THE VNIVERSALIST Examined and Convicted, destitute of plain Say of Scripture, or Evidence of Reason.  
In Answer to a Treatise entitled, The Universality of God's free Grace in Christ to Mankind.  
By Obadiah How, A. M. Oxon. Pastor of Stickney in Lincolne-shire.  
For their sakes, I sanctify myself.  John 17.19. 
He died for this Nation, and not for this Nation only, but that he might gather into one all the Children of God.  John 11.51. 
Urgent fratres articulum istum totidem Scripturae verbis nunquam reperiri, sed respondemus, fieri non posse ut articulus Controversus inter eos qui Scripturam pro verbo Dei agnoscunt, totidem verbis concipiatur.  Remon. Coll. Hagiens. 170. 
[Christus mortuus est pro omnibus] [est propitiatio pro peccatis totius mundi] &c, qui sic loquitur, cum Scriptura loquitur, qui phrasin have repudiant, andax est & Scripturarum judex non interpres, qui ista loca convenienter Analogiae fidei explicat, boni interpretis officium facit, controversia enim est de sensu non de verbis.  Armin. Resp. ad 31. Artic. Art. 13. 
Printed for John Rothwell, at the Sun and Fountain in Paul's Churchyard, 1648.   

To the Christian Reader, with some Animadversions upon the Author's Epistle.  
THe infirmity of crowding to the Press is grown Epidemical. Infirmity I call it; because from thence men do (Publicè insanire) and have this unhappiness, that, in the Apostles phrase, their madness is known to all men, 2 Tim. 3 9 And Epidemical I call it: for who though of the meanest of the people, but may fill his hand and the Press at pleasure. Such hath been the Licence of these latter times, that Pamphlets swarm without Licence, and now the pretended Mother striveth to divide the child, with the true, error with truth, and pleadeth if it hath not equal liberty of the Press, that truth is suppressed. We want some wise Solomon to give wise judgement, to give truth its own, and let error know what she is. Whether the want of such hath not much dishonoured the Press, blemished the truth, impeded Reformation, dissettled the people, let common experience determine. Such daily births of Pamphlets to and fro can be no less to the people, than the winds are to the waves, make them crowd into new storms. As Athens ascribed her troubles to the Orators, who tossed the flexible multitude into sedition; I wish that this had not too great an influence into our present distractions; which if they were such as did recompense us with some hidden truths, they were worth the buying at so dear a rate; but if we observe them, they are such as are addicted only to miscall truth, as if they were hired to curse Israel. If they can but call Antichristian, erroneous, impious, blasphemous, it passeth for current, as if they had proved it so, as if a foul mouth was the Index of a deep head, and scurrility the measure of reason.  
Reader, that which thou hast here to the test, and examined, is no new opinion, nor any new light added to an old truth, but the manner of maintaining it is very singular, none before daring to appear so apsurd in Print.  
This with four other annexed points of Arminius, have formerly troubled quiet states and strong heads, but now I cannot say that they do either: Men of but indifferent parts (much more of more accurate) have left raking in the ashes of these perplexed Disputes, being such as have had their heat pretty well allayed long since; but of late some indigested and shattered brains have revived them, with no more hope of success, than intention to cure our Commotions.  
The Author of this Discourse, with whom I am to engage, would be taken for a Messenger of new Light, but he appears under no other face than of a misshapen Arminian: One strong in the Point of Redemption, but looketh with another face in the Point of Election. In the former he is not different, but where he is more absurd.  
I must acknowledge the depth of these Controversies, these negotiating and critical times, my slender years, and my Pastoral employment, do all comply to a disadvantage, were they not counterpoised with some encouragement from my Adversary. My genius was never martiall'd up in these Bible-battels, therefore it cannot be expected that I should add any new Light to these Points, which have exercised, yea exhausted the choicest Lamps in Christendom for their discovery. I must say of this my Answer as the Poet of his satire against some Scribblers in his time: 
Pers. in Prol  Non ad poesin ingenio natus, sed temporum ratione ductus— ● Such are the distempers of the times, and the negotiations of men, both of weak judgements, and corrupt minds, that now the exigence both of truth and peace requireth, that they that have but little, cast in their Mite. I may do it at as cheap a rate as any. Empty Margins, common resolutions, and an answer as worthless as his Discourse, will not be to my disparagement. I have nothing that can promise more: for as I have nothing to satisfy if men expect, so I have nothing to lose if men censure.  
Reader, if thou observest, we may see the whole Fabric in his Frontispiece, the marrow of his whole discourse in his Epistle; and therein we have a taste of that Scripture, reason, or fair dealing we are likely to expect from the whole, which if I should throughly examine, and give a solicitous answer to, I should prevent myself, and make my Epistle as voluminous as his Treatise: I shall therefore take some things that are not else where, and leave the rest to fall under the successive refutations in the following discourse.  
First we find the man in a passion of the heart:  
[Hearty grieved that a Church professing the great love of God, in the authorised Doctrine thereof, should be abused by many.] It seemeth then there is a Church of England, and the Doctrine thereof Orthodox, both which is much questioned now in these times; were he well furnished, he should have my voice to be the Church's Champion, but that I fear he hath an eye more to his own tenant then the Authority of the Church of England; and so long as She saith as he saith, She shall not want the Title of a Church, that it may be known he hath the suffrage of a Church of his side: not much unlike that Papal Sycophant, Constat summum Pontificem à pio Constantino Deum appellari. But the Particulars of his sad Complaint are these:  
[Many deny and blaspheme this great love of God to mankind in Scripture affirmed. John 3.16, 17. As if God hated most men from Eternity, so as they are not beholding to him for any good at all nor have any door of repentance, or means of life opened and afforded to them.] It is usual with Impostures, to frame to themselves Adversaries, and work them to their own conceits; and this is the Author guilty of. For,  
1. He cannot produce any that denyeth the great love of God to the world of mankind: John 3.16. Which is, that he sent his Son, that those that believe might not perish, but have everlasting life. 2. For his deduction therefrom, it is no high blasphemy to deny.  
Secondly, As for that Phrase, [Hating most men from Eternity.] He doth not deal very candidly, to set before his Reader the odious term of (Hating most men from Eternity,) which flesh and blood doth not well digest, without explaining the meaning of his Adversaries herein, as if they taught some monstrus Doctrine, when indeed it is his own Doctrine. For, that God hated Esau he cannot deny, and that that hatred consisted in his denying that peculiar favour to Esau which he gave to Jacob, he granteth; Pag. 93. And so he defineth God's hatred to be a less loving; Pag. 92, And this less loving is a denying of that good which he giveth to another. Now, for God to deny that great good, viz. Grace and Glory, to most men, which he giveth to his Elect, this is in our sense to hate them; and let him if he can produce any that speaks otherwise of God's hatred: But this is no such Blasphemy as he pretendeth, for he saith no less himself: [He decreed to harden and give up the residue, for contempt of means, to show his justice, when he overcommeth his Elect, and brings them in to believe, and so to the inheritance. Pag. 123.] Now, is not to decree to harden, to deny that great good, Grace and Glory, which he giveth to his Elect in overcoming them to believe? And is not this to hate? And is not this to most men in his own expresses? Yet he cries out of blaspheming the love of God, in saying that in that sense God is said to hate most men. But he may happily reply, that Gods hardening most men is for contempt of means; but this helpeth him not, because he overcommeth his Elect notwithstanding contempt of means; therefore he denies that grace to one which he giveth to another: 
Aquin. part. 1. q. 23. art. 3.  Therefore to this I say with Aquinas: [In quantum vult. omnibus aliquod bonum, omnes amat; in quantum aliquibus non dat quodcunque bonum, nec illud bonum quod est vita aeterna, ideo eos odio habet & reprobat.]  
Thirdly, As for that Phrase of [Most men being not beholding to God for any good at all.] It is his own perverse inference; that because we say he denyeth the top of his love to most men, therefore he chargeth us with this, that they are not beholding to God for any good. False suggestion! That God shineth both on Just and unjust, shows many mercies to all, no man denyeth: [Omnibus dat aliquod bonum, ideo omnes amat.]  
Fourthly, As for the last, [And no door of life and repentance set open for them.] I only demand, what door can be set open? and with what intention it is set open to them whom God hath determined to give up to destruction? But this he hath done to most men, as he saith, Pag. 120. Now that I may in a few words thus reason: they that are decreed to be given up and hardened are Reprobated, and they that are Reprobated, whilst they remain so, cannot be saved, nor receive Faith, or Conversion, is the Confession of Corvinus; 
Cap. 26. §. 5  [Si intelligatur de reprobo qua tali in sensu composito, nego reprobum posse salvari aut fidem accipere & se convertere.] And that they that are from Eternity Reprobated, do always remain so, is clear from their Principles: because Reprobation is passed on them that do finally persist in Infidelity and disobedience, whom God forseeth to do so, and by virtue of his prescience do infallibly persist in it, and so remain always Reprobates. Hence is it that Corvinus himself, 
Cap. 21. §. 6.  though he said that Justified persons might be reprobated, yet he durst not say that Reprobated persons could be justified; because that was the conclusive Act, being done after final impenitence, after which no man can believe or repent. Therefore how a door of life can be opened to such in time I cannot see, and to deny it is no blasphemy.  
The second thing which he sadly layeth to heart is: That  
[Many contradict plain say of Scripture, as that Christ gave himself a ransom for all, 1 Tim. 2.6. Christ tasted death for every man, Heb. 2.9. and affirm contrary, that Christ did not shed his blood, or die for every man.  
But herein he discovers either affected Ignorance, or wilful Calumny: For  
1. He cannot produce any that deny the truth of those Scriptures. If he will content himself with what those places affirm he shall have no Antagonist: but that which we deny is his glosses on, and inferences from those Texts, as that Christ did by death procure Eternal life for every son of Adam, which no Scripture affirmeth. The Remonst. to whom our Author must come behind in these Controversies, have been so fare from charging us with denying Plaine say of Scriptures, that they have granted that their Tenent is not, nor can be thought to be contained in plain say of Scripture. 
Col. Hagien 170.  [Urgent fratres articulum istum totidem verbis Scripturae nunquam reperiri; sed respondemus, fierinon posse ut articulus Controversus inter eos qui Scripturam pro verbo Dei agnoscunt totidem verbis Scripturae concipiatur.] They had the ingenuity to conceive that no man that had the least spark of grace, or reason, would question or deny that which the Scripture plainly affirmeth; 
Rep. ad art. 31. art. 12  and Arminius professeth that in this very point, the Controversy is not about the words, but sense and interpretation; as may be seen in that place quoted in my Frontispiece; but our Adversary delights [fingere sibi adversarium stolidum] to make to himself a foolish Adversary.  
A third thing that he complaineth of is this:  
[That the Doctrine of the Church of England should be called a flat lie, (viz. that God redeemed me and all mankind) in this assertion, he redeemed none but the Elect.] Wherein we may see the Church of England hath a Son of a very good nature, but a very bad ingeny, sorry to have her wronged, but knoweth not when she is so, therefore picks quarrels without cause. For,  
1. He that takes the Liturgy of the Church of England for the Doctrine thereof may very well take that for an injury which is not; and what cause many have had to say, that many expressions were foisted into the Liturgy, and it not retain its Primitive purity, I leave to him to examine.  
2. To redeem totum genus humanum, is no more than Omnia genera hominum: all mankind, no more than all the kinds of men: and if he would have that Phrase to mean further, he must prove it: now this is not proved a lie by saying he redeemed only the Elect, for such he hath in all kinds of men  
3. If he peruse the Doctrine of England in the 39 Articles, he shall see contrary to his Doctrine; unless to the words thereof he add his corrupt Comments.  
A fourth thing which he grieveth for, is this:  
[That men should run into so many long-ago-condemned practices, evil and Papistical, to maintain their Contradictions of the truth.] But his practice of so prepossessing the minds of his Reader without ground, is far more Jesuitical: and was he of any authority [with any but them that labour with his Ignorance] So that we might say his tongue is a slander, we might upon better ground be grieved for his Calumny: But those tricks where with he challengeth us I shall examine.  
1. [Pretending insufficiency in the Scripture to be the Determiner of matters of faith] This is but his wont forgery, and Calumny, he cannot show wherein we pretend so much, or at least it must be in that wherein he is as guilty as any. It hath been our plea that no Scripture holdeth forth his Doctrine; therefore, there is no need why we should fly to the insufficiency of Scripture to determine matters of faith; indeed his glosses and Comments we cannot suffer to determine our faith, therefore let that shift be returned to them that need it.  
2. [Pretending darkness in Fundamentals] But herein I demand, whether any there be that saith in express words, that the Scripture is dark in Fundamentals, or whether it be a deduction of his own from our expresses upon some places of Scripture; if the first, than I expect that he produce them; If the second, I doubt it will appear that the Jesuitical Sophistry hath a greater influence into his practice then ours: Just such dealing as we have from them, we have from him, and in both most unjust forgeries. The Papists because they cannot work us to their mind to say that all Scriptures are hard, they to make us odious traduce us, as if we held that all Scriptures are easy. So the Rhemists' object against us in these words: 
Rhem. Test. in pres. §. 16.  [They find no difficulty in the Book sealed with Seven Seals, and no Interpreter with the Eunuch. 
Gag. for new Gosp. Pag. 1. ] And in another Treatise this is laid down by them as an Error of the Protestants; [That they maintain that the Scriptures are easy.] And now the Author saith as a charge against us, that we hold that the Scripture is dark in Fundamentals; delivering it so lurgely, and so indefinitely, as if we held that the Scripture was wholly dark in Fundamentals; but if either of these Calumniators had but considered that some Scriptures are easy, some hard and difficult, Scripture neither wholly dark, nor wholly easy, there might have been little cause appearing for such a Calumny on either side. Now to this Allegation, if he mean that the Scripture every where treating of the Foundation, is dark, this no man saith: If he mean that in some things that are concerning the Foundation the Scripture is dark and obscure, he cannot upon good ground deny it; certainly St Peter was of that mind when he said, many things were so hard to be understood, that the unlearned did wrest them to their destruction, 1 Pet. 3.16.  
But besides, it is no convincing Argument against us because we do as the Papists, if either the Author or Arminius be right; our Author in the 118. Pag. is loath to dislike all that they say, and Arminius being charged with holding a Papistical Tenent, 
In Perkins, 258.  thus replied; Anne quia Pontificia ideo falsa? This may be easily wiped off if he could produce any that did so say.  
4. [Using carnal reasons to frame absurdities that follow.] It seems, that reasoning that presseth his Tenent with absurdities, is carnal reasoning: a safe conclusion for himself, he would feign embrace the error, but not meddle with the absurdities that follow; true it is that [Ab uno absurdo mille sequuntur.] Many absurdities will follow from an absurdity, but certainly no absurdity will follow from the truth. If his Tenent be Truth, he need not fear to be burdened with the absurdities that follow; but in that he fears the absurdities, it is a strong suspicion that it is not truth which yet he would embrace, but leave the other, as the Cat, [Amat piscem sed non vult tangere Lympham.] But besides, it is neither a Papistical shift, nor carnal reasoning to refute error by absurdities that follow, it was the Apostles practice, 1 Cor. 15.3. He proveth the Resurrection by those absurdities that follow upon the denial of it: as then is not Christ risen, then are we of all Creatures most miserable, else why are ye baptised for the dead, and many other in that Chapter; and very frequent is this way of Confutation in Scripture; and it is a very pregnant way of arguing; but he discovereth plainly what thoughts he hath of his Tenent, when he is loath to be troubled with the absurdities that follow, and I blame him not, for they are many and great.  
4. [Imposing strange senses of plain say of Scripture.] But what these strange senses are he should have done well to have inserted, that the Reader might have had a survey of them, but in that he chargeth us without instance, I need not answer: But this I dare refer to any intelligent Reader that is but versed in the least measure, to judge whether they that hold his Tenent, or we, give the strangest and most exotic interpretations, and they that do, let them lie under that black Charge. Let any review those strange senses that the Remonst. put upon John 6.37.44. Acts 13.48. With all others that give any light in these Controversies, of which our Author favours in his whole Treatise: as in Pag. That Text John 6.37. [Those that my Father giveth me shall come unto me.] By those that are (given to Christ) he interprets, those that are given to him in the heavenly Calling, so as to come to him; So that this first (giving) taketh in coming to him; and the sense is this, those that come unto me shall come unto me, those that believe shall believe; this in the eyes of any reasonable man cannot but seem a strange Interpretation. So that Text, John 6.44. [No man can come except my Father draw him.] By drawing here, the Remonst. as also the Author, Pag. Mean the drawing by the call of the Gospel, outward only by Moral suasion, and such a drawing as is distinct from bringing them in to believe and give themselves to Christ: But any that considers the Context, may adjudge this a strange Interpretation. Our Saviour being to show a reason why among those that did equally enjoy the outward call of the Gospel, and so as that they were convinced, yet some did not believe, he giveth this as a reason, No man can come unto me except my Father draw him. Now this word (drawing) showing a reason of a disparity in condition, cannot be meant of that wherein there was a parity amongst them. So for many others; but the ensuing Discourse will furnish any with ability to judge who is most guilty of strange Senses, and Interpretations of Scripture.  
Having thus ended his sad complaint, he cometh to counsel his reader, or if he please, to be an answerer, wherein lieth a mixture of egregious Slanders, therefore I shall touch them a little: he wisheth his Antagonist,  
[Not to invent lies and slanders, to make infamous Such as will not be of the same opinion, in which the Antichristian brood aboundeth; and so many have done in this business also, giving it out to others, that such as say that Christ is the Saviour of the world, as Joh. 4.42. gave himself a ransom for all men, 1 Tim. 2.6. that these are,  
1. [False witnesses against Christ and his Apostles.] I should expect the same dealing from him to us, that he expects from us to him; and in teaching us to beware of lies and slanders, he should not become the father of a lie and slander himself: It is not my language, but his own retorted. I know none more guilty of it than himself: For herein he would possess his Reader, that we say those that say as John 4.42. 1 Tim. 2.6. Such are false witnesses against Christ and his Apostles. A shameful forgery, that beareth its shame in the face of it, no man being so senseless to charge any man for a false witness against Christ and his Apostles for saying as they say. Let the Author remind his own Tract, and tell me is there nothing there but what Christ and his Apostles speak? To instance, when he speaketh of 1 Tim. 2.6. He saith that that place saith that Christ gave himself a ransom for all Adam's Sons, and those that have a being from him: Pag. 55.57. Yea, every individual of all mankind: Pag. 61. But I pray doth Christ or his Apostles say so? I could never yet see it; no, it is a sense that he putteh upon that Text; and so doing, if any say he is a false witness against Christ and his Apostles, he is not to be condemned of slander: rather the slander is the Authors charge, because when we deny his interpretation, he saith we deny the words; and when any saith he is a false witness against Christ and his Apostles for obtruding such a sense on them as they will not own, he chargeth us with slander, as if we said he was a false witness that saith as those places say: He might have remembered that saying, Qui alterum accusat probri, etc. He that accuseth another, had need look home to himself.  
2. [That such are Arminians.] How ready he is to embrace the Tenent, yet  of entertaining the name of Arminius? for him or any that holds the universality of merit of Christ's death, to account it a slander to be called an Arminian, is a mere foppery, and for me to give a serious answer herein, would be to be guilty of his folly. The Doctrine itself is one of the five points of Arminius, the distinction of procuring and applying, which the Author useth, and the manner of applying it is theirs, the Scriptures produced by our Author in pursuance of it are produced by them, his interpretations of contrary Texts are theirs, his Answers to our Arguments are theirs; if I make not all this good, I shall willingly lie down under that censure. And if the case be thus, it is not our slander but his folly that appeareth. For either he hath read Arminius or not; if he hath not, than his want of ingenuity appears in charging us with slander, in saying he is an Arminian, when he knoweth not what an Arminian is: If he have, than his dishonesty appeareth in so shamefully denying his Master, when he cannot but know, his speech doth so bewray him. Indeed Arminius hath had an ill savour amongst us for these late years, and that he resenteth, therefore I cannot blame him if he be not willing to be seen under that garb.  
3. [That such hold that Christ died for all men alike.] If this be such a slander, I would he would not afford such a fair occasion for our presuming in this case. Doth not his whole Discourse savour strongly of it? Let him show me where in all his Book he maketh the Death of Christ to make any difference. Let us but take a taste: He treating of the ends of his Death, layeth down three: First, To satisfy Justice. Secondly, To become their Lord. Thirdly, To ransom from the Curse. Now if in any place of his Book he maketh it appear, that he satisfied the justice of God for one more than another; or became their Lord over one more than another; or did ransom one more than another, than I shall think that he holdeth not that Christ died for all men alike; indeed I think he maketh the application to be with a difference, but for the impetration or purchase, I suppose he maketh it to be general, and equal: but if he do not hold so, the matter will be the same betwixt him and his Antagonist.  
4. [That men by nature have free will to spituall good, that there is no Election, that there is no Grace but what men may fall from.] This I conceive some men lay to his charge, and the ground is this: No absolute Election, universal Atonement, free will, falling away from Grace, are annexed Points, and hitherto have been inseparable, and those that have maintained the one, have with equal strength maintained the other; and when he doth so well acquit himself in the one as quite to desert the other, I shall confess myself deceived in this business. Indeed, he granteth absolute Election, not upon foresight of faith, but then this destroyeth general Atonement, as I show in the following Discourse; Therefore he must come to deny absolute Election, or else relinquish general Atonement. And so for the rest, they are so natural to his expresses in his Discourse, that it will be a hard thing to quit himself of them, how ever the following Discourse will put him to his Purgators, and I fear at last they will appear no slanders. I would he did not give too fair occasion for to charge him. I shall mind the Reader but of one thing more, and that is the pretence of the Author, of a tye that lieth upon him to maintain this Doctrine, and that is the Protestation which he took [to defend the Doctrine of the Church of England against Popery, and Popish Innovations, which the Tenent of Christ not dying for all, opens a wide door unto.] Hereby we may see with what sinister respects he was biased, and with what blind zeal he was acted when he took the Protestation; his concluding that he was thereby engaged to defend universal redemption, is a bad precedent for Popish mental reservations, and the enervation of all Covenants, if they may be taken according to the conceit of the Takers, for there is nothing to which we are less engaged than to that: But he here magnifieth his piercing judgement in descrying that tye that few besides himself could see, but his ground I shall examine, (because happily it may reflect on them that are of a contrary judgement, yet are under the same Covenant with him.) His grounds are twofold.  
1. [He professed to maintain the Protestant Religion against Popery, and Popish Innovations:] To which he thinks the denial of his Doctrine sets a wide door open. I know not what his conscience is, I am sure his understanding is weak if he herein speak as he thinks; as for any fear of Popery I conceive no ground, there is no affinity at all: Let the Author peruse the Jesuits over, look the Remists in the Controverted places, and then let him tell me if that Protestation tied him against Popery, obliged him to hold universal Redemption; the Author (if he took the Protestation in judgement) doth, or may know, that Papists are divided in those Points as well as Protestants: and that ours hath no more affinity with Popery than his Doctrine, because Papists there are on both sides, as well as Protestants on both sides.  
2. [The second ground is, because he protested to defend the Doctrine of the Church of England.] As if his Doctrine fetched any authority from that: He produceth four several Articles, I shall examine them severally.  
1. [Art. 6. Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation, so that what is not there read, or proved by it, is not required of any to be believed] True: But why doth not he think himself by this obliged rather to relinquish his opinion than to defend it? Seeing no Scripture speaketh so much, as is afterwards shown; and in that no Scripture faith so much, this Article of the Doctrine of the Church of England binds him not to believe it, much less to defend it: First let him prove that his Tenent is the language of Scripture before he be bound by that article to defend it.  
2. [Art. 20. It is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to the Word of God, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture that it be so repugnant to another.] And still this is no friend to him or his Doctrine, or way of maintaining it; it must be first tried who are most guilty of giving such uncouth interpretations of Scripture as that they cannot be reconciled to other places, which I fear will fall upon the Author, and this the ensuing Discourse will make appear. Herein the Reader may take a survey of the size of the Author's understanding and judgement in his Protestation taking.  
3. [Art. 2. Christ very God, very man, who suffered, was crucified, etc. to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a Sacrifice not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.] This is truth, but then the Reader may see that is no such enemy to the Popish Innovation, against which this Article was framed; nor is this Article so great a friend to his Tenent as he in both pretendeth: Let us take the Popish Innovation as he layeth it down, Pag. 98. [That Christ only paid the greatest part of the debt to his Father, wholly in respect of Eternal punishment, and left a Part of the debt in respect of temporal punishments for his People to pay, etc.] Now, whether do we that say according to this Article, that Christ by his death was a Sacrifice not for original only, nor some actual sins only, but original and all actual sins of them for whom he died, So that ●here is no new debt required of them for which he did not satisfy; or, he that saith that there is a new debt which Christ did not satisfy for, viz. Contempt of means of grace, which God may require of them for whom Christ died, as a debt not satisfied for, let any rational man judge. But as the grounds of his protesting, So are his performances, very weak. Secondly, This Article is no friend to his Tenent; for, if he have not suffered shipwreck of his common understanding, he may see a wide difference betwixt the sins of all men, and all the sins of men, and hence ariseth his mistake, he referreth the Particle (All) to men, and it is to be referred to sins. That Chirurgeon that saith he hath wrought a cure on all the members of man's body, doth no way infer that he hath wrought a cure of the Members of all men's bodies. That Article tendeth hitherto, to affirm that Christ did take away all the sins of them for whom he died, as well Actual as Original, and our Author would stretch it to aver that he took away the Actual and Original sins of every man: but this is not to defend, but to destroy the Doctrine of the Church of England.  
4. [Art. 15.31. That by the Sacrifice of himself he should take away the sins of the world, and all the sins of the whole world both Original and Actual, and this against a Popish Innovation] Truth; and so he doth take away the sin of the world, that is of men living in the world: as he is said to be believed on in the world, that is, by men living in the world. He taketh away sins from the world (quoad partem credentem) in them that believe: as John 3.16. And for all the sins of Believers all over the whole world; thus fare we grant it, but he cannot with any show of reason stretch those Articles any further, he may see that the scope of them tend to another business, for if they should speak as much as the Author intendeth, they should say thus much, That Christ took away all Original & all Actual sins of every Son of Adam; which no Scripture speaketh, no Arminian affirmeth, and the Author disclaimeth, for he saith, contempt of means is a new debt: Therefore the Doctrine of the Church of England being Orthodox, and so he having protested to defend it, it cannot speak any such thing, or any ways favour his Doctrine. Many more particulars might be instanced in, but they are of so low a flight that they cannot but be distasteful to the Palate of them that are any way ingenuous, therefore with these I content myself, as affording a sufficient taste of his forged Calumnies, impertinent Allegations, abuse and foul dealing with his Opposers, infirm and weak grounds both in maintaining his Doctrine, and matters of greater concernment, his Covenant and Protestations, which should be done in judgement. Ex pede Herculem, by the foot we may guess at the stature of the Body, so by this we may guess at the whole; but I prepossess thee not with prejudice, as thou findest, judge. Now happily thou mayest demand, why this comes forth as a birth out of due time, after so many in these Controversies, as Mr Whitfield and others? To this I answer, First, because this was finished before Mr Whitfield's came to light. Secondly, because if the men we have to deal with were of such ingenuity as that when a man doth [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refutare] refute the most illustrious, and expressions of greatest force in a Controversy, they could acquiesce in it, as if he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refutare, refute all; Then I know Mr Whitfield would give good satisfaction, he having given such solutions as the Author will never contradict. But any that considereth the nature of our Antagonists, they may adjudge what hath been said to be a little too concise, and thence they take occasion to say that we pick and choose for our own advantage, therefore. I have applied myself to a general Answer, not leaving any material expression unexamined: wishing every intelligent Reader to consider, that the nature of my Antagonist necessitateth me to this tediousness. Thirdly, I hope, (though much hath been said,) with my poor Talent to cast some Mite into the Treasure of public decisions; therefore not with intention to eclipse in any measure what hath been before said, but desiring in a brotherly way to unite forces to refel this spreading error that eateth like a Canker. The Method of his Chapters I have inverted, his sixth is my First. To try a man when he is half hanged, and to state a question in the midst of a Discourse, I think not much different. And to the Reader of what judgement soever, I say but this; Let neither affection, nor prejudice either interpret Scripture, or answer Reason, follow the natural and clear genius of the Text, and I commit this my unworthy Discourse to thy perusal, and us all to God, to lead us into all Truth necessary for our Salvation, and remain  
Thine to serve thee in our Common Saviour Obadiah whither.   

The Vniversalist Examined and Convicted, destitute of plain Say of Scripture, or Evidence of Reason.  

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 show how the Author stateth the Question, and then lay down the usual and genuine state as it hath been laid down in all engagements in these Points. The Author being a Man of vast reading in the polemics of Divinity, attempts to summon the several statings of the Question to his Test, and saith,  
1. [Some say, Jesus Christ died for his Elect, and only for them that are Elect to Sonship and Eternal Inheritance, and no other.] Herein the affirmative of the Question is set down, but no state of the Question: The one side say, Christ died for his Elect only, the other side say, that Christ died for All; but in neither is the Question stated, only the affirmation barely propounded. I shall expect to hear the Person and Place where this is given as the state of the Question.  
2. [Some say, that Christ died 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 than the Remonstrants do I know, yet they disclaim it: They would have the Love of God to be Common to all, but not equal to all men 
a Corvin. in Mel. cap. 31. Sect. 1. p. 492.  [Non volumus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ergâ hominum salutem esse equalem sed communem:] And also Arminius himself, 
b Armin. in Perk. pag. 57●  [Scio quidem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dei non esse omnimodo equalem, etc.] Yet how they can avoid this I see not; For they say, that out of his natural goodness 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 believe, and to none if they be incredulous. Now, lest any should think that I wrong them, I instance; that his will and intention is to save every man if they will believe and accept of him, is clear 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 own default] and also, 
Corvin. in. Mol c. 27. Sect. 1. Coru. in Mol. Cap. 27. Sect. 4 Acta. Synod. 285.  [Nullus omnino hominum est cujus falutem non velit.] And that he died 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 believe 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 known to any that have but tasted of those disputes. Now to say that he willeth the Salvation of all (if they believe) and the damnation of all if they believe not, And so Christ by his death Impetrated Salvation for all, that they might be saved if they believe, and yet that none might be saved if they believe not, and so (for all any decree of God) all may be incredulous and perish; if this be not to say that Christ died for all men alike, for like ends, etc. I know not what is. But yet I say their profess words say nothing like this, when they come to give the state of the Question: and so to come to my Antagonist again, if he find it not there, I would know where he findeth it elsewhere. But besides, I know not how the Author can free himself from this groundless assertion: what his judgement is truly, I cannot determine, but so fare as his Discourse may assure us, we may conclude it, for in Cap. 2. where he sets down the ends of Christ so far as concerns Men, as Pag. 16, 17, 18, 19 he concludeth, [That every particular in that general 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 satisfy 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 Sovereign over all, and he can be no more (as Lord) to any. So for a third, He is the Ransom 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 own affirmations: whence any may conclude that Christ died for all men alike, for he mentioneth no other end, so fare as Respects Ransom, or Propitiation, but what agreeth to every man alike in his own reasoning,  
3. [Some say, Christ died for every man in case every man believe on him, and for no man in case they persist in unbelief, but this is no Scripture sense, etc. Christ hath given himself a Ransom whether men believe it or no.] I conceive the Author cannot produce any that so state the Question, (the model of this plea may be drawn out of the Remonstrants, with the greatest probability,) but they say no such thing; they do not leave the act of man in believing to determine the act of Christ as done in and by himself; For then, they cannot prove that he died for any, because in their judgement all may be unbelievers and perish, and yet Christ have his end; They say as firmly and perspicuously, that (Christ died for all, 
Acta Synod. 4●.  whether men believe or no,) as the Author himself 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 died in some sort for all men, and so as all do receive some benefit thereby: He died for all men as a Lord, but he did not die 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 seethe something but he knoweth not what, something he meaneth if he could but speak. For,  
1. Some he may produce that say that all Men, yea all Creatures receive some benefit by Christ's 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 died for all that receive benefit by his Death; he died for no other but men, whose nature he undertook, thus Scripture affirmeth; but many more Creatures besides Men have some benefit by Christ's 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 affirm, 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 died for all men as Lord,] this is form thus in his own confused brain; it was no Act of Lordship to die, but rather as a Servant he died, 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 Gospel is he their Lord?]  
1. Unless he will say that every man receiveth all good, and the highest good by Christ's Death, (which he cannot prove) he must confess that it is the whole truth, that every man receiveth some good by his Death.  
2. He strongly affirmeth that Christ died for every man by way of Surety, which is not provable either by Scripture, or good reason; It is against the nature of a Surety to do any thing for one as a Surety, and for the other to be liable to the same thing: hence the same debt in a way of justice cometh not by any means to be required of both the Surety & the Principal: For this would not be (Moripro) but (Mori cum) not to die for, but to die with men: (Whether this or a different consideration, I know not) but some such thing made the Remonstr. something shy of this expression of a Surety, and in plain terms 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 clear, that they could not affirm that Christ died 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 die for them as Surety, but herein he argueth weakly. No eye surely but seethe 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, Leu. 25.44. But they were not said to be Surety for them: So on the other side, Judah was Surety for Benjamin, 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 weak reasoning.  
4. He affirmeth that to deny that Christ died 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 gross perversion; for he leaveth out the words, (As a Surety) wherein the vigour lieth; 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 weakness 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 paid 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 died 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 several 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 Ransom sufficient for the Salvation of all men) I deny not, but then here the Author erreth, it was rather a dogmatic assertion, to show how those words may be received as truth, than a full state of the Question, and it may appear in that those hot Disputes have not turned upon this hinge.  
2. Those that say, [Christ died 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. 
Coru. 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 think he never receiveth any such, and that on good ground I think so, because it is not suitable to their Principles. For they that say, [Christ died for all sufficiently,] mean it, only sufficiently, and that in opposition to [effectually] therefore they do in the same words deny that he did die for all (effectually,) and that whether considered really or intentionally, that is, Christ did neither do it, nor intent to redeem 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 died for all sufficiently,] do not say, [He hath not ransomed all men] for as they say, Christ hath died for all sufficiently, so they say also, he hath ransomed all sufficiently; Seeing, that to (die for) and to (ransom) are in Scripture Equipollent. So that we may in this see how the Author hallucinates about other men's words: But to let this pass 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 than he did not consider that those that say, [Christ died for all sufficiently,] do means 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 effectual 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 not perfectly wrought, and received in himself, that he might bestow it according to the Gospel?] This Phrase [applicable to all] is foisted in sophistically, there is no question made of the applicability of any sufficiency that Christ did not work out, and will to apply: but yet a sufficiency there is in the Blood of Christ, worth, and valour to purchase that which it doth not, and for more than he doth effectually redeem: Were there more worlds, or many more in this world then ever were, or are, or shall be, would any doubt but the Blood of Christ had worth and sufficiency to ransom them? Nay, if God so pleased to make his Blood a price for Devils, who would doubt of the sufficiency of it to redeem them? I hope the Author will not deny the Blood 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 Blood, but to the grace, and good will of God to men; he did not die for, or ransom 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 Blood of Christ beyond what effecteth by it; sheweth what a dexterity the Author hath in being absurd in his Quotations; that place showeth 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 Blood, that the Text showeth not.  
6. Some say, Christ died for all in regard of the kind or general lump of mankind considered, because he took the nature of mankind on him, & so died for all, but did not die for all in regard of individuals.] I have not so much credulity as to believe that the Author hath any precedent for such a state of the Question: the expressions are too indigested to come from any knowing man; to die for the kind and not the individuals, is to die for the nature, not the Persons of men. I fear when his account is cast up, this will appear a crude conclusion from more clear expressions, contracting the gross Metamorphosis, from his own brain.  
7. [Some say Christ died for all men, that they might be saved, and for the Elect that they should undoubtedly be saved.) Is it not possible that any man's Judgement shall pass his Pen without corruption? I believe some there are that say, [Christ died 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 between the Calvinists and Remonst. and of this judgement was one of eminent note in God's 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 infallibly. 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 press 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 Blood, redeemed the world of mankind, satisfied God's Justice, and obtained a way of Salvation for every man; 
Dr. Davenant on Heard. Pag 233.  (and then add) 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 Theme, he treateth there of Reprobation, and therefore no rational 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 doubtful 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 expressly 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 believe 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 died for all, that all might be saved if they believe, yet they shall not if they believe 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 believe, yet so as none but them that believe should partake of it;] And this, [Christ by his Blood 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 unless they believe;] I need a more piercing Judgement than I have, to find any difference, I shall expect to find one in the Author's next.  
Again, 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 applied or not applied 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 than it is hence Corvinus maketh these two (Deus est placabilis) and (placandus si crederent) to be equipollent terms, 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 applied if they believe, and not applied if they believe not] And this [Christ by his bloodshed hath obtained a way of Salvation for every man, but God never intended that the outward Act put any man into possession unless they believe;] I cannot see any momentous difference, and the rather I am enduced to think 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.  
Again, 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 died for all men that they might be saved] equalise and speak as much as this, viz [Christ by his Blood 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 than to say, [Christ died 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,] equalise and speak as much as the second part in the eighth State? viz. [None but them that enter into that way of Faith and Repentance shall possess 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 bloodshed; and that which he worketh in men by application of his Blood, is not expressed:] But this is empty and groundless, because that distinction is not in express terms in the eighth State, and by as good consequence in the seventh: herein he appears not so quick 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 several others are rejected.  
Thirdly, Let us see this State which he so eagerly fasteneth 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 died and given himself a Ransom to God for all men, etc. That in and by himself 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 died for them, and make them alive before him. That, they shall acknowledge him Lord, and come before his judgement Rom. 14.9, 12. etc. And he is so filled with Spirit for them, to make it so known, and with such tenderness, that they might be saved, so all are made savable.] When this is emboweled, we shall see little cause why it should be (after the expunging of so many Stating) 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, conjoined. 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 die 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 [Ransom or Redemption?] Ransom or Redemption when spoken of man, always presuppose [misery] and [liberty] as the terms, from which, to which, men are ransomed and redeemed, but [being given into one's dispose,] requireth neither. The Israelites had the Heathen in their dispose, but they cannot in reason be said to ransom 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 express ransom or redemption by) till we see what is in the rest.  
2. [That he will raise them out of the death he died 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 appear senseless: 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 ransom or redemption mentioned in Scripture: Or else, that Christ died 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 means and way to the possession of that inheritance to which we are ransomed and redeemed; Yet no Scripture giveth the Resurrection the name of ransom or redemption, as Christ is said to redeem or ransom us, and the former very unfit to express this latter by, for then those that are raised by his Judiciary power only, and that to receive their eternal and final doom in hell, may in that Act be said to be ransomed and saved; but this who can believe? So for the second, it is not any whit shorter in absurdity: for the death which we are freed from is no way proportioned by the death which he died, we are to be freed from the death we were adjudged to, not what death he died himself; he came to save us so fare as we were lost, but not to be so fare lost himself. Some suitable proportion of sufferings which he endured, to them which we deserved I grant, but where they wanted endurance 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 countervail eternal sufferings of a finite Creature; we were adjudged to deaths, Temporal, Spiritual, Eternal, but Christ did not die all these for us, yet freed us from the two last: he died the first for us and freed us not from it; he died not a Spiritual death, that is (in sin,) for then he had not been an unspotted Lamb: 1 Pet. 1.20. He died for our sins, but we read not that he died in our sins; and Eternally he died not, then had he not been justified himself, nor justified us, yet he freed us from death both Spiritual and Eternal; therefore this expression of the Author is obscure, confused, and however taken absurdly laid down, 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 denied: But that being brought before his judgement seat, and being made to confess him Lord, is to be ransomed and redeemed, none (before our Author) have ever been so weak to affirm; for in and by eternal destruction men may be caused to acknowledge him Lord: but is it a sober expression to say that in eternal destruction we are ransomed and redeemed?  
4. [That he is so filled with Spirit for them to make it known, and with such tenderness to them that they might be saved.] But what is it which by his Spirit he makes known? Scripture telleth us that he is filled with Spirit to preach the Gospel, Glad tidings, Liberty. Isa. 61.1. But this is none of that god news, Gospel, 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 Gospel news, no glad tidings to them that call to the hills to cover them from the presence of the Lamb, but to such these particulars equally belong with all others.  
Again, He is filled with Spirit to make known that which requireth the work of the Spirit to the actual enjoying of it, and so filled with Spirit to give Spirit, that men might enjoy that which he maketh known. Luk. 4.18. As liberty, opening Prison doors, Remission of sins, eternal life, and to the enjoyment of these the work of the Spirit is requisite, but to those particulars which he furnisheth us withal, the works 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 feel the work of the Spirit upon their hearts; therefore why he should be filled with Spirit to make any or all of these known, I would be informed.  
Again, 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. Certainly, herein the Author cometh very short, that which he is filled with Spirit to make known, 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 [Ransom] and [Redemption,] and [Salvation] by: no not in his own principles; for [Ransom] 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. Again, to be but salvable, argues that those are equally damnable; for [salvable] is, and must be taken to be saved if they believe, and damned if they believe not. Now to say that Christ came to make men salvable only, argues that Condemnation had equal share and interest in his coming with Salvation, but this is not Scripture Language. Joh. 16.17. Again, to be Ransomed, Redeemed, Saved, as Christ came to Ransom, Redeem, Save, require the work 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 appears that no one of those particulars mentioned, nor all of them jointly, do equal those terms of [Ransom] and [Redemption,] and therefore not well produced as their definition; and hath the Author ever observed in all his judicious perusal of other men's works, 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, appear before his judgement seat? And doth the Author think that this was the judgement of that Learned man whom he eiteth to authorise the last State of the Question? Or doth he think that when the Question is propounded, [whether Christ hath died for every man] that these should be the result, and the hinge on which Controversies turn? I think he cannot be so senseless. But he herein discovers that he puts the state of the Question in that which the word [Ransom,] [Redemption,] and [die 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 himself to this task, I leave to any to judge. These might have been passed by as short of the business, 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 stasting of the Questions, thereby to magnify his vast reading, (when indeed he cannot produce them from any Pen,) and his piercing judgement in casting out (as by an Index expurgatorius) that which is heterodoxal, when every State is abused by himself for his own ends.  
2. His gross and dishonest perversion of men's words, producing them in such Forms 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 cometh 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 always given, that so we may see the pertinency and validity of his whole Discourse. I could produce many expressions from many Authors about this business, who grant an Universality, but not in favour to his Tenet, but I will not multiply words, lest I run upon the same Rock on which the Author hath split himself; neither shall I insert what I find delivered in a dogmatic way, 
●ta. Synod. ●. ●. iv. Mol. 〈◊〉 Sect. 1. ●4. 〈◊〉 Hag p. 9  nor what is every particular man's judgement, for the full state is seldom deduced from such: But I shall rather address myself 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 terms: [An Christus mortuus est pro omnibus?] Whether Christ hath died for [All] [the World] [the whole World] but thus, [pro omnibus & singulis] as may be seen 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 individual, 
Twisse vind. great. 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 equivocal state of the Question: As to say, Christ hath died for all men: So that that Discourse, or that proposition that saith no more than this, that he hath ransomed (all men) (the world) (the whole world) cometh 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 died for all and every man, in any kind, or to procure any good] but these controversies have been restrained to eternal 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, 
Coru. 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 eternal Salvation, it is our judgement] Therefore that Discourse, and that Proposition that hold forth no more but this, that he died 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 clear this business, 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 Temporal, Spiritual, Eternal misery, and Thraledome, there is a Temporal, Spiritual, Eternal Redemption; if spoken of such a misery from which all are redeemed, than it is an universal Redemption: if of such from which some only are redeemed, than it is a special Redemption. Now the misery which man in general and every individual lay under, was gradual, and a complication of more deaths than one, as our Author confesseth, Pag. 99 where he giveth it the name of deaths in the plural number, and it is apparent 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 Temporal, Spiritual, Eternal: as Joh. 11.4. Eph. 2.11. 1 Joh. 1.16. Rev. 2.11. By Temporal death we were to lose our natural life, a separation of the Soul from the Body, and in that death to lose all natural comforts which tended to our comfortable living, and so the whole Creation made for our use to be reduced to its first nothing; By Spiritual death we were to lose our Spiritual good, the Image of God, and his graces, to become dead in sins, alienated from the life of God, and so to be denied his glorious presence for ever, which makes up the greatest part of Eternal 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 remedilessly (without a Saviour) and incontinently without delay to fall upon man, [In the day thou eatest thou shalt die the death.] Now had not Christ intervened and interposed, the Justice of God could not have brooked one moment's 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 freedom from Eternal death, and procurement of Eternal life, not to be so general 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 fare redeemed from the incumbency of the misery none hath denied, common experience shows. But then whether or no those are such as Christ in Scripture Phrase is said to (die for) and to ransom: Or whether to all so, and in such a measure freed, He is said in Scripture to intent Eternal 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 man's condition was such as deserved the present incumbency of the Curse, yet that, and the execution of many of God's Eternal purposes concerning his Son, and his Elect, could not both have their accomplishment; God having elected his Son Christ to union Hypostatical, and office of a Mediator, 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 Genealogy, nor his Elect had any being to have been the Subjects either of Grace or Glory, many of them being to issue from the Loins of those to whom God had decreed to deny both Grace and Glory: That this was only the sole and chief end of Christ in interposing, yea for them that never come to have Eternal life, I will not determine, but leave it to the Author to consider, whether there was not ground enough for him to intent some good to every man by his Death, and yet not intent eternal life for them? Therefore to let this pass for granted, that Christ did so far interpose himself for every man, as to keep off from him the present imcumbency of the misery, so to continue to him his forfeited being, a room 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 man's delinquency) so far as to have them continued in their borrowed and created being, it could not any thing entrench upon the Question] By virtue of which interposal 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 stream flowing from that bloody side of our Saviour; And were it so that by virtue 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 virtue of Christ's Blood: Were all this proved and stood firm, 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 Eternal life without a Saviour, for [Justitia constat in minimis.] And were the expression such as the Remonst. through the great crowd 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 Christ's Death is such that God may bestow his benefits as he seethe 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 appear. He may give many good things, that never intendeth to give Eternal life; But then all this would not satisfy, in all this there would be a double deficiency.  
1. All this wants proof to be meant, when Christ is said to [die for] and to [Ransome,] and to [Redeem,] As if he is said in Scripture Phrase, to die for them for whom he procured some good. I think Scripture doth not say Christ to have died for such, but rather for them that were the chief end, and for whose fake he gives such mercies to them that never come to have life; as to instance, He died not for them to whom he gives any outward privilege, 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 showeth to those men that never come to life, is not shown them for the Elects sake chief; and that the end why the world is not consumed, is not chief 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 main 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Question is still where it was, viz. [Whether Christ hath purchased pardon of sin and Eternal life for every individual man.]  
Thirdly, That the state of the Question may fully and clearly appear, 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 eternal life, no Remonst. durst ever yet affirm, 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 believe.  
Hence we shall find in all their tracts this distinction of 

