Catholic Theology Plain Pure Peaceable — Richard Baxter

Catholic Theology Plain Pure Peaceable · Richard Baxter

THE Third Days Conference (With an ARMINIAN of Univerſal and Special REDEMPTION

The ſecond Article of our Difference is ſo fundamental and …omen tous, and our diſtance ſo great, that I cannot believe that you can ſay any thing ſufficient to reconcile us.

They that ſtudy Controverſie as ſuch, are apt every where to fin… matter of Quarrel, and weapons of Contention; but they that ſee… peace do find out the terms and means of peace, as ſure and eaſie in them ſelves, which Contenders cannot ſee.

Tell me, in a word, Are not all Parties agreed, that Chriſt by his Merits and Sufferings, procured for men all mercies which he giveth them … and no more, (but as he may be ſaid to procure them that which he offereth and bringeth to their choice; which is properly to proc…re them that offer, or the benefit as offered?)

Yes, I think both ſides will grant this, that he purchaſed all that he giveth, and abſolutely or fully no more.

Why then all the Controverſie is, what he giveth men: and that belongeth to the third and fourth Articles: And ſo I might diſmiſs this at the beginning, but for your expectations.

But what is it that maketh you think the difference ſo great?

The first Crimination.

1. The Calviniſts and Synodiſts deny Chriſt's very Office, as he is the Saviour of the World, and the ſecond Adam, the Redeemer of Mankind, and the Mediator between God and Man. And all this they confine to a ſmall part of the World.*Malderus in 1. 2. q. 111. a. 3. d. 5. m. 1. p. 487. Non exiſtimo opinionem illam Calviniſticam, quae negat pro omnibus & ſingulis Chriſt…m mortuum eſſe, tolerandam eſſe: nec inter ſtudioſos varitaris debere obtinere locum opinionem qui non perinde admittunt quod omnibus in Adamo lapſis—iterum ſit via (ſalutis facta poſſibilis per Chriſtum & quod habeant per Chriſtum in actu primo paratum, vel in actu ſecundo datum ſufficiens auxilium gratiae, quo ſaltem media'e ſalvari poſſint, &c.

Have you never read what Muſculus hath written in Loc. Commun. and Bullinger in his Decades for univerſal Redemption? Have you not read the plain words of Calvin, cited by Amyraldus in Defenſ. Doct. Calvin. (though Petavius rail at him for it moſt furiouſly)? Have you not read the writings of Joh. Bergius, Conrad. Bergius, Lud. Crocius, Calixtus, of Camero, and his Followers at Saumers, of Teſtardus, Dallaeus, Blondel's Preface, &c. for Univerſal Redemption? Have you not read in the writings of Biſhop Rob. Abbots, Biſhop Carelton, Arch-biſhop Uſher, Biſhop Hall, Dr. Sam. Ward, &c. their judgments for it? Have you not read Biſhop Davenant's excellent Diſſertation for it, de morte Chriſti? Know you not that it was the judgment of Dr. Preston, Mr. W. Whateley, Mr. W. Fenner, and many excellent Divines among us? Know you not that Dr. Twiſſe himſelf, I believe twenty, if not forty times over in his Works, ſaith, That Chriſt ſo far died for all, as to procure and give them Pardon and Salvation, on condition they will repent and believe; but he died moreover for the Elect, to procure and give them Faith and Repentance alſo? Know you not that Paraeus in his Irenicon ſaith, That the Sins of all the World lay on Chriſt on the Croſs, as the cauſe of his Death? Know you not that it is the commoneſt Doctrine of the Protestants, That Chriſt died for all men as to the ſufficiency of his death, but for the Elect only as to the efficiency of Salvation? And what can you ſay more or leſs than thoſe few words ſignifie? Know you not that the Synod at Dort it ſelf ſaith, That Chriſt's ſatisfaction is of infinite value and price, abundantly ſufficient to expiate the Sins of all the World; and that the Promiſe is, That whoſoever believeth ſhall not periſh. And this is to be preached to all. And, that many yet repent not, believe not, but periſh, is not through any defect or inſufficiency of Chriſt's Sacrifice; but by their own default. Muſculus his words for Univerſal Redemption, are (Loc. Commun. c. de Redemp. Gen. hum. p. (mihi) 326. &c.) [Redemptio est generis humani: Ge…s humanum Complectitur non unam aut alteram Gentem, ſed mundum …niverſum, omnes viz. totius orbis nationes, cunctos homines à primo uſ que ad noviſſimum.—Generaliter eſt omnium.—Scimus non omnes Redemptionis hujus fieri participes: Verum illorum perditio qui non ſervantur, haud quaquam impedit, *It ſeems there were but few in Bradwardin's days, who were of his mind, in confeſſing the antecedent natural impoſſibility of any ones Salvation, or any good act, which cometh not to paſs; ſeeing (li. 3. c. 29. p. 735.) he anſwereth them that ſay, [why ſhould the Opinion of a few, trouble the Church, and the far greater number that is againſt it], by referring them to the paucity of wiſe men and Believers, and ſaying that truth muſt be preached for the few (Elect) that will receive it. And p. 737. tells us how Ariſtophanes, contrary to the ſix Judges, appointed by Ptolomy; did adjudge the Crown to that Poet that the people liked worſt.quo minus Univerſalis vocetur Redemptio—Reſolutio illa telluris qua paſſim omnia ad germinandum aſtate ſolvuntur, recte Univerſalis dicitur, etiamſi multae arbores—non germinent—&c. Anno Jubil…o Generalis omnium ſervorum liberatio erat, etiamſi multi in ſervitute ma…tes, gratiam liberationis reſpuebant. Ad eum modum habet & Redemptio iſtageneris humani—Quod illam homines reprobi & deploratè impii non accipiunt, ne que defectu fit Gratiae Dei, ne que justum eſt ut illa propter filios perditionis Gloriam ac titulum UNIVERS ALIS REDEMPTIONIS amittat, cum ſit parata cunctis, & omnes ad illam vocentur, &c.—ſic cuim cavebimus ne Catholicae Gratiae Gloriam obſcuremus & in arctum Conſtringamus, vel cum phanaticis hominibus neminem prorſus damnari dica…us—]. Bullinger—

You may ſpare your labour of citing Bullinger and Muſculus, or Melanchthon, or Bucer, or ſuch moderate men: But what are they to the rigid Calviniſts?—

Calvin ſaith, in Rom. 5. 18. [Communem omnium gratiam facit, quia omnibus expoſita eſt: Non quod ad omnes extendatur reipſa: Nam & ſi paſſus eſt Chriſtus pro peccatis totius mundi at que omnibus Indifferenter Dei benignitate offertur, non tamen omnes apprehendunt.]

And in 1 Cor. 8. 11. [Dictum memorabile quo docemur quam (Chara) eſſe debeat nobis fratrum ſalus; nec omnium modo, ſed ſingulorum, quando prounoquo que fuſus eſt ſanguis Christi.]

And in 2 Pet. 2. 1. [Non immerito dicuntur Chriſtum abnegare à quo redempti ſunt,—].

