die for us, much more with him will he give us all things; spirit to helpe infirmities, vocation, justification, glorification, Rom. 9.32. And when the Scripture commendeth his love, it is not that he gives them [Page 172] Spirit to apply, but his life to merit, in that he died; and no better testimony doe I desire then of the Remonstrants themselves.Collat. Hagien. in Arg. 6.] [Quum vitâ nullum pretiosius pignus quia pro alio constituere potest, merito dicitur summam esse charitatem vitam deponere; hoc cum scipo Christi convenit, sicut & cum aliis locis, Ephes. 1.2. 1 Iohn. 3.16.] That is, seeing none can lay downe for any a greater pledge then life, therefore it is deservedly said, that it is the greatest love to lay downe life for one: by which the evidence both of Major and M [...]nor appeareth.

But here in page 90, he instanceth where the blasphemy of our assumption lyeth, viz. in contradicting and blaspheming many Texts of Scripture, as Iohn, 3.16. where it speakes of Gods love to the world; true, but is in the beleeving part of it, as the afterwords show, for them that beleeve not, whom God foreseeth, how doth God expresse his love to them? doth he send his sonne to die for them? that as many of them (whom he foreseeth to persist in unbeleefe) as that beleeve, should not perish? So he saith it blasphemeth, [Psal. 145.8.9.136.25. where it saith, the Lord is good to all,] but d [...]th our affirmation, viz. [that God loveth onely his Church with his highest and greatest love?] contradict that of the Psalmist, viz. [that God is good to all?] let the Author better consider, hath the Lord nothing to bestow, unlesse he give them the top of his love? Thirdly, he saith it contradicteth [the force of all his exhortations, and calls to such as refuse,] nay, it leaveth a way for these, there be­ing not his highest love; for greater it is for God to give hearts willing to obey his call, which his very words intimate he giveth not to all, therefore loveth not all with his highest love. And so for the rest, they are weake and to no purpose alledged, onely apted against this position, [that God hath not loved every man at all,] which is not our af­firmation; let them that broach it maintaine it.

But he hath a more stupendious piece of blasphemy against our assumption, viz.

[It saith he hath not loved any other of mankinde, no not when he made and beheld them all righteous, but hated them; Oh fearefull to say! that he hateth the righteous, Psalm. 45.7.] But here envy speaketh, and ignorance admires; for we say not, nor can it be infer'd from us, that God loved not innocent man at all, but that he loved not him with his transcendent and greatest love, he did not manifest the top of his love to him: and this is no such blasphemy or fearefull thing to say; for the gift that he gave to his Church, viz. (His Son) was greater then primitive grace, or any thing that he conferred in the creation, and our deserts lesse; for though in creation we could deserve no good, and so his gift be free: yet now in in our restoring we deserved much evill; in creation what good he gave us was onely without merit, but he now bestoweth all against our me it; hence the scrip­ture puts the emphasis of love upon the worke of redemption, mercy having more in it then meere goodnesse: by the former rather then by the latter, he would be knowne as by his glory. Exod. 33.19. & 34.6.7.

But besides why should he fasten that on us as blasphemy, which will prove the re­sult of his owne words? he saith, [to hate is to love in a lesse degree,] page 92. now doth not God love the righteous in a lesse degree then he loveth his onely Sonne in? then he hateth the righteous by his owne doctrine; oh fearefull to say! but thus much is cleare, that grant him that God loved innocent man; yet it followeth not, that he loved every man with the top and greatest of his love; so that our Minor yet standeth good.

But he descendeth to give some satisfactory answer to the argument, and it is well he doth so, for his former words have yeelded but little, it is well if his afterwords [Page 173] yeeld more; we shall not shut our eyes against it. He would have the Scripture shewed where it speaketh of the love and hatred; let it be so, as also his words which are these. [The Scripture mentioneth a diverse kinde and degree of love and hatred in God shewen in the effects of it.] Now herein I shall willing­ly joyne issue with him, seriously to consider and weigh not onely what Scripture saith, but what the Scripture meaneth in such speeches, least we vent our owne conceits un­worthy the nature of God; love and hatred is no more attributed to God, then desire, griefe, rejoycing, with all other affections and passions of men, which in us are per­turbations, and why not then love and hatred? but to grant any perturbations in God, comes little short of blasphemy; therefore it may be controverted, whether as all the rest of our affections (incident to us) so love and hatred be attributed to God pro­perly, or onely by an Anthropopathy; as the members of our body are given to him by an Anthropomorphy; that there is such a thing in God which we call love I grant; but that the name of love and hatred is but figuratively given to it, that also I affirme; Gods love is generally thus defined. [Velle dare bonum creaturis,] a will to bestow good upon his creatures; now this will is properly said to be in God, but it is (as I conceive) figuratively called love, after the manner of men, because whom man lo­veth, to him he willeth to bestow good: So Gods will to bestow good is termed his love; yet this is the difference, mans will to bestow good is an effect of his love; but God when he willeth to give good, it is not any effect of his love, but his love it self. Scripture furnisheth us with such expressions, John. 3.16. God so loved the world that he sent his Sonne, that is, his actuall sending is an effect of his love, that is of his will to send; but we never finde this nor any such, God so loved that he willed to send his Sonne, because his will to send his Sonne is that love it selfe. Hence that assertion of Cortinus in Molin. l. 5. s. 3 [Let him that will consult with him] about that expressi­on. [Alius affectus mensura alterius affectus & causa quod deus decretum faciat;] hath not stabiliment at all in Scripture; this being considered, it will appeare that Gods love hath no augmentation, diminution, alteration, diversification,Aquin. p. 1^• Q 20. Art. 30. Q. 20. Art. 20. Q. 23. Art. 30. but what proceeds from the good things bestowed, or will to bestow them; so that as God is said to will a greater or lesse good, so he is said to love more or lesse, [Ex parte boni voliti unum di­ligit magis aut minus.] And as the willeth some good freely, and yet some evill for the sinne of the creature, that creature may be said to be both loved and hated, [Idem potest odio haberi & amari; diversa ratione peccator & amatur & odio habetur,] and that as God willeth to give this man eternall life, and to deny that man the same good, he is said to love the one, and hate the other, although to both he give some good. [Deus omnes amat in quantum omnibus dat aliquod bonum; in quantum aliquibus non dat vitam aeter­nam, ideo eos od o habet.] These being considered, I shall make it appeare that there is more feare of his confounding the degrees of his love of compassion then that wee should confound his love of compassion and delight as he speaketh. Now to proceed to what he saith of Gods love and hatred: of Gods love he speaketh of a double sort.

Love of

• Compassion.
• and Delight.

I shall not insist on these termes, though I might and show his want of wisdome in hinting such expressions without explanation; for true, the Scripture gives to God [compassion,] but in compassion there must needs be passion, but none in God: Nor yet to insist upon what he saith of either by way of bounding to each its limits in [Page 174] good things bestowed, though I might expatiate my selfe herein; for he maketh Gods compassion and mercy to extend no further then to make men salvable, and his delight to be in the giving union and possession of all priviledges, but this division is without ground; for all good that God gives to fallen man, even to glory it selfe, floweth from his compassion and mercy; glory in heaven is mercy as well as any thing we receive on earth, 2 Tim. 1.18. and all that love that rests not till the party loved be brought into union &c. is that love of compassion, (though he make it to be the love of delight,) which properly rests not till all that be done; for delight is rather in the thing done, then tending to the doing of it; these two constitute not a good distin­ction as he boundeth them: but these with many other things I passe by, and come to examine what he speaketh of hatred: that also he saith is twofold.

[1. A not so much loving, as Gen. 29.30.31.33. Luke. 14.26.

2. A positive and furious hatred tending to the destruction of the ha­ted, Deut. 19.11.]

Now that a not so much loving should be called hatred, is not cleare from those Texts alledged; as for Gen. 29.30. that Text speaketh not of a lesse degree of love, but of no love at all, that is, conjugall affection; so he loved her not at all, therefore hated her: and for Luke, 14.26. there is not spoken of a lesse love, but absolute ha­tred, if they stand in opposition to Christ; for else it is enough to give worldly respects some part, so that we give Christ the greatest part of our love; but this is not sound divinity. Againe if a not so much loving be hating, then it is no such fearefull thing to say that God hateth the righteous; for certaine it is that he loveth not them so much as he doth his onely Sonne. But to let this passe, I am now to examine how he well­deth these weapons to cut down our assumption. That of Gods love he pursueth thus farre.

[A love of compassion and mercy, Psalm. 136.25.145.8.9. is such a love as extendeth it selfe so farre for the good of man loved in good things afforded, that a man is made salvable and so much done for him that in accepting, &c. he maybe saved. Psal. 36.5.6.7.]

That God is full of compassion, and his mercy is over all his workes, and he saveth man and beast, those Texts affirme, and that by the virtue of his compassion the sonnes of men come to partake of the well of life we grant; but all the rest is of his owne ma­king: none of these Texts say that every of the sonnes of men have so much of Gods compassion as to have life procured for them by Christs death, no nor yet that e­very man enjoyeth the height of Gods compassion, this is to be yet proved; for if creatures irration [...]ll, may have much of Gods compassion, and yet not the height of his compassion; why may not some men have much compassion, yet not the height of it: yet our assumption stands firme.

Againe he saith, [Lesse love then this was not to the Angels before they fell, nor lesse love to mankinde before the fall, Ecel. 7.29. Gen. 12.] This though it serve him not, yet he discovereth his folly; for this supposeth that An­gels and men had compassion showen them before they fell; but this is false; for com­passion presupposeth misery and the fall which was not before the fall; but what is the result of all this? no more but this, that all men have some degree of Gods compassi­on manifested on them; but what is all this to prove that every man hath the height of his compassion? so that his reasoning cometh to this head: every man hath some [Page 175] compassion showed him, therefore that is high blasphemy to say that every man hath not the height of his compassion; this is but miserable reasoning.

Againe thus he urgeth, [The love of compassion, and the hatred that is in a lesse degree of love, may stand together both in God and man, Hos. 11.5. Jer. 9.1.2.] This is a truth, nay I shall grant further, that his love of compassion and his positive hatred may stand together, that is, God may give some expresses of his compassion to many whose destruction he willeth, and whom he pur­poseth to destroy; and this is so far from overthrowing, that it confirmeth our assump­tion. For it cleareth this, that every degree of his compassion enjoyed, doth not ar­gue an eye to the salvation of them whom God bestoweth that low degree of compas­sion on; therefore the compassion that God showeth to many, is no argument that every man enjoyeth also the height of Gods compassion: Yet hitherto we are un­touched.

He saith further, [To say whoever he loveth with the love of compas­sion he loveth for ever, or to say he hateth (with any other hatred then that which is in the lesse degree of love,) any before they have hardened their hearts against him, &c. is contrary to Hosea, 9.10. to 15. Zach. 7.11.13. & 1.18.28. & 2.4.5.] In which words there is confusion, impropriety, and fallacy.

1. He speakes confusedly, not distinguishing the severall degrees of his compassion; for it may be granted that to whom he giveth some degrees of his compassion, he con­tinueth not that for ever, because some good he may give that is not to last for ever, viz. a temporall good; yet certainely to whom he giveth his highest pitch of compas­sion, he loveth such for ever: Will he say that Rom. 6.15. is not an everlasting com­passion? that compassion mentioned, Ier. 31.33.34. is not for ever continued: consult with 36.37.

2. He speaketh improperly, because though hatred may stand with a lesse degree of love, that is, he may deny some good to them to whom he giveth some good; yet it is not proper to say that hatred consists in that lesse degree of love; for in that he be­stoweth any good he hateth not, neither can hatred consist in the giving that good, but rather in the deniall of a greater good; he hated nor Esau in that he gave him some good, but in that he gave him not that great good that he gave to Jacob.

3. He speaketh fallaciously, suggesting to his followers that we hold that God ha­teth with a hatred, that is without any degree of love; that is, he so willeth evill to to them, that he willeth not to bestow any good at all; but this we say not; for the greatest hatred, is to will to deny grace and glory, but God may give much good to such; he hateth not the reprobate with the hatred that excludeth all good; yet some, and many he hateth so as to deny them the top and height of his compassion, and that before they turne away their hearts from him; and how doth he in all this overthrow the Minor? but by this hatred which he makes to be after their turning away from him. I suppose he meaneth (or at least should doe) his will to deny saving grace and glo­ry, and then happily

4. He may seeme to speake falsely; for his will so to doe is not after their turning away from him, but long before it; there is a double hatred of God mentioned in scrip­ture. 1. A denyall of saving grace to some which he giveth others, whence their turning away from him followeth, which others having turne not away. 2: A pu­nishment [Page 176] of such for turning away; now the first is proper to our controversie, and it is no way against Scripture to say that such hatred is before men turne away from God; of the latter his Texts speakes, as Hos. 9.15. and nothing to the purpose; for more then this cannot be concluded; that God destroyeth none till they turne away from him, which any may grant: our hardning or not hardning our hearts cannot be the measure of his giving or denying grace, or will so to doe, because his giving or not giving saving grace, is before our hardning or not hardning our hearts; as also be­cause God doth not deny grace and glory to all that turne from him: all turning from him are not so hated of him. Paul did so in a greater measure then many that God never willed to give grace or glory to, and in them who are given over, and denied his speciall grace and so hated of him; he doing of it in time willed to do so before time, as be confesseth p. 121. If so, he hated them before they hardned themselves against him; Esau was hated before he had done good or evill; now if he be hated (as they would have it) in a small degree, without and before his evill, why may not God hate him in the highest degree before his evill? Justice is seene in small things as well as great ones; if any shall say, his foresight of their sinnes is the cause why he so hateth them: I demand why did not the foresight of Pauls infidelity move him to hate him which he saw to be greater then of many who were hated, and passed by both in respect of grace and glory? but he concludeth, wherein if ever, he must undoe our assumption.

[For such as while his compassion floweth, &c. they will persist till he give them up to Satan, such are reprobated of God, and so hated of him,Ezeck. 24.13. Ier. 6.16.27.30. 1 Ioh. 5.18 &c. and none but such set forth in Scripture to be hated of God, Prov. 1.23.33. which overthroweth the assumption.] Which words are yet very fallacious, therefore not fit to satisfie us withall; for, we grant such as per­sist till they be given up are hated, and that in the highest degree; but here is the questi­on, do they then begin to be hated of him? doth Gods hatred follow or precede their being given up, yea their persisting? Gods hatred or reprobation we make no more then a will in God to deny both speciall grace and glory. Now did he not will to deny it, nay did he not deny it actually to them before they persisted? certainely he did, else they would not so persist.

We never finde this method, or God thus saying [If thou persist I will reprobate thee.] Or, [if thou persist till I give thee over to Satan, I will deny thee my speciall grace and decree so to do,] let the Author produce such if he can. But wherein hath he in all this overthrowne the assumption? his assertions are overthrowne, and ther­fore have not strength to overthrow this assumption, that is setled upon such evidence; cleare it is, (all that he saith notwithstanding) that God did decree to deny the height of his compassion to many, long before they persisted in rebellion; if so, then he did not intend Christ to them, which is the height of his compassion.

Those Texts cited by him do all speake thus much, that every man is not loved with the height of his compassion, as Rom. 9.13. speaketh thus much, that Esau was not so much loved as Iacob; and therein affirmeth that he was not loved with the height of his love; for if he had been so loved, he had received so much grace as to have kept his birthright. And this the Author granteth, page 93. [That Esau was hated in respect of peculiar love.] But he saith, [The hatred of Esau may stand with the love of compassion.] Let it be so, yet we are safe; for his hatred cannot stand with the height of his compassion, which is our assumption.

