The Universalist Examined and Convicted, Chapter 1
CHAP. I. Of the State of the Question.
THe vigour and life of Controverſies ariſeth from the right and due ſtating of the Queſtion, which deſerveth to be tranſacted in the firſt place: therefore I ſhall ſhew how the Author ſtateth the Queſtion, and then lay downe the uſuall and genuine ſtate as it hath been laid downe in all engagements in theſe Points. The Author being a Man of vaſt reading in the Polemicks of Divinity, attempts to ſummon the ſeverall ſtatings of the Queſtion to his Teſt, and ſaith,
1. [Some ſay, Jeſus Chriſt dyed for his Elect, and only for them that are Elect to Sonſhip and Eternall Inheritance, and no other.] Herein the affirmative of the Queſtion is ſet downe, but no ſtate of the Queſtion: The one ſide ſay, Chriſt dyed for his Elect only, the other ſide ſay, that Chriſt dyed for All; but in neither is the Queſtion ſtated, only the affirmation barely propounded. I ſhall expect to heare the Perſon and Place where this is given as the ſtate of the Queſtion.
2. [Some ſay, that Chriſt dyed for all men alike, wrought Redemption for all men alike, with like love, like intention, and for like ends, but this hath no ground in Scripture.] Who they are that thus ſtate the Queſtion I ſhould gladly be informed; if it be found any where, it muſt be among the moſt rigid maintainers of his Doctrine, and none more rigid then the Remonſtrants do I know, yet they diſclaime it: They would have the Love of God to be Common to all, but not equall to all men aCorvin. in Mel. cap. 31. Sect. 1. p. 492.[Non volumus foreign ergâ hominum ſalutem eſſe equalem ſed communem:] And alſo Arminius himſelf, bArmin. in Perk. pag. 57…[Scio quidem foreign Dei non eſſe omnimodo equalem, &c.] Yet how they can avoid this I ſee not; For they ſay, that out of his naturall goodneſſe he propendeth to the ſalvation of all men, and that indifferently to all, and by his (will) which they call (plenaria voluntas) he willeth Salvation to all if they beleeve, and to none if they be incredulous. Now, leſt any ſhould thinke that I wrong them, I inſtance; that his will and intention is to ſave every man if they will beleeve and accept of him, is cleare from their words; [Intentio & ſcopus fuit omnes ſervare, Coll. Hog. 176.ſed aliter evenit propter eorum culpam:] That it was his intention and ſcope to ſave all men, but it falleth out otherwiſe, through their owne default] and alſo,Corvin. in. Mol c. 27. Sect. 1. Corv. in Mol. Cap. 27. Sect. 4 Acta. Synod. 285. [Nullus omnino hominum eſt cujus falutem non velit.] And that he dyed to procure life for none, but upon this condition of ſaith, is evident from them, In that they ſay, that Chriſt may have the end of his death entire, though none either beleeve or be ſaved; and this they ſay, [Quare etſi nemo credidiſſet futurum tamen fuiſſe ut finis mortis Chriſti conſtaret, omnino credimus;] and alſo, [Cum mandanti Deo reſiſtere poſſunt omnes & ſinguli, relinquitur profectò, fieri poſſe ut impetratio ſarta tecta maneat ſuiſque numeris perfecta conſtet etiamſi increduli omnes manentes, nulli eſſent foriè qui fructum ejus perciperent:] But this is well knowne to any that have but taſted of thoſe diſputes. Now to ſay that he willeth the Salvation of all (if they beleeve) and the damnation of all if they beleeve not, And ſo Chriſt by his death Impetrated Salvation for all, that they might be ſaved if they beleeve, and yet that none might be ſaved if they beleeve not, and ſo (for all any decree of God) all may be incredulous and periſh; if this be not to ſay that Chriſt dyed for all men alike, for like ends, &c. I know not what is. But yet I ſay their profeſſe words ſay nothing like this, when they come to give the ſtate of the Queſtion: and ſo to come to my Antagoniſt againe, if he find it not there, I would know where he findeth it elſewhere. But beſides, I know not how the Author can free himſelfe from this groundleſſe aſſertion: what his judgement is truly, I cannot determine, but ſo farre as his Diſcourſe may aſſure us, we may conclude it, for in Cap. 2. where he ſets downe the ends of Chriſt ſo far as concernes Men, as Pag. 16, 17, 18, 19. he concludeth, [That every particular in that generall was for the (world) (all men) (every man.)] Now, to review theſe particulars, I ſay with the Author, Chriſt ſatisfied the juſtice of God for every Son of Adam, and for all indifferently; for no one more than another; he ſatisfied it for all, and he could but ſatisfie it for any. So for a ſecond, Chriſt is the Lord of every man, and not over one more than another, but of all equally: He is abſolute Lord and Soveraigne over all, and he can be no more (as Lord) to any. So for a third, He is the Ranſome of All, and not of one more than another: That which is done for All and every Man, is done for all alike. That which is done to every man (as men) or as ſinners, is done to all, and makes no diſcrimination among men; but all the former are his owne affirmations: whence any may conclude that Chriſt dyed for al men alike, for he mentioneth no other end, ſo farre as Reſpects Ranſome, or Propitiation, but what agreeth to every man alike in his owne reaſoning,
3. [Some ſay, Chriſt dyed for every man in caſe every man beleeve on him, and for no man in caſe they perſiſt in unbeleife, but this is no Scripture ſenſe, &c. Chriſt hath given himſelfe a Ranſome whether men beleeve it or no.] I conceive the Author cannot produce any that ſo ſtate the Queſtion, (the modell of this plea may be drawne out of the Remonſtrants, with the greateſt probability,) but they ſay no ſuch thing; they do not leave the act of man in beleeving to determine the act of Chriſt as done in and by himſelfe; For then, they cannot prove that he dyed for any, becauſe in their judgement all may be unbeleevers and periſh, and yet Chriſt have his end; They ſay as firmely and perſpicuouſly, that (Chriſt dyed for all,Acta Synod. 4…. whether men beleeve or no,) as the Author himſelfe avoucheth it; [Phraſis illa (Chriſtus mortuus eſt) pro omnibus ſi credant, fupponit, cum non mortuum eſſe pro iis quis non credunt, quod falſum eſt, ideo mortuus eſt, non ſi credant: ſed ut credant & ſalventur.] Therefore I conclude that ſuch a ſtate of the Queſtion he cannot produce from any Pen.