And in 1 Joh. 2. 2. He ſaith, That qui dicunt [Chriſtum ſufficienter pro toto mundo paſſum eſſe, ſed pro elect is tantum efficaciter,] ſay true, and that which commonly obtaineth in the Schools, though he otherwiſe expound that Text.

You need not cite Calvin: Grotius ſaid truly that he had his Lucida intervalla; and though Amyraldus ſeek to defend him from ſelfcontradiction, Petavius calls him all to nought for it: But what can you ſay for your high Antiarminians, ſuch as Paraeus, Molinaeus, &c.

Paraeus, (let all mark it) ſaith, Irenic. cap. 24. pag. 142. [Quod Christus pro ſolis electis ſatisfecit, foreign est, vel falſa accuſatio: Omnium peccata Chriſtus portavit, diſſolvit, expiavit, ſi magnitudinem pretii, ſeu foreign ſufficientiam ſpectemus: Non omnium ſed tantum fidelium, ſi foreign, efficaciam, fructum, applicationem.] To which he citeth Ambroſe, Innocent, Lyra, adding [Juxta hunc intellectum nulla eſt diſſenſio.

Art. 6. itidem foreign eſt vel falſa accuſatio. Promiſſiones Gratiae ſunt Univerſales, pertinent que ad omnes, quoad praedicationem, invitationem, & mandatum credendi.]

And on 2 Pet. 2. 1. [Erant Redempti reſpectu ſufficientiae foreign, &c.]

Molinaeus Anatom. Arminianiſ. ſaith, cap. 27. ſect. 8, 9. [When we ſay that Chriſt died for all men, we take it thus, that the Death of Chriſt is ſufficient to ſave whoſoever do believe; yea, and that it is ſufficient to ſave all men, if all men in the whole World did believe in him: And that the cauſe why all men are not ſaved, is not in the inſufficiency of the Death of Chriſt, but in the wickedneſs and incredulity of man. Finally Chriſt may be ſaid to reconcile all men to God by his Death, after the ſame manner that we ſay the Sun doth enlighten the eyes of all men, though many are blind, many ſleep, and many are hid in darkneſs, &c.]

That moſt methodical acute Divine, Georg. Sohnius, ſaith, Tom. 1. Theſ. de Justific. (mihi) pag. 104. [Satisfactio illa & juſtitia pro omnium temporum hominibus, & omnium hominum peccatis, & peccatorum omnium cum culpa tum poena ſufficit, quia ab infinita perſona dependet, Matth. 18. 11. & 12. 31. Rom. 5. 18. & 8. 32. 2 Cor. 5. 15. 1 Tim. 2. 6. 1 Joh. 1. 7. & 2. 2. Tit. 2. 14. Errant igitur qui Chriſtum pro omnibus hominibus paſſum eſſe negant.]—

But ſuch violent men as Zanchy (the grand Patron of the impoſſibility of falling away) talk not at this rate.

Zanchy ſaith, (Theſ. Vol. 3. fine, Theſ. 13. 16. de Volunt. Dei) Eadem de cauſa dici non poteſt Dei voluntatem proprie & ſimpliciter fuiſſe, ut Chriſtus pro ſalute omnium moreretur, id eſt, ut omnis per ejus mortem ſervaretur, ac proinde Chriſtum ſecundum propoſitum patris pro ſalute omnium mortuum eſſe; ſed tantum, ut loquuntur, ſufficienter.—Caeterum damnari etiam illi non poſſunt, qui ſpectata revelata voluntate Dei docent, & Deum velle omnes homines ſalvos fieri, & Chriſtum pro ſalute omnium hominum mortuum eſſe, & neutrum velle peccatum; cum haec omnia ſint veriſſima.

And de Relig. Chriſt. fid. cap. 12. Theſ. 2. [Credimus (Mar. 16. 16.) licet omnibus hominibus per Evangelii praedicationem Gratia Redemptionis, ſalus ac vita aeterna à Deo diſpenſanda ſerio proponantur, (quod enim permulti hujus non ſiunt participes, ipſorum ſit vitio & culpa reipſa tamen non communicari niſi—electis, vocatis—]

What ever theſe hold, I am ſure your Engliſh Calviniſts hold otherwiſe.

Have you not read Biſhop Uſher's Tract, for Univerſal Redemption? Have you not read Davenant's Diſſert. de morte Christi, ſo oft mentioned? Have you not read the Life of Dr. Preſton, and how in the Diſpute with Dr. White he maintained Univerſal Redemption? Mr. William Fenner in his Hidden Manna brings in Cain ſaying, [Chriſt died not for me, &c.] and anſwereth, [Mentiris Cain, Chriſt died for thee.] It would be too long to cite all.

D. Rob. Abbot de Verit. Grat. Chriſti, pag. 35, 36, 37. [Huic diſputati…ni dabit initium—Ambroſis Sententia in Luc. c. 7. l. 6. [Etſi Chriſtus pro omnibus paſſus eſt, ſpecialiter tamen pro nobis paſſus eſt—] Quibus verbis apertè ſignificat ita Chriſtum pro omnibus mortuum, ut tamen in morte Chriſti, hand omnes pares existimandi ſunt. Communiter quidem pro omnibus mortuum—viz. pro omnibus ſatisfacere voluiſſe dignitate pretii—eſto Christum in promiſcuo ſenſu generis humani, ſe aliquo modo pro Judae dediſſe, &c.—Ne que enim Christus qua homo partitionem hominum vel diſcretionem ullam instituit ut quemquam dici poſſit à mortis ſuae beneficio excepiſſe, qui hac quidem ratione pro perſequentibus & crucifigentibus promiſono patrem rogat, noſtro quod ſit exemplo—Quod certe dolere non potniſſet, niſi pro illis quo que quantum ex homine, crucem obire ſtatuiſſet—]

I told you before what Dr. Twiſſe ſaith twenty times over, That [Chriſt died to purchaſe Pardon for all if they will believe (conditionally) but for the Elect to purchaſe them alſo Faith it ſelf.]

The Annotations called the Aſſemblies, ſay, on Heb. 10. 29. [Sanctified by the Blood] [By which their ſins were pardoned in regard of that meritorious ſufficient Satisfaction purchaſed by it.]

Abundance more I could eaſily cite.

But they do but juggle and cheat the World with the Vizor of a Doctrine that cannot endure the Light: For by ſufficiens pretium ſome ſay they mean but ſufficiens ſi pretium fuiſſet, and no price at all.

Thoſe be but a few odd conceited perſons, driven by you into extreams: They profeſs that Chriſt hath ſufficiently ſatisfied for all, and purchaſed them effectually a conditional Pardon. They call not that a ſufficient price and ſatisfaction which is none at all.

But we agree not as to Gods intent of the benefits to all.

