The Universalist Examined and Convicted, Chapter 13

The Universalist Examined and Convicted · Chapter 13

p. 156CHAP. XIII. Of anſwering the moſt uſuall and ſtrongeſt objections againſt this truth.

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

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

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

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

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

He afterwards thus argueth.

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

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

Reaſon. 1.

[Becauſe theſe expreſſions, (the Vine) [this is my body] [I am the doore] are not meant as the words ſeeme to import.] Theſe inſtances he produceth, therefore I ſhall engage with theſe, though more might be produced and others more cleare: thus we urge, if theſe places be not meant as the words ſeem to import, then all Scriptures are not; to this he anſwers thus. This reaſon is unjuſt, injurious, abſurd, falſe, ſo of no ſtrength: and thus he runneth up his black mouth'd catalogue, p. 158Page 75. which in cloſe will be his owne ſhare; he would prove it injurious thus;

[It is confeſſed by all Interpreters as an argument againſt Papiſts, that what ever is neceſſary to ſalvation is therein plainely delivered, as the humble and diligent reader may eaſily underſtand,] but he may know

1. That no Interpreter ſaith that every ſcripture is plain and eaſily to be underſtood, neither are we engaged ſo to ſay in any controverſie between us and the Papiſts; they ſay indeed that many are and ſuch as are neceſſary to ſalvation, but this is no way injured by ſaying that ſome Scriptures meane not as the words ſeem to import.

2. They may ſay that what is neceſſary to ſalvation is plaine; but many places that are urged by the Author, as they relate to the point in controverſie, are not abſolutely neceſſary to ſalvation. Neceſſary it is for us to know Chriſt to die for ſinne, and to be the Meſſiah, and to procure life for them that beleeve; but whether for ſome or for all, it is not neceſſary to ſalvation to know; for I am not ſo uncharitable as to thinke other, but that many holding his doctrine are ſaved, and I hope he is not ſo uncharitable as to hold that they that hold againſt him cannot be ſaved. I beleeve Heaven hath a great harveſt of them that never could aſſent to his doctrine: therefore to ſay that thoſe Scriptures that are not abſolutely neceſſary to ſalvation to be knowne, are not to be meant as the words import, is not injurious to the ſaying of Interpreters, that proceeds upon ſuch as are neceſſary to ſalvation.

3. They may ſay that ſuch neceſſary truths are plaine to an humble and diligent rearer; true; but we ſay to an unwary and arrogant Reader, that to foment his owne conceits will ſnatch at the naturall import of the wo…d to uphold it, to ſuch the ſenſe may not be plaine, nor as the words import; the humble and diligent Reader may eaſily perceive that many places are not meant as the words import. So that in this here is a clamour of injury, no proofe.

He would prove it unjuſt thus.

[It is unjuſt, ſeeing it is granted by Interpreters that hard and difficult places, as Sacramentall, allegoricall, parabolicall, are to be opened by plaine places, not plaine places obſcured by them.] This though true, makes nothing to the proving what we ſay unjuſt. For

1. That which we affirme is (that all places are not meant as the words import;) now in that he mentioneth hard, difficult places, as Sacramentall, parabolicall, allegoricall, he confirmeth us; for in ſuch expreſſes, the ſenſe is not as the words ſeeme to import.

2. It proveth not the aſſertion unjuſt, becauſe we doe not obtrude any ſenſe upon 1 Tim. 2.6. Heb. 2.9. from ſuch hard places; onelyonly ſhow that as in thoſe places the ſenſe is not as the words import, ſo it may be in theſe, leaving the ſenſe to enquiry: and where is the injuſtice in this?

3. He ſaith in the beginning that it is unjuſt to ſay that theſe words [I am a doore, a vine] doe not mean as the words import; yet now he ſaith theſe being pa…bolicall, are to be explained by plainer Texts; but what needs that, if they be meant as the words import? this is not to evince us, but to contradict himſelfe.

He prooveth it abſurd and groſſe thus.

[It is groſſe, intimating as if the ſenſe of the words ſeeme to import that Chriſt was a doore of wood; or as if the bread was tranſubſtantiate into the naturall body of Chriſt, whereas there is no words p. 159importing ſuch a ſenſe.] But it is not halfe ſo groſſe as the Authors underſtanding, that knoweth not how to diſtinguiſh betwixt the words and ſenſe of the words; we ſay the words mean not as they ſeem to import. And he ſaith it is groſſe, intimating that the ſenſe of the words import Chriſt a materiall doore: groſſe indeed, but this is not the ſenſe of our aſſertion. But this we may ſay, that the words may ſeeme to import ſome ſuch thing, though it be but a groſſe conceit; true it is that any that is acquainted with Scripture language may be able to explode ſuch a ſenſe; but thoſe that are not ſo well acquainted with it may as well by the import of the words thinke Chriſt to be a materiall doore, as Nicodemus of a naturall birth, his Diſciples of a materiall leaven of bread, when he ſpake of the leaven of hereſie and hypocriſie; and the Jewes of the materiall Temple, when he ſpake of the Temple of his Body; yet in in all theſe (how groſſe ſoever) they followed the naturall import of the words. But he illuſtrateth himſelf in this manner.