4. [Some ſay, Jeſus Chriſt dyed in ſome ſort for all men, and ſo as all do receive ſome benefit thereby: He dyed for all men as a Lord, but he did not dye for all as a Surety, to pay the price for, and become the Propitiation for the ſins of all.] The reſult of his thoughts, is like the errand of Ahimaaz, he ſeeth ſomething but he knoweth not what, ſomething he meaneth if he could but ſpeake. For,
1. Some he may produce that ſay that all Men, yea all Creatures receive ſome benefit by Chriſts Death; but then he erreth in a twofold reſpect, they neither give this as the ſtate of the Queſtion, neither do they ſay that he dyed for all that receive benefit by his Death; he dyed for no other but men, whoſe nature he undertook, thus Scripture affirmeth; but many more Creatures beſides Men have ſome benefit by Chriſts Death.
2. Some he may produce that ſay that he obtained Lordſhip and Dominion by his Death, and thus the Remonſtrants ſay,Corv in Mol. cap 12. Sect 25 [Non obtinuit ut ſalvator ſed ut Dominus & Judex eſſet,] And ſome contra Remonſt. thus may affirme, but then he erreth in two particulars; for they do not either give this as the ſtate of the Queſtion, neither do any utter ſuch an impoliſhed expreſſion as this: [He dyed for all men as Lord,] this is formed thus in his owne confuſed braine; it was no Act of Lordſhip to dye, but rather as a Servant he dyed, Phil. 2.8, 9, 10. But to grant all that he ſaith, it deſerveth a little examination how he dealeth with this ſtate of the Queſtion if any ſuch could be produced: he ſaith, [The Affirmative is truth, but not the whole truth; but the Negative denyeth the remainder of truth, and what was before affirmed, for if he did not pay their Price and Purchaſe them, how according to the Goſpell is he their Lord?]
1. Unleſſe he will ſay that every man receiveth all good, and the higheſt good by Chriſts Death, (which he cannot prove) he muſt confeſſe that it is the whole truth, that every man receiveth ſome good by his Death.
2. He ſtrongly affirmeth that Chriſt dyed for every man by way of Surety, which is not proveable either by Scripture, or good reaſon; It is againſt the nature of a Surety to doe any thing for one as a Surety, and for the other to be lyable to the ſame thing: hence the ſame debt in a way of juſtice commeth not by any meanes to be required of both the Surety & the Principall: For this would not be (Moripro) but (Mori cum) not to dye for, but to dye with men: (Whether this or a different conſideration, I know not) but ſome ſuch thing made the Remonſtr. ſomething ſhye of this expreſſion of a Surety, and in plaine tearmes do deny that it is ſo meant.Coll. Hag. p. 175, 176. in Arg. 3. [In Collatione dixerunt fratres ſe hanc formulam ita accipere, ut Chriſtus diceretur mortuum eſſe pro nobis (vadis inſtar) ut pro nobis ſatisfaceret, atqui non ita exprimitur.] So that it is cleare, that they could not affirme that Chriſt dyed for every man as a Surety; which the Author affirmeth, but doth not prove it to ſatisfaction.
3. He would prove it by this, (becauſe he is their Lord) for he cannot ſee how he ſhould become their Lord if he did not dye for them as Surety, but herein he argueth weakely. No eye ſurely but ſeeth a wide difference betwixt (purchaſing Lordſhip) and (ſatisfying for one as a Surety,) Theſe are no way coincident, the one may be where the other is not; The Iſraelites purchaſed Lordſhip over their ſlaves and Servants, Lev. 25.44. But they were not ſaid to be Surety for them: So on the other ſide, Judah was Surety for Beniamin, Gen. 44.33. Paul for Oneſimus, Philem. 18. but in neither of theſe was there any purchaſing or Lordſhip; theſe are (valde diſtantia) therefore to argue, He is their Lord, therefore he is their Surety, is weake reaſoning.
4. He affirmeth that to deny that Chriſt dyed for all as a Surety, is contrary to what is before affirmed, and ſaith, [If he paid not their price and purchaſed them, how can he be their Lord?] This is grounded on his groſſe perverſion; for he leaveth out the words, (As a Surety) wherein the vigour lyeth; for elſe his words ſhould run thus, [If he pay not a Price for them as a Surety, how can he be their Lord?] And then their weakeneſſe would have appeared to any. Lord he might be, and no Surety; pay a Price for them and purchaſe them to himſelf he may, and yet be no Surety; but he thus produceth the words, [If he payed not a Price for them, how is he their Lord?] This ſavours not of ingenuity, or of one who hath his mouth full of Exclamations againſt perverters of words.
5. [Some ſay that Chriſt ſo dyed for all, that his death is ſufficient for all, and applicable to all, but not ſo as he hath ranſomed all men, and become the Propitiation for the Sins.] Theſe, or the like expreſſions may be patched up out of ſeverall Judgements; but for one man of either ſide to produce theſe words as the ſtate of the Queſtion, I dare ſay the Author cannot produce any Example.
1. That ſome ſay, [Chriſtus mortuus eſt pro omnibus ſufficienter;] That is,Coll. Hag. Pag. 124. (That Chriſt paid a Ranſome ſufficient for the Salvation of all men) I deny not, but then here the Author erreth, it was rather a dogmaticall aſſertion, to ſhew how thoſe words may be received as truth, then a full ſtate of the Queſtion, and it may appeare in that thoſe hot Diſputes have not turned upon this hinge.