1. That concerneth the Decrees. 2. The ſober *[Quod ad magnitudinem & potentiam pretii, & quod ad unam pertinet cauſam generis humani, ſanguis Chriſti eſt redemptio totius mundi: ſed qui hoc ſeculum ſine fide Chriſti & ſine regenerationis ſacramento pertranſeunt, Redemptionis alieni ſunt▪ Cum ergo per unam omnium naturam, omnium cauſam a Domino noſtro in veritate ſuſceptam, redempti recte omnes dicantur, non tamen omnes captivitate ſunt eruti Redemptionis proprietas haud dubium penes illos eſt—qui ſunt membra a Chriſti.] This of Auguſt. Rivet approveth of diſp. 6. de Remp. p 100. But it's clea… that by Redemption in the laſt part. Auguſt. meaneth actual liberatition from Captivity, which no doubt is proper to the Elect.Papiſts agree, and ſay juſt the very ſame as the Synod. See Estius in 3. Sent. d. 19. ſect. 3. Tapperus, Art. 6. Malderus Antiſynod. p. 23, 24. Fr. Sonnius demonſtr. Relig. Chriſt. l. 3. c. 19. †Vid. Vaſquez To. 1. in 1. diſp. 97. c. 2. & 3.Rivet citeth theſe, Diſp. 6. de Redempt. And he himſelf makes Chriſt's death even partly effectual for all. And will you be more contentious and violent than all the ſober Papiſts and Calvinists?

Know *Saith Vaſquez in 1. Tho. q. 23. a. 8. d. 95. c. 3. Cum omnes ſimul eſſemus eodem modo in primo parente damnati & eandem ſententiam, ſubituri, non omnes ſed quidam ex illa co…uni maſſa fuimus ſeparati, gratia congrua & efficaci uſ que ad finem vitae: ergo quidam fuimus prae aliis electi: ſed gratia qua fuimus ſeparati ne cum aliis damnati maneremus ſuit per Chriſtum: ergo per Chriſtum a communi maſſa electi ſumus. Quod ſi ita in …pore factum eſt, nemo ambigat in praeſcientia …odem modo fuiſſe decretum, Ne que vero ut quiſpiam ſit cauſa eligendi aliquem ex multis damnatis, apus eſt ut ipſe ità ſit cauſa relinquendi alios obnoxios poenae, &c.—Chriſtus cauſa ſuit noſtra electionis, ut non-nulli potius eligerentur quam alii: Quia peculiari ratione merita ſua ipſis applicavit, & pro eis oravit—ex iis qui poſt incarnationem ejus fuerunt ego non dubito Chriſtum peculiari oratione & voluntate merita ſua illis appliceſſe qui predeſtinati & electi fuerunt, ac propterea eos potius quam alios electos & predeſtin…os fuiſſe. De quibuſdam hoc certiſſimum eſt Luc. 22. Chriſtus oravit pro Petro, &c. Et. Joh. 1…. Non pro mundo rogo, ſed, &c. Quis autem … are audeat Chriſtum hac oratione vere meruiſſe Apoſtolis gratiam congruam & efficacem, qua uſ que in finem perſeverarent, &c.you not how excellently our Britiſh Divines in the Synod of Dort have opened this, and as well the three Breme Divines, but above …ll, moſt clearly and briefly the learned Matthius Martinius there? But I will name no more, when it is the whole of the famous Dallaeus his Apolog. Cont. Spanhem. Part. 4. To. 1. to ſhew the conſent of Proteſtants herein: And when his whole Second Tome… is to cite the very words of an hundred and twenty Fathers and Councils, for Univerſal Redemption and Grace, (Theophylact being the laſt) and ſixty three Protestant Churches and Writers that ſpeak for it, to whom I could add many more.

If this be ſo, how cometh it to be a Controverſie?

A few particular men on each ſide that run into extreams, when once engaged run on further, and make a great noiſe, while ſober men in ſilence pity them; And ſo with ſome the greateſt and the lowdeſt are taken to ſpeak the common ſenſe. And thus Spanhemius, Maccovi…s, and a few much inferior to them in learning here in England, have kept up the Contention. And ſeveral of the Jeſuites, Lutherans and Arminians, have run out into the contrary extream; and ſo the difference hath been made and maintained. So that with moſt Chriſtians, the controverſie is not whether Chriſt be the Saviour of the World, or died for all men; but how far, and in what ſenſe he did ſo, that this Article may agree with the reſt of our Theology.

The ſenſe is all: If we agree not in ſenſe, we agree in nothing.

The few extream Contenders agree not in ſenſe: But the generality of Chriſtians, much more may I ſay Protestants, do, in all that is neceſſary to our common concord. If really you differ, tell me your ſelf, What do you hold that Christ purchaſed for all men, more than the Synodiſts do? Name me one benefit if you can.

You would perſwade me that we differ not indeed. 1. We hold that Chriſt procured and made the first Covenant of Grace with all Mankind in Adam and Noah: and ſo do not the Synodiſts.

I think you can name few Protestants that deny it. Beza himſelf in that Edit. of his Annot. in Eph. 2. 12. which H. Stephanus printed 1588. ſaith, [This Covenant was made in the beginning, Gen. 3. 15. with Adam, and all that ſhould be born of him; and afterwards, Gen. 9. 10. with Noah, the other Parent of Mankind; as we have elſe-where noted,] plainly, they ſay that it is made to all men as a Law, then promulgate to Adam and Noah; even a Law of Grace, which Mankind was put under; And as an offered Covenant, and conditional Promiſe: But as, 1. A mutual Covenant. 2. And as giving right to Life, it is made, only with Conſenters. Tell me whether you differ from this ſenſe?

No; this ſenſe is according to the Scriptures. But moreover, 2. We hold that the ſecond Edition of the Covenant alſo is made to all.

It's granted you, that it's made to all that hear it, as far as aforeſaid; and that Miniſters ſhould do their beſt to preach it to all: And do you hold any more?

No: But, 3. We hold that this Covenant pardoneth all mens ſins, on condition of Faith and Repentance, and not only the Elect.

So do they, unanimouſly: I told you Twiſſe twenty times over ſaith the ſame. No man can deny that which is the very plain ſcope of the Covenant it ſelf, to pardon all if they will repent and believe.

4. But, We hold alſo that Chriſt purchaſed for all men ſufficient Grace to enable them to repent and believe.

I told you that is the Controverſie of the third and fourth Articles; what Grace Chriſt giveth all, he procured for all, which is not here to be anticipated, but opened in due place: And if I then manifeſt that in that point alſo you differ not, I ſhall prove that you differ not at all in theſe Points of Chriſt's Death and Univerſal Grace.

But they ſay, That Chriſt died only for the Elect, effectually and with a purpoſe to ſave them, and purpoſed to ſave no other.

You carry back the Controverſie to Gods Decrees, which we diſpacht before. Tell me, 1. Do you hold that all are ſaved by Chriſt?

No; that's none of the Controverſie.

Why then quarrel you with them that ſay, He died but for the Elect effectually, when they mean but that he ſaveth no other?

But his death effected ſomething for them; viz. the new Covenant and common Grace, though it effect not their Salvation.

Who denieth any of this? not the Synod of Dort. But, 2. Do you hold that God abſolutely purpoſed to ſave any by Chriſt that never are ſaved?

No: but conditionally he purpoſed it.