Impetration  
Application   of Salvation.  
The first, for every man: The second for believers. But because Impetration is not so familiar to common understandings, we shall find in other terms thus: [Intentio & scopus Christi fuit omnes servare, 
Coll. Hag 176.  tamen aliter evenit propter ipsorum culpam.] [That it was Christ's intention to save all men, but through their fault it happens otherwise.] But herein they give no satisfaction, but seem to implicate themselves; for strange it is that anything can (aliter evenire) to Christ's 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 always 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 believe or no, because his intention is but (annexâ fidei conditione) they cannot clearly show, 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 intent or purpose to procure remission of sins, and eternal 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 vainly produced in this Controversy.  
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 less degree: As to instance, sometimes he saith, [He hath wrought for all men that they might be eternally saved. Pag. 15.) Sometimes again, 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 unbecoming any who intendeth to be either ingenuous or faithful in the business. But I put the business 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 eternal Salvation (or with reference only to that) can the work of the Spirit of God in the hearts of men be thought requisite? What need of his busy Discourse if that be not the business he intendeth to prove, viz. [That Christ procured eternal Salvation for every Son of Adam?] None ever yet stirred in any other Controversy, neither needed he fear any molestation. And if he do, than my next task is to examine how his whole Discourse manageth the business, and how pertinent his expresses are to the Question thus stated. To which I proceed:   

CHAP. II.  1 Tim. 2.6. 
Who gave himself a ransom for all.  Heb. 2.9. 
That he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.  