2. Thoſe that ſay, [Chriſt dyed for all ſufficiently,] do not admit of the after-expreſſions, [Applicable to all,] This is the reſult of the adverſe Party. Indeed, the Remonſt. ſcatter ſuch expreſſions, as [Deus eſt omnibus placabilis] [res impetrata eſt omnibus applicabilis] [omnes ſunt ſalvabiles. Corv. in Mol. c. 28. Sect. 22 Pag. 446.] That is, God is placable to all, the thing impetrated applicable to all, all men ſaveable, and ſo the Author, Pag. 36. But from any contra Remonſt. I thinke he never receiveth any ſuch, and that on good ground I thinke ſo, becauſe it is not ſutable to their Principles. For they that ſay, [Chriſt dyed for all ſufficiently,] meane it, only ſufficiently, and that in oppoſition to [effectually] therefore they do in the ſame words deny that he did dye for all (effectually,) and that whether conſidered really or intentionally, that is, Chriſt did neither do it, nor intend to redeeme all effectually, and they that ſo ſay cannot ſay and prove too, that the death of Chriſt, and the good obtained thereby is applicable to all, and every man.
3. Thoſe that ſay, [Chriſt hath dyed for all ſufficiently,] doe not ſay, [He hath not ranſomed all men] for as they ſay, Chriſt hath dyed for all ſufficiently, ſo they ſay alſo, he hath ranſomed all ſufficiently; Seeing, that to (dye for) and to (ranſome) are in Scripture Equipollent. So that we may in this ſee how the Author hallucinates about other mens words: But to let this paſſe as a ſtate given by ſome, let us ſee how he dealeth with it, and with what plea he waveth it as unſound.
1. He ſaith, [The Affirmative of this will ſtand well,] but then he did not conſider that thoſe that ſay, [Chriſt dyed for all ſufficiently,] do meane it only ſufficiently, in oppoſition to [effectually;] but thus it cannot ſtand well with the authority of his Diſcourſe, which proveth the Death of Chriſt effectuall for all men. Cap. 21.
2. He ſaith, [The Negative unſaith the Affirmative,] But how he proveth it ſhall be examined: he urgeth thus: [What ſufficiency is there applicable from Chriſt, or by his Servants, for, or to any man of any thing that Chriſt hath no perfectly wrought, and received in himſelfe, that he might beſtow it according to the Goſpell?] This Phraſe [applicable to all] is foyſted in ſophiſtically, there is no queſtion made of the applicability of any ſufficiency that Chriſt did not worke out, and will to apply: but yet a ſufficiency there is in the Bloud of Chriſt, worth, and valour to purchaſe that which it doth not, and for more then he doth effectually redeeme: Were there more worlds, or many more in this world then ever were, or are, or ſhall be, would any doubt but the Bloud of Chriſt had worth and ſufficiency to ranſome them? Nay, if God ſo pleaſed to make his Bloud a price for Devils, who would doubt of the ſufficiency of it to redeeme them? I hope the Author will not deny the Bloud of Chriſt to have ſo much ſufficiency in it, as to merit that every man ſhould undoubtedly be ſaved, but this it doth not effectually, as he confeſſeth, Pag. 34. His working out Salvation for men was not proportioned out to the valour of his Bloud, but to the grace, and good will of God to men; he did not dye for, or ranſome ſo many as he was able, but ſo many as he pleaſed.
As for that Phraſe, [Pſal. 68.18, 19, 20.] being produced to prove that there is not an overplus of worth and ſufficiency in the Bloud of Chriſt beyond what effecteth by it; ſheweth what a dexterity the Author hath in being abſurd in his Quotations; that place ſheweth indeed that he received gifts for rebellions, and what gifts he giveth he received, but that he either giveth or received gifts, even to the top of the worth of his Bloud, that the Text ſheweth not.
6. Some ſay, Chriſt dyed for all in regard of the kind or generall lumpe of mankind conſidered, becauſe he tooke the nature of mankind on him, & ſo dyed for all, but did not dye for all in regard of individuals.] I have not ſo much credulity as to beleeve that the Author hath any preſident for ſuch a ſtate of the Queſtion: the expreſſions are too indigeſted to come from any knowing man; to dye for the kind and not the individuals, is to dye for the nature, not the Perſons of men. I feare when his account is caſt up, this will appeare a crude concluſion from more cleare expreſſions, contracting the groſſe Metamorphoſis, from his owne braine.
7. [Some ſay Chriſt dyed for all men, that they might be ſaved, and for the Elect that they ſhould undoubtedly be ſaved.) Is it not poſſible that any mans Judgement ſhall paſſe his Pen without corruption? I beleeve ſome there are that ſay, [Chriſt dyed for the Elect that they ſhould undoubtedly be ſaved, and for the reſt that they might be ſaved, viz. [poſſibly.] So ſome have ſought to cut to themſelves a way betweene the Calviniſts and Remonſt. and of this judgement was one of eminent note in Gods Church.Mr. Cotton. But ſuch a ſtate ſo contradictory as our Author popounds it none ever yet afforded to us; For, let us conſider one branch is, [that all men might be ſaved:] Now, by this is meant (only poſſibly,) and oppoſed to (undoubtedly), or infalibly. Now tell me if all be brought into a (poſſibility only) what place is here left for any to be in an (undoubted infallibility?) It muſt argue either that the Elect are not in the number of (all men,) or elſe that they that are only in a (poſſibility,) are alſo in an [undoubted infallibility] of Salvation, both which the Author will ſay are abſurd. Which ſtate of the Queſtion, the Author approveth not as ſpeaking the whole truth. Therefore I ſhall wave it, and thoſe particulars that he ſaith follow upon it, yet to meet with them in other places: In all which ſtatings, I wonder he doth ſo much preſſe upon the credulity of his Readers, in that he produceth not the perſons, and places, by whom, and where the Queſtion is ſo ſtated, that we might ſee how ingenuouſly he dealeth with them.
8. [Some ſay, that Chriſt by ſhedding of his Bloud, redeemed the world of mankind, ſatisfied Gods Juſtice, and obtained a way of Salvation for every man;Dr. Davenant on Heard. Pag 233. (and then adde) But God never intended that the outward Act ſhould ever put man into the poſſeſſion of pardon, or of a ſtate of Juſtification and Salvation:] And for this he citeth an Author. Therefore I ſhall examine this laſt ſtate, and our Authors expreſſes thereon; and I ſhall conſider theſe words in a threefold relation, viz. to the Author whom he citeth, to the former ſtating which he rejecteth, to the Queſtion of which he pretendeth it is a ſtate. As they relate to the Author cited by him, I anſwer theſe two particulars.