Againe he saith, [If laying his Mountaines waste did witnesse such [Page 177] hatred, did not the giving him those Mountaines testifie like love, though not so much as to Iacob?] Were it so, yet we are where we were by his owne confession. Esau was not loved with the height of his compassion, because not so much as Iacob.

Besides let the Author consider, were not those sayings waste, and so Gods hatred of Esa [...], and love to Iacob, though showne in part in temporall things, yet to be accompli­shed in spirituall? how comes the Apostle in Rom. 9. to use this example in his busi­nesse which was to prove that all Abrahams feed according to the flesh, were not heires according to promise? As for his reiterated calumny, viz. that our assumption confoundeth the love of compassion and delight, it is not worth the naming, the con­trary hath appeared; rather he confounds the severall degrees of compassion, in argu­ing that because every man partaketh of some degree of compassion, therefore every man must partake of the highest degree; but this reasoning can never overthrow our assumption, and so our argument still holdeth firme.

I shall againe resume it.

Those for whom Christ died so as to procure eternall life for, he loved with height and top of his love.

But he loveth not every son of Adam with the height of his love.

Ergo, He did not lay downe his life for every sonne of Adam, so as to procure eternall life for them; and what passage is there in all his discourse that ever­teth either of these premises, from which the conclusion followeth firme?

CHAP. XV. Of the third Objection.

THe third Argument which he pretendeth to answer is this.

[All they for whom Christ died to satisfie his Fathers justice, are justified by his blood, &c.

But. But every son of Adam is not justified by his blood, &c.

Ergo, He did not die for, nor satisfie his fathers justice for every son of Adam,] which argument though any that will may finde it propounded in other termes, in the third argument in the conference at Hague, thus.

Those for whom he died, he so died in their stead, that he did translate the death which they deserved upon himselfe, so that they died not; thus to (die for) is taken 2 Sam. 18.33. Rom 5.7. Rom. 9.3.

But he did not so for every son of Adam.

Ergo, Not the former.

But seeing the Argument in the issue comes to one head, I shall engage in the Ar­gument as he propoundeth it; and first I shall make the Argument appeare in its native and intended strength. For God not to deale with Christ according to the exigence of his merits, and with us according to the merit of our mediatour, as it would in [...]ench upon the justice of God, so it is granted by the Author, page 100. Now if Christ did undertake for every man, payed his debt, satisfied his father justice, and tooke away sinne, and all that stood crosse to our salvation, and abolished death; all which he affirmes for every sonne of Adam: and so effectually and actually that it is as good [Page 178] with God as if every man had suffered, and died the death due to his sinne in his owne person; for so the Author is pleased to say page 17. certainely then every man should stand acquitted from that charge, Gods justice should exact no more; for as justice re­quireth satisfaction, so it requireth but satisfaction; the same debt is not in justice re­quired both of the surety and the principall, and as it had not been agreeing with Ju­stice to require a second payment, if man had been able to undergoe the wrath of God due to sinne, and to rise out of it; so is it equally disagreeing to justice to require a second payment of any, seeing Christ hath payed it in his owne person. For herein he did not die (for) but die (with) them that so die: Hence I conclude that if Christ satisfied his Fathers justice for every man, they should be freed from the curse due to sinne, which is to be justified, and this by his merits, which is to be justified by his blood: this is the genuine face of the argument.

But before I reply to his answers, I shall premise a few things concerning justifica­tion, to which I may referre the severall and confused pieces of of his rude answers; concerning justification, these three things are enquitable. 1. What Justification is, 2. When a Sinner is justified, 3. What justification freeth us from. The two first will be cleared, in considering that in justification these three things are compre­hended.

• 1. As it is done in God, and his minde and will.
• 2. As it is discovered in the Gospel and pronounced there.
• 3. As it is apprehended in the heart of the person justified.

By the first God is said to justifie.

• 2. To declare him justified.
• 3. The Beleever to apprehend or con­clude himselfe justified.

Justification as it is in God, existing in mente divinâ, I finde such a definition gi­ven by Episcopius; treating of justification, and saying that justification and remission of sins be Synonyma's, Disp. 45. Thes. 6. he saith thus, [Remissio peccatorum est voluntas non infligendi pae­nam quam peccata promer [...]ierunt.] That is, remission of sins, or justification is nothing else but a will in God not to inflict the punishment due to sin; and so on the other side it must be a will in God to impute the righteousnesse of Christ, and to deale with us as righteous persons; now the Arminians have, and our Author doth grant such de­crees to be in God eternall, as we must; for he doth not in time will any thing that he did not will from eternity; our justification doth not introduce any change in God all; therefore in this sense it appeareth to me that man is justified from eternity.

Armin. disp pub. Thes. 19. sect. 4.2. Justification as it is pronounced in the Gospel, is thus defined. [Quâ homo a deo ut a judice justus & praemio dignu [...] censetur & pronunciatur;] that is, it is an act whereby man is of God as judge, esteemed and pronounced righteous; and of this runnes the definition of our modern Divines: as Daven. de Justif. 310. Ames. Medul. 188. And of this justification the Scripture alwayes speaketh, or most frequently, to wit of the pro­mulgation of it: See Evangelii tenorem; and so onely the faithfull and penitent are said to be justified, and so in present existing, because to such onely hath he pronoun­ced justification; and thus he is said to justifie the beleever or him that beleeveth in God, or in Jesus: when by the first, as it is a will of God so to do, he is and may be said to justifie the ungodly; Rom. 4.5. for so he willeth nor to impute their sinnes, whilest they remaine ungodly, but he never pronounceth any one justified whilest they remaine ungodly, Scripture no where so saith. Now in our discourses of justification, we must not confound these; and if the question be asked when a man is justified, by [Page 179] distinguishing these two we may clearely answer, that as the act is done in God, so we are justified from eternity; for thus justification is an imminent action, though con­versant about the creature, yet introduceth no physicall mutation into the creature,disp. 45. thes. 3 this all grant but the Papist. Episcopius thus saith, [Non justae aut sanctae infusio qualita­tis in animam,] that is no infusion of any holy quality into the minde; and this act doth no more make a man (Justificatum,) then election maketh him (electum;) yet none will deny election to be an imminent action; and why God may not as well justifie us from eternity, that is will not impute our sinnes, as to elect us, that is, will to bring us to salvation, I am not able to see. And if any object the usuall streame of Scripture language, viz. that we are justified by faith, and he justifieth him that beleeveth in Jesus: by considering this distinction, we may breake through that, and say that that is onely meant of the pronunciation of it according to the tenour of the Gospel; and the reason why though there be such an act in God from eternity, before our faith be wrought in us, yet the Scripture speakes of justification through faith, &c. is because as in judiciary affaires it matters not what the Judge resolveth in his breast, though whom he resolveth to acquit, they may be said to be acquitted; yet men looke at his legall sentence pronounced; that by the law, the person himselfe, and the spectators, is looked at at his absolution or acquittance. So in this case, we looke at our absolu­tion from the [...]nour of the Gospel, thereby men come to know us, and we ourselves to be justified: this pronunciation is called justification, and this is to Beleevers onely.

That which in this may seeme harsh, is [That a man remaining a sinner may be said to be justified;] but if it be well considered, it will not appeare more harsh then this. That a man whilst a sinner, is elected to life; both are prest with the same pretended absurdities: Againe God is said to justifie the ungodly Rom. 4.5. but this he doth not (quoad evangelicam promulgationem) for that is onely to beleevers; but beleevers when so, are not branded with the title of ungodly; and may not this, [We are justified whilest enemies,] be received as well as this, [We are reconciled whilest enemies?] Rom. 5.10. This I commend to the Authors consideration.

Againe it is to be enquired into, from what justification freeth us; we finde it thus exprest, [A peccato & morte] from sin and death,Ames. med. and of this Episcopius is a sound in­terpretor: when it is said (a peccato,) it is no more then this, [A paenis peccati] from the punishment of sinne. Disp. 45. Thes. 3. [a reatu peccatorum] from the guilt of sinne. Thes. 5. and that not from the guilt of some, or one, but all sinnes and all con­demnation, [absolutio a peccatis & omni condemnatione,] from sinnes and all condemna­tion. Thes. 3. and this Scripture affirmeth, Rom. 8. who shall lay any thing to their charge? it is God that justifieth. And so Arminius, disp priis. Thes. 48. sect. 12. disp. 45. thei. 6. ibid. [Ab omnibus per totam vitam per­petratis,] from all committed through whole life; and when it is said, by it wee are delivered from death, he meaneth eternall death: So Episcopius, [per paenam peccati intelligimus proptie paenam aeternam, quae mors aeterna dicitur in Scr.] That is, by the punish­ment of sinne, we meane eternall death; so that now it appeareth hereby, that justifi­cation exempts not from the being of sinne, nor from temporall death, nor from affli­ctions; for such cease to be satisfactory punishments, though they relate to sinne, as Episcopius, [desinunt esse paenae, etiamfi non sine respectu ad peccatum immittantur,] but that which it removeth is the guilt and obligation to eternall death, or if you will, [prosecuti­onem vindicantem,] the revenge or prosecution of that guilt.

These being considered, I proceed to his answers to our Argument. Now because he puts all the untruth upon the Major, I shall resume it in the vigour and strength of it. [Page 180] Those whom Christ satisfied his Fathers justice for, they are justified in Gods account, and shall be justified by the manifestation of this in time, both in the Gospel and their owne consciences, and at last be invested with eternall life, else may Christ complaine of injustice.

To this he answers. [All the strength of this Argument is in the first proposition with the reason annexed unto it.] Then it seemes the Minor he giveth for truth, viz. that all are not justified; but then why hath he contended for this, that all, yee every sonne of Adam is justified in Christ, as page 10. 45. But that we may see what he hath to say against the proposition, he judgeth thus at a ven­ture. [This is so contrary to Scripture, that little need be said; from the comparison betweene Christ and Adam it appeares, that though all men be in the publique person Justified▪ yet by and through him, of the benefit of that Justification doe none partake but such as have a be­ing of him.]

If he had showen what Scripture this had beene contrary to, that we might have ex­amined those Texts he had done faire, but he would have his Reade [...]s acted by an im­plicite faith.

2. As for the comparison betwixt Adam and Christ, there was nothing expressed by him therein that contradicteth the proposition; not that preposition, viz. [none par­take of the fruits of that justification, but such as come to have a being from him,] be­cause all those that he satisfied his Fathers justice for, shall in time to come have a be­ing from him.

3. His expresses in the comparison betwixt Adam and Christ, are so farre from con­tradicting, that they confirme the proposition: For he saith, [Though all men be in the publique person justified;] doth he not here tacitely grant, that every man by virtue of his death and ransome as publique person to be justified in him? and what is this to what the proposition affirmeth? viz. that all he satisfied for, are justified in or by his blood? for to be justified in and by Christ are not different, and to be justified by Christ and by his blood are as little different.

[Christ is set forth to be a propitiation through faith, Rom. 3.27.] And this nothing against us; for we say not that all when Christ satisfied for them, they were justified in the pronunciation of the Gospel, before faith was wought in them, but that such in time shall be justified and receive the atonement in their hearts; and his expresses herein hindreth not; for they shall have that faith in his blood whereby they may receive this atonement; againe, true, the evangelicall pronunciation of sa­tisfaction is by faith, but how doth he prove that in the minde of God, they are not justified before faith?

[Justification is not by blood shed onely, but the application of his blood.] His expressions are herein something wilde, but I guesse at his mea­ning thus; that justification is not till another worke of the Spirit to be done upon the heart: but then I say if he meane it as done in the minde of God, it is false; if as pro­nounced in the Gospel, it is true; but besides, this is nothing against the proposition, because we say still, they shall have that further worke upon their hearts one time or other; true also, many have received this justification that once wanted it, and some want it that shall have it; but what are these to the purpose of proving that all that Christ satisfied for, shall not one time or other have it? And as for that expression, [Page 181] [Many of his elect want it; for whom by this objection Christ should not have died.] Is too absurd to mention: the objection is farre from urging that he died not for those elect that want this justification: but it affirmeth that all such, (though they now want it,) shall have it in time.

[As for that cleansing 1 Iohn, 1.7. and forgivenesse verse. 9 it speakes of a further cleansing &c. to such as are in Christ, and alrea­dy justified by his blood; and so not to this purpose.] More pertinent Texts might be produced to prove the proposition, but this Text is not so deficient as as he conceived when he cited it: for, whereas he speaketh of a further cleansing, it is hard to guesse at his meaning; further then that, he must meane one of these two, or both; further then justification, or a cleansing further then that which is by the bloodshed of Christ; but both these are false; that it speakes of cleansing from guilt by justification, appeares by ver. 9. where it expounds it by forgiving our sinnes, and that is such as is by bloodshed, appeares in that it is by the blood of Christ; and what though it speak of them that are actually justified? it saith it is by the blood of Christ, that is the meritorious cause; and this is not impertinent to the businesse in hand, but proveth the proposition: that those for whom the blood of Christ satisfied his Father, they came in time to be cleansed from their sins by that blood.

[This untruth is not onely false and grosse in it selfe, but denyes many sayings of Scripture, as Iohn, 3.17.18. & 8.24.] Had the Au­thor produced Texts wherein his managing might be more perspicuous, or discover where his meaning lies in these, I should have a clearer way for a reply. I have seri­ously enquired after the intention of the Author in these Texts, and my thoughts I have brought to this result, it may be with greater force then he intended, and it is this, John, 3.17. Christ is said to save the world; yet John, 16.8.11. he is said to convince the world of sinne; and John, 8.23.24. ye shall die in your sinnes; by these it appeareth that all that he died for and saveth, are not justified and saved from wrath; and this may seeme a specious allegation; but it hath little in it. For, by (World) in the Authors judgement is meant every Sonne of Adam; so that Iohn, 3.16. saith he sa­ved the world, Iohn, 16.8.11. saith he shall convince the world, that is in both, eve­ry sonne of Adam; and so he would have these places compared, to prove that as he came to save every man, so he shall save never a man, for every man that shall be convinced of sin, because they beleeve not; this indeed opposeth the proposition, but no reasonable man can judge to be the meaning of those Texts; therefore to reply.

1. He cannot prove that those that were convinced of sin for not beleeving, did not afterward beleeve; for every man that is saved, hath h [...]s t [...]me of unbeleife wherein he may be convinced for not beleeving; therefore this Text convinceth not that they did never beleeve for whom Christ died.

2. That place Iohn, 3.17.13. he saith he came to save the world, that is men living in the world; and he did it, the world is reconciled, 2 Cor. 5.18.19. their trespasses not imputed; he giveth life to the world, John, 6.33. and taketh away the sinne of the world, Iohn, 1.29. and yet he shall convince the world of sinne; they shall be judg­ed by beleevers, 1 Cor. 6.2. and be condemned, 1 Cor. 11.32. in all the (World) now then cannot be verified of the world the same way taken; but he saveth the world [Quoad partem credentem,] according to the beleeving part, and he shall con­demne the (world) for sinne, that is the unbeleeving part thereof; so that to con­clude [Page 182] John, 3.18. doth not say that they which he came to save were not so in time, nor that Text Iohn. 16.8.11. doth not say be satisfied his Fathers justice for them that should be convinced of sin and so perish: therefore how these Texts can disprove the proposition I see not.