Proposition  THe Sense (as the words import) appears to be, [That Jesus Christ by the grace, good will, and favour of God, did taste death for every man, and also so gave himself a ransom to God for all men: and so is become the propitiation for the sins of the World, and the Saviour of the World.] How pertinently these places are produced, any common understanding may perceive. The Proposition may well be received, as proceeding from the Texts alleged, or with reference to the Controversy. But all being jointly taken, do not touch the true state of the Question.  
The first Text, viz. 1 Tim. 2.6. is peccant in the first particular: because it saith not, that he gave himself a ransom for every individual; and this will appear a clear allegation, if we consider that the Author denyeth not but that all men, is in Scripture sometimes taken for all sorts of men, sometimes for every individual; Therefore, Ante factam distinctionem, (as the Logicians speak) before distinction be made its equivocal. And all that I would have noted here, is, that it is not the plain words of the Text, or meaning of it, that he gave himself a ransom for every Individual: but that must be fetched from his reasonings, the validity of which shall be examined in their proper place.  
The second Text, viz. Heb. 2 9 is obnoxious to divers exceptions, as being produced to prove the Quest. For we must refer it to the Author, (or rather to his Oracle) whether there be any such Text or no. Any that well peruseth the words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may well quere, First, Whether those words necessitate such a reading, as [He tasted death for every man.] Secondly, Whether they will not admit a quite distinct and much differing reading, and that most congruous to the context. Thirdly, Whether if all be granted from the words; yet what this is to the Question, because the words say not, neither from them is it urged by the Author, That he tasted death for every man to bring them to Salvation, either absolutely or upon any condition: I say no more of these Texts here, because there are two distinct Chapters set apart to treat of these two Texts severally, therefore there I shall say more of them; only here I cannot but advertise the Author, that these words [He tasted death for every man] are not in plain express terms in the Text, nor the Tenent, viz. (That Christ intended to bring every man to eternal Salvation by his death, either absolutely, or on any condition) is not in plain terms, and affirmations in the words, as the Author falsely suggests to his ignorant Readers, but in both he must be beholding to his own corrupt inferences and reasonings which (without prejudice to the Scripture,) may be brought to further disquisition.  
As for the Proposition resulting from the Texts alleged, it doth neither good nor hurt; until it leave those wild generals, and come to some more particulars, it will neither prove friend or enemy to the Question of either side.  
It saith indeed, that Christ did taste death for every man, but if (the words were to be so read) he saith not to bring them to eternal Salvation either absolutely or conditionally; Therefore that an imperfect expression,  
It saith indeed, that Christ gave himself to God a ransom for all men: But it doth not say that he gave himself a ransom for every Individual man; Therefore this an imperfect expression also.  
It saith indeed, That He is become the propitiation for the sins of the World, But it saith not that he is the propitiation for the sins of every Individual; Therefore imperfect.  
It saith indeed, That He is the Saviour of the world, but mentioneth not whether he meaneth Saviour of the world with [eternal salvation,] whether he actually saveth the world eternally, or merited eternal Salvation for the world upon faith and repentance, or whether he means any kind of Salvation: neither doth he say that he is the Saviour of every Individual in the world: this also is an imperfect expression; and what the whole is, may be seen by a view of the several parts of it; it is all imperfect as not being at all to the Question: And if it should be reduced to a Syllogism it must run thus.  
If Christ by God's grace tasted death for every man, and also gave himself a ransom to God for all men, etc. Then he intended by his death to purchase eternal Salvation for every man, either absolutely, or upon condition.  
But he did do the former: go: He did the latter: Then the business being thus framed, it remaineth our Author's task to prove the consequence of the Major. So that hitherto we see no plain affirmations of Scripture in his Tenent, of which we find such a confident boast in his whole Discourse. So that his whole Discourse making out to us no more than he here in the Text pretends, it is no other than a progress in impertinencies.  
But for his better understanding, he promiseth five things, which successively make up five of his first Chapters, all which he mentioneth Pag. 2. The first whereof takes up his first Chapter, and it is the difference between,  
First, A Redemption, Reconciliation, Salvation wrought by Christ in his own body with God for men.  
2. A Redemption, Reconciliation, Salvation, which he effecteth by his Spirit in men to God.  
Which distinction he supposeth will make the matter clear, which indeed, makes the business more full of obscurities then before. For my clearer Answer to this rude distinction, I must also premise some few particulars, if it be possible to reduce the indigested conceptions of the Author to some reasonable perspicuity. And they are these.  
§. 1. That the word (Salvation) is too wide a field to rove in without a limitation, seeing it is a general term applicable to any deliverance from any thing that either is, or was an enemy to man's well being. As,  
1. That Sentence that was passed upon Adam and all his Sons▪ for the present and speedy execution of it was a grand enemy to man's well being: And the deliverance from it (even in the next moment of reprieval) might deserve the name of Salvation; though I know no one place that speaks of it under this notion of Salvation; nor doth it acknowledge the love of God to be expressed to any only in this, and no further.  
2. Any outward temporary misery, thraldom, danger, is an enemy to man's well-being; and a deliverance from such hath in Scripture the name of Salvation. Act. 27.31. Heb. 5.7. 1 Pet 4.18. 1 Pet. 3.20. Judas 5.  
3. That ignorance (of God, and Jesus Christ our Peace) which is in us, is an enemy to our well-being; seeing that without Hearing no Faith, without Faith no Salvation by him: therefore the deliverance from this ignorance by the coming of the Gospel, and the preaching of it, is in Scripture called a Salvation. Luk. 3.6. compared with Isa. 40.3. Act. 28.28. 2 Cor. 6.2. Heb. 2.3.  
4. The wrath of God which he hath conceived against sinners is an enemy to our well-being; and to be delivered from it by Reconciliation is a Salvation: Rom. 11.11. & 15. And if Reconciliation be not a Salvation, why puts the Author them together, as being Synonimous?  
5. The enmity in our hearts against God is an enemy against our well being; and to be delivered from it by Conversion and effectual Calling is Salvation. 1 Cor. 9.22. Tit. 3.5. Luk. 19, 9 2 Tim. 2.10. 1 Tim. 1.9. Nay, although it is but a gradual emendation of men's lives in regard of some gross sins to which they were formerly given, is Salvation. Judas 23.  
6. Any want or imperfection coming short of that blessed state of Innocency is an enemy also, therefore to be in consummate and complete happiness in Heaven is Salvation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Pet. 1.9.  
7. Sometimes the word Salvation is comprehending all these, as Math. 1.21. And in any place where Christ is said to come to be the [Saviour of his people.] These being considered, that Discourse that treats of Salvation indefinitely, without a specification of what Salvation it is meant, is but a rambling in obscurities.  
§. 2. That to the enjoyment of any one of these, or all these, there are two distinct Acts requisite, viz. Impetration or Merit, and actual Application, or bestowing of it, according to Merit and Purchase. It is against his wisdom to impetrate a benefit at so dear a rate without applying it, or intention to apply it. It is against his Omnipotency and perfection not to apply that which he intended to apply, and against his Justice to apply any Salvation, without that Application or Salvation applied were first merited and impetrated. Hence it may be truly said, [Impetratio est applicationis fundamentum, & applicatio est impetrationis complementum] Impetration is the foundation of Application, and Application the Compliment and perfection of Impetration, and both together make an entire Salvation. And the first Act, viz. Impetration, or Merit, is not, nor can be called Salvation, Reconciliation, Redemption, any otherwise then Metonimically; as Christ himself is called our Salvation, Luke 1. and our Peace. And so it is called Salvation, with reference to the Salvation perfectly applied, either as actually done, or as infallibly in time to be done. But properly Salvation is not wrought perfectly in Christ, for they are (opera ad extra) necessarily requiring an object without, and they must be terminated upon the Creature; as there is no Act without an Object, so no Salvation, or Reconciliation, except there be some that are reconciled: and if they be in the first Act reconciled or saved, in any of the forementioned degrees, the second Act is frustaneous in respect of that degree. And the Remonst. though they gave it the name of Reconciliation, Redemption, Satisfaction, yet they carefully expressed themselves how they meant: 
Acta Synod. 289 Corv in Mol. cap 28. Sect 11. pag 437.  Not that any Salvation, or Reconciliation were actually wrought for men, or acted upon the Creature, but that they were in such a condition that God would be reconciled upon such and such conditions, therefore called Salvation, because there may be a Salvation & Reconciliation, but not that there is one actually; therefore that Discourse that confidently terms that first act done in Christ a salvation, Reconciliation, Redemption, without further explanation, evidenceth that the Author is willing to lie under the censure of an Impropriety, that he may lie hid in obscure expressions.  
§: 3. That those two Actions viz. Impetration, or Merit, and actual conferring or applying any of those forementioned salvations belong not both to the same party to do. The first is Christ's, and so his as none else, he alone as Mediator satisfied and merited because he only died. But the actual conferring of any Salvation is so Christ's, as it is also the work of the Father, and so not of Christ as Mediator, but then his as having a share in the offended Deity: And for this the frequent Testimonies of the Remonst. are sufficient Testimonies to them that adhere to there principles: as [Christus impetravit ut Deus possit sua beneficia communicare, 
Acta. Synod. 283. Coru. in. Mol. c. 28. Sect. 11. p. 437. ] and [per mortem Christi via est aperta, ut Deus vult nobis reconciliari;] Where there is a manifest difference betwixt the Agent in Impetration, and the Agent in Communication; but had we no such Testimonies, the Scriptures would plainly evince it, which attributes the active and bestowing the good, merited by Christ's Death, to God the offended Party, and that in distinction from Christ the Mediating Party that merited them. As 1 Cor. 5.19. Rom. 3.22.23. Rom 8.33, 34. 2 Thes. 2.13, 1 Joh. 3.1 Eph. 1 5. Wherein we shall find Reconciliation, Justification, Sanctification, Adoption, etc. to be done by God as the efficient, in distinction from Christ the Meritorious Cause; Col. 19, 20. This the Author seems to grant in his first Discourse, wherein he saith, the first Act is done by Christ, the second is done by his Spirit; which second is not so his, but it is also the Act of the Spirit and of the Father also. And the Apostle takes in all in one place, Pater nobis benedixit omni benedictione in Christo. The Father of Jesus Christ blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Christ: By which it is plain, that Impetration belongs to Christ as Mediator, Application to God the offended Party, and to Christ as he makes one in that Essential Paternity that gives all good: And therefore that Discourse that treats of both Acts as done by the same Person in the same respects, is erroneus, as doth his.  
§. 4. That the difference was never yet about the distinction of these two Acts, Whether they are Acts distinct or no, none ever yet attempted to confound them, (neither was there ever any need so to do) but the difference hath been about the division of them, Whether they may be divided one from the other or no? (That is) Whether Christ Impetrated any Salvation for any man to whom it shall not in time be infallibly applied? 
Amesiu●. Anty. Synod. ●69.  And this may appear by the decision of Amesius, [Distinctio inter impetrationem & applicationem facile appareat, sed haec decerptio aut seperatio eorum (quâ boni impetratio tatis fingitur, ut (illa posita) fieri possit, ut bonum illud nemini communicetur aut applicetur) est planè Antechristiana:] And therefore that Discourse that is spent in proving these only distinct, (which was never denied) is labour vainly expended as is his.  
§. 5. That to the Act of Christ in purchasing, meriting, or impetrating any Salvation for us, or any man, there is requisite, not only his Death, but his Resurrection also, his Ascension, his Session and Intercession, all the Acts of his Mediatorship concur to make up that one Act of Impetration, without all which it had been imperfect. The Remonst. not being willing to acknowledge it, have been at great variance about the sharing the Impetration and Application, their due share in the stock of Christ's Mediatorship, 
Coll Hag. 147.  and have said and unsaid. They of the Conference at Hague, adjudged the Death of Christ to belong to all, as to the Impetration, and his Resurrection to Believers only, so by consequence to the applicatory Part: Seeing that is only to Believers. But yet not trusting to that, one of that Conference afterward thus saith, 
Coru. in. Mol. c. 28. Sect. 12, 437, 438.  [Fructum nullum nullamque mortis efficaciā esse citra Resurrectionem verum est non dicimus Christum pro omnibus mortuum esse tantum, & non pro omnibus resurrexisse▪] So that in their Judgement his Death brought forth no fruit without his Resurrection; and if his Resurrection did concur to the Impetration of Salvation, why all the rest of the Acts of his Life should not, I would be informed. And in reason it will follow that if it be Christ's task as Mediator only to Impetrate, than all his Acts as Mediator must go to the perfecting the Impetration? It was not Death barely that did merit Salvation, but the death of such a one as must overcome Death, and so present himself before God in Heaven, that could effect that business. As in the Law there was Mactatio Sacrificii, and Ostensio Sunguinis, The kill of the Sacrifice, and showing the Blood within the veil, Leu. 16.11, 15. Without which no Atonement made, no not so much as appertained to the Priest: So no Atonement purchased or merited without the Mactation of the Lamb (on the Cross,) and the Ostension of his Blood within the veil in Heaven in his Ascension, which is called his appearing in Heaven for us; Heb. 9.12, 24. And that appearing for, it must needs be part of his Impetration, else should he not answer his Type; the Priest in the Law was to offer a Sacrifice, and to offer Prayers for the People, so Christ also out High Priest. Hence is it that Christ makes this an end of leaving the World, viz. To prepare a place, Joh. 14.2, 3. He saith not to bestow a place, but to prepare; without which ascending to Heaven, and showing himself there that he had shaken off man's sins, and overcommed death, the Kingdom had not been sufficiently prepared. And hence is it, as I conceive, that he saith, If I go not away the Comforter cannot come, either in the powerful operations of his Grace, or comfortable persuasions of his Spirit, that he could not scale any comfortable tidings to their hearts that Christ had done for them if he had not ascended, that finishing his Impetration he ascending sent him to them. Thus the Author grants, Pag. 7.  
8. He appears and Advocates for us to procure pardon of sins, etc. And to present himself, and the Covenant of precious Promises, therefore his ascending, and Advocation belongs to the impetration or procuring life. Hence that Discourse that divideth the Acts of Christ about our Salvation, and that as Mediator, some to Impetration, others to Application as he doth, is not sound and Orthodox.  
Which generals being well considered will make way to the methodical examining of the Author's distinction, and his Discourse upon it. The distinction followeth.  
First, A Salvation, Redemption, Reconciliation, which Christ hath wrought in his body with God for men.  
Secondly, A Salvation, Redemption, Reconciliation, which Christ hath effected by his Spirit in men to God.  
Which distinction, the Author excudes to that end it might be both heeded and understood, which if he had as really intended as he spoke, he would have made it to bring pertinency and perspicuity along with it; pertinency, that it might deserve to have been heeded, and perspicuity with it, that it might be in a capacity of being understood; but so wild are his expressions herein, that his Reader is put to a double task, both to search out his intricate meaning, and also to refel it; the first being of fare greater difficulty, which savours not of Controversall ingenuity. And that which (by his other expresses) we may conjecture to be his meaning, being granted in its latitude, affords no clear decision to the Controverted truth, as in the close of this Chapter I shall show.  
It is not easy to determine whether by this distinction, our Author intends to discover two distinct Salvations wrought by Christ, or two distinct Acts in Christ working and effecting one and the same Salvation; which if our Author had heeded to discover, his Discourse had more tended to satisfaction, and been better understood.  
If he mean distinct Salvations, than he should have discovered what they are, and how distinct; for truth we may grant in this thus taken, That there is a Salvation from the present Incumbency of the misery wrought out and effected by Christ for all men: And there is a Salvation from enmity of heart, by effectual calling wrought by the Spirit of Christ, and this is to none but Believers: But what clearness this bringeth to the Controversy in hand, is not yet clear to me.  
Besides if he thus mean, though these Salvations be distinct, yet as his distinction is clothed, with circumstances it falleth to the ground; for his first Salvation he speaks of is so wrought out (for men) that it is not done (in) or (upon men,) but such is not the Salvation from the present incumbency of the Curse, for that is so wrought out (for) that it is also acted (upon) men, applied to every man, there being nothing requisite to the application of that but what is common to all men: And his second Salvation is so wrought (in men) that is distinct from, and opposed to, wrought out (for men) (else his distinction is not good) but this is false, for no Salvation is wrought in or upon men, but it is wrought out for men, Impetration being the foundation of all Application; therefore these two are ill brought as members contra-distinct, seeing they are coincident in one and the same Redemption.  
But if he mean, his distiction of two Acts concurring to every Salvation, viz. a [working for] and a [bestowing upon] a procuring for, and applying to; As I suppose he doth, not only because this distinction is in use in all Arminian Tracts in this Point, as the business of their elaborate structures, and the hinge about which they turn: But also from our Authors own expressions in every leaf almost of his Discourse, as to instance, [The pardon procured, and in his hands to bestow, Pag. 42, 43.] [He would work out a Redemption, and procure life, and it is in him for men, Pa. 50.] [If Christ had shed no Blood to procure remission for them, Page 137.] [He hath procured Salvation, and made them salvable, and calleth them that they might be saved, Pag. 157, 158.] By all which and many more it appeareth plainly, that by his first Salvation he meaneth no more than the first Act of Christ in procuring or meriting of Salvation: And by the second he meaneth the Actual applying of it upon such conditions performed; and if this be all, I must inform him that this hath been well heeded long since, and fully understood, and yet the business not cleared beyond all doubt of his side.  
And I would then know, Whether his distinction be not something allied to that of the Arminians of [Impetration and Application] the one for [every Man,] the second for [Believers] only, and what difference there is betwixt him and an Arminian? Save only that his expressions are more absurd: though he cryeth out of a heavy Calumny so to be charged. And when our Author gives a more distinct discovery of himself, he shall have a more distinct Answer.  
In the next place, I shall examine both members of his distinction apart; of the first now, and first to consider his expressions in it: Secondly, the Scriptures he produced to bacl it. The members run thus:  
[A Salvation, Reconciliation, Redemption, which Christ hath wrought in his Body, for men, with God.] Wherein,  
1. I desire satisfaction, why he calleth the Act of Christ in meriting or procuring life for men A Salvation, without further explanation: Meriting or procuring being an Act, relateth to the Agent, and is terminated in him, but Salvation is a transient Act that runneth into an Object: It is an effect, and therefore must have an object on which it is wrought. Salvation is (opus ad extra) and therefore to say that that is terminated in Christ, is absurd; As it is a work ad extra, so it might have an object (ad extra) also, 
Coru. in Mol. Cap. 28. Sect. 11  and if none be saved, there is no Salvation. Indeed, the Remonstrants called it a [Reconciliation,] but than they explain themselves, that it is not an actual Reconciliation: But therefore called so, because Reconciliation is procured; and if the Author had so discovered himself he had been ingenuous; but herein in my Reason is not satisfied. That those things that are procured, And in time to come to pass, may be laid down as being in Act, when they are not so, because of the infallible futurition, I grant: as he that believeth not is condemned, and he that believeth hath eternal life, Scripture thus speaketh; but that the act of Christ in procuring only that men may have life, notwithstanding which most men perish; and the end whereof is not the Salvation of men, that such an act should be Salvation, Reconciliation, Redemption, neither Scripture nor Reason speaketh; therefore I demand a reason of that his expression.  
2. Why he so expresseth it, as if the first Act, viz. of Impetration or merit was in Scripture Phrase, as done [in his body,] when the Scripture saith, the second Act, viz. of Application is done [In that body of his flesh,] Col. 1.20. Which place evidently treateth of the application of his Death, and Reconciliation of their hearts to God by being brought in to believe, who were strangers and enemies in heart to God before, yet notwithstanding this is said to be [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in that body of his flesh, I rather wonder why our Author should produce such an expression, (making it the seat of Controversy) without further explanation, when it so easily might be explained; Let him tell me how that Reconciliation was wrought [in Christ's Body,] Reconciliation is a thing subjectated in God, 
Xanchy in locum.  existing only [in ment divina] not in Christ's Body. Expositors to clear this unanimously say, that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is put for [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] [In] for [by,] as is most frequent in Scripture, as one saith, [Quasi dicat reconciliavit per oblationem Corporis sui,] And therefore said to be [In his Body,] because it was done by those sufferings which were subjectated in his Body, in which regard he was said to bear our sins in his Body, (that is, the punishment of our sins,) but our Reconciliation properly is not said to be in [his Body.] That indeed whereby he merited it was in his Body. The means of our Reconciliation are twofold in Scripture, [His Body,] and [His Blood,] the one broken, the other shed; but of this latter it is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by his Blood, [as it were to expound the other, that though it be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet to be meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by his Body] Col. 1.20. If this be so, than not the first Redemption, or procuring of Salvation, or Reconciliation only; but the second also, even the application of it is said, and also truly is (In) that is (by his Body) Seeing that we are said to be redeemed [by his Blood,] Rev. 5.9. Which place our Author averreth to be meant of the application of Christ's Death, therefore the circumscribing that first Redemption with this Phrase (In his Body) is groundless.  
3. We shall view the expressions wherewith this is clothed, that so we may Judge how pertinent his alleged Scriptures are, [it being his boast that he hath so many plain Texts.] First, It is said to be an Act of Christ as Mediator distinct from God the offended Party. Secondly, to be done [in his body] as opposed to be [done by his spirit.] Thirdly, With God for men, as opposed to [of God upon man.] Fourthly A reconciling of God to man as opposed to [reconciling man to God.] Fifthly, This is said to be for every man. Now our next task is to consider how pertinent his Texts are to make out this. [Joh. 4.42. We know that this is indeed Christ the Saviour of the World.] The meaning of Which place, if our Author Divine right, must be this; [We know now that this is Christ that worketh out Salvation for the world,] and this exclusively, and confining the word [Saviour] to wo●●ing it with God, and that opposed to a working a Reconciliation in the hearts of men, an empty exposition very improbable to the meaning of them that so said upon their being brought in to believe as they were 39 And so had the work of God on their hearts by his Ministry, certainly in such a time; if they say [his is the Saviour of the World] they mean such a Salvation as is by faith in Christ: Now what that is let the Author judge. And he said to be the Saviour of the world, because they knew he it was that came to merit Salvation, so as it should be applied in time by Faith. Shall we take the liberty thus to expound Scripture, and say, Math. 1.21. [He shall save his people from their sins,] That is, he shall work out with God a Salvation, which yet may not be applied? And Luk. 1.47. [My Spirit rejoiceth in God my Saviour] thus meant, in him that worketh out Salvation with God for me, notwithstanding which I may perish? How shall we herein perplex the Word of God? Let the Author show me where Christ, or God is called Saviour's and respect not had to the Application of Salvation either present or to come. Acts 5.37. He is a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance and forgiveness of sins. Saviour there looketh at the actual bestowing of Salvation, he than is said to be a Saviour from sins, when he giveth Repentance and Remission; And the nature of a Saviour is clearly set down, Neh. 9.27. [Gavest them Saviour's that saved them.] Now that Christ in procuring life may be called a Saviour I grant, but than it is with reference to the actual application of it in time to them for whom he procured it. Indeed Corvinus attempts to prove the word [Saviour] in [1 Tim. 4.10. 
In Molin. c. 29. 468.  He is the Saviour of all men] to be thus meant, [Quia quantum in se paratus est omnes salvare,] but he giveth to me but little satisfaction, for he proveth not that this is meant of any other Salvation than what is actually applied: And that expression, [He is ready to save as much as in him lieth] is no congruous exposition of this word [Saviour,] for in his Judgement, He may be ready to save and yet none be saved, but if none be saved, how Christ should be called a Saviour I cannot comprehend; But to close, I say to this Text Joh. 4.42. If he mean that this Text includeth and taketh in the Act of Christ in procuring salvation for the world, this I deny not: but this I affirm also, it taketh in, and hath an eye to the application of it to the world, that is, [Men living in the world,] and then it favours him not, for his first Redemption is such as hath no eye to the certain and infallible application of it.  
[1 Joh. 2.2. He is the Propitiation, etc.] The sense of which place he maketh to stand thus; [He hath wrought out remission and reconsiliation for our sins with God, and so for the sins of the whole world, and that in distinction from the application,] but this very short of the meaning of that place; that the word (propitiation) hath more in it then a solitary procuring of remission as distinct from application is plain from the word itself, and other Scriptures; The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cometh from a word which signifieth to be actually appeased, placated, reconciled, actually to remit the fault; when the Publican prayed [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] did he desire only that God might be in a capacity or possibility to pardon, or that pardon and remission might be wrought out for him with God, notwithstanding which he might want it? certainly he was not content with such a boon; But now for God to be actually placated, reconciled, this is to enjoy the application of Christ's Blood, else is Corvinus short in his reasoning, [Per ejus mortem est placabilu, & placand● si credereat,] which intimateth that when he is (placatus) appeased, and reconciled, then is the D●th of Christ applied. Now let us consider the words of the Text; the words are [He is the propitiation.] and the Author must grant a difference between these things. First, It is one thing for God to set forth his Son to be a Propitiation. 2. A second, for Christ to do that by virtue of which he is to be a propitiation. 3. A third for Christ by virtue of that done to be a propitiation; the two former do not require Faith ●o their actual accomplishment, but the third doth. Hence is he said to be propitiation [through faith,] Rom. 3.25. Which clearly demonstrateth that for Christ to be a Propitiation is the application of his Blood: Christ by his Death made God only [Placabilem] placable, and this puts no man into actual possession of remission, as our Author saith Cap. 6. and in his Judgement, not into any certainty of its; but this reacheth not so high as for Christ to be a propitiation, but stayeth here, He is to be one, or May be one if men believe, for till men have remission actually, or else in a certainty of having it, he is not truly said [to be a Propitiation. 
In Molin. c. 28.445. ] No better testimony would I desire in this case than Corvinus himself, who on Rom. 3.25. thus saith, [Deum Christum proposuisse propitiatorium, sed tale ut id nobis futurus sit si modo in cum credamus, & docet quomodo Christus futurus sit nobis propitiatorium (viz:) per fidem.] Which clearly bespeaketh that when Christ is a Propitiation, 
Ibid.  that is meant of the application of his Death by Faith, and this he not only averreth, but strongly proveth; thus, [Ista pertinent clarissimè ad applicationem non impetrationem; quomodo enim potest esse ut nobis impetret remissionem per fidem, nisi sides nostra una cum sanguine ejus sit coprotium remissionis, quod est absurdum;] The sense thus, He cannot be said to procure remission by faith, unless our faith was a coprice with his Blood, in meriting remission, which is absurd; therefore this Phrase belongeth to the application, not impetration, and this very pregnant and full, though I conceive against himself; for to compare that place to the Text in hands doth not Rom. 3.25. [He is set forth to be a propitiation through faith] clearly affirm that when he is said to be a Propitiation, it is to be meant through Faith, and so of Remission, not only procured but applied? And doth not the place 1 Joh. 2.1, 2, say He is the Propitiation? it saith not [God hath set him forth to be a Propitiation,] nor yet [He is to be a Propitiation,] but thus [He is a Propitiation,] which is given us clearly by the Remonstrants own Confession, to signify the Application and the [Mortis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] and to mean the actual enjoyment of pardon of sin, which may further appear if we consider the persons of whom he speaks, viz. such as did believe, and had overcome the world by Faith, as in 1 Joh. 4.10. [But that he loved us, and gave his Son apropitiation for our sins,] Let us consider is this all the love that God beareth to Believers, to give Christ that he might be in a possibility of being a Propitiation, that he might only procure Reconciliation, notwithstanding which they may miss of it, nay is it not incongruous to say he hath procured reconciliation for them that believe, if they believe? This cannot be the meaning of the word [Propitiation] when spoken of Believers, because they do believe and so have it applied: And let the Author show where he is called a Propitiation, or said to be one, but where mention is made of Believers; and these things being considered, I wonder why our Author, or any Remonst. whatever, can (upon their own principles) produce this Text to prove that which they would have done to all and every man; when it is granted by them that Reconciliation is not applied to all. Now to conclude this Text, He is said a Propitiation, in that by virtue of his Mediation, Reconciliation is applied, as he is said to be our Peace, Col. 1.10. and our Redemption, and Sanctification, and both metonimically; And that he may be said to be a Propitiation for them that do not yet believe, I will not contend against it, but men it is with respect had to the certain futurition of it, which is all one in this point with the other.  
And that this Phrase, [He is a Propitiation,] necessarily presupposeth his meriting and procuring remission, as the ground of application, I grant: But that it doth not principally point at actual Remission, (whereby he is said to be a Propitiation) the Author should do well to prove. These I transmit to the disquisition of the Author, expecting satisfaction in the Premises, for this will help us in two points.  
1. That this place doth not favour any such Salvation wrought by Christ with God, distinguished and divisible from the application, and such as may be attributed to, and as done for, every Son of Adam.  
2. It will help to allay the Controversy about the Phrase (whole world) and determine who are comprehended under it; Whether every man in the world to whom Remission is not applied, or all believers throughout the world to whom it is applied, and so he is a Propitiation.  
[2. Cor. 5.19. God was in Christ reconciling the world etc.] The sense of which place, if it second our Author's allegation, must be thus, [Christ was with God working out Reconciliation with God for men, whereby God is reconciled to man: and this not to prove any work of God in man reconciling man to God;] And such a thing if he can extract out of this Text, he will show himself a Divine Chemist, but in this business he bewrayeth want of consideration, or common understanding.  
1. That which he propoundeth is an Act of Christ with God, an Act of the Mediator distinct from the offended Party, as appears by his expressions, [Effecting it with God;] So that if it had spoken his words, it would have run thus, [Christ was with God reconciling the world,] but see a diametrical difference, it saith, [God was in Christ reconciling, etc.]  
2. That which he is to prove, is whereby God is reconciled to man, and that opposed to man's being reconciled to God, and so should have run thus, [Christ was reconciling God to man,] but see a diametrical difference, it saith, [Reconciling the world to himself,] and so prevails with men to God, it saith not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which belongeth to the second Redemption; as he confesseth P. 11.  
3. That which he is to prove, is such a Redemption, Reconciliation, as is separated from the application of it, or at lest which may be so, & that because it is done for all.  
Now, if it had been clear for his purpose, it should have run thus: [Christ was with God reconciling God to the world, not, not imputing their sins,] and this it should have been, for his Redemption is such as putteth no man into possession of Remission of sins, as Pag. 33. But see a diametrical difference, [Reconciling the world to himself and not imputing sins to them,] and any may see that that text, wherein the Application of Remission is plainly set down as an attendant, is weakly produced to prove such a Redemption from which Remission may be separated, and that because Remission of sins belongs to the Applicatory part, the Remonst. being Judges, 
Coru. in Mol. Ca 28 Sect 26 Pag 447.  [Si per reconciliationem actualem intelligas remissionem tum non est distinguenda ab applicatione quia est ipsa opplicatio.]  
4. Let us see how he warreth with himself: He saith, that the Phrase [God was reconciling us to himself,] Ver. 18. Meant of the application of his Death; thus Pag. 66. And yet the same Phrase he admitteth not to the same sense, in Ver. 19 For betwixt these two, viz. [Reconciling us by Christ, committing to us the word of Reconciliation:] and this, [In Christ reconciling the world to himself, putting into us ●e word of Reconciliation,] I should gladly see any momentous difference: he seemeth to stumble at a twofold difference.  
1. That Ver. 18. saith [By him,] but Ver. 19 saith [In him,] so he seemeth to urge Pag 66. But this is of no force, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are often promiscuously used each for other, and (In him) and (By him) are all one in Scripture, as often appeareth in my following Discourse.  
2. That Ver. 18 saith (us,) Ver. 19 saith the [world,] but this availeth not, because when he saith the [world] he meaneth only (men living in the world,) or the world (quoad partem credentem) in the believing part thereof, and then the (world) and (us) are little different.  
5. That which he here proveth, is the work of Christ for men, not of the Spirit in men to God, and so not of the Reconciliation of men's hearts to God. But I admire with what face or plea he could father such an one upon this place. Let us consider a while of the time of which it is said, God [was] reconciling; Some I acknowledge, (and of worth) hold, that this is meant from Eternity, so he was reconciling, that is, preparing a way to reconcile the world to himself, and were the words alone I should subscribe to this, but as the words run I cannot see the necessity or congruity of this Exposition; because the words run, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Intimating, that then when he was reconciling the world to himself, he was also putting into the Apostles the word of Reconciliation, which I conceive not to be done from Eternity but in time.  
And happily our Author may say (He was,) that is, when Christ offered himself on the Cross; But neither this congruous, for he put the word into the Apostles before the time of his offering himself: I rather for the present conceive, that the Text meaneth of the reconciling of the hearts of men to God by the Gospels' Ministry: When he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: That is, when he was giving it to them by Commission, and putting it into them by inspiration, than was he reconciling the world to himself in that Ministration; And it appeareth to be such a Reconciliation as is effected by the word of Reconciliation, but such is that whereby we are reconciled in our hearts to God: And so it said to be of the (world) that is, men living in the world; and to be (in Christ) as God is said to bless us with all Spiritual blessings, (even effectual Calling and Conversion) in Christ, Ephes. 1.3. And it is said to be the word of Reconciliation, because it is the instrument of Reconciliation; and the Argument which he useth here to the Corinthians is fetched; thus; God having this work for the Gospel, viz. to reconcile us to himself, and this he hath done by it, when he first put it into us, and ever since, so it is expected that by this Ministration ye also should be reconciled.  
This sense of the Text I transmit to the Judgement of the Learned, and till I see further, I must conclude that this Text speaks of the Application of Reconciliation, and that of God's Act (by virtue of Christ's merit) in the Gospel's Ministry, and not of the Act of Christ with God for men, there is no one word that favoureth such a conceit; and if this be true, than it not only showeth that where the Scripture speaketh of the Application of Reconciliation, yet useth such a general expression as the (world,) which yet in every Judgement is not common to every Son of Adam, therefore we may conclude that the word (world) doth not imply in it every Son of Adam, which may stand in some stead in this Point: but also it faileth the Author and serveth him not for his purpose, to set forth such a procuring of Reconciliation, as may be separated from the Application.  
[Rom. 3.24. Justified through the Redemption in Christ Jesus.] Which place our Author produceth as holding forth the Act of Christ as Mediator in procuring Remission of sins, and such an one as may be where the Application is not, and so separated from actual Remission and Justification; but he certainly concludeth his Reader too credulous that will assent to this without any proof, when there is so many leading circumstances to the contrary; his conceit hath no strength neither from the word [Redemption,] nor from the Phrase [In Christ,] nor from both jointly. Not from the word [Redemption,]  
1. If we consider the Authors own placita upon Rev. 5.9. [Thou hast redeemed us by thy blood,] In which he saith (though upon small ground) that the word [Redemption] or [Redeemed] is meant of the Application of his Blood, being brought in to believe, and in this sense brought to bacl his second Redemption mentioned Pag. 5. Therefore if the word [Redemption] in his Judgement signifieth the Application of his Blood, we cannot believe that it signifies his first Redemption, that may be separated from the Application, unless he prove it so.  
2. If we view the placita of Arminius himself, the Master-builder in this Artifice, 
Arm. in Perk. Pag. 78.79.  [Redemptio enim notat non passionem, non actionem ullam Christi, sed passionis & actionis apotelesma, eventum fructumque etc. Ex applicatione dicuntur redempti, etc. Per illas actiones redemptio impetrata est, & per fidem applicata, itaque demum sunt redempti;] That is, Redemption noteth not the Actions or Passions of Christ, but the event and fruit of both: Men are said to be redeemed by and in the Application, by those Actions he impetrated Redemption, but it is applied by faith, and then are they said to be redeemed; a fair and full Testimony in this Point.  
3. If we consider the Text, and the business the Apostle is about to prove, which is, that we are justified by Faith and not by Works: This he presseth in the former part of this Epistle, and in this Chapter much, as ver. 20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 30. In all which we are said to be justified, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which are equipollent) by or through faith; Now to me it appears (and I suppose will to any that looks upon the Text with a serious eye) that this Phrase [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ver. 24. Justified through the Redemption,] speaketh the same thing, with [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Justified by faith, ver. 22.] And so the meaning to be this: We are justified through faith in Christ, as in the next verse followeth, (Faith in his Blood) and this called Redemption, because than we are redeemed, being brought into believe, in part freed from sin, and in a certainty of Heaven; as Tit. 2.4. Redeemed from vain conversation.  
4. If we consider the nature and frequent use of the Word [Redemption] or [Redeemed;] I have not observed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or any word from that root to signify any thing but the application of good, as Rom. 8.23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Redemption of our bodies, that is perfect, and freedom from all vanity. Ephes. 1.14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, till the Redemption of the purchased possession] That is, the actual and perfect enjoyment of heaven's glory, and here plainly distinguished from the purchase by Christ. Ephes. 4.30 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To the day of Redemption,] not the day of Christ's procuring or meriting, for that was past, but this to come; and it meaneth the day of restauration of all things, when Believers shall possess actually perfect glory. Tit. 2.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Redeem us from our Iniquities,] Is it not expounded by purging us from our sins in the next words? Heb. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Obtained Eternal Redemption,] The first word holds forth the Impetration or procuring, therefore the word Redemption must mean the Application, unless we will say, [Impetravit impetrationem] which it absurd. But what need I spend time herein? I refer it to the Author to produce any place where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or any word from that root is used as signifying the Act of Christ in purchasing or procuring that thing that is never applied: I confess the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I find used to signify the price of Redemption, as Exod. 21.30. The Septuagint read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He shall give the price of ransom for his soul. So 1 Tim. 2, 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Pretium Redemptionis; But then in both it is so called from the necessary and certain futurition of the Redemption and Application, and therefore looked at as done, therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with his compounds never signifying [Nummos solvere,] but [Vinculo solvere,] not to solve a price, but to lose the bonds; therefore if the Author will but be constant to himself, subscribe to his Master, consult with the scope of the Text, or consider the genius of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Redemption, he cannot make his Allegation good from this word Redemption.  
Secondly, Happily he may give this sense of the word Redemption, because it is said to be [In Christ) but this will prove as empty as the former. For if this be not so to be meant, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; or in the next for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Faith in Christ, or in his blood: So that as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is one with Faith by which we are redeemed, so (In Christ) is as much as to say the object of our Faith; For which I do not earnestly contend; yet it will appear, that (In Christ) is no more than (By Christ,) and so showing the means by whom we come to believe, as (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) for (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) very often, as Col. 1 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we say not In him, but By him all things were created: and that by the authority of the Text, for it adds by way of self Exposition in the same verse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by whom all things; neither can I think the Author trusteth to this, because he is not constant to his expressions herein; for though he here say, that this first Redemption is in Christ, yet sometimes both together, In and By, seeming to expound the one by the other, as P. 22. Sometimes By, not In, as if he would supply the one with the other, as Pag. 54. But this is not all, (one who though a strong Remonst.) puts it out of doubt in his Judgement, [In Christo, id est, 
A Lapide in ocu●.  Per Christum, Haebreum enim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est, (in) significat (per) vel (propter.)] Now if (In Christ) be no more than (By Christ,) then this denotes the Application as well as the Impetration, for so by him we are glorified, nay, blest with all Spiritual blessings in him, Ephes. 1.3. Nay, in this sense Redemption signifies clearly the Application, for the Application is by him, that is, by his Impetration, so that he hath nothing from (Redemption) or (in Christ) to help him. But let him have it as he desires, that this speaks of the Act of Christ in procuring Remission, and Reconciliation, and Justification, we shall make it appear it helps him not, and standeth us in much use: That which is to be proved in these Scriptures, is the Act of Christ done for All, and such an one as may be separated from the Application, such an one as puts not any man into the possession of Justification: so Pag. Cap. 6. No nor yet importeth any future Application, it being done for All, so many are not justified or partake of it, but such a one, this place proveth not, for this speaketh of such a Redemption as through which we are justified Actually, as we are justified by Faith: as Ver. 21. Which words [through which] noteth a reciprocation, every one that hath that Redemption are justified by or through it, and whoever are justified, are justified through it; which Reciprocation is clear in Ver. 22.25. Now if this Redemption be meant of Christ's Act in procuring for all, and yet such a one as through which men are justified, than all that have that Redemption must be justified; so all and every man must be justified in our Authors reasoning, but this he disclaims, Pag. 95. In answer to the third Objection; And it is clear to any eye, that that place that speaks of a Redemption through which we are justified, is vainly produced to prove such a Redemption, notwithstanding which most men may miss of Justification, but such an one is his first Redemption.  
Again, I shall embrace his Exposition, and thus urge: If Redemption here meant be the Impetration or procurement of Christ, and yet it said to be such as through which we are said to be justified Actually, than it must follow that Imperation is always seconded with Application, and Justification in time applied to all those for whom it was Impetrated, which how destructive it is to the whole Arminian Fabric in this Point. Any knowing man may judge:  
[1 Pet. 2.24. Who in his own self bore our sins in his own Body, that we being dead to sin should live, etc.] That this Text holds forth the Act of Christ in procuring Remission and Life, I grant; but that it doth so his own Principles deny, however that it holds forth such a Redemption as is common to All, or distinct from the Application of his Blood, he cannot prove.  
1. He saith, Where the Person is changed, that place is not to be understood as meant of the first Act for all men, but of the Act of the Spirit in the hearts of men, as being spoke of Believers; so he saith, Cap. 10. Pag. 53. And the ground is, because there it is spoken Applicatively, and so not so large as when in the third Person plural and general, And he instanceth in 2. Cor. 5.21. [He was made sin for (us,)] because there the Person is changed and produced in the second Person plural, which cannot show for how many Christ died; therefore he concludeth such places speak of the application of his Blood: And of the same nature is this quoted Text, both in the same Person, and spoken applicatively of Believers: Yet this is produced to prove a first Act of Christ as done for All, He must Balaam-like cast about for Divinations to reconcile himself to himself.  
2. That which he is to prove, is such a Redemption as neither brings men into the possession, nor aims at as its chief end; But this Text disavoweth such a work. For first, That the Application is intended in his bearing our sins is clear in the after words, [That we might live to righteousness,] & Cap. 3.18. [That he might bring us to God;] And secondly, for the Application itself, not only as intended, but also effected, Ver. 25. [The are returned to the Bishop of your souls,] Therefore how pertinently this Text is produced to prove a Redemption, from which the Application and intention thereof, is and may be separated, let any judge.  
Heb. 2.9. 1 Tim. 2.6. Of both these I shall have occasion to speak more largely in their proper places, therefore here I wave them.  
[Joh. 1.29. That taketh away the sins of the World.] That this place presupposeth the Act of Christ in meriting and procuring Remission, I grant; but to say that it doth not also include the Application thereof seemeth improbable; Can Sin be taken away and the Blood of Christ not applied? Isa. 6.7. There taking away Sin is expounded by having sin purged away; but to have Sin purged away is not but by blood sprinkling, and so in the Author's Divinity the application of the Blood of Christ. Let the Author consult with Rom. 11.27. And let him tell me whether that taking away sin be the Application of the Death of Christ or no? Happily the Author, or some for him may say, when God taketh away Sin that is the Application, but when Christ takes away Sin that is the Impetration of Remission. Let it be so, but then Christ in his Impetration looked at the Actual taking away of sin, and it followeth in time, else could not he in that Act of his be said to take away Sinne. All which places being laid together, as being produced to prove his first Redemption, are a heap of mistakes; and whereas he professeth himself to have read the Scriptures ten times over, I must conclude that he wanteth common understanding to balance his reading, or by over affecting his cause, willing to betray his understanding to weak conceits, and for his first Branch we must either have new proofs, or these created. But were they effectual for his purpose? Yet, why are they produced in this Controversy? They only prove thus much, that Christ did impetrate and purchase Remission and Life; this none yet that I know deny but the Socinian, with whom I think he engageth not.  
Having laid down his first Redemption; attended with a sufficient Train of impertinent Scriptures, he proceedeth to lay down the several particulars or gradations by which Christ did ascend to this work for men: Why, by the way, let the Reader observe where they are not proved to be for all and every man, they are impertinent, and where he attempteth so to prove, shall be brought to the Test,  
[1. To this purpose he appeared, was manifested, came into the world to take away sins, 1 Joh. 3.5.  
2. In this appearing and manifestation he was made flesh.] These two may well pass, as not pertinent to decide any part of that Controversy. We grant that he did purchase Life, it was his work, and to that end he was made flesh and came into the world, and this is true though he purchased Life for none but the Elect; but yet these are not well martialled and ranked: I would know a reason why his being made flesh is set in order as second to his manifestation and coming into the world? He was made flesh in his Conception, but he came not into the world till his Nativity: But it is absurd to say, first he was Borne, secondly, conceived, but of this sort is the Author's Method: as if even those things that did nothing at all engage him, he could not name them without bewraying himself.  
[3. Being thus in the nature of mankind he was set and stood a public Person in the Nature and room of all mankind.] Here lie confounded expressions of a different nature; To be [A public Person,] and [In the Nature of Mankind,] and in [The room of all Mankind,] are different one from the other, and all of them short of clearing the truth of his procuring Life for every Son of Adam.  
1. A public Person he might be, and yet not in the room of every Individual: If he had stood in the room and stead of the Elect only, it had bespoke him a public Person, in that he represented others and not himself only▪ As in State affairs, a Burghes of a Corporation is a public Person, because he acts not as a private Person, but representing others: But his being a public Person doth not argue him to stand in the room of all men in the Kingdom or Country, but of that Corporation only where he was chosen.  
For the second, [His being in the Nature of mankind,] is a truth, but if produced to prove his procuring Life for every man, is very weak: For if Christ had redeemed far fewer than he doth, yet it would be requisite for him to take upon him the Nature of Man, and stand in the kind, for he could not (as God had decreed it) redeem any one Person but he must take upon him the nature of Man: Therefore to argue thus, He took upon him the nature of man, therefore he stood in the room of every Individual, is not valid Argumentation: Yet this is the reasoning of Arminius, Naturam assumpsit humanam omnibus communem, respectu cujus non est inter homines differentia. In Perkin. 74.  
For the third, [Standing in the room of Mankind;] The Expression is either improper or false; for him to stand in the nature of Mankind is true and well expressed, because (Naturam assumpsit non personam hominis) he assumed the nature not the person of man, and the nature is rather of the kind or species than of the individuals, therefore we may say he stood in the nature of mankind: But to say Christ stood in the room of mankind is improper; for (His standing in the room of) the effect and benefit of was intended to particulars, Individuals are represented, not the kind of man: Thus we find it expressed in these Disputes, 
Twisse vind. great. 266. Coru. in. Mol. cap. 27. 427.  [Anne Christus sustinuit personas omnium an electorum tantum?] Whether Christ sustained the persons of all, or the Elect only? It was the persons, not the kind of men, that were adjudged to death, and therefore the persons not the kind must be freed from the same. This Arminius himself will teach him; [Salus convenit non generibus sed singulis, 
In Perkin 192.  singulis praeparatur non generibus, singulis negatur non generibus.] And upon better thoughts I know he will say that Christ stood in the room of individuals, not the kind, and his own expression herein improper. But happily by All mankind, he may mean all the Individuals of mankind, but than it is false, and rests still at his unperformed task to prove, that Christ did stand in the room of every Individual. Something I express wherein he attempteth to prove it, by some reason and some Scripture, his Reason is this, [As Adam did who was the Figure of him that was to come.] Thus arguing: Adam as public person, stood in the room of every Individual man in the world, whereby all and every individual comes to be plunged in sin and misery; therefore Christ being to answer him as the Figure, must stand in the room of all Individuals also, but the strength of these I shall examine in a few words. I hope the Author will not say that Adam stood in the room of any but his Off-sping, and those that should come of his Loins by natural propagation, and so those that were to come of him And that he stood in the room of any man in any other Notion than as coming from him naturally, I would have the Author to prove, and for this reason, that our Saviour though he was an Individual man, yet not coming by natural propagation, but supernatural overshadowing the Virgin, and so without the help of man, and so was it that he came out of the Loins of Adam, as the Author saith, Pag 119. Hence was it I say, that he had no sin, he was not under that general Contagion that lieth upon all Adam's Sons, he was not defiled from him; and let me put this supposition, If God should now, as at first, Create more men, they not coming from Adam by Propagation, they should not be interested into Adam's Sin and Curse, therefore it is clear that Adam did stand in the room of men, not as men, but as his Sons, and to come from him. Now let the Comparison go forward, and let Christ answer his Type: Adam as a public Person stood in the room of all his Posterity, and those that are his Sons and come from him: So Christ standeth in the room of all those that are his Sons, and come to have a being from him: If he should stand in the room of more he should not answer his Figure; but this he might do though he stood in the room of the Elect only, for none else come to have a being from him, and to be his Sons; So that it seemeth clear, that the Comparison betwixt Adam and Christ lieth not in the certain and defined number of Individuals, but the relation wherein they stand each kind to their own root; So that here is little in reason, I shall examine his Scriptures. They are two.  
[1 Cor. 15.21, 22, 45, 46. Rom. 5.14, 18, 19] That these places hold forth thus much, that as Adam was the Fountain of Death, so Christ of Life: As Adam conveyed Death to all his, so Christ Life to all his, I grant; but if he will have any further, let him bring good probation and I shall examine it; Let us consider his alleged places severally.  
1 Cor. 15.21, 22. [As in Adam all dye, so in Christ shall all be made alive.] Which Text seemeth to speak of the Resurrection at the last day, Ver. 21. Now that every Individual shall be raised at the last, and so made alive to stand before his Judgement Seat, I grant, and it is nothing to the Quest. But let us see further, I conceive this place speaks not only of Resurrection in general, but Resurrection to Life, which is only called Resurrection in Scripture, the Resurrection of wicked men to be condemned for ever, the Scripture honoureth it not with the name of Resurrection, the Members of Christ are called Emphatically the Children of the Resurrection; Luk. 20.36. Now of this Resusurrection the Text seemeth to speak, and of this let the 22. ver. be understood, [As in Adam all dye, so in Christ shall all be made alive.] Is this now to be understood, as if all those who died in Adam are made alive by Christ, or only all those that are his and so come of and from him? Let Arminius and Corvinus themselves judge, they do not attempt to prove that all that died in Adam were, or shall be made alive by Christ, (as it is there meant) but they expound the place thus, 
b Armin. in Pork. 191. Corv in Mol. c●p 27.430.  [Quoad locum 1 Cor. 15. non diffitemur ibi Emphasin non esse in voce [omnes] said in vocibus [in Christo] & sensum esse per Christum vivificabuntur omnes qui vitae restituuntur, & à Christo vita ut ab Adamo mors fuit:] That is, the Emphasis is not in the word (All) but in the words (In Christ;) and the sense this, as Death came by Adam, so Life by Christ: In which sense it is received by us, but cometh short of this Assertion, [That all that died in Adam shall be restored to Life by Christ.] Again, let the Text itself judge what is meant by that All that is made alive by Christ, Ver. 23. [First Christ's, than they that are Christ's at his coming;] And doth the Chapter speak of any other? Who is there that is not perverse, but he may see that the (All) that are made alive by Christ, is all those that are his and come from him, as all that died in Adam was all his, and so they answer one the other.  
So for the second Text, Rom. 5.18, 19 It is of the same nature with the former, and sets out Christ the Root and Fountain of Righteousness and Life, as Adam was of Sin and Death, as appears by the Conclusion, Ver. 21. [That as Sin hath reigned unto Death, so might Grace by Jesus Christ,] and further it cannot (in my Judgement) be carried; Indeed it saith, Ver. 18. [As by one, Judgement came on all men to Condemnation, so by one the free gift on all men to Justification of Life;] But this is not more pregnant than that of 1 Cor. 15.21, 22. And thus I say to this also, All Adam's Sons by his Sin Judgement came on them to Condemnation, and so by the righteousness of Christ the free gift came upon all them that come from him to Justification of Life: and this appears in Ver. 27. where this latter (All) is supplied by [They which receive abundance of Grace, and this gift of righteousness,] If the Author will have more from the Text, let him prove it and I shall receive it; Therefore neither of these places confirm this, That Christ stood in the room of every Individual Son of Adam. Yet thus far I go with him, All those he redeemeth by his Blood, in their rooms he stood; and as this is produced as a particular gradation in his work of procuring and meriting Life and Salvation I grant it; But being produced as that which is done for all and every Son of Adam, it still lieth under a Non probatum est. Besides to wave all that hath been said, and to grant him that he stood in the room of every Son of Adam, yet he doth not touch the Question; for than he must prove that he stood in their room for this end, to procure Remission, and Eternal Life for them which he doth not in all this. Indeed our side have ever been peremptory against Christ's standing in the room of an but the Elect, and they prove it thus, [Quorum personas sustinuit pro illorum pecca●s at isfecit, 
Perkin. A Cat. Twisseun pag 266. ] for their sins he satisfied whose persons he sustained. Now I shall not undertake to determine against them (the least dram of whose worth it would be ambition in me to think to counterbalance) but to profess myself not yet to have attained their light, and to see the necessity of that Argumentation, why he might not stand in the room of many so far as to procure for them a freedom from the present Incumbency of the misery (without which many of his Elect could not be, nor be brought to Repentance) and yet not satisfy for their sins; only Remission and Pardon of Sins, and Eternal Life require a satisfaction for Sin, but the other doth not: And of such a taking their Persons on him as to procure life for them, I suppose they m●ne when they say he stood in the room of the Elect only, and this I subscribe to, and of such is the Question: And though we grant him that Christ for some good did stand in the room of all, yet he is short of the Question.  
4, [Being such a public Person in the nature and room of all mankind, he also became for them under the same Law and Obligation in which they were, which charged them with Sin, and bound them over to punishment, by virtue of which all the punishment, the whole Debt of mankind became his] That Christ became under the same Law that they were under, whom he intended to Redeem, I grant; But this enferreth not that he intended to Redeem all that were under the same Law: He Redeeming but his Elect only, yet he must become under the same Law that every man lay under, because all men lay under the same Curse and Law. It was never yet questioned whether Christ became under that Law under which every man was, but whether he redeemed every one that was under that Law. He would speak something, and attempteth to prove it from Gal. 4.5. [He became under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law;] True, Those whom he redeemed were under the Law, else needed no Redemption; but doth the Text say or infer, that he redeemed All that were under the Law? Let the Author view again. Thus he useth to argue, He justifieth the ungodly, therefore All the ungodly; And will he say, He hath chosen the foolish things of the world therefore he hath chosen all the foolish things? Therefore his Assertion, [By virtue of which coming under the Law, the whole Debt and all the Sin and punishment of mankind became his,] wanteth proofs; the who Debt of mankind doth not appear to be his; This I say, that for whose Sins he came (under this Law) to satisfy, He was rightly challenged with their Debt: and that this being under the Law, is a gradation in his procuring Life for men I grant; but that he became so to free every man from the Law, lies still under a Non probatum est.  
5. [Being thus in the nature and stead of mankind under the Law for them, God was pleased to challenge the whole Debt of him, and to impute all the Sin the Law could charge mankind withal unto him, and to arrest and call him to an account, and enter into judgement with him for all.] Which laboureth with the same deficiency that the former doth.  
First, This is little different from the former, for betwixt these two, [All the punishment and whole Debt of mankind became his:] And this, [All the Sin and whole Debt that the Law could charge mankind withal, was challenged of him and imputed to him;] There is no difference.  
Secondly, That Christ stood charged with all the sin, and the whole Debt of those whom he intended to redeem and satisfy for their sins I grant; but that he stood charged with all the Sins of every man, and the whole Debt that the Law could challenge any man withal was challenged of him, this is not yet proved, which only is to the purpose; he attempts to prove it by some Scriptures.  
1. [2 Cor. 5.19. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their Trespasses to them;] True, he did so to men living in the world; But will our Author say that non-imputation of Sins is every man's privilege? Is it congruous to Scripture Phrase to call every Son of Adam blessed and happy? For so are they that have not their Sins imputed, Psa. 32.1, 2. Such an Assertion as this viz. That Pardon, covering, not imputing Sins, is the privilege of every Son of Adam, I leave to the Founder of it, and must descent till I find more cause of embracing it.  
2. Isa. 53 6. And made him to be Sin for us. 2 Cor. 5.21. Laid on him the iniquity of us all. 1 Pet. 2.24. He himself bore our sins: Hence he concludes, the Iniquities of every man was laid on him, he was made sin for, and bore the sins of every Son of Adam; strange reasoning! Doth the word (us) or (ours) spoken of, and by Believers, bring in every Son of Adam? This is not suitable to himself; For Cap 10. Pag. 53. He speaking of that very Text, 2 Cor. 5.21. saith, [Speaking of the Application to them that have believed, he changeth the Person and faith, He made him to be sin for us.] Yet here this Text is produced to prove that he bore the Sins of every Son of Adam.  
3. Psal. 40.12. [Innumerable evils have compassed me, mine iniquities have taken hold on me,] What he will hence infere I cannot well determine; true it is that hence he may infer that Christ was encompassed with innumerable evils, and that very many Sins had taken hold upon him, and that those Iniquities which he had undertook to answer for, took hold on him, whereby he might say Mine Iniquity hath taken hold on me, But what is this to the Point in hand I know not? If he intent hereby to prove that all the evils of every man had taken hold on him, this is a weak inference: But thus fare I conclude with him, that all those for whose Sins he undertook, he stood charged with all their sins that the Law could charge them with, but that he stood charged with all the sins that the Law could charge any man withal, that is yet to be proved.  
6. [Having on him our Sins, God laid on him the punishment and Curse that was due to us for those sins, and so died as a Sinner in the room of us all.] This is for substance nothing distinct from the former, for betwixt [His being charged with our Sins] and [Having our Sins imputed to him,] and his [Having the punishment of our Sins laid on him,] there is no difference; Yet here are some improper speeches and fallacies. Improprieties I say in the first words, [Having on him our Sins, God laid on him the punishment of Sins;] It is beyond my capacity to conceive how Christ had on him our Sins, before he had on him the punishment of our Sins; he had not Sin formally, but only imputatively he bore our Sins: True, but that is Metonimically, Sins for the punishment of our Sins, and then was it when he was wounded for our Transgressions, Isa. 35.5. And I remember not where the Scripture ever speaketh Christ to have our Sins on him as distinct from his having the punishment of them on him; Therefore if he make them distinct he must free it from Impropriety, if they be the same, then from a vain Tautology.  
The fallacy is in the next words, [In the room of us all.] If the Author means as the Apostles and Prophets did and must (in the Authors own Principles from the change of Persons) (us all) that is, we all that are Believers, than it is true, but nothing to his purpose; But if by (us all) he would understand [Every Son of Adam,] it would be indeed pertinent to his business, but false and destitute of probation, he instanceth in Isa. 55.5. Gal. 3.13. 1 Cor. 15.4. 1 Pet. 3.18. Rom. 5.6. Which cannot clear that the Apostle speaks of them under the Notion of men, and so in common with all men, but as Believers, and so proper to them: And this the Author puts out of doubt in his own inference from the change of Persons. And certainly the Apostle writing to Believers, saying, He was made sin for us all, can afford no such Interpretation. He attempts to prove it by 2 Cor. 5.15. For we thus judge, that if Christ died for all, then are all dead, and he died for all, that they which live might not live to themselves, etc.] The sense of which Text, if it favour him, must run thus, For we thus judge, that if Christ died for every Son of Adam, then was every Son of Adam dead, and he died for every Son of Adam that they that live might not live to themselves but to him that hath died for them;] but I leave this to every Intelligent Reader, to judge whether it be not herein set upon the rack: This cannot be produced from the words themselves, nor made well to accord with the foregoing or following words, but he loveth to give us words without any meaning. But I desire the Author or any Reader to examine whether this be not the sense? For we thus judge, that if Christ have died for all, [That is in Scripture Phrase, for all whom he intended to bring to Salvation; all those whom his Father had (for that end) given him;] Then have all died, [that is, all those for whom he died have died to sin.] [Now the ground of this is, the Connection betwixt the end of Christ, and the execution of it in the next words:] And he died for all, that those that live [not the life of Nature, but of Grace and Faith,] might not live to themselves, but to him that hath died and risen again. Now in this Exposition these two things are only to be proved: Then other things will follow, and they are these; First, That that Phrase [Then are all dead] is meant death not (in) but (to) Sin. Secondly, That the Phrase [That they which live] is meant of a Life of Grace and Faith, not the Life of Nature: Which being cleared, the place will not only not help him, but afford a good Argument against him; which particulars I shall clear by these four particulars.  
1. The Apostles scope in this present Chapter, that which he is about in this and the foregoing Chapter, is to show the believing Corinthians, that he with the rest of the Apostles, did neglect earthly things and were heavenly minded, and desired to approve themselves to God, and for their good, Cap. 4.1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17. Cap. 5.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13. And also to press the same upon them, Ver. 17. Now that those words, Ver. 14, 15, Contain an Argument to prove and bacl this, is evident; and that to show a ground why they did so, and the Corinthians should do so; and the Argument is drawn from the Death of Christ; [For we thus judge, that if Christ died for all, then are all dead;] Now it may be questioned whether this Argument be drawn from the cause, or the effect of Christ's Death, that is, whether he meaneth thus, Then were all dead in Sin, and so need to live to God: Or thus, Then have all died, that is, in Christ that died, in whom the Sins of Believers were crucified, as Rom. 6.6. Happily our Author will say the first, but I conceive that is not his Argument in this Text, and that on these two grounds.  
1. Because then the Apostles Argument to Believers is not so opposite and full, because there was no greater engagement on them to live to God, then upon every Son of Adam; which agreeth not with the whole series of the Word of God,  
2. Because then the words of the Apostles should have run thus, Ver. 14. For the Condition of Man constraineth us, and layeth a necessity on us and others to live to God and not as they do. The love of Christ constraineth us; And if the Argument be drawn from the effect of Christ's Death, Than it is clear the meaning is this, Then are all dead; all for whom he died for are dead, have their old man crucified with him, and so are or shall certainly have sin weakened and killed, and live to God, because he died for that end.  
2. From the Apostles expresses in the foregoing Chapter, where he mentioneth that Life which he here inserts, and may herein be his own expositor: Cap. 4.10, 11, 12. That the Life of Jesus Christ might be manifest in our Bodies, etc. Where life is undoubtedly taken for a Spiritual Life, which he speaks of, Cap. 5.7, We walk by Faith, is nothing but we live by Faith, as Gal. 2.20. And these may expound Ver. 5. where he saith, [That those that live must not live to themselves,] Where it is thus meant, that those that live the life of Christ, etc.  
3. From the usual Phrase of the Apostles in other places when he persuadeth Believers to the same duties, and useth the same Argument, as Rom. 6. the twelve first verses, where from Christ's Death he exhorts them to death to Sin, and a life in Righteousness, but more particularly Ver. 10, 11. Likewise think ye also that ye are dead to Sin, but alive to God in Jesus Christ our Lord. So Cap. 7.4. Ye are dead to the Law by the Body of Christ, that ye should live to another, even to him that raised him from the dead.] Now is not this all one, and nothing differing from the Text in hand, yet here is meant a death to Sin and the Law, and Life to God in the Spirit.  
4. From the Insatisfactory replies of the Remonst. who have endeavoured to remove this Exposition.  
1. They say, [glossema istud (peccato scilicet) non est in Textu,] That is, that gloss (to sin) is not in the Text:] True, it is not, neither was it affirmed to be in the Text, but to be the meaning of the Text, and this they produce no Argument to evert.  