1. It cannot be either proved or expected, that theſe words ſhould be the ſtate of this Queſtion about Redemption: becauſe that was not his Theame, he treateth there of Reprobation, and therefore no rationall man will expect to find in that Diſcourſe a full ſtate of this Queſtion.
2. Our Author hath got the words of that learned man, but hath left us doubtfull of his meaning; for that Phraſe [He obtained a way of Salvation for every man,] may have a double meaning.
Firſt, That Chriſt hath obtained a way. viz. (faith) in which every man that walketh, ſhall and may through it come to life; intimating thus much only, that Salvation is not attainable but by Faith and Repentance.
Secondly, That Chriſt made that a way with a purpoſe that every man ſhould walk in it, and through it have life. Our Author taketh the words in this ſecond ſenſe, elſe the words of Dr Davenant ſerve him not; but thus the words are not taken by him whoſe words they are, and that for theſe two Reaſons.
Dr. Davenant on Heard. Pag 198.1. He expreſly ſaith thus, [The way that he opened for every one of us to partake the fruit of our Redemption, is by Repentance and Faith,] which ſaith no more but this, that the way whereby every man partaketh of Salvation, is Faith and Repentance; or that every man that doth beleeve and repent ſhall come to life, and to this tends his after words, [The Decrees of Election and Reprobation are no obſtacles againſt any that do this,]
2. Becauſe he ſaith, [Election and Reprobation croſſeth not that.] Now let us conſider the Decrees of Election and Reprobation, he maketh Reprobation to be a denying from Eternity Grace and Glory to the moſt men. And theſe two, viz. [That God decreed from Eternity to deny both Grace and Glory to the moſt men;] And that [Chriſt opens a way for every man, and ſo for them, as that he intendeth to bring them into life by that way, or that they might be ſo,] are in my thoughts inconſiſtent. Thus as theſe words relate to the Author of them.
Secondly, I ſhall conſider them as they ſtand compared with the former ſtatings which he rejecteth: And then I demand, what difference there is betwixt this which he receiveth, and the third which he rejecteth? The third ſtate ſaith thus: [He dyed for all, that all might be ſaved if they beleeve, yet they ſhall not if they beleeve not:] And is not this one and the ſame with his laſt ſtate? I cannot ſee any momentous difference; For between theſe two, [Chriſt by his Death impetrated and procured that all men have life if they beleeve, yet ſo as none but them that beleeve ſhould partake of it;] And this, [Chriſt by his Bloud redeemed mankind, and obtained a way of Salvation for every man, (which way is Faith,) and yet this puts not any man preſently into the poſſeſſion of Salvation unleſſe they beleeve;] I need a more piercing Judgement then I have, to find any difference, I ſhall expect to find one in the Authors next.
Againe, What difference between this which he receiveth, and the firſt which he rejecteth? For that ſaith that the Death of Chriſt is (applicable to all:) Now when this word (applicable) is expreſſed without Sophiſtry, it is meant (only applicable) and ſo in an indifferency either to be applyed or not applyed as the condition is performed: So (applicable) is [applicandum ſi crederent, & non applicandum ſi non crederent;] That which is only applicable is not to be applied but on condition; and then it is hence Corvinus maketh theſe two (Deus eſt placabilis) and (placandus ſi crederent) to be equipollent tearmes, and this is the true meaning of the word applicable. Now betwixt theſe two, [Chriſt by his Death hath made his life applicable to all, that is to be applyed if they beleeve, and not applyed if they beleeve not] And this [Chriſt by his bloudſhed hath obtained a way of Salvation for every man, but God never intended that the outward Act put any man into poſſeſſion unleſſe they beleeve;] I cannot ſee any momentous difference, and the rather I am enduced to thinke ſo, becauſe the reſult of the eighth State which he receiveth is but this, [that all men are ſalvable,] Pag. 36. which is one and the ſame with [applicable] which he rejecteth.
Againe, I would know what this laſt ſtate of the Queſtion which he receiveth, differeth from the ſeventh State which he neglecteth, as not the whole truth: Doth not the firſt part of the ſeaventh, viz. [That Chriſt dyed for all men that they might be ſaved] equallize and ſpeake as much as this, viz [Chriſt by his Bloud obtained a way to Salvation for every man,] And what is there in the laſt, that is not in the firſt? [To obtain a way to ſalvation for every man,] (which way is Faith) is no more then to ſay, [Chriſt dyed for all men that they might be ſaved by Faith.] And doth not the ſecond Branch in the ſeventh viz. [And for the Elect that they ſhould undoubtedly be ſaved,] equallize and ſpeake as much as the ſecond part in the eighth State? viz. [None but them that enter into that way of Faith and Repentance ſhall poſſeſſe it:] And what is there in this laſt, that was not couched in that firſt particular? He pretendeth a Plea, which is this: [The diſtinction betwixt the Redemption wrought by Chriſt in himſelf by bloudſhed; and that which he worketh in men by application of his Bloud, is not expreſſed:] But this is empty and groundleſſe, becauſe that diſtinction is not in expreſſe termes in the eighth State, and by as good conſequence in the ſeventh: herein he appeares not ſo quicke ſighted as he pretendeth.
Diruit, edificat, mutat quadrata rotundis—
Thus I have examined the laſt State given and received by him, in compariſon with the former, which he neglecteth, and I can ſee no cauſe why the laſt ſhould be entertained when ſeverall others are rejected.