[If a man ſay to his ſervant, reach me my cloth in the preſſe, and a Dame to her maide, turne the cheeſe in the preſſe; the child cries to his mother, the pot runneth over: cannot theſe be underſtood in the ſenſe that the words import?] Certainely, Animus fuit in patinis, his minde was in his diſhes, or in the potridge pot; but if his underſtanding had not runne over with the pot, he might have ſeen a wide difference between a Metonymy, and a Metaphor: the inſtances that he produceth are no way oppoſite to the caſe in hand; for if they had, they ſhould have run thus. If a man ſhould lay to his ſervant I am a preſſe, o… the child to his mother, I am a pot, let the Author tell; may ſuch ſayings be underſtood in the ſenſe they ſeeme to import? I am neceſſitated to traverſe his exotricke examples.

He proveth it falſe thus.

[It is falſe, for Chriſt is the doore and way of entrance into peace with God, and he is the true Vine indeed, John. 15.1.] Be it ſo, yet as he intendeth his owne meaning, the naturall import of the words doth not afford it; we ſay not that he is not the doore of entrance into God and peace, but that by the naturall import of the words themſelves ſuch a meaning cannot be deduced: beſides Chriſt is no more a doore, or a Vine, then he is ſaid to be the ſeeds man, the field the World, the good ſeed the Children of the Kingdome, the Tares the children of the wicked one, the harveſt the end of the World, the reapers the Angels, Mat. 13.37.38, 39, but theſe have not a reall identity, but a ſimilitude, as verſe 24. The Kingdome of Heaven is like to a man that ſowed, ſo in the reſt, ſo in this, it meaneth but thus; Chriſt is like a doore, and like a Vine, beareth an analogy with them, therefore the Text ſaith, he ſpake to them this parable, Iohn. 10.6. relating to the ſame buſineſſe: yet if any ſhall thinke him a materiall doore, they ſhall be deceived, though he ſay I am the doore. As for that phraſe [This is is my body] he thus anſwer…th,

[He ſaith not this bread is my body, nor any word to colour ſuch a groſſe conceit as tranſubſtantiation.] Whereas he ſaith [it ſaith not [this bread is my body,] he muſt meane as if Chriſt ſhould ſay this [meaning his owne body, he being there preſent,] is my body; but this is weake and abſurd, not to inſiſt upon thoſe reaſons deduced from the Sacramentall uſe and relation, betwixt his body and that which he ſpake of; but it could not be Sacramentall if he meant his body; for it could not be both the ſigne and thing ſignified. Not to inſiſt on reaſons deduced p. 160from our ſhewing Chriſts death till he come, in breaking of bread, as 1 Cor. 11. which cannot be, if the bread broken and given was not the ſigne of the body of Chriſt. Nor yet to inſiſt upon frequent uſe of Scriptures, wherein ſuch expreſſions are uſed, to call a thing by that which they only repreſent, as Gen. 41.26. [The ſeven leane Kine are ſeven yeares] &c. But this argument I chiefely propound; when he took the cup, and ſaid [this is my blood] what did he ſhew them? ſome drops of his blood? certainely he meant not his blood, but the wine that he took; let him decide himſelfe, Luke. 22.20. foreign [this cup is my blood.] then it is abſurd to ſay or thinke that the other ſhould not be [this bread is my body] and was not the Author ambitious of confuting a Papiſt after the new faſhion? he could not but ſee that that word [This] relateth to bread which he tooke; now the words being thus, following the import of the word [Is] may wee not runne into the error of tranſubſtantiation? let but the Author grant the Papiſt that the bread is the body of Chriſt, as they take the word according to its naturall import, that is, really, identically, corporeally, and they will not be beholden to him to grant it tranſubſtantiate; for if it be what it was not, it muſt be tranſubſtantiate into what it is; ſo that now what injury, injuſtice, abſurdity, falſity there is in our firſt reaſon let any judge; and clear it is that the Scripture doth not alwayes mean as the words import, no not in thoſe Texts mentioned; therefore thoſe Texts, 1 Tim. 2.6. Heb. 2 9. may not be underſtood as the words ſeeme to import.

Reaſon. 2.

The ſecond reaſon by which we prove that all Scripture is not underſtood as the words ſeeme to import, is this; becauſe the phraſes (All men) (every man) &c. ſeems to import no leſſe then every ſonne of Adam; elſe the Author would not ſo confidently faſten that large ſenſe upon them; but in many Texts ſuch phraſes meane but ſome of Adams ſonnes; therefore not to be underſtood as the words ſeeme to import; to this he anſwers.

[This reaſon is already anſwered, and proved vaine and fraudulent in Cap. 5.] In this reaſon there are two things, the Antecedent and Conſequent; the Antecedent is of two branches. Firſt, that (All men) (every man) ſeeme to import no leſſe then every ſonne of Adam. Secondly, that in many places it is not ſo largely to be underſtood: the conſequence is this, therefore every Scripture is not to be underſtood as the words ſeeme to import. Now let any peroſe his fifth Chapter, and ſee which of all theſe he hath proved vaine and fraudulent. In my ſixth Chapter I have remooved the ſuppoſed vanity and fraud of this reaſon, by proving theſe three particulars.

1. That where the ſpeech is of God, and by God, thoſe phraſes take not in all Adams ſonnes.

2. That thoſe phraſes are not to have the ſame latitude in Redemption as in Creation.

3. That the buſineſſe treated of in 1 Tim. 2.6. Heb. 2.9. doth not evince thoſe places to have that large extent, to which Chapter I referre the Reader; therefore this reaſon is alſo valid.

Reaſon. 3.