Have we not before proved, that your quarrel about conditional Decrees, is but a ſtrife about words in the dark.

But they ſay Chriſt died not equally for all.

Do you, or dare you, ſay otherwiſe your ſelves? 1. You confeſs that his Death doth not equally ſave all: 2. You confeſs that from eternity God fore-knew who would believe and be ſaved, and who not. Now the queſtion is of equality of benefit (before denied) and equality of Intention: And can you think that Chriſt, as God, at the time of his Death (or before) did equally intend or decree to ſave thoſe that he fore-knew would neither believe nor be ſaved, and thoſe that he knew would believe and be ſaved? You cannot, you do not imagine this.

We do not: But we ſay that as to Gods antecedent Will, he both elected and redeemed all alike; and the inequality is only in his conſequent Will. But the Synodiſts ſay otherwiſe.

1. If you underſtand the diſtinction aright, they ſay the ſame as you: that is, If you thus diſtinguiſh only of the Will of God as Rector, or his governing Will, and by the Antecedent Will mean only the Legiſlative which making our Duty, goeth before our doing or notdoing it, and by the conſequent Will, mean only the judicial which followeth Duty and Sin. God dealeth equally by all men in the firſt, (as to the tenour of his Law, though the different promulgation make a difference of Obligations,) but unequally in the ſecond.

2. And if you diſtinguiſh thus of his eternal Decrees, either they reſpect Damnation or Salvation. And by his Antecedent Will, you mean that which goeth before the fore-ſight of mans Will, and by the conſequent, that which followeth this fore-ſight. Now, 1. Have I not ſaid enough to convince you that as it is Actus Agentis in God, we cannot prove any diverſity or priority? But only ex connotatione objecti. 2. And as to Damnation, I have proved that they commonly agree with you, that God decreeth not Sin, but fore-ſeeth it, and decreeth Damnation only as for fore-ſeen Sin. What-ever Piſcator and a few more ſay, this is the common Doctrine of Protestants and Fathers. 3. But as to Election dare you ſay your ſelf, that God decreeth to change no mans Will, but upon fore-ſight that the perſon himſelf will firſt change it? *Vaſqu. and many Jeſuits profeſs, that Gods firſt Grace is given without any cauſe, condition or occaſion in man. And ſaith Malderus in 12. Tho. q. 110. a. 1. pag. 469. Deus non. praeſupponit in creatura bonum, quo ad ipſius dilectionem moveatur, ſicut voluntas hominis benefactoris: ſed bonum creaturae provenit ex voluntate Dei, qui vocat ea quae non ſunt tanquam ea quae ſunt. That is, Gods efficient Will of Beneficence is firſt, and then his final Will of complacence; firſt God maketh us good, and then loveth us as good.If man change it firſt, God need not to come after to change it: If God change it firſt, then he decreed firſt to change it, and did not firſt fore-ſee it changed.

Neither: But he fore-ſeeth mans concurrence or not-concurrence with his changing Act of Grace.

But can you think that he equally operateth on all, and that all the inequality is in their concurrence? Doth he do as much on every Perſecutor (equally prepared) as he did on Saul? Doth he call all to follow him as effectually ex parte ſui, as he did Peter, Andrew, &c. who preſently left all and followed him? Did Chriſt himſelf preach to all Nations? or only to the Circumciſion? Were not the ſins of the Jews as much aggravated as thoſe of Tyre and Sidon, Sodom and Gomorrah? or the Indians? why elſe ſhould it go worſe with them in the day of Judgment? and why elſe would Tyre and Sidon have repented if they had but had their means, were they not then as much prepard for mercy? Doth God equally ſend the Goſpel to all Nations and Perſons equally unworthy? Can you confute St. Paul? Rom. 9. Or can you give any reaſon why God muſt ſhew equal mercy unto all?

Yes: becauſe elſe he is a reſpecter of perſons.*Ruiz a Jeſuite confeſſeth de Vol. Dei diſp. 20. ſect. 6. p. 226. That according to Auguſtine Chriſt ſo died for all, as that he had a ſpecial intent of ſaving his Elect, for whoſe ſake as being among the reſt, it is that he died and prayed for all in common: Aug. in Tract. 31. in Joan. c. 7. Non debebant deſperare, pro quibus Dominus in cruce pendens dignatus eſt or are: videbat quoſdam ſuos inter multos alienos. Illis jam petebat veniam a quibus adhuc accipiebat injuriam: Non enim attendebat quod ab ipſis moriebatur, ſed quia pro ipſis moriebatur. He that would know Auguſtines mind herein, may find it fully in Janſenius, or in the Trias Patrum de gratia, &c.

I fully confuted this before, 1. Reſpecting perſons is the fault of a Rector as ſuch, eſpecially as Judge: And ſo God dealeth equally; his Law being Norma officii & judicii as to all. But no man ever yet took either, 1. A Proprietor (Dominus abſolutus); 2. Or a Benefactor, to be obliged to equality to all. Muſt you needs uſe all your Grounds, Trees, Goods, Cattel, &c. equally? Muſt you needs make all men equally your boſom-Friends, your Heirs, your Beneficiaries, who are equally worthy in themſelves? Muſt you needs give equally to all the poor, that are of equal need and merit? All this is contrary to the common ſenſe and uſage of Mankind.

2. And in a Judge, reſpecting perſons, is the vice of them that deal unequally with men for ſome by-reſpect unworthy of ſuch a difference; As for Birth, Beauty, Wealth, Power, Eloquence, Parts, Wit, Kindred, or any ſelfiſh intereſt, to pervert Juſtice, or deal partially. But God maketh no difference on ſuch accounts. Yea a Judge himſelf, or a King, when he acteth not as a Judge, but as a King above Laws, or as a Benefactor, may reprieve or pardon one Thief rather than an other, yea and chooſe that which is the moſt learned, ſtrong, wiſe, and capable of future Service to the Common-wealth.

This ſeemeth a wrong to the reſt that are not ſo uſed?

Would it do the Thief that is hanged any good, to have the other unpardoned? Would it eaſe their pains in Hell, to have the company of all thoſe that be in Heaven? If it be no wrong to them to ſuffer themſelves, nothing but envy can call it a wrong to them, to have others eſcape. Had they love to others as themſelves, it would be ſome comfort to them to think that others are in Joy and Glory?

At leaſt this is a real difference between the Parties.

1. The School-men and many learned Jeſuites (as I have proved, Lib. 1.) make it not a difference. And will you called Arminians or Lutherans go further from your Protestant Brethren, than the learned Papists and Jeſuites themſelves go? Are you not aſhamed of this?

2. The Papists can bear with one another in theſe Points, and live in communion in one Church, (though the Janſeniſts Caſe hath had more than ordinary heats and ſtirs;) And yet the Dominicans go higher and further in the Controverſie of Predetermination from the Jeſuites, than the Synodiſts do: And are you more fierce or unpeaceable than they?

3. But remember here once for all, that you were not able to name any one benefit which Chriſt's death procured for all, other than the Synodiſts hold as well as you: But only you charge them as aſſerting more to the Elect. They give more (you ſay) to ſome, but not leſs to all.