Thirdly, Let us ſee this State which he ſo eagerly faſtneth on, how it relateth to, or looketh on the Queſtion of which it is a State: the reſult of it is thus, [So that Jeſus Chriſt hath ſo dyed and given himſelfe a Ranſome to God for all men, &c. That in and by himſelfe he hath ſo redeemed and ſaved all men, that they are given to his diſpoſe, and he will raiſe them out of the death he dyed for them, and make them alive before him. That, they ſhall acknowledge him Lord, and come before his judgement Rom. 14.9, 12. &c. And he is ſo filled with Spirit for them, to make it ſo knowne, and with ſuch tenderneſſe, that they might be ſaved, ſo all are made ſavable.] When this is embowelled, we ſhall ſee little cauſe why it ſhould be (after the expunging of ſo many Statings) entertained with confidence as that which hath moſt pertinency and light in it; But I ſhall firſt examine the members apart, and then the whole, conjoyned. In this large reſult, there are included theſe five particulars.
1. [That they are given to his dipoſe;] But let the Author ſeriouſly conſider (His opinion being laid aſide a while) whether this Phraſe, [To dye for] as it is ſpoken of Chriſt, hath the ſame meaning with (paying a price for) as any man doth, when he purchaſeth any perſon or thing into his diſpoſe; And is this Phraſe [Given to his diſpoſe] a fit expreſſion for [Ranſome or Redemption?] Ranſome or Redemption when ſpoken of man, alwaies preſuppoſe [miſery] and [liberty] as the tearmes, from which, to which, men are ranſomed and redeemed, but [being given into ones diſpoſe,] requireth neither. The Iſraelites had the Heathen in their diſpoſe, but they cannot in reaſon be ſaid to ranſome them, nor to bring them from miſery, and ſlavery, to liberty, but rather the contrary: Beſides, hath not Chriſt all the Creatures on Earth, the Angels in Heaven, the Devils in Hell, in his diſpoſe, for the good of his Church? But it would be no Scripture Language to ſay that he ranſomed, redeemed, all Creatures on Earth, Angels in Heaven, Devils in Hell: Therefore this expreſſion, let it ſtand by a while (as of no worth to expreſſe ranſome or redemption by) till we ſee what is in the reſt.
2. [That he will raiſe them out of the death he dyed for them, and ſet them alive before him:] which expreſſion ſavours much of the confuſion of its Author: His meaning herein dubious, and when ever diſcovered, it will appeare ſenſeleſſe: He muſt have one of theſe two ſenſes, either meaning of the Reſurrection at the laſt day, and ſo affirming, that being raiſed out of the duſt, and being made alive before him out of the duſt, is that ranſome or redemption mentioned in Scripture: Or elſe, that Chriſt dyed for us the ſame death which by his Death he freeth us from, but both abſurd. For the firſt, though it be put as a meanes and way to the poſſeſſion of that inheritance to which we are ranſomed and redeemed; Yet no Scripture giveth the Reſurrection the name of ranſome or redemption, as Chriſt is ſaid to redeeme or ranſome us, and the former very unfit to expreſſe this latter by, for then thoſe that are raiſed by his Judiciary power only, and that to receive their eternall and finall doome in hell, may in that Act be ſaid to be ranſomed and ſaved; but this who can beleeve? So for the ſecond, it is not any whit ſhorter in abſurditie: for the death which we are freed from is no way proportioned by the death which he dyed, we are to be freed from the death we were adjudged to, not what death he dyed himſelf; he came to ſave us ſo farre as we were loſt, but not to be ſo farre loſt himſelfe. Some ſutable proportion of ſufferings which he endured, to them which we deſerved I grant, but where they wanted indurance it was made up by the excellency of the perſon ſuffering; temporary ſufferings of that Perſon that was an infinite God, Act. 20.28. did countervaile eternall ſufferings of a finite Creature; we were adjudged to deaths, Temporall, Spirituall, Eternall, but Chriſt did not dye all theſe for us, yet freed us from the two laſt: he dyed the firſt for us and freed us not from it; he dyed not a Spirituall death, that is (in ſin,) for then he had not been an unſpotted Lambe: 1 Pet. 1.20. He dyed for our ſins, but we read not that he dyed in our ſins; and Eternally he dyed not, then had he not been juſtified himſelfe, nor juſtified us, yet he freed us from death both Spirituall and Eternall; therefore this expreſſion of the Author is obſcure, confuſed, and however taken abſurdly laid downe, as not reduceable to any right reaſon.
3. [They ſhall acknowledge him Lord, and come before his Judgement Seat:] that all men acknowledge him Lord, and come to be judged by him none yet denyed: But that being brought before his judgement ſeat, and being made to confeſſe him Lord, is to be ranſomed and redeemed, none (before our Author) have ever been ſo weake to affirme; for in and by eternall deſtruction men may be cauſed to acknowledge him Lord: but is it a ſober expreſſion to ſay that in eternall deſtruction we are ranſomed and redeemed?
4. [That he is ſo filled with Spirit for them to make it knowne, and with ſuch tenderneſſe to them that they might be ſaved.] But what is it which by his Spirit he makes knowne? Scripture telleth us that he is filled with Spirit to preach the Goſpell, Glad tidings, Liberty. Iſa. 61.1. But this is none of that god newes, Goſpell, that Chriſt is to Preach; For theſe, viz. [all are in his diſpoſe] ſhall be raiſed out of the duſt] ſhall acknowledge him Lord, and ſtand before his Judgement Seat] are no Goſpell newes, no glad tidings to them that call to the hils to cover them from the preſence of the Lambe, but to ſuch theſe particulars equally belong with all others.
Againe, He is filled with Spirit to make knowne that which requireth the worke of the Spirit to the actuall enjoying of it, and ſo filled with Spirit to give Spirit, that men might enjoy that which he maketh knowne. Luk. 4.18. As liberty, opening Priſon doores, Remiſſion of ſins, eternall life, and to the enjoyment of theſe the worke of the Spirit is requiſite, but to thoſe particulars which he furniſheth us withall, the workes of the Spirit in the hearts of men are no way requiſite; for men are, and ſhall be brought into his diſpoſe, raiſed up out of the duſt, ſtand alive before him, acknowledge him Lord, come before his Judgement Seat, though they never feele the worke of the Spirit upon their hearts; therefore why he ſhould be filled with Spirit to make any or all of theſe knowne, I would be enformed.