The third reaſon by which we prove that Scripture is not alwayes meant as the words import, as he produceth it, is this [Becauſe the death of Christ is oft ſaid to be but for many, and thoſe many his Sheepe.] Now before I reply to his anſwers, I muſt premiſe the authors unjuſt forgeries in theſe 2 particulars.

p. 1611. This is not brought by any (that I know) as a third reaſon, but may be as an illuſtration of the ſecond: thus (All men) (every man) in 1 Tim. 2.6. &c. doe not take in every ſonne of Adam; becauſe the death of Chriſt is in Scripture ſaid to be for many, for his ſheepe.

2. None ſaith that the Scripture ſaith (but for many) but we ſay that it is ſo to be underſtood: therefore All men, cannot be proved neceſſarily to take in all Adams ſons. to this he anſwers.

[This reaſon is weake, for the word many ſignifieth all and every, as Dan. 12.2. Rom. 15.19.] Be it ſo, yet let us ſee where the weakeneſſe lies moſt; we argue thus. The death of Chriſt is ſaid in Scripture to be for many, and that many his ſheepe, therefore meant but for many; Therefore when it is ſaid to be for all men, it is not cleare that that phraſe taketh in all Adams ſonnes. He thus reaſons. The word many ſometimes takes in all and every, therefore there where it is ſpoken of the death of Chriſt, it muſt take in every ſonne of Adam; or thus, many, in Dan. 12.2. is not meant but of ſome; therefore many, in Mat. 26 28. is not ſo meant; let any judge which is moſt weake; one particular cannot conclude negatively againſt an other particular▪ nay ſuppoſe (many) in ſome places take in every ſonne of Adam, yet in moſt places, ten to one, it excludeth the largeſt ſenſe, then we may juſtly doubt whether that place, Mat. 26.28. be ſo large in extent.

[This is equivocall, ſubtil and fraudulent, ſeeing when (All men) (every man) is affirmed of the death of Chriſt, and the ranſome and fruits thereof only is affirmed for them.]

This reply is more full of weakeneſſe then ſubtilty; for let this be granted, yet this is not refelled thereby; that it is not cleare beyond all doubt that (All men) (every man) take in every ſon of Adam. For

1. The words (All men) every man) are uſed when yet there is higher matter ſpoken of then death or ranſome as he taketh ranſome.

2. When he ſpeakes of death or ranſome, it is ſometimes expreſſed generally but in more reſtrictive termes.

3. When in that caſe ſuch generall words are uſed, they are not yet proved to have ſuch a generall ſenſe as to take in every ſon of Adam. All theſe I have proved at large before, therefore little there is in his anſwer.

[This reaſon is falſe and ungodly, for it is no where in Scripture ſaid that Chriſt gave himſelfe a ranſome but for many, or onelyonly for many, or onelyonly for his ſheepe, and it is ungodlineſſe to adde to or are from the word of God.]

Be it ſo, what is it againſt us? we ſay not it is the words of Scripture, but that it doth not yet appeare to us but that it is the true ſenſe, becauſe that the word (Many) in moſt places of Scripture excludes that generall ſenſe, and meaneth (but many) therfore till better proofes to the contrary, we may conclude th…t that Text, Mat 20 28. is meant but ſo many; and what ungodlineſſe or falſity is this? no nor adding to the word; for that Text 1 Tim. 2.6. ſaith not that Chriſt is a ranſome for every ſonne of Adam, but our Author ſaith it is the ſenſe of it, yet he is not willing to be charged with adding to the word.

Neither do we ſay that it is the words of Scripture, that he laid downe his life for his ſheepe onelyonly: (therefore thus to charge is both falſe and ungodly) but we ſay it p. 162is ſo meant, as may appeare by the current of promiſes and the whole ſeries of Iohn 10. and we need not feare to affirme this, more then John. 3.16. to be meant of Beleevers onelyonly, when he ſaith [That thoſe that beeleeve might not periſh,] but of this I have ſpoken at large formerly.

[This reaſon is deceitfull and erroneous, for the Scripture doth not ſay thoſe many he died for are his ſheepe.] Wherein we may ſee the Author hath an excellent faculty in multiplication of particulars without neceſſity; he had before at his ſecond charge objected againſt it that it was (fraudulent;) now as his fourth, he chargeth it with (deceitfulneſſe,) and as his third he charged it with (falſe,) no… with (erroneous;) I wonder that as he charged it with ungodlineſſe, he doth not charge it after with impiety; certainely he wanteth matter ſeeing he uſeth ſo many words ridiculouſly.

2. We finde not expreſſe words thus, [thoſe many he died for are his ſheepe,] neither doe we ſo affirme, but by comparing Scriptures there is that by good conſequence; for John. 10.15. faith [I lay downe my life for my ſheepe.] Mat. 20.28. ſaith it is for [many,] therefore theſe are affirmed by good conſequence, that thoſe ſheepe are many, and that many are ſheepe. So Iſay. 53. ſaith, [He ſhall juſtifie many,] and Rom. 4.5. ſaith, [He juſtifieth the ungodly;] thence we conclude, that many is ungodly, and thoſe ungodly are many: the Author and all the Remonſtrants take liberty thus to argue, Mat. 20.28. ſaith, it is for many, yet 1 Tim. 2.6. ſaith it is for all. Hence they conclude that thoſe many are all; and this reaſoning we allow give us but liberty ſo to argue, and that which we ſay appeares no deceit; and in that Mat 20.28. ſaith, for many 1 Tim. 2.6. for all, John. 10.15. for his ſheepe, we dare hence conclude, that (many) (All) (ſheepe) are concentred in one, and thus we reaſon, many are all and all are ſheepe, and thoſe ſheepe many, and the errour herein is no where yet made cleare to us.