〈◊〉. Hag. 170.  2. [Sententia est, quod two pro quibus Christus mortuus est, in peccato mortui erant,] That is, this is the sense, That all those for whom Christ died were dead in Sin, as Eph. 2.1.5.] That place in Eph. 2.1.5. is not to the Apostles purpose in 2 Cor. 5. therefore cannot be expected to be in the same sense; Besides in Eph. 2. the Text affirmeth that they were dead in Sin, and by sin, which this place 2 Cor. 5 mentioneth not, that is a gloss that is not in the Text, we may also affirm with them.  
3. Verba illa [omnes qui vivunt] possunt accipi ut omnes homines viventes] That is, those words [Those that live] may be taken for all men living.] True, and we are where we were; we grant that it was that all men living the life of Christ and Grace, might not live to themselves. But this doth not yet please them, they mean all men living the life of Nature, but this is not proved; we find not that every Son of Adam is bound to live to Christ, or that it was his end and intention: They would feign prove it in Acts 3.26. To turn every one of you from your Sins; but from every one of you, meaning Israel, to every Son of Adam one and other, the Argument is invalid. So that by all these particulars it may appear, that by (are dead) is meant dead to Sin: And by (They that live) is meant life of Christ: Then how this maketh for him let any judge; and thus we may argue.  
That all for whom Christ died are dead to Sin, but every Son of Adam neither is, nor shall be so dead, therefore that All doth not take in every Son of Adam. A more clear sense of the place I shall beglad to receive.  
7. [Having thus suffered and died for our sins, he risen again the third day, and risen acquitted of all the Sins imputed to him, and a Triumphant over all the Enemies of our Salvation.] That he did so no man denyeth, he had no Sins imputed to him, but over them he became a Victor; and this is true, though we say he suffered for the Sins of the Elect only: unless he prove, that he was acquitted from the Sins of every Son of Adam, and so a Triumphant over all the Enemies of the Salvation of every Son of Adam, which is his task to prove, and that which he holds, but this he doth not so much as affirm, much less prove, and this is his weakness.  
8. [All this Oblation of this his Sacrifice he did dignify through the oneness of his will with his Fathers, etc. which is more than if every man had suffered, and accepted of God as if all had suffered.] Herein we agree that it was with God as if all for whom he died had suffered; but herein still is he deficient, he proves not that it was as if every Son of Adam had suffered: Certainly than no man should suffer again, for Justice itself requireth not a double suffering for the same Sins. So that now to reasume these particulars, I say again, That his being made flesh, his coming into the world, being made in the nature of mankind, standing in the room of mankind, made under the Law, having the Sins of men imputed to him, and enduring the punishment that was due to them, and standing acquitted of them, and that in all these his will to be one with his Fathers, all these are requisite to his procuring of life: Herein we agree, and herein the Controversy not touched; but that any of these, or all of these were done for every Son of Adam to procure life Eternal for them, he doth not yet prove, and therefore comes short of his general Doctrine.  
Having spoke of his general Redemption, he comes to speak of his special, the particulars whereof (though liable to exception) yet are not pertinent to the Controversy: yet some I shall insert of greatest concernment; He to prove the Application of the Death of Christ by the Spirit of God in the hearts of men, he produceth Rev. 5.9. [Thou wast slain and hast redeemed us by thy Blood out of every tongue and Nation.] Now, The Reader must understand that this Text is produced by us against his general Redemption; and thus we urge, that if he redeemed them out of tongues and nations, than all were not so redeemed, for some there are & must be out of whom they are said to be so redeemed. Now upon this ground the Author cunningly shuffles this Text in among others, treating of the Application of Christ's Death, that so it might unsuspectedly be taken in the same sense, but this a foul perversion. Now that the Text speaketh of the Act of Christ in procuring Life and Redemption, and that by bloodshed, I am enduced to conclude from these grounds.  
1. From the word in the Text, which though we read it, [Thou hast redeemed,] which word may be distorted to that sense; yet the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thou hast bought us, which word plainly relateth to the price paying, which was his Blood as shed; which word I conceive cannot be produced in the whole Scripture in any other sense, and is not this word pressed by our Adversaries in that sense? in 2 Pet. 2.1. denying the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that bought them; but surely those were not redeemed by Bloudsprinkling, and why they should put any other sense upon the word then in that place they themselves plead for, I cannot see.  
2. From circumstantiating expressions in the Text: as that he is said to redeem by Blood. Now the Application of the Blood of Christ to the hearts of men is done by Spirit: But between Spirit and Blood there is a wide difference; the one is the efficient, the other the meritorious cause of the Application. But he saith, [True it is by Blood; but it is Bloudsprinkling;] but this gloss is not in the Text; and should we say so he would presently ask us what belongs to them that add to the Scripture, but he doth not only say that which the Word saith not, but that which it explodes; As for his expression [by Bloudsprinkling] it is a quite distinct thing from Blood, because the sprinkling of Blood is the Act of the Spirit; and the Text saith, [Thou wast slain and hast redeemed by Blood,] which referreth that Redemption by Blood to his Death and Bloodshed.  
3. Because the Act of Application by Bloudsprinkling is so the Act of the Son, as that it is also the Act of the Father, and the holy Spirit; but that which is here said [The Lamb, thou art worthy, etc. because thou was killed and hast redeemed us by thy Blood, etc.] Cannot be said of any but Christ, and that as by his Bloodshed procured life for us.  
The Author's reply may draw more from me, but herein he savours strong of an Arminian; thus they envade the Text, as if it spoke o● such to whom the Blood of Christ was Applied, 
Acta. Synod. 360.  and in whom it had its full efficacy, [Quis non videt hic agi de illis quibus non tantum impetravit, sed per sidem applicavit, &c] But this solves it not; the Application is inserted in the next verse, but the Impetration only in the 9 verse, which impetration did tend to a further Act.  
Again, as he did set down divers particulars that conduced to the effecting of the first, so he doth now some that conduce to this second, and thus goeth on:  
[For effecting of which Redemption Jesus Christ was exalted at his Father's right hand, Acts 2.33. Act 5.31.] But herein I am unsatisfied, why his exalting to his Father's right hand is made an Act of Application, more than his Resurrection from Death, I think he hath no ground to disjoin them, they are conjoined by the Apostle, Rom. 8.34. Certainly all the Acts of his Exaltation tend the same way.  
2. I conceive (as I have formerly hinted) that all the Acts of Christ mentioned Rom. 8.34. Tend to perfect his Impetration and procurement of Salvation; For if he had not Risen, Ascended, Interceded, the Purchase had not been made, or Salvation impetrated for men; though nothing else was to be paid as Price but Blood; yet something else was to be done, there was to be [Ascensio Sacerdotis & ostensio sanguinis,] The Priest was to ascend into the veil and show the Blood, else no Atonement procured by the Priest: Therefore this is not well divided from the other in the first Redemption, or procuring of Salvation.  
And why may not he as well say that he died to effect that Redemption, as he was exalted to his Father's right hand? For both came under the same Notion of effecting that Reconciliation. And the cited place Act. 2.33. speaketh no more than this, that he was not only to die, but to be raised again and exalted, else could he not as God, give them Repentance and Remission of Sins. All this proveth not that his Session at his Father's right hand is an Act of Application, or tended more to it than his Death and Passion. As for his subdivided particulars in Pag 6. I grant them as being nothing to the Controversy: until he come in the 7. Pag. wherein he delivereth something that deserveth examination, which is this;  
[In some sort interceding and putting in for Transgressor's, even the Sons of men, yet in, and of the world: Isa. 53.12. Joh. 17.21.23, That so the men of the world might be convinced and alured, etc. But in a special manner doth he intercede, being Advocate for his chosen ones, etc. and presenteth them to his Father holy and spotless, Eph. 5.22.] Wherein are sublime discoveries worth our notice.  
1. Whereas he saith, [Putting in for Transgressor's, &c. but in a special manner interceding for his chosen ones,] seems to intimate that [Transgressor's] and [choose ones] are not coincident; which is not only contrary to the truth, but himself, in Pag. 120. And what special favour interceded for, or manner of interceding that he doth not use for Transgressor's? This is a nicety beyond my reason, and I fear his own too.  
2. Why should Intercession be so ranged as to make a part of his Application? He seemeth to be touched with Arminius his Magnetic, who saith, Sacrificatio pertinet ad meritum, intercessio ad applicationem, meritum acquisivit sacrificio, pro applicatione intercedit. In Perk 70. But it is against reason, for if he Intercede it must be with God, and for men; And doth not Reason and his own Principles tell us that this must appertain to his Impetration? Nay, doth not he say, Pag. 8. [By this he procureth the grant of Dispensation?] And why should that which the Author pleads Is (for all) be produced as an ingredient into that Redemption which is proper only to Believers?  
3. I demand one place or places of Scripture, that hold forth the distinction of general and special Intercession, especially now he is at his Father's right hand, for so he urgeth both kinds, nay at any time, this is a stream from the Arminian fountain, but not from the Sacred Fountain of God's word, those Texts alleged come short as not proving that he Interceded for all and every Transgressor, or Crucifier.  
4. Why doth he Connexe [Allure] and [Convince?] As if always and whom God intendeth to convince he intendeth to allure: The World (Joh. 17.21.23.) he would have convinced, that Christ was the true Messiah: but that he would have them alured to come to him is a presuming on the Text to affirm. The Devils believe that, and are convinced; Mark. 3.11. But he never intended to allure them: Many souls are not convinced that Jehovah is God till and by their destruction, Ps. 83. last. But then I cannot think that God allures them; Many are not convinced that Christ was sent till hell seize on them, and then they shall [every Tongue confess] but than God intendeth not to allure them, it is too late; and therefore though we grant that Christ prayed for his, that the world might be convinced, yet it will not follow that he prayed that they might be alured: And for his general Intercession for all, seeing so many Texts confine his Intercession to Believers, as Rom. 8.34. Maketh Intercession for us, Heb. 7.25. Makes intercession for them that come to God by him, Heb 6.20. He entered into the heavens for us, viz. Heirs of Promise, ver. 17. Heb. 9.24. Who appeareth in heaven for us. 1 John 2.1, 2. We have an Advocate with the Father: And by our Author Pag. 54. it is urged as a privilege of Believers; and not one place in the whole Scripture that maketh out a general Intercession, I cannot but judge it an Oracle of flesh and blood, and not of God.  
5. I would know a ground why he changeth the terms? When he speaketh of the general, and for Transgressor's, he giveth it the name of Intercession only: But when he speaketh of the special, for his Chosen Ones, he giveth the title of Advocation, as the Reader may observe: As if there was some momentous difference betwixt an Intercessor and an Advocate, which the Scripture affordeth not, for that in Rom. 8.34. Maketh Intercession for us; And that 1 Job 21. We have an Advocate, are all one, And can this flourish with Phrasiologies tend to any thing but to bleat the eyes of his ignorant Readers?  
6. I would know a reason why to the second, viz. his Advocation, He confineth his presenting them holy to his Father; as if he did intercede for some in heaven whom he did not so present: And herein I demand one Text to show where Christ appears in heaven for any, either as Intercessor, or Advocate, and doth not present the Persons of such holy to his Father? That he intercedes in heaven for all, and yet presents but some holy to his Father, is the Language only of our Author, not of Scripture, and when these particulars are duly scanned, his simple jumbling and confounding Notions, beyond either his own understanding, or any man's else, will clearly appear: From which jumbling and confused Discourse he comes to raise a double Salvation; and he thus speaketh;  
[1. One common, the other special and eternal of each it is fit distinctly to mention.] That it is so sit to speak of them distinctly I grant, & it would be well he would speak as distinctly as he pretends, that we might understand it; he should have explained what he meaneth by that special and eternal Salvation; if he mean by it our perfect glorification in heaven, which in Scripture Phrase is called eternal Salvation. Heb 5.9. Then it seemeth he intendeth Grace and Faith to belong to the common, not special Salvation, which is contrary to himself in many Pages of his Discourse: But if by it he mean Grace and Glory, Faith, and the Inheritance, then doth he speak of Faith and believing as not being an eternal Salvation, as Pag. 10. [Yea with some he goeth further, so as that they believe, though departing from this grace they may perish, &c] Hereby we see because he speaketh not distinctly he speaketh not as is fit. But he addeth,  
[The one Christ worketh for all men, Pag. 9 The other he works in men to God, Pag. 12.] O that the confused brain of the Author could produce itself in any reasonable perspicuity; why doth he say, that the common Salvation is wrought only for men? Is it not bestowed on men? As to instance in his particulars, as the preservation of the Creatures, the patience of God, means of knowledge, etc. Are they not given to men? And acted upon men? Have they them not? Why then are they set down as only wrought out for men? Certainly herein he could not promise himself satisfaction. And so for the special Salvation wrought in the hearts of men by his Spirit, why doth he say it was only wrought in men? Was it not also wrought for men by his Blood, before it was wrought in men by his Spirit? I think the purchase of Christ is the foundation of every spiritual good whether Grace or Glory, Eph. 1.3. His expresses herein therefore are preposterous, but herein is his mistake, he should have made his distinction run between the Acts of Christ in procuring and applying; but he speaketh of a distinct good bestowed some to all, some not to all, which is not only useless in this Controversy, but also admits not of his Expressions: Seeing those things which are special are wrought out for those that have them, and those that are common are not only wrought for, but conferred on men.  
But he inserteth several particulars as branches of this common Salvation, Which I shall examine.  
1. [The earth and Inhabitants thereof which by Sin are dissolved he beareth up the pillars of it, Psal. 75.3, 4. Heb. 1.3. And the frame of the Creatures for man's use preserved, Psal. 145.8, 9 Math. 5.45. Col. 1.18. And this a witness of his goodness, Act. 14.17. & 17.24.31.] That the Fabric of the world, and the Creatures thereof (by sin forfeited) are again restored and sustained, and continued for man's use, and that by virtue of Christ's Sacrifice and interposal, I verily believe, and needs it must so be, man being upheld in his being, the Creatures must be so for his subsistence: and that man is so, is clear, and must be so (if for no other end, yet) for this, that his Elect might come to have a being, and so come to Repentance: Thus far I have formerly granted, and grant this general Salvation; And this is the Helena on which he seemeth so enamoured, but it serves him not, it is nothing to the Question, this he might do and yet have no thoughts to bring most men to Grace or Glory.  
But if I had an inclination to deny it, his quoted Texts prove it not, there is not any one of those places alleged, except Col. 1.18. that hath any show of proving that Christ as Mediator procured the being of the world, and the Creatures therein; few of them speak of Christ, but God essentially, the living God, Creator of all things, as Psal. 75.3, 4. Psal. 145.8.9. Math. 5.45. Nay with express distinction from Christ, God man, as Acts 17.24.31. The rest of Christ as God, and as Creator and Preserver of all things, as Heb. 1.3. Therefore I could advise him to seek out more pertinent Texts for his purpose.  
2. [By him is procured patience and long suffering of God, and much bounty in many mercies to men, as 2 Pet. 3.9. Rev. 2.21. Psal. 19.14. Psalm. 136.25. And this to lead men to Repentance. Rom. 2.4.] That patience and long-suffering is procured for every man, that is, that the Curse is not incontinently executed on them, and the world dissolved, I will not contend: But his Texts prove it not, they speak of the efficient, not the meritorious cause, who is so patiented, not who procured it, but grant it, this is not pertinent to the ●oint in hand: He may be patiented and long-suffering to all, and yet not intent the Salvation of all to whom he is so patiented, neither is God patiented to every Son of Adam to lead them to Repentance: Can he prove that God or Christ intended the Repentance of every man, I would confess and prove too that he intended the eternal Salvation of every man; For Repentance of any is not willed but as means to that end, and it is considered as means in tendency to the end: But the former he proveth not, as for that Text, Rom. 2.4. It speaketh of another patience then what every Son of Adam partaketh of, viz. the patiented waiting of God in the Gospels' Ministry, or such a deferring of Judgement, as hath the Gospel annexed, as appeareth in the whole Chapter, but such an one every Son of Adam hath not enjoyed: Besides this patience and long suffering of God leadeth to Repentance; that Moraliter, not physice, by suasion not efficiency worketh not Repentance, but admonisheth to Repentance; and so this place is expounded Act. 17.30. Now he admonisheth every man to Repent, which showeth that the patience of God without the Word is no fit means to bring men to Repentance: Now this place which denoteth such a long-suffering that every Son of Adam hath not, is not well produced to prove such a work, as is common for every Son of Adam; and that God intendeth by his patience to bring every Son of Adam to Repentance, it is not easy to grant, and as hard for the Author to prove.  
3. [By him is procured some means, with some light, therein, and according thereto, to lead men to Repentance, etc. though to some more dark, some more clearly.] First, to remove such generalities and indefinite Expressions fit only to deceive; then his Expresses will the better appear: That Christ did procure means, and Light, and Spirit, to lead men to Repentance whoever yet denied? This cometh too short of his Doctrine, for that he procured means to bring every Son of Adam to Repentance, this neither he nor any else hath yet proved; That he procured means, and God gives such means to every man whereby they may know something of God I grant; but that he giveth to every one so much as leadeth them to Repentance, this is doubtful, every measure of the knowledge of God serves not for this business: I would know what he thinketh of those that have only Verbum rei, the Book of the Creatures to read on? True, They may know something of God, as Rom. 1.20. As his Power, and Godhead; yea, so much seen of him (the Text saith not as to bring them to Repentance, but) as may leave them without excuse; and that (not for not Repenting, but) for their Idolatry, because there is so much seen in the Creatures as may convince men of the Deity of God, that he is not made with hands, nor any such Creature as they worshipped, Ver. 23. But how will he prove hence that the Creatures are fit means to bring men to Repentance? To bring men to Repentance there must concur these things; A fight of Sin to be Sin, A sense of our condition without it, A Hell to affright, with other things; but which of these are obnoxius to them that have but the light of Nature only? For the knowledge of Sin to be Sin, the Book of the Creatures discovers not: St. Paul said, I had not known sin, but by the Law, Rom. 7.7. And that not the Law of Nature, or any thing written only in Nature, but lex superaddita, A Law that was not always known, that said (Thou shalt not lust,) Besides that men repent, it is requisite that men should know it is a duty to Repent; For that which discovereth not that, cannot be said any way to lead to Repentance: But doth the Creature or the light of Nature command this? The time before the Gospel cometh admonishing to Repent, is a time of ignorance of that duty, Act. 17.30. Again, it is requisite that men know the danger of not repenting, the punishment due to Sin, that show men the necessity of repenting: But how doth the Creatures dictate any such thing? Therefore that which discovereth not Sin to be Sin, nor it to be our duty to repent, nor the danger of not repenting, or the benefit of repenting; such a thing is not a fit means to lead us to Repentance. But at the end of this his Assertion I find some Scriptures annexed, I shall perpend them to see if they affirm any such thing, as that God giveth to every man such means as may, and to that end to lead them to Repentance.  
[Rom. 1.19. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, etc.] And what is there in that Text but this, viz. That something of God is seen in the Creatures, as his Power and Godhead? which might keep them from Idolatry, or worshipping of such things as they did worship, but not so much as to bring them to Repentance for that Idolatry, the Text saith no such thing.  
[Acts 17.24, 30. Now he admonisheth all men every where to repent.] This is the same nature with the former; It is spoken of those, and to those that worshipped the unknown God; as Ver. 23. To which he addeth these words, and tells them that God Created the Worlds, and placed the bounds of our Habitations, as Ver. 24, 25, 26. and this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ver. 27. That they might inquire after the Lord to know so much of him as to convince them that the Godhead is not like to Silver or Gold, or the work of man's hands, as ver. 29. But that it was for such an end as to bring them to Repentance, the Text owneth not, nay it altogether disclaims; as Ve. 30. (The time of this ignorance God regarded not,) as if he should have said, when there is only the Creatures and light of Nature in regard of the duty of Repentance, it could be no other but the time of Ignorance, seeing that by that light they neither knew that they should, nor how they should Repent. But now he admonisheth all to Repent, no such admonition by the Creatures, than had his words (But now he admonisheth) been to no purpose: Therefore his joining 24. and 30. verses together, as if he intended to prove that by the Creatures God intended to lead men to Repentance is very weak and frivolous.  
Now if he shall reply, that Rom. 2. saith, The Gentiles did the things contained in the Law and that by nature; and therefore why not Repent? I answer, Let the Text be well weighed and we shall see a difference betwixt (Legem implere,) and (Ea quae legis sunt facere,) to do things that the Law commands, and to fulfil the Law. The second requires that what is done, be done out of obedience to a known Law, the other not: The Gentiles might do something that the Law commanded, as Seneca, Plutarch, who gave good rules of life, but not out of obedience to any Law of God; but was it otherwise, though the Law of Nature taught what to do, yet it teacheth not Repentance for not doing of it, because the first Law of God admitteth it not; He commanded to do or else adjudged to suffer the Curse. To come to happiness by Faith and Repentance is a secret of the Gospel, which all the light of Nature is never able to discover, nor the severity of the Law did ever admit.  
[Rom. 10.18. No doubt their sound went through all the earth.] Which place he allegeth to prove that the Gospel is preached to every Son of Adam to bring them to Repentance, or else I know not to what end, but of this it falleth short; To pass by the several Judgements of men on this place, for it is not very clear what the Apostle meaneth by the 18. ver. But admit that we grant that the Gospel is gone out through the world, yet that Text is not of greater. Latitude than that of Col. 1.6. Where the Apostle saith the Gospel had com to all the world, and brought forth fruit, but he will not say that the Gospel had com to, and brought forth fruit in every Son of Adam: And I leave it to be the Author's task to prove hence that the sound of the Gospel cometh to the ears of every Son of Adam, that was, is, or shall be; So that yet it is not clear that Christ procuring means for every Son of Adam to bring them to Repentance.  
4. [By him is sent forth at one time or other some Supernatural light and motion of his Spirit, etc. Tending to, and striving with them to reprove them of sin, moving to Repentance, seeking after God, etc. Joh. 1.5.9. Pro. 1.23. Joh. 16.8, 9 Gen. 6.3. Mic. 2.7. And thus he calleth many, yea, all the Sons of Men.]  
1 If (By him) denote Christ the Bestower, and efficient in sending that supernatural light, as I conceive he doth by Joh. 1.5.9. than it is nothing to his purpose, for than it plainly belongeth to the Applicatory part; but that which he is to prove and illustrate is the Impetration, and procuring, as all the former particulars run: Therefore I would know a ground of the change of his expressions, seeing this with the other set forth the same Act of Christ.  

●mnes homines ●igna vocati●e vocantur. Arm. in Perk. 59  2. I am yet to seek for proof from  Author, or else where, That every Son of Adam hath Supernatural light to bring them to Repentance: What will he say of those that have only the light of Nature, and perish without Law, Rom. 2. Will he say that such have supernatural light? Certain those that Act merely by nature, and natural light, have not a supernatural light, for then natural light should be supernatural: Yet he urgeth that God calleth every Son of man to Repentance, A stiff Arminian; His Scriptures I shall examine.  
Acts 17.30. [Now he commandeth all men every where to Repent.] Hence inferring he calleth every Son of Adam: But let us wave what men may possibly raise to please themselves, let any sober mind judge, whether the Text meaneth every Son of Adam, or those only, and that All to whom the Gospel comes, and then when it was preached: Else why should he say, (But now he admonisheth?) if that any were called to Repentance, to whom that Gospel came not, as well might they have been admonished before it came: And so that word (Now) been Useless: Or can we think that the admonition of some to Repent, could beget an Obligation in every Son of Adam to Repent though command came not to them? Certainly not, because the time of the Gentiles ignorance God regarded not, & their non-repentance, though the Jews were before both by John, Math. 3. And by Christ himself, admonished to Repent, as if it were not their duty till that command came to them: according to the Remost. rule, Lex non lata non obligat.  
Math. 23.14. [The word of the Gospel shall be preached through the whole world] Not now to stand on the Phrase (whole world,) I shall give him the Phrase in the desired Latitude. And what doth the Text affirm? No more but this, that the Gospel shall be in the last days preached through the world; this we may expect, and pray for, but yet it is not so, much less can he prove that God by the Gospel hath, doth, and will call every Son of Adam, that have, are, or shall be, this he is to prove, but yet hath not proved it: have not Millions died and known nothing of Christ? And are not many now without that knowledge, and yet in little probability of enjoying it?  
Prov. 8.4, 5.31.34. [O men I call unto you.] And doth this place prove any more than this, that wisdom strives with those to whom she utters her voice, and those are men, yea, simple men and fools? And this is no more than this, Now he commandeth every man to Repent, Acts 17.30. But how doth he prove hence that wisdom striveth with those to whom she utters not her voice? Or that she utters her voice to every Son of Adam?  
Isa. 45 22. [Looke unto me and ye shall be saved, all the ends of the earth shall be saved.] And will our Author infer hence that every Son of Adam shall be saved? If not? then I say this Phrase (The ends of the earth) doth not imply every Son of Adam, and if not, this Text is nothing to the purpose: This Phrase signifies no more than those that were far remote, as Isa. 5.26. Where (Nations from far,) and (ends of the earth,) are equipollent, So Isa. 43.6. [From far] and [from the ends of the earth] speak one thing, and this Phrase sometimes meaneth the Gentiles which were many of them far remote from Jerusalem, and so they speaking of them called them the ends of the earth, as Isa. 49.6. to be [a light of the Gentiles,] and [Salvation to the ends of the earth] are Synonimous: So Jer. 16.19. And what doth this Text prove more than this? That those that are a far off, Gentiles, Sons of the earth, shall have Salvation as well as those that were near Jerusalem; and so calleth them that are a far off to him: But what is this to Gods calling every Son of Adam to Repentance? He may call them that are a far off, and yet not call every man that is a fare off; but of this stamp are the most of his inferences.  
5, [By him is procured and sent forth to men, whilst they yield to, and do that which by this light, and these motions of his Spirit he leadeth to, an increase of mercies, etc. Gen. 20. totum. 2 Chron. 11.17. 2 King. 10.30. Rom. 2.14, 15. Prov. 1.33. Prov. 8.32, 35. Joh. 8.31, 32. Act. 10.1.] The Authors expresses herein are something dark and obscure, for his words may have a double sense.  
First, That God by him sends forth to men whilst they yield to, or in yielding to that light which he formerly gave them, (to which yielding to that former light he himself enabled them) an increase of Grace and Spirit; this I grant as a truth, and this he doth to men; but then this is not full for his purpose, for thus he doth not to every Son of Adam; for then every Son of Adam must have some light of Grace and Spirit, which he cannot prove, and so be enabled to improve it to any increase, and so at last be saved; but this he will not own.  
Secondly, He may be thus taken, That God by Christ sends an increase, and so hath tied himself to give an increase of light and Spirit if men use it well which they have; which being thus general, comes not up to the Author's mind, for this proveth not that he calleth every Son of Adam to Repentance, nor that every Son of Adam hath this Light and Spirit given to them to improve; but I think rather he meaneth, as he must if he speak to his purpose, That God hath given to every man some light of Nature and Gospel, which if they improve well they shall have further light till they come to be saved, according to that Saving, [Habenti dabitur, to him that hath shall be given,] As his Master Arminius hath done before him, 
In Perkin. 218.  [Vide mihi an non in isto dicto (Habenti dabitur) promissio ista contineatur, qua Deus spondet se gratia supernaturali illuminaturum, qui lumine naturali rectè utetur?] If this be his meaning, than I demand whether men have a power and ability to use natural light well? His decision herein will be useful to us. 2. I say that though God sometimes use this Method of giving to them that improve, and taking from them that abuse; yet this is not always his Course, it is no unbended rule, as if Grace should be dispensed according to works; Sometimes he is found of them that sought him not, Isa 65.1, 2. Capernanm that abused both the light of Nature and Gospel had means, when Tyre and Sydon that would have repent wanted them, Math. 11.21. Debauched Sinners against Nature and Grace have enjoyed converting Grace, when more moral men have been passed by: This the Remonst, confess, Deum pro liberrimo arbitratu saepenumero populos quosdam licet profanissimos, & peccatis plurimis implicitos, & rectae rationis dictamini non obtemperantes, è reliqua turba deligere & ad vocationem Evangelii vocare. Antidote. Remonst. 73. Many Moral men, as Plutarch, Plato, Socrates, Photion, whose rules are admirable, and lives blameless, and improving the light of nature as well as any, yet we never find that Supernatural Grace was given to them. When many so abused Nature and Grace, as to become Idolaters, Adulterers, Fornicators, Buggers, Thiefs, Drunkards, yet for such to be Sanctified, Justified, Washed, is no strange thing; 1 Cor. 6.11. Where was the stop in the former, that they had not an increase of Light and Grace? And where was the improvement in the other, that deserved a new supply of Grace in Conversion? And as for these Texts cited, they prove but this, that God sometimes rewardeth an improvement of Evangelicall Grace with more Grace: But they prove not that is God's unbended Method in giving or denying Grace; neither is this any thing to this purpose, to prove Christ procuring Life and Salvation for every Son of Adam, because every man hath not that upon the improvement of which he promiseth more Grace.  
6. [Yea, with some, where the Gospel comes, he goeth further, so enlightening them to understand the report of the Gospel that they do believe.] That he doth so is a truth, but why inserted I see not.  
1. Hath he to soon forgotten that the thing which he pursues is such as is done for all, and to clear it, he giveth us a taste of that which he saith expressly he giveth but to some; this cannot be pertinent.  
2. He here supposeth that the Gospel is but dispensed to some, which is no propitious Assertion to his former, viz. That God by the Gospel calleth every Son of Adam, one time or other, in some degree or other.  
3. Whereas he speaketh of a (further illumination,) either he meaneth of such as have used their first means well, or with such as do not; if the former, than this is nothing different from the former, viz. [If they abide in his call they shall know the truth,] and therefore deserved not to be ranged as a new particular: If he mean the second; then that Method of God for prounded in dispensing Grace is here infringed; Therefore this must either be (at least) a Tautology, or a contradiction to his first particular.  
4. Hath he so soon forgotten, that the thing which he is to prove, is the procuring and working out with God for men? And he here produceth an Actual bestowing and applying of the Blood of Christ, if to the enlightened and brought in to believe, be to have the Blood of Christ applied? All that might be said may not, I may not follow him so fare in his extravagancies as I might, sufficient is it to take notice that this is not opposite to his purpose, it being done only for some, and not for all and every Son of Adam.  
We may reasume the whole number of his particulars, and stand to wonder what light they bring to this Point, or what he helpeth mean understandings in these dark Controversies by the perspicuity of his Method and order: That we may review them alitle jointly, that which he is to illustrate to them is the common Salvation, which is Christ's working out with God for men Remission, and Eternal Salvation, and such as is done for all, and as it is a working out for men, distinct from working in and upon men: His first and his last particulars are not opposite, because they are such as are effected on, and in men, as it is to be for all men. So all the rest intermediate particulars are not opposite, seeing they are not, nor by him proved to be procured, or to be dispensed to all and every man; take them altogether, and what do they clear? What do they prove? Nothing certainly, and serve for nothing, but deceive and confound his Readers: and thus I conclude, Let him numerate never so many particulars procured for, or bestowed on men, if they be not such as are means in God's series of Dispensing Eternal Life, I shall not contend, but pass them by, as not pertinent to the Question, and leave them to him as not only procured for, but actually conferred upon men, but if he produce any such things as are the means to bring us to life, as Grace, Supernatural light, the call of the Gospel, etc. Then I deny that such things are either procured for, or bestowed upon every Son of Adam, which he often affirmeth, but never yet proved.  
Having thus immethodically propounded and displayed the particulars of his Common Salvation, he proceeds thus to affirm.  
[In some sense, and in truth all may be said to be Reconciled, Redeemed, Saved, yea Justified, in him, though most be destitute of every of these.] Which is as much as to say, Those may truly be said to be reconciled, etc. that neither are, nor shall be reconciled, etc. Indeed, I find sometimes that God calleth things that are not as if they were. Rom 4 17. And Faith hath this privilege, to see at a distance things that are not as if they were; but then let us consider what they are, not merely possible but future, such as God by his power can, and his unbended purpose hath determined, and his faithful Promises hath assured us shall come to pass; for such things to appear to God, or a faithful eye, as if they were, is no strange thing: But for such things as are never to come to reality, no nor ever was so intended, as the Reconciliation, Justification, and Salvation of many were not intended by Christ in his Death, as the Remonst. say; and for such as neither are, nor shall be effected, for such to be called as done, and to say that such men are Reconciled, etc. which neither are so, nor shall be so in time, seems to me an incredible absurdity. But he will happily say, They may be said to be so, because they may be so: They are under such conditions which if they perform, God is ready to do all those. Well, be it so: Why then should they rather be said Saved, then damned, till the condition be performed: I hope the way is indifferent to Damnation as Salvation, as the Parties believe or not believe, for the Gospel saith believe and be saved, and also believe not and be damned, and men may accidentally contract a sorer Condemnation if they believe not; Therefore why they should rather be said to be reconciled and saved, because they may be saved by Faith, then that they are damned because they may be damned by unbelief: Nay, why may not men conclude sooner that they are not reconciled and redeemed, (especially casting an impartial eye upon themselves) seeing they find themselves more prone to reject him then to receive him: to stand out then to believe in him, I see not.  
Again, It is not suitable to denominate them Justified and Reconciled that neither are nor shall be endued with Faith: And why may not men be as well said to be Glorified in Christ, as Justified and Reconciled: Yet it is no sober expression to say that every man, yea, the damned Spirits are glorified in Christ; Certainly the Scripture calleth none Reconciled, Justified, Redeemed, Saved, but such as are so, or shall in God's time be so,  
But again, how he can thus conclude for every man from the Premises I see not: He produceth not one particular which he can prove to be common to every Son of Adam; but the first viz. an upholding in their being, both man, and the world of Creatures; But are all said to be Reconciled, Redeemed, Saved, Justified, because they have their being continued, and the world of Creatures also for their use? Certainly, there is no necessary dependence, or because some are made partakers of Supernatural light, the Gospel, and an increase of light, are all and every Son of Adam said thereby to be Justified, & c? But he attempts to bacl it both by Scripture and Reason, I shall examine both: His Scriptures are two.  
[Rom. 3.22, 23, 24.] Herein I need not call out the disquisition of more piercing eyes to search out his fallacy, but any common capacity to explode his palpable absurdity; doth the Text speak of a Potential Justification, wherewith all may be said Justified, and yet all miss of it, and yet be justified? The Text speaks of a justification by Faith, which is an Actual Justification, and there is none so justified but they partake of it. If the Text had favoured him it should have run thus, [The righteousness of God for all with God.] But it saith, The righteousness of God unto all and upon all. Again, the Text saith, It is unto and upon all: But doth the Text mean All and every Son of Adam whether believing, or not believing? Let him view the Text: That Justification by which every man is said justified, is such as is without Faith; But the Text owneth none such, it saith upon all them that believe; that is the Circumcision and uncircumcision, Jew and Gentile, as ver. 30. there is no difference, but the believing Gentile as well as the believing Jew is justified freely: This the Remonst. acknowledge with the Scripture, Nullus nisi fidelis & quâ fidelis est justificatur, sive à condemnatione absolvitur. Ant. 87. Strange it is to me that the Author should dream that this Text should call every Son of Adam justified.  
[Rom. 5.14.18.] As for the 14. ver. I cannot apprehend any show of Reason, the dint is in the 18. ver. where the Text saith, [By the justifying of one the benefit abounded towards all to justification of life.] But  
1. First, Here we see not any show of reason to say that all are justified: The Text (from any thing that Christ did) doth not say every Son of Adam may be called justified: where is there any such word?  
2. This place speaks not of any potential justification, by which those may be said justified that Actually are not so; but is an Actual Justification, and that opposed to an Actual Condemnation, and expounded in the 19 ver. by being made righteous, and that as in Adam were made sinners: that Justification which he is to prove hence, is such as is appropriated to them that are not, nor ever shall be justified: But let him show and prove where any word in that Chapter seconds such an one as that.  
3. The Text saith indeed, [Free gift came upon all men to justification of life.] But what is that (All?) To be taken with, or without a limitation? Let us compare the Apostle with himself; The business of Justification by Faith in Christ Jesus, is a thing that the Apostle takes often occasion to treat of in this Epistle; yea, it is his main drift in this former part of his Epistle, and this he had said before was upon all, Cap. 3.22. but it was upon all that believe, and that the Promise thereof might be made sure to an All, Cap. 4.16. But it was sure to all the seed, and when he speaketh of the same thing in the same Epistle, that it is upon (all men) why should we take him in any other sense than he explaineth himself about the same business? Even they seem to be spoken with the same breath; and so no other sense to be given to this place but this, (upon all men,) that is, on all them that believe; and that as the Condemnation came on all them that come from Adam, so the righteousness of one came on all men that come from him, and here lieth the perfect Analogy betwixt Christ and Adam; and this will more appear if we well consider the Text: That Redemption and Justification which he gives to every Son of Adam, is such as only is wrought out for men, but not on men, for this is to partake of Actual Justification; but of this latter the Text speaks, it saith, [It cometh on all men] but Justification is upon none but Believers, Rom. 3.22, 23, 24. Again this Righteousness is said to come upon all, as the Condemnation came upon all by Adam's Sin, but Condemnation came Actually upon all, so that they were without a Saviour, in an infallibility of perishing. So this coming of Righteousness on all must be Actual too, and so as all on whom it so cometh shall infallibly come to glory and life Eternal, but so Righteousness cometh not on every Son of Adam, but Believers only. Again, This (All men) in Ver. 18. is supplied and expounded Ver. 17. by those that receive abundance of Grace, and the gift of Righteousness, which maketh it appear that is an Actual Justification which the Apostle speaketh of here, and therefore favoureth not such an one, which may be though none partake of Justification; and such an one as none can be truly said to be justified with, but those that Believe, therefore owneth not such an one as is compatible to every Son of Adam; So that the validity of his Scriptures I see not, I shall examine his Reason.  
[It may be understood and believed as well as this, that all men were made righteous in the first Adam, and were truly righteous in him, of which Righteousness none ever yet felt or partaked, Rom. 5.12. And so though all recovered, etc.] The Question is not how it may be believed and understood if it was so in truth, but whether it be so or no.  
Secondly, We may grant the whole, both may be understood alike, that is neither of them at all. I know no Scripture that saith all the Sons and Posterity of Adam were made righteous. That Text Eccles. 7.29. faith no more but that man was made righteous, which is true in that Adam and Evah were so, Not that every Son of Adam was made holy; none were made holy but those that were Created, but his Posterity were not created; holiness was not derived to any by propagation. A ground why every Son of Adam is not said in Scripture to be righteous in Adam, I conceive is this, to be made righteous as Adam was, is a real denomination and quality induced into the Patient, and that by a transient Action, passing from the Agent into the Patient, but such an Action there cannot be [In subjecto nondum existente] In a Subject that hath not actual existence; So that our Author must clear this to us before he can make it the standard of our belief of the former, that every Son of Adam is Reconciled and Justified in Christ.  
Thirdly, I shall grant him that all are, or were made righteous in Adam; yet I cannot subscribe to the other, neither is it any way explicatory of this, that All Adam's Sons are made alive and justified in Christ; for let us consider, there were none made righteous (or could be so said) but those that were to come from him by propagation (and under that notion as coming from him) he was made righteous, and betrusted with Grace as a public Person to convey to his Posterity and such as came from him, so that all that come from him, his offspring, we shall grant for Conference sake that they were made righteous in him: Now will this infer or help us to understand that all were justified in Christ? It helps us to believe that all that do, or are to come from him were made righteous in him, but no further; for what ground can be deduced from Scripture or Reason, that (as Adam's Figure) Christ makes more righteous in him, then come from him to have a being from, and in him? let us grant him that all the Sons of Adam were made righteous in him, because they were to come from him; yet we cannot yet yield or understand that every Son of Adam is justified in Christ, because they have not, nor ever are to have a being from him. Having laid down his reason, he produces a dissimilitude betwixt Adam & Christ, thus.  
[As the first Adam being a living Soul and of the earth, He lost all our souls in his Fall, without remedy on his part: So the second Adam is a quickening Spirit, the Lord from heaven, and loseth none, but who ever now perisheth, destroyeth himself, and loseth his own soul.] The absurdities and obscurity of these expresses far exceed the pertinency or usefulness to the Point in hand.  
1. The Author pretendeth a dissimilitude, but yet he brings an (As,) (So,) As the first Adam lost: So the second Adam loseth none. Now there is none but knoweth that these words (As,) (So,) set forth a similitude, as the Apostle when he would show a Similitude betwixt Adam and Christ, Rom. 5.18, 19, 21. he saith, As by offence of one, etc. So Righteousness, etc. But when he showeth a dissimilitude, he useth other expressions, as (For,) (But,) as Ver. 16. For the judgement was by one, etc. But the free gift is of many, etc. But we may expect no better from the Author, but this Obiter.  
2. He saith, The Scripture showeth that dissimilitude, but he showeth not where. The Apostle Paul, who undertaketh the business of the difference and similitude betwixt Adam and Christ, Rom. 5. yet this he mentioneth not.  
3. This Phrase [Loseth none,] is very fallacious and doubtfully laid down, it may be taken either Actively or Passively, Actively to cast away or to destroy; so it is taken when he saith Adam lost himself and us all; if he thus take it then Scripture neither doth nor can, set down such a difference, Adam destroyed, but Christ destroyeth none: differences are (Inter Entia) positive beings do usually afford differences; and we shall find that when the Apostles show discrepances betwixt Adam and Christ, they give them still betwixt Adam's losing, and Christ's saving, not Adam's losing, and Christ's not losing, this would import that Christ's Office was only not to destroy. Again secondly, It may be taken Passively, that is, He suffers none to perish, and thus is it taken when Christ is said not to lose; as Joh. 6.39. & 18.9. So Christ's not losing is nothing but his not suffering to perish, if it be thus taken, than the dissimilitude must run thus, As Adam lost all, so Christ recovers all: And as all were lost by Adam without remedy, so Christ recovered all infallibly, and without fear of being taken out of his hands, he shall suffer none to be lost, no not to lose themselves, (for then are they lost) and therefore he removes all external and internal principles that might destroy us. Joh. 10.28, 29. Now if this be his dissimilitude the Scripture no where owneth it; Indeed we read that Christ loseth none of them whom his Father giveth to him, or those who come to him, but that he suffered none to perish I read not: So that if by (Christ loseth none) he meaneth that Christ destroyeth none, it is in vain produced Against them that grant that he came not to condemn the world but to save; But it by it he mean that Christ suffers none to perish, or hath done what in him lieth to save every Son of Adam, this he must prove. That after plea (Whoever perisheth destroyeth his own self) seems to appear under the face of an Argument to prove that Christ hath done what in him lieth to save every man, but it is not valid, for men may destroy themselves and yet Christ suffer them to perish, and if he suffer them to perish, he doth not what in him lieth to save them; We might destroy ourselves though Christ do nothing for us, nay, our destroying of our Souls was the occasion of Christ's coming to save us, therefore the destroying of our Souls hath no dependence of Christ's saving of us.  
Having thus vented his Paradox, and as he thinketh, backed it, be comes to reassume his former position, which seems to be the result of his mind and thoughts, thus.  
[He hath so saved all men, etc. that he makes all salvable, so as there is a possibility in, and through, and with Christ, for all men to come in into him, to believe on him, and be eternally saved in believing.] He hath not produced any thing as done for all, and proved it also to have been done for, or to all, that may bring every Son of Adam under a possibility of believing, and so of being saved: This I see is that on which many seem to dote, therefore I shall a little expatiate myself herein; First, I must remove all Equivocation, when he saith [possibility] he meaneth, I hope, only a possibility, for otherwise we may say that Christ intended to make Salvation possible, that is, in making of Salvation certain he made it possible, certainty including a possibility, but not è contra. But his expresses herein seem to aver, that the chief and first end of the Death of Christ (so fare as it respected man) was that he might make the Salvation of man possible, nothing different from the result of Arminian exercitations, wherein we shall find thus, [Christus impetravit ut Deus possit & velit communicare sua beneficia, 
Acta Synod. ●83 In Molin. c. 27. Sect. 3.  certa lege & modo,] And this latter word (velit) is no more than (possit velle,) that he might be able to will and to bestow good things, as appears by Corvinus, [Finis proximus mortis Christi fuit ut Deus possit hominem peccatorem velle salvare,] That is, The immediate end of Christ's death was that God might will to save Sinners, and save his Justice; but seeing the Author disclaimeth the Arminian, therefore I pass this by with this monition, That he be wary lest he fall into their Doctrine; and to return to our Author again, it seems to me erroneous that the end of Christ's Death should be to make men's Salvations possible, and that on these grounds.  
1. The Scripture furnisheth us with no such Phrase as (Possibility of Salvation) but it treateth of the end of Christ's Death often, Math. 1.22. He shall save his people from their sins. Joh. 1.29. He taketh away the sins of the world. Math. 18.11. He is come to save; It doth not say that he might possibly save, or to procure a possibility of Salvation, this is no where found.  
2. If he propounded to himself only a possibility of Salvation, then though none be saved, yet Christ hath the end and travel of his soul; for though none be saved or believe actually, yet the possibility remaineth entire, 
Acta. Synod. 285.  and this will be found the sourest pieces of Arminianism: Thus they say, [Impetratio sarta tecta manet perfecta suis numeris constat etsi omnes maneant increduli, etc.] But how harsh this may be to any Christian Ear, let any Reader judge, and I wish the Author be not driven to say that Christ in being Lord of all (which may be without the Salvation of any,) he seethe the travel of his Soul, as he seemeth Pag. 142. And this to defend this mere possibility the end of Christ's death.  
3. Let us consider, was there not a possibility for God to bring men to Salvation and happiness, yea Sinners, without the Death of Christ? Was God tied under such an impossibility that he could not save Sinners (to which he was naturally propense) till Christ by his Death released him? I have not observed any that deny the former, or affirm the latter; The Remonst, (who would accept of such a help if they durst lean thereon) say thus; [Si potestas & jus salvandi consideretur in Deo absolute, 
Coru. in Mol. c. 28 Sect. 11  tum Deus si voluisset, potuisset nos salvare citra Christi satisfactionem.] And therefore seem to wave this as the end, viz. to procure a possibility: So the same, 
Cap. 27. Sect. 3  [Non dicimus Deo impetratam simpliciter potestatem salvandi acsi Deus pro absolutâ suâ potestate, etc.] That is, we say not that Christ procured only a possibility of saving; as if God could not without Christ save Sinners. But happily it may be said, true, God could by his absolute power, but not in justice, save Sinners without satisfaction, Deus etiamsi pro sua omnipotentia facilè possit, non vult tamen tales 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & apostatas salvare. Ant. 68 To this I answer, In that he could by his power, he could his justice notwithstanding; for God cannot by his absolute power do any thing against his Justice, no more than he can sin or deny himself; or cease to be God, this would be impotency, not Omnipotency. Therefore in saying he can do it, we (In eodem instanti rationis,) affirm he can do it his justice notwithstanding, and this follows upon the principles of Arminius, 
In Perk. p. 2, 3.  [Ex hoc antecedente Deus hoc fecit, sequitur necessario ergo just,] If God do it, it is enough to conclude it just. Again, It may be said that Christ did not procure a power to save, but a possibility to will to save, as Corvinus inserteth, [ posset peccatorem velle salvare salva justitia,] That he might will to save, and yet his Justice safe. To this I answer, If he had a power to save, he had a power to will to save without Christ, for he cannot do any thing that he cannot will; and this is true in Arminius Reason, Vaum includic alterum, nemo potest credere, nisi potest velle credere, quia nemo credit nolens. In Perkin. 592. So I argue, Deus non potest salvare nisi possit velle salvare, quia Deus nominem salvat nolens. And if he can will to save us without Christ, than he can will to save without Christ, Salva justitia, otherwise he cannot will it, he cannot will to do any thing injustly. And that he had a possibility to save, and to will to save without Christ's Death, and that his Justice safe, to me seemeth evident, because neither a possibility to save, nor a possibility to will to save, no nor a will to save, is against the Justice of God; this I have propounded to let the Author see, that seeing God had a possibility to save Sinners without Christ, & their Salvation was possible before, and without Christ's Death; then to let him consider how derogatory to Christ's wisdom it is to say that his end in dying was to make the Salvation of man possible, I cannot conceive that he would shed his blood to procure that which was in being before, and without his Death.  
4. For his expressions associated with this, viz. [A possibleness of men's coming in to Christ and believing.] It is a fare different thing from the former; when our Salvation is said to be possible, we mean in regard of God, that God can bring us to Salvation: but when our faith is said to be possible, it may be referred either to God or man: That God can by absolute power bring men in to believe, or else that we have a power to come in or believe, what he meaneth is very dubious: The ground of coupelling these together is yet obscure, for our Salvation eternal may be possible, and yet faith not possible, for God can bring us to Salvation without Faith if he please; and if by the possibility of our believing he mean only a power in God to bring all men in to believe, I grant there is such a possibility, as there is a possibility of more worlds being created, but then this is too rude and indetermined to make either the end or effect of Christ's Death.  
Neither is it clear that Christ prepared a possibility on man's part to believe, because he did not procure that all should enjoy the Gospel without which men cannot believe. Rom. 10.14, 15. A possibility to believe is too unworthy a thing for Christ to purchase at so dear a rate: Christ purchased Grace, not Nature, for us, but Posse credere est naturae, A possibility to believe, is a Privilege of Nature, not Grace. I desire a more clear explication of himself, then shall he have a more perspicuous Answer.  
He having summed up the particulars of this common Salvation, (but weakly seeing they cannot be proved to be the share of every Son of Adam) he comes to repeat his special, what he doth for Believers, and that in Pag. 11, 12, 13. with several unjustifiable expressions, which because they are not pertinent to the Question I wave them till he come in the 14 Page to give us a Summ. total. and entire result of this elaborate Chapter thus.  
[Now between these two Salvations, that with God for men, and that in men to God, etc. the Scripture doth often and many ways distinguish.]  Parturiunt montes & nascitur— 
Behold the issue of this fruitless piece, hath he been in so long a travel of opposition and hath brought forth nothing but what every man grants? Let me again interrogate, where doth he find it denied that the purchasing and applying, the procuring for, and bestowing upon men any good, are two distinct Acts? Nay, What Treatise findeth he, where it is not strongly asserted? and therefore he needed not to have been at so much pains to prove it; But by this foundation we may guess what structure we shall find. But yet the manner of their distinction, as he layeth it down, is something observable, and such as we find not where else, as followeth.  
1. [The former is called a reconciliation by his Death, the other a saving by his life. Ro. 5.10.] that his procuring reconciliation by his death, should be here set down under being reconciled by his Death, is something distorted and improbable; Doth the Author conceive that those words do not denote actual Reconciliation? If they do, (as it is clear they do) then this is the second Act, not the first, only Application, not procurement of it; The Text saith not, If he merited Reconciliation for us, much more shall we be saved by his life, If the Text had favoured this conceit, it would have run thus: If he hath procured Reconciliation by his Death, then shall we be actually reconciled by his life, but it runs not thus; the inference is not from Impetration to Application, but from Reconciliation to Salvation, two distinct degrees of good applied, the Scripture yields no such difference, because both Impetration, and Application of all good, is said to be by his Death, and by his Blood.  
2. [The former was a Reconciliation wrought for the world by God in Christ: The latter a Reconciliation of some to God by Christ. 2 Cor. 5.18, 19] Herein lieth a twofold difference couched, but both absurd.  
1. He saith, The one is (For men,) the other (In men:) But this is no difference, for herein they both agree; The second, viz. the Application is wrought out for men, as to instance, the Grace and Faith that is given to some by which they are overcome, is also wrought for, else how comes it to be applied, or how can it be called the Application or Sprinkling of Christ, if the Blood of Christ did not procure the Application?  
2. He saith, The former is wrought by God, the latter by Jesus Christ; As if he should say, the Impetration or procurement was done by God, the Application was done by Jesus Christ; which foppery discovers itself sufficiently, the contrary of is most true, the Impetration is Christ's Act, the Application is Gods, if this be true [Christus Impetravit ut Deus possit, &c] And herein is one difference, the procuring is the Act of Christ as of one that died, the Application is Gods the offended Party.  
3. [In effecting the former he came from the Father, for the effecting of the other, he went again to his Father. Joh. 16.28.] Herein can lie no difference, because his coming from the Father, and going to his Father, both were requisite to his first Act, viz. Impetration or procurement, else are not his own expresses Orthodox, Pag. 8. where speaking of things done after his going up to his Father, he saith, [Thereby he doth present before his Father, etc. and so procures the grant of dispensation, etc.] Which evidently cleareth that his Ascending is no part of his Application, but an Act that tendeth to the perfecting of his procurement, and that done as Mediator. Again, His coming from the Father was not tied only to Impetration, but it was also for the effecting of Application. He came to save them that were lost. Math. 18.11. And he died not to procure purging only, but that he might Sanctify, to Sanctify to himself a peculiar People. Ephes. 5.25. So that if the parts of his distinction be so coincident, that we may say, For the effecting of the former he ascended also to his Father, and for the latter he came down from the Father, than his difference falleth to the ground: as for that Text Joh. 16.28. it showeth only that Christ both came from, and also goeth to the Father; but it saith not, that he came down only to procure, and went to him to apply the good things procured: So that we may see what liberty he takes to distortour Saviour's words to apply them to his own conceits without ground; Nay our Saviour seems to disclaim it, for there is more the solely Application, when he saith, [I go to prepare a place for you.] Joh. 14.2. His third is the same with this, therefore I mention it not.  
3. [The one is a Redemption (for us) in Christ: Rom. 3.24. The other a Redemption (of us) in Soul and body. Luk. 1.74.] Many leaves would not serve sufficiently to display the vanity of this distinction. First, This denotes that the Redemption of our souls and bodies was not wrought out for us, which is erroneous; if he import not so much, his distinction is frivolous. Secondly, That denoteth that the Application of Christ's Blood is not effected or shown till our souls and bodies be glorified, which is false; the giving of any Mercy, the means of Grace, his Patience, is the Application of his Blood; And if he mean not the former, he weakly expresseth the latter, by the Redemption of us in our souls and bodies. 3. The first he saith is only (for us) when in his sixth particular he produceth Christ's Lordship, Patience, Goodness of God to men, as this first Redemption, but these are not only for us, but of us, and to us; endless are his absurdities, but I close with this other, that Text Rom. 3.24. is abused, that mentioneth not this Phrase (For us,) therefore serveth him not for his purpose; there is no expression there but what agreeth to the second Redemption, viz. Application, therefore serveth not to prove a discrimination. I shall use only one more.  
4. [The former is affirmed in Scripture to be for all men: Joh. 3.17. The latter is for and to Believers only,] To this I Answer.  
If he can carry this by Scripture, than his weakness appears in expressing himself so remissely, as to contend in this Chapter only for this, that they are distinct; if the first be for all, the second for Believers only, than they are not only distinct, but separable one from the other, and one may be where the other never is; and this is a degree beyond distinction.  
2. Whereas he saith, (That the latter, viz. the Application of his Death is only for Believers,) how diflonant is it from himself and his best friends the Remonst. who unanimous that Remission of Sins and Eternal Salvation is procured for all men, not only for Believers? Indeed they say it is only (to them) but (for all,) for if they be confined to Believers, not only (to them) in regard of enjoyment, but (for them) also, in regard of procurement, his common Redemption will be but a mere Chimaera.  
3. If he say, That the Impetration or procuring of Remission and Eternal Life be for all and every Son of Adam, than he must prove it by Scripture, that Text, Joh. 3.17. proveth it not, it speaks not of such a Redemption, Salvation, as may be divided from Eternal Life, no nor barely of Impetration, but as it relateth to Application to follow, as when he saith, I come to save that which was lost, and he shall save his people from their Sins, Math. 1.21. Neither doth the world World there mean every Son of Adam, but he came to save the World, that is Men living in the World: his inference here from is no plain Text, but a corrupt reasoning from a clear Text. Again, that Text Joh. 3.16. confirmeth me in this Point, that Christ did not procure life for every Son of Adam, because he there saith, it was that only Believers might not perish: It saith not that every one might not perish if they believe, but that those that believe, the number of which was well known to him. Now if Christ's will was one and concentrical with his Fathers, he procured life for none but Believers: So that than not only the Application is to, but the Impetration for Believers only, what then becometh of his Doctrine, That he procured life for all men whether they believe or no? I see not; this is no Scripture Language. So that now having examined his particulars of distinction, and finding them full of confusion, and not distinct enough to be understood, I shall give the Reader a taste of some new Divinity.  
1. That Christ died for some for whom he did not live again, as in the first.  
2. That he came from the Father for some, for whom he went not to the Father again, as in the second.  
3. That he was abased for some for whom he was not exalted, as in the third.  
4. That he shed his Blood for some for whom he presented not his Blood as shed, as in the fifth. All these he averreth, in that he saith, the former of all is done for all and every man, the latter only for Believers.  
Thus have I emboweled the distinction, the Chapter that treateth of it, his expressions therein. And little perspicuity or pertinency to the Question can I find therein, and so confused that I fear few of his Readers can gather from it what he holds, or what they should close withal, neither can any ingenuous man show what he hath gotten of his Adversary herein; that which is truth in it no man denyeth, yet a miscellany of Obscurities, Errors, Contradictions, interwoven, it is the basis of the whole Discourse, therefore I have been more prolix in dissecting it, lest I should overlook any pertinent truth; (they are so few) tedious I know it must be to them that are versed in more polite Notions; but the Nature of my Antagonist requires it; things of less concernment shall be passed over with less disquisition; And what he delivers herein appears to me not to be the meaning of 1 Tim. 2.4, 6. Heb. 2.9. And his Proposition being taken in this sense here delivered, is not made out in those Texts: And what provision he is supplied with from this distinction so prosecuted, for the taking down of the edge of our Arguments, shall be seen in its proper place.   