4. And all this lieth in the point of Intention and Divine Decrees, which was ſufficiently reconciled before.

But you have by all this entiſed me to mingle various Controverſies, and to anticipate that of Grace and Free-will, which is to be handled by it ſelf in due place.

But I have a word more to give you, by way of caution, if you will think on it.

What's that?

What will you ſay if Epiſcopius, Arminius, Corvinus, are the men that deny moſt Univerſal Redemption, while the Synod maintaineth it? How can Chriſt die for the ſins of any Infants in proper ſenſe, if they have no ſin, and deſerve no puniſhment? Or be a Saviour to ſave them from ſin and puniſhment that have none?

The ſecond Crimination.

By denying common Redemption, they deny the expreſs words of 1 Joh. 4. 14. … guiſh of the phraſe of dying for us, that we may not cheat our ſelves by confounding things that differ. To die for us or for all, is to die for our benefit, or for the benefit of all. Now theſe benefits are of a different nature: whereof ſome are beſtowed only conditionally, (though for Chriſts ſake) and they are the pardon of ſin and Salvation: Theſe God doth confer only on the condition of Faith and Repentance: Now I am ready to profeſs, and that, I ſuppoſe as out of the mouth of all our Divines, that every one who heareth the Goſpel, without diſtinction between Elect and Reprobate, is bound to believe that Chriſt died for him, ſo far as to procure both the pardon of his ſins, and Salvation, in caſe he believe and repent: But there are other benefits that Chriſt merited for us, viz. Faith and Repentance, &c. Twiſſe againſt Hord, li. 1. p. 154.Scripture, which ſaith, That Chriſt taſted death for every man, Heb. 2. 9. That he is the Saviour of the World, Joh. 4. 12. That he is the Lamb of God, that taketh away the ſins of the World, Joh. 1. 29. That he died for all, that they which live, ſhould live to him that died for them, 2 Cor. 5. 14, 15. That God was in Chriſt reconciling the world to himſelf, 2 Cor. 5. 19, 20. That he is the Saviour of all men, eſpecially of them that believe, 1 Tim. 4. 10. That the Grace of God which bringeth Salvation to all men, hath appeared, Tit. 2. 11, 12. That he is the Propitiation for our Sins, and not for ours only, but for the ſins of the whole World, 1 Joh. 2. 2. with much more to the ſame purpoſe. And do theſe men deal ſincerely with God and the Scripture, that can diſtort all this to their own ſenſe? And do they not uſe ſuch violence with Gods Word and their Conſciences, as that on theſe terms they may make their own Religion, and believe what they liſt? Do they not plainly ſhew that they take not their Faith from God, but from their Teachers, and believe as the Church believeth which they joyn with? Had it been but one or two Texts, or had they been obſcurely uttered, a good man might have thought that he must reduce their ſenſe to the many and more plain. But to oppugn the plain Goſpel it ſelf hath no ex…uſe.

You are ſharp againſt other mens Errors, and other men againſt yours. But I have proved to you that the Synod, and the generality of the Proteſtant Churches in their Confeſſions, deny not any thing which theſe Texts ſay. They hold a common Redemption as well as you: our very Children are taught in their Catechiſm diſtinctly to believe, [1. In God the Father, who made them and all the World, 2. In God the Son, who redeemed them and all Mankind. 3. And in God the Holy Ghoſt, who ſanctifieth them and all the Elect People of God.] This is the good old Doctrine, plain and true, and that which Auſtin taught.

I am ſure many of their Writers expreſly oppugn common Redemption; and even Jaſenius the Papiſt who joyneth with them denieth it, and ſaith, that Auguſtine denied it: Therefore we ſtand not to his authority.

1. As for Augustine and ſome Proteſtants, they oft deny that Chriſt redeemeth any but the Faithful, becauſe the word Redemption is ambiguous, and ſometimes taken for the price or ranſome paid, and often for the very liberation of the captive Sinner. And when ever Auſtin denieth common Redemption, he taketh Redemption in this laſt ſenſe, for actual deliverance. But he aſſerteth it in the firſt ſenſe, that Chriſt died for all. Yea, he thought his death is actually applied to the true Juſtification and Sanctification of ſome Reprobates that fall away and periſh, though the Elect only are ſo redeemed as to be ſaved. Read your ſelf Auguſtine, Proſper and Fulgentius, and you will ſee this with your own eyes.

2. I have oft told you, it is our Proteſtant Confeſſions, and not ſome ſingular or private Writers, that you muſt know their Doctrine by.

3. Even thoſe few Writers differ more from you in terms than in ſenſe. For, 1. Many of them will confeſs all the ſame benefits by Chriſt to men in common which you aſſert. Few of them will deny that Salvation is tendered to all mens acceptance, and brought to the chooſing or refuſing of their own Wills. And you ſeem to them to ſay no greater matters as for the Elect. But they ſay that Chriſt purchaſed Faith it ſelf for the Elect only, of which in due place. 2. And ſo with them the Controverſie is, 1. About Gods Decree or Intent of ſaving men by Chriſt. 2. And of giving them Faith.

Tell me one word that you except againſt in the Synod in this Article.

I except against ſect. 8. where they ſay that [Fuit hoc Dei patris liberrimum conſilium, & gratioſiſſima voluntas at que intentio, ut mortis pretioſiſſimae filii ſui vivifica & ſalvifica efficacia ſeſe exereret in omnibus electis, ad eos ſolos fide juſtificante donandos & per eam ad ſalutem infallibiliter perducendos: hoc eſt, voluit Deus, ut Chriſtus per ſanguinem crucis, quo novum foedus confirmavit, ex omni populo, gente, tribu & lingua, eos omnes & ſolos qui ab aeterno ad ſalutem electi & a patre ipſi dati ſunt, efficaciter redimeret, fide donaret, ab omnibus peccatis ſanguine ſuo mundaret, ad finem uſ que fideliter cuſtodiret, tandem abſ que omni labe & macula glorioſos coram ſe ſisteret.]

Very good: This is all in the Canons that you can except againſt. And, 1. You ſee that this is only about Gods Intention or Decree: And ſo you differ not at all by your own confeſſion, in the Article of Redemption, as diſtinct from that of the Decrees.

2. Is it the incluſion of the Elect in this Intention that you except againſt? So will no ſober Jeſuite. Do you think that Chriſt was reſolved certainly to juſtifie and glorifie no man at all? The Semipelagians will not ſay ſo. You ſay not ſo your ſelves. Only ſome of you ſay, it is but upon fore-ſight of Faith, and by the conſequent will, of which I have ſaid enough before. But do you think that Chriſt when he was on the Croſs had no full purpoſe to ſave thoſe infallibly *Epiſcopius in Inſtitut. Theol. li. 4. cap. 5. pag. 410. confeſſeth that the opinion of Election may conſiſt with that of univerſal Grace, which he propugned.who he fore-knew would believe, yea and to cauſe ſome men to believe? Thoſe that come to him are drawn by the Father, and Faith is the Gift of God, Epheſ. 2. 8. Who giveth us all things pertaining to life and godlineſs, 2 Pet. 1. 3. Even to will and to do of his good pleaſure, Phil. 2. 13. To ſome it is given to believe, Phil. 1. 29. But of this enough before.