[It overthroweth many affirmations in the Scripture, as that all shall beare the image of the first Adam, 1. Cor. 15.46. that all are dead in sin by nature, Eph. 2.2. that God justifieth the ungodly, Rom. 4.5. &c.] It cannot but be judged too great a prodigality of time and paines to insist upon such jejune and empty expressions, that have not the least shew of reason; but the nature of my Antagonist requireth it: doth the proposition say that all doe not beare the image of the earthy? certainely no. It supposeth the contrary that all doe; for it saith, that all that Christ died for, shall in time partake of the Image of the heavenly, which intimateth that all at first beare the Image of the earthy. Justification doth not immediately reflect upon the being of sinne, but obligation to punishment; and this may suffice for the two first Texts alledged by him. As for Rom. 4.5. it speaketh not of such a justification as is by faith; it speaketh of beleeving on him that justifieth he ungodly, but not of his justifying the ungodly upon their beleeving; therefore he mis­alledgeth that Text; he is said to justifie the ungodly; but beleevers are never called so; especially if he reflect upon his owne sense of ungodly, page 10. besides the Text sheweth not that all the ungodly be justified, doe not in time come to partake of life: hitherto I see nothing of strength against the proposition.

As for that counterpart to the proposition, which he produceth page 96. viz. [many for whom Christ died remaine without that justification that is in him,] wants proof; for those Texts alledged doe not make it appeare that Christ died for such as want that justification and never partake of it.

The next thing that he stumbleth at, is the second part of the proposition, viz. [All for whom he satisfied shall be saved from wrath through him;] this he presently cry­eth downe as false and contrary to Scripture. But what Text? [2 Peter. 2.1.2.] This text I have spoken of formerly, and cleared it from overthrowing the proposition; it speaketh not not a word of satisfying his Fathers justice for them.

[And this untruth denieth the Lordship of Christ, grounded on his death for all.]

But wherein it denieth it he showeth not; doe we by saying all that he satisfied for shall be saved, deny him to be Lord of all? as if he could not be their Lord unlesse he save them from wrath to come? weak argument! and of this stamp are the rest that fol­low, clearely confuted in severall pages of this discourse.

Having spoken of the two parts of the proposition, he cometh to the reason by which the proposition is backed; and he hath something to say to that as followeth; the rea­son, if he doe not justifie and save from wrath all those for whose sinnes he hath satisfi­ed, he should be unjust; to this be answers. [A presumptuous rashnesse in an intimate charging God with injustice.] But where lieth the rashnesse, whe­ther in saying if such a thing be granted he is unjust, or in affirming such, the granting whereof maketh him to be unjust? let the Author judge. Let us see what he him­selfe saith page, 97. [That were injustice not onely to require the whole debt againe, but even any part of it, either of him or any other that are discharged by him, or to de­taine from him or his any thing that by vertue of his ransome is to be conferred.] So [Page 183] that we see it is no such charging God with injustice as he pretendeth, to say that if such a thing be granted God is unjust; but besides, let us consider it is injustice in God to require any part of the debt againe of Christ, or any other for whom Christ suf­fered and was discharged, or any that are discharged for Christ; for so both are equal­ly alike; now let us consider the Authors words page 4. [All the sinnes the law could charge mankinde withall were imputed to him; he suffered the curse, and died as the sinner, and rose acquit of all our sinnes, and a triumphant victor over sin and death.] Let him tell us, is it not injustice in his own language to require part of this debt or all of Christ or any for whom he stood, and died, and of whose sinnes he stood acquitted? But he saith he did so for every sonne of Adam, therefore doth not justi­fie the reason of the proposition, and show the vanity of this his rash charge.

But he thinketh to presse the reason of the proposition with an absurdity.

[Gods children have complained of trouble by the law in their mem­bers, Rom. 7.15. and he saith of his own children, Psalm. 89.32. I will visit their sinnes with stripes.] Wherein it seemeth strange that the Authors ignorance should put God to his purgatories to clear his justice; but it is an easie thing to cleare his justice, in that his people have both sinnes and sufferings: when yet it would be too cleare if they should not have eternall life, because Christ did not pro­cure that they should be taken out of an estate of sinne presently, or freed from all tem­porall afflictions, to correct, reduce, warne themselves and others; but that they should be in part renewed, and at last come to life; but he in satisfying Gods justice for them did actually free them from the curse due to sin, which is eternall death; there­fore to punish any such with eternall death would entrench on his justice. I say not that temporall sufferings is indured as satisfactions for sinnes. I leave that soppery to the Authors; neither doe I say they are no punishments but corrections; but I say they are castigatory punishments, not satisfactions; and thus to say is no way contradictory to any of those Texts quoted page 98. all which shew as they were punishments, so they were for castigation and correction onely, not satisfaction, as the eternall torments of them that perish are; but so weakely are his Texts quoted all along, as if he intended to make the word of God seeme vile.

The text by which we prove the proposition, is Rom. 5.9. [If whilst enemies wee were reconciled by the death of his Sonne, much more being reconciled shall wee be saved by his life.] To this he thus answereth, [It saith not that all Christ died for &c. shall be saved by his life; but speaking of Beleevers &c. they should much more be saved by his life.] Which is a meere shift, and no handsome one neither. For let us but seriously consider he makes reconciliati­on, and his death is of equall extent, if we were reconciled by his death, and so doth the Author. Secondly, he maketh reconciliation and salvation of equall extent; nay with a (much more) meaning that is not so great an absurdity to say we are not recon­ciled by his death, as to say, that being reconciled we shall not be saved; then let him consider, doth it not strongly intimate that all that he died for and so reconciled, shall be saved by his life? as for that glosse, [But speaking of Beleevers he saith that much more they shall be saved.] It is a perversion of a cleare Text; for it saith not [Much more shall we beleevers be saved,] which it would have been, if his perversion had beene right; but it is much more, we being reconciled, not, [wee be­leevers,] but [we reconciled;] their confidence of salvation was deduced not from [Page 184] their condition of beleeving; but what Christ hath done by dying, viz. reconciled them, and this drawne from the connexion betwixt his death and reconciliation, and our re­conciliation and salvation, which cleareth the proposition.

The second thing which he chargeth the reason annexed to the proposition, with, is [Grosse ignorance in the end of Christs death as the price.] Of which he saith thus. [It was not that by that act without any more done by him, men should be presently possessed of all that justification, free­dome from death, enjoyment of life in him.] How he discovereth his owne ignorance, to make the ignorance of his advantage knowne? he discovers ig­norance

1. Of the nature of justification; for that expression, [Be possessed of all that justi­fication,] implieth that justification is successive, and reteined by degrees, which is false.

2. Of his adversaries meaning, which is not that presently they should enjoy life without any more done; but that in time they shall have life and that spirituall worke which leadeth to it; therefore he is either ignorant, or perverse thus to say.

3. If we be ignorant in the end of Christs death, I beleeve he will not informe us; he saith thus [That he might be the Lord of all men, that he might have all released to him, and have pardon in his hands, and spirit and life to bestow as he thinketh fit, that he hight justifie them that be­leeve, and harden and adjudge the residue to a second death.] In which discovery he savours more of Arminian scripture then of sacred Scriptures; thus they define the impetration, by the death of Christ. [Est restitutio in talem statum quo non ob­stante justitia deus de novo beneficia communicare potest & vult eâ lege & modo quo ipsi videtur.]

2. If Christ came to save them that beleeve, and condemne them that beleeve not, then a joynt end of his death was to condemne contrary to John, 3.17. I came not to condemne.

3. Herein is not mentioned that end, Tit. 2.14. viz. to purchase holinesse, that we may be fitted for glory: if he know it not, he is ignorant; if he willfully leave it out, worse.

4. This discription excludes all purpose to have any saved; but if they either be sa­ved by faith, or condemned for unbeleife, Christ hath his end, though all perish.

5. That phrase (as he thinketh fit,) importeth that Christ in his death did not pitch upon a way by which he would save, but left it indifferent whether by faith or any o­ther way; if he hold that Christ by death procured life by faith in Christ, then he is too remisse in that expression as he thinketh fit: how many exceptions are his words herein liable to and discover little knowledge in the Author? in this businesse I have showne Chapter 3. that the maine end so farre as it relateth to man, is to give eternall life, and all those are but intermediate ends as to become their Lord, &c.

As for that which he produceth as one end, viz. satisfaction of his Fathers justice, it is not intended for it selfe, but for something further; now what can he in­tend lesse in satisfying his Fathers justice, then that they for whom he so did should not answer or suffer for any of those sinnes? doth then, to say that all those for whom he so sati [...]fied shall be free from suffering for those sins, argue any ignorance in the ends of Christs death? or he that denyeth it, it discovers more? let any judge.

But he cometh to answer the objection, page 10. it seemes he hath done nothing all this while; but how?

[If Christ strive in the meanes, and they be found hardning them­selves, it increaseth their debt; and if he punish, he is just.] True, be­cause Christs death never procured an immunity from temporall punishments, but ra­ther that we should have them to correct and reduce us.

[And if he still strive and they refuse, if he give them over to de­struction, is he not just?] If he have received satisfaction for that unbeleife, (as he hath if that be true which the Author saith, page 4. that he was charged with all the sinnes the law could charge man with; certainely then with all the Gospel could) then his justice seemeth blemisht in damning them for it; eternall death is not correctory, but satisfactory.

[Unbeliefe is the maine sinne, &c. and this is the debt which God requires, &c. so that here is not two payments of one debt; but a new debt in despising Gods goodnesse.] I demand when he saith, [Christ satisfied for sinne,] what sinne he means? what onely for originall, and lest us to sa­tisfie for actuall? or for some actuall, and left us to makt out the rest? Was the unbe­leife of Paul, in the time of non conversion, a new debt not satisfied for? can any be saved and their sinnes not satisfied for? is any able to satisfie but Christ? and the sinner be capable of life? O impious doctrine, derogatory to the sufferings of Christ; is not Christs worke a perfect worke, but a man may have a new debt, that was not thought on by Christ? strange divinity, how must the deare children of God do with their past rebellions against meanes of grace? it is a new debt Christ satisfied not, they are not able? doth not he doe well to charge others with grosse ignorance, that he may have some fellowes? Hath he so soone forgot his protestation against popery, and to defend the doctrine of the church of England against all popish innovation, which doctrine runnes thus

[That Christ suffered for all sinnes of men, originall and actuall.] Yet he comes with a new debt unsatisfyed for, and who must if Christ did not? I would have the Author tell me what he meaneth when he saith, [The whole debt of mankinde became his, page 3.] is not contempt of meanes and rebellion against Gods call part of our debt? certainely herein the Author discovered too much ignorance, with which he is pleased to brand others; certainely those for whom Christ under­took, he satisfyed for all their sinnes, originall, actuall, against Law, against Gos­pel; his satisfaction was not done to the halfe to need a corrivall in that worke; ther­fore such can have no new debt, and such cannot in justice be bound over to suffer eternall torments for any sinne, no not for any pretended new debt; he hath taken away all that stands crosse to our salvation; so the Author speaketh, page 18. 19. And all that he saith notwithstanding the proposition standeth firme.

CHAP. XVI. Of the fourth Objection.

A Fourth Argument is this.

Those to whom he would not vouchsafe to manifest himselfe, or to pray for, for those he would not die. John. 17.9.

But he would not manifest himselfe to, nor pray for the world of ungodly and wicked men.

Ergo, He did not die for the world of ungodly or wicked men.]

Before I come to his answers, I shall take notice of his dealing with the argument to make it fit for his purpose.

1. He confoundeth two arguments together; for [Manifestation of him self,] that belongeth to an other argument; neither can he give any president of jumbling these two together, which confusion will make the argument not clear, and the answers obscure.

2. He cannot produce any that citeth John, 17.9. to prove the Major.

3. Nor any that maketh the Minor to runne thus. [But he prayed not for the world of ungodly; or the conclusion to run thus. [Ergo, [He dyed not for the world of ungodly,] all these are purposely foysted in to make the argument seeme vile; this is no faithfull dealing as he promised, the argument runneth thus, in the seventh Argu­ment in Hag. Col.

Those whom he reconciled he interceded for. John. 17.9.

But He interceded not for all and every son of Adam. John. 17.9.

Ergo, He reconciled not every sonne of Adam. John. 17.9.

The Major is thus grounded, Rom. 8.32. he saith, [If he give us his Sonne, he wil much more give us all things,] The Argument is this, if he gave us the greater, he will certainely much more give us the lesse; so if he die for us, he will pray for us; so in the negative we conclude, if he pray not for the world which is the lesse, he did not die for or reconcile which is the greater. Now to perpend his answers, he giveth this generall and facile refutation. [This objection is false many waies.] And that which he driveth at I guesse to be the ground of the reason, that is the ground of proceeding from the lesse to the greater negatively, that he would prove it is no good reason to say because he would not pray, therefore he would not die for the world, and he urgeth thus.

[It is not right reason to say God would not make Heaven, &c. whom he would not preserve in that good estate.] But had he beene in his right reason he would have seen this very impertinent to our purpose; our argu­ment proceeds from the lesse to the greater negatively; but his instance proceedeth from the greater to the lesse negatively: which is unsound and quite contrary to the businesse in hand; for to preserve in a good estate is a greater mercy then to create in such estate onely; so that though this is not sound, he will not create because he will not preserve; yet this is good, if he will not create which is the lesse, he will not pre­serve [Page 187] which is the greater; and this serveth us, the lesse may include the greater nega­tively, but the greater cannot the lesse.

As for those expresses that touch that part of the argument, viz. [the manifesting of himselfe to the world,] it is not to this argument; which mixture of Heterogene­ous expresses will pertu [...]be the reader in the cleare decision of this argument; therefore I wave them. Againe he urgeth.

[If Christ had said he never did nor would pray for the world, (which he never said) yet it were evill in us to use that as an argument to deny the truth of his own words as that he dyed for all and every one.] But rather an evill in himselfe, to obtrude such a sense on those places that contradict Christs owne words, or the true consequences from the same; it is no evill in us to gainesay the phansy or glosse that the Author puts on those Texts: from this I can ga­ther little, but that the Author would have all the sayings of our Saviour to take the modell of their interpretations from his own conceits upon those places. 1 Tim. 2.6. Heb. 2.9. which is not a reasonable postulatum; as for that parenthesis (which he did not) if he once said he did not, and it cannot be proved that ever he did pray for that world, we may presume he meaneth, he never had nor would pray for them.

[This confoundeth his love of compassion, common to all, and of delight peculiar to Beleevers.] It is hard to divine his meaning herein, un­lesse he meaneth that his dying for, be only the love of compassion, and his (praying for) the love of delight; and so to pray for us, to be a greater love then dying for us; for so he maketh the love of delight to be the greatest love; but this is not apparent by any Scripture; and how this argument confoundeth compassion and delight, the Au­thor would have done well to have discovered to them that see it not.

[This confoundeth the death of Christ as ransome (for all) and his advocation that is onely for Beleevers.] I know the Authors understanding is not able to reach the difference betwixt confounding, and (not dividing;) the ar­gument contends for the non dividing of his death and advocation, but not to con­found them; the argument and them that forme it hold it distinct. But we would have his advocation and death to be to the same persons, and so his death and ransome not for all and every sonne of Adam. 2. Whereas he saith, his advocation is pecu­liar to beleevers, I conclude he hath lost part of his lesson, viz. the distinction of Ar­minius of Advocation into generall and speciall; for without this how will he free himselfe from a contradiction, in that he saith here, that his advocation is peculiar to beleevers? yet he contendeth page 110. 111. that he prayed for the world, John, 9.21. for transgressors, Isay. 53.12. for crucifiers, Luke, 23.34. all which he opposeth to elect and beleevers. 3. How his advocation is proper to beleevers, (that is in act) I see not, because he prayed for some that after should beleeve, and therefore then did not, ver. 22. 4. That his advocation is proper to beleevers, (that is such as are or shall be) I grant; but then why his oblation should be of larger extent I see not; they are joyned acts in his mediatourship, the one shedding,Col Hag. in Arg. the other presenting that blood as shed. Hence the Remonstrants grant, [pro omnibus Christum imercedere ut pontifices ejus typi solebant,] and these acts are never disjoyned but connected, as Rom. 8.34. 1 John. 2.1.2. for him to appeare on earth for them for whom he appeareth not in hea­ven, Scripture owneth not: and if he can prove Christ to have interceded for all, I for my part shall grant him to have offered blood for all; and seeing he granteth in­tercesion [Page 188] to be peculiar, so shall I conclude oblation also, they being both of the same latitude; and whereas he saith, [This confoundeth ransome (for all) and advocati­on (for beleevers] is a weake confutation, because in in it there is (petitio principii) a supposing that his ransome is for all and every man, which is yet (sub judice,) nay cleare to the contrary.