[As for that Text John. 10.15. it is much abuſed, for our Saviour doth not ſet forth the difference between ſuch as he died for, and died not for, &c. But thoſe that beleeve on him, and thoſe that beleeve not on him. verſe. 4, 5.14.26.27.] Whereby it appeareth that he hath not yet diſcovered the chiefe drift of that Chapter, which is to ſhow the difference betwixt himſelfe the good Sheepheard, and thoſe hirelings which he ſo ſharpely charges, verſe 12. So that neither of thoſe differences are principally intended. Yet,

2. Both thoſe differences are ſecondarily intended and proſecuted; for be it ſo that he puts the difference between them that beleeve and them that beleeve not, what differences are they? let us peruſe the Text: one is, they that beleeve are ſheepe, thoſe that perſiſt in infidelity are not ſo, ver. 26. this is now in relation to God, all are beleevers or unbeleevers; ſo all are ſheepe or goates, but there are other differences, ſomething what they doe for Chriſt, ſomething what Chriſt doth for them; as [his Sheepe know him,] others doe not: his ſheepe [heare his voice] others doe not. ver. 14. Herein is a double difference cleare, betwixt them that are ſheepe and are not, and them that know him and heare him and them that doe not. So in the things he doth for them, [I know my ſheepe, ver. 14.] others not, [Mat. 25.12.] now will any ſay that here is not a double difference? viz. betwixt them that are ſheepe, and them that are not; the one be knoweth, the other not; as alſo between them that are knowne of him, and them that are not; the one as ſheepe, the other not. So in the other, [I lay downe my life for my ſheepe,] now is not here a cleare difference two p. 163wayes, betwixt ſheepe and not ſheepe? the one he died for, the other not, and another involved in it, betwixt them he died for, and thoſe for whom he died not; the one are his ſheepe, the other are not: So in ver. 27, 28. he ſaith, [My ſheepe heare me, and I give them eternall life;] here is a manifeſt difference between ſheepe and not ſheepe, the one have eternall life, the other not: as alſo between them that have eternall life, and them that have not; the one are ſheepe the other are not; ſuch as theſe, and all theſe have in them [differentiam convertibilem] convertible differences that may be formed either wayes; therefore the abuſe of the place lighteth upon himſelfe; for in ſhowing the difference betwixt them that beleeve, and beleeve not; that are ſheepe, and thoſe that are not: he likewiſe ſhoweth the difference betwixt them that Chriſt died for, and them for whom he did not.

[Neither doth he ſhow the priviledge of all he died for, but of thoſe that beleeve on him through the Miniſtration of the Goſpell.] Theſe are ſtill oppoſed very ill; for in ſhowing the priviledges of them that beleeve, he ſhoweth alſo of them for whom he died; for he layeth downe his life for his ſheepe. But if we ſoberly conſider the Text, it will appeare that he layeth downe the priviledge of them for whom he died. For ver. 27. he ſaith, [my ſheepe heare my voice,] doth he not there ſhow the mutuall priviledges of them that are ſheepe, and alſo of them that heare his voice? thoſe that are his ſheepe heare his voice, and ſuch as heare his voice are his ſheepe. ver. 14. [I know my ſheepe,] doth he not there ſhow that all that are knowne of him are ſheepe? ver. 28. [I give my ſheepe eternall life.] doth he not there ſhow, that all to whom he giveth eternall life are ſheepe? if any heare his voice, or know him, or he know any, or give life to any but ſheepe, then are his expreſſes invalid. So in ver. 15. [I lay down my life for my ſheepe;] let him tell me (and not abuſe both reaſon and Scripture) doth not he here ſhow likewiſe that all that he died for are ſheepe? if ſo, then he ſhoweth the priviledge of all he died for, they are ſheep, therefore hear him, he knoweth them, and giveth to them all eternall life; and what is more cleare then this?

[Nor was our Saviour ſo much treating of his ranſome giving, &c. as of his Miniſtration of the Goſpel, and ſo his love and faithfulneſſe in it, in laying downe his life for the miniſtred to; and therein gave us an example not to make propitiation for ſinne, but to teſtifie love in ſuffering.] What paines taketh he to abuſe himſelfe, his readers, and the Text at once? For

1. It appeareth plainely that verſe 15. doth chiefely and only ſpeake of his ranſome giving in that it treateth of laying downe his life; for in giving his life he gave a ranſome, Mat. 20.28. [Shall give his life a ranſome for many] why ſhould he ſo abuſe the Text, as to ſay it treateth not of ranſome giving, when it manifeſtly treateth of giving his life?

2. Whereas he ſaith, [not ſo much of his ranſome as miniſtration of the Goſpell,] ſeemes to intimate that his giving a ranſome or dying, is no part of his miniſtration; that there is a wide difference between them; but he herein abuſes his readers; for his giving his life is the greateſt part of his miniſtration. Mat. 20 28. [But to miniſter and give his life a ranſome for many]

3. Whereas he ſaith, [not ſo much of ranſome giving, as his love and faithfulneſſe in giving his life for the miniſtred to;] intimating that his giving his life, is not a p. 164giving a ranſome: but doth not he herein abuſe Scripture, his Readers, himſelfe at once… what is ranſome but the life of Chriſt, Mat. 20.28. his life a ranſome for many?

4. His laſt clauſe, viz. [as an example not of making propitiation for ſin, but to teſtifie love,] intimateth theſe two things.

1. That where the ranſome of Chriſt is ſpoken of as our example, it is to move us thereby to make propitiation for ſin, wherein he miſerably abuſeth Scripture.

2. That where it ſpeaketh of ranſome giving, it is not ſet downe as a motive to love and ſuffer for the brethren, wherein he abuſeth not Scripture onelyonly, but himſelfe alſo; for page 26. he ſaith thus, [The death of Chriſt in reſpect of ranſome is propounded to beleevers as an example to follow in love.] Either now he muſt intimate theſe two things, or his expreſſes are very frothy; behold then how inconſiſtent, empty, and abſurd his expreſſions are, and how inſufficient they are to enervate that which we ſay in the proſecution of this reaſon?

Reaſon 4.

The fourth reaſon which he reciteth, (although his martialling them up in order, firſt, ſecond, third, and fourth, proceed from his owne groſſe conceit,) yet it is well put in by way of anſwer to an objection which might ariſe from the premiſes; for if any ſhall aske why Chriſt meaning but ſome, ſhould uſe ſuch words and expreſſions, as by their naturall import may ſeeme to take in every ſonne of Adam, the reaſon is ready at hand, [That ſo the Gentiles might not exclude themſelves, nor the Jewes exclude the Gentiles, when either might on good ground; Chriſt being ſent to the Iewes, not to the way of the Gentiles, and he commands his diſciples accordingly.] This reaſon he undertaketh to refell: and firſt he would ſhow the abſurdity of the aſſertion it ſelfe, viz. [There was great reaſon why, when he meant but ſome, he ſhould yet uſe ſuch expreſſes as may in their naturall import ſeeme to take in all,] and taketh much paines therein as followeth. [That any other doctrine or contrary words ſhould be neceſſary to deliver the Goſpel within theſe our times is monſtrous to affirme.] The reaſon of which, cometh to this iſſue; it is monſtrous to deliver the Goſpel now in our times in contrary words: Therefore it was monſtrous for Chriſt to deliver the Goſpel, or his Apoſtles to deliver the Goſpel, in ſuch expreſſions as might ſeeme to import every man, when yet they meant but ſome; where lyeth the ſtrength of this Argument? Chriſt in himſelfe and his Spirit inſpiring the Apoſtles were Legiſlatores, might uſe what expreſſions they pleaſed, we are tied to thoſe which they uſed; beſides we ſay not they were contrary expreſſions; for though he uſed ſuch expreſſions as might import a further meaning, yet they were not contrary to truth nor his owne meaning; for as he ſaith, page 73. [to any that underſtandeth, the truth of of his word wil appeare to be right and plaine according to the words which he uſeth.] But he further urgeth.

[Thoſe whoſe faith we are to follow, are ſuch whoſe words, &c. hold forth Chriſt, yeſterday, today, and the ſame for ever.] Which is ſo far from overthrowing us, that it confirmes us; he was for ever the Redeemer and Saviour both of Jewes and Gentiles, which Gentiles ſhould know it and be gathered to him in his time; therefore in his time he uſed ſuch generall expreſſions that might beſpeake ſo much both to the Jew and Gentile; theſe generall terms now uſed mak no change in Chriſt, but the contrary.

[Do not the words of Chriſt and his Apoſtles expreſſe their meaning?] p. 165This fond Query hath had its anſwer already; yes they doe ſo, but their meaning is not alwayes according to the naturall import of the words.

[Did their words ſerve but for their times?] Yes, for ours and after times, and ſo much the reaſon intimateth; for in that it was to make way for the Gentiles to come in, it is to ſerve till the fulneſſe of the Gentiles be come in; but this I ſay that the occaſion of thoſe expreſſions had its riſe in thoſe times.

[Have any of us found fitter words to expreſſe the Goſpel in theſe times?] No, that were high preſumption; we are tied to the expreſſions which are uſed by the Spirit of God, we are not to dictate to him what if fit for him to uſe; but was Chriſt and his Spirit ſo bound? his reaſon herein is this, becauſe we cannot finde better words then he hath uſed; therefore it was not fit for him to uſe ſuch generall expreſſions, when yet he meant but ſome: what piercing eye can diſcerne the ſtrength of his reaſon? It is irkſome to follow him in ſuch froth and impertinency that can neither pleaſe nor ſatisfie the learned. But he comes at laſt to an extaſy.

O ye Heavens be aſtoniſhed!] O the admiration of ignorance! at which the Heavens may ſtand aſtoniſhed, in that he triumphs in ſuch weake reaſonings, and at his impudence in putting ſuch into print to ſcourge the eares of the world. Wee conclude Chriſt was free to uſe what words he pleaſed: we not ſo; his expreſſes were true, though not conformable to our underſtandings; and though he uſed, ſuch as [All men] [Every man] [whole world] yet they were no way contrary to his meaning, though he meant but ſome, or but many, or his ſheepe; they may (bene convenire interſ…) well agree in one; which ariſeth of all the needeleſſe allegations produced by him. page 78. 79.

He then invadeth the reaſon it ſelfe, why Chriſt ſhould uſe ſuch generall expreſſions, viz. to temper thoſe particular ones which he had uſed before, with which thoſe generall might agree, yet cure ſome miſtakes that might and did ariſe from the particular; the reaſon he ſets downe and then anſwers, this reaſon is grounded on the enſuing particulars which he reciteth.

The ground of it in full vigour is thus; the legall pedagogy that was the finger to point at Chriſt to type him out, was exhibited onelyonly to the Jewes, as priviledges relating to Chriſt, as Rom. 9.4, 5. When he was foretold by the Angel, he was ſaid to be the Saviour of his people, Mat. 1.21. The Jew coming under that notion onelyonly; Chriſt himſelfe ſaid he was ſent but to the loſt ſheepe of the houſe of Iſrael, Mat. 15.24. He forbad his Diſciples to go into the way of the Gentiles, Mat. 10.5. Hence we conclude that ſeeing he came to redunate both Jew and Gentile, that he ſhould uſe ſome other expreſſions that might temper thoſe particular and confining words to the Jewes onelyonly. To this he thus replyeth.

[This part of the reaſon is weake and frothy, for it is evident to a meane underſtanding, that our Saviour Matthew. 15.24. ſpeaketh not of his miſſion to die, &c. but his miſſion for his miniſtration here on earth, which was for the Jewes, Rom. 8.9. which miſſion with greater enlargedneſſe he left with his Diſciples, Matt. 28.20.] I ſhall firſt cleare further the force of the reaſon, then rejoyne to his reply; the firſt I ſhall doe in ſhowing theſe 3 particulars.

1. That there were many things at which the Jewes might take occaſion to ſtumble at the Gentiles; as Chriſt being borne of the Jewes, the ſeed of Abraham, brought p. 166up amongſt them, exerciſing his miniſtry, living, dying amongſt them, chargeing his Apoſtles not to go to the Gentiles as ſtrangers and dogge; which are cleare, Rom. 9 3, 4, 5. Mat. 10.5.

2. That from thoſe there was an actuall ſtumbling at them, as a people eſtranged and uncleane; hence in their Law it was forbidden to accompany with a Gentile, Acts. 10.28. Acts. 11.3 and when they ſaw that the Gentiles beleeved they admired, Acts 10.45. even beleeving Jewes, Acts. 11.18. they ſaid [then hath God granted repentance to the Gentiles,] a thing which they knew not before; it was contrary to the received opinion of the Gentiles on the ſame ground before mentioned, yea Peter himſelfe was not free from this, in that a viſion was ſent to him to prepare him to goe to Cornelius a Gentile, and from his owne words, Acts, 10.34. [of a truth I perceive that God is no reſpecte of perſons, but that in every Nation] it was not his thoughts before, they thought that no ſalvation was promiſed to the Gentiles upon faith and obedience.

3. That God did cure this by a viſion to Peter, Acts. 10.11, 12, 13. a ſheet in which were all manner of beaſts; ſo he was to feed without diſcrimination, and this was equipollent to thoſe generall expreſſes (all men) (every man,) the one being in the Hieroglyphicke, what the other is in vivâ voce, and both theſe to prevent and remove the ſame ſtumbling blocke againſt the Gentiles.

Now to conſider his reply.

He faith this reaſon is weake and frothy: But had not his underſtanding been of the meaneſt ſort, he might have ſeen that his miſſion in Mat 15 24. doth not exclude his death and ranſome giving, it mentioneth nothing but ſtands as indifferent to receive any thing that he did as part of his miniſtration here on earth, of which his dying was a part and the cheife part, and all things elſe in reference to it, Mat. 20.28. [To miniſter and to give his life a ranſome for many,] therefore for him to ſay not to die but to miniſter to, is weake and frothy; and his oppoſing theſe two, (death) and (miniſtration here on earth,) intimateth that either his death is no part of his miniſtration, or elſe that part of his miniſtration was not done on earth; both moſt falſe and abſurd.

[And yet the reſtraint of his miſſion to the Iews, is not wholly excluſive; for then the woman could not have been commended for faith, and helped thereby, Mat. 15.24.28.]

It makes not whether it were wholy excluſive, yea or no, it ſufficeth us if there was good ground ſo to thinke, as any may ſee there was, when he anſwered to her ſuite, [I was not ſent but to the loſt ſheepe of the houſe of Iſrael,] now the Jewes being ready to ſnatch at the word, [houſe of Iſrael] as their proper priviledge, which is refelled Rom. 9. by the Apoſtle; they might and did hence conclude that he was ſent to none but them.

Beſides, Chriſt went not thither to miniſter the Goſpel by vertue of his miſſion, but onelyonly to hide and ſecure himſelfe in thoſe parts of Tyre and Sydon; therefore this accidentall act to the Phaenician woman doth not argue that his miſſion was not confined to the houſe of Iſrael. To conclude, were his miſſion to die, or onelyonly to promulge the Goſpel, the one, or other, or both; yet his ſpeech Mat. 15.24 gave good occaſion to the Jewes to exclude the Gentiles from Chriſt, which he removeth, and reaſon there was he ſhould ſo remove it.

[And of the ſame nature was the ſending of his Diſciples, and of no p. 167further as yet, Mat. 10.5.] This is but new divinity, to ſay that the miſſion of Chriſt and of the Apoſtles was of the ſame nature, when his Father ſent him to the loſt ſheepe of the houſe of Iſrael; he came to ſave that which was loſt, to redeeme, to dye for. John. 3.16. But when Chriſt ſent his Diſciples to the loſt ſheepe of Iſrael, Mat. 10.5. he ſent them not to dye for them, to be their Saviours; Chriſt was ſent to performe the whole work of miniſtration, they but a part, to be adjutant in preaching the Goſpel; and true, Chriſt had done no more yet, but he was ſent to doe more, even to dye.

[This could be no reaſon to darken or ſtreighten the extent of the death of Chriſt, much leſſe of uſing ſuch generall termes as all men, &c.] True, neither did he ſtreighten it, but enlarged it, not larger then it was indeed, but larger then the Jewes did apprehend it; and this was reaſon enough of uſing ſuch generall terms as made way for the Gentiles. But he attempteth to prove that thoſe generall termes could not be produced to cure ſuch an offence taken from ſuch ſpeeches. Mat. 15 24. Thus,

[1. Before the miſſion of Chriſts Diſciples, or his ſpeaking to the woman of Canaan, he was ſaid to be ſend into the world, that the world might be ſaved, &c.] Which proveth it not, becauſe although thoſe ſayings were before his ſpeech to his Diſciples and the woman of Canaan, yet they were not before ſuch expreſſions as were equipollent, and might adminiſter like and equall occaſion. To paſſe by all the Propheſies, types, prefigurations of Chriſt which were exhibited to the Jews onelyonly; in which regard they have the preheminence of the Gentiles; but Mat. 1.21. he is ſaid by the angels to be the Saviour of his people: and expreſly, Mat. 2.6. Iſrael, this was enough to create that ſtumbling againſt the Gentiles, but this was before any ſuch generall terms.

Beſides the word world, doth not temper thoſe confining expreſſions, becauſe that word might and is uſed as to include no more then the Jewes, they being moſt potent and cathol…ke in the world, Luke, 2.1.

[2. Their miſſion was afterwards enlarged to goe into all the world, Mat. 20.28. and then no neceſſity of uſing words importing more then truth.] To wave his expreſſes of [uſing words importing more then truth,] being the reſult of his folly; we may ſay that their miſſion being enlarged to all the world, there was good reaſon to uſe ſuch expreſſions as might admit both Jew and Gentile; elſe they would not be received; for Peter for all his commiſſion, he was queſtioned for comming to the Gentiles, Acts. 11.1.2.3. and they were not ſatisfied till he ſhewes them the viſion, which was but equivalent to theſe generall terms, and then they admitted them, but with admiration, that to them ſhould be granted repentance.

[3. Whileſt theſe generall words were frequent in uſe, the ſame is ſtill affirmed of Chriſts adminiſtration, that it was for the Circumciſion. Rom. 15.8, 9▪] And good reaſon becauſe thoſe generall expreſſes were to let in the Gentiles, not to exclude the Iewes; but therein, Rom. 15.8, 9. both Jew and Gentile are inſerted, that they might both mutually embrace each other, this argueth not thoſe generall expreſſes were not uſed to cure a miſtake in the Iewes excluding the Gentiles, when there were no ſuch expreſſions as did let them in: if he p. 168had produced any Text, ſpeaking of the Iewes ſo excluſively as formerly, then he had ſaid ſomething; but take his reaſons as they are, and they are reaſonleſſe and miſerable, and by this it appeares that yet our reaſon hath more in it then he with all his underſtanding can reſiſt.

The ſecond part of this laſt reaſon as he calleth it, is as followeth.

[Had not the Jewes been for a long time the onelyonly people of God, and might not other nations think themſelves excluded, being called ſtrangers, and aliens? and was not the receiving of the Gentiles a thing new to the Apoſtles? Acts. 10. therefore there was great reaſon ſuch generall words ſhould be uſed, which might enforme the Iewes, and encourage the Gentiles, and them that went to preach to them, as it did to Peter to go to Cornelius and his family, which otherwiſe he would have beene as backward to, as to eate the creatures that he called uncleane; and he was moved thereto, when he knew that of every Nation thoſe that worke righteouſneſſe are accepted of God; and this is one reaſon why ſuch expreſſions are ſo frequent in Scripture,] this reaſon he is pleaſed to brand with the titles of weake and frothy, he foames out little but ſuch expreſſions of venome and contempt, but how doth he make it appeare?

Thus, [The ignorance of ſome in the myſteries of grace, is no proofe that the God of Truth will ſpeake beyond the bounds of Truth.] Which is the empty reply that he gave to the firſt part of this reaſon, wherein he urgeth me to ſay againe that Gods uſing ſuch expreſſions, when yet he meanes but ſome, is no way contrary to truth. This I have proved at large, and it is in many pages confeſſed by himſelfe, in that All, and every man, are in many places of Scripture taken but for ſome, as any may ſee in my ſixth Chapter: all this being granted, yet the Author may well know that the ignorance of ſome in the myſteries of grace, may adminiſter occaſion of uſing ſuch expreſſions as may cure that ignorance and miſtakes, which yet may be wreſted, & by their naturall import ſeem to yeeld an other meaning; and where is the emptineſſe in all this? So for the reſt of his reply, it is nothing but a heap of reitterate abſurdities, which for me to trace, will be as unpleaſing in me as in him; when I am informed of any particular that requireth diſtinct and new ſatisfaction, I ſhall ſay more: To ſome few onelyonly I ſhall in few words rejoyne.

He ſaith, page 83. 84. [The Jewes that beleeved, did not contend for preaching the goſpel to the Gentiles, (as doubting of ranſom for them) but for fellowſhip and partaking of their priviledges, being not regulated to them; therefore that place, Act. 10.45. & 11.18. &c. is miſalledged.] Hence inferring, that theſe expreſſes (All men) (every man) being applied to the death and ranſome of Chriſt, needed not to be produced to cure any ſuch ſtumbling of the Iewes, becauſe there was no ſtumbling concerning the Goſpel or death or ranſome, but onelyonly at their partaking of priviledges: now the argument is good, but weakely founded, as elſewhere when he produceth that which is pertinent, he falleth ſhort in proofe.

For,

1. There was as fair occaſion of ſtumbling at the Gentiles receiving of the Goſpel, or any ſpirituall benefit from Chriſts death, as any temporall; the diſcrimination is more made in ſpirituall then temporall priviledges, as appeares Mat. 10.5. go not to the Gentiles, that is, to preach the Goſpel, Rom. 9. covenants, glory, law, promiſes, Chriſt, were their peculiar priviledges, Rom. 3. the oracles of God.

2. That they did ſtumble at that is evident; by the cure we may gather the diſeaſe; p. 169what was the viſion to prepare Peter for? Acts, 10. to receive them into ſome outward priviledge onelyonly? or whether to go to them to preach the Goſpel? conſult with that Text, any that pleaſe; what was the occaſion that the Iewes contended with Peter? was it becauſe the Geniles had partaken of outward priviledges? or becauſe they had received the word of God? conſult with Acts, 11.1. what is more cleare then that the Iewes ſtumbled at the preaching Goſpel to them?

3. To ſay they ſtumbled not at their receiving of the Goſpel, but partaking of priviledges, is too weak; they are not to be oppoſed; for in partaking of the Goſpel they looked at it as partaking of their chiefe priviledge; for ſo it was, Rom. 3.2.3. & 9.3.4, 5.

4. What did the Jewes admire, what were they aſtoniſhed at? not for any outward priviledges, but for the receiving the Holy Ghoſt, Acts, 10.45. that repentance to life was granted to them, Acts, 11.18. they thought no Goſpel, no life, no repentance, no Chriſt, no Holy Ghoſt belong'd to them; this is cleare to any capacity; therefore it is reaſon that ſuch termes ſhould be uſed as might let in the Gentiles: to all theſe he urgeth further, p. 85.

[On whoſe part could it be a reaſon for ſuch an end? not to the beleeving Jewes in reſpect of themſelves, becauſe they reckon'd themſelves the people of God.] Which might well have been ſpared, becauſe wee plead it not to confirme the Jewes of themſelves, but to let in the Gentiles of whom they doubted: yet ſomething in reſpect of themſelves, that they might not thinke themſelves ſolely the ſeed of Abraham, or becauſe lineally diſcended, but that they are ſo by the faith of Abraham, and all that beleeve are ſo, which the Apoſtle labours much to preſſe. Rom. 9.6.7.8. Gal 3.7.8.9. which is much helped by ſuch generall expreſſions letting in the Gentiles. [For the Jewes in reſpect of Gentiles, it could be no reaſon whileſt the miniſtration of the Goſpel was not ſent to the Gentiles.] To this I ſay, neither were ſuch generall expreſſions frequent or much uſed, if at all, till ſuch times as the Apoſtles commiſſion was inlarged, but if any be found, it was to prepare them for that buſineſſe before hand, as the viſion was ſent to Peter before he heard of his going to Cornelius. Againe,

[We ſee it had not that effect with the beleeving Jewes, who were not by ſuch words prevailed with.] Which is palpably falſe; for, Acts. 11.18. by that which was equipollent, viz. the viſion, they ſtumbled not, but received the Gentiles, now they ſaw that repentance was granted to them.

Againe he urgeth, [On the part of ſuch Gentiles as were brought to beleeve, before the uſe of ſuch generall words, it could be no reaſon; and yet to them is the Goſpel ſet forth in generall termes.] None of his produced Texts, viz. Rom. 3.22. & 5.12.18. prove that any Gentile was converted before the uſe of ſuch generall termes; yet the thing I deny not; for be it ſo, and though no reaſon can be produced on their part, yet for others that were to be converted before the enlarged commiſſion to the Apoſtles, they were looked at by themſelves and others to partake of thoſe priviledges, as being indeared to the Iewes being Proſelytes, and ſo under the notion of Iewes; but hitherto there was no way for Gentiles as Gentiles, and unproſelyted to the Iewes to partake of any, which was a myſtery hidden till then, revealed in ſuch expreſſions, Col. 1.20.26, 27, 28.

Now I ſhall conclude with his owne words, let our weake and and frothy reaſons, p. 170his irreffragable and ſtrong anſwers, and the dealing with Scripture in both be well perpended, and then we are content that thoſe Epithites, injurious, unjuſt, abſurd, falſe, weake, fraudulent, ungodly, deceitfull, frothy, (termes which he much trades in) reſt where they fall; and let me counſel him ere I goe from this, to be more mercifull to himſelfe, and ſpare thoſe loades of epithites of calumny, (ſymptomes of a bad cauſe, or weake maintainers of a good one) for in the upſhot they prove commonly his owne ſhare, and ſo in branding an other, he pictureth out himſelfe to the life.