3. But, I ſuppoſe, it is only the word [Solos] in all the Canons that you except againſt. And dare or will you ſay, that God did abſolutely intend and decree to ſanctifie and glorifie all men by Chriſt? or any one that is not glorified?

But their meaning is, that all the reſt which are moſt of the World, are left out of Gods Election, even unto ſin and damnation, meerly becauſe God would ſo have it, and not from any ill deſert of theirs any more than was in the Elect: which appeareth in that (as Epiſcopius noteth). †Inſtit. Theol. l. 4. cap. 5. ſect. 5. p. 410.They that ſay the Fall or Sin is quid praeviſum, fore-ſeen in Reprobation, yet deny that it is any *The Jeſuites themſelves, (as Vaſqu…z and many others) ordinarily ſay, that nothing in man can be any cauſe of Gods Decrees.cauſe of Reprobation: And then all cometh to one, whether God reprobate a Sinner or an innocent perſon, as to the cauſe.

You have nothing about Redemption, I perceive, ſtill to controvert, but about Gods Decrees: If we muſt go back to them, review your words, and ſee how you cheat your ſelves into diſtaſt of you know not what, by meer confuſion, for want of accurate Scholaſtick Heads, (I except not Epiſcopius himſelf, notwithſtanding men of his own meaſure think otherwiſe.)

1. Whereas you talk of [leaving out] either you mean non-Election, or poſitive excluſion. If the laſt, it's falſe: not only the Scotiſts, but ſome Proteſtants (as Ferrius in Scholaſt. Orthodox. and others,) aſſert but a negation here; And Davenant and the Synod aſſert but a negative Decree quoad objectum; which is but as much as Arminius propugneth, who while he maintaineth that God decreeth not ſin, but only his own permiſſion of ſin, (which is the Synods ſenſe) yet hereby confeſſeth that he willeth or decreeth that permiſsion. You ſay then that he decreeth to permit mens unbelief, and this is all that the Synod ſaith of non-Election, or leaving men out of the number of the Elect.

2. If you yourſelves believe all this, with what face can you oppoſe the ſame in others? If you do not, either you believe that none are Infidels and damned, or you believe that God doth not permit it to be ſo, but it is done by conquering his Omnipotency, or elſe you know not what you believe: chooſe which you will.

3. Do you really differ (as Epiſcopius pretendeth) about the cauſe of Reprobation? As to the cauſe of Damnation, all are agreed that ſin is the true meritorious cauſe. The queſtion is only of Gods Will or Decree of it. And it is not of his ſententia prolata, or Decree pronounced by Chriſt in Judgment: for of that alſo it is agreed that ſin is the meritorious cauſe. Your oft recurring to your Objections, when they have been fully anſwered, puts me on the rediouſneſs of repeating the ſame Anſwers. Gods *The cauſe of Gods Will in reprobating.Will is conſidered either ex parte volentis eſſentially, or as extrinſically denominated from the connotation of the Object. In the firſt ſenſe, you have not yet declared your ſelves to deny the common Doctrine of the Chriſtian World, that Gods Will is his undivided moſt ſimple Eſſence; and that God hath no cauſe, and ſo his Will in it ſelf hath no cauſe; that in God there is nothing but God. Dare you ſay that a Creature made God? yea, that ſo baſe a thing as Sin made him? How then doth it cauſe his Will which is himſelf? Is Gods Will ſuch a mutuable thing as mans? And is it not the firſt cauſe of all things? And ſhall men pretending to Learning reproach others, for not aſſigning a cauſe of the firſt cauſe, and that Sin, which is baſer than a Creature, cauſeth the Creator?

But if you ſpeak of Gods Will as denominated by connotation of the Object; mark what we grant you, viz. that as thus only Gods Will or Volitions are denominated diverſe, ſo are they denominated to be of this or that ſort, and numerically alſo diſtinguiſhed; And ſo they may be ſaid to have a cauſe, but not an efficient cauſe, but only an *Arminius and Arnoldus Corvinus frequently affirm, that Faith is not the cauſe of Gods Election to Glory, but only a condition in the object.objective cauſe; And what Cauſe is an Object? To let paſs the Error of many Logicians, it is only (as an Object) a material conſtitutive cauſe (at leaſt here:) And ſo ſin is the objective material cauſe of that extrinſical denomination and relation of Gods Will, called Reprobation to damnation. It is that diſpoſitio objecti which is eſſential to the Object. And ſo as Gods Will may any way be ſaid to have a cauſe, we will ſay freely, after the manner of men, that ſin is the objective cauſe of the Decree of damnation. And ſpeak now with ſhame, can you ſay more or leſs? Do you or any of us that are ſober and underſtand our ſelves, differ at all in this?

4. And you cheat your ſelves and others more, in ſaying, [Not from any ill deſert of theirs more than others]. When if you would ſpeak congruouſly, you ſhould only ſay, that when all deſerved to be utterly forſaken, [God effectually prevaileth with the Wills of his Elect, not for any good deſert of theirs above others.] You would infinuate, that God muſt puniſh no man, unleſs he deſerve worſe than every man whom he forgiveth; which is falſe. Do you not your ſelves believe that all have ſinned, and come ſhort of the Glory of God? and that God might juſtly have let them periſh? Do you not hold your ſelves, that all men are guilty of reſiſting or ſinning againſt Grace it ſelf as well as againſt Nature? and that God may juſtly with-hold his Grace from the Rejecters of it? and if he did ſo by all he did not wrong them? If God then leave not all, as he might do, but reſolve to prevail with ſome infallibly, do you repreſent this mercy as if it were cruelty to others?

What if it be apparent that you your ſelves charge God with as much of that which you call cruelty to all the World, as the Synod doth to the Reprobate alone? (or as many of us do?) For they do but ſay that God leaveth the Reprobate to their own free Wills: And you ſay that he doth ſo by all the World. You ſay that God giveth all men that hear the Goſpel ſo much Grace, as that they may have Chriſt and Salvation, if they will; And they ſay ſo too as confidently as you do. Tell me if you can then what Mercy or Grace you plead for as common more than they? you cannot tell me: And will you wrangle as if you differed when you do not. Only they ſay and think that they give more to Gods Grace as to the Elect than you do, which is to be examined anon.