Yet upon this weake bat [...]ery, he can after his usuall custome manfully conclude that, [The whole argument is fallen without further answer.] But why doth he attempt workes of supererogation, in producing so many leaves in a businesse that is done allready? but his meaning is, (as much as it will with all the rest that follow;) he then attempt th [...] to answer that Text Rom 8.32. wherein the strength of the pro­position lieth, and from it we urge, if he gave us his Sonne, his Sonne will give us his prayers; if not the latter, not the former; to this he thus answers.

[This is not spoken in the third person, nor of ransome onely, nor as a proposition to bring men in to beleeve.] This antidote like an Empe­ricke he applieth to every Text, not considering how it is applied to the constitution of the same; for what though it be not in the third person, the consequence is good, that to whom he giveth his Sonne, to them he giveth all things, and that as firme as if the words had runne thus; [If he hath given his Sonne to every man, how shall he not with him give them all things,] what person soever it be spoken in, first, se­cond, or third; yet this is firme, that if he give the greater gift, he will not be niggard­ly of a lesse: the argument of confidence is not drawne from the persons to whom, but the gift that was given. 2. Whereas he saith, that this phrase (He hath delive­red him up for us all,) meaneth not of ransome onely, it is false and contrary to any common understanding; it is cleare that these words relate to his death in which he is said to be delivered up for us.

But he urgeth further.

[It serveth not the proposition; for it saith not, how shall he not freely give us all things? but how shall he not with him freely give us all things? so speaking of his free giving him to us, and with him all things.] A wise interpretor would stand the Author in much stead, to expli­cate his meaning herein; the difference betwixt, [Shall he not give us all things,] and this, [Shall he not with him give us all things] is very obscure; and had he kept his owne councell, we should have remained expectants of some rare discovery; but from page 107. we may gather what his abuse of the Text is, and what he meaneth by this phrase, [With him give us all things,] there I finde this expresse. [They now by beleeving receit having Christ and in him life, and being sonnes thereby, which giveth hope of all good, he concludeth, having freely given us this his owne Sonne, (whom before he delivered up for us,) how shall he not with him freely give us all things?] So that hence I con­ceive his evasion is this, viz. that phrase, [With him,] speakes of such a giving his Sonne, as consists in giving his Spirit, by bringing them in to beleeve; and being so, a beeing made sonnes, and having adoption, and thus having him given us, with him thus given we shall have all things; but this is injurious to the Text many wayes, as 1. Then the sense must be thus, having the Sonne and all things with him, how shall he not with him give us all things? this would be absurd. Let the Author tell me [Page 189] what thingt are they of which he concludes upon the having of Christ; are they not all those things mentioned in the Chapter? as redemption of our body, ver. 23. spirit to helpe infirmities, ver. 26. the utility of all things for good, v. 28. conformity to his Sonne, ver. 29. vocation, justification, glorification: yea as as a strong Remonstrant affirmeth, [Omnia quae spectant ad vocationem & glorificationem nostram.] Certainely then if vocation and spirit,Cornel. A lapid. in locum. be those things that he concludeth from Christs being given, then those things are not included in that giving of Christ; then it would meane thus; if we have vocation and spirit, how shall he not with those things give us those things? but this sense I leave to the Author. 2. Is it not as cleare as the light that this phrase [with him] is no more but with him so delivered up for us? there is no mentioning of a giving of Christ as distinct from his being delivered up for us, as he suggests. 3. This would intimate that to be brought in to beleeve, is set out in Scripture by this phrase of having Christ (given for us,) or having given (to us,) but this I no where finde; where Christ is said to be given either by his Father or himself, it relateth to his death and ransome, as Mat. 20.28. Joh. 6.17. Luk 22.19. Ephes. 5.2. es­pecially where this phrase, (delivered up for us) is used, that is most cleare, that word [...] I never read (when spoken of Christ) in an other sense: but when the Scripture speaketh of giving faith, confidence, Sonship, or any of the choice benefits, it saith not, he giveth his (Son) but his (Spirit) Luke, 11.12. Rom. 5.5. 1. Thes. 4 8. and Gal. 4.4.6. the difference is cleare on both parts. He sent his Sonne, verse 4. He sent the spirit of his Sonne, ver. 6. So that it is cleare that the Apostle draweth this conclusion, not from the receipt of the Spirit of Christ in beleeving, but from Christs being delivered up for them to die; and good ground: for grace saith Sonne­ship, glory; all come short of Christ himselfe; and the argument is strong from the grea­ter to the lesse; and doth not all that he saith appeare rather to pervert, then to satisfie the Text?

Thus having done with the proposition, he invadeth the assumption which is, [That he did not intercede for every man, John, 17.9.].

Now against this he thus saith, [That doth not say the world of wicked and ungodly men, as the assumption saith.] Neither doth the assumption say so, but when it is altered and corrupted by himselfe; we say he prayed not for every son of Adam; we have no reason to say he prayed not for the world of ungodly, be­cause all the wicked and ungodly are not of that world of ungodly that was excluded his prayers.

But he further saith thus, [The word (world) ver. 9. includeth all the Elect that were in and of the world, and uncalled forth and this ap­peareth in that for the same things for which he prayed for them that did beleeve, ver. 6.9. he prayeth for the same, for them that after should beleeve on him, ver. 20.] The contrary whereof doth clearely ap­peare; for if at the same time he prayed for the same things, for some elect and yet uncalled home, ver. 20. it is cleare that when he excluded the world from his prayers, that word (world) doth not take in the elect uncalled, for whom he prayeth, ver. 20. for then such must be both prayed for, and yet excluded his prayers, at the same time, and for the same things; herein he doth implicate himselfe. But rather the word (world) is meant of those unregenerate men, that neither did nor afterwards should beleeve in him; for such he prayed not for faith, or union, or perseverance, or glory. [Page 190] As for that which followeth, viz. [All the way from ver. 9. to 21. there is no petition for any thing, for any before they beleeve, or yet might bring them in to beleeve. [Which is false, if he meane neither expresly, nor implicitely; for implicitely he prayed for faith, whereby they are made one with Christ and the Father, unlesse the Author will say that Christ prayed that such as did not beleeve, might be one with him, without the consideration of faith, which I can­not conceive; certainely in praying for the end, he prayed for the meanes inclusively.

But he further urgeth.

[So that the assumption rendring the word [World] for the wic­ked, non elect opposed to elect, maketh two sorts of elect, one sort prayed for verse 9. another sort prayed for verse 20.] These words de­serve hissing, rather then a solicitous answering, and cannot be reduced to common reason; we may affirme the elect prayed for, though in a diverse state and condition, the elect beleeving, ver: 9. the elect unbeleeving, ver. 20. and this without absurdity; but then we oppose not the elect to the non elect, but beleevers to such as yet do not beleeve, both being elect; neither doe we oppose but distinguish them; we may clearely see two sorts of men. 1. Such as are prayed for, and they are such as did for the present or afterwards should beleive: such as did ver. 9. such as should, ver. 20.2. Such as are excluded his prayers, and they must be such as they neither did nor should; and I may urge, if by (world) he meaneth elect unbeleeving, then Christ did exclude such his prayers. But this is false from ver. 20.

[Or else it granteth a sort of people in the world, that are neither of the world nor of the elect.] But this he spake at a venture without considera­tion. I shall againe reassume the parts: those prayed for ver. 9. were elect called out of the world; those prayed for ver. 20. were elect uncalled, yet to be called; those ex­cluded his prayers ver. 9. were non elect, of the world and never to be taken out of it; now let him cleare up his sight, and tell me if we make a sort of men that are neither e­lect nor of the world; but this serveth with the rest to fill paper and puzzle his igno­rant Reader.

As also that which followeth.

[Which way soever the assumption will have it, it holds forth this falsehood, that none of the elect were, are, or shall be beholden to the prayers of Christ for all or any of that patience &c. extended be­fore faith; or for the meanes of grace, by which they are brought in to beleeve, or for faith, seeing no such thing is prayed for here for any but the world, verse 21.23.] Wherein these two things are granted and affir­med. 1. That Christ prayeth for patience, meanes of grace, faith, for the world, opposed to such as beleeve, ver. 9. or should beleeve, ver. [...]0. 2. That he prayed not for faith, &c. for any but that world,] both these are false; the first is false, upon this ground, he excluding that world from his prayers, for unity with the Father and the Sonne, would not pray for faith by which they are to be made one; certainely if he ex­clude from the end, he doth exclude from the meanes. 2. How Christ should pray for them that neither did nor should after beleeve, any that acknowledgeth Christs prayers not to be frustrate cannot comprehend. 3. This is grounded on the 21. ver. where it saith, [That the world may beleeve,] and so from hence he urgeth that Christ [Page 191] did pray for faith for the world: so presuming that the word (beleeve) meanes saving saith, by which we are made one with God and so saved. But this is not cleare. I conceive it onely meant of conviction of the minde, and making them to know, as ver. 23. expounds it as the Devils may doe, and such as neither doe nor shall beleeve; of the like nature is Psal. 83. last. Psal. 59.13. The second is false; for either he pray­ed for faith for them, ver. 20. which were not of the world, excluded, ver. 9. or else he prayed for onenesse with himselfe, and glory without faith; this latter is improbable.

But he further urgeth,

[The Text saith not he will not, but in the present tense, in that ve­ry time its not in the preterfective tense, or future tense.] This is a very empty evasion; for if he once said, I pray not for the (world) [and that indifinitely, without such limitations as the Author pretendeth; as [for these things] or [at this time,] which if he had thus said [I pray not for the world at this time, or for these things;] this evasion had some colour:] but when he saith I pray not for the (world,) and that it cannot be produced either before or after that he did pray for them, it is no better then presumption to conclude that either he did it before or after pray for the world.

But to this he opposeth.

[He did pray for such as were none of those prayed for verse 9.20. even for transgressors, Isay. 53.12. crucifyers, Luke. 23.34.] This is the [...] and height of the answer, both of the Author and most acute Remon­strants to overthrow the Minor, but not to satisfaction: for those prayed for, ver. 9. were transgressors, if Iohn be right, 1 John. 1.8. In many things, we sin all; those prayed for ver, 20. were transgressours, because not called home, and might be some of his crucifyers whom he prayed for and were converted; now how doth it appeare, that seeing he prayed for transgressours and crucifyers, that he prayed for such as were not prayed for, ver. 9.20. or how will the Remonstrants prove that he prayed for all trans­gressours, all crucifyers, which is to the purpose? therefore this glosse is vaine and empty. Yet he seeketh to temper the Text by these words.

[I pray not for the world, that is not so much, so chiefely.] That the word (no [...]) is sometimes so used I grant; but if we shall use that liberty to expound all Texts so, we should destroy the Scripture; as for those examples produced by him, as 1 Cor. 1.17. it appeareth that Paul did baptize some; when therefore he saith [I came not to baptize,] it must meane not solely, or not chiefely; but this glosse cannot be fastened on Iohn. 17.9. because it appeareth not that Christ ever prayed for any that never should beleeve on him; therefore that applied to this Text, is to pervert, not to satisfie it.

Againe he urgeth.

[The things prayed for, from verse 9. to 20. are of an higher na­ture then those things we are to pray for the world or any in it till they be called.] Which contradicteth not onely himselfe, but our Saviour also. Him­selfe it doth, because he before said, [Christ prayed for the same things, for them that shall afterwards beleeve on him: that he asked for them that doe beleeve on him;] certainely then if he prayed for them that should beleeve, he prayed for them before they were called home. And our Saviour he contradicteth, because for those things he doth pray, v. 20 even for them that yet did not beleeve; therefore he doth charge Christ with doing that which is unfit.

Againe he further urgeth.

[Christ in Iohn. 17.9. prayed not only as a ransome-giver and a Mediatour between God and man, as 1 Tim. 2.6. but as a Prince, High Priest, the Mediatour of the New Testament, which is no where said to be for all.] Wherein,

1. The acutenesse of the Au [...]hor distinguisheth betwixt Mediatour betwixt God and man, and Mediatour of the New Testament, which I would have made cleare.

2. Affirmeth that Christ in dying and ransomeing is not a Mediatour of the New and better Testament, but that this belongs to his Advocation, not Oblation; which I would have him to prove. Heb 9.15. seems to speak otherwise: [He is the Mediatour of the New Testament, that by meanes of death,] where his dying evidenceth him a Mediator of a better Testament.

3. Whereas he saith, [The advocation of Christ is not said to be for all men,] is to destroy his owne words, and grant the assumption, which he hath all this while been so strongly oppugning; and this I grant, and conclude that because his advocation is not generall, his obligation was not; both are of like extent; and whether he hath over­throwne or rather established the argument, I leave to any to judge, and it standeth firme thus. Those for whom he would not pray, he would not die; but he would not pray for every Son of Adam. Ergo, he would not die for every son of Adam.

CHAP. XVII. Of the fifth Objection.

THe fifth Argument is this.

[Christ died and gave himselfe a ransome for no more then the Fa­ther elected to sonship, and eternall inheritance.

But he hath not elected every man, &c. Ergo, he gave not himselfe a ransome for every man.

But the argument in its genuine force runneth thus.

[Christ gave himselfe a ransome to purchase grace and glory, for no more then his Father had elected to grace and glory.

But his Father hath not elected, All and every man to grace and glory.

Ergo, He gave not himselfe a ransome to purchase grace and glory for all and every man.]

Let us now view his answers.

[This first proposition is contrary to Scripture, Heb. 2.9. 1 Tim 26.] But this very weakely, because those Texts speake not of the connexion betwixt the Fa­thers election, and sons redemption, wherein the strength of the proposition lyeth, and that from the onenesse of his will with the Fathers; therefore those Texts cannot be contradicted by the proposition.

[If to possesse men of the inheritance had been the first and onely end of Christ his death and ransome, there might have beene some colour to have paused on this false and bold assertion; but that is already pro­ved [Page 193] false in Cap. 2.] Here he discovereth much soule dealing, for in that 2. Chap. that end, viz. to possesse men of the inheritance, is not so much as named: much lesse proved not to be the maine end of his death, which I blamed in that Chap. that treateth of the ends of Christs death; because in that discourse he omits, and I thinke purposely, the end which Scripture hinteth so much upon, that is to give grace and glory, for both I make the inheritance, Iohn, 11.5.2. That he might gather in one all the children of God, John. 17.10. That they might be sanctified through the truth. Tit. 2.14. That he might sanct [...]fie a peculiar people, Heb. 9.15. That they which are called might receive the promise of eternall inheritance, Eph. 5.25. That he might present it a glorious Church; all which and many other show that a maine end of his death was to possesse men of the inheritance, therefore called [...] the blood of sprinkling, sprinkled upon all them for whom it was shed. So, not ours in affirming, but his in denying the maine end of his death to be to possesse men of grace and glory, is the bold and false assertion, and therefore by his own confession there is more strength in the proposition then he everteth.

But in his afterwards, we have a taste of his reason.

[There belongs more then Christs death and ransome, to bring men to the inheritance.]

But is this a good reason to prove, that to bring men to possesse the inheritance is not the maine end of Christ death? he leaneth to the reason of Corvinus, that God in­tendeth not mans salvation absolutely, because he willeth to save him by faith; the non satisfaction I have already discovered; shall we say that habitation and dwelling is not the maine end of laying the foundation and perfecting the outside of my house, because there is something more requisite to my dwelling in it, as cleansing, adorning, furnishing? this would he weake reasoning.

