Universal Redemption of Mankind, Chapter 7 · Argument 17
Argum. 17th. A novo jure Dominii & imperii.
If Chriſt have a new Dominion and Empire over all men, grounded (quoad meritum) on his redeeming of all, (or ſatisfying for all,) then he did Redeem (or make ſatisfaction for) all: But the Antecedent is true, Ergo, &c.
I might have uſed theſe as two diſtinct Mediums; but for brevity I will conjoin them, and argue ſpecially a jure imperii, which in order of Nature followeth the jus Dominii, and is grounded on it: Man being made a rational Creature, there was a neceſſity he ſhould have a Government Moral according to his Nature; and God being his Lord and Owner it was therefore neceſſary that he ſhould be his Supream Rector: For the right of diſpoſure belongs to him that is abſolute Owner, or full Propietary: And Regiment is part of the diſpoſure of the reaſonable Creature. So then the neceſſit as regiminis paſſivè conſiderati, is founded in the Nature of Man; but the jus imperii is founded in the jure Dominii (in our preſent caſe.) So that where ever God hath as Redeeemer the jus imperii, it is neceſſary neceſſitate conſequente & Conſequentiae, that he have the jus dominii: And wherever he hath the jus dominii, it is neceſſary neceſſitate Antecedente & conſequentioe that he have the jus imperii; if ſo be that the Creature be capable of Government Moral, elſe not; for the jus ſuppoſeth that capacity. And therefore Chriſts Dominion is larger than his Empire. I ſtill here take the term [Domini…m] in the ſtrict ſenſe, as it ſignifieth meer Propriety, and not in the large ſenſe as it comprehendeth both Propriety and Empire, as its parts. As Gods Rectorſhip is founded in his Propriety, ſo his Legiſlation preſuppoſeth his Rectorſhip: So that in natural order he is firſt Dominns Abſolutus and then ſecondly, Rector Supremus; and then ex jure imperii, he is Legiſlator. Now God at firſt was owner of the World as Creator, and thence had a right to Govern the World as Creator; and thence made them that perfect Law fitted to the ſtate of a perfect Creature, and expreſſing the perfection of the Creator, Ruler and Law-maker. Upon the breach of this Law, and the ruin of the World thereby, the maker becomes the repairer; Chriſt redeemeth the World: And hereby hath firſt a novum jus Dominii, a new Propriety in it. 2. A novum jus imperii, a new right to Govern it. 3. And hence he is novus Legiſlator, he doth make new Laws, even the Laws of Grace and Faith. Now as Gods Creation of all was the ground of his right of Governing of all and that Right was the ground of his actual Government of all, So Chriſts redeeming of all is the ground of his new Right to Govern all, and that Right is the ground of his actual Government. And as God had not a propriety in one Man, or a Right to govern him, becauſe he made another Man, but becauſe he made that Man, ſo Chriſt hath not his new propriety in Reprobates or his new Right to govern them, meerly from his redeeming other Men, viz. The Elect, but from his redeeming all Men, and them among the reſt: And as God had his jus imperii by Creation over the Rebellions as well as the obedient (for God loſt not his right when Adam did Rebel) ſo hath Chriſt by Redemption his jus imperii over Unbelievers, as well as over the faithful. And as, if God had let the World go on, under the meer Regiment of the Law of Creation, it would not follow that God would certainly ſave all Men, becauſe he made all (for then the Devils would be ſaved, and none could be damned) ſo under the Adminiſtration of Chriſt according to the Law of Redemption, it will no more follow. that Chriſt will ſave all, becauſe he redeemed all. For Gods Creation had gracious or favourable ends for the Creature, as well as his Redemption: And he might as truly be ſaid to create them to Life, as to Redeem them to Life: Nay, he gave all Men in our firſt Parents actual poſſeſſion of Paradiſe, of Righteouſneſs and Holineſs and the favour of God, which is Mans happineſs, and yet he permitted them to loſe it: So Redem…tion obligeth not the Redeemer to ſave all the redeemed: nor doth neceſſarily infer their future Salvation. Yet here is no ground for that charge which is laid on the Arminians, to be laid on this Doctrin, viz. that then Chriſts Blood might be loſt; for Gods decrees will ſee to that. Gods foreknowledg denominates the Salvation of the Elect, infallibly certain: His decree of Predeſtination makes their Salvation future: Redemption is a part of the execution of that Decree; and it is (as Creation was) not a part peculiar to the Elect, and inſeparable from Salvation, but a general part, common to all, and laying the neceſſary groundwork for the more ſpecial parts of execution.