CHAP. III. Of divers ends of Christ's Death, and of which is here meant.  
THe Author conceiving to find strength from the consideration of the ends of Christ's Death, enters this Point, And I confess it helps much to decide this Controversy, therefore I shall (to my Talon) bend my thoughts to examine what he delivereth herein. He saith thus.  

1. The first end and that which is general, and of largest extent was to be a Ransom, Sacrifice and Propitiation; and this hath three distinct ends in it. 

1. In respect of God offended, that his Justice might be satisfied.  
2. In respect of Jesus Christ, that he might be Lord of all, and have all in his dispose.  
3. In respect of Mankind, to take out of the way all that stood between God and Man, and kept back streams of mercy,    
2. To seal and confirm the New-Testament of precious Promises. Math. 26.28. Luk. 22.20.  
3. To be a witness-bearing to the Truth. Joh. 18.37.   
Wherein the Author doth well to pitch upon the first and main end of Christ's Death, (and that in regard of the Creature,) for to treat of intermediate ends would have been but obscure and impertinent to this Point: because when we speak of intermediate ends, they are such as are but media, means in relation to the first end; but to treat of means when the question is of the end, is something preposterous. When we treat of the end of Christ's Death, it is presupposed that we mean that which in relation to man is considered under no other Notion but as end, therefore he doth well to speak of a first end; but whether he do so well, to say that that (which he layeth down) is Christ's first end in dying, must be further enquired into.  
Now when he saith, (First end,) I hope he meaneth, first in God's intention, and Christ's, for from the intention of Agents is the priority and posteriority of ends deduced. Now I say, [to be a Ransom, a Sacrifice, a Propitiation] are not the first end of Christ in dying, or of God in giving his Son; and this is clear, in that these all do [Tendore in finem ulteriorem,] Tend to a further end, for he is all these that men might be eternally saved; Himself is clear for this, [His being a Ransom and Propitiation was that all men might be eternally saved: Pag. 18, 19] And if he did not, Reason would presently convince him, as shall afterwards appear; these then tending to a further end, are not the first end, in that they tend to a further end, they are means, and in so being, they are not first in intention: then should God intent first the means, than the end, which is absurd.  
Again, if the Author will have the procuring life and Salvation, and opening a door, that men only may enter, and to make men salvable only, (for thus he interpreteth his Phrases of Ransom, Propitiation,) to be the first end in Christ, than I hope he will give us some Scripture that so speaketh: Scripture seemeth to speak otherwise, Joh. 3.17. I came not to condemn but to save. Math. 18.11. He came to save that which was lost. 1 Tim. 1.15. He came to save Sinners; which places I know the Author would thus temper, to make them salvable; but this is an unwarrantable perversion, and all these which he produceth they are but subservient to this first end; as to instance, As God had (out of his free constitution) designed a way of his own dispensations, before man can partake of heaven the Justice of God must be satisfied, Enmity taken away, we Reconciled, Hence this made end of God and Christ in his Death, Col. 1.20. To reconcile us, which suppose Justice satisfied, but this is not willed for itself but in tendency to a further end, and is not the first end; but that Text gives a further, Ver. 22. To present you holy and unblameable to him.  
Again, That we may be partakers of happiness, the hand-writing against us must be blotted out, and every thing that stands cross must be taken away: So that this is an end of Christ's Death; Col. 2.14. But this was not done, or intended only for itself, but in tendency to eternal Salvation, and the actual enjoyment of it, for only to this is our sinful estate contrary, and therefore a further end appears, Cap. 3, 4. to which this serves but as means, [Ye shall appear with him in glory.]  
Again, That men partake of heaven, the stain and power of Sin must be taken away, and we Sanctified, and Regenerate; So that this also is an end of Christ's Death, Eph. 5.25, 26. but this not for itself, but with a tendency to further end: Ver. 27. that he might present it glorious 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not [ sistere possit,] but [ sisteret,] to cause it to stand before him glorious, denoting that the actual enjoyment of heaven, and as certain, is his first end.  
Again, That men be glorified, it is requisite that Christ be Lord of all, and have power over all flesh; this therefore is an end of his Death, Rom. 14 9 but this not for itself intended, but a tendency to the first end, Joh. 17.2. He gave him power over all flesh that he might give eternal life to as many as thou hast given, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, It is not [ dare possit,] but [ut dacet] that he might actually, certainly give eternal life. And more intermediate ends may be produced, which may be called ends in regard of his Death, but yet not the first end, but rather as means tending to the first end, and so all these three particulars under his general they all cannot make up a first end, but are as means to the first end: Therefore his setting down them as the first end is not Orthodox.  
Again, That to procure life, that is, that men may have it, is not the end of Christ's Death, that is the first end, and main end: Then it must follow, that though none be actually saved, yet Christ hath his end full and entire, and as much as he desired, this indeed the Remost, say, but I cannot yet see it the Language of Scripture.  
Again, it is a rule that [Acquisito fine quiescit movens,] when any Agent hath attained his end it rests with it, but Christ and God do not rest with a possibility of man's Salvation, or in a door being opened, but they go on further, Actually to lead into that door, to invite, solicit, expostulate, persuade, that they might actually be saved: He saith not, Why O Israel will not ye come into a possibility of Salvation? But why will ye die? Why will ye not be Actually saved? Nay, the Author grants, that he doth not only propound means, give the Gospel, and so open a door by moral suasion, but also overcome and overpower, by Physical efficiency, the hearts of his Elect, and bring them in to believe, and bring them into his Kingdom; thus Pag. 120. Now I demand, whether Christ did procure this? Whether Christ and God aimed at this in Christ's Death, and so propounded it as an end? If not? Quo pacto is it applied? Is it not the sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus? If it be so, then that was not the first and main end of Christ and God to make Salvation possible, but that Salvation should be certain and Actual. So that we may see how in considerately the Author expresseth himself about the ends of Christ's Death. My next task will be to examine what influence these expresses have upon the Question in hand, and also of what ends, whether intermediate, or ultimate, these Texts, 1 Tim. 2.6. Heb. 2.9. treat.  
For the first, I conceive that this Treatise of the end of Christ in his Death doth not only not help, but utterly overthroweth his Doctrine. Herein I shall examine, first, whether the main end (Actual and certain Salvation) was intended for every man: Let this be my Query, When Christ gave himself, or determined to give him, was it for this end, to make Salvation of every man Actual and certain? If it was? Then I say, if all do not come to Salvation, he misseth of his end, which is not to be appropriated to any rational Agent, that hath power to do what he willeth, and to bring about his purposes. Herein I suggest to myself some Remonst. denying that an Actual, certain, and absolute Salvation of any is the end of God or Christ in his Death: as Arminius, [Non actualis peccatorum ablatio, non actualis remissio, non justificatio, 
In Perk. 77.  non actualis horum aut illorum redemptio, quae absque fide & spiritu Christi nemini contingunt, etc. That is, not Actual Remission, Justification, Redemption, (so not Salvation) which happen to none without Faith:] or with Corvinus, [Quod ad applicationem salutis attinet non intendit eam pracise & absolute, 
In Molin. c. 28. Sect. 8.  sed voluit intercedere fidem hominis, As for the Application of Salvation, God willed it not absolutely, because he willed Faith to come between, viz. Christ's Death and Salvation;] For the assertion itself, I have proved that the Actual and certain enjoyment of heaven is the (finis ultimus) in regard of the Creatures: because all the rest, even Impetration itself is but an intermediate end; It remains that I reassume their reason whereby they prove it is not; and they are unanimous in their reasons, and it is this, Because God willed that men should be saved by Faith; I shall not expect to vie Authority with them; whose Learning and moderation I may admire; yet I must freely accknowledge that the strength of that Reason is not clear to me, no more than this. A man intendeth not a thing absolutely, because he will effect it (per m●dia) by means; or this, A man doth not absolutely intent to dwell in a house, because he intended to build it first, or being built, to cleanse and garnish it first; but these are not valid, because he may intent to act the means, and then why he may not absolutely will to act the end I see not; so if God intent absolutely to give and work faith, which is the means of Salvation, than he may be said to will Salvation of men absolutely, though he willeth Faith to intervene.  
Again, I can suggest to myself my Antagonist answering thus: [As for his Elect he propounds their certain and actual Salvation as his end, but for the rest, His end is that they may be saved.] Therefore to engage with this, for that is my task to encounter my Antagonist. For the rest of men that are not Elect, what is his end? That there may be a salvability, or possibleness with God of their Salvation? This I have before shown cannot be the end of Christ to procure it, because such was without Christ's Death, and that he might do it too and yet be just if he pleased; no man will purchase his own Land, nor Christ by his Blood procure that which always was without that procurement: I am yet to learn that any thing obligeth God to punish Sin without satisfaction, but his free constitution and determination, whereby he becometh a Law to himself: But God no where hath revealed that he willeth, that without satisfaction man's Salvation shall not be possible; indeed, he hath tied himself not to save actually without satisfaction.  
Again secondly, I desire a proof from Scripture of this twofold end of Christ, one for his Elect, that their Salvation may be certain, a second for all the rest, that their Salvation may be possible, which if he can do he will perform a great task.  
Thirdly, I demand how this end can stand with that Decree of God, and that from Eternity, of giving those that are not Elect up to destruction, for contempt of means (which he forseeth) as the Author averreth Pag. 120. leaving no way in God's purpose for the possibility of their Salvation? Now if Christ propounded this as an end to procure life for them, how is his Will one with his Fathers?  
Fourthly, Concerning the possibility of men's Salvation, I know he fetcheth it from the means of life propounded, it is to be had upon condition, Believe and thou shalt be saved. Now if Christ's end, first and chief end, was this, that man might have life, and miss of it upon unbelief, and so be dealt withal according to the Tenor of the Gospel, or as the Author saith, [That he might condemn or pardon as he saw ●t, Pag. 17.] Then it will follow, that Condemnation will have equal share in his end with Salvation; but this is no Scripture Language, which saith, I came not to condemn the world, Joh. 3.17.  
But if this draw more from the Author, I shall answer more, by this it seems not probable that the main end viz. the certain and actual enjoyment of life, was not in Christ for all, and every Son of Adam.  
Again, Let us see whether those intermediate ends which he reckoneth up often, can be said to be for all, and every Son of Adam; and herein we must consider that the satisfaction of Justice, taking away Sin, abolishing Death, slaying enmity, becoming Lord, these are as means conducing to that end, Now ends are desired for themselves, means but for the end, certainly than they run in an even equipage; those things which are willed but for another thing, are willed but in the same respect with the other, for time, place, person, manner, for if he should will the means to more than he willeth the end, than his will must be carried on the means without an end, or stronglier to the means then to the end, both which are absurd, and so Christ be said to satisfy his Father's Justice, to take away Sin, to take away all that stood cross to our Salvation, to abolish enmity, and that at so dear a rate, when he never intended to bring in any to partake of life; which cannot, I conceive, be received but with detriment to Christ in his unspeakable wisdom. No neither is Impetration the first end. (As I conceive) the Question may be asked, Why Christ did Impetrate? And if the Answer be given, it showeth plainly that the Impetration is not the first end: If we say that Christ impetrated, that it might be applied, the Remonst. do not oppose, but leave it in dubio. An applicatio fit Impetrationis finis non dispute. Coru. in Mol. Cap. 28. Sect. 8. Nay, all that he produceth against its being the absolute and procise end, is this, that he intended Faith to come between, Finem istum non esse absolute intentum sed ita ut ad applicationem requisita est conditio. Which in my judgement, do not se invicem destruere, for Faith may be requisite and yet the Application absolutely intended.  
I might take every particular by itself, and dwell upon the absurdities that attend every one of them, but I must not be so voluminous; As when he saith, [The first end was to take away Sin before God for men, Pag. 16.] And this he saith is for all men, every Son of Adam: both false. It is not the first end, for may not the Question be asked, Why he taketh away Sin from before God? The Answer, if he will give it, confuteth him, and telleth him there is a further end: neither is it done for all, the expression itself is rude and absurd (to take away Sin before God for man,) the word (to take away) must have a term from which, and that must be either man or God: And can he take away Sin from before God, or from Man, and Man not be possessed of Justification? this is a mystery; Is it not all one for Sin to be taken away from before God, and for it not to be found when it is sought for? Jer. 50.20. But is this the privilege of all, or of Gods reserve only? Let the Author in his next give me one place and prove it too, where this or any of the attendants is said to be done for every Son of Adam? Many things I leave to the intelligent Reader to save me a labour in; I conceive that this consideration of the end of Christ helpeth him little, I shall examine if his next do more.   