[The Scripture saith he died, &c. that he might be Lord of quick and dead.]

Admit it, yet Scripture nowhere saith that that is the maine end of his death; nay his Lordship and power is but subservient to a further end, viz. to bring them to glo­ry, John, 17.2. He gave him power over all flesh, that be might give eternall life, &c. So that hitherto whether the objection deserve abhorring, or his answers hissing, let any judge.

But he proceeds to examine those Texts that are by himselfe produced, as proving the proposition, as Rom. 8.28.29.30. Ephs. 1.3. to 11. which places I have not ob­served to be applied to this article of Redemption; but in Election, there we shall finde this golden chaine used; therefore I am not engaged to justifie them, as holding forth the strength of the proposition; yet if any have to that end quoted them, I shall guesse at their drift herein, and free them from his responsory cavils.

Rom. 8.28.29.30. Their thoughts on this place I conceive to be these, Gods foreknow­ledge, praedestination, vocation, justification, glorification, yea redemption are connected in the same persons, as in a chaine, and of equall latitude and extent; the top of that chain is his foreknowledge and praedestination, and all the rest runnes in equipage with them; Christ is so one in will with his Father, that he would not redeem any but whom his Father foreknew and praedestinated to it; his Father so constant to himself, that he calleth, justifieth, glorifieth those and only those whom he fore knew and praedestinated; he worketh according to his purpose:

That we may understand this more fully, we must consider that the businesse which [Page 194] the Apostle is to make cleare is this. [That all things, even afflictions shall worke to­gether for good to them that are called of his purpose,] this he layeth downe ver. 28. now the words that follow are to make this good, as appeares by the word (For) ver. 29, now that which worketh this good is this, [Such shall be glorified,] such as are called shall come to glory, that all afflictions that are to them in [Serie mediorum] a series of meanes to that end, shall further not impede their glorification, therefore shall worke together for good. But this then is to be proved, that those that are cal­led, shall be glorified, and he proveth it by this, such were foreknown and predestinated to glory; so that they that are called may looke backward to Gods predestination, and foreward to their glorification; such as were predestinated, such shall be glorified; but then further this must be proved that those that were predestinated, shall be glorified; this he proveth by the contiguity and connexion of all those linkes in that golden chain; whom he foreknew, he predestinated, whom predestinated, them he called, whom he cal­led, them he justi [...]fied; whom he justified, them he glorified: & so they that love God and are called, may conclude they were predestinated, they shall be glorified; and hence con­clude all things shall worke together for good, and therefore they conclude for many priviledges to themselves, v. 31.32.33.34.35. some whereof are, he gave him for us to death, ver. 33. It is Christ that is dead, ver. 34. all which they had by vertue of Gods predestination, or election, ver. 33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods chosen? I should willing imbrace a better coherence and sense of the place, and if this be the right it doth strengthen the proposition. That seeing all things that are in Serie mediorum, as meanes conducing to salvation, beare an equipage to his election, the re­demption of Christ is not to exceede it. And so for Eph. 1.3 to 11. there is an ennu­meration of priviledges from election, ver. 3. to glorification, ver. 11. but election lea­deth the way, and bounds all the rest.

Now to examine what he answers to these.

[This is a far fetched inference, evading the businesse in hand; for the businesse opposed in the inference, is the redemption made by Christ in his own body for men; and those places mentioned, speak of the benefits thereof, &c. yea such as many beleevers want.]

First here is a falsity; because it is cleare Rom. 8.32. speaketh of the ransome of Christ and of what he did for men in his body; He was delivered up for us, and died for us, ver. 34. and whether doth the expression denote his death or the benefits there­of? (Secondly,) suppose it doe, yet cleare it is that all there mentioned, and so all that tend to salvation, are but equall with his election, which confirmeth the propositi­on; and this is rather a cavill then satisfaction. Againe he saith thus,

[Neither it is said doth and will justifie and glorifie, but did and hath predestinated, called, glorified, which I hope none will af­firme of all the elect, much lesse of all Christ died for.] Wherein he discovereth but a grosse understanding of the Text, I hope he will not so limit the sense of it, as that it shall come short of truth; for all whom he hath predestinated, he hath not yet called: all whom he hath called, he hath not yet glorified them. Let the Author speake, hath he called and glorified all whom he hath foreknowne or predesti­nated, or much more had he glorified all that he had predestinated, when the Apostle spake these words? he himselfe granteth that it cannot be affirmed of all the elect; but how then shall the truth of the Text appeare, if he confine the Text to that sense? cer­tainely [Page 195] he hath missed the marke herein; for though it be in such a sense as may be w [...]ll translated [hath] yet is used in such a Text as will not suffer it to be confined to that sense, but to be understood [Hath] [doth] [will.] and if this cavill had car­ried any weight in it, the Remonstrants certainely would gladly have imbraced it, but they conclude the contrary. [Nota (vocavit) i. e. vocat, vocavit, aut vocabit, Cornel. A lapid in locum. Act. Syn. in locum. (Iustifica­vit) i. e. Iustificavit, justificat, aut Iustificabit; praeterita enim more Haebreo ponuntur pro quolibet tempore,] and the Remonstrants joyntly agree herein. [Justificavit, i. e. ap­probavit, vel approbaturus, remittit vel remissurus est, glorificavit id est gloriae praemia dona­bit,] all arising to this, whom he (hath called,) that is (hath) (doth) or (will,) so in the rest. Now the reason why all the words are in the perfect tense (hath) is be­cause the two first (praenotion) and (praedestination) are acts that are past, and the rest shall as infallibly follow as if they were past already; to some they are all past; to al the predestinated they shall all be; so that the sense is this, whom he hath predestinated he hath or will call; whom he hath called, he hath or will glorifie, and all certaine from predestination. And this is but parallell to what he must say upon that Text John. 17.2. [To give eternall life to as many as thou hast given him.] Now by gi­ving to Christ, he saith page 149. is meant [bringing on men to beleeve in the heavenly call,] and so the sense must be this [He hath given him power over all flesh, to give eternall life to as many as he hath given to him, that is brought in to be­leeve in the heavenly call.] Now hence I question, had Christ received power to give eternall life to no more then were at that time brought in to beleeve? let him answer herein, he must salve it this way or none. (He hath) that is to whom he either hath or shall bring in to beleeve; so why not this Text? and then thus we shall not be affraid to affirme of all the elect they either are or shall be called, justified, glorifi­ed; therefore what he saith herein is a wilfull perversion, no satisfaction to the text.

Againe he urgeth,

[This reason given to fortifie the proposition, mistaketh the end of the Apostles connexion of priviledges, which is not to set forth for how many Christ hath died, or shall receive the fruits of his death, but it is to set forth the priviledges of those that have begun to receive the choice fruits of both his propitiation, and advocation.] True, the end and scope of the Apostle is neither of these, but to show and make good his owne words, viz. [that all things, and so crosses and afflictions shall worke together for the good of them that are called of his purpose;] yet he doth it so as hit he doth in it virtually show who are, and how many are elected, justified, glorified; those and so many are elected, as some to be called and glorified, those and so many are called as are elected; those and so many are justified as are elected and called; those and so many are glorified and shall be, as are elected, called, and justified, or shall be; and thus they are the boundaries of one an other; and so, Christ's being given for us, being one of those connected priviledges, it followeth that those and only such have life pro­cured and purchased for them, who were elected to it, and come in glorification to par­take of it.

2. It is cleare that the Text doth not show the priviledges of them onely who have begun actually to receive the benefits of Christs oblation and advocation, because it showeth the priviledges of all them that are predestinated and foreknowne; and this the Author granteth, page 115. 116. [the concatenation of these high favours is the pri­viledge of the elect sons of God;] but all that are foreknowne and are predestinated, do [Page 196] not yet actually partake of the choice benefits of Christs oblation and advocation; there­fore this hitherto is perversion, not satisfaction.

Againe he giveth a third Answer.

[This inference from these places destroyeth the distinction between the Gospel and the communication of the choice benefits thereof, be­tween the atonement made by Christ, and the receit of it by his cho­sen ones.] But this without any shew of truth; we plead indeed for a non divisi­on or separation of the one from the other, and that for whom he made an atone­ment, they shall receive it in time; and this be might have seen, if envy and calumny had not blinded him, and his sufficiently confuteth him; and this we affirme from this irrefragable chaine, Rom. 8. all from election to glorification are inseparable.

Againe he saith thus.

[The connexion it selfe is wrested for this inference, &c. as if all Christ dyed for and ransomed, must of necessity partake of all these priviledges; nor as if all that partake of some fruits of his ransome, should partake of them all; nor as if all that were called, must partake of them all.] But this hath as little force as any of the former words, for

1. The connexion is not wrested if we finde the death of Christ one, of those con­nected priviledges; for then it will appeare that he that partakes of any one, shall of all the rest; else how are they priviledges connected? none ever yet doubted of this; now that this is one of those connected priviledges, it will appeare if we seriously consider the Chapter; we must know that under those generals, many particulars are to be in­cluded: as under (vocation): he effectuall power and spirit of God by which we are cal­led, and sanctification the effects of it; under justification is contained the death of Christ the meritorious cause; and this is one to be included, that not only by conse­quence but clearely expressed, as may appeare from the Apostles repetition of those pri­viledges, ver. 31.32.33.34. where he reassumeth the election, ver. 33. [Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect?] Also justification, ver. 33. [It is God that justifieth.] He assumeth also vocation in ver. 35. (who shall separate us from the love of Christ?) they were so far from being separated from the love of Christ by them, that they are more then conquerers over them; and such is a spirit befitting them that are called of his purpose, ver. 28. he reassumeth also the death of Christ, ver. 32.34 [He hath delivered him up for us, and [Christ hath died for us,] and that to make up the same confidence, with election, justification, and vocation; and what is more cleare then that the death of Christ is one of the connected priviledges? and then the connexion is not wrested.

2. Whereas he saith, [As if all that partake of some fruits of his ran­some, must partake of all.] It is too generall to be pertinent; I know not what he may introduce under the notion of fruit of his ransome; this is our inference, that whoever partaketh of any of those connected priviledges, shall partake of all of them in time; else they are not connected.

3. Whereas he saith, [Nor as if all that were called should partake of them all.] evidenceth that he doth steele his forehead to outface a cleare Text; doth he not say whom he hath called, he hath justified and glorified, that is, hath or will? or else it discovereth that he hath blinded his eyes so far as to understand the [Page 197] word (called) of outward call onely: but then where is the truth of the Text, (whom he hath called, he hath justified) all that are outwardly called, he neither hath nor will justifie nor glorifie; nay all should then be justified and glorified, because in his judge­ment all the sonnes of men are called; this will prove no propitious interpretation of the Text.

But fearing that what we have said should prove inpregnable, he hath an other assault, and seekes to enervate it, by proving though it be one of the connected privi­ledges, yet it followeth not that because every one that partaketh of those priviledges had Christ delivered up for them, therefore every one that have Christ delivered up for them, partake of all the priviledges; and this he doth thus. [Psalm. 111. 4 5. He is gracious, full of compassion, giveth meate to them that feare him; it will not hence follow that he giveth meat, and is compassionate to no other.] Which if it had not been purposely produced to pervert the Text more then to satisfie, he could not but have seene this example impertinent to the case in hand; for this in Psal. 111.4.5. it is cleare, it hath not such a convertible connexion as that Text Rom. 8. from which convertibility the force of the argument is deduced: as those whom he predestinateth, them he calleth all, and onely those, and so in the rest which cannot be in the instance produced by him; for though he be compassionate to all that feare him, yet all do not feare him to whom he is compassionate and giveth meate; therefore that rocke is easily avoided, and the folly and falsehood lights upon himselfe.

But that he might illustrate himselfe in the point of election, he craveth leave to thrust out some of his owne conceits about the same, some whereof that are most momentous I shall examine; Having spoken of the election of the man Christ, he saith h [...].

[So all other chosen, being affirmed chosen in him, Eph. 1.4. he must needs be chosen first, else how are they chosen in him?]

See how presently he taketh leave to vary from Scripture; he said as he found, so he beleeved; what he beleeveth I know not, but I thinke that he findeth it not said that Christ was first elected; this phrase if any such be, of which anon, is so farre from ar­guing him to be elected first, that it doth not argue him elected at all; for when the Text saith, [...] Col. 1.16. In him were all things created, doth this infer, that he was first created, or created at all, and will he thus argue, else how are they created in him? 2. But it may be to this he will repose, that that place speakes of an efficient, but this Eph, 1.4 of a meritorious cause; therefore to instance to his minde Col. 1.14. [...], In whom we have redemption; doth this infer that either he was redeemed first, or redeemed at all? or will he thus argue? else how are we redeemed in him? So 2 Cor. 5.19. In him we are reconciled.

But (latet anguis in herbâ,) there is something yet behinde which the Arminians con­tend for, and which I beleeve the Author in endeth, viz. Christ to be the first Elect, we elect in him as the head from which our election is conveyed and by whom procured,Exam. Perkins. 31. as Arminius himselfe. [Christus secundum Apostolum non tantum est medium per quod salus obtinetur, sed tanquam causa meritoria cujus respectu electio nostra facta sit;] That is, he is not only the meanes of salvation, but the meritorious cause of election; and I beleeve this is the Authors judgement; thus he [Christ is first elect, and so the roote in whom all are elected, page 115.] Now if we be elected in Christ as the roote, he [Page 198] must convey election to us, as the roote doth sap to the branches; but this is not cleare from Scripture; for if we be elected in Christ as the roote, then as the sap is first in the roote, then in the branches, and the same identicall sap which was in the roote, is conveyed to the branches; so must the same election wherewith Christ was elected, be translated upon us, and so our election be one with Christs, and Christ his election one with ours; but neither of these doe I for the present comprehend, for that electi­on wherewith we are elected, is such as hath sinners for the object of it. [Electio ver­satur circa bomines ut peccatores consideratos, Ibid.] but Christ was never a sinner or so consi­dered: so never elected with that election that hath sinners for the object, and as such as needs pardon of sinne, so that our election is not competible to Christ.

Againe Christs election in all Remonstrants and our Author, is nothing but a desti­nation to that office of a Mediator, and so to a Kingdome for the recompence of that service. So our Author 118.119. but this election is not competible to us; for then should we be elected mediatours; how then it should be that we are elected in him as the roote, I see not.

But happily he will say that his meaning is thus, Christ was first chosen to his office of a mediatour, and so by his mediation he merited our election, as Arminius in the forequoted place; so that to be [elected in him,] is not onely for Christ to be elected first, but that he also merited our election, and so, as reconciliation, sanctification, adoption, glorification, flow from him as the head, so doth election also.

To wich I will reply only thus much, this is more then any Scripture speaketh, it is the generall consent of Schoolemen and moderne Divines, that praedestination or election hath no cause in respect of the praedestinator, so no merit to move it. But I shall not trouble the Author with testimonies of this nature, I shall be content with his owne words, page 119. [All that election of Christ and his sons was free from e­ternity, and no cause but his will.] Which is altogether false if Christ merited our e­lection; for that which is grounded on the death of Christ as the meritorious cause, cannot be grounded on Gods meere will.

Againe, though Arminius would have Christ the meritorious cause of our election, yet he hath much to doe so to temper his pen as not to betray his cause and speak truth at once; for let us take a survey of his owne words.

in Perkins. 31.32. [Nam Apostolus inquit nos in Christo electos esse tanquam in mediatore.]

Now if he had beene constant to himselfe, and resolved to make out his owne as­sertion he should have said, [Cujus sanguine parta est electio nostra,] that is, [by whose blood our election was obtained,] then he had spoken to the purpose, but then (as he knew well enough) he had spoken beside Scripture, therefore he saith thus.