And therefore when the Apoſtle ſaith [whom he foreknew them he did Predeſtinate to be conformed, &c. And whom he did Predestinate, them he called; whom he called, them he juſtified: And whom he justified, them he Glorified, Rom. 8. 30.] he never ſaith, [whom he died for, or whom he redeemed them he called, or juſtified or glorified] no more then [whom he Created] ſo that Redemption as preſuppoſing the Predetermination of Election is an infallible means of attaining the Salvation of the redeemed that were ſo Elect; the infallibility and futurition being not properly from Redemption as ſuch, but from Predeſtination and foreknowledg, and ſo from Redemption as joyned thereto; (that is, from Gods Intention, or purpoſe de hoc eventu.) But Redemption doth not preſuppoſe all the redeemed to be Elect by decree, and therefore doth not neceſſarily infer the Salvation of all the redeemed. They do therefore ſorely miſtake that ſuppoſe Redemption hath this for its direct end, viz. The Salvation of the redeemed; or that it is its end at all, that all the redeemed ſhall be infallibly, eventually ſaved: But Redemption layeth firſt the ground of Chriſts new Empire, and Adminiſtration to all the World: Upon this groundwork is the whole Government of the World built, and all the Judicial proceeding, and execution at the laſt day: And therefore they that deny Univerſal Redemption know not what they do: They deny the Foundation of Gods Dominion as Redeemer, and of his new Empire, and Legiſlation, and Judgment. Redemption now, is neceſſarily Antecedent to the Condemnation of periſhing Unbelievers, as well as cauſal of the Salvation of Believers.
Obj. Then it may be ſaid, that Chriſt Redeemed Unbelievers to the day of evil; for it is ſaid God made the wicked Man for the Day of evil, Prov. 16. 4.
Anſ. In the ſame Sence as one is ſpoken, the other may be ſpoken truly: For if it be ſpoken of Gods Legiſlative Will, or legal ordination, then as it is true that [God by his Law hath made the day of evil, that is, of puniſhment, for wicked Men] or that [God when he had Created Man, ordained by his Law that the wicked ſhould be puniſhed] ſo the ſame may be ſaid of the Redeemed [When he had Redeemed all Men, he ordained that all that reject ſo great Salvation ſhall undergo a far ſorer puniſhment] or if the meaning be of Gods Decretive will de eventu [God when he made Man, did intend to deſtroy the Non-Elect for their wickedneſs] ſo it is as true of Redeemed ones [God Redeemer when he Redeemed Man, did intend to deſtroy the Non-Elect for their rejecting of his mercy] But as it is not the meaning of the Text, that [Mens damnation was Gods end in creating them] (as Twiſs hath fully proved) ſo is it not true, that Mens damnation was Chriſts end in Redeeming. It is no effect therefore of Redemption, but an accidental conſequent: And therefore Chriſt ſaith he came not into the World to condemn the World, but that the World though him might be ſaved: that is, the Salvation of all was, 1. The end of Chriſts Legiſlative will, that is, the end propounded to Man, 2. And Redemption hath the nature of a means (ſufficient in ſuo genere) for all Mens Salvation, and ſo God might be ſaid, not to Create the World that he might condemn it, but that the World through him might be ſaved: Though yet eventually they are not ſaved: Chriſt intended in ſuffering for Mans Sin, that his ſatisfaction ſhould remove that great impediment of their Salvation, viz. The diſſatisfaction of the offended Creator, as he was Rector according to the firſt Law: And that it ſhould be the ground of his New Law whereby he gives freely Remiſſion and Salvation to all Men, on condition they will accept himſelf and his benefits with him. So that as it would be intollerable deluſion of Mens Souls, for any Preacher to tell Men, that all that are Created ſhall be ſaved, ſo is it to tell them that are Redeemed (as to the price and ſatisfaction made) ſhall be ſaved: For then when they find in Scripture that Chriſt died for all, and is a propitiation for the Sins of the whole World, they will conclude that they ſhall certainly be ſaved.