Againe, To make theſe known that men might be ſaved, is not conſonant to reaſon or Scripture, ſeeing theſe may be done and made known to ſuch men, and at ſuch a time when (in the judgement of all men) they are not ſalvable. Certainely, herein the Author commeth very ſhort, that which he is filled with Spirit to make knowne, that men might be ſaved, goeth further than all thoſe particulars.
5. [So that all are made ſalvable.] This is the Helena on which the Univerſaliſts are ſo enamoured; but this is no congruous expreſſion to expound [Ranſome] and [Redemption,] and [Salvation] by: no not in his owne principles; for [Ranſome] and [Redemption] is to all and every man, as he urgeth: But to be [ſalvable] is not attributed to all men, but to the reſidue that are not Elect. For by [ſalvable] is meant only [ſalvable] and not [infallibly to be ſaved] and ſo [ſalvandi] now he ſaith the Elect are undoubtedly to be ſaved, and ſo [ſalvandi] and the reſt they are (ſalvabiles) in a poſſibility of Salvation. Againe, to be but ſalvable, argues that thoſe are equally damnable; for [ſalvable] is, and muſt be taken to be ſaved if they beleeve, and damned if they beleeve not. Now to ſay that Chriſt came to make men ſalvable only, argues that Condemnation had equall ſhare and intereſt in his comming with Salvation, but this is not Scripture Language. Joh. 16.17. Againe, to be Ranſomed, Redeemed, Saved, as Chriſt came to Ranſome, Redeeme, Save, require the worke of the Spirit of God upon the heart: But to [be in a ſalvable condition] doth not. Longer might I inſiſt on theſe, but by this it appeares that no one of thoſe particulars mentioned, nor all of them joyntly, do equall thoſe termes of [Ranſome] and [Redemption,] and therefore not well produced as their definition; and hath the Author ever obſerved in all his judicious peruſall of other mens workes, that when it hath been controverted, Whether Chriſt hath ranſomed and redeemed every man, this hath been the reſult of their litigations, Whether all are in his diſpoſe, ſhall be raiſed at the laſt day, acknowledge him Lord, appeare before his judgement ſeat? And doth the Author thinke that this was the judgement of that Learned man whom he eiteth to authorize the laſt State of the Queſtion? Or doth he thinke that when the Queſtion is propounded, [whether Chriſt hath dyed for every man] that theſe ſhould be the reſult, and the hinge on which Controverſies turne? I thinke he cannot be ſo ſenſeleſſe. But he herein diſcovers that he puts the ſtate of the Queſtion in that which the word [Ranſome,] [Redemption,] and [dye for] cannot in Scripture Language admit: And as it was never yet by any controverted to this day, therefore how faithfully and learnedly he hath addreſſed himſelfe to this taske, I leave to any to judge. Theſe might have been paſſed by as ſhort of the buſineſſe, yet being thus diſcovered, they let us ſee ſome things concerning the Author.
1. His ambitious affectation, in ſtuffing his Diſcourſe with ſeeming variety of ſtaſtings of the Queſtions, thereby to magnifie his vaſt reading, (when indeed he cannot produce them from any Pen,) and his peircing judgement in caſting out (as by an Index expurgatorius) that which is Heterodoxall, when every State is abuſed by himſelfe for his owne ends.
2. His groſſe and diſhoneſt perverſion of mens words, producing them in ſuch Formes as may render them ridiculous, and ſubject to his rejection and correction.
3. His great indiſcretion, in troubling the world with an Elaborate Diſcourſe, wherein he commeth not at all to the true ſtate of the Queſtion, nor fully diſcovers to his Readers what he would have, as if he intended nothing elſe, but to let the world know how much he can write to no purpoſe.
But to come to ſome more perſpicuous ſtate of the Queſtion as hath been alwaies given, that ſo we may ſee the pertinency and validity of his whole Diſcourſe. I could produce many expreſſions from many Authors about this buſineſſe, who grant an Univerſality, but not in favour to his Tenet, but I will not multiply words, leſt I run upon the ſame Rocke on which the Author hath ſplit himſelfe; neither ſhall I inſert what I find delivered in a dogmaticall way,…ta. Synod. …. …. iv. Mol. … Sect. 1. …4. … Hag p. 9. nor what is every particular mans judgement, for the full ſtate is ſeldome deduced from ſuch: But I ſhall rather addreſſe my ſelfe to Controverſall Diſcourſes, and that to Conferences and Conventions, of many, and thoſe of both ſides, where we may preſume the Queſtion is ſtated to the greateſt advantage on both ſides; and ſo I give it in theſe particulars.
…s Coron. …oll p. 116. …eſ. Anty. …0. Sect. 6.Firſt, The Queſtion was never propounded, or the State given in theſe tearmes: [An Chriſtus mortuus eſt pro omnibus?] Whether Chriſt hath dyed for [All] [the World] [the whole World] but thus, [pro omnibus & ſingulis] as may be ſeene in all Controverſies in this point: and that upon this ground, becauſe [All men] (nemine negante) is taken for all ſorts of men, or for every individuall,Twiſſe vind. grat. lib. 1. Part 2 Sect. 22. p. 255…. the firſt whereof is granted on all hands, the ſecond in queſtion; therefore men of any ingenuity have waved ſuch equivocall ſtate of the Queſtion: As to ſay, Chriſt hath dyed for all men: So that that Diſcourſe, or that propoſition that ſaith no more then this, that he hath ranſomed (all men) (the world) (the whole world) commeth ſhort of the Queſtion.