CHAP. FOUR Of the divers manner of mentioning these ends in Scripture.  
HE thinketh to extract much from the divers manner of propounding the Death of Christ with the ends of it; as in that sometimes more ends are joined, sometimes one only: Also the Ransom is considered as in itself made, or as made known, or as men are convinced by it: Also, it is delivered in a different Person, sometimes in first, sometimes second, sometimes third Chapter: These are the Allegations of his whole Chapter; but what matter there is in all these I shall Examine.  
[Sometimes that end of his Death which was for Propitiation, or Ransom, is coupled with the end which was to testify love, and faithfulness in his Ministration, propounded for our example, and then such general words, as [world,] [all men,] are not used, because his Ministration on earth did not reach to all the world.]  
1. This seems to affirm that the Ransom and Ministration of Christ are distinct ends and not coincident, which I see not clear, seeing his giving life a Ransom is the greatest piece of Service that he did for us, in doing this he did all: And this was not only one, but the greatest piece of his Ministration. In that our Saviour saith, [I came to serve, and give my life a Ransom for many;] He doth not in his latter words discover a distinct end, but rather it is an explanation of the service of which he speaketh; to any eye it may appear, that to [Serve,] and to [give his life a Ransom,] speak one and the same thing: Christ's words otherwhere seemeth to clear it, Luk. 22.27. Having eaten the Supper with his Disciples, taking his last leave, bequeathing himself to his Cross, he saith, (I am as he that serveth,) which to me referreth to his Death that was shortly to ensue; And do not the Apostles words clear it, Phil. 2.6, 7, 8. where he makes the Death of Christ, and his being obedient to the Death of the Cross, the explanation of his being a Servant? Nay, do not the Author's words clear it: He saith, Pag. 21. [His faithfulness in Ministration is set down as an example to us to lay down our lives for the Brethren: 1 Joh. 3.16.] Now what is that which moves us to lay down our lives for the Brethren all along in Scripture, is it not Christ's laying down his life? Yea, that Text plainly speaks of it as this Argument to move us; whereby it appears, that to serve, and to give his life a Ransom, are one, and not distinct ends, therefore his expresses are not consonant to truth: As if he testified greater love and faithfulness, or more prevalently moved us to give our lives for the Brethren, in any thing than in this giving his life a Ransom.  
2. Whereas he saith, [Such general words are not used because his Ministration reaches not to all.] This is nobis causam tradere, to give us the Question: If his giving his life a Ransom was his serving, and his serving reach not to all, how can the other? where is his Doctrine then? And till he can prove that his serving, and his giving his life a Ransom are distinct, I shall accept his position, viz. his Ministration reached not to all the world, so neither his giving his Life a Ransom.  
[Sometimes that end which was for Ransom, is coupled together with that end which was for sealing the New-Testament, which belong not to all men, but his chosen ones, that have partaken of his heavenly Call; and then such general words as cannot in any sense be appropriated to some particular, as (world) (all men) are not used, nor yet such a word as may not be applied so generally, but so as his word may be applied to either or both senses as occasion shall serve. Hence Math. 26.28. This is my Blood of the New-Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of Sins,]  
1. Whereas he speaketh of a [New-Testament, and the sealing thereof, which belongeth not to all;] either I understand him not, or he understandeth not himself: First, I understand not whether he meaneth not the Testament itself, or the sealing thereof belongs not to all: for he loveth to lurk in ambiguities, (though but poor shelter,) If he mean the latter, than he intimateth that the Covenant is not sealed to so many as it is made, which is not probable: If he mean the first, I am yet to seek what he meaneth by the New-Testament; if I understand him, he meaneth nothing but the new Covenant promised to Abraham, and Adam, and preached by Christ and his Apostles. Now that Covenant and Testament are Synonimous is clear from Scripture, Heb. 8. in many places mentioneth the Old and New-Testament, in 8, 9, 10. verses, which allude to Jer. 31.31, 32, 33. but there the Text runneth Covenant, not Testament; Nay, some Translations read Heb, 8.8, 9, 10. Covenant, some read Testament; where ever the word Covenant or Testament is used, it is by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, So Matth. 26.28. it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And Gal. 4.24. some read it two Testaments, but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And in that Text cited by him Heb. 9.14, 15. Mediator of the New-Testament, yet it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So it is clear that Covenant and Testament is all one. Indeed every Covenant is not a Testament, but in this case every Covenant that God makes with us is made in Christ, and sealed with the death of the Covenant-maker, therefore a Testament. And this appears by his own words, [All which being by Covenant, 
Pag 20.  or as in a Will and Testament plainly recorded, are called the New Testament.] Now if I understand him in all this, he speaketh thus much, that [The new Covenant belongs not to all, but to his chosen one's;] but herein I think he doth not well understand himself. Now that he thus meaneth appeareth by his own words, Pag. 20. [For such as believe, and so come in to Christ, there are for them many gracious Promises from Christ and his Father, contained in one general, viz. Eternal life:] But here he engageth the Remonst. against him, they contend that God doth (Novum foedus inire cum onibus,) Enter into a new treaty with every man; and Corvinus labours in vain when he thus proveth, 
In Molin, c. 29. Sect. 15.  [Quare quum primum foedus pertinuerit ad omnes quia cum primo homine ut gener is bumani stirpe fuit initum, oportet ut eadem sit ratio secundi foederis;] That is, As the first Covenant was to all men, seeing made to the first Man, as the Stock or Root of all; So it is requisite it should be in the second;] & it hath hitherto been the task of the contra-Remonstrants to prove that the new Covenant belongeth only to some, as appears in that from Gen 3. 
Ibid.  Molin pleads it to be peculiar, but Corvinus answereth, [Merito dicimus esse generalem quum non probas eam restringi.] But now the Author saves us that labour, we have it ex confesso; but that I may in a few words present him with the consequences of this his Assertion, I would have him show me what is the new Covenant? I know he will say the Promise of eternal life; so he intimateth Pag. 20 and of those things that conduce to it: Then I ask how this life is promised, absolutely, or upon condition? I know he will say upon the condition of Faith, Believe and thou shalt be saved: and so all the conducements to eternal life, and life itself, as Pag. 20. are by the new Covenant tied to Faith in Jesus Christ. Now let him tell me, are not all under this Covenant? Do not all come under the Notion of salvability by virtue of this Covenant, because they may have life upon believing? Are not all under the Command of believing? And doth the Command go without the Promise? Let him stand to his own principles, and speak out. Can every man be said to be Reconciled, Redeemed, Justified, Saved, if they be not under such a Covenant or Promise of having Actual Reconciliation, Redemption, Justification, Salvation, if they believe? What is that new Treaty that he speaks of Pag. 17. into which God brings all men? Nay, this overthroweth his whole Discourse. What Gospel is there to be preached to them that are not under the Covenant? The Gospel saith, Believe and live; but is this to be preached to them that are not under the Covenant of having life upon Faith? These if he be fixed to his own principles are of some force. It is not enough to say that the Covenant belongs only to Believers, that they shall not perish, for he holds that yet every particular it is true of them that they shall have life (and it is so promised) upon believing, as he urgeth, Pag. 130. [It is so a truth for mankind, that it is a truth for them all, that whoever of them believe shall not perish but have everlasting life.] And what is this but to be under the Covenant? The business must come to this issue, that there are two new Covenants, the one under which the Elect is, the other under which the rest are, which will be hard to prove; or else that all men are under the Covenant of Grace; or thirdly, that God hath not entered into a new Covenant and Treaty by Christ with every man, according to which God may confer and deny life, both which latter are dissonant to himself, and destructive to his cause: This I say, not to oppose his Assertion, viz. [That the New-Testament belongs not to all:] If it had not been his, it should have been mine; But I herein discover, when a man understandeth not himself, how soon he may cut his throat with his own knife, and strangle his opinion with his own words.  
2. Whereas he saith, [Belong not to all, but to his chosen ones] he is here so confused and indistinct, because his chosen ones may be all men in the Author's Divinity, for he makes an Election to Service, with which all are Elected to Service, Pag. 118.  
3. Whereas he explaineth (Chosen one's) by [partaking of the heavenly Call.] Herein he needeth an Interpreter, 
Pag. 9  because in many places of his Discourse he contendeth for this, that all men partake of the heavenly Call, as [Thus he calls in some degree or other all the Sons of men;] And to this end, that they might be convinced of Sin: Pag. 23. There is a difference between partaking of the Call, and the efficacy thereof, in being by it wrought upon to believe; the latter I confess he saith is not to all, but the first is, if he divine right; Therefore for him to say, [To his chosen one's that partake of his heavenly Call,] unless he will have all to be chosen, involveth himself, and if he will, he doth no less for to say (it belongs not to all, but to his chosen ones, and those that partake of the heavenly Call,) which may take in (all) is absurd: But any may see he seeks so to temper his Pen, that his Reader may mould him either way according to his own temper, but this becomes impostors rather than those that pretend they preach Christ.  
4. Whereas he saith, [And than such general words as (world,) (all men,) which cannot be (in any sense) applied to some only, are not used;] wherein he tacitly implieth that the words [World,] [All men,] are never taken for some only; The proper decision of which will fall in another place; therefore I shall only put him in mind of his own words, Pag 30. where he saith, [The Phrase (All men) is used so, as it cannot be meant of God's people, good men, hearers of the Word, etc. nor the Elect of God.] Certainly then if all the Elect of God, and all Believers, and Hearers of the Word of God be excluded, this Phrase is to be meant but of some: and now his task will be to give a good Reason why the words (All men,) may not mean, all the Good, excluding the Bad, as well as all the Bad, excluding the Good; the propriety of Language is indifferent to either; Nay, shame will not suffer him to prevaricate, but he confesseth Pag. 31. [That there is an All of upright and Believers,] as 1 Cor. 4.5. Every man shall have praise of God, as well as an All of Bad, 2 Thes. 2.3. So that I need not oppose him in his Assertion, he doth it effectually for me himself.  
5. Whereas he saith, [He so speaketh as the words may be taken in either or both senses, as occasion shall serve,] Is an affirmation concerning Scripture beyond all precedent, that one word (like Rebecca her womb) should contain in the bowels of it two such different senses as (All,) and (but some only,) and that to serve two Sentences, as men shall refer it to one or the other, this is to make his own Calumny that he groundlessly laid on our backs to be his own burden: that is, to make the Word of God like the Heathen Oracles, true whether way soever we take them; neither is there any need in this place so to torture the words of Scripture, for both Phrases, viz. (Blood in the New-Testament,) and [Shed for Remission of Sins,] will both agree in (many) taken in one sense, and that taken as signifying only some. But whether all this tendeth, it is not easy to determine, but I conjecture it is this, to prove that where he speaks of Christ Death, and useth this word (Many) it is no argument against him, because (All) are (Many,) and the word (Many) may comprehend (All) Thus the Remonst, speak, and I suppose he intendeth: but then he must know this is brought but as a probable Argument, that seeing the Scripture saith (All,) sometimes (Many;) it is probable that (All) is expounded by (Many,) and herein it is still in force, that seeing more places may be brought (yet hundreds to one) where the word Many excludes All, then where it taketh in All, we are to follow most frequent acceptation of Scripture unless we find some let from other Scriptures, or the Analogy of Faith.  
Again, He urgeth something from the various consideration of the Ransom, thus.  
1. [Asdruball made in Christ with for God men, without the knowledge of men.  
2. As made known in the Gospel, that they may be convinced.  
3. As men thereby wrought upon to receive him, and submit to him, and believe on him; the two first are common and general, the last peculiar not common.]  
Here we have many words to little purpose; in this Controversy ransom was never yet taken in any other sense then as made in Christ, and made known in the Gospel: It was never yet questioned whether the Application of it was common, or whether every man was wrought upon by the Gospel to receive him, therefore he might have reserved his decision in these words, [The last is peculiar not common,] till it had been seasonable. And this he saith is common to all, and every Son of Adam, but he proveth it not.  
2. As for the second, viz. (The making of it known in the Gospel,) he affirmeth it to be general, and done to every Son of Adam, but he produceth not one Text that proveth it: Yea, he elsewhere affirmeth, that every man hath so much light as that he may be thereby convinced, because he hath not believed, as P. 23. But this wanteth its proof from the Word of God: Certainly if some shall be judged without the Law, some shall be judged without the Gospel, for those that are judged without Law, are judged merely by the light of Nature, but such are judged without Gospel, for Nature merely so, discovereth no Gospel, and why those that never knew it a duty to believe, can be said to have so much light as to convince them for not believing, I see not. Certainly that which doth not convince me that it is my duty to believe, cannot convince me it is my Sin not to believe; the Remonst. durst not rise so high as to say that every man had so much light; 
Arm. in Pork. 158, 159.  but thus, he either hath or might have had, if he had used naturals well, or had it not been for their Predecessors that refused Grace and supernatural Light, as [Causa cur Deus non omnibus & singulis hominibus Christum revelet, haec est, quod parentes illorum verbum Evangelii repudiaverunt.] And if instead of proving the third not to be common, (which he undertaketh) he had proved the former two to be common to, and for every man, he had better quit himself. As for that Expression, [He shall so fare see the travel of his Soul,] argues that either he seethe not some part of his travel, because he inserts that diminutive (so far;) or else that Christ in his bitter Passion traveled with nothing but this, that men might be convinced that Christ is their Lord, either in Salvation or Condemnation: both which are absurd. Now by this distinction he hath gotten nothing, because that the hearts of all men are wrought on by the Gospel to receive Christ, no man hath said: and that the Ransom was made in Christ with God for every man, or discovered to every man and Son of Adam, no man (that I know of) ever yet proved.  
Having dispatched a twofold diversity, he comes to third, and more elaborate, but as little successful, and that is from the diversity of Person, and he saith thus.  
[The Ransom in himself [as the Creation of men by Christ] is mentioned diversely in respect of Person.] Herein I may not pass by his fallacious jumbling together Creation and Redemption, which are not of equal latitude and extent, which I should not have noted here (seeing there is a particular Chapter for it,) but that his fallacy herein may dazzle the eyes of his non-discerning Readers, therefore I only now say thus much, that betwixt Creation and Redemption there is no proportion nor Argument validly drawn, either Negative or Affirmative; as if all those were Redeemed that were created; Certainly if Creation should be the measure of Redemption, than all Creatures should be Redeemed, yea devils; and those Creatures that had the pre-eminence in the Creation should have it also in Redemption, but we see it in both contrary, in that the fallen Angels are not redeemed at all; and these two [He hath Created all things, Col. 1.16.] and [He hath reconciled all things.] Ver. 20. Are not of the same latitude: For take the latter in the largest sense you can desire, yet it will come short of the former; in that he created all things, yea Thrones, Principalities, even Angels that fell: but no Scripture saith that he reconciled them. Besides whom he Reconciled he died for; but it is no Scripture Language to say that he died for all things, or for all that he Created, but only for man, in so much as he assumed no other but man's nature; of this more in its place, only this I desire, that he will stand to his principles, Pag. 31. [That the matter treated of altars the sense of the same words,] and so from Creation to Redemption, the Argument will not follow; this being considered I proceed.  
[Sometimes in the first Person singular, concerning the speaker, Gal. 1.20. Who gave himself for me. Job 10.8. Thy hands have made me; no reasonable understanding can infer hence, therefore no other.] The drift of this is to take away the force of those places, Joh. 10. I lay down my life for my sheep. Ephes. 5.25. Gave himself for his Church; and this Allegation is framed to his hand in the Conference at Hague, where the Remonst. seeking to evade such Texts, answer thus, true, [Mortum est pro ovibus, pro populo, 
Co● Hog. 1●  arm ergo pro solis ovibus, pro solo populo? sic Gal. 2.20. Paulus dixit Christus tradidit se pro me, anne licebit concludere ergò pro nemine praeterea?] That is, [Christ died for his Sheep, for his People, but will it therefore follow that he died for his Sheep and People only? so Paul saith Gal. 2.20. Christ gave himself for me, will it follow that he gave himself for none besides?] And is not this the current in which the Author runneth? But let the Author know that still those Texts are valid to prove that Christ died for his Sheep only, for we must know there is a difference betwixt Individuals, and a species or kind in this way of arguing, as when we say, [Petrus est rationalis,] and when we say, [homo est rationalis:] It is one thing to say [Peter is rational,] another to say [Man is rational] In the first, it is not Peter only, but in the other, it is man only; to instance in that Text Gal. 2.20. he saith, I am Crucified with Christ, and I live by Faith in the Son of God, none will infer hence, that only Paul was, and did so; but if he had said, Believers are Crucified with Christ, and live by Faith, than I hope it is as valid as if he had said Believers only. Now Peter is rational because a man, and Rationality agreeth first to man, and then to Peter because a man, so though not Peter only, yet Man only is rational: So Paul is redeemed because a Sheep, but being Redeemed, agrees first to the Sheep of Christ, then to Paul being one of them: Therefore though not Paul only, yet for his Sheep only, and this place contradicteth it not. And if the Author's understanding had been but of a reasonable size he might have seen this.  
[Sometimes in the first Person Plural, where the Speaker couples those he speaks to with himself, as he delivered him up for us all, Rom. 8, 31. Propitiation for our Sins. 1 Joh. 2.1. No right reasoning can infer hence, therefore no other.] To this I answer, That seeing the Apostles in their particular Epistles wrote to particular Believers, as in Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, those Expressions do not argue that he gave himself for no other Believers than those to whom he wrote, yet herein he toucheth not the force of the fore alleged places: for (this notwithstanding) yet those places speaking of his dying for his Sheep which comprehendeth all Believers, Such places may be understood as if he had said for his Sheep only. I remember not where his cited Texts are produced by us as arguments on our side; yet there is more in them then he discovereth or refelleth: As for that Text Rom. 8.32. It is plain he wrote to Believers, and Saints, Rom. 1.7. Now the Question is, whether he speak those things of them as (Men,) or as Believers? As to instance, [If God be for us who can be against us?] Ver. 31. Let the Author tell me, Is it the Interrogation of every man or men, or of Believers as so? this will decide it, to consider, whether the first words [If God be one our side] be to be taken Hypothetically, or Categorically? It cannot be taken Hypothetically, only upon supposition, if God be on our side who is against us: For thus Reprobate men, desperate devils, condemned sinners, may say, if God were on our side who could be against us? but certainly there is more in the Apostles words then what the Devils may say; no certainly the words are to be meant as affirming that God was for them, therefore certainly concluding none could be against them, and for this I find the authority of a strong Remonst. and one of our Author's Judgement, who calleth these Texts [Impenetrabile sanctorum scutum] an impregnable shield of Saints, not men as men, 
●orn. a lap. ●n locum.  and he giveth the sense thus, [Quis daemonum vel hominum insurgat ut nostram impediat salutem, cum Deus eam cu●at per aeternam praedestinationis propositum, vocationem, justificationem & glorificationem suam.] But if he did not so say, the Text doth evince it; seeing all the after particulars, as Ver. 32, 33, 34. run all positively, he hath done so and so, therefore who shall condemn: Now let us consider, can Believers, or all men generally say, as Vers. 31, 32, 33, 34. who can be against us? Who shall lay any thing to our charge? who shall condemn? What shall separate? we are more than Conquerors over all those; Certainly only Believers and (qua tales) can draw such conclusions.  
2. Verse 32. saith, [Shall he not much more give us all things,] which contain all things necessary to Salvation, and Salvation itself; But is this the deduct that every man may make, [If he spared not his own Son, much more shall he not give us all things?] Their own principles admit it not; therefore it is clear that when he saith, He gave him up for (us,) much more will he give (us) all things with him, he meaneth himself, and them to whom he wrote, as Believers, so as to take in all Believers, and (as Believers,) and it must follow, that such things do agree omnibus, yet solis, to all, yet only to Believers.  
3. If he had taken the words (us) in the former verses, in such a Latitude as that it might take in every man, and Son of Adam, Certainly than his query in the 33. ver. [Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's Elect?] had been short of his purpose, and very impertinent; from that it is clear, that by (us) he means Believers, (for so Elect and Believers are terms Convertible, that is Elect, and such as are, or shall be Believers, are one in signification;) and he seems not to stay his Expresses in their Persons, but rather their condition and qualification, which being considered, let us come to right reasoning, which the Author pleadeth much for, but affordeth as little as may be; Let but the Author take any Expression where he useth the word (us) from the 31. to the 34. Verse, or elsewhere in the Chapter, for it is often repeated, and tell we whether the Apostle doth not plainly define (not how many, but) what kind of men they are, for whom such things are done, and of whom such things were spoken, as ●o instance, [What shall we say then?] ●hat indeed doth not number the Individuals, but it defineth the condition, and that with a discrimination, viz. none but Believers, and they all may make such conclusions. So in this, [God being for us who can be against us?] This argueth not that only them to whom he wrote, were out of the verge of any adverse thing, it clearly affirmeth that only Believers are in such a condition as nothing shall prevail against them. So in this, [He delivered him up for us all.] This denoteth not the precise number, nor argueth that he was given up only for them to whom he wrote being Romans, but thus far it is firm that he was given up for Believers only, and this sufficeth us. So that when the Author saith, [No right reasoning can infer hence therefore no other,] It is true if he mean no other Individuals, for he was so given up for them, as that he was also for all other Believers; but right reasoning may infer that he was given up for none other but Believers; and where is the obliquity of this reasoning?  
[Sometimes in the second Person with personal Application, as my Blood which is shed for you, Luk. 22.20. 1 Pet. 1.18 19, etc. Reason must yield, such say show not how many he redeemed.] This is of the same nature with the former, therefore the same answer is to be given; Th●se Texts show not the precise number, but the condition of them that are so redeemed, as that Text, 1 Pet. 1.18, 19 [The were redeemed from vain conversation,] none ever said that this Text doth show the number of them that were redeemed from vain conversations, for many Gentiles were to whom he wrote not; neither hath any denied but that this limiteth the condition, that only Believers are Redeemed from vain Conversations, as in the next verse, [And he was manifested in the last times for you.] It doth not show for how many, but yet it doth for whom he was revealed, viz. Believers, as appears in the next words, [Who by him believe in God,] hereby any may see through those mists which he casteth before clear truths.  
[Sometime in the third Person with special Application, and that sometimes to the better part, as Joh. 10.15. (I lay down my life for my Sheep,) Sometimes to the worse part, as 1 Cor. 8.11. (the weak brother for whom Christ died,) no sober mind will say that any of these alone resolve the Question for how many Christ died.]  
1. For his expresses, I demand why he putteth a weak Brother in the number of the worse part? methinks the name of Brother (though weak) should have got him a place in the better rank.  
2. As for his assertion, [No sober mind will say that any of these alone show for how many he died [It is weak and impertinent, we never yet attempted to define the precise number, but the condition of them for whom he died, we say only for Believers, we meddle not for how many Believers, or Sheep he died. Now if he deny that the Text, Joh. 10.15. shows for whom only he died, he hath drunk so deep in Arminius his Cup, that he is not sober yet; and to clear it, let us view expressions of the like nature, that in this we may follow the genius of Scripture; Rom. 4.11. Abraham is there called the Father of them that believe. Now doth not this denote that he is the father of none else? as that Phrase (of being Father) is there meant, we must so grant it, if we compare it with Gal. 3.7.29. And in that it saith he is the Father of them that believe, it is exclusive of such as believe not.  
[John 3.16. He sent his Son that those that believe might not perish but have everlasting life.] Let the Author tell me, doth not this Text so confine eternal life to Believers, as that none but Believers shall have it?  
[Ezek. 34.11. I will search my Sheep and bind them up, and bring them again,] doth not this so confine these to his Sheep as that he will do them to none else?  
[Matth. 25.33. He setteth his Sheep on his right hand.] Is not this clear that he setteth none but his Sheep on the right hand? Nay, in this Chapter, take any verse or part of a verse where the word Sheep is, where they are said to do any thing for him, or Christ to do any thing for them, and tell me if such be not exclusive of all other, as firmly as if the word (only) had been expressed; as my Sheep here my voice; He calleth his shape by name; his sheep follow him; I know my sheep; doth not all this speak thus much, that none but Sheep hear his voice, he calleth none by name and leadeth them out but Sheep, none but Sheep follow him, he knoweth none but Sheep? for of others he saith, I know you not, nay, in that Phrase, [The good Shepherd layeth down his life for his Sheep] doth it not exclude all that are not his Sheep? doth any Shepherd venture his life in the behalf of the Wolf, or any Sheep that is not under his charge? Now seeing this Phrase runs so in so many places in that Chapter, I say that no sober mind will say that just in this verse it should admit such a latitude as that he may be there said to lay down for any but his Sheep, such expressions in Scripture have Materiam necessariam, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the terms are convertible. But that I may clear it fully, in the same section there is something that will seem repugnant to this, and the objection may be thus framed.  
[It cannot be meant so as if Christ died for none but his Sheep, because the Scripture saith, he died for some that may perish, 1 Cor. 8.11. etc. And thus the Arminians in the Conference at Hague object, Non pro ovibus solis, quia Paulus dicit pro me se tradidit, sed non pro illo solo, ac Scriptura testatur Christum mortuum pro eo cui contingit perdi & qui velox judicium sibi accersunt. 1 Cor. 8.11. 2 Pet. 2.2.] Which though it be unworthy of such objectours, because the argument is weak according to their own principles; for Christ may die for his Sheep only, and yet die for them that may perish, because with them this is truth, that they that are sheep may perish if Corvinus be right, 
In Molin. c. 21. Sect. 6.  when he saith, [Justificati possunt reprobari,] But it is worthy an Answer from us because we hold no such thing; but this Obiter.  
To answer to 1 Cor. 8.11. whence our Author would prove that our weak may perish for whom Christ died.  
1. Was it so, this would not disprove that Christ died for his Sheep only, only it would aver that some for whom Christ died may perish; for certainly in that he calleth him here a Brother, he granteth him a Sheep, he should have produced a place that he died for some that are not sheep.  
2. But no such things follow from this Text, it questions, Shall he perish? And commandeth, Let him not perish, but it affirmeth nothing that he may or may not. Now we must be wary what Enunciatives we deduce from Intergatories or Mandatories: Suppose the Text had gone further,, even to an affirmation, and said, [Thou hast caused him to perish for whom Christ died,] this would not argue any effect to be transient into the Patient, but to be with the Agent as if it had been done, as Heb. 6.6. [Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh:] This argueth no re-action upon the body of Christ in heaven; but that a fresh they brought the guilt of that Act upon them, in that they testify they would crucify if opportunity served. So Matth 5.28. He that looketh on a woman to lust 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he hath committed adultery, this doth not argue any actual deflowering, this cannot be merely by the eye of another, that would be a man's or woman's inevitable misery to be involved in the guilt of another's obliquity, yielding neither direct nor indirect concurence: But it meaneth for his part he hath done that which is before God Adultery, having gone so fare in the fact as opportunity will give leave; so in this case (destroy not thy Brother,) argues not that a Brother may perish Actually, but that a man by offensive and scandalous walking may bring the guilt of a brother's destruction on him, because such an one that will needlessly be a scandal to his Brother, doth not much care though his Brother perish, As for that Text, 2 Pet. 2.1. I might produce many expositions that are given to it, and all with great probability, any of which show the weakness of his reasoning: but herein I am no way engaged thereto. If our Author will but consider that the question is, whether Christ purchased life and Salvation for his Sheep only? we affirm it, he denyeth it upon this ground, because he (bought) others; but this is a weak Inference, he bought them, therefore he purchased Eternal life for them: Emption doth no way suppose Redemption, he may buy them into his dispose and be their Lord, and never intent eternal life for them.  
[Sometimes in the third Person general without any application restraining, as to be the Saviour of the world: 1 Joh. 4.14. He died for all: 2 Cor. 5.14, 15. And such say fully answer the Question, for how many Christ died; the like may be said, how many have sinned, shall die, rise again.] That such general terms are used I grant, that therein it is shows for whom, (when he saith for how many, I think he mistaketh, for from thence he cannot give me the number) I grant, but that there is a further thing contained in these generals than was in the former, I deny, the Apostles (All) and yet expressions less general are equipollent as I have shown, and after shall. And whereas he croudes that expression, [He hath died for all,] among these, All have sinned, All must die, All must rise, as if the word All must have the same signification in all them, is fallacious, and against his own Judgement he saith that the same Phrase used about divers things hath not the same sense, so Pag. 31. [The Scripture speaking on divers occasions, of divers Persons, to divers purposes, etc. Take the words (All men,) (Every man,) in a scanter or larger sense▪] he must not then blame us if we swallow not that down, which he hath not the immodesty to own, though much advantageous to his cause. And whereas he saith, [These general places are not to be opposed by those with restrictive application.] True, but they are to be explained by them, that they are expositors one of another; we need not doubt but the general cannot expound particulars, but the particulars may the general, and that 1 Tim. 2.6. Heb. 2.9. speak generally I grant, but that they settle us in the sense without comparing with other places I question: So in all this what he hath strengthened himself, or weakened us, let any judge.   

CHAP. V Of divers ways of propounding the Death of Christ in Scripture, and how here in 1 Tim. 2.6. Heb. 2.9.  
HE gins with such ways of propounding, as (he saith) do not show for how many Christ died.  
1. [Sometimes for an example to Believers to follow in love, and as a motive thereto, Eph. 5.1, 2.] This is a truth, but then let us consider the manner of propounding, when the Apostle propounds the duty of love, we may assure ourselves he useth the most forcible arguments, and that would be the great love of God, for certain it is, the greater the love of God appears to us, the more forcible argument it is to love others; but in our Author's judgement, the love of God is then magnified when it appears to be to all and every man; therefore certainly the Apostle would have used this argument if it had been truth that Christ gave himself for every Son of Adam. When our Saviour exhorteth to love of Enemies (though a sufficient argument he might have had from the love of God to some being enemies) he useth this argument, because in truth he might, that God's love is to all, Sun shineth on just and unjust, Math 5.44, 45. Then did he magnify the goodness of God: Certainly then if it had been so that Christ had given himself for all, he would have expressed it, as the most forcible argument of love.  
[If the love be of Believers one to another, than he thus sets it forth, as having loved us.] True, but then we must consider what kind of love it is that he exhorteth to, it is not such as is common to all with Believers, but a love peculiar to Believers: Eph. 5 1, 2. Walk in love one to another; we are to bear some degree of love to all as to compassionate them, but inward love of complacency we own only to the Saints. Col. 1.4. Now let us consider what is a suitable argument to move to this, a love that is common to all, or a peculiar love? Certainly a common love cannot be a fit argument to move to a special love, it seems consonant to reason, that as it was a peculiar love he exhorted them to, so it was a peculiar love he exhorted them by. Now if he exhort them by a peculiar love, and this love is limited to, and expressed by, his giving himself for them, it cannot be meant of such a giving for them that is common to all with them.  
[If the love be to be enlarged to any relation, as Husband and Wife, than thus; hath loved his Church and given himself for it, Eph. 5.25.] True, But let us consider that the love of Husbands is to be such to their Wives as excludeth love to any other; Then certainly the love by which he moveth to it is such as is to h●s Church and no other: for that love which is common to all cannot be a fit argument to a peculiar love to our Wives only; he saith not, Husbands love your Wives, for God is good, he loveth all, causeth Sun to shine on good and bad, then might a man thus argue.  
I must love my Wife as Christ loved his Church: But Christ loved his Church so as that he loved every man else, therefore I may love my Wife yet so as to love every woman, what would this open a door unto and follow our Author? and this cannot be avoided; therefore his giving himself for his Church, being an argument to move to a special love, cannot be thought to be in common to all.  
[If the love be to be exercised to unbelieving ones, or Adversaries, than it is thus, he hath suffered for us, 1 Pet. 2.18, 24. for the unjust, 1 Pet. 3.14, 18.] The Author mistaketh those Texts, they show not our duty to love Adversaries, but to be obedient to froward Masters, and to be patiented under sufferings for well-doing, and as an argument he useth Christ's Death for Sinners, and for them being Sinners. But to take his argument as it is laid down by him, the love is a general love to all, even enemies. Now certainly if the thing had been true, he would have used this as an argument, for he died or suffered for all, but this he not where doth, no nor by a division which taketh in all, as he died for just and unjust, but only unjust; not meaning all unjust, but them Believers who were unjust when Christ died for them: Therefore considering that in such a case it is a most pregnant argument, and he not using it, it may appear that it is not a truth that Christ gave himself for all and every man. Under this rank of Scriptures there are few others that require any answer, they being not places used by us, therefore might be passed by; but one place or two I shall mention.  
[1 Cor 8.11, 13.] Which place, he saith, containeth an argument to make love operative to Brethren. But let us consider the expression: If the Author's Doctrine had been truth, certain it would have run thus, [Shall a man perish for whom Christ died?] Because he saith that Christ died for all men as men: But he saith, [shall a Brother perish for whom Christ died?] As if he died for none but such as come under the notion of Brother.  
[2. Cor. 5.14.] Which he saith is an argument to make love operative to all men, but therein he is deceived, there is no such duty commanded in that Text. But the Author discovers his ingenuity in that he bringeth this Text in the number of them that do not show how many he died for, when they say he died for all, and in other places is produced as a proof for his first Redemption for all and every man; one more there is of some consequence.  
[Sometimes it is propounded to such as are overseers of Congregations, as to admonish them to keep this Doctrine firmly, and teach it. 1 Tim. 1.11.15. To provoke them to watchfulness over them. Act. 20.28. To constancy in sufferings. 2 Tim. 3.8. But these show not how many he died for.]  
1. As for that Text, I wonder that he should say that that place, 1 Tim. 1.15. showeth not how many he died for, what was the reason that in Pag. 3. he brings this place to prove the first Redemption for all and every one? And that place that proves that, certainly showeth for how many he died, for he died not for more then All, however the Author hath lost his memory in the crowd of Notions.  
2. For that Text Act. 20.28. We must first consider that this is a special and peculiar care that the Apostle exhorteth to, and the arguments by which he moveth is twofold: First, Their Charge, they were made overseers. Secondly, Christ's Purchase, he purchased them with his own Blood. Now clear it is that that care the Apostle exhorteth them to was a peculiar care, and that first argument from their Charge was a peculiar and special Charge, and so must the second be also of Christ's Purchase, for still I ground my reason upon this, [Aequalis acquisitio non potest esse fundamentum inaequalis curae.] What reason can be shown why the Death of Christ, and the Purchase with his Blood, can be given as an argument to move the Elders to a peculiar care over the flocke above others, if he equally purchased others with them. It is not congruous with Scripture to give such Heterogeneous arguments; when God commanded not to shed the blood of men, he saith not because he is a Creature, for this being common with other Creatures moves no more to the care of man's life, then to care for any Creatures life; But thus, for he is the Image of God, and this is peculiar to man from other Creatures. Let the Author search the Scripture, and see whether it gives any argument from a common thing to move to a special duty and faithfulness over such and such. Till I hear further I shall conclude that Christ purchased none but the Flock.  
So that these places produced by him, although they do not define how many he died for, yet they clearly say that he did not die for all, and by clear and strong intimation aver that he did not give himself for every man in the world.  
A second sort of ways of propounding follows, wherein he saith, that we have it shown for how many Christ died, as follows,  
[Sometimes it is laid down as the foundation laid to offer life, and bring in such as knew it not, to believe. Joh. 1.29. & 3.16, 17. Sometime to such as believe, to show what Gospel was preached among them, 1 Joh. 4.14, etc. To be a ground of praise for such as believe not. 1 Tim. 2.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. And here shall we find the question resolved how many he died for.]  
Whereas he saith, [It is propounded as a ground to offer life, and bring in men to believe,] He seems to aver these three things, all which want truth, however probation.  
1. That wheresoever the Death of Christ is propounded as a ground of offering life, it is propounded in general terms, as All men, Every man, The world: But this is false, for it is laid down as a ground of Faith and offering life, Joh. 3.16, 17. 1 Tim. 1.15. Math. 1.21. Joh. 11.51. In all these it is as plainly propounded for a ground of offering life as any he can produce, yet not in general terms.  
2. That where it is propounded in general terms, it is propounded as a ground of Faith and offering life: but this is false, for in 1 Tim 2.6. there it is in general terms, but it not to offer life, or beget Faith, but to move Believers to love, and to exercise it in praise for all men: as Ver. 1, 2.  
3. That there is no ground to offer life unless it be propounded in general terms: but this is false, for that in Joh. 3.16. is a firm ground of offering life, and the marrow of the Gospel, yet no general terms: Though this be true, that Christ purchased life and Salvation but for some of all sorts, yet this is ground enough of offering life to all of all sorts, and to admonish every man to repent.  
So for the rest much may be said to them, but in all there is not the least beam of light added to the Truth, multitude of words serve only to blear the eyes of his Reader, and this advantage he hath by them, the Truth hath none; and clear it is that those Texts 1 Tim. 2.6. Heb. 2.9. are to be explained by places that are propounded to the same end, which do not at all necessitate them to be taken in that general seance.   

CHAP. VI Of the differences of the extent of the same word, when spoken of and by men, and when of and by God, also when the opposition is betwixt men and men, and when betwixt God and men.  
THe end of the Author in this Chap. (as I conceive) is this: Seeing the Seat of much Controversy is placed in these words (All,) (Every,) (World,) urged in all places cited by them, to be taken in an absolute general sense, taking in all the individuals in the world: But by us they are urged to have a limited sense, as we instance in many Scriptures, wherein they cannot be taken so largely; His intent therefore is to show the weakness of our Allegations, and that our places are not to be rules for the expounding of theirs because ours are spoken of and by men, theirs of and by God; but how he quits himself herein I shall in few words examine. Now wherein we both agree is as followeth:  
[That the same words in divers Sentences may differ much in signification and extent, and yet by the Sentence the signification will clearly appear; thus he saith Pag. 28.] This I acknowledge and shall improve, for then,  
1. Why doth the Author say that (All,) when spoken of Creation, and when of Redemption, must be taken in the same sense and latitude, will he not be so fare fixed to his principles as to suffer the divers matter treated of to alter the signification of the same word?  
2. It deserveth examination, whether the matter treated of in those places doth suffer the words to be taken in that large sense, which light is to be fetched from Scriptures, which teacheth us that the word (All) when spoken of Redemption is to to be taken so largely, or else what he saith will want proof.  
Again we agree in this.  
[It is ungodly and unequal to compare God and man, and to make them to be alike and equal, Isa. 40.13, 14. and mere ungodliness to compare the words, works, and thoughts of God with man's, and to make them equal and alike, Isa. 55.8, 9] Thus he urgeth Pag. 29.  
This I grant: But then I must advertise the Author of two things.  
1. It is one thing to compare the beings of man and God together, of which his quoted Text speaketh, which cannot be alike, and another to compare God's Actions and words, which may be alike sometimes, as we are commanded to be like our heavenly father, this last is no such ungodliness as he pretendeth.  
2. There is a difference betwixt man's words as coming from man and opposed to Gods, and man's words as coming from God and the dictate of his Spirit, of this second sort it is no ungodliness to compare them to Gods, for they are his own, which will be useful to us.  
Thirdly we further agree in this.  
[It is easy for men to understand a difference in the extent of the same word spoken of and by God, and spoken of and by men, and when the opposition is betwixt God and men, and when between men and men.] This I grant, for 1. Joh. 2.20. he saith (ye know all things,) and Cap. 3.20. he saith, (He (viz. God) knoweth all things,) no reason will hence conclude that God knoweth no more than man knoweth, or that man is omniscient,  
2. It is easy also to know the difference of the same word when spoken of and by God, if so be it be concerning divers Actions, as 1 Joh. 2. [The Spirit shall teach you all things,] and Cap. 3. he saith, [He knoweth all things:] So Joh. 2.24. [He knoweth all men:] and Joh. 12.32. [I will draw all men to me;] No reason will infer that he will draw all, or so many as in that place he is said to know; so when he is said to create all things, and to reconcile all things, Col. 1 16.20. both cannot be taken in the same latitude and extent, because he made the fallen Angels, but he never reconciled them.  
3. It is also clear that many places speaks of God, and is spoken by God, and holy men inspired by God, which is all one as if it was Gods immediate word, yet those words (All,) &c. cannot bear that large extent, as Matth. 2.3. Mark. 13.13. Luk. 16.16. joh. 12.32. Acts 2.44. 1 Cor. 14.5. 2 Cor. 3.2. Phil. 2.21. Col. 1.28. But what need I fill Paper and trouble the Reader, when my Adversary confesseth that the word (all) is sometimes taken for all upright, sometimes for all ungodly: certainly then those words when spoken of and by God are not always to extend themselves to that large sense he pretendeth, which being true, showeth the weakness of that distinction, and freeth those following examples from that ignorance, rashness, which he out of greater ignorance and rashness chargeth them with.  
And still I admit,  
[That if a man spoke of a Family, and say this man governs all, it is to be meant of all in the Family, so of a Corporation and a Kingdom,] But he must observe this, that so we could not understand unless that the word (All) in propriety might have a limited sense.  
And we grant also, [That if we say God governeth all, we mean all in the World,] But if our Author had gone on to make his matter out he should have said, [So if we should say Christ redeemed all, we must mean all in the world.] Herein he would have erred, seeing there is no proportion betwixt his Gubernation and his Redemption, the difference of matter treated of admits of a difference in the signification of the same word, according to his own principles. And herein the Author is at a loss in all this, for all that he hath said in this business is to make way for this, That where God or Christ is said to Redeem or Ransom all, it must be all and every man in the world; but this will not be admitted, though when we say God governeth all, we mean all things in the world. Now to proceed to the Texts alleged by us, Luk. 2.1. & 15.1. joh. 3.26. Act. 2.8. Where we urge that world, whole world, all men, every man, are not to be taken in that large and general senses; therefore without further reason we cannot grant those places alleged by him to be so general; he thus answers, [It will be found either ignorance or rashness to compare, and make of like large extent the word (world) in Luk. 2.1. and the word (world) in 1 Joh. 2.2.] But it will be found an ignorant Calumny so to charge us, we make them not of like large extent, as if he were the Propitiation for the sins of no more than was in the Roman Empire, or went then to be taxed, this is absurd to affirm, and a wilful injury to fasten it on us; but thus we say, that as the word (world) in Luk. 2.1. (being spoken by the Evangelist inspired by God) doth not take in all and every Individual in the world: So neither the word (World) in 1 joh. 2.2. though spoken of God and Christ; and where is the ignorance and rashness in all this?  
As for that Text Luk. 2.1. [There went a Decree that all the world should be Taxed.] If it had run thus [that all should be taxed] it had suited with his expressions, and we might easily apprehend it to extend to no further than all of the Roman Empire: But this more Emphatical [that all the world should be taxed.] Let the Author tell me why, when the Spirit of God is to speak of some only in the Roman Empire, he should use such a general word as (All the world) it this Phrase might not be taken in a limited sense even when it is spoken of and by God. So the (All) that came to Christ, Luk. 15.1. we make not of large and like and equal extent with the (All) he died for: 2 Cor. 5.14. As if he died for no more then at that time came to Jesus. But thus we say, that if when the Evangelist saith, All came to him, it taketh not in every Individual Sinner in the world: So when the Apostle saith Christ died for all, it is not necessarily taken in that large sense which the Author pretends; and all this showeth no weakness in our cause, the weakness may be easily seen elsewhere. In the close of this Chapter he descendeth to show how many ways those Phrases (All men,) (Every man,) (World,) (Whole world,) are taken: But no whit pertinent to his business in this Chapter, yet I shall recite them, happily some may be advantageous to us.  
1. [For every one of mankind without exception, as all are gone out of the way, all have sinned, all must appear before God.] This we grant, but he cannot prove that the Scripture affirmeth Christ to have died for (All,) or that those places wherein Christ is said to die for (All) to be taken in this sense.  
2. [For one another, rich and poor, Believers and unbelievers.]  
If he mean all and every one of those kinds, than it is the same with the first, and so a vain repetition, and if but some of those kinds, than it is nothing against us, for that is still a limited sense, and we grant that he died for all; and those places that say Christ died for all we willingly grant them in this sense, whether spoken by men, or by God.  
3. [So as not meant of God's people, good men, Believers.] True, and more opposite proofs might be produced than he bringeth; but this is not against us, or for him, because he himself will not say that Christ died for this All, and so to exclude his People and Believers, or any place so to be taken whether spoken by man or God.  
4. [For all upright, Believers, spiritual men.] Which he doth not plainly set down as a fourth acceptation of the Phrase (All men,) which had been honest and ingenuous dealing, but he tacitly implieth it, as if he would not have that taken notice of, as any may see Pag. 31. and he had good reason so to express himself, for it doth not a little help us, for it that place 1 Cor. 4.5. where (All men) is used, doth not take in every individual man in the world, even then when it is spoken of God, it may also be that those places, 1 Tim. 2.6. Heb. 2.9. though spoken of Christ, are not taken in that large sense that he pretendeth: And then to what issue all his words in this Chapter come, let the wise judge. Something I find in Pag 31, 32. purposely set down to prevent mistakes and cavils, he saith thus, [The Death of Christ as a Ransom is to be understood of the Death of Christ as risen, and ascended,] Which words have neither pertinency nor perspicuity, they are of no use at all in this Chapter, or the business treated of in it, neither can they well be understood, therefore they no way conduce to prevent mistakes, rather to raise them: his words are so laid down as that no man can tell whether he make his Resurrection and Ascension conduce to his Impetration or Purchase, to his Application, to say, [That it was the Death of Christ as he is risen again and ascended,] May admit of either, there is a difference betwixt things associated and coupled in the same Action: The manhood of Christ with his Divinity suffered, but not the manhood and the Divinity: Faith with Works justified, but not Faith and Works: So his Death with his Resurrection was the means of Purchase or Ransom, but hence it doth not follow that his Resurrection and Ascension are themselves means of procurement, or belong to the Impetration; And this ambiguous way of expression he borroweth from the Arminians, as Corvinus, [Cum amissae salutis Impetratio immediatus fructus est Christi mortis talis mors omnino intelligitur quae resurrectionem habeat conjunctam.] And that to serve at need their contradictions in this point, 
In Molin, cap. 28.438.  sometimes affirming, sometimes denying, that his Resurrection and Ascension belong to his Impetration: But this I say as formerly, that Resurrection and Ascension is so conjoined with his Death that it hath equal share in the Impetration, and hath no share in the Application, as in every bargain the bare depositing so much money as is agreed for any where, is no true payment, but the bringing of it to his house to whom it is paid, or at a place appointed, so in this, though nothing more was to be paid as price, yet something else was to be done viz. presenting that Blood as shed, without which no perfect Impetration, as in the Law there there was as we I ostensio as mactatio, the showing as the shedding of Blood.  
But to return to the Author, either his Resurrection and Ascension belong to the Impetration, or not? if not? whether tend these words? [His Death, Resurrection are herein comprehended. Pag. 32.] Meaning his first Redemption, and such as is done for all, which in his Language is the Purchase or procurement, and if it do, whether tend these words? as [For effecting the other, viz. the second Redemption (which is the Application) he left the world and went to his Father.] In one part he affirmeth them to belong to the Impetratory part, in another to belong to the Applicatory part: and is this to prevent doubts and cavils. Whoever follows the Author shall run into uncertainties and contradictions; and as careful as he is to prevent mistakes, and confident that any that will may understand, yet I dare avouch, that not any of his admiring Readers can give a good account of him, neither do they know whereof he affirmeth, I wish he himself knew better.  
In his seventh Chapter, I find the Authors Catechism wherein he hath the privilege of framing both Questions and Answers: But therein there is nothing but what is spoken of elsewhere, therefore there being nothing worth repeating I pass over to the next, which is more material.   