Thus much I thought meet to ſay for the ground work of my Argumentation, by way of explication; becauſe I find that Truth is ſometimes better let in by the clear unfolding of it, then driven in by force of arguing.
To proceed to the Argument; It muſt be underſtood that we ſpeak not here of the old right of Dominion and Government, which Chriſt as God Creator and one with the Father, had before the Sin of Man; And then that which I have to prove is 1. That Chriſt hath a new right of Dominion and Government, and that over all Men whatſoever. 2. Yet this right is founded in his work of redemption, and the Fathers delivering all to him as in the relation of Redeemer. 3. That his right to Dominion and rule over all, is not meerly from Redemption of the Elect, but of all, even of each perſon to whom he hath this right.
As for the firſt, I hope few Chriſtians will deny it, if any do I prove it thus. 1. If Chriſt have not as Redeemer a right to govern all, then he may not make Univerſal Laws for the Government of all, But Chriſt hath made ſuch Univerſal Laws, Ergo, &c. His Laws command all Men every where to repent, and all that hear the Goſpel to believe: And promiſe and threaten accordingly.
Obj. The Indians never heard his Laws.
Anſ. 1. That reſtriction is ex parte promulgantis for want of publication, but not ex parte legem ferentis for want of Enacting a Univerſal Law; The Law excludes none in the tenor of it but commands all to believe without exception. 2. The Officers or Heralds of Chriſt have authority to publiſh it to all the World. 3. Chriſt hath more Laws then the written or publiſhed Goſpel in fulneſs. The diſpenſation of all things by, providential diſpoſal, are Chriſts Law, that is, they are the ſigns and diſcoveries of mercy and Mans duty: They ſhew the World 1. That they are not left under that helpleſs, remedileſs caſe that they were in by the deſert of their own Sin: For the rigid Law of works never allowed to them that had violated it, and were curſed by it, ſo great mercies as all Men now enjoy, and daily find flowing in upon them â Deo Miſerecorde, and that to ſuch ends as their repentance and recovery. 2. Theſe mercies and other works of Chriſt, do ſhew the World the duty of repenting: Paul ſaith that the mercies of God lead them to repentance. Now repentance is not here taken for helliſh deſpairing repentance, as the Text plainly ſhews: But for that which hath a tendency to recovery, and is joyned with ſuch a hope as excludeth utter deſpair, and may encourage to the uſe of means as means and that which thus revealeth Chriſts mercy and Mans duty and means, is ſure Chriſts Law.
2. Arg. If Chriſt as Redeemer hath not a right to Govern all Men, then he may not command his Meſſengers to go into all the World and preach the Goſpel to every Creature: But he hath ſo commanded them, Mat. 16. 15, 16. Where Chriſt hath not Authority to Rule, there he hath not Authority to bid his Meſſenger Rule under him, or publiſh his Laws, or command Men to obey him.