Secondly, The Queſtion hath not been propounded, or ſtated in an unlimited or indefinite ſenſe, as [An Chriſtus mortu us eſt pro omnibus & ſingulis] and no more, [Whether Chriſt dyed for all and every man, in any kind, or to procure any good] but theſe controverſies have been reſtrained to eternall life, and pardon of ſin its inſeparable prognoſticke: And the aſſertion of the Defendants (on his ſide) hath been this, [Chriſtus pro omnibus & ſingulis inpetravit peccatorum remiſsionem, Corv. in Mol. Cap. 27. Sect. 1. 424.& ſalutem] as ſee may any ſee in the Arminian Tracts: The Teſtimony of that great and acute Remoſt. hath it thus; [Morte Chriſti omnibus & ſingulis reconciliationem, peccatorum remiſſionem, ac ſalutem aeternam eſſe partam, ſententia noſtra eſt:] That is, [That by Chriſt his Death, there is procured for every man reconciliation, pardon of ſin, and eternall Salvation, it is our judgement] Therefore that Diſcourſe, and that Propoſition that hold forth no more but this, that he dyed for all and every man, and not ſignifying the determinate end and good that he impetrated for them, comes ſhort of the genuine ſtate of the Queſtion, and that Queſtion is Equivocally propounded, and the words ſpoken in purſuance of it are vainly and impertinently produced. That I may a little cleare this buſineſſe, and prove to any underſtanding that this ſtate of the Queſtion is to be heeded in theſe Controverſies: The word Redemption is to take its denomination from the miſery which we are redeemed from; according to a Temporall, Spirituall, Eternall miſery, and Thraledome, there is a Temporall, Spirituall, Eternall Redemption; if ſpoken of ſuch a miſery from which all are redeemed, then it is an univerſall Redemption: if of ſuch from which ſome only are redeemed, then it is a ſpeciall Redemption. Now the miſery which man in generall and every individuall lay under, was graduall, and a complication of more deaths then one, as our Author confeſſeth, Pag. 99. where he giveth it the name of deaths in the plurall number, and it is apparant from Scripture, that all kinds of deaths mentioned there, are the fruit of ſin, Rom. 5.12. By ſin death paſſed, all death, but we find in Scripture a death Temporall, Spirituall, Eternall: as Joh. 11.4. Eph. 2.11. 1 Joh. 1.16. Rev. 2.11. By Temporall death we were to loſe our naturall life, a ſeparation of the Soule from the Body, and in that death to loſe all naturall comforts which tended to our comfortable living, and ſo the whole Creation made for our uſe to be reduced to its firſt nothing; By Spirituall death we were to loſe our Spirituall good, the Image of God, and his graces, to become dead in ſins, alienated from the life of God, and ſo to be denyed his glorious preſence for ever, which makes up the greateſt part of Eternall death; this third not being different from the ſecond ſpecifically, but only [gradu & duratione.] And to all this there was one degree of miſery more, all this was remedileſly (without a Saviour) and incontinently without delay to fall upon man, [In the day thou eateſt thou ſhalt dye the death.] Now had not Chriſt intervened and interpoſed, the Juſtice of God could not have brooked one moments reſpite. Now here is a great latitude left for Chriſt by his Death to procure ſome good for every Creature, for every man, and yet the freedome from Eternall death, and procurement of Eternall life, not to be ſo generall as to reach to all men. Yea, in this caſe Chriſt did interpoſe, and every man hath benefit by it; Every man is freed from the preſent incumbency of the miſery, and ſo to a life of nature, and ſo to the uſe of the Creatures, they being given to man not quâ (integer) but quâ (homo) and that every man is thus farre redeemed from the incumbency of the miſery none hath denyed, common experience ſhewes. But then whether or no thoſe are ſuch as Chriſt in Scripture Phraſe is ſaid to (dye for) and to ranſome: Or whether to all ſo, and in ſuch a meaſure freed, He is ſaid in Scripture to intend Eternall life, it is very queſtionable, and never yet proved. The end of God and Chriſt in giving ſo much to every man, I will not now either examine or determine: But one we may be furniſhed with from the Author, That though mans condition was ſuch as deſerved the preſent incumbency of the Curſe, yet that, and the execution of many of Gods Eternall purpoſes concerning his Son, and his Elect, could not both have their accompliſhment; God having elected his Son Chriſt to union Hypoſtaticall, and office of a Mediatour, to give and beſtow life to ſuch a number of men whom he had elected to bring infallibly to Grace and Glory, and that abſolutely without any foreſight of faith, or any good, as he granteth, Pag. 118, 119. 120. Which Decrees could not have been accompliſhed had the Curſe been ſpeedily and preſently executed, then had not Chriſt been borne, he being to come through the multiplication of ſuch a long Genealogie, nor his Elect had any being to have been the Subjects either of Grace or Glory, many of them being to iſſue from the Loynes of thoſe to whom God had decreed to deny both Grace and Glory: That this was only the ſole and chiefe end of Chriſt in interpoſing, yea for them that never come to have Eternall life, I will not determine, but leave it to the Author to conſider, whether there was not ground enough for him to intend ſome good to every man by his Death, and yet not intend eternall life for them? Therefore to let this paſſe for granted, that Chriſt did ſo far interpoſe himſelfe for every man, as to keepe off from him the preſent imcumbency of the miſery, ſo to continue to him his forfeited being, a roome in the world, and the Creatures for his ſubſiſtence. [And could he make it good from Col. 1.20. that in this ſenſe he hath reconciled the world of Creatures (wherewith God was angry for mans delinquency) ſo far as to have them continued in their borrowed and created being, it could not any thing intrench upon the Queſtion] By vertue of which interpoſall he hath procured, and every man enjoyeth many benefits, I will not undertake to make a full enumeration of them: but let it go thus far, that every good that any man enjoyeth it is a ſtreame flowing from that bloudy ſide of our Saviour; And were it ſo that by vertue of this he might be ſaid to taſte of death for every man, as Heb. 2.9. To be the Saviour of all men, as 1 Tim. 4.10. To have bought them that periſh with a ſwift deſtruction, as 2 Pet. 2.1. And that not only (quodammodo liberati) as the contra Remonſt. would ſupply that Text,Coll. Hag. 143. but that this they have by the vertue of Chriſts Bloud: Were all this proved and ſtood firme, I ſhould embrace it, I deny it not: Nay, my thoughts are, that if Chriſt had not procured it, no man ſhould have had any good, it being as well againſt juſtice to give the leaſt mercy, as Eternall life without a Saviour, for [Juſtitia conſtat in minimis.] And were the expreſſion ſuch as the Remonſt. through the great croud of Notions ſometimes let ſlip in too rude a drought,Acta Synod. P. …83. [Effectum Chriſti mortis eſt reſtitutio in talem ſtatum in quo Deus nobis & beneficia ſua communicare & poteſt & vult:] That is, [The effect of Chriſts Death is ſuch that God may beſtow his benefits as he ſeeth good,] leaving the words in ſuch a latitude, that they may admit of a diverſity of good to divers perſons, ſome good to every man, ſome good only to ſome men; Herein few Adverſaries would appeare. He may give many good things, that never intendeth to give Eternall life; But then all this would not ſatisfie, in all this there would be a double deficiencie.