[Cujus sanguine nobis salus parta est & vita, & ut in capite ex quo ista bona a derivantur.]

That is, [by whose blood salvation and life are obtained, and that as head from whom those good things are derived,] and is this all for us to be elected in Christ? as he saith afterward, Christ to be the meritorious cause of grace and glory; this cometh farre short of his being the meritorious cause of our election; all they can make out is this, viz. Christ is the meritorious cause of bestowing all good things that follow and flow from election; but there is a wide difference betwixt election and the good things communicated by vertue of it.

But still the argument of Arminius and so of our Author is unsatisfied, viz.

[Else how are we said to be elected in him, Ephes. 1.4.]

To this I onely advertise the Author that he maimeth the Text; let him produce it intire, and satisfaction will be more easie; it is thus, [He hath elected us in him that we should be holy;] now it must be decided whether the phrase [in Christ] be refer­red to the word (elected) as if Christ was the meriter of election, or to (us) as if he elected none but whom he foresaw [in Christ] that is beleevers, or to the words [that we should be holy,] that is he elected us to obtaine holinesse and other blessings (in Christ,) that is [for Christ,] and ground there is for this Query, because the Re­monstrants take the liberty to be fluctuating in their sentence about it, especially about the two first acceptations, sometimes affirming the first, sometimes the second, some­times both; the Remonstrants in their Synod. Script. appropriate it to the word (us,Synod. scrip. 60. in Molin. c. 25. s. 14. in Perk. 32.) and so to denote the object of election, that is such as are (in Christ) beleevers: yet Corvinus who is one of the cited Remonstrants, he applied it to the word (elected,) so to denote the foundation of election and meritorious cause of it. And Arminius putteth both together, and saith both are meant, which to me seems rather to strangle the text then to interpret it; now seeing they doe so vary, it gives us occasion to think that there may be a fourth interpretation, which may come as neare the minde of the Apostle as any of the former, and that is to referre the words [in Christ] to the last phrase [that we should be holy,] and so to show, in whom, that is by and for whom we come to partake of our holinesse and graces, as Col. 1.28. perfect in Christ Jesus: and if thus, his argument herefrom falleth to the ground.

Indeed Corvinius saith, [Ista verba liquido conjungenda sunt ad verbum elegit,] that is,in Molin. c. 25. s. 14. [those words in Christ plainely appeare to be referred to the word (elected),] but his bare word is all we have for it, and to his adversaries charge he layeth rash bodlnesse if he say otherwise, and I thinke his share is no lesse in so saying without ground; all his reason that I can conceive is thus much, because they are so neere in place, there­fore they must be referred each to other in construction, but this is invalid, for in 2 Cor. 5.19. [...], God was in Christ reconciling,] where the placing of the words are much alike with Eph. 1.4. And Ambrose following the me­thod of Corvinus, referring the word (in Christ) to the foregoing words, interpreteth it thus. [Deus erat in humanitate,] the godhead was in the manhood; but thus Gorvi­nus himselfe interpreteth it not, but referreth the phrase (in Christ) to the afterwords [Reconciling the world.] So Col. 1.19. [...], &c. [In him it pleased the Father that all fulnesse should dwell;] why doth he not say that this phrase (in him) should be referred to the word [it pleased,] as if Christ was the meritorious cause of that good pleasure; there is as much ground for this, as that Eph. 1.4. yet so he doth not I thinke; but cleare it is that though [in him] be first in the Text, yet in construction it agreeth with the last [dwell,] dwell in him; let the Author rejoyne for Corvinus his friend, and show me why the phrase [in Christ] may not in Eph. 1.4. be refered to the afterwords, as well as in those places fore-named, and so the sense to be this, Christ is the meritorious cause of our holinesse, not of our election.

Besides, were it so that the words were to be read thus [He hath elected us in him;] yet we may finde a more commodious interpretation then this, that Christ merited our election; and to be elected in Christ, is no more then to be destined to obtaine grace and glory by Christ, and so Christ shall be an essentiall to the definition of election; but then, his place shall be in the good things elected to, not the election it selfe.

Thus Molineus interpreteth [...]t, elected us in Christ, is no more then to be elected to salvation in Christ; which Corvinus brandeth with boldnesse, in referring the words to [salvation] upon this ground, [verba autem [ad salutem] non extant, Ibid.] that is be­cause [Page 200] the words [To salvation] are not in the Text; but then he did not remember, or not well consider that Arminius whom he defendeth lyeth under the same lash; for he saith,in Petk. 31. [Apostolus inquit nos in Christo electos esse tanquam in capite & mediatore;] that is we are elected in Christ as in the head and Mediatour, when yet those last words are not extant in the Text; therefore Corvinius might have had so much candor as to thinke that as Arminius added these words not as the Text, but as the meaning, so doth his adversary, and then his words are no opposition. And Corvinus himselfe cannot deny, but that by [He hath elected us,] is meant to salvation. [Ad salu­tem electionem intelligi non nego; Ibid.] so that now let us take the Text as it is meant, [He hath elected us to salvation in Christ,] is no more then 1 Thes. 5.10. appointing us to obtaine salvation by Christ, and so Christ to be meanes of salvation, not election; and this he might have seen from Arminius himselfe, whom in that section he defen­deth; for let it be granted that by these words, [He hath elected us in him,] it ap­peares that Christ is the foundation of election, yet then we must inquire what it is for Christ to be the foundation of election.disp. thes. 40. sect. 5. Arminius explaineth himselfe, [esse cau­sam meritoriam istorum bonorum quae fidelibus in isto decreto destinata sunt,] that is, it is to be the meritorious cause of all good things decreed in election; and in that enumera­tion of good things which we have by Christ, he mentioneth only grace and glory, not election.sect. 5. [Materia est benedictiones spirituales, gratiae & gloriae nominibus appellari solitae.] So in Disp. pub. Thes. 15. sect. 5.6. Whence it appeareth that election is not any of those spirituall blessings which we have in Christ. Hence it appeareth, that the ex­presses of our Author of Christ being first elect, or we elect in him as the head, or him to merit our election, is besides the language of Scripture, and I feare above his un­derstanding; I hold Christ and his members elected together in one act, and if wee should be put upon a priority in nature, I thinke first the faithfull, then Christ; for it is suteable to Scripture, to say that Christ was elected to his office, that he might save his people; but we finde it nowhere said, that God elected some to life, that Christ might become a Saviour; certainely the work is in intention before the workeman.

2 Againe having mentioned Gods election of his Sonne, and his members, and his servants, and his decree to create the world, He thus saith

[He decreed to do all this by and through his son Christ and for him.]

Wherein he lurketh under a manifold obscurity. For,

1. It is hard to determine to what these words [to do all this,] are referred, whe­ther to all that went went before, as election of Christ, of his members to sonneship, and the rest to service and the creation, setting man in a publique place, creating a world of creatures for mans use; all this he had spoken of before; or whether only to the fourth Section and the particulars therein contained, viz creation of man and a world of creatures.

2. It is hard to determine whether by [for Christ,] he make Christ the finall cause or meritorious of all those decrees; the phrase [for Christ] will admit either: and I may well-query, because his quoted Texts Col. 1.16, 17, 18. Rom. 11.36. clearely im­port the finall cause; but there it speaketh both of God and Christ, making the world for him. And his expressions, viz. [doing all this for his son Christ,] clearely denote the meritorious cause, as it is taken where ever God is said to do any thing for Christ.

But which way soever he meaneth, in either there is a manifest falsity; for God did not elect his Sonne, for his Sonne Christ, nor elect the faithfull for his Son Christ, he merited not either of those; neither did he create the world for his Sonne Christ, [Page 101] he did not merit that; he came to save the lost, we finde not that he merited that the world should be made; these are jumbled notions that he never found in Scripture.

A third particular observable is that he saith,3. page 119.

[That this decree was free without any foresight of good and evill, or respect had to it, but because he so willed.].

Herein I must advertise him of his remisse expressions; he should have said, [With­out foresight of good or evill as the cause to determine his election,] else his Reader may well charge him with a contradiction; for in the next Section he saith thus. [That God foreseeing that Adam would fall and loose himselfe and his, he did elect &c.] Now for God to elect foreseeing, and yet without foresight of evill, is very strange.

A fourth particular is that he saith,4. 119.

[In this praedestination he did praedestinate all his elect sonnes to the adoption of sonnes.] Which neither Scripture speaketh nor reason comprehen­deth, for his elect sonnes to be the object of praedestination; for them that are elect sonnes, to be praedestinated to the adoption of sonnes, are new found discoveries: It seemes they were first elected, then praedestinated; many have to little purpose it see­meth perplexed themselves with the object of praedestination in their supra, and sub-Lapsarian disputes, some for the masse not made but to be made, others for the masse made but not fallen, a third for the masse made and fallen; but they may leave such notions; here is a new discovery; the object of praedestination, (with our Author) is the elect, but herein he is by himselfe.

Whereas he saith,5. 118.

[In that election he appointed a great number of other men to be servants to his Sonne Christ, and those chosen in him.]

Wherein he seemeth to affirme that there is an election of all to service, but this without Scripture; for that there is an election of all to any thing, Scripture speaketh not, nor that this destination to service is called election; it is better ranked under re­probation or praeterition, as he himselfe gives the hint, page, 41. premis. 1. Where he hath these words, [In that election of some to sonneship, and praeterition or ap­pointment of others to be servants;] where he affirmeth that his appointment of men to be servants, is rather his praeterition or non election, then his election; yet here it must be inserted in his discourse about election; he is not very constant to himselfe.

2 He opposeth sonnes and servants, which the Scripture owneth not; they that are sonnes are servants both to Christ, and one to another. Eph. 6.6. Gal. 5.13.

He saith,6. 119. 120.

[To this end he decreed to use such meanes, &c. to call both sonnes and servants to acknowledge this their Lord that they might be happy.]

To let slip many particulars I shall pitch but on this one, his words import that God giveth meanes to call such and make such happy (that is eternally,) as are destined onely to service; but this is not consonant to right reason or Scripture, upon this dou­ble ground.

1. For any to be Christs servants, needeth not the call of God to bring it about, be­cause the non elect are Christs servants, but either active or passive, to serve him or he to serve himselfe of them, and they to be used as other creatures in his worke; and this they shall doe whether any call or no.

They that are destined to service, are not destined to sonship, or life, as appeareth by his distinction, or rather opposition, page 118. Nay it appeareth that such in re­gard of sonship and eternall life are passed by, page 41. That is he hath decreed not to bring in such to the inheritance. Nay further that such [being the residue of men not elected to sonship,] are from eternity decreed to obduration, and to be given up, and that he will not overpower them, as he doth his elect; yet such in his divinty God decreed in time to call that they might be happy: He blusheth not to affirme this of God; but as well may he tell us, that when God hath decreed the world shall not see light, he shall create the Sunne to enlighten it; but of this more presently.

Making cleare the businesse of election, he thus saith,

[God decreed to overcome his elect, freely forgiving disobedience, by his Spirit making them willing, bringing them in to beleeve. Se­condly, to harden the residue, and give them up for contempt of means.] Wherein some particulars are observable.

1. Speaking of the first, he giveth the name of elect as well he may, because that decree to overcome and bring them in to beleeve, constituteth them the elect both to grace and glory; but when he speaketh of the other sort, he giveth them onely the name of [the residue,] as if his decree to harden did not bring them under the notion of reprobation, as well as the decree to overcome did bring the other under the no­tion of election; wherein he is either miserably blind, or wilfully dissembles, when he professeth that he is such a stranger to reprobation in Scripture. Seeing now he is able to see from Scripture that God from eternity did decree to harden most men, and repro­bation is nothing else.

2. It is strange that the Author treating of election, should produce this decree in God to harden most men from eternity; is this a particular of election? then repro­bate men, desperate devils may be said to be elected: certainely the [...]e expressions had been better reserved till he had treated of reprobation, as he doth afterwards.

But herein a piece of his egregious dissimulation is seen, in that this which is repro­bation, is here shufled in to passe untaken notice of in the businesse of election; that so when he cometh to speake of reprobation, he may say, (as he doth,) that the Scripture scarce owneth a reprobation but an actuall, done in time; when he had inserted these words in their proper place, he might have seen that there is a reprobation from eter­nity.

3. In the pursuance of that act concerning the residue that are not elect, he willingly stifleth a cleare truth; it is granted on all hands that election and reprobation are op­posite, and reprobation denyeth that which election granteth: therefore when he saith that he did decree to overpower his elect by his grace, it must follow that he did deny to overpower the rest; and so decreed to deny them that grace which he giveth to the rest; and this goeth before their hardning for contempt of meanes, yea in nature before Gods decree so to doe, and their contempt of meanes is a consequent of that; God de­nieth grace, and man contemneth it, which is an act in God, first in order of nature in this act of reprobation; but this he concealeth, which doth not discover ingenuity not to produce the strength of the businesse, though against himselfe; for if he had done it, he would not have beene such a stranger to reprobation in God, and that from eternity.

Many more instances I could produce, to show his rude and impolished thoughts about election, wherein he hath discovered much of himselfe without any necessity. [Page 203] But to returne to the argument againe, at last he ariseth to this assertion.

[Through this whole discourse it appeareth, that the death of Christ for all men impeacheth not the doctrine of election.] Therefore I shall reassume some of his expressions againe which he hath granted, and then let the world judge how well universall ransome intended by God or Christ, consisteth with it; he granteth,

[That God did elect but some, and to harden the residue for the con­tempt of meanes, and that from eternity, page. 120.]

Now considering such a decree to harden most men, I gather these two things.

First that there can be no such decree in God, or will to send Christ to procure life for them.

Secondly, that there can be no execution of such a decree.

Not the first, for then that decree must be either in time or from eternity; but Ar­minius will not say that Gods decrees are in time, for he granteth that his decree of e­lection is from eternity; so that I doe not conclude for reprobation from their simul­taneity, the one being done when the other is; but his reason given for election,Arm. disp. de praedest. will reach to reprobation, and this it is [Deus nihil in tempore facit quod ab [...]eterno fa­cere non decreverit, secus deo mutatio impingitur;] that is, God doth nothing but what he decreed from eternity to doe. And the Author grante [...]h, page 120. [All his de­crees are done at once before the world or time was;] so that there is no such decree in time.

Secondly, if it be so as the Author saith, then God must decree it from eternity; but this he doth not; for then there must be a decree to harden, and yet to procure life and salvation for them, which cannot be in God, because they cannot both have their execution: the same man, no not by divine power, cannot be saved eternally and damned eternally; let us a while consider, God willeth to harden for contempt of meanes, he must so will till they come to destruction, else he changeth. He willeth to save them by Christ, and this he must will till they be saved, else he changeth; which Ar­minius dare not admit; so that those two decrees must be in God at the same time, so that either God shall decree and not execute, or else the same man shall be both saved by Christ and hardned, and so destroyed for contempt of meanes; but neither of these are to be granted; this controversie, any that will, may finde scand by Corvinus, in Mol. cap. 5. of the antecedent and consequent will; Molineus weighing the nature and event of such warring decrees, presseth that doctrine with a various absurdity; wherein I shall expatiate my selfe a little, it being of no small concernement to the clearing of this point; for although the controversie betwixt Corvinus and his adversary, and that betwixt me and my Antagonist seeme to be diverse, yet they come to one and the same issue; for this is the question ventilated in bo [...]. [Au Deus simul vel [...] omnes salvari & aliquos da [...]ari,] that is whether God may or doth will to save all, and yet to damne some; and so by consequence at the same time, will to save and damne the same persons;Cap. 5. de vol. Antec. & consequ. sect. 11. the affirmative of which is adjudged absurd by Molineus, but Corvinus by his reason at­tempts to prove it not so. What are his reasons, I shall in part show wherein they sa­tisfie me not, and leave the determination to the Learned.