CHAP. VII. Of the more enlarged proof of the Proposition.  
THe Author's scope in this Chapter is to prove his assertion by the place that Christ stood in, viz. of a public Person, and that as he was to answer his figure Adam who was a public Person, and his inference is this; As the first Adam being a public Person stood in the place of every individual man, so Christ as a Public Person must stand in the room of so many, else he answereth not his Figure, and this is the sum of this Chapter▪ but how strongly this argueth for him I shall briefly examine. But before he treat of the Comparison itself he gives us some premises which deserve a little examination.  
1. [The business which we are to view is the work of Redemption wrought by Jesus, and so of those works from God, outward, and towards his Creatures, and so not of those works which are in himself, so only in Christ, and for Christ, as his secret Counsels of Election, etc.]  
First, This premise altogether needless, because the business we are about is Redemption, he need not therefore fear that any would translate the Controversy to Election.  
2. Why would he rather dispute of God's Acts upon the Creatures, than his Acts in himself concerning the Creature, doth not he know that he worketh according to his Will? and doth not he say Pag. 120 121. [Look how his word declareth him to proceed in his works, such we may be sure was his Purpose and Decree?] Therefore I think it is as safe to dispute the case whether God decreed to redeem all. As whether he hath Redeemed all by Christ, therefore in this case this premise is but Empty.  
3. His expresses seem to infeere, that only his Decrees or Election are in Christ, and for Christ; but this untrue, for all spiritual blessings are in Christ, Eph. 1.3. but no Scripture saith that God's Decrees are for Christ, of this may be seen more fully afterward.  
4. What use this premise hath in pursuit of that public place Christ stood in, and proving herefrom that he died for all and every man, It is not easy for any to determine, and I can count it no other but verbosity, that the Reader from multitude of words might conclude abundance of matter.  
2. [However Christ was figured by Adam in the common place he stood in, etc. yet there is a great difference between those two Adam's and their work: the first was a living soul, might have stood, and all his with him, but no power to rise and live again, but the second was a quickening Spirit.] This premise might well have been spared, as I believe he will say in the close. For,  
1. I think there is none so blinded with his error, as to think that Christ and Adam agree in all things as public persons.  
2. It being granted, yet I shall improve it to clear these three particulars, 

1. Adam and Christ as they are public Persons are not equal and alike in all things.  
2. If we find not the particular things wherein they agree, and wherein they differ, much may be said in this Point to little purpose.  
3. That it deserveth examination, whether the precise number of Individuals be not one thing, wherein they differ, and whatsoever is brought to prove it must not be the comparison itself or public place, but something that proveth particularly that they agree in this, or else he saith nothing.    
3. [There is an abundance in Christ beyond that appearing in the Type, so that therein Christ cometh not short, but goeth beyond the Figure in that wherein it figured him.] This is but one and the same with the former, for in that he said, they were not alike in some things, he presupposed that he went beyond in some things, and came short in some things, or both. But,  
1. That difference from Rom. 5.16. I grant, by one offence sin entered: But the Pardon is of many offences; But this giveth no light to the deciding of this Controversy, whether Christ procured Pardon for every Son of Adam or no?  
2. As for his second, viz [Christ leadeth to a better life than Adam by Sin overthrew,] I cannot assent unto, because Adam's integrity and holiness lead him to an eternal glory in heaven, and Christ leadeth to no more, and that Text, Rom. 5.17, 19, 20. is abused by him being quoted to this purpose.  
3. As for the third, viz. [That the benefit of Christ redounds to more than the fall of Adam did damnify,] lieth under a (non liquet,) for I conceive the Act of Christ as Mediator is only restorative. Now in such an Act how could he restore more than Adam hurt? None else needed Christ; I conceive by his Texts alleged that he meaneth the Angels: But that they have any benefit by Christ's restoring Act, or stood in need of any such, his Scriptures prove not at all, for how Christ should do Angels good, being in the nature of man, more than he could do man good in the nature of Angels, I see not: If Christ did Angels good it was in regard of their stability, but why Christ should have a hand by way of merit in their stability, more than he should have had in Adam's stability if he had stood, I see not: But I suppose if Adam had not sinned there had been no place for Christ's merits.  
4. It deserveth examination, Whether Christ may not come short of his Figure in some things, as well as exceed in some things, and yet answer his Figure, and so his coming short in the precise number of Individuals, and yet answer his Figure well enough? Not now to insist upon the Impertinency to the Author's present business, I shall examine the Comparison itself, Adam and Christ as two public Persons, he urgeth thus:  
[The first Adam stood in a public place not singly for himself alone, but in the room of all mankind, etc. not only as they were in his loins, but by virtue of the account and work of God, and Covenant between God and Adam, so what God did to him he did to all mankind: So the second Adam stood in public place, not for himself alone, or for some, but all mankind, all fallen; else had he been short of his Figure, whereas God did more honour to Christ then Adam.] Herein we have the sum of the Argument, what is in it shall appear, and first I shall show wherein we agree, then wherein we differ, we agree in these things.  
1. That as Adam stood as a publipue person not singly for himself as one, but for others, so Christ as a public person not for himself but others.  
2. As Adam by virtue of his public place stood in the room of so many as God by virtue of that Covenant betwixt Adam and God appointed he should: So Christ stood in the room of so many as God appointed in that Covenant betwixt him and Christ, thus fare we agree. But he would have them go one thus fare, that as Adam stood in the room of all that came from his Loins, so Christ as public person should stand in the room of all that came from the first Adam's Loins, and herein we differ; and as he saith, [As Adam stood in the room of all that came from his Loins, so Christ stood in the room of all that came from Adam's Loins,] making the Analogy to run thus. So we say, That as Adam stood in the room of all that came from him, so Christ stood in the room of all that have a being from himself; And is not the Analogy betwixt Christ and his Figure as clear and full in our Assertion as in his? So that though they for whom Adam stood, and they for whom Christ stood, differ in the precise number, yet they agree (in aliquo tertio,) being both the peculiar issue from their own root, receiving from the one death, the other life.  
This he hath no way to enervate but by affirming, [That Adam stood in the room of mankind, not as because they came from his Loins, for so they were after his fall, and loss therein of the virtue of that public place, but by virtue of the Account, Covenant, agreement, between him and God,] Wherein we have his assertion itself, than the reasons to bacl it: The assertion, viz. [That Adam stood in the room of mankind, not as or because they came from his Loins,] This is contrary,  
1. To reason, because Adam as a root could propagate neither life nor death, but to such as came from him and as so; to what can a root communicate either good or bad sap but to such branches as grow out of itself, by virtue of which coming out of it, it hath a mean to conveying such to it as it hath itself?  
2. It is contrary to all men's Judgements both dogmatic, and polemical, they all grant, that Adam was betrusted with no more than came from his Loins, but the testimony of the Remonst. are the most convincing in this case; 
I● Molin c. 9 Sect. 1.  See Corvinus [Ita representavit genus humanum in origine, ut sibi & posteris simul peccaverit, That he did so represent mankind as in the root, that he sinned for himself and his Posterity.] See Spiscopius, [Communicatio homini facta est ut stirpi generis humani, 
Part. 2. disp. 15. Sect 4.  cujus inobedientia reatus ad omnes posteros lege naturae perveniret, That the Communication was to man as the root, that the guilt of the Law of nature is to come to his Posterity.] See Arminius, 
Disp. private. Thes 31. Sect. 9  He speaking of that stipulation betwixt Adam and God, saith that God betrusted with Grace for himself, and that those gifts [Ad posteros transmitterentur,] and that he wanting them, [posteri etiam iis carerent,] and thence concludeth [Hinc accidit ut omnes homines qui naturalter ex ipsis propagandi fuerint morti obnoxii evaserint,] That is, those that come of them by natural propagation, all which clearly demonstrate thus much, that Adam as public person conveyed death to mankind as coming from his Loins, and to so many as come from his Loins and no more.  
3. This assertion is contrary to himself, Pag. 119. where he saith, that [the first man was made a public person in the room and place of all mankind, to stand or fall for all that came from him by propagation;] what is this but to say that he was a public person for them as coming from his Loins? So Pag. 48.  
4. Yet further it appears that he stood as a public person for them, not as men, but as such as came from his loins, because though Christ was truly man yet by virtue of his public place, he neither had profited him if he had stood, nor did hurt him by his fall, did not convey sin and death to him as to his posterity, and the reason of this is because he came from him not by propagation, but supernatural overshadowing, and something in his own words there as to this purpose, Pag. 119. [He decreed that all the rest of mankind should come from this first Adam by propagation, except his Son Christ.] Having thus examined his assertion, I shall perpend his Reasons and they are weak as that false.  
The first is this, [For so they were after his fall,] arguing, that because they came from him by propagation after his fall; therefore by his loins: strong reasoning! If our Author will not have it, because they came from his loins, it must be because they were mankind: But is not reason as valid against this? thus, not as mankind, because so they were after his fall? nay, doth it strongly overthrow him, for seeing now after the fall men are his offspring, and all such, and none but such as come from his Loins are guilty of sin and death, doth it not appear that he was a public person for all such as came out of his Loins, and under that very notion?  
His second reason is this, [It was by virtue of the Covenant between God and Adam.] A fond and weak reason to oppose these two, and say, [not as coming from his Loins, but by virtue of the Covenant,] they agree very well: and we may say 'twas for them as, or because, they came from his loins, because it was the agreement betwixt God and Adam, that he stood as a public person for himself and his Posterity, and such as came from his Loins: If he will believe any thing Arminius himself, [Ratio faderis a Deo cum hominibus primis initi haec fuit, ut si ipsi ingratid permonerent, ad posteros dona transmitterentur, si se indignos facerent, posteri vero ●s carcrent; hinc accidit ut omnes ex ipsis propagandi, morti obnoxit evaser●nt.] So that now reduce the Author's assertion to truth, and let us say, That Adam stood as a public pe●● in the room of all that came from his Loins, and under that very notion; And then the Analogy will come to this, even so doth Christ the second Adam stand in the room of all those that come to have a being from him; And if the Author would have it driven any further he must prove it: Indeed he would fain conclude as [In this his public place he is not betrusted with fewer than Adam.] And he would prove by such Arguments, [Else will he come short of his Figure.] But this is no convincing Argument; for first it is no paradox to say that in some things Christ comes short of his Figure, for in our Author's Judgement they are not alike in all things. Now in the rules of proportion, it is no more discrepant to come short than to exceed: And upon this ground that can be no reason against his coming short in this particular, because he is to answer his Figure; for this notwithstanding he may exceed and go beyond, in our Author's Judgement. Secondly, If he stand in the room of all them that come to have a being from him, he answers his Figure that stood in the room of all that had a being from him, although he did not stand in the room of every Individual, or the precise number of individuals. And if a part of Scripture did affirm that unless Christ stood in the room of the precise number of individuals, he should come short of his Figure, I should yield to him in this point, but till then he must give me leave to think this Reason of no force.  
A second Reason by which he proveth it is this, [God honoured Christ more than Adam.] True, and herein, Adam was a root of Life and Death, life if he had stood, and death if he fell: But Christ was to convey only life, herein Christ was more honoured than Adam. But the honour of Christ is not placed in the precise number of them for whom he stood, so as that he that stands in the room God should honour most, for then in that God honoured Christ more than Adam, it must follow that Christ stood in the place and room of more than Adam lost, or that came from his Loins, which is absurd.  
As for the second particular which he observeth in this Similitude betwixt Adam and Christ, Pag. 44. is not pertinent or useful to the Controversy at all, therefore I shall wave it.  
A third which he observeth is the [Effect and fruit of this public business, It was public, and concerned all mankind, the disobedience of the first Adam, overthrew all mankind, so as in and by him they were all deprived of life, etc. So the obedience of the second Adam hath recovered and restored all mankind, so as in him they are restored, redeemed, and made righteous.] It matters not what comes from the Author's Pen, but what proceeds from the mouth of Scripture; but this no Scripture speaketh.  
1. No Scripture speaketh that Adam stood in the room of all mankind, that is, of every individual man, the Author confesseth that he stood not in the room of Christ.  
2. Adam's sin lost not every man, he lost not Christ himself, but only such as came of him by propagation, which Christ did not: both these particulars are concealed, if not denied, by him, though contrary to himself.  
3. No Scripture saith, That as Adam lost all that came from his Loins, so Christ recovered all that came from the first Adam's Loins.  
4. No Scripture saith, that Christ's recovery concerned all that came out of Adam's Loins.  
5. The Scripture no where saith, that if as Adam's loss concerned all that came from his Loins, so Christ's recovery must concern all that came from Adam's Loins, rather the contrary: 1 Cor. 15. [All died in Adam, so in Christ all shall be made alive.] The All in the former part is Adam, and all that came from him: but the All in the second part, is not all that came from the first, but the second Adam, Verse 23. First Christ, and then Christ's at his coming. So that what is herein spoken the Author speaketh, but not Scripture; he produceth some places, Rom 3.24, 22. where it saith, All are justified, and the righteousness of God on (All) but herein he diabolically clips the Text wilfully, leaveth out that which would decide the Controversy, it is not all that came from Adam's Loins, but all that believe. So Rom. 5.18. [Free gift came on all men to Justification of life.] True, but it is on the All that is mentioned Cap. 3.22, 24. as may appear by the 17. verse, it saith, not on all Adam's Sons, or all that came from Adam's Loins.  
A fourth particular which he observeth from this comparison is this, in regard of the virtue and operation of this public business, thus; [When any cometh to have a being from the first Adam, they do necessarily in that participation of his nature partake of the guilt, etc. So when any do come by a spiritual birth to have a being in Christ, in that participation, etc. He now freely imputeth it to them,] This being well considered will show his weakness, and the truth at once: For,  
1. How is it that every man in and by partaking of Adam's nature, and coming from him, partaketh of the guilt, if he stood not as a public for mankind as coming from his Loins, which he even now denied?  
2. I demand, Why those that come to have a being from the first Adam partake of his guilt and misery, is it not because he stood in their room? And is it upon this ground, that as it was intended in his standing in public, so it taketh place in them that partake of his nature: And as they that come to partake of his nature come to partake of his sin, because he stood in the room of them that should partake of his Nature; So must it not A pari follow, if a reason being demanded why them that have a being from Christ come to partake of his righteousness? Is it not to be answered, because he stood a public person for them? What is this but to aver, that as Adam stood a public person for all his: So did Christ for all his, and all that were to have a being from him. Which falleth short of what the Author intendeth, and what he hath obtained in all this pursuance of this Comparison, only thus much appears, that herein they agreed, both conveyed their proper influence to them that came of them, but they did both to the precise number of Individuals, he proveth not in one word of his Discourse, nor one place of Scripture. And all this, and all that which followeth being of the same stamp with what went before, riseth not so high, as to prove that Christ obtained life for all that came from the first Adam's Loins.   

CHAP. VIII. Of the joint mention of Creation, and Redemption by Christ.  
HIs scope in this Chapter, is to prove his Assertion by the joint mention of Creation and Redemption, thence inferring they are of equal extent, because mentioned together, and thus urgeth, [His great love appeareth to mankind, in that when Adam lost himself, and all mankind, etc. He would not suffer him to perish in his death, etc. but would work a recovery for him what ever it cost him.] Thus in the beginning of the Gospel he puts in this, [All things were Created by him, and that light was the life of men; what can be less seen than this,  
1. That God made the Creatures for man, yea so loved him that though he was fallen, yet he would work out a Redemption and procure life.  
2. That it is for men that were made by him, as his Creatures, not a part but the whole.] And herein is the top of the Author's reason in this Chapter: But,  
1. How doth the Author prove, that either in 3. or 4. verses of John 1. the Text mentioneth the work of Redemption, I conceive he cannot prove it to speak of any thing but Creation: No not vers. 4. [In him was life and that was the light of men;] speaks only thus much, that in the Word there was life, even when he made the world, and that life was the light of men, from that life came the light of men: and till he make this clear, this Text serves him not.  
2. Grant this, yet doth the joint mention in the Text argue an equality of exten● Let us then follow this rule, and say from Verse 10. [The world was made by him, and the world knew him not.] What doth this less infer than this, That the world that knew him not was as large as the world that was made by him? but this is false, if any at all in those times knew him, which Scripture tells us there did. So from Col. 1.16.18. [By him were all things Created, and he is the head of his Body;] We may say his Body and Headship is as large as his Creatures, or the things that were Created by him, this would be strange reasoning, and of the same mould is his inference from John 1.2, 3, 4. But if he had minded the Text he might have seen some thing against this Inference, for speaking of Creation, it saith, (All things) were Created by him: but in the other it saith, that light was the life of (Men,) and if it come short in this, it may come shorter; yet no violence to the joint mention of Creation, and Redemption.  
Again, Speaking of the recovery of Man, and of the Creatures to their purity for man's use, etc. he thus speaketh,] [And is not all this affirmed in the Gospel, where Creation and Redemption are mentioned together? Col. 1.16, 20. And where this general term (All things) is mentioned in Creation, Vers. 16. Reconciliation, Vers. 20. Preservation, Vers. 17. and what less doth this infer, then that the peace wrought for mankind, is as large as Creation and Preservation of mankind?] I willingly acknowledge with his Query, that nothing can be less seen in those places than that; For where it speaks of Creation it takes in the fallen Angels, and the rest of the Creatures: but where it speaketh of Reconciliation it cannot. For the fallen Angels I know the Author will say he never did reconcile, and for the rest of the Creatures it is not suitable to Scripture to say he reconciled them; He created the bruit Beasts, but Scripture no where said that he reconciled the bruit Creatures, for whom he reconciled he died for, but Scripture saith no where that he died for bruit Creatures; he being in the nature of men, died only for men, and reconciled only men, and so from that place it doth appear that the (All things) Created, and the (All things) Reconciled are not of the same latitude and extent.  
That which is of moment is in Pag. 52. as followeth, [In that Creation is used as an Argument to induce us to Faith and Confidence, Job 10.8, 13. and 14.14. Psalm. 129.16, 17. 1 Pet. 4.16. And coupled with Redemption in this business, Isay 43.1. Now if he hath not wrought a Redemption as large as mankind created by him, what force can there be in this Argument grounded on his Creation?] The work of Creation indeed is used as an argument of a threefold duty.  
1. Of uprightness, as Psa. 139.16, 17. and this is such as every man may use, I am his Creature therefore I ought to serve him uprightly.  
2. Of prevailing in Prayer to move God to take away his hand, because we are his Creatures and not able to endure his hand. So Job 10.8, 13. And with this sometimes God is moved; The extravagancies of their lives, Psalm. 103.9, 14, 15. But this is such an argument as every one cannot urge, as if God was always moved towards every one that he made, he may do much for his Children because they are weak Creatures.  
3. Of confidence in God's power, and ability to save, as Isa. 40.9, 10, 11, 12, etc. And the Argument thus framed, he is as able to save us as to create us: But all these are nothing to his purpose, because the work of Redemption is not in any of those places joined with Creation; And I never observed that the Creation is used as an Argument to persuade us of God's willingness to save, as if he would save because he did Create, much less that he maketh Creation an Argument to persuade us of Redemption, as if he would Redeem us because he Created us.  
But where both are joined together, as Isa. 43.1. there is a perfect Argument both of his Power and Will, but his Power is drawn from the Creation, and his Will from Redemption. So 1 Pet. 4.19. He is able because Creator, willing because faithful. Now these are Arguments that his own Children may make, and to persuade them of his Power to save (which is common) may use the Creation which is common, and to persuade them of his willingness, which is peculiar, they use his Redemption, and what of all this? It doth not yet infer Redemption to be as large as Creation, for the All Created goeth beyond the All Redeemed: And the more the Reader observeth, the more he shall see of the Author's weakness herein; force enough is there in Creation to evince God's Power, although his Redemption be not so large.   

CHAP. IX. Of the constant changing of the person, when having mentioned the general, it mentioneth the especial.  
THe Author his scope in this Chapter, is to make it appear that those places that are produced by us, with applicative restriction, are nothing against him; being such as treat of the special favours of beleivers, which is not the business he treateth of, and this he doth by suggestion to his reader: that where the Scripture speaketh of ransom and redemption wrought in him, it speaks in general terms, but where it speaketh of choice benefits, it speaks 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 sin for us; there is the special benefit of believers] wherein he intimated these two things. 1 That the word (reconciling) in the 19 verse is meant of Christ's act as Mediator, working out a reconciliation with God for men, but this is a non probatum. I shown the contrary in the foregoing part of this discourse: that word both 18 and 19 verses, whether to be understood of God's actual reconciling himself to us, not imputing our sins, or his reconciling us to himself: 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 sin for us.] speaketh of the choice benefits of beleivers; this I approve not; but mind 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 plainly denoteth the death of Christ and redemption wrought by it; for to (die for) and (to be made sin for) are terms of the same signification, yet this is said to be for (us) and not in general terms. Nay it is plain, that the first words speak of the death of Christ, and the second viz. [That we might be made the righteousness of God] denote the application; but here is no change of person: both in the same; he made him sin 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 especial privileges of Adoption he changeth the person, and saith, that we might receive the adoption of sons] wherein he would them, the first words to be without a restriction, and in general terms; 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 special benefit then redemption, which the Apostle owneth not; he puts as great emphasis and dignity on the one as the other, both spiritual 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 righteousness of God: He redeemed every man under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 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 redeem and reconcile all, and then view them in our sense. He reconciled us, being men living in the world, that we might be the righteousness 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, than any may see both parts relateth to the same persons.  
2. The Scripture doth not only not follow that method in these cited places, but also in other places, as john. 10.15. 1 Th●s. 5.8, 9, 10. Where speaking of his death, he maketh it not to run in general terms, but with a restriction.  
3. Suppose it was so, yet the one is but to explain 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.   

CHAP. X. Of the Consideration of 1 Tim. 2.6.  
HEre we are come to the grand Text of difference, where Christ is said to give himself a [Ransome for all men.] Now to the transaction of this Text, I shall place the controversy only about the phrase [all men] and the reader may know that the author would have it meant, [de singulis generûm] as to take in every individual of every kind. We on the other side, would have it meant [de generibus singulorum,] so as to take in only all the sorts and kinds of men, and herein stands the controversy about this Text: now how strongly he proveth his interpretation, it is my next task to examine. And herein he hath a threefold field to run in, viz. the force of the words themselves, the circumstances, the scope of the Text; and he thinks all these and every one of these is sufficient to evince it, that this Text is to be understood of all Adam's sons. First he saith,  
[For the sense of the word itself (All,) appeareth to be meant of Adam and all his sons, because the opposition is between God and men.]  
First, the sense of the word itself cannot carry it to that meaning, because the Author himself confesseth that the word (All) is many ways taken, so as not to take in every of Adam's sons, as page 30. Therefore that word or phrase that is indifferent to be meant of all and every son of Adam, or of some, or in a sense not so large, cannot of itself be any convincing argument of its own signification; in any place the matter treated of must administer light herein, as the Author confesseth page 31. Neither is that plea of the (opposition betwixt God and men) of any force; by this phrastologie he meaneth when God is said to do any thing for man, or men, or every man, than it meaneth all Adam's sons; but this is very empty; when Christ is said to draw all men to him, doth it take in every son of Adam, and when 1 Cor. 4.14. The Apostle saith, (all men shall have praise of God) doth this take in all Adam's sons? and will he follow his absurd reasoning and say. [Every man, so all were created by him, every man, and all that have being from Adam, and so his nature, being men, etc.] with many such frothy expressions as he doth. page 55. How would this wrack the Scripture, and so in page 56. He pursues this phrase (All men) with the many acceptations of it, but to small purpose he shows that sometimes it is taken for all Adam's sons, and sometimes not, but this is not wisely inserted here, he affirming that the sense of the word itself will carry it to all Adam's sons. And he gives us some occasion to think that he hath deserted this sense of the word, and hath found out another more probable but less propitious to his doctrine: in the end of page 56. the Reader may observe he hath changed the face of his assertion, and in that the question. For in page 55. he giveth it thus: [this word all, meaneth Adam and all his sons.] But in page 56. he gives it thus, [All men, 1 Tim. 2.6. principally is meant of natural men, sinners, sons of Adam, unbelievers, unregenerate men. He would hereby insinuate to his unwary reader that we deny, and he is to prove that Christ gave himself a ransom for natural men, sons of Adam, sinners; when he and all know that it is his task to prove, and his former assertion that he gave himself a ransom for All [natural men,] [All Adam's sons,] [all sinners,] this is no fair dealing, but egregious and unjustifiable dissimulation, and all those reasons in the former part of page 57 being only to prove the reversed face of his assertion, are impertinent and not worth reciting; yet we may see his gross and bold impudence, that after he had propounded the place, as meant of [natural men] [son's of Adam] [sinners] without this particle, All, and proves no more: yet page 57 he shamelessly triumpheth. That it appeareth that the words (All men,) are meant of Adam and all his sons; it is too frequent with him to carry all in his conclusion, and nothing in his premises. Having thus fruitlessly traversed the first field of probation, viz. the sense of the words (All men;) he steps in to the second, viz. the circumstances of the Text that attend these words; he produceth many circumstances as follows.  
[1. It is the Apostle that exhorteth Timothy and the Churches to pray for all men; and they are beleivers that are to pray for all men, and they are others, even all men, in the third person generally that are to be prayed for, he saith not for some of all sorts, but for all men: and naming but one sort of them, he saith all of them] Indeed I find the Remon. thus arguing, [proquibus orare nos vult Deus, 
act. Syno. 323.  pro illis mort● est Christus; at vult nos orare pro omnibus] that is, for whom he commands us to pray, for them he gave himself a ransom: but he bids us pray for all, ergo,] but our Author's words are so confused, that it is fare more difficult to form his words into an argument, then to answer it. But to this I say, (though it may be questioned,) I shall grant it, that all in the first verse, for whom we are to pray, is of the same extent with the all, in ver. 6. for whom Christ was a ransom; this proveth not that (All men) ver. 6. taketh in all Adam's sons, because the All in ver. 1. doth not so. But will some say, are we not to pray for Adam's sons? I answer, in some cases not; but admit we are, it is a truth, veritate rei, not veritate loci, Scripture elsewhere happily may; but this place dictateth not thus much to us. And all that the Author inserteth, I grant; he bids believers to pray for all men, but this is to repeat, not prove, or however to prove Idem per Idem, as to say, All men, is to be understood of all Adam's sons, because it saith all men; excellent probation. And whereas he saith, [It saith not of all sorts some, but all men;] it is unworthy the nameing, so I may say: it saith not [all Adam's sons, every individual, but all men] it saith neither [of all sorts some] nor [all of every sort] but useth a phrase that will admit either meaning; now this is the question which is meant? let the Text determine: it runneth not into Individuals, as [Nero, Caesar,] etc. but into kinds; as [Kings and such as are in authority under them:] because all sorts were ordained to be useful to the Church; and he instanceth in Kings, because they have the greatest influence into the growth of the Gospel; therefore it is probable, that though he say (All men) he meaneth [All sorts of men.] And whereas he saith, [naming but one sort, he expressly saith all of them,] it is an express falsity; he saith not for (All Kings) but all such as are in authority under them: that is, all degrees or kinds of power under Kings: But he attempteth to answer objections, page 57 the first whereof is not material, the second is worth examining.  
[Objection. May we pray for such as we know have sinned the sin against the Holy Ghost?  
Answer, No, etc. For than they are separated from the All men, etc.]  
Reply, But doth the sin against the Holy Ghost, make him that commits it to cease to be one of Adam's sons, or of men, or natural men, or unbeleivers? certainly not. Indeed it maketh him to cease being one of that all which we are to pray for; but then, doth it not clearly evince that, the phrase (All men) doth not take in every son of Adam? for, if the Church or a believer may pray for all men, and so obey the Apostles command, though one or many be left out that have sinned unto death, what is more clear than that the All in ver. 1. doth not take in every individual son of Adam?  

A Second circumstance is this.  
[By the Apostles care to settle beleivers persuasion in this, that it is good in the sight of God to pray for all men; praying for Brethren they doubted not of; but whether for all men, unbeleivers, persecutors, many might doubt; this he removeth, 4. 5. 6.] This circumstance is in nothing different from the former, both fetched from his command, to beleivers to pray for others, namely unbeleivers. But besides, he is mistaken herein; the business here insisted on, is not praying for enemies as well as friends, as Math. 5.44.48. For this they might do, and yet leave the Apostles command unsatisfied of praying for Kings: we may pray for many friends and enemies, yet pray for no Kings; but were it so, he most know, 1. That this doth not enforce a praying for all Adam's sons; for many men in the world, are neither friends nor enemies to many private Christians. 2. Neither doth it urge, that all in ver. 6. is taken so largely; as if nothing but Christ's death for every son of Adam could prevail with us to this duty: for if he died but for some, and that some were enemies, it is argument enough to move us to pray for enemies.   

A third circumstance followeth.  
[By the motives by which he moveth them to pray for all men; viz. Gods good will to mankind, & what in Christ he did for them, like that Mat. 5.44.45. Whereas the motives to pray for beleivers are something more sweet, etc.] Had these words been wisely martialled, they had appeared in the form of an argument used by the Remonstrants. [Deus vult omnes salvos fieri; 
act. Synod. 321.  ergo Christus pro omnibus & fingulis mortuu● est] That is God will have all to be saved: therefore Christ died for all and every singular man; to which I answer, first, if the word (singulis) had been in the antecedent, as it is in the consequent, they had spoken beside the Text, and I shall grant that All ver. 4. and All ver. 6. are both of like extent; but neither reaches to every son of Adam: he must first prove the word All in the 4. verse, to take in All and every individual son of Adam, before he can produce this word or any thing affirmed concerning it, as an argument to prove All in the 6. verse, to be so general: and whereas he saith, that the arguments used here are like them, Math. 5.44. it is false; there is a wide difference betwixt the making of the Sun to shine, and rain to fall, and willing their salvation.   

The Fourth cirumstance.  
[By the manner of praying enjoined, viz. Without wrath and doubting; this is not incident to believers in praying one for another, as when they think of them that have wronged them; but believers praying one for an other is in a sweeter manner.] That which he seemeth to drive at in these words is this, that the Apostle would have us pray for others besides believers; but this no man denieth: it was never our assertion, that we should pray only for beleivers; but that which we question, is whether the Apostle commandeth us to pray for every individual son of Adam; and this manner of praying without wrath and doubting evinceth it not: for even among believers, there may be quarrels, and dissensions, by reason of which he might bid them pray one for another, without wrath or doubting; but however this is fare from proving that we are to pray for every son of Adam. For if we are to pray but for some unconverted and enemies, it is requisite that we pray without wrath or doubting, because wrath and doubting are as incident to us praying for some as for all, so that those some be enemies to us. But again by wrath and doubting, it may be questioned, whether they be referred to God, that is without wrath, a foolish charging of God if he defer to hear us; and doubting of his faithfulness or power to help us: and if thus, this is not only requisite for believers praying one for another, but to be an ingredient in all their prayers of what nature soever.   

The Fifth circumstance.  
[By the things prayed for, viz. That God would order their hearts that we believers, might lead quiet and godly lives; but things to be prayed for Beleivers are of a higher nature, john. 17.9.21.] Herein also he bendeth his force to prove that we are to pray for unbeleivers, which is not the thing in hand: but this is so empty, that it is so far from proving, that we are to pray for every individual son of Adam, that it doth not urge a necessity of praying for any more than believers: for the thing prayed for, is as sureable for beleivers as unbeleivers, that their hearts should be so directed, that they under them may lead quiet and godly lives. David and Solomon and other believing Kings prayed for it, Psal. 72.1, 2, 3, 4. Secondly, whereas the Apostle saith (that we) he maketh not a distinction betwixt beleivers and unbeleivers, as if the sense was thus, pray for unbelieving Kings, that we believers might live, etc. but it relateth to their place of subjection in that body politic: and so, that we who are under them might lead godly lives, for thus must beleivers pray when yet they are under beleiveing Princes. Besides from the matter prayed for, it appeareth not that by all men, is meant every son of Adam, because every son of Adam hath not an influence into the godly and quiet lives of any state, or any beleivers in any state or government.   

The Sixth circumstance.  
[By the manner of mentioning them that are to be prayed for. All men, Kings, men in authority, of which very few Beleivers, etc.] The author must know that we are to pray for Kings, not as believers, or unbeleivers, but as Kings; as they are in eminent place and rule, and so have an influence in our holy lives, whether believers or unbelievers: besides he can infer hence but this, that we are to pray for unbeleiving Kings, but this proveth not that we are to pray for every son of Adam. Yet he confidently concludeth it of his side, but it is his boldness that presumes, not his reason that proveth; he hath produced many circumstances, but yet they are so rudely applied to this business, that the expressions spent about them, cannot but be tedious to the intelligent, because they have not the least show of reason to prove that the (all men,) mentioned either in the 1.4. or 6. verse, does take in all Adam's sons. Having spoke of the sense of the words themselves, the circumstances that attend them; he comes to the third sort and rank of proofs, and that is from the scope of the Text, and he thus speaketh.  
[From the 1. to the 8th verse, no further thing is mentioned but what belongs to all men to hear, and what Christ hath done for all: and what we are indebted to all men. Rom. 5.14.15.16. Phil. 2.15.16. Mat. 5.44.] And this I conclude from page 61. is the scope of the Text which he hints of, but let the Reader well observe, the vanity of this last, will seem as great as the former. For the business that he is to prove, is that (all men) comprehendeth in it every son of Adam; and this he proveth from the scope of the Text, which speaketh of nothing but what belongeth to all men: So that this is the dint of his reason (all men) taketh in every individual man, because the Text saith (all men;) the strength of his reason is admirable. If he had said the Text treats of such things as belong to ever individual son of Adam, than he had said to the purpose, but that I fear upon examination would want weight; therefore it is as good to speak that which is impertinent, as that which is to the purpose, and not be able to prove it. And if he had said so, let us view the method of this new disputer; his affirmative is, that Christ gave himself a ransom for all Adam's sons, and he proves this by the Text, 1 Timoth. 2. ●. And being asked how he proveth that Text speaketh of all Adam's sons, he saith because that speaketh of such things as are common to all Adam's sons; and so in this circle he may run (in infinitum) but further to explain the scope of the Text, he thus saith.  
[It appears to be a laying down of the Gospel, as it is to be preached to every creature.] That it is a truth of the gospel which is to be preached, I deny not; but that the intention and scope of the Apostle, is to lay down a platform of the Gospel to be preached, is no way evident; the scope is to move believers to pray, as he confesseth, page 28. But admit it, yet it followeth not that that phrase all men, extendeth to every individual; for than it must follow, that to say, [Christ gave himself a ransom for every individual man] is Gospel; but where proveth he that? I know he will say from this Text of 1 Tim. 2.6. Still all must come to that issue, it is Gospel because 1 Tim. 2.6. so saith, and that Text saith so because it containeth the Gospel, and this is still like the authors reasoning.  
[2. It is laid down as a ground of praying for all men.] True, and so we grant that Christ gave himself a ransom for all; and what is he better? he leaves the question untouched in all this large discourse; he proveth not yet this Text commands us to pray for every individual son of Adam: but grant it, yet it followeth not in strict reasoning, that the all in ver. 6. must be so large; for in his own divinity, the one being an act that man is to do, (pray) and the other an act that Christ doth (give a ransom) this diversity of matter treated, will admit of a divers signification of [all men;] but besides Christ's giving himself a ransom for some of all sorts, is ground enough for us to pray for every man of all sorts; therefore our praying for all men doth not argue (all men) in the 6. verse to take in all Adam's sons.  
3. A third thing (after many subservient particulars in page 60.) which hath the most probability of reason is this, [Herein he showeth the will of God concerning the mediator and men; and what he would have him do, viz. Save all men, and free them from the necessity of perishing;] which was formerly laid down and answered in the Third circumstance: only here is an expression scattered which I assent not to, that freedom from the necessity of perishing only is here brought to expound the word, Save, but this I disprove thus. Those which actually perish, are not in Scripture phrase said to be saved. But such as do perish, may be freed from the necessity of perishing; therefore they that are only freed from the necessity of perishing, are not said to be saved.  
But to the thing in hand; as for that Text, 1 Tim. 2.4. I find no Text in all the Scripture so tossed up and down with variety of interpretations as that Text. Asdruball (1.) That he willeth some of all sorts. (2.) He willeth all to be saved, that is, all that are saved, are saved because he willeth it to be so; So Lombard, 
Lib. 1. dist. 46.  [Quia nullus fiat salvus nisi quem velit salvari.] (3.) That he willeth it, (voluntate figni) by those things that are the signs of his will, as his commands, promises, threaten, but not by his will of decree. (4. He willeth, that is he causeth us to will that all shall be saved, as Gal. 46. The Spirit is said to cry abba Father, that is it causeth us to do so, Rom 8.26.28. The Spirit maketh requests, that is it helpeth us to make requests. (5.) That God earnestly wisheth and desires that all should be saved eternally, and he gives them all means conducing thereunto. (6.) He willeth all shall be saved, that is, brought to the knowledge of the Gospel which is called salvation, Heb. 2.3. (7.) All to be saved, that they should be made salvable: the first five are all cited by that great Jesuit, Cornel. a Lapid. in locum, and their several authors; the last is his own, the four former he rejecteth, his own he explaineth not, nor saith plainly that he willeth the salvation of every individual, or however proveth not unless by ver. 6. Because Christ is said to give himself a ransom for all men, quite contrary to our author; the one cleareth the 4. by 6. verse, the other the 6. by 4. verse, but I think both amiss, for he that proveth the one by the other (which way soever) proveth [ignotum per ignotum] an obscure phrase by a phrase of the same obscurity; and till the business be further cleared, I conclude, that that phrase (all men) in any of these verses, is no competent witness either for itself, or for its neighbour. And the last of the seven interpretations the author fastens upon as the sense of the Text, though against all Interpreters: and the language of the Scripture; but if he be asked how he proveth it, that the word (saved) is meant to make them salvable, he hath this method at hand, he proveth it by this Text, because it is said to be to all Adam's sons: and if he be asked how he proveth that, this Text speaketh of such a salvation that is common to all Adam's sons, he proveth it by this, because the Text speaks of what Christ doth for all men, viz. make them salvable, and from such circles in his reasonings all along, he is not able by an easy exorcism to free himself.  
As for his objection which he pretendeth to answer, if he had not devised a too absurd frame of it, the weakness of his answer had been very evident; I shall frame it for him, and the drift of it is this, to prove that the phrase [All men] vet. 6. is not proved by [all men] in the first verse to be taken in such a general sense, but rather the first verse proveth, that the sixth verse cannot take in every son of Adam, and the argument is this.  
The all that are to be prayed for, is as large as the all he ransomed.  
But the all to be prayed for, taketh not in all the sons of Adam.  
Ergo, the all he ransomed, taketh not in all the sons of Adam.  
To this he answereth, [This argument hath no force, Paul directeth to pray for all men, and John showeth how long we are to pray for some.] But this answer hath less force in it; for, all that he saith being granted, yet further I demand, whether when we know any to sin unto death and so pray not for them, we cannot fulfil the command of God, in praying for all men? certainly the command of John doth not overthrow the command of St. Paul, both may be obeyed, but both cannot of the (all men.) in 1 Tim. 2.1. take in all Adam's sons, and the argument is firm thus. If we fulfil the Apostles command of praying for (all men) when yet we pray not for every son of Adam, than that phrase (all men) doth not take in every son of Adam.  
But the former is true. Ergo the latter is true also.  
This proposition, viz. [The all to be prayed for, is as large as the all he gave himself a ransom for] he disavoweth; and the absurdities which he saith follow are not worth naming; and any may wonder why he should not receive this proposition; for in page 57 58. he contendeth that the (all men) to be prayed for, taketh in it every son of Adam: and sure I am that the all ransomed is not nor can be any more than all. And how the author acquitteth himself in this Text let any judge. So that if it be asked, how many Christ died or gave himself a ransom for: we may without equivocation and false gloss answer with the text for (all men) but we shall be guilty of both if we say, for every son of Adam, for that the text meaneth not, nor saith.    