And then you will quarrel about the Cauſe of the firſt Cauſe, the Will of God, and dream of it as if it were like the Will of Man, which is an effect and that of many Cauſes. Is it not enough for you that ſin is the cauſe of all puniſhment, but it muſt alſo be the efficient cauſe of Gods Will which is God? Yet again I tell you that all ſobe… men will agree with you, that Gods Volitions of extrinfick Objects, viz. Reprobations, denominate not Gods Eſſence as ſuch; (for we uſe not to ſay, [God is Reprobation or Election:] but only his Eſſence as terminated ad extra.) And (to gratifie you to the utmoſt) we diſtinguiſh an operating efficient Cauſe, from a recipient Cauſe; And we maintain that a Sinner is the recipient Cauſe of Gods damning Volition or Reprobation: As ſhutting the Windows is the cauſe that my Room is dark, and opening them is the cauſe that they are light, not by cauſing the Sun to ſhine, but by receiving (or not receiving) it; ſo man is a receiving Cauſe of the Effects of Gods Will and Operation, and of the Will and Operation it ſelf, as extrinſically denominated and diverſified by the Effects. But this recipient Cauſe, is nothing but cauſe materialis objectiva, which hath two parts, the ipſa materia and the materiae diſpoſitio. Take not on you ſtill to differ, where you do not.

The third Crimination.

*Of that Deus vult omnes ſalves fieri, ſaith Alliaco 1. q. 14. F. 1. Poteſt exponi de voluntate ſigni: vult, id eſt, praecipit, vel obligat, &c. 2. Si exponitur de voluntate beneplaciti poteſt intelligi de Vol. antecedente: 3. Si de Vol. beneplaciti proprie dicta, debet intelligi, ut dicit Magiſter, i. e. nulli ſalvantur niſi quos Deus vult ſalvari: 4. Vel de generibus ſingulorum ſed at ſingulis generum.By denying Univerſal Redemption, they deny that Univerſal Grace, which is the very expreſs Covenant of Grace it ſelf, that all men are already through Chriſts ſatisfaction reconciled to God, and pardoned if they will believe; or that a conditional pardon is already given to the World. And to deny this, is to deny the Goſpel, and Christianity it ſelf, and to be no Chriſtians.

You would make your ſelves and others believe that they deny that which they never dreamed of denying. Like him that dreamed that he was wounded, and call'd out for ſomething to ſtop the blood. Do not all Proteſtaents profeſs to believe that Covenant and conditional Pardon as well as you? Do they not preach it conſtantly, and adminiſter Baptiſm in the ſame terms as you do? who denieth that all are reconciled, if they will believe?

But by that they mean only excluſively that all are not reconciled or pardoned, becauſe all believe not; And not incluſively that all men are conditionally pardoned already.

You miſtake and ſlander them: Do they not read the very expreſs pardon made already in Gods Word? That [Whoever believeth ſhall not periſh,] &c. Joh. 3. 16. Mark 16. 16? Do they not all acknowledge that this is a Law of God, an Act of Oblivion, Enacted long ago by God? And is not this viſible written Promiſe or Law of Grace an exiſtent conditional pardon of all? No man of ſenſe, and underſtanding, and faith denieth it.

But they ſay that in making it Gods ſecret intent, was, that none but the Elect ſhould have any ſaving benefit of it.*What ſay others leſs? Malderus in 1. 2. q. 111. a. 3. d. 5. p. 486. Cum de Redemptore dando Deus conſtituiſſet, ut ſecerneret illos quos elegit,—eum rerum ordinem elegit, in quo certi quos voluit homines a reliquis diſcernerentur, coſ que pro beneplacito ſuo ad nullum bonum uſum liberi arbitrii reſpiciens, ad vitam aeter…am praedeſtinavit; talem que tis gratiam decrevit cum qua certiſſimo & infallibiliter ad regnum pervenirent: Reliquos autem qui ex illo numero non ſunt, reliquit non quidem ſint omni auxilio Gratiae, ſicut juſte potuiſſet propter Adae peccatum, ſed cum auxiliis gratiae ſecundi Adae ad ipſos derivandis in ordine ac curſu rerum jam electo: Et videns ſcie…tia viſionis hos in peccato vitam finire, reprobavit eos & ſtatuit in aeternum punire & a regno excludere. Thus the Jeſuites ordinarily: And what is here conſiderably different from the Synod of Do…t? If the name of ſufficient Grace be the quarrel, call it Gratia efficax ad poſſe, and all is ended.

1. Still you are returning to the diſpatched Controverſie of the Decrees; which is a confeſſion that you diſſer not otherwiſe about Redemption. 2. Do not you your ſelves hold the ſame which you quarrel with? 1. Incluſively they hold that the Elect ſhall be ſaved by Chriſt. And do you deny it? 2. As to the excluſion of others, they hold that God decreed not any mans Infidelity and Sin, but fore-ſeeing their Infidelity and Sin, decreed that they ſhould not be ſaved by Chriſt, but periſh. And do not you ſay the ſame? Away with theſe contentious dreams.

I am ſure I can name you divers that ſay otherwiſe.

It is the Synod ſtill, and the common Confeſſions and Doctrine of the Churches which you have to do with: Tell not me of ſingular men.

The Doctrine of the Church of England, I told you out of the Catechiſm. The Synods words I recited. And remember (as Dallaeus tells Spanhemius) that Davenant with the reſt of the Britiſh Divines, Martinius and the other Breme Divines, who all gave their ſuffrages, and writ for Univerſal Redemption, did yet all ſubſcribe in the Synod; And therefore undoubtedly underſtood that no words of the Canons were contrary to their ſenſe of Univerſal Redemption. The later famous Helvetian confeſſion ſaith, [We teach and believe that this Jeſus Chriſt our Lord is the only and eternal Saviour of Mankind, yea and of the whole world,] (upon which words the Engliſh Collector of the Confeſſions giveth us a ridiculous Obſervation, that he thinks they meant the reſtoring of the world at laſt; contrary to the context: As if he had not known that Muſculus, Bullinger, &c. were for Univerſal Redemption.)

But that I be not over-tedious, I pray you peruſe in Dallaei Apolog. To. 2. the citations out of the Confeſſions and Catechiſms, and Liturgies of the Reformed Churches, viz. Of Berne, Auguſt. Bohem. Helvert. Saxon. Anglic. Palatin. Synod. Dord. Colloq. Torun. with a multitude of Protestant Divines.

The fourth Crimination.

They make it impoſſible for any man to believe in Christ at first, by a rational and true Faith: For his dying for men, being the Object of Faith, muſt be before the Act. And no man by their way can know that Christ died for him till he is a Believer; and yet they ſay that our firſt ſaving Faith muſt be a believing and truſting in Christ, as one that died for us. So that men must ſtay till they believe that Chriſt died for them, that they may have reaſon to believe that he died for them. For before the firſt Faith, or belief of it, they can have none.

You ſtill make the world believe that men hold that which they do not. This concerneth not the Churches, but ſome ſingular men. The common Proteſtant Doctrine is, That Chriſt by his Death hath procured the univerſal conditional Gift of Pardon and Life, contained in the Covenant of Grace, Mark 16. 16. Joh. 3. 16, &c. And that his death was thus far efficient, by which it is ſufficient for the actual Juſtification and Salvation of penitent Believers. And that this is it that men muſt firſt believe, and ſo accept of an offered Saviour for Juſtification and Life, and give up themſelves to him in the baptiſmal Covenant: which when they do they are juſtified and adopted, having right to and union with Chriſt, and in him right to the Covenant-benefits. And then Chriſt's death which was ſufficient by its efficiency of Satisfaction, Merit, and the Covenant-grant, becometh efficient of Juſtification, &c. And are not you and they agreed in this? I confeſs that many ſingular Divines have given you this occaſion: But what's that to the Churches?