CHAP. XVIII. Of the sixth Objection.

THe sixth Argument is this.

[The ransome is no larger then his Priestly Regall Prophetique offices.

But those offices appertaine onely to his Church and chosen.

Ergo, The ransome and mediation appertaines to no more.]

This argument I find not any where urged; certainely it is of his owne framing, which is too great a priviledge for him to assume, to forme argument for himselfe to answer, and which he might improve so farre as to give more satisfactory answers then he doth to this argument; I shall not undertake to defend it, yet I shall observe how absurd answers he giveth to a weake argument. He saith,

[This sober objection denieth not his death for all, but onely his ransome and mediation.]

But this is hardly a sober solution to that sober argument; for if the Author had been as sober as the objector, he might have seene that in denying his ransome for all, he denyeth his death for all, because his ransome is by dying, and whom he ran­somed he died for; and so for whom he died not, he did not ransome.

2. If he said no more, the conclusion opposeth the authors doctrine strongly, which in every leafe is for universall ransome and mediation, as appeareth by his after words.

[He could not be Lord of all nor challenge submission, &c. if he had not ransomed them.]

The emptinesse of which hath been often discovered; his being Lord of all, chal­lenging submission, does no way inferre a a ransome; the Father is and doth all those things mentioned, yet he never ransomed them, o [...] died for them; the Father was Lord, and challenged submission of man in innocency, when no need of ransome; and so for all the rest I have showne that they doe not necessarily infer a ransome.

But he afterwards saith,

[The answer to that objection is easie.]

But what need an answer if the objection be so sober as not to oppose him? and easie it is to give an answer; but to give such an one as satisfieth, that is not so easie; as ap­peareth by his whole discourse; but let us see his facile and obvious answers; it is this.

[As the mediation of Christ is both more generally and more speci­all; the first as he is Mediatour between God and man, 1 Tim. 2.5. the second as he is Mediatour of the New Testament, Heb. 9.14. so in all his offices there is that which is more generall, and that which is more speciall.]

Now this labours with a double error; for neither is his mediation twofold, nei­ther are his offices twofold, that is generall and speciall; as for the first, viz. his di­stinction betwixt his mediation of the New Testament, and his mediation betweene God and man, is ridiculous and not consonant to Scripture; for, when he was said to be a mediatour betwixt God and man, 1 Tim. 2 5. was he not in that mediation a mediatour of the New Testament? is there any mediation that is not by a New Te­stament, even for transgressors that were under the former Testament? as Heb. 9.15. and was not his mediation, Heb. 9.15. a mediation between God man? is there any mediation that is not between God and man? was not that mediation in Heb. 9.14.15. for the redemption of transgressors, and by death? and was not that in 1 Tim. 2.5. the like? and is there any mediation for transgressors, and by death, but such as is be­tween God and man? no marvell if such answers be easie and ready at hand.

Againe he urgeth thus,

[as a Priest he offered sacrifice in respect of one end, (viz.) propiti­ation for all men, Heb. 9.26. & 2.9. Iohn. 1.29. 1 Iohn. 2.2. but in respect of all ends, propitiation, sealing the New Testament, testifica­tion of truth, and for the uttermost end in all, for his called and chosen ones, Heb. 9.14.15.]

As for his distinction of ends, dividing some to all, others for his chosen, is without ground, as I have showen in the former part of my treatise; and cleare it is, because his propitiation is nowhere said to be for every man, therefore all the ends of his death are for the same persons. Yea that Text Heb, 9.14.15. hinteth of no other end but propitiation or redemption of transgressions as ver. 15. yet the Author himselfe con­fesseth that it is for his called and chosen ones, and that those Texts Heb. 2.9. 1 John, 29. 1 Iohn. 2.2. doe not hold such a generall popitiation, I have showen at large; this is but [petitio principij.] And why he should produce a double oblation from 1 Tim. 2.5. and Heb. 9.14.15. I see not, seeing he cannot produce any differing circumstance; both by Christ, both by death, both for transgressions, both that those that are called [Page 214] might receive the promise; now if he shall say the one is for all, the other for his cho­sen, this is not against us, but giveth us the question, and granteth that the all in 1 Tim. 2.5. is no more then the chosen ones in Heb. 9.14.15. Hereby we may have a taste, that let the argument be as weak as it can, yet his answers are as weake and come farre short of discovering any weakenesse in it.

CHAP. XIX. Of the seventh Objection.

A seventh argument produced by him is this.

[If God intended life for all men by Christ death, he would certainely have u­sed some meanes to bring all men to the knowledge of Christ, and so to repentance and faith.

But to many he giveth no meanes at all; to others denied meanes when his servants would have carried the same. Therefore.]

This argument was the fifth argument in the conference, and in its right formation runneth thus.

[If Christ have procured reconciliation and remission by his death for every man, none excepted, then the word of reconciliation would and should have been preached to every man, none excepted.]

But the word of reconciliation is not &c.

Ergo, Christ did not procure remission for all and every man.]

But to take his argument as it runneth, I shall first show the force of the argument; it is but consonant to the wisdome of God, to have made such a purchase by his Sonne, or Christ by himselfe at so deare a rate as his blood, and that for the good of men, that he should make a discovery of this, that so men might come to partake of it and the bene­fits of it; for no man can partake of this remission but by faith, Rom. 3.25. and faith is not ordinarily begotten but by the word, Rom. 10.14. hence the Apostle putteth both together, 2 Cor. 5.15.18.19. with dying and reconciling, he committed the Gospel of reconciliation to the Apostles; but that many millions die without any knowledge of Jesus Christ, Scripture showeth and experience witnesseth. Now to perpend his an­swer; hereto he saith.

[This objection denyeth neither the death or ransome of Christ to be for all men, but onely any intendment of life and saving grace thereby.]

And doth this cleare him from the force of this argument? he is sufficiently con­founded hereby; because he holdeth that his purchase, and ransome, and death, was with an intendment of life to every man, as he saith, page 15. [He hath wrought for all men that they might be eternally saved;] doth not this sufficiently discover the fol­ly of the Author in answering the objection with that which confirmeth it and over­throweth himselfe? He further saith.

[Nor for any but where the Gospel is not granted.]

And enough too; because if Christ died not for all those where the Gospel never commeth, he died not for every man without exception. Yet he can manfully say the force of the objection is weake, and his grounds follow.

[The Scripture hath expressely affirmed Gods intention to be that they all might be saved, and repent, and beleeve, and be further saved. Ezeck. 33.11. Iohn. 3.17. Iohn. 1.4.7. Rom. 2.4. 1 Tim. 2.4. 2 Pet. 3.9.]

But what doth this helpe him? certainely nothing; because that to deny Gods in­tendment of life to all, was nothing against him, as even now he professed.

2. If he meane every sonne of Adam, no place cited by him cleareth it; it is not sui­table to reason, that God should intend those men might or should beleeve and be fur­ther saved, whom he decreed from eternity should be damned: this I have at large provd.

3. If the Author so confidently can say, that it is Gods intention that all men should beleeve, he need not be so squeemish at the affirming that it is his intention that all men should be eternally saved, which I finde him sometimes and others of his opinion so loth to affirme. But he further saith.

[If we cannot in the workes of God see the fulfilling of the sayings of God, it becomes us to admire his wisdome and holinesse, and be­waile our ignorance, &c. and not by rash judging deny the truth of his words, Rom. 11.33.]

True, if we be sure such a thing is the worke of God, if we cannot fathome it, to ad­mire the wisdome of God is good, as Rom. 11.33. but we may admire our owne folly and bewaile it, to put such a sense on Scripture, as that we cannot make it and the wisdome of God to meete; we deny not the truth of Gods words but the Authors glosse; and if he can prove it to be truly the worke of God, or that it is a truth, I shall admire, though I cannot fathom it. Hitherto I conceive he hath been oppugning the major; afterwards he cometh to the minor, and thus saith.

[The Scripture testifieth that God hath and doth use some meanes towards all men, not onely in his workes of creation and providence, which giveth some testimony of his goodnesse, &c. but with some fur­ther light, yea it may be some rumour of the Gospel, as much as drew Rahab to beleeve, &c.]

Hereby attempting to prove, that some discovery of the purchase is made knowne to every man. But very confidently he saith God affordeth some meanes to all men, but showes not to what end, whether to manifest his power and Godhead, and meer good­nesse; or further to show his mercy in our repairing; but this latter is most suiteable to his purpose and the argument; but what meanes doth he use? he saith, [not onely by his workes of creation and providence,] to intimate that those are meanes to disco­ver something of Christ; but without ground; for the creation can no more alone discover a Saviour, then they could in the creature; goodnesse we may see in the crea­ture, but not mercy: indeed if we have a word with them, it can tell us we have sinned and so forfeited all, then we may see mercy, not else, and all that the creation discovers is power and Godhead; but this there was before any mercy, and may be without it; but he saith, [With further light,] but speaketh not what that is, therefore I cannot answer; but he addeth, [It may be some rumour of the Gospel,] but no Scripture saith it; if it doe, why doth he darken truth with [May be?] if it doe not, why doth he op­pugne truth with (may be?) he must not thinke to overthrow arguments with [May be [...]s;] as for the rumour that was made to Adam, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Jacob, Rahab, [Page 216] &c. unlesse he learne better skill in probation,Apolog. c. 7. s. 8. in resp. ad Art. 31. A 11. it will not be very easie to prove that that those had knowledge of Christ, or of a Saviour; the Remonstrants will tell him that faith in Jesus was not required of the fathers under the Old Testament, but onely in God: and Arminius will not onely question but strongly argue, that the faithfull in the Old Testament, did not know that the Law typed out Christ and his benefits; but I doe not so satisfie the Author; but what if Adam, Noah, Shem, Abraham, &c. did hear and know something? what is this to every individuall man that ever was or shall be? the strongest asserters of this general discovery of the gospel, have yet been forced to con­fesse the contrary;in Perk. 258. Corv. in M. c. 28. s. 8. Act. Synod. 327. 316. 285. Col. Hag. 179. Col. Hag. in Arg. 5. Arminius himselfe saith thus, Causa cur deus omnibus Christum non revelet est quod parentes repudiaverunt,] (that is) the cause why God doth not reveale Christ to all, is, because their parents have rejected: if he give a reason, then certainely that must be a truth of which he giveth a reason, that Christ is not revealed to all; and the Remon­strants confesse, [Ecce populos quosdam etiam hujus temporis qui adhucdum nihil de hoc recon­ciliationis verbo sciunt;] (that is) there is a people in this time, that never heard a word of that worke of reconciliation; and in this thing they miserably falter; sometimes they say, [As much as in him lieth he dispenseth it;] sometimes [for his part he is ready to take care that it be preached;] sometimes [he commandeth it to be preached;] some­times [it ought to be preached;] sometimes [it may be preached;] and if it were possi­ble, would say many more to salve it. And therefore though we will not say that God doth not use any meanes to know him and his Godhead, yet we may say, he useth no meanes to every man to discover Christ and the redemption by him. He further saith.

[Gods denyall of his servants to preach in some places for a time, as in Acts, 16.6, 7. proveth not an utter deniall of all meanes to them (and among many reasons he giveth this one, but he may deny it for one time, yet grant it for an other.]

All this may be received, yet we not hurt; for we say not that he denyeth them all meanes to know him, but meanes to know Christ he did; and what though he gran­ted the Gospel afterwards to those places, yet in the intervall of time did not many (thinketh he,) die without knowledge of Christ? as for example, many Gentiles pe­rished in ignorance of Christ, during the time of the Gospels confinement to the Jews, though afterward it was granted to the Gentiles: and if so, our Minor is yet firme; no­thing of moment doth he else produce but what confirmeth that assumption that he would overthrow.

Thus have I martialed up our arguments in their native force, and his answers in their greatest strength; and herein have been as faithfull as I am able; and whether he hath abated the force of any one argument, or given any thing but cavills to darken the truth, I leave to any indifferent reader to judge; and what faithfulnesse he hath obser­ved in laying downe our arguments, I leave also to judge; in the next Chapter wee shall see if he have any more dexterity in producing his owne arguments, then he hath manifested in reciting ours.

CHAP. XX. Of the Arguments confirming the Proposition.

WHerein I shall first touch his faire flourish in the entrance, viz.

[To satisfie such as would have reason satisfied, reasons are added]

So that now we may set up a generall (siquis) if any would have his reason satisfied, let him come hither: and he doth well to satisfie reason, for he hath not yet confirmed our faith; but what persons are they that must be satisfied? certainely none but such as are satisfied with any thing; yet thus farre my reason is satisfied, that the Author hath not light upon forcible arguments to prove this position. As for his arguments produ­ced, no answer need be given, muchlesse much paines to be spent in a solicitous answer; and this any intelligent Reader will grant, if he consider these particulars concerning them.

1. Observe that in all he produceth Scriptures to backe his conclusions, providing himself against such (as having as little skill as himself in ratiotination,) may deny the conclusion, which is against the rule of argumentation, in which if good, the conclu­sion hath strength enough from the premises, and let them be right, I will warrant his conclusion; now what strength of Argument can we expect from such as is so weakely versed in that way?

2. His arguments are many, six in number, to call the eyes of men upon that truth that is backed by multitude of arguments, when he deceiveth them utterly; for his me­diums are all coincident in one; let us veiw them. His

• [1. Saith, That which the Scripture plainely affirmeth in plaine words, is true.
• 2. Saith, T [...] for whom Christ and his Apostles in plaine termes affirme Christ to come to save, them he did come to save.
• 3. Saith, That which Scripture layeth downe as one end of his death &c. is to be beleeved.
• 4. Saith, That which the Scripture sets forth in generall for the world, it a truth.
• 5: Saith, That which may be proved in and by Scripture in plaine sentences, &c. is a truth.]

Now let any divine Chymnist extract a difference betwixt any of these; doe they nor de­serve by the variety of matter to be ranged as distinct arguments? should I have distinct answers, I should runne into the Authors folly.

3. Let us view the conclusions in all, and so see what he proveth in all his plaine Scriptures. His

• [1. Thus, That he gave himselfe a ransome for all, and tasted death for every man.
• 2. He came to save sinners, world, unjust, ungodly.
• 3. That by his death he is Lord of all.
• 4. That he was sent to be the Saviour of the world, that whoever beleeveth should not perish.
• 5. That he hath in dying lordship over all.
• 6. That he gave himselfe a ransome for all, and tasted death for every man.]

Now not to insist on that peccancy, in having such various conclusions about one and the same question, wherein he cannot satisfie that requisite in reasoning to conclude with the question; this I say, none of these conclusions are against us, which may be reduced to that peccancy in reasoning which is called (ignoratio elenchi;) [Page 218] none of his arguments are in right forme, they have more in the conclusion then his premises contribute to them, all have some or other obliquity; but seeing all of them are but one medium, and so in effect but one argument, I shall give this one answer, (conceditur totum,) and he can desire no more of us then to grant all he saith; now in the issue either his weaknes appeareth in producing that against us which we may grant, or ours in granting that which maketh against us; let him put it to the triall.

CHAP. XXI. Of removing some doubts hindring some from beleeving that which they confesse.

WHerein he personateth some that cannot deny but confesse that [Christ gave himselfe a ransome for all, and tasted death for every man;] but they cannot beleeve that Christ died for all men; I shall not insist on the Authors dexterity in fra­ming such arguments and doubts that he may easily answer, and render the objectors ri­diculous; his forgery lieth in two particulars.

1. He knoweth none that cannot beleeve that which they confesse Scripture speaketh; some may not confesse that which they beleeve; but that any should not beleeve that which they confesse, I beleeve not.

