The Universalist Examined and Convicted, Chapter 9
CHAP. IX. Of the constant changeing of the perſon, when having mentioned the generall, it mentioneth the eſpeciall.
THe Author his ſcope in this Chapter, is to make it appeare that thoſe places that are produced by us, with applicative reſtriction, are nothing againſt him; being ſuch as treat of the ſpeciall favours of beleivers, which is not the buſineſſe he treateth of, and this he doth by ſuggeſtion to his reader: that where the Scripture ſpeaketh of ranſome and redemption wrought in him, it ſpeakes in generall termes, but where it ſpeaketh of choice benefits, it ſpeakes in applicative expreſſions.
But when I prove theſe three particulars that follow, this will prove invalid.
1. The Scripture uſeth not this method in thoſe Scriptures which he urgeth, and his Scriptures are theſe, 2 Cor 5.19, 20, 21. where he ſaith [Reconciling is to the (world) and that is the redemption wrought in him: and ver. 21. He was made ſinne for us; there is the ſpeciall benefit of believers] wherein he intimated theſe two things. 1 That the word (reconciling) in the 19 verſe is meant of Chriſts act as Mediatour, working out a reconciliation with God for men, but this is a non probatum. I ſhewed the contrary in the foregoing part of this diſcourſe: that word both 18 and 19 verſes, whether to be underſtood of Gods actuall reconciling himſelfe to us, not imputing our ſinnes, or his reconciling us to himſelfe: it is to be meant of the application of his death, and the choice benefits of beleivers, as is confeſſed by him elſewhere; yet this is ſaid to be the (world) that is men living in the world 2. He would have hence, that ver. 21. [He hath made him to be ſinne for us.] ſpeaketh of the choice benefits of beleivers; this I approve not; but minde him of theſe two things. 1. His ſelfe-contradictions; for when he was treating of the firſt redemption, for all, and as wrought in Chriſt, page 4. he produceth this place to prove it, and here ſpeaking of the ſecond which is applicative to beleivers, be brings this place to prove it, we may ſee with what judgement the Author ſpeaketh. 2. This phraſe plainely denoteth the death of Chriſt and redemption wrought by it; for to (die for) and (to be made ſinne for) are termes of the ſame ſignification, yet this is ſaid to be for (us) and not in generall termes. Nay it is plaine, that the firſt words ſpeake of the death of Chriſt, and the ſecond viz. [That we might be made the righteouſneſſe of God] denote the application; but here is no change of perſon: both in the ſame; he made him ſinne for (us) that (we) &c. Therefore his device on this place falleth.
[Gal. 4.4.5. Speaking of that which he did for all, he ſaith, redeemed them that were under the Law; but ſpeaking of the eſpeciall priviledges of Adoption he changeth the perſon, and ſaith, that we might receive the adoption of ſonnes] wherein he would them, the firſt words to be without a reſtriction, and in generall termes; but he doth not here, nor elſewhere prove it, in redeeming them that receive the Adoption; he redeemed them that were under the Law, and the Text ſaith not that he redeemed all that were under the law.
2. He ſuppoſeth that adoption is a more ſpeciall benefit then redemption, which the Apoſtle owneth not; he puts as great emphaſis and dignity on the one as the other, both ſpirituall bleſſings, with which he bleſſeth Beleivers, Epheſ. 1.7. Col. 1.14. So for the reſt of his texts, they are a little invalid: and let the ſober-minded reader view thoſe texts in his ſenſe. He reconcileth every man, that we might be made the righteouſneſſe of God: He redeemed every man under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of ſonnes. He ſuffered for all unjuſt, that he might bring us to God; is this a probable interpretation? as if that God, that he might bring ſome to God, ſhould redeeme and reconcile all, and then view them in our ſenſe. He reconciled us, being men living in the world, that we might be the righteouſneſſe of God in him; he redeemed us being under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of ſons, he ſuffered for us being unjuſt, that he might bring us to God. And now let the reader judge which is moſt commodious, and if this ſecond, then any may ſee both parts relateth to the ſame perſons.
2. The Scripture doth not onelyonly not follow that method in theſe cited places, but alſo in other places, as Iohn. 10.15. 1 Th…ſ. 5.8, 9, 10. Where ſpeaking of his death, he maketh it not to runne in generall termes, but with a reſtriction.
3. Suppoſe it was ſo, yet the one is but to explaine the other, as, He hath ſuffered for the unjuſt, that is for us unjuſt, that he might being us to God; ſo that his invented method herein, and arguments thereon fall to the ground.