3. Arg. If Chriſt as Redeemer have not Authority to rule all to whom the Goſpel comes, then all ſuch are not bound to take him for their King and Lord; But all ſuch are bound to take him as their King and Lord, Ergo, &c. (4.) If Chriſt as Redeemer have not right of governing all that hear the Goſpel, then there are no Rebels (for Rebellion is only againſt a rightful Power) nor do they Sin in actual diſobeying him when he commands as Redeemer. But the conſequents are wicked and intollerable, Ergo, &c. Luke 19. 27. Thoſe mine Enemies that would not I ſhould Reign over them, bring hither and ſlay them before me. (5.) If Chriſt have not this right over all the World then all the World is not guilty of Sinning againſt him; But all the World is guilty of Sinning againſt the Redeemers Laws, Ergo, &c. They Sin againſt thoſe mercies which lead to repentance (6.) A multitude of plain Texts prove Chriſts Univerſal Dominion and Empire. Mat. 28. 19. All power is given to me in Heaven and Earth, Joh. 13. 3. All things are delivered unto him of the Father: delivered into his Hand, Joh. 5. 22. The Father judgeth no Man; but hath given all judgment to the Son, &c. Phil. 2. 7. 8. 9. Rom. 14. 9.
2. That this Right is founded on Redemption, is proved by all that is ſaid in the forementioned Arguments and Texts; and I think few Chriſtians will deny it, Rom. 14. 9. For this end he both died, roſe and revived, that he might be Lord, of the dead and of the living. If it were the end of his death and reſurrection to obtain this Dominion, then ſurely this Dominion is grounded in that Death and Reſurrection, and belongs to him as a Redeemer, Phil. 2. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. he became obedient to Death, even the Death of the Croſs: Wherefore God alſo hath highly exalted him, &c.
3. And that it is not Chriſts dying only for the Elect that is the ground of his Dominion and Empire over all, I prove thus. 1. The Dominion of Chriſt and his Jus Imperii over the Non-Elect is of the ſame kind with his Dominion and Jus Imperii over the Elect, and therefore hath the ſame cauſe. It is not ſuch as his Dominion over Devils or Brutes, as we ſhall further ſhew anon. I ſay not that Chriſt exerciſeth his Imperial power in the ſame way over all, but the relation of Rex or Imperator which Chriſt hath rightfully over all, is the ſame to all: And the relation of Subjects to Chriſt, which all ſtand in to him quod debitum veljus, is the ſame relation; all Men as well as the Elect, to whom his Laws are promulgate, are bound to acknowledg him their King and Lord in the ſame ſence as the Elect are: And are bound to give up themſelves to him as his ſubjects in the ſame ſenſe as the Elect are, and with a ſubjection of the ſame kind: For the New Law which conſtituteth the duty, is general, and diſtinguiſheth not, as to this, between Elect and Non-Elect. 2. It is manifeſt that Chriſts Blood cannot be purchaſing of Dominion or Empire immediately, but only meante virtute ſatisfactoria, as it is a placament or propitiatory Sacrifice to the offended Majeſty; For were not Chriſts Blood firſt neceſſary to this expiatory uſe, it would be ſo far from being purchaſing or meritorious of any further benefit, that it would not be acceptable to God at all: For he is not bloodthirſty, he takes not pleaſure in the Blood of the innocent, Nay, he is averſe from it. So that Chriſts Death muſt needs be firſt ſatisfactory to Juſtice in order of nature, before it purchaſe Dominion or Empire. Now if he may have this right to a peculiar Dominion and Empire over moſt of the World without ſatisfying for them, then either his right over moſt is immediate without flowing from ſatisfaction (which is evidently falſe) or elſe it is founded in his ſatisfaction for others, viz. the Elect: And if ſo then why might not he as well have right of Dominion and Empire over the Elect without ſatisfying for them, as over all others without ſatisfying for them? And if ſo, then he might do all that which now he doth as Lord and Rector, without ſatisfaction Antecedent. And if ſo, then he might make his New Law which now he hath made, wherein he Repeals the bondage of Ceremonies and provideth a remedy againſt the curſe, and whereby he gives pardon, and glory to all if they will receive him; But this may not be granted.
3. It is alſo proved hence, that Chriſts rule over all Men is founded in his ſatisfaction of Redeeming of thoſe ſame Men; becauſe when he is offered to them and they commanded to receive him, it is in the Relation of Lord Redeemer: All are commanded to take him for their Lord Jeſus Chriſt, no Man is commanded to take him as Lord and King only, and not as Redeemer and Saviour: Nay, our Divines commonly make the act of juſtifying Faith to confiſt only in receiving Chriſt as Redeemer or ſatisfieror Saviour, as ſaving us by his Blood from guilt; excluding the reception of him as King and Lord from being the juſtifying Act of Faith (wherein yet I am forced as zealouly to contradict them as in almoſt any one point) only they confeſs it is of abſolute neceſſity that Chriſt at the ſame time be received as Lord, when he is received as Redeemer. Now all Men are bound (that hear the Goſpel) to believe to juſtification, that's generally granted: And if ſo, then all Men are bound to receive Chriſt as their Lord-Redeemer, and not as Lord to them and Redeemer to others: And if ſo, then doubtleſs Chriſt is their Lord-Redeemer. Now Redemption hath two parts, the firſt is the paying of the Price that is, ſatisfaction by dying for us: The 2d. is, applying or conferring the benefits of that ſatisfaction, by actual delivering or Redeeming from the guilt and power of Sin: The firſt is that chief part of Redemption from whence the whole is chiefly denominated. Now the firſt part is paſt and done whether Men believe or not and is not offered to be done on any condition, nor to be done for our Sins: Chriſt doth not ſay, I will pay the price of thy Redemption, if thou wil… take me for thy Redeemer, it is paid already, but it is the 2d. part of Redemption that is offered on condition. The firſt is general and abſolure: The ſecond is generally given on condition; and ſpecial as to the actual Collation by Chriſt and fruition by Man. So that when Chriſt ſaith to a Man, [take me for thy Redeemer] it is as much as to ſay, [take me for one that hath made ſatisfaction for thy Sins and if thou wilt receive me I will pardon and ſave thee thereby] now if Chriſt did not Redeem Men, by ſatisfying, and yet require them to take him as their Redeemer, then he requires them to take him to be that which he is not, and to have done that which he hath not: For Chriſt cannot be a Redeemer to any Man that he hath not paid the paid the price of Redemption for: Which if it be not done, Faith will not cauſe it to be done, So that it being certain, that the Lordſhip and Empire of Chriſt which he hath right to over all, and which all are commanded to acknowledg and ſubmit to, is inſeparably conjoyned with his Redemption, he being offered to no Man as Lord, to whom he is not alſo offerd as Redeemer, it is evident that his Jus novum Dominii & imperiii, his new right of propriety and Rule over all Men, doth preſuppoſe his Redeeming all, as to the price and ſatisfaction.
Obj. But if that be ſo, then he Redeemed or died for Bruits, Devils and good Angels: For he hath a Right of Dominion and Rule over theſe.
Anſ. This Objection, though otherwiſe ſcarce worthy to be taken notice of, hath been ſo entertained, yielded to and confidently managed by ſome, that it is become neceſſary to make a diſcovery of its vanity. 1. Chriſt hath not a proper Empire or Rectorſhip over Bruits: For they are not capable of being Subjects of a Kingdom. 2. His Dominion over them is but as they are ſubſervient to his ends for Man, and as they are Mans Servants and Utenſils. 3. Chriſt hath not (that I can find in Scripture (any novum jus Dominii, any new propriety as Redeemer, in Devils or in good Angels: But having an ancient propriety in them as being their Creator he uſeth them accordingly for his Redemption ends. 4. Nor do I find that he hath purchaſed any new proper abſolute jus imperii or Rectorſhip over them, but only a power of uſing them for his Church, and for ſervice about Man he ſhall ſend them on. 5. And therefore I ſay, the Empire of Chriſt over Angels is not of the ſame kind with that which he hath over Men, and which we uſe in the Argument to prove that he died for Men. if both ſhould be called by the ſame title of a novum jus imperii, yet the difference of the Subjects ſufficeth to ſhew the different Sence of the ſame attribute as ſeverally applied: I find not that Chriſt any where proclaims himſelf▪ the King of Devils or Angels, nor requires them to take him for their King, nor hath made any new Laws to govern them by, as he hath done for Men, nor hath reſtored any forfeited mercy to them, nor offers them pardon of any Sin upon condition of repentance, nor will judg them on ſuch terms. So that if it ſhould be proved that the good Angels are part of his Kingdom as Redeemer, yet it would be but as their confirmer, and not as a Redeemer of them: For he is never offered to them as a Redeemer, nor did they need any, for ought I know: He took not on him the nature of Angels, but of the Seed of Abraham. He is Head over all things, to his Church, Eph. 1. 22. That is, He is ſuperior to Angels and all things, and hath the diſpoſal of them for his Churches uſe, but he is only Head of his Church de facto as to proper Kingly Rule▪ and of the reſt of the World de jure who ſhall ſuffer as Rebels for not acknowledging his Title, and becauſe they would not that he ſhould reign over them, Luke 39. 27. But ſo ſhall not Bruits or Devils; So that the Argument will hold good … jure novo Dominii & Imperii, from Chriſts new propriety in and Rectorſhip over Men to his Redeeming them by his Blood: But ſo it will not from that kind of Dominion which Chriſt hath over Bruits, or that kind of Rule that he hath over Angels or Devils, to his Redemption of them; And yet for Bruits, as they ſuffered for the ſake of Man, and as they ſhall be reſtored from their ſuffering for the uſe and ſake of Man, ſo the ſame Blood which purchaſed Mans Reſtoration, did remotely and collaterally purchaſe theirs. Let us illuſtrate all by a ſimilitude, as near reſembling the preſent caſe as we can imagine; Suppoſe when King James Raigned in England, that Ireland had all fallen into Rebellion, and ſo open, bloody and malicious that the King were reſolved not a Man of them ſhould be pardoned or eſcape: Hereupon in the height of their malice, they intice all Scotland into Rebellion alſo: But becauſe they are but deluded into it by the Iriſh, and not maliciouſly bent againſt him as they, or becauſe being his Countrim… he hath a ſpecial reſpect to them, it is concluded betwixt him and his only Son, that his Son ſhall pay their ranſome, or by ſome publickly ſhameful ſuffering, ſhall make that ſatisfaction to the Law, and that Reparation to the King which may ſuffice to deter all others from Rebellion▪ and openly in his ſuffering ſhall publish▪ This I … willingly for the offence of my Rebellions …, to procure them mercy: Hereupon, by agreement, the Prince is to undertake it as his further buſineſs, to uſe means for the bringing them all back to their allegiance: To which end the whole Kingdom of Scotland, is given up to him as King upon his ſatisfaction and Ramſome, and he is to make a General pardon or Act of Oblivion to all, ſo be it they do by ſuch a day come in and lay down Arms and return to their Allegiance, and acknowledg the Kings Grace, and the Princes ſingular favour in Ranſoming them, and will take him for their King upon this Ranſome: And for thoſe that will not accept this offer, the Prince is to ſubdue them by force and deſtroy them, that they ſhall have no benefit of the Ranſome; And for all the Iriſh which he finds among them, ſeducing them, he is to deſtroy them, or uſe them to what ſervitude in the mean time he pleaſe: Alſo he is to make uſe of any of the Kings Servants or Subjects of England, to ſend on his Meſſage to ſummon them to come in. Now I demand. 1. Hath not the Prince here Ranſomed all the Scots over whom he hath his Jus Dominii & Imperii? That is abſolutely all? 2. Doth it follow that therefore he hath Ranſomed the Iriſh, becauſe he hath power to judg and deſtroy them, or uſe them in ſervitude? 3. Or doth it follow that he hath Ranſomed the Trees, Beaſts, and Lands of the Country, becauſe he hath a propriety in them as the Goods or Utenſils of them whom he Ranſomed. 4. Or did he Ranſome any of the Kings Servants or English, becauſe he hath power to ſend them on his meſſage or command them on his Service into Scotland? If one argue thus with a Scot [the Prince hath a new Title of Dominion and Empire over all you Scotsmen as ranſomer, therefore he ranſomed you all] this is no unſound arguing: And would you confute it b… ſaying that [then he ranſomed the Engliſh and Iriſh too, yea the Lands, and Trees, and Beaſts] By the Scots I mean, mankind, By the Iriſh the Devils, by the Kings Servants, or Engliſh, the Angels: And by the Lands, Trees, &c. I mean all the creatures on Earth as Servants of Man.