2. He knoweth none that beleeve that Christ gave himself a ransome for all, and yet do doubt whether he died for all or no; this would be to exceed the Author in folly; but here lieth the doubt, though the Text say He gave himselfe a ransome for all men; yet they cannot beleeve that it meaneth every individuall man without exception, upon a threefold ground arising from severall Scriptures. as first,

Eph. 2.8. [By grace are ye saved through faith, and this not of our selves, it is the gift of God;] from this Text I doe not affirme, that faith is said to be the gift of God, though it be so, and other Scriptures hold it forth, yet I say not that this text saith so; for having said [ye are saved by grace through faith:] it saith [ [...],] which is not of our selves; it doth not well agree with [...], it being of the new [...]er gender, but rather with the whole sentence going before, [...], that salva­tion by grace through faith is the gift of God, as Rom 6.33. the gift of God is eternall life through Jesus Christ our Lord. But to take it as as he propoundeth it, and from this that faith is the gift of God which is a truth, hence the doubt is this. Seeing faith is the gift of God, and he hath determined not to give to every man that faith; therefore it is not probable that Christ would lay downe his life for them, upon the condition of faith, whom he seeth cannot beleeve without God, and to them God will not give it; to the salving of which he speakes many things; but little to satisfaction, he seemeth to di­stinguish of salvation.

1. A salvation, without man in Christ, for men.

2. A salvation in men inabling men to beleeve.

3. A salvation upon men both in soul and body compleat in heaven. Now he saith that this phrase, [Yee are saved by grace through faith,] in Eph. 28. is meant of the second salvation; but first that is not cleare; for then the sense must be this, yee are brought in to beleeve through faith: so that faith is by him the meanes conducing to faith; this is absurd; I thinke it plainely appeares to be meant of compleat salvation in [Page 219] heaven, and it saith ye are saved, because they were certainely to be saved through faith. But be it so as he saith; yet the doubt is where it was; yet that being saved by faith is the gift of God, and he not giving that grace to all, he would not give his Son to merit life for all upon the condition of beleeving; if I can in his next be informed of his strength in his expresses to this purpose, I shall say more.

His second Text produced,

[Iohn, 6.37. All that my Father giveth me shall come unto me, and him that cometh I will not cast out.]

Now from this Text here lieth the doubt; it is not consonant to reason or Scripture, that Christ would lay downe his blood to purchase life for them whom his Father had not given to him; seeing his Fathers giving is the measure of coming to him, and so be­ing within the compasse of the benefit of his impetration, his will being one with his Fathers, his impetration would be equall with his Fathers giving to him; this he under­taketh to remove, by showing a fouretold giving of men to Christ.

• [1. Giving by election to sonship and inheritance.
• 2. Giving men to him to undertake for them and to ransome them.
• 3. Giving men to Christ, they to be his, and he to be their Lord.
• 4. Giving men to Christ in the heavenly call, so they are given up to him.]

But what neede so many words to darken a cleare Text? and what need so many ac­ceptations, when it is cleare that all of them cannot be the sense of this place, or give any light to it? The second giving cannot be meant, because all for whom he undertook and ransomed, in the Authors judgement, doe not come to him, that is beleeve on him, so contrary to the text, all that my Father giveth me shall come to me.

Neither can the third be the sense here meant, upon the same ground; many who are Christs at his dispose, so as to be their Lord, they yet come not to him, that is beleeve on him; and those that by his judiciary power come to be judged, or come to sue for mercy, many of them are cast out: as is seeme in the wedding, and the five foolish vir­gins; therefore little need be said of these, because they doe not expound the Text by a­ny one of these; all the contestation betwixt the Remonstrants and their adversaries, and me and my Antagonist, is betwixt the first and the fourth; he affirmeth the fourth to be the genuine sense of this place; but against not onely reason but common sense; for by comming to Christ is certainely meant beleeving in him, comming by faith as is cleare by many Scriptures, Mat. 11.28. [come unto me yee that are heavy laden,] that is beleeve in me, Iohn, 6.64.65. compare them together, [yee beleeve not, no man can come unto me except my Father draw him, and ver. 35. both are put together, [He that beleeveth shall not hunger, he that cometh shall not thirst;] so according to him the sense must be this, they that have come shall come, or they that have beleeved shall beleeve; but this is very improbable; the glosse of the Remonstrants solveth it not,Act. Syn. in locum. [ve­niet] for [venite debet] that is [shall come] by it is meant [ought to come] for it is still under the same absurdity to say they that have come ought to come, as to say they shall come.

The next thing is to consider whether the first interpretation be the right or no; it seemeth to be the right, because the giving is antecedaneous to comming or beleeving, therefore most probable to be the giving by election; now of this sense he saith.

[So they may be [though not in Scripture] truly said to be given him.]

But whence doth he deduce this liberty, to say that it is truly said of Christ which is not said in Scripture? it seemes the Scripture is not the adequate subject of truth.

[But these are not the onely number that are given to him; for as they are given to him to be heires with him, so were all the rest given to him to serve him and his people.]

Which is very impertinent to the case in hand; for we question not whether none be any way given to Christ, but such as are given by election: but whether in this Text the giving by election is meant or no; let all be given to Christ to be his servants, yet here those that come to him are given to him to be heires with him; and this giving is before coming, therefore by election. Againe,

[Where election is set forth under this tearme of giving to Christ, is hard to finde in Scripture.]

But herein he did not compare his no [...]es well, and consider what he saith in the next page, 149. there he saith, [In all these three senses giving comprehends Adam and all that come of him, all men being given to Christ in all these three senses, as Scripture testifieth.] Now we must consider that the first of these three, is giving to Christ to be heires and that by election, as he saith page 148. and this in one page he saith the Scripture testifieth that this election to sonship is understood by giving to Christ; but in page 148. he saith it is hard to finde where it is so taken; this is an egregious contradiction, besides the ex­tream falsity, because we never finde it testified that all are given by election to Christ to be heires with him. And then he groundlesly concludes

[In this place it neither is nor can be so taken.]

But we have no reason nor Scripture to prove, but his bare word only to affirme it, but it is not of weight to carry it. 2. If it be not a giving by election, and yet antecedaneous to beleeving, I hope he will in his next make it appeare what it is; and thus notwithstanding his groundlesse evasion, the doubt is still unsatisfied, from that Text John, 6.37. The third Text produced is, Acts, 13.48. As many as were ordained to eternall life beleeved;] the doubt hence is this, that seeing the reason why men beleeved, was because they were ordained to eternall life, and so the number of belee­vers and the ordained to life are equall and run in an equipage, it is not probable that Christ would shed his blood for those to procure life upon faith whom he knew were not ordained to eternal life, This he would remove thus.

[The words ordained to eternall life [it is to be feared] are mistaken, as if they signified only the prime election to sonship, whereas it is not found where that only sense is set forth in the words (ordained to life).]

The clearest truth may be eclipsed by the interposition of humane glosses and suspi­cions; but to any unprejudiced man these three things may appeare.

1. That it was God that did ordaine them, for so of his act it speakes, ver. 47. and of setting Paul to be for salvation, he did also ordaine them to life that were to beleeve; indeed the Remonstrants are pleased to say,Act. Synod. in locum. [non dicuntur ordinati a deo,] (that is) they are not said to be ordained of God; but what then? is it a hard thing to prove it so to be meant? why are we not to thinke it to be Gods act in ordaining to life, as well as in appointment to life and salvation? as 1 Thes. 5.10. [...] &c. He hath appoint­ed us, viz. God, to obtaine salvation; but if it be not Gods act, let us be informed who it is that ordaineth men to life.

2. We may see it is an appointment to eternall life, and that in plain terms; so that it must be an ordaining to sonship and inheritance.

3. It is an act that was precedaneous to saith, as is cleare; as many as were ordained [Page 221] to life then beleeved: therefore it could not be that temporary election, of which the Author speakes, therefore it must meant of the prime election; now seeing that it mea­neth the prime election to inheritance, and he cannot produce any place of Scrip [...]ure where this phrase signifieth any thing else, we may conclude that this phrase here signi­fieth onely such prime ordaining to inheritance, and therefore the place is not abused. But I hope if he remove that sense, he will furnish us with some better, and not leave words without a sense, let us therefore see how it is taken in his judgement.

He urgeth thus,

[The word ordaining being found in Scripture to have a further sense, even of ordaining the elected; constitution, preparation, furniture, consecration for the businesse to which they are elected, 1 Pet. 1.20. Act. 10.42. Heb. 10.5. Eph. 2.10.]

Wherein there is a learned discovery, but little to the purpose. For

1. What matters it how the word be taken in it selfe; the question is how it is taken in this phrase, Ordained to life.

2. He intimateth that to be ordained, constituted, consecrated to eternall life, is a further sense then to be elected to eternall life; let any intelligent man extract the diffe­rence.

3. He cannot produce any Scripture, wherein the word in this Text signifieth pre­paration or furniture, to that thing which they were before elected to; if he can, I de­mand it.

4. He produceth foure severall Texts (as he doth thousands to no purpose) to prove the words in Acts, 13.48. to have such a signification, when the word in that Text is not found in any of these foure places; no nor the word ordained in our translation, in all of them. 1 Pet. 1.20. saith [...], in Acts, 10.42. [...], Heb. 10.5. [...], Eph. 2.10. [...]; here is in every place a severall word; and the word [...], Acts, 13.48. nor any word of that root to be found in any of those Texts; and yet these Texts are produced to show the meaning of that word, testifying his insufferable impudence to darken a cleare Text upon such grounds, whereof he is altogether ignorant.

5. Admit all he saith, yet doth the word (ordaine) or the words in the originall text, in 1 Pet. 1.20. Acts, 10.42. Eph. 2.10. comprehend any more then Gods instituting, appointing, consecrating Christ to his office and us to holinesse, and not differing from his election to such things; what ordination of Christ to be the Lambe shine before the foundation of the world, but only in Gods purpose? and was not this his prime e­lection to that office? what vaine flourishes he br [...]ngs to make us expect the explana­tion of that phrase (ordained to life,) when he doth not produce any place whereby it may be explaned? He further addeth

[So the word is used when spoke of the Church, Acts, 14.23. or of Gods ordaining, Rom. 13.1. 1 Cor. 12.28. 1 Tim. 2.7. Joh. 15.15.]

Here is more forgery and falsehood still, no one place here mentioned, except Rom. 13.7. hath the same word as in Acts, 13.48. let any consult with the Text, and yet he dare averre that the word in Acts, 13.48. is used as he speakes in those Texts; how the man would boast of plenty of places to backe his forgery upon [...]; when he labours with a great penury? the word in Rom. 13.1. is the same, and signifieth appointment, not furniture, it is spoken of offices not officers which are ap­pointed not furnished. He further addeth

[And this word to be thus taken for an actuall ordaining here, is evi­dent by the like use of it in other places, speaking of the like blessing, 1 Col. 12.13. 1 Pet. 2.9. 1 Ioh. 5.11.12. Ioh. 6.36.]

And because an actuall ordaining, therefore not for ordaining by election, as if Gods ordaining by prime election was not actuall ordaining; a senselesse evasion.

2. His Texts that he produceth are abused; for 1 Col 12.13. he vainely saith that they are of like use; is ordaining of men to life, and making them meet to partake of light, one and the same act? let reason determine; and for 1 Pet. 2.9. it is cleare that they were called a chosen generation, in relation to prime election, as appeares by the op­position, to them that were disobedient, to which they were appointed; as also from the entire sentence in the like case, 1 Thes. 5.10. He hath appointed us to obtaine salvation; yet he abuseth, not satisfieth the Text: but what meaneth he by actuall ordaining? by comparing his words, I gather this meaning, page 151.152. whereby he giveth this in­terpretation of the Text; [Those that were ordained to life, that is, had unfeined and effectu­all faith wrought in them, and so did cleave to Christ, and give themselves up to him, &c. they beleeved;] Something allyed to the glosse of the Remonstrants; but he I beleeve consi­dered not what a monstrous interpretation this will invite; for then this must be the meaning: they that had faith in them beleeved; excellent interpreter! inferring that men may have faith, cleave to Christ, give themselves up to him before they beleeve; for cleare it is that they were so ordained to life before they beleeved; but he hath an argument to prove that by (ordained to life) cannot be meant the prime election as he calleth, and it followeth in page 152.

[It meaneth not so many as were elected in Gods councell to life; for then what becometh of all beleevers since? nor yet as many in that place or of that society; many such might be that were afterwards called.]

Wherein he hath plowed with the Arminian heife [...]; else this objection would not have been so ready at hand;Act. Synod. in locum. [Si de electione absoluta haec verba accipienda essent, tum neces­sario sequeretur reliquos omnes &c. a deo reprobatos esse:] but to this we may answer diverse wayes. For

1. Let it be as he would have it, that by ordaining to life, is to have faith wrought in them; will he say that all that had faith wrought in them, and so cleaved to Christ, did then beleeve? Scripture showeth the contrary; for then it must follow that all that did not at that time come in to beleeve, did not cleave to Christ, or give themselves to him, or in the Remonstrants phrase, were not fit to receive the Gospel; but this is false.

2. Our Author suggests an answer: As many in that place or in that society as were ordained to life beleeved; and all that he produceth against this, is this only; [Many there might be that were afterwards called,] but this is poore probation.

3. The word [...] is not alwayes rendred As many, but (those) or (which;) the argu­ment is not deduced from the quantity, but the quality of them that beleeved; in Acts, 9.39. it saith, [...]; yet we read it not they show'd him as many coats as Dorcas made, but those coats which Dorcas made, that is, those coats that they showed him were of Dorcas her making; so here those which were or­dained to life beleeved, that is, those that were beleevers were such as were ordained to eternall life; so that let the Author of these, be who it will, yet they are free from his responsary cavills.

CHAP. XXII. Of the benefit of this Doctrine.

IN which Chapter he attempts to lay lay downe the utility of this doctrine, and that not without ground; that so it might appeare that it is not without cause, that he compasseth sea and land to make Proselytes, runnes and tides from Dan to Beersh [...]ba, as if the care of all Churches were laid upon his shoulders; leaveth his honest calling in which providence had placed him, to attend the preaching of that new gospel, neg­lecteth many gospel truths that may helpe to make the man of God wise to salvation; such being swallowed up by generall atonement, as if the whole gospel was clasped up in this: now their evidence that it is not only profitable, but it intimateth some tran­scendent utility, either to God, or his Church, or himselfe; sure I am if it be a truth, it hath been the most profitable truth to him of all truths in the Bible.

Now to this Chapter I shall onely answer, first with Corvinus to his adversary, spea­king of the utility of absolute predestination or election, he thus answers,Corv. in Molin. c. 2. Sect. 1. [Si doctrina esset evangeliū aut ejus pars, tum ad salutem esset necessario,] the sum of it is this, if it be true it is profitable, and then I answer with the scripture, [...]; everry scripture is of divine inspiration, and profitable for doctrine, reproofe, cor­rection, instruction, that the man of God may be perfect; let the Author first prove his doctrine to be true and Scripture, then we shall consider the utility of it, else herein we shall but beat the aire at the best; for that which is not according to truth and sound words, as 1 Tim. 1.13. is at the best but [...] vaine bablings; 2 Tim. 2.16. pro­fiteth nothing: and not only so, but increases to more ungodlinesse, and frets like a can­ker, 2 Tim. 2.17.

In the following part of his discouse I finde application made; but that I wave, be­cause that which I undertake is the polemicall part of his treatise; in which I have dealt as faithfully as my talent enableth me, and as candidly as the Author and the na­ture of his discourse doth admit, which I referre to himselfe or any unpraejudiced Rea­der. And when he shall prove that his doctrine is consonant to the words or true con­sequence of Scripture, I shall imbrace it, presse it, and magnifie the utility of it.

The Lord give us understanding in all things.