The fifth Crimination.

They tell men that they muſt believe a Lye, or an unrevealed thing, that by believing it, it may become true, and they may be ſaved, and eſe they ſhall be damned. For they ſay that Chriſt died for none but the Elect: And yet that others alſo are bound to believe that he died for them: And becauſe they believe not this Lye God will damn them: But if they did believe it, it would be true: As if the Objective Truth were not before the belief of it.

This alſo is but your quarrel with ſingular men, and not with the Churches, unleſs you wrong them. Their common Doctrine is, that no man in his firſt act of Faith is bound to believe that he is Elect, or that Chriſt died for him any more than for loſt Mankind. But that he muſt firſt believe that Chriſt by his Death hath ſo far ſatisfied and merited for Mankind in general, as to procure the univerſal conditional Gift of Chriſt, Pardon and Life; And that they muſt believe that this is procured for, and offered to, themſelves as well as other Sinners. And hereupon they are to accept this free Gift, and ſo it is theirs. What lye or unrevealed matter is in this? or what difference about it, among the Churches.

The ſixth Crimination.

They diſable Miniſters rationally to preach the Goſpel. For if Chriſt died for none but the Elect, and no Miniſter know the Elect, they know not whom to offer and preach Christ to; For the objective Gift muſt go before the offer: And that which is to be offered to every Sinner is, A Chriſt that hath already died and ſatisfied for him; and not one that is to die and ſatisfie for him yet, if he will believe. Therefore the very offer is as much as to ſay, [Accept Chriſt as one that hath ſatisfied for thee]. And ſo they make the very preaching of the Goſpel, a lye, to most.

I will not anſwer you as ſome that ſay, they tell not men that they are Elect, and that Chriſt died for them; but that if they will believe, then it is a ſign that they are Elect, and Chriſt died for them: And they may offer him to all, that ſome may accept him. For I ſay as you do, that it is a Chriſt that hath already made ſatisfaction, and thereby is become a ſufficient Saviour, who is to be offered to men. And the being of the Gift is before the offer of it in nature. But I ſay again that you fight againſt ſtraglers, in a Cauſe which the Churches are not concerned in: They ſay that it is a Chriſt who died for all as to ſufficiency, who is to be offered to men, that he may efficiently ſave them.

The ſeventh Crimination.

They leave most men in the World as remedileſs as the Devils, who had no Redeemer: whereas God judgeth the wicked at last as Rejecters of his remedying Grace. If Chriſt died not for them, what differ they from the Devils in point of hope?

I will not anſwer you as ſome, that though Chriſt died not for them yet they know it not, and the offer differenceth their Caſe: For ſtill, I confeſs, that none is to be offered to men, but a Chriſt that was already offered to God for them, and hath made ſatisfaction. But again I tell you, that you fight with a ſhadow, and feign the Churches to differ from you, becauſe ſome ſingular perſons do ſo.

The eighth Crimination.

They harden men in impenitency for the moſt damning ſin; even denying the Lord that bought them: For they tell all the Reprobates that they never ſinned againſt a Christ that died for them.

All this is the old fiction; and concerneth only ſome ſingular men.

The ninth Crimination.

They would exempt the Infidel World from much of the torments of Hell: For he that in Hell knoweth that Chriſt never died for him (eſpecially adding that God unreſiſtibly predetermined him to ſin and unbelief,) cannot rationally have an accuſing Conſcience for his not accepting a Gift that never had a Being.

I will not repeat the ſame anſwer as oft as you call for it by the ſame falſe ſuppoſition. Let them anſwer it that are concerned.

The tenth Crimination.

They teach the World abominable Ingratitude, and reproachfully deny a great deal of the Grace and Mercy of Chriſt, and the fruits of his Death and Sacrifice. For they teach men, that all the Mercies given to any beſides the Elect, were no fruits of the death of Chriſt for them, nor were at all by him purchaſed for them; yea, that they are no Mercies to them at all, becauſe God eternally decreed that they ſhould turn them into ſin, and ſuffer the more for the abuſe of them for ever. And ſo all the reſt of the World may ſay that they are not at all beholden to the death of Christ, for their Lives, Liberties, offers of Grace, and all other Mercies.

Let them anſwer you that are concerned in the Charge. The Reformed Churches hold, That Mercy is to be judged of by its nature and tendency in it ſelf, and not by mans abuſe; and that God decreed no mans abuſe of it; and that all the Mercies given to Mankind, ſince the forfeiture of all by Adam's ſin, are procured and given by Chriſt as the Interceſſor and Redeemer of the World; and that wicked men juſtly are deprived of life for rejecting it, and ſuffer Hell for abuſing Mercy and refuſing Heaven.

The eleventh Crimination.

They are Anti-chriſtian half-Infidels. For they deny Christs Kingdom as to its far greateſt part: For when the Scripture telleth us, That to this end he both died, roſe and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living, Rom. 14. 9. And that the Father hath committed all Judgment (that is Government) to the Son, Joh. 5. 22. And given him all power in Heaven and Earth, Matth. 28. 18. And that his dying for all, obligeth all men not to live to themſelves, but to him that died for them, 2 Cor. 5. And ſo that he hath by his death acquired a jus Dominii & Imperii over all Mankind; they deny him his Crown and Dignity, even this Right of Dominion and Empire as Redeemer, and deny the World to be obliged to ſubjection to him as their Redeemer: And ſo make that Rebellion for which they ſhall periſh (Luke 19. 27.) to be no ſin.

The Proteſtant Churches hold all that you charge them with denying. It's a pitiful work to caluminate that you may divide: Tell thoſe ſingular men of all this, that are guilty of it.

The twelfth Crimination.

They make Chriſt to come on ſo narrow a deſign into the World, as if they would tempt Unbelievers to deſpiſe him: Even to die for none in all the World, for 4000 years, ſave a very few of the little Country of Judaea, (which was mostly wicked); and even ſince the Church was Catholick, but for a few called the Elect.

1. If you and they differ about the conditions of Salvation, ſay ſo, and tell the World the difference: If you do not, but are agreed that it is Faith, Repentance and Holineſs, what are all theſe Objections, but fighting by fictions againſt Concord and Peace? They never held that none out of Judaea were ſaved. And how many in the World are holy Believers, they pretend not to judge. They believe that all that are holy are ſaved by Chriſt, in all Ages and Nations of the World: And that all the Order, and Government, and common Mercies of the World, with the offers of Grace and Salvation to them that wilfully refuſe it, are all to be aſcribed to the death and procurement of Chriſt: And that his common Redemption is preſuppoſed to our Faith and ſpecial Grace.*See my Direction to ſound Converſion, Dir. 6.

And now if this be all you have to ſay, review it and tell me, what diſagreement you have found out, about the commonneſs of Redemption.

Catholic Theology Plain Pure Peaceable, Conference 3

p. 50THE Third Days Conference (With an ARMINIAN of Univerſal and Special REDEMPTION