The Universalist Examined and Convicted, Chapter 2

The Universalist Examined and Convicted · Chapter 2

CHAP. II.

1 Tim. 2.6.

Who gave himſelfe a ranſome for all.

Heb. 2.9.

That he by the grace of God ſhould taſte death for every man.

PropoſitionTHe 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, foreign, 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 foreign, 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 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, (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, 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 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 [foreign] 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 [foreign] is put for [foreign] [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 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 foreign, by his Bloud, [as it were to expound the other, that though it be foreign, yet to be meant foreign, 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 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 foreign cometh from a word which ſignifieth to be actually appeaſed, placated, reconciled, actually to remit the fault; when the Publican prayed [foreign,] 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 clearely by the Remonſtrants owne Confeſſion, to ſignifie the Application and the [Mortis foreign] 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 foreign, but foreign, 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 foreign and foreign 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, [foreign, 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 foreign: 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 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, (foreign, 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 [foreign, ver. 24. Juſtified through the Redemption,] ſpeaketh the ſame thing, with [foreign, 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 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 foreign, or foreign, or any word from that root to ſignifie any thing but the application of good, as Rom. 8.23. foreign, Redemption of our bodies, that is perfect, and freedome from all vanity. Epheſ. 1.14. foreign, 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 foreign, 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. foreign, Redeeme us from our Iniquities,] Is it not expounded by purging us from our ſins in the next words? Heb. 19 foreign, 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 foreign, 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 foreign I find uſed to ſignifie the price of Redemption, as Exod. 21.30. The Septuagint reade it foreign, He ſhall give the price of ranſome for his ſoule. So 1 Tim. 2, 6 foreign, 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 foreign: The word foreign 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 foreign, 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 foreign; or in the next ver foreign, Faith in Chriſt, or in his bloud: So that as foreign 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 (foreign) for (foreign) very often, as Col. 1 16. foreign, 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, foreign, 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 foreign 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 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 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.

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 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,bbArmin. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 foreign, 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 foreign, 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 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] 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 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 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 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 foreign, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.] 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. 11tum 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 foreign & 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 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.]

Parturiunt montes & naſcitur—

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. 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 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.