A Man would think that thoſe Men that do ſo vehemently contend that Chriſt is the Head of the viſible Church, and the King of this viſible Kingdom which comprehendeth good and bad, ſhould eaſily yield to this Argument.
If Chriſt be the Head or King of all the viſible Church, and conſequently of more than the Elect, then did he die for the viſible Church, and ſo for more than the Elect: But the Antecedent is maintained ſtifly by themſelves, Ergo, &c.
When they have voluminouſly pleaded for the Honours and Priviledges of the Church viſible, viz. That even the unregenerate part of it are Diſciples, Chriſtians …, Believers, Adopted, in Covenant, &c. And that Chriſt is their Maſter, King and Head, will they ſay that yet for all this Chriſt did not die for them? Why hereby they incur theſe intollerable inconveniences. 1. That ſuch excellent gifts and Goſpel Priviledges ſhould flow from any other fountain than the Death of Chriſt▪ and that Men ſhould have ſo great mercies, for whom he never died (of which before 2. That Chriſts Office ſhould be ſo divided, as that he ſhould be their King and Head for whom he never died: It is their uſe to argue on the Contrary that Chriſt died not for Men whom he doth not ſanctifie and ſave, becauſe the parts of his work are not divided: Though this be no better arguing then to ſay, God created no Angel or Man, putting them under a Covenant, and in a way of Life, but only thoſe that attain to Life hereby: Yet it is an undeniable conſequence on the other ſide, that Chriſt died for Men becauſe they receive ſuch Priviledges and benefits and becauſe he is become their Head or King, even as it follows that God Created Adam to Life by that Covenant, if he had attained Life thereby.
And it is not inconſiderable how they lay themſelves open to the Laſhes of one another by their error in this point; When thoſe that are for Diſcipline have pleaded the Jus Divinum of their work, as from Chriſt as the King or Head of the Church viſible, the Erastians tell them that Chriſt is not King where he is not Prieſt; he is not the King of any but the Elect, or Saints becauſe he died for none but the Elect, See what Ludovicus Molinaeus (who would unite the Eraſtians and Independents againſt the Presbyterians) ſaith Paraeneſ. Page 68. Etenim primum dubitari poteſt an Chriſtus qua Caput & Rex Electorum ſeu Corporis myſtici, qualis hic in foro interno deſcribitur, rectè ſtatuatur in alio foro, eoque externo poteſtatem legiſlationis & jurisdictionis committere perſonis circares & cauſas, quarum judicium & cognitio, non ſub eſt judicio & Cognitioni illius, qui ſumus eſt judex in foro externo. This Book is newly Printed many Years ſince this Diſputation was written, though I here inſert this paſſage.
Ad hominem, I am ſure this Argument is not contemptible: There is no Evaſion but by ſaying that Chriſt is not the King or Head of the duplicate page duplicate page unregenerate part of the Church viſible, as he is mediator, but purely as God: But that's as deſtructive to their cauſe as if they denied him to be their King at all; For they will never evince that he taketh Men into the Goſpel Covenant, and becomes their King and makes them Saints, Adopted, Chriſtians, Believers, &c. and all this meerly as he is God and not as he is Mediator.