1. All this wants proofe to be meant, when Chriſt is ſaid to [dye for] and to [Ranſome,] and to [Redeeme,] As if he is ſaid in Scripture Phraſe, to dye for them for whom he procured ſome good. I thinke Scripture doth not ſay Chriſt to have dyed for ſuch, but rather for them that were the chiefe end, and for whoſe fake he gives ſuch mercies to them that never come to have life; as to inſtance, He dyed not for them to whom he gives any outward priviledge, but rather for them for whoſe ſakes they were ſo, that ſo by that they might come to be, and be brought to repentance, and ſo to life. And I would entreat the Author to furniſh me with ſome Arguments to prove that all the good he ſheweth to thoſe men that never come to life, is not ſhewne them for the Elects ſake chiefly; and that the end why the world is not conſumed, is not chiefly that the Elect might in their times and ſeaſons be brought to Repentance.
2. Herein is not the ſtate of the Queſtion, but we are yet beſides the Controverſies, all things have been quiet till they came to ſay, [That Chriſt procured life and Salvation for every man] and in the hotteſt Diſputes about this Point I find ſuch expreſſions as puts the caſe out of all doubt:Amoſ. Anty. Synod p. 176. [Si vago ſenſu quaeratur an Chriſtus pro Electis aliquo modo mortuus ſit, an pro omnibus aliquo modo, nulla hic eſt certa & determinata queſtio, nec ſenſus & modus determinatus: Neque poteſt vel poſterior pars à noſtris, nec prior à Remonſt. abſolute negari.] The maine foreign and Queſtion is ſtill where it was, viz. [Whether Chriſt hath purchaſed pardon of ſin and Eternall life for every individuall man.]
Thirdly, That the ſtate of the Queſtion may fully and clearely appeare, there is ſome debate in a third particular, and that is about the Act of Chriſt, as the firſt was about the object, the ſecond the end: For, that he bringeth all to ſalvation and eternall life, no Remonſt. durſt ever yet affirme, or that Chriſt by his death hath procured that every man ſhall infallibly be ſaved, that they would ſhake off from them: but this they ſay, He hath procured that all men may be ſaved if they beleeve.
Hence we ſhall find in all their tracts this diſtinction of
Impetration
Application
of Salvation.
The firſt, for every man: The ſecond for beleevers. But becauſe Impetration is not ſo familiar to common underſtandings, we ſhall find in other tearmes thus: [Intentio & ſcopus Christi fuit omnes ſervare, Coll. Hag 176.tamen aliter evenit propter ipſorum culpam.] [That it was Chriſts intention to ſave all men, but through their fault it happens otherwiſe.] But herein they give no ſatisfaction, but ſeeme to implicate themſelves; for ſtrange it is that anything can (aliter evenire) to Chriſts intention: and if Corvinus argue rightly it cannot:In Molin. 4 cap 28. Sect. 2 pag 448. [Chriſtus exauditur ſemper ſive ſalvantur ſive non, quia orat…cum annexa fidei conditione.] Chriſt is heard alwaies whether men be ſaved or no, becauſe his Prayer had a condition annexed. So why any thing ſhould (aliter evenire) and he not have his intent whether men beleeve or no, becauſe his intention is but (annexâ fidei conditione) they cannot clearely ſhew, but ſuch inſatisfactory implications are no ſtrange things in the beſt aſſertors of that Doctrine. But the full ſtate of the Queſtion ariſeth out of theſe particulars thus.
[Whether Chriſt by his death did intend or purpoſe to procure remiſſion of ſins, and eternall life for every man either abſolutely, or upon any condition.] The Affirmative is the Judgement of Arminius and his Followers: The Negative of the contra Remonſt. and their Followers. And that Propoſition, or that Diſcourſe, or thoſe places that ariſe not to that height are vainely produced in this Controverſie.
As for the Diſcourſe of the Author, it either ariſeth not at all, or very obſcurely to this ſtate in its genuine Altitude, but I find an interwoven miſcellany of expreſſes, ſometimes attempting to riſe to this State, ſometimes receding from it, pitching his thoughts upon a far leſſe degree: As to inſtance, ſomtimes he ſaith, [He hath wrought for all men that they might be eternally ſaved. Pag. 15.) Sometimes againe, bating of this, and putting his end in his Death, and the thing to be procured thereby, only [That he might be Lord of all, and have all in his diſpoſe, Pag. 142.] And with many inſtances of both kinds the Reader may ſupply that have peruſed his Treatiſe, as if he intended his Diſcourſe [A materia prima capax omnium formarum,] turned any way according to the temper of his Reader: which fluctuating expreſſions trouble the minds of his Reader, as not able to conclude what he intendeth, and is very unbecomming any who intendeth to be either ingenuous or faithfull in the buſineſſe. But I put the buſineſſe to this iſſue, Either he ariſeth to this ſtate, or not: If he doth not, what need of that grand diſtinction ſo long inſiſted on in the firſt Chapter, ſeeing that to nothing but eternall Salvation (or with reference only to that) can the worke of the Spirit of God in the hearts of men be thought requiſite? What need of his buſie Diſcourſe if that be not the buſineſſe he intendeth to prove, viz. [That Chriſt procured eternall Salvation for every Son of Adam?] None ever yet ſtirred in any other Controverſie, neither needed he feare any moleſtation. And if he do, then my next taske is to examine how his whole Diſcourſe manageth the buſineſſe, and how pertinent his expreſſes are to the Queſtion thus ſtated. To which I proceed: