The Universalist Examined and Convicted, Chapter 15
CHAP. XV. Of the third Objection.
THe third Argument which he pretendeth to anſwer is this.
[All they for whom Chriſt died to ſatisfie his Fathers juſtice, are juſtified by his blood, &c.
But. But every ſon of Adam is not juſtified by his blood, &c.
Ergo, He did not die for, nor ſatisfie his fathers juſtice for every ſon of Adam,] which argument though any that will may finde it propounded in other termes, in the third argument in the conference at Hague, thus.
Thoſe for whom he died, he ſo died in their ſtead, that he did tranſlate the death which they deſerved upon himſelfe, ſo that they died not; thus to (die for) is taken 2 Sam. 18.33. Rom 5.7. Rom. 9.3.
But he did not ſo for every ſon of Adam.
Ergo, Not the former.
But ſeeing the Argument in the iſſue comes to one head, I ſhall engage in the Argument as he propoundeth it; and firſt I ſhall make the Argument appeare in its native and intended ſtrength. For God not to deale with Chriſt according to the exigence of his merits, and with us according to the merit of our mediatour, as it would in …ench upon the juſtice of God, ſo it is granted by the Author, page 100. Now if Chriſt did undertake for every man, payed his debt, ſatisfied his father juſtice, and tooke away ſinne, and all that ſtood croſſe to our ſalvation, and aboliſhed death; all which he affirmes for every ſonne of Adam: and ſo effectually and actually that it is as good with God as if every man had ſuffered, and died the death due to his ſinne in his owne perſon; for ſo the Author is pleaſed to ſay page 17. certainely then every man ſhould ſtand acquitted from that charge, Gods juſtice ſhould exact no more; for as juſtice requireth ſatisfaction, ſo it requireth but ſatisfaction; the ſame debt is not in juſtice required both of the ſurety and the principall, and as it had not been agreeing with Juſtice to require a ſecond payment, if man had been able to undergoe the wrath of God due to ſinne, and to riſe out of it; ſo is it equally disagreeing to juſtice to require a ſecond payment of any, ſeeing Chriſt hath payed it in his owne perſon. For herein he did not die (for) but die (with) them that ſo die: Hence I conclude that if Chriſt ſatisfied his Fathers juſtice for every man, they ſhould be freed from the curſe due to ſinne, which is to be juſtified, and this by his merits, which is to be juſtified by his blood: this is the genuine face of the argument.
But before I reply to his anſwers, I ſhall premiſe a few things concerning juſtification, to which I may referre the ſeverall and confuſed pieces of of his rude anſwers; concerning juſtification, theſe three things are enquitable. 1. What Juſtification is, 2. When a Sinner is juſtified, 3. What juſtification freeth us from. The two firſt will be cleared, in conſidering that in juſtification theſe three things are comprehended.
1. As it is done in God, and his minde and will.
2. As it is diſcovered in the Goſpel and pronounced there.
3. As it is apprehended in the heart of the perſon juſtified.
By the firſt God is ſaid to juſtifie.
2. To declare him juſtified.
3. The Beleever to apprehend or conclude himſelfe juſtified.
Juſtification as it is in God, exiſting in mente divinâ, I finde ſuch a definition given by Epiſcopius; treating of juſtification, and ſaying that juſtification and remiſſion of ſins be Synonyma's, Diſp. 45. Theſ. 6.he ſaith thus, [Remiſſio peccatorum eſt voluntas non infligendi paenam quam peccata promer…ierunt.] That is, remiſſion of ſins, or juſtification is nothing elſe but a will in God not to inflict the puniſhment due to ſin; and ſo on the other ſide it muſt be a will in God to impute the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, and to deale with us as righteous perſons; now the Arminians have, and our Author doth grant ſuch decrees to be in God eternall, as we muſt; for he doth not in time will any thing that he did not will from eternity; our juſtification doth not introduce any change in God all; therefore in this ſenſe it appeareth to me that man is juſtified from eternity.
Armin. diſp pub. Theſ. 19. ſect. 4.2. Juſtification as it is pronounced in the Goſpel, is thus defined. [Quâ homo a deo ut a judice juſtus & praemio dignu… cenſetur & pronunciatur;] that is, it is an act whereby man is of God as judge, eſteemed and pronounced righteous; and of this runnes the definition of our modern Divines: as Daven. de Juſtif. 310. Ames. Medul. 188. And of this juſtification the Scripture alwayes ſpeaketh, or moſt frequently, to wit of the promulgation of it: See Evangelii tenorem; and ſo onelyonly the faithfull and penitent are ſaid to be juſtified, and ſo in preſent exiſting, becauſe to ſuch onelyonly hath he pronounced juſtification; and thus he is ſaid to juſtifie the beleever or him that beleeveth in God, or in Jeſus: when by the firſt, as it is a will of God ſo to do, he is and may be ſaid to juſtifie the ungodly; Rom. 4.5. for ſo he willeth nor to impute their ſinnes, whileſt they remaine ungodly, but he never pronounceth any one juſtified whileſt they remaine ungodly, Scripture no where ſo ſaith. Now in our diſcourſes of juſtification, we muſt not confound theſe; and if the queſtion be asked when a man is juſtified, by diſtinguiſhing theſe two we may clearely anſwer, that as the act is done in God, ſo we are juſtified from eternity; for thus juſtification is an imminent action, though converſant about the creature, yet introduceth no phyſicall mutation into the creature,diſp. 45. theſ. 3 this all grant but the Papiſt. Epiſcopius thus ſaith, [Non juſtae aut ſanctae infuſio qualitatis in animam,] that is no infuſion of any holy quality into the minde; and this act doth no more make a man (Justificatum,) then election maketh him (electum;) yet none will deny election to be an imminent action; and why God may not as well juſtifie us from eternity, that is will not impute our ſinnes, as to elect us, that is, will to bring us to ſalvation, I am not able to ſee. And if any object the uſuall ſtreame of Scripture language, viz. that we are juſtified by faith, and he juſtifieth him that beleeveth in Jeſus: by conſidering this diſtinction, we may breake through that, and ſay that that is onelyonly meant of the pronunciation of it according to the tenour of the Goſpel; and the reaſon why though there be ſuch an act in God from eternity, before our faith be wrought in us, yet the Scripture ſpeakes of juſtification through faith, &c. is becauſe as in judiciary affaires it matters not what the Judge reſolveth in his breaſt, though whom he reſolveth to acquit, they may be ſaid to be acquitted; yet men looke at his legall ſentence pronounced; that by the law, the perſon himſelfe, and the ſpectators, is looked at at his abſolution or acquittance. So in this caſe, we looke at our abſolution from the …nour of the Goſpel, thereby men come to know us, and we ourſelves to be juſtified: this pronunciation is called juſtification, and this is to Beleevers onelyonly.
That which in this may ſeeme harſh, is [That a man remaining a ſinner may be ſaid to be juſtified;] but if it be well conſidered, it will not appeare more harſh then this. That a man whilſt a ſinner, is elected to life; both are preſt with the ſame pretended abſurdities: Againe God is ſaid to juſtifie the ungodly Rom. 4.5. but this he doth not (quoad evangelicam promulgationem) for that is onelyonly to beleevers; but beleevers when ſo, are not branded with the title of ungodly; and may not this, [We are juſtified whileſt enemies,] be received as well as this, [We are reconciled whileſt enemies?] Rom. 5.10. This I commend to the Authors conſideration.
Againe it is to be enquired into, from what juſtification freeth us; we finde it thus expreſt, [A peccato & morte] from ſin and death,Ames. med. and of this Epiſcopius is a ſound interpretor: when it is ſaid (a peccato,) it is no more then this, [A paenis peccati] from the puniſhment of ſinne. Diſp. 45. Theſ. 3. [a reatu peccatorum] from the guilt of ſinne. Theſ. 5. and that not from the guilt of ſome, or one, but all ſinnes and all condemnation, [abſolutio a peccatis & omni condemnatione,] from ſinnes and all condemnation. Theſ. 3. and this Scripture affirmeth, Rom. 8. who ſhall lay any thing to their charge? it is God that juſtifieth. And ſo Arminius, diſp priis. Theſ. 48. ſect. 12. diſp. 45. thei. 6. ibid.[Ab omnibus per totam vitam perpetratis,] from all committed through whole life; and when it is ſaid, by it wee are delivered from death, he meaneth eternall death: So Epiſcopius, [per paenam peccati intelligimus proptie paenam aeternam, quae mors aeterna dicitur in Scr.] That is, by the puniſhment of ſinne, we meane eternall death; ſo that now it appeareth hereby, that juſtification exempts not from the being of ſinne, nor from temporall death, nor from afflictions; for ſuch ceaſe to be ſatisfactory puniſhments, though they relate to ſinne, as Epiſcopius, [deſinunt eſſe paenae, etiamfi non ſine reſpectu ad peccatum immittantur,] but that which it removeth is the guilt and obligation to eternall death, or if you will, [proſecutionem vindicantem,] the revenge or proſecution of that guilt.
Theſe being conſidered, I proceed to his anſwers to our Argument. Now becauſe he puts all the untruth upon the Major, I ſhall reſume it in the vigour and ſtrength of it. Thoſe whom Chriſt ſatisfied his Fathers juſtice for, they are juſtified in Gods account, and ſhall be juſtified by the manifeſtation of this in time, both in the Goſpel and their owne conſciences, and at laſt be inveſted with eternall life, elſe may Chriſt complaine of injuſtice.
To this he anſwers. [All the ſtrength of this Argument is in the firſt propoſition with the reaſon annexed unto it.] Then it ſeemes the Minor he giveth for truth, viz. that all are not juſtified; but then why hath he contended for this, that all, yee every ſonne of Adam is juſtified in Chriſt, as page 10. 45. But that we may ſee what he hath to ſay againſt the propoſition, he judgeth thus at a venture. [This is ſo contrary to Scripture, that little need be ſaid; from the compariſon betweene Chriſt and Adam it appeares, that though all men be in the publique perſon Juſtified▪ yet by and through him, of the benefit of that Juſtification doe none partake but ſuch as have a being of him.]
If he had ſhowen what Scripture this had beene contrary to, that we might have examined thoſe Texts he had done faire, but he would have his Reade…s acted by an implicite faith.
2. As for the compariſon betwixt Adam and Chriſt, there was nothing expreſſed by him therein that contradicteth the propoſition; not that prepoſition, viz. [none partake of the fruits of that juſtification, but ſuch as come to have a being from him,] becauſe all thoſe that he ſatisfied his Fathers juſtice for, ſhall in time to come have a being from him.
3. His expreſſes in the compariſon betwixt Adam and Chriſt, are ſo farre from contradicting, that they confirme the propoſition: For he ſaith, [Though all men be in the publique perſon juſtified;] doth he not here tacitely grant, that every man by virtue of his death and ranſome as publique perſon to be juſtified in him? and what is this to what the propoſition affirmeth? viz. that all he ſatisfied for, are juſtified in or by his blood? for to be juſtified in and by Chriſt are not different, and to be juſtified by Chriſt and by his blood are as little different.
[Chriſt is ſet forth to be a propitiation through faith, Rom. 3.27.] And this nothing againſt us; for we ſay not that all when Chriſt ſatisfied for them, they were juſtified in the pronunciation of the Goſpel, before faith was wought in them, but that ſuch in time ſhall be juſtified and receive the atonement in their hearts; and his expreſſes herein hindreth not; for they ſhall have that faith in his blood whereby they may receive this atonement; againe, true, the evangelicall pronunciation of ſatisfaction is by faith, but how doth he prove that in the minde of God, they are not juſtified before faith?
[Juſtification is not by blood ſhed onelyonly, but the application of his blood.] His expreſſions are herein ſomething wilde, but I gueſſe at his meaning thus; that juſtification is not till another worke of the Spirit to be done upon the heart: but then I ſay if he meane it as done in the minde of God, it is falſe; if as pronounced in the Goſpel, it is true; but beſides, this is nothing againſt the propoſition, becauſe we ſay ſtill, they ſhall have that further worke upon their hearts one time or other; true alſo, many have received this juſtification that once wanted it, and ſome want it that ſhall have it; but what are theſe to the purpoſe of proving that all that Chriſt ſatisfied for, ſhall not one time or other have it? And as for that expreſſion, [Many of his elect want it; for whom by this objection Chriſt ſhould not have died.] Is too abſurd to mention: the objection is farre from urging that he died not for thoſe elect that want this juſtification: but it affirmeth that all ſuch, (though they now want it,) ſhall have it in time.
[As for that cleanſing 1 Iohn, 1.7. and forgiveneſſe verſe. 9 it ſpeakes of a further cleanſing &c. to ſuch as are in Chriſt, and already juſtified by his blood; and ſo not to this purpoſe.] More pertinent Texts might be produced to prove the propoſition, but this Text is not ſo deficient as as he conceived when he cited it: for, whereas he ſpeaketh of a further cleanſing, it is hard to gueſſe at his meaning; further then that, he muſt meane one of theſe two, or both; further then juſtification, or a cleanſing further then that which is by the bloodſhed of Chriſt; but both theſe are falſe; that it ſpeakes of cleanſing from guilt by juſtification, appeares by ver. 9. where it expounds it by forgiving our ſinnes, and that is ſuch as is by bloodſhed, appeares in that it is by the blood of Chriſt; and what though it ſpeak of them that are actually juſtified? it ſaith it is by the blood of Chriſt, that is the meritorious cauſe; and this is not impertinent to the buſineſſe in hand, but proveth the propoſition: that thoſe for whom the blood of Chriſt ſatisfied his Father, they came in time to be cleanſed from their ſins by that blood.
[This untruth is not onelyonly falſe and groſſe in it ſelfe, but denyes many ſayings of Scripture, as Iohn, 3.17.18. & 8.24.] Had the Author produced Texts wherein his managing might be more perſpicuous, or diſcover where his meaning lies in theſe, I ſhould have a clearer way for a reply. I have ſeriouſly enquired after the intention of the Author in theſe Texts, and my thoughts I have brought to this reſult, it may be with greater force then he intended, and it is this, John, 3.17. Chriſt is ſaid to ſave the world; yet John, 16.8.11. he is ſaid to convince the world of ſinne; and John, 8.23.24. ye ſhall die in your ſinnes; by theſe it appeareth that all that he died for and ſaveth, are not juſtified and ſaved from wrath; and this may ſeeme a ſpecious allegation; but it hath little in it. For, by (World) in the Authors judgement is meant every Sonne of Adam; ſo that Iohn, 3.16. ſaith he ſaved the world, Iohn, 16.8.11. ſaith he ſhall convince the world, that is in both, every ſonne of Adam; and ſo he would have theſe places compared, to prove that as he came to ſave every man, ſo he ſhall ſave never a man, for every man that ſhall be convinced of ſin, becauſe they beleeve not; this indeed oppoſeth the propoſition, but no reaſonable man can judge to be the meaning of thoſe Texts; therefore to reply.
1. He cannot prove that thoſe that were convinced of ſin for not beleeving, did not afterward beleeve; for every man that is ſaved, hath h…s t…me of unbeleife wherein he may be convinced for not beleeving; therefore this Text convinceth not that they did never beleeve for whom Chriſt died.
2. That place Iohn, 3.17.13. he ſaith he came to ſave the world, that is men living in the world; and he did it, the world is reconciled, 2 Cor. 5.18.19. their treſpaſſes not imputed; he giveth life to the world, John, 6.33. and taketh away the ſinne of the world, Iohn, 1.29. and yet he ſhall convince the world of ſinne; they ſhall be judged by beleevers, 1 Cor. 6.2. and be condemned, 1 Cor. 11.32. in all the (World) now then cannot be verified of the world the ſame way taken; but he ſaveth the world [Quoad partem credentem,] according to the beleeving part, and he ſhall condemne the (world) for ſinne, that is the unbeleeving part thereof; ſo that to conclude John, 3.18. doth not ſay that they which he came to ſave were not ſo in time, nor that Text Iohn. 16.8.11. doth not ſay be ſatisfied his Fathers juſtice for them that ſhould be convinced of ſin and ſo periſh: therefore how theſe Texts can diſprove the propoſition I ſee not.
[It overthroweth many affirmations in the Scripture, as that all ſhall beare the image of the firſt Adam, 1. Cor. 15.46. that all are dead in ſin by nature, Eph. 2.2. that God juſtifieth the ungodly, Rom. 4.5. &c.] It cannot but be judged too great a prodigality of time and paines to inſiſt upon ſuch jejune and empty expreſſions, that have not the leaſt ſhew of reaſon; but the nature of my Antagoniſt requireth it: doth the propoſition ſay that all doe not beare the image of the earthy? certainely no. It ſuppoſeth the contrary that all doe; for it ſaith, that all that Chriſt died for, ſhall in time partake of the Image of the heavenly, which intimateth that all at firſt beare the Image of the earthy. Juſtification doth not immediately reflect upon the being of ſinne, but obligation to puniſhment; and this may ſuffice for the two firſt Texts alledged by him. As for Rom. 4.5. it ſpeaketh not of ſuch a juſtification as is by faith; it ſpeaketh of beleeving on him that juſtifieth he ungodly, but not of his juſtifying the ungodly upon their beleeving; therefore he miſalledgeth that Text; he is ſaid to juſtifie the ungodly; but beleevers are never called ſo; eſpecially if he reflect upon his owne ſenſe of ungodly, page 10. beſides the Text ſheweth not that all the ungodly be juſtified, doe not in time come to partake of life: hitherto I ſee nothing of ſtrength againſt the propoſition.
As for that counterpart to the propoſition, which he produceth page 96. viz. [many for whom Chriſt died remaine without that juſtification that is in him,] wants proof; for thoſe Texts alledged doe not make it appeare that Chriſt died for ſuch as want that juſtification and never partake of it.
The next thing that he ſtumbleth at, is the ſecond part of the propoſition, viz. [All for whom he ſatisfied ſhall be ſaved from wrath through him;] this he preſently cryeth downe as falſe and contrary to Scripture. But what Text? [2 Peter. 2.1.2.] This text I have ſpoken of formerly, and cleared it from overthrowing the propoſition; it ſpeaketh not not a word of ſatisfying his Fathers juſtice for them.
[And this untruth denieth the Lordſhip of Chriſt, grounded on his death for all.]
But wherein it denieth it he ſhoweth not; doe we by ſaying all that he ſatisfied for ſhall be ſaved, deny him to be Lord of all? as if he could not be their Lord unleſſe he ſave them from wrath to come? weak argument! and of this ſtamp are the reſt that follow, clearely confuted in ſeverall pages of this diſcourſe.
Having ſpoken of the two parts of the propoſition, he cometh to the reaſon by which the propoſition is backed; and he hath ſomething to ſay to that as followeth; the reaſon, if he doe not juſtifie and ſave from wrath all thoſe for whoſe ſinnes he hath ſatisfied, he ſhould be unjuſt; to this be anſwers. [A preſumptuous raſhneſſe in an intimate charging God with injuſtice.] But where lieth the raſhneſſe, whether in ſaying if ſuch a thing be granted he is unjuſt, or in affirming ſuch, the granting whereof maketh him to be unjuſt? let the Author judge. Let us ſee what he himſelfe ſaith page, 97. [That were injuſtice not onelyonly to require the whole debt againe, but even any part of it, either of him or any other that are diſcharged by him, or to detaine from him or his any thing that by vertue of his ranſome is to be conferred.] So that we ſee it is no ſuch charging God with injuſtice as he pretendeth, to ſay that if ſuch a thing be granted God is unjuſt; but beſides, let us conſider it is injuſtice in God to require any part of the debt againe of Chriſt, or any other for whom Chriſt ſuffered and was diſcharged, or any that are diſcharged for Chriſt; for ſo both are equally alike; now let us conſider the Authors words page 4. [All the ſinnes the law could charge mankinde withall were imputed to him; he ſuffered the curſe, and died as the ſinner, and roſe acquit of all our ſinnes, and a triumphant victor over ſin and death.] Let him tell us, is it not injuſtice in his own language to require part of this debt or all of Chriſt or any for whom he ſtood, and died, and of whoſe ſinnes he ſtood acquitted? But he ſaith he did ſo for every ſonne of Adam, therefore doth not juſtifie the reaſon of the propoſition, and ſhow the vanity of this his raſh charge.
But he thinketh to preſſe the reaſon of the propoſition with an abſurdity.
[Gods children have complained of trouble by the law in their members, Rom. 7.15. and he ſaith of his own children, Pſalm. 89.32. I will viſit their ſinnes with ſtripes.] Wherein it ſeemeth ſtrange that the Authors ignorance ſhould put God to his purgatories to clear his juſtice; but it is an eaſie thing to cleare his juſtice, in that his people have both ſinnes and ſufferings: when yet it would be too cleare if they ſhould not have eternall life, becauſe Chriſt did not procure that they ſhould be taken out of an eſtate of ſinne preſently, or freed from all temporall afflictions, to correct, reduce, warne themſelves and others; but that they ſhould be in part renewed, and at laſt come to life; but he in ſatisfying Gods juſtice for them did actually free them from the curſe due to ſin, which is eternall death; therefore to puniſh any ſuch with eternall death would entrench on his juſtice. I ſay not that temporall ſufferings is indured as ſatisfactions for ſinnes. I leave that ſoppery to the Authors; neither doe I ſay they are no puniſhments but corrections; but I ſay they are caſtigatory puniſhments, not ſatisfactions; and thus to ſay is no way contradictory to any of thoſe Texts quoted page 98. all which ſhew as they were puniſhments, ſo they were for caſtigation and correction onelyonly, not ſatisfaction, as the eternall torments of them that periſh are; but ſo weakely are his Texts quoted all along, as if he intended to make the word of God ſeeme vile.
The text by which we prove the propoſition, is Rom. 5.9. [If whilſt enemies wee were reconciled by the death of his Sonne, much more being reconciled ſhall wee be ſaved by his life.] To this he thus anſwereth, [It ſaith not that all Chriſt died for &c. ſhall be ſaved by his life; but ſpeaking of Beleevers &c. they ſhould much more be ſaved by his life.] Which is a meere ſhift, and no handſome one neither. For let us but ſeriouſly conſider he makes reconciliation, and his death is of equall extent, if we were reconciled by his death, and ſo doth the Author. Secondly, he maketh reconciliation and ſalvation of equall extent; nay with a (much more) meaning that is not ſo great an abſurdity to ſay we are not reconciled by his death, as to ſay, that being reconciled we ſhall not be ſaved; then let him conſider, doth it not ſtrongly intimate that all that he died for and ſo reconciled, ſhall be ſaved by his life? as for that gloſſe, [But ſpeaking of Beleevers he ſaith that much more they ſhall be ſaved.] It is a perverſion of a cleare Text; for it ſaith not [Much more ſhall we beleevers be ſaved,] which it would have been, if his perverſion had beene right; but it is much more, we being reconciled, not, [wee beleevers,] but [we reconciled;] their confidence of ſalvation was deduced not from their condition of beleeving; but what Chriſt hath done by dying, viz. reconciled them, and this drawne from the connexion betwixt his death and reconciliation, and our reconciliation and ſalvation, which cleareth the propoſition.
The ſecond thing which he chargeth the reaſon annexed to the propoſition, with, is [Groſſe ignorance in the end of Chriſts death as the price.] Of which he ſaith thus. [It was not that by that act without any more done by him, men ſhould be preſently poſſeſſed of all that juſtification, freedome from death, enjoyment of life in him.] How he diſcovereth his owne ignorance, to make the ignorance of his advantage knowne? he diſcovers ignorance
1. Of the nature of juſtification; for that expreſſion, [Be poſſeſſed of all that juſtification,] implieth that juſtification is ſucceſſive, and reteined by degrees, which is falſe.
2. Of his adverſaries meaning, which is not that preſently they ſhould enjoy life without any more done; but that in time they ſhall have life and that ſpirituall worke which leadeth to it; therefore he is either ignorant, or perverſe thus to ſay.
3. If we be ignorant in the end of Chriſts death, I beleeve he will not informe us; he ſaith thus [That he might be the Lord of all men, that he might have all releaſed to him, and have pardon in his hands, and ſpirit and life to beſtow as he thinketh fit, that he hight juſtifie them that beleeve, and harden and adjudge the reſidue to a ſecond death.] In which diſcovery he ſavours more of Arminian ſcripture then of ſacred Scriptures; thus they define the impetration, by the death of Chriſt. [Eſt restitutio in talem ſtatum quo non obſtante juſtitia deus de novo beneficia communicare poteſt & vult eâ lege & modo quo ipſi videtur.]
2. If Chriſt came to ſave them that beleeve, and condemne them that beleeve not, then a joynt end of his death was to condemne contrary to John, 3.17. I came not to condemne.
3. Herein is not mentioned that end, Tit. 2.14. viz. to purchaſe holineſſe, that we may be fitted for glory: if he know it not, he is ignorant; if he willfully leave it out, worſe.
4. This diſcription excludes all purpoſe to have any ſaved; but if they either be ſaved by faith, or condemned for unbeleife, Chriſt hath his end, though all periſh.
5. That phraſe (as he thinketh fit,) importeth that Chriſt in his death did not pitch upon a way by which he would ſave, but left it indifferent whether by faith or any other way; if he hold that Chriſt by death procured life by faith in Chriſt, then he is too remiſſe in that expreſſion as he thinketh fit: how many exceptions are his words herein liable to and diſcover little knowledge in the Author? in this buſineſſe I have ſhowne Chapter 3. that the maine end ſo farre as it relateth to man, is to give eternall life, and all thoſe are but intermediate ends as to become their Lord, &c.
As for that which he produceth as one end, viz. ſatiſfaction of his Fathers juſtice, it is not intended for it ſelfe, but for ſomething further; now what can he intend leſſe in ſatisfying his Fathers juſtice, then that they for whom he ſo did ſhould not anſwer or ſuffer for any of thoſe ſinnes? doth then, to ſay that all thoſe for whom he ſo ſati…fied ſhall be free from ſuffering for thoſe ſins, argue any ignorance in the ends of Chriſts death? or he that denyeth it, it diſcovers more? let any judge.
But he cometh to anſwer the objection, page 10. it ſeemes he hath done nothing all this while; but how?
[If Chriſt ſtrive in the meanes, and they be found hardning themſelves, it increaſeth their debt; and if he puniſh, he is juſt.] True, becauſe Chriſts death never procured an immunity from temporall puniſhments, but rather that we ſhould have them to correct and reduce us.
[And if he ſtill ſtrive and they refuſe, if he give them over to deſtruction, is he not juſt?] If he have received ſatisfaction for that unbeleife, (as he hath if that be true which the Author ſaith, page 4. that he was charged with all the ſinnes the law could charge man with; certainely then with all the Goſpel could) then his juſtice ſeemeth blemiſht in damning them for it; eternall death is not correctory, but ſatisfactory.
[Unbeliefe is the maine ſinne, &c. and this is the debt which God requires, &c. ſo that here is not two payments of one debt; but a new debt in deſpiſing Gods goodneſſe.] I demand when he ſaith, [Chriſt ſatisfied for ſinne,] what ſinne he means? what onelyonly for originall, and leſt us to ſatisfie for actuall? or for ſome actuall, and left us to makt out the reſt? Was the unbeleife of Paul, in the time of non converſion, a new debt not ſatisfied for? can any be ſaved and their ſinnes not ſatisfied for? is any able to ſatisfie but Chriſt? and the ſinner be capable of life? O impious doctrine, derogatory to the ſufferings of Chriſt; is not Chriſts worke a perfect worke, but a man may have a new debt, that was not thought on by Chriſt? ſtrange divinity, how muſt the deare children of God do with their paſt rebellions againſt meanes of grace? it is a new debt Chriſt ſatisfied not, they are not able? doth not he doe well to charge others with groſſe ignorance, that he may have ſome fellowes? Hath he ſo ſoone forgot his proteſtation againſt popery, and to defend the doctrine of the church of England againſt all popiſh innovation, which doctrine runnes thus
[That Chriſt ſuffered for all ſinnes of men, originall and actuall.] Yet he comes with a new debt unſatisfyed for, and who muſt if Chriſt did not? I would have the Author tell me what he meaneth when he ſaith, [The whole debt of mankinde became his, page 3.] is not contempt of meanes and rebellion againſt Gods call part of our debt? certainely herein the Author diſcovered too much ignorance, with which he is pleaſed to brand others; certainely thoſe for whom Chriſt undertook, he ſatisfyed for all their ſinnes, originall, actuall, againſt Law, againſt Goſpel; his ſatisfaction was not done to the halfe to need a corrivall in that worke; therfore ſuch can have no new debt, and ſuch cannot in juſtice be bound over to ſuffer eternall torments for any ſinne, no not for any pretended new debt; he hath taken away all that ſtands croſſe to our ſalvation; ſo the Author ſpeaketh, page 18. 19. And all that he ſaith notwithſtanding the propoſition ſtandeth firme.