CHAP. XI. Of the sentence in Heb. 2.9.  
AS for the persons to whom the Epistle was writ, the occasion of writing, the person writing, the reason why his name is concealed, etc. are such circumstances as no way cometh within the verge of our enquiry; in this point I shall consider the words from which he fetcheth so much strength to his doctrine as he conceiveth: in so much as he makes it a champion text in his frontispiece to defend the whole work.  
His words are these.  
[That by the grace of God he might taste death for every man.] The whole verse is thus, being directly rendered from the Original. [We see Jesus made little lower than the Angels, through the suffering of death, crowned with honour and glory, that by the grace of God, etc.] Now here are two things affirmed of Christ. First, that he was made a little lower than the Angels. Secondly, that through death he was crowned with honour and glory; now it would give some light into the after words, if we could tell on which of these two they depend, or to which they relate: I must confess it very obscure; The Author page 65. seems to make them relate to both, as if he was made little lowet then the Angels, that he might taste death; and also crowned with honour and glory, because he tasted death for every man; but this least probable; for then the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signify both, (ut) and (quia) both (that) and (because) which is not likely; but let the dependence be what it will: for the words themselves, I propound these following Queries. First, whether these words [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] be well rendered thus. [That by the grace of God he might taste death for every man.] And whether it may not bear this reading, [That by the grace of God he might taste of every death, or (de tota morte) of all or whole death:] That he might taste 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This reading I shall clear to be no way contrary to the Scripture or Grammatical construction; then that the context clearly leadeth to it; the most forcible objection from Grammar, is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being a verb of sense, governeth a genitive case without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But although this be true, yet it is well known that this language delights in such pleonasmes, and redundancy of prepositions is the elegancy of this language, when yet the word will govern the genetive case without them.  
But some may say, that if it had been so meant, the words would have been thus placed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but to this I answer; that in the chapter there are two, and in the verse one precedent, for placing the verb between the adjective or relative, and the substantive.  
And the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often for totus not omnis: as Ephes. 4.16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole body; so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whole death: so that here is not one word rendered but justifiably by Scripture.  
Secondly this is most agreeing with the context; for if the Author will have these words to relate to his [being made lower than the Angels, and suffering death,] it very well agreeth thereto; for, if it be asked why he suffered such a death, which death is not confined to the perfective act, when his soul was separated from his body, but extendeth to all the acts of his humiliation, from his incarnation, to his expiration; for so all this was the death for which he was crowned, as appeareth, Phillip 2.7.8, 9 His taking on him the form of a servant, as well as his submitting to the cross, was that which got him that name; now if it be asked why he suffered such a death, of such latitude and extent, it was that he might taste 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of whole death, both top and dregs, no part of that death we lie under shall be untasted off. Or if we will have them relate to those words, [He was crowned with honour,] it well agreeth with them; for if the question be asked how he came to be crowned with honour and glory as he now is; the answer is not to be given, or the cause fetched from the latitude of the persons for whom he was humbled, because his first act of humiliation, viz. his taking our nature upon him, was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for every man for whom he afterward died; and if the ground of his glory was drawn from the latitude of persons for whom he suffered, his Father had as good ground to glorify him at his Incarnation, as at his expiration, but that he did not: but the ground is fetched from the latitude of sufferings; when he had taken our nature on him, and undergone a series and method of sufferings in his life, and the dregs of all at his death, and so drunk his potion, and done his work by tasting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all or whole death; then and therefore he was crowned; having so much suffered, he entered into glory; and so we see it well agreeing with the words foregoing.  
And it well agreeth with the words that follow. [For it behoved him &c. to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.] Now that word (For) showeth that this 10. verse relateth to the 9 and that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he might be perfect through sufferings; now when is Christ perfect through sufferings? whether when he hath suffered for all men, or when he hath tasted of all sufferings, or whole death? certainly if the former, than he might in his very incarnation be said to be perfect through sufferings, for that he was for all for whom he died; but this neither reason nor Scripture teacheth, and it is most congruous to both to affirm the latter: and so Heb. 5.9. saith and seemeth to refer this perfection to the ultimate act, and then he was made the author of salvation. Nay, further we find verse 17. that [it behoved him to be like unto us in all things.] still expounding his being perfect in sufferings, that is when he hath sufferings that we were liable to, and so might know how to help us in all afflictions, he being like to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every death or affliction, then is he perfect through sufferings. This I determine not, but desire the Author to transmit it to his oracle; and I leave it to the judgement of the learned: and if it be found congruous, than this Text maketh but little for him.  
Query. (2) Wave the former sense; how can the Author fetch his general expression from these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if it was to be read for every man? the substantive is not expressed, but left so as indifferent to be rendered, every believer or son of God, as every man, or son of Adam: the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or any word from it, when set alone is not always to be rendered All men, or every man, as John. 12.32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is not I will draw all men, that is not verified, but plainly from john. 3.15. [where it saith, [the son of man is lift up that whoever believeth might have eternal life] appeareth to be meant of every one that believeth, and so 1 Cor. 4.5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, praise shall be given, is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to every man, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to every faithful man, as verse 2. So that he will have it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for every one that believeth, as John. 3.16. Rom. 1.16. or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for every faithful man, as 1 Cor. 4.5. or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for every son, as Heb. 2.10. for every such man I grant he tasted death; but if he will have it so large as every man, or that pertaketh of humane nature, that he must prove.  
Quere, (3) But if it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for every man; how would he prove it to extend any further than 1 Tim. 2.6. all men; and so not to mean men of every kind? for so, sons he hath of all sorts of men, of which sons he speaketh, verse 10. certain it is the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in the singular, Heb 2.9. cannot more intimate the particulars in any kind, than the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in the plural, 1 Tim. 2.6. Therefore his first conclusion page 64. needeth no ecce, it is so empty; So that if the question be asked, for how many Christ tasted death, it cannot be answered from the Text, for (every man) that is as the Author expoundeth it, Every individual son of Adam.   

CHAP. XII. Of the Consideration of like Scriptures speaking in like manner.  
HIs drift in this Chapter, is to borrow some strength from other Scriptures, pretending that it is the ordinary language of Scripture, and not of 1 Tim. 2.6. Heb. 2.9. therefore his several Texts I shall examine.  
[2 Cor. 5.19. God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself, not imputing their trespasses.] This text I have formerly treated of in my second Chapter, and there shown that this Text favoureth him not for two reasons. First, because this Text speaketh of the application of the blood of Christ, as I have shown by four particulars in the second Chapter, to which I refer the Reader, which the Author is very averse to, and strongly denieth, but weakly disproveth. His reasons why this meaneth not of the application by his spirit is twofold; [1. It saith not God will be reconciling the world to himself, as speaking of the work of his Spirit;] as if no work of God upon the hearts of men by his Spirit was done and passed, so that it might not be said he was so working; certainly he had reconciled many men's hearts to himself by the Gospel, long before the Apostle spoke these words; so that though he spoke of that act of his spirit, he might say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God was reconciling; therefore this is no convincing argument. [2. It saith not God was in the world reconciling, as if he spoke of the application in the hearts of men.] Neither is it so to be meant [in Christ] as if God working in the heart of Christ. But in Christ, as no more than [by Christ] and [for Christ] but this phrase is as suitable to the application of his blood, as well as the procurement by his blood, if the Apostle say true, Ephes. 1.3. If all spiritual blessings be given us in him, then surely reconcileing our hearts, being one, is also in him, and in verse 10. he plainly saith, that the faithful are gathered together in one in Christ: therefore though it saith not in the world, but in Christ, it may well be meant of the application of Christ's blood in the hearts of men.  
A second reason why this place favoureth him not, is; Because though it did speak of the Act of Christ as mediator procuring reconciliation; yet it doth not say for all, or every son of Adam, but for the world: which phrase is taken in Scripture not so largely, as 1 John. 5.19. [The whole world lieth in wickedness;] this cannot take in every son of Adam, because may are affirmed to be of God in the same verse, and so not to sin, however not to lie in sin. So Colos. 1.6. though the Gospel brought forth fruit in all the world, yet not in every son of Adam, 1 Tim. 3.16. believed on in the world, but not of every son of Adam, but men living in the world.  
Some reasons he attempts to produce, to prove that this world means all Adam's sons, and those reasons he draweth from, 2 Cor. 5. his general deduction is this, [What world it is that he reconciled, let the Text show,] so I say also, he urgeth thus. [The world of mankind, verse 11. we persuade men;] it is true he persuaded men, not God, as Gal. 1.10. and the world of mankind, men living in the world; and thus we grant that God was in Christ reconciling men. But our Author would have (men) in verse 11. to denote every individual man, but this without ground; for this phrase, [He persuades men] is of like sense with Luke. 5.10. [thou shalt catch men.] and 1 Cor. 14.3. [he that prophesieth speaketh unto men] but these take not in every son of Adam, nor can be so meant.  
2. He thus urgeth, [And these men that must appear before the Judgement seat of Christ.] Verse 10. true, and such we grant God in Christ reconciled, but not all that must so appear; for though all shall appear, yet he speaketh not of all that shall appear: it is we that have the earnest of the spirit, verse 5. we that walk by faith not sight, verse 7. we that love to dwell with the Lord, verse 8. we that covet to be acceptable to the Lord, verse 9 it is the same we that he saith must appear before Christ's judgement; and the same we, we grant, are reconciled in Christ. But none of all these former take in all the sons of Adam; therefore are not well produced to prove the word World, verse 19 to take in every individual son of Adam.  
[3. He urgeth, And those men that were dead, verse 14.] True, let him well understand the Text, and I grant it; all that were dead to sin, as I have shown in the second Chapter, and then I grant that Christ reconciled the All in the world that died to sin and themselves: but this taketh not in every son of Adam. And so for the rest that he saith in this point, from what I said in Chap. 2. may appear not to avail any thing to prove the word world in verse 19 to take in every individual son of Adam: So that this Text helpeth him not.  
A second Text is,  
john, 1.9. He is the true light that enlighteneth every man that cometh into the world.] And his deduction here from Is this, [through the ransom given there is some light afforded to every man.] Lombard citing this Text, giveth this sense, [Non quod nullus sit qui non illuminetur, sed quia nisi ab illo nullus illuminatur;] and this with no little probability.  
But Secondly, the Author should have shown what enlightening this speaketh of; it may be so understood as no way to favour him, as not speaking of the same thing whereof he affirmeth: it seemeth to speak of the light that he put into men in the creation, as may appear from verse 5. and 10. immediately after these words; we find the world was made by him, he cannot (I believe) prove it to be understood of the redemption.  
And herein he proceeds to show, how many ways the Scripture affirmeth the same of the world.  
1. Of the world in general. John. 1.29. & 3.17.] I know what he meaneth by (general) if he mean as it is a totum aggregatum, of which an action may be predicated, yet it agrees but to one part of it; as the world is said to lie in wickedness, when it agreeth only to the unbelieving part, and so he shall convince the world of sin, that is, the unbelieving part: so on the other side, he taketh away the sins of the world, that is, of the unbelieving part thereof, this I grant.  
2. Of the world distributed into its parts, some believing, some not. John. 3.16.18.] But will the Author say that he came to save both parts of the world? the Text saith no such thing, but that those that believe might not perish. God is said to love the world, it is true; but distribute this world into its parts, and what love doth the Text set forth to both its parts? his love to the world, as (totum quid) is there intimated, and shown in his love to the believing part thereof, and to the believing part in that they shall be saved: but wherein is the love of God expressed to the unbelieving part, let the Text, or the Author from the Text speak. So that though he be here said to love the world, and that is distributed into parts, yet no love is expressed to both parts of that distribution.  
3. Of the world opposed to Believers, in the world. 1 John, 2.1.] It is clear to every eye that there is no opposition at all in that Text, only a diversification. (2.) Neither can he prove that there is a distinction of believers from unbelievers, but only of some believers, to whom he wrote from believers all over the world. (3.) For such an assertion as this, that Christ gave himself a ransom for a world opposed to believers, it is such as cannot be found in any beside our Author: the Remonstrants that have made the number as large as may either by show of reason or Scripture; yet they profess that [In horum numero censeri non debent impaenitentes, 
Act. Synod. 285. 286.  increduli, rebels, etc. qua tales,] that is, in this number of All, the unbelieving and impenitent, are not to be reckoned; and thus, [Infidelibus & rebellibus quâ talibus gratia impetrata non est:] that is, grace was not impetrated or procured for the unbelievers, as so. But if our Author's words be true, that he died for the world opposed to believers; then he died for unbelievers as so considered; but this no Scripture speaketh.  
4. Of the world divided and such particulars set out as cannot be the Elect of God. John. 12.47.48.] We had before in the second acceptation, the world distributed into its parts, and now we have it divided into its parts; here is judicious distinction betwixt distributed and divided. (2.) That Text doth not say that he came to save that part of the world, which he saith cannot be meant of the Elect of God. (3.) It is not evident that that place speaketh of such as are not the Elect: many may not receive the word of Christ for the present, yet be one of Gods chosen, and thus much the Author confesseth page 69. thus, [Yea even among these are many of God's Elect and chosen, to whom these say agree,] and one of these say is this, [neither receiveth nor perceiveth the things of the Spirit.] Yet now this expression, (he that heareth my words and believeth not) must needs set out such as cannot be Gods elect and chosen ones.  
5. Of the world, as the Elect are in due time called out of the fellowship of it and distinguished from it, whilst many of the Elect are in it.] He produceth many Texts wherein the word (world) is thus taken; but he produceth not one place wherein it is said that Christ came to save that world, and therefore he herein requireth no answer; yet I say of that world he may be said to be the Saviour, yet in respect of them that shall be called out in time; but that he is the Saviour of that world, out of which all his Elect are t●ken, no Scripture speaketh; and therefore that fond flourish which he maketh in those after words, the Reader may see he hath little ground whereas he saith [Of the World every way taken he is the Saviour,] he cannot, nor hath he proved that he is the Saviour of both parts, believing and unbelieving, nor the world opposed to believers, nor such as cannot be called the elect of God, nor that world out of which all the elect are chosen.  
But after this spacious digression upon the word (World) he comes to affirm that [the Elect is never called the World:] something like that of the Remonstrants, [vox mundus in Scriptures nunquam electos significat] that is, 
act. Synod. 301.  the word World doth never signify the Elect, which I shall not at this time disprove, but content myself with this, that there is no need to prove it; sufficient it is now to prove that the word All doth not take in every son of Adam, and that that thing is said to be done to, and by, and in the World, that is done but to and by and in the believing part of the world: and this is not hard, Col. 1 6. 1 Tim. 3.19. Rom. 4.12.13. with others, in which places I think also the word World denoteth only the Elect of God, if believers be such. But still in prosecution of this, he hath several Queries, as  
[If we look at such as stumble at Christ, doth not the Scripture say, such perish for whom Christ died?] To which I answer no; no Scripture affirmeth any such thing, not that Text, 1 Corinth. 8.11. It is not affirmative but interrogatory.  
And bring upon themselves swift destruction, denying the Lord that bought them. 2 Pet. 2.1. I have said something upon this text before, but because it again offereth itself, I shall add a few words more; true it is they are said to deny the Lord that bought them; that is, as it is generally received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to their own and others judgement; as Ahaz is said to sacrifice to the Gods of Damascus that smote him 2 Chron. 28.23. And how can the Author prove that Christ did ransom or buy them any more them the Gods of Damascus did smite Ahaz: the one saith they denied the Lord that bought them, and the other sacrificed to the gods that smote him; but I know the Author will not say that the Gods of Damascus did really and indeed hurt or smite Ahaz, but he thought so. This I overthrew not, but to it I add thus much, it was not only as they thought, but [Secundum vanam jactantiam,] as they boasted, they spoke proud swelling word, spoke much of Christ and his ransom; now it is frequent in Scripture to upbraid the sons of men with such things as they boast of, as if they were so indeed, as Ezek 28.12. and so making their boasting an aggravation of their sin, as Rom. 3.17.23. thou that gloriest in God, and in the Law, dost thou by breaking of the Law dishonour God? So it was not an ordinary sin that these false Prophets are branding, not barely denying him that bought them, for so every unbeliever doth in his judgement, but this is more than every unbeliever is charged withal; seeing he that names Christ is tied thereby to departed from iniquity, 2 Tim. 2.19. And they boasting of Christ they were more obliged than others not to deny him, but they did deny the Lord that bought them, that is not that the Text looks at the reality of the thing, but their boasting that it was so, which made it be an aggravated sin in those false Prophets; and how this agreeth with the persons spoke of and other Scriptures, let the Author perpend, and if so taken, how much it serveth his turn let him also judge.  
Are they not said to have trodden under foot the Son of God?] Thus the Remonstrant urges, [Apostatae dic●ur filium dei conculcare, 
act. Synod.  etc. ergo filius dei illis aliquo modo est datus, fanguy testamenti ad aliquod gratiae faedus cum illis constituendum effusus, etc.] That is they tread under foot the Son of God, therefore he is in some way given to them, and his blood shed to make some covenant of Grace with them; the strength of which inferences I am not able to see; for they being gathered to the Church, and so hearing Christ preached, so outwardly professing him, they afterward falling off and not applying themselves to believe on him for salvation, tread under foot the Son of God; and this they may do though Christ did never purchase life and salvation for them; as a man may kick the image of his Sovereign in his coin, though it was never intended for him.  
Are they not said to be trees twice dead, Judas, 12.] Yes we read so, but whether the argument framed therefrom be valid, I question; for thus he reasoneth, they are twice dead, once in Adam, now a second time by their sins: now this second death supposeth a life intervening which they have from Christ; but this is extorted, and not the sense of this nor any other Scriptures. For  
1. For this supposeth all Adam's sons to be made alive, and to be alive, with a life that is beside what of nature: for this spiritual death in sin, is opposed to a spiritual life; but this is not the language of Scripture, not one place that I know that saith all Adam's sons are alive.  
2. It is frequent with Scripture to speak of things that do appear only as if they were, as Saint Paul, Rom. 7.9. Without the Law I was alive, that is I thought so, but when the Law came I died: here is a second death, but that is opposed to an apparent life; so why may not this Text mean a death opposed to an apparent life of grace, which by their seeming holiness they seemed to live, but when they discovered themselves, they are said to die the second time? and this seems backed by the context, Clouds without water; Trees without fruit, twice dead.  
3. Scripture phrase speaketh that condemnation in Hell is the second death, Rev. 20.14. cum 6. and this spoken of men as if it was actually so, when yet it meaneth but thus, that it infallibly shall be so; as he that believeth not is condemned, that is, shall be in condemnation: he that believeth hath everlasting life, that is, shall have it infallibly. So this twice dead, that is, they are such as shall certainly die the second death.  
4. It is usual with Scripture, speaking of that which is throughly done, or done indeed, to express it by twice done, or done doubly, Jer. 17.18. Destroy them with a double destruction, is destroy them throughly, or to the purpose, or destroy them indeed. So twice dead is dead indeed, throughly dead, dead every way; to this Mr. Perkins in his exposition propendes.  
5. The Author's Argument makes death in sin to be second death, but this Scripture speaketh not, Rev. 2. Rev. 20.6.14. Therefore the sense of his cannot stand, nor his argument from it.   

CHAP. XIII. Of answering the most usual and strongest objections against this truth.  
ANy that looketh upon this title, and his first lines of this Chapter, could promise himself no less than these three particulars. First, that the Author taketh these arguments that are most usual, 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 cometh short, shall appear 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. etc. are not to be understood in the sense they import:] Wherein he persuadeth 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 form on their parts, thereby putting them to prove that those Texts are taken as he pretendeth: seeing Scripture is not always 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 ways obnoxious, and affirmeth the contrary thus. [The Scripture speaketh sometimes plainly, sometimes metaphorically, parabolically, yet always truly, and so as the words import, for God is a God of truth, Psalm. 31.5.] The weakness of which expressions may appear to any; for it may be understood, that when we say some Scriptures are not to be understood as they seem to import, we mean not that they are not to be understood as the Spirit itself meaneth, or as they are used by him to express his meaning, but not so as they seem to us to import; not always 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 (plainly) sometimes metaphorically, parabolically.] Now in that he saith it speaketh sometimes plainly, it granteth that sometimes it speaketh not plainly; now when the Scripture speaketh plainly, we know, viz. when the sense of the words is so applied to the words in their native and common signification, that he that knows the one, may know the other. But when do they speak not plainly, certainly it is when he that knoweth the nature and usual acceptation of the words used, and followeth that and so mistaketh the true sense, when the sense is beyond the native and usual sense of the word, than the Scripture speaketh not plainly: as to instance with the Author in metaphorical etc. speeches, such are tropical and changed from their native signification, unto a foreign signification; (as his paedagogical rudiments may inform him) but when they are so changed, they mean not as they seem to import; but thus many Scriptures speak as the Author confesseth; now thus to say, is no way to confute us, but to confirm us.  
2. That expression [He speaketh always truly,] is no argument against us, because though he meaneth not as the words seem to import, yet he speaketh truly; the truth of his words are so deduced from the conformity of the sense to his own 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 himself a ransom for all men, etc. That any of us should say his words have not the sense they seem to import!] Wherein he seemeth to wonder that any should presume so to say, but it is groundless; for the sense that Thomas Moor putteth upon those Scriptures, is that Christ by his death procured eternal life for every son of Adam, and this sense the words seem 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 seem to import. Again be thus urgeth.  
[The mysteriousness of the Scripture stands not in any equivocal hiddenness or doubtfulness 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 appear to be right and plain, according to the words in which it is expressed.] But all this is not against us; for, 1. True, they are not equivocal, that is, relating to the mind 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 we 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 tropical or figurative transmutation, yet not true as the words naturally import: but it matters not how plain 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 clear from Nicodemus, John. 3.4. the disciples. Mark 8.15.16. the Jews, john. 2.19.20. in which places they judged of his speeches by the natural import of the words, but in so doing cried. But this assertion of ours, viz. [That the Scripture hath not always the sense that the words import or seem to import,] is backed with four several 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 door] are not meant as the words seem to import.] These instances he produceth, therefore I shall engage with these, though more might be produced and others more clear: thus we urge, if these places be not meant as the words seem to import, than 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 mouthed catalogue, Page 75. which in close will be his own 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 plainly 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 controversy 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 mean not as the words seem to import.  
2. They may say that what is necessary to salvation is plain; but many places that are urged by the Author, as they relate to the point in controversy, are not absolutely necessary to salvation. Necessary it is for us to know Christ to die for sin, and to be the Messiah, and to procure life for them that believe; but whether for some or for all, it is not necessary to salvation to know; for I am not so uncharitable as to think 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 believe 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 known, 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 plain to an humble and diligent rearer; true; but we say to an unwary and arrogant Reader, that to foment his own conceits will snatch at the natural import of the wo●d to uphold it, to such the sense may not be plain, 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 proof.  
He would prove it unjust thus.  
[It is unjust, seeing it is granted by Interpreters that hard and difficult places, as Sacramental, allegorical, parabolical, are to be opened by plain places, not plain places obscured by them.] This though true, makes nothing to the proving what we say unjust. For  
1. That which we affirm is (that all places are not meant as the words import;) now in that he mentioneth hard, difficult places, as Sacramental, parabolical, allegorical, he confirmeth us; for in such expresses, the sense is not as the words seem to import.  
2. It proveth not the assertion unjust, because we do not obtrude any sense upon 1 Tim. 2.6. Heb. 2.9. from such hard places; only 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 door, a vine] do 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 himself.  
He prooveth it absurd and gross thus.  
[It is gross, intimating as if the sense of the words seem to import that Christ was a door of wood; or as if the bread was transubstantiate into the natural body of Christ, whereas there is no words importing such a sense.] But it is not half so gross as the Author's 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 gross, intimating that the sense of the words import Christ a material door: gross indeed, but this is not the sense of our assertion. But this we may say, that the words may seem to import some such thing, though it be but a gross 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 think Christ to be a material door, as Nicodemus of a natural birth, his Disciples of a material leaven of bread, when he spoke of the leaven of heresy and hypocrisy; and the Jews of the material Temple, when he spoke of the Temple of his Body; yet in in all these (how gross soever) they followed the natural import of the words. But he illustrateth himself in this manner.  
[If a man say to his servant, reach me my cloth in the press, and a Dame to her maid, turn the cheese in the press; the child cries to his mother, the pot runneth over: cannot these be understood in the sense that the words import?] Certainly, Animus fuit in patinis, his mind was in his dishes, or in the potridge pot; but if his understanding had not run 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 press, o● the child to his mother, I am a pot, let the Author tell; may such say be understood in the sense they seem to import? I am necessitated to traverse his exotricke examples.  
He proveth it false thus.  
[It is false, for Christ is the door 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 own meaning, the natural import of the words doth not afford it; we say not that he is not the door of entrance into God and peace, but that by the natural import of the words themselves such a meaning cannot be deduced: besides Christ is no more a door, or a Vine, than he is said to be the seeds man, the field the World, the good seed the Children of the Kingdom, 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 real identity, but a similitude, as verse 24. The Kingdom of Heaven is like to a man that sowed, so in the rest, so in this, it meaneth but thus; Christ is like a door, and like a Vine, beareth an analogy with them, therefore the Text saith, he spoke to them this parable, john. 10.6. relating to the same business: yet if any shall think him a material door, they shall be deceived, though he say I am the door. As for that phrase [This  is my body] he thus answereth,  
[He saith not this bread is my body, nor any word to colour such a gross conceit as transubstantiation.] Whereas he saith [it saith not [this bread is my body,] he must mean as if Christ should say this [meaning his own body, he being there present,] is my body; but this is weak and absurd, not to insist upon those reasons deduced from the Sacramental use and relation, betwixt his body and that which he spoke of; but it could not be Sacramental if he meant his body; for it could not be both the sign and thing signified. Not to insist on reasons deduced from our showing Christ's death till he come, in breaking of bread, as 1 Cor. 11. which cannot be, if the bread broken and given was not the sign 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 lean Kine are seven years] etc. But this argument I chiefly propound; when he took the cup, and said [this is my blood] what did he show them? some drops of his blood? certainly he meant not his blood, but the wine that he took; let him decide himself, Luke. 22.20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [this cup is my blood.] than it is absurd to say or think 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 took; now the words being thus, following the import of the word [Is] may we not run 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 natural 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 always 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 seem to import.   

Reason. 2.  
The second reason by which we prove that all Scripture is not understood as the words seem to import, is this; because the phrases (All men) (every man) etc. seems to import no less than every son of Adam; else the Author would not so confidently fasten that large sense upon them; but in many Texts such phrases mean but some of Adam's sons; therefore not to be understood as the words seem to import; to this he answers.  
[This reason is already answered, and proved vain 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) seem to import no less than every son 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 seem to import. Now let any perose his fifth Chapter, and see which of all these he hath proved vain 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 Adam's sons.  
2. That those phrases are not to have the same latitude in Redemption as in Creation.  
3. That the business treated of in 1 Tim. 2.6. Heb. 2.9. doth not evince those places to have that large extent, to which Chapter I refer the Reader; therefore this reason is also valid.   

Reason. 3.  
The third reason by which we prove that Scripture is not always 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 Sheep.] Now before I reply to his answers, I must premise the authors unjust forgeries in these 2 particulars.  
1. 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. etc. do not take in every son of Adam; because the death of Christ is in Scripture said to be for many, for his sheep.  
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 Adam's sons. to this he answers.  
[This reason is weak, for the word many signifieth all and every, as Dan. 12.2. Rom. 15.19.] Be it so, yet let us see where the weakness lies most; we argue thus. The death of Christ is said in Scripture to be for many, and that many his sheep, therefore meant but for many; Therefore when it is said to be for all men, it is not clear that that phrase taketh in all Adam's sons. 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 son 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 weak; one particular cannot conclude negatively against an other particular▪ nay suppose (many) in some places take in every son of Adam, yet in most places, ten to one, it excludeth the largest sense, than we may justly doubt whether that place, Mat. 26.28. be so large in extent.  
[This is equivocal, subtle and fraudulent, seeing when (All men) (every man) is affirmed of the death of Christ, and the ransom and fruits thereof only is affirmed for them.]  
This reply is more full of weakness than subtlety; for let this be granted, yet this is not refelled thereby; that it is not clear 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 ransom as he taketh ransom.  
2. When he speaks of death or ransom, it is sometimes expressed generally but in more restrictive terms.  
3. When in that case such general words are used, they are not yet proved to have such a general 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 himself a ransom but for many, or only for many, or only for his sheep, and it is ungodliness to add 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 appear to us but that it is the true sense, because that the word (Many) in most places of Scripture excludes that general sense, and meaneth (but many) therefore till better proofs to the contrary, we may conclude th●t that Text, Mat 20 28. is meant but so many; and what ungodliness or falsity is this? no nor adding to the word; for that Text 1 Tim. 2.6. saith not that Christ is a ransom for every son 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 down his life for his sheep only: (therefore thus to charge is both false and ungodly) but we say it is so meant, as may appear by the current of promises and the whole series of john 10. and we need not fear to affirm this, more than John. 3.16. to be meant of Believers only, when he saith [That those that beeleeve might not perish,] but of this I have spoken at large formerly.  
[This reason is deceitful and erroneous, for the Scripture doth not say those many he died for are his sheep.] 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 (deceitfulness,) and as his third he charged it with (false,) no● with (erroneous;) I wonder that as he charged it with ungodliness, he doth not charge it after with impiety; certainly he wanteth matter seeing he useth so many words ridiculously.  
2. We find not express words thus, [those many he died for are his sheep,] neither do we so affirm, but by comparing Scriptures there is that by good consequence; for John. 10.15. faith [I lay down my life for my sheep.] Mat. 20.28. saith it is for [many,] therefore these are affirmed by good consequence, that those sheep are many, and that many are sheep. So Isay. 53. saith, [He shall justify 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 appears no deceit; and in that Mat 20.28. saith, for many 1 Tim. 2.6. for all, John. 10.15. for his sheep, we dare hence conclude, that (many) (All) (sheep) are concentred in one, and thus we reason, many are all and all are sheep, and those sheep many, and the error herein is no where yet made clear 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, etc. But those that believe on him, and those that believe not on him. verse. 4, 5.14.26.27.] Whereby it appeareth that he hath not yet discovered the chief drift of that Chapter, which is to show the difference betwixt himself the good Shepherd, and those hirelings which he so sharply 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 believe and them that believe not, what differences are they? let us peruse the Text: one is, they that believe are sheep, those that persist in infidelity are not so, ver. 26. this is now in relation to God, all are believers or unbelievers; so all are sheep or goats, but there are other differences, something what they do for Christ, something what Christ doth for them; as [his Sheep know him,] others do not: his sheep [hear his voice] others do not. ver. 14. Herein is a double difference clear, betwixt them that are sheep and are not, and them that know him and hear him and them that do not. So in the things he doth for them, [I know my sheep, ver. 14.] others not, [Mat. 25.12.] now will any say that here is not a double difference? viz. betwixt them that are sheep, and them that are not; the one be knoweth, the other not; as also between them that are known of him, and them that are not; the one as sheep, the other not. So in the other, [I lay down my life for my sheep,] now is not here a clear difference two ways, betwixt sheep and not sheep? 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 sheep, the other are not: So in ver. 27, 28. he saith, [My sheep hear me, and I give them eternal life;] here is a manifest difference between sheep and not sheep, the one have eternal life, the other not: as also between them that have eternal life, and them that have not; the one are sheep the other are not; such as these, and all these have in them [differentiam convertibilem] convertible differences that may be form either ways; therefore the abuse of the place lighteth upon himself; for in showing the difference betwixt them that believe, and believe not; that are sheep, 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 privilege of all he died for, but of those that believe on him through the Ministration of the Gospel.] These are still opposed very ill; for in showing the privileges of them that believe, he showeth also of them for whom he died; for he layeth down his life for his sheep. But if we soberly consider the Text, it will appear that he layeth down the privilege of them for whom he died. For ver. 27. he saith, [my sheep hear my voice,] doth he not there show the mutual privileges of them that are sheep, and also of them that hear his voice? those that are his sheep hear his voice, and such as hear his voice are his sheep. ver. 14. [I know my sheep,] doth he not there show that all that are known of him are sheep? ver. 28. [I give my sheep eternal life.] doth he not there show, that all to whom he giveth eternal life are sheep? if any hear his voice, or know him, or he know any, or give life to any but sheep, then are his expresses invalid. So in ver. 15. [I lay down my life for my sheep;] let him tell me (and not abuse both reason and Scripture) doth not he here show likewise that all that he died for are sheep? if so, than he showeth the privilege of all he died for, they are sheep, therefore hear him, he knoweth them, and giveth to them all eternal life; and what is more clear than this?  
[Nor was our Saviour so much treating of his ransom giving, etc. as of his Ministration of the Gospel, and so his love and faithfulness in it, in laying down his life for the ministered to; and therein gave us an example not to make propitiation for sin, but to testify love in suffering.] What pains taketh he to abuse himself, his readers, and the Text at once? For  
1. It appeareth plainly that verse 15. doth chiefly and only speak of his ransom giving in that it treateth of laying down his life; for in giving his life he gave a ransom, Mat. 20.28. [Shall give his life a ransom for many] why should he so abuse the Text, as to say it treateth not of ransom giving, when it manifestly treateth of giving his life?  
2. Whereas he saith, [not so much of his ransom as ministration of the Gospel,] seems to intimate that his giving a ransom 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 ransom for many]  
3. Whereas he saith, [not so much of ransom giving, as his love and faithfulness in giving his life for the ministered to;] intimating that his giving his life, is not a giving a ransom: but doth not he herein abuse Scripture, his Readers, himself at once● what is ransom but the life of Christ, Mat. 20.28. his life a ransom for many?  
4. His last clause, viz. [as an example not of making propitiation for sin, but to testify love,] intimateth these two things.  
1. That where the ransom 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 ransom giving, it is not set down as a motive to love and suffer for the brethren, wherein he abuseth not Scripture only, but himself also; for page 26. he saith thus, [The death of Christ in respect of ransom is propounded to believers 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 own gross conceit,) yet it is well put in by way of answer to an objection which might arise from the premises; for if any shall ask why Christ meaning but some, should use such words and expressions, as by their natural import may seem to take in every son of Adam, the reason is ready at hand, [That so the Gentiles might not exclude themselves, nor the Jews exclude the Gentiles, when either might on good ground; Christ being sent to the jews, not to the way of the Gentiles, and he commands his disciples accordingly.] This reason he undertaketh to refel: and first he would show the absurdity of the assertion itself, viz. [There was great reason why, when he meant but some, he should yet use such expresses as may in their natural import seem to take in all,] and taketh much pains therein as followeth. [That any other doctrine or contrary words should be necessary to deliver the Gospel within these our times is monstrous to affirm.] 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 seem to import every man, when yet they meant but some; where lieth the strength of this Argument? Christ in himself 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 own meaning; for as he saith, page 73. [to any that understandeth, the truth of of his word will appear to be right and plain according to the words which he useth.] But he further urgeth.  
[Those whose faith we are to follow, are such whose words, etc. hold forth Christ, yesterday, today, and the same for ever.] Which is so far from overthrowing us, that it confirms us; he was for ever the Redeemer and Saviour both of Jews and Gentiles, which Gentiles should know it and be gathered to him in his time; therefore in his time he used such general expressions that might bespeak so much both to the Jew and Gentile; these general terms now used make no change in Christ, but the contrary.  
[Do not the words of Christ and his Apostles express their meaning?] This fond Query hath had its answer already; yes they do so, but their meaning is not always according to the natural 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 fullness 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 fit words to express 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 find better words than he hath used; therefore it was not fit for him to use such general expressions, when yet he meant but some: what piercing eye can discern the strength of his reason? It is irksome to follow him in such froth and impertinency that can neither please nor satisfy the learned. But he comes at last to an ecstasy.  
O ye Heavens be astonished!] O the admiration of ignorance! at which the Heavens may stand astonished, in that he triumphs in such weak reasonings, and at his impudence in putting such into print to scourge the ears of the world. We 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 sheep; they may (bene convenire inters●) well agree in one; which ariseth of all the needless allegations produced by him. page 78. 79.  
He than invadeth the reason itself, why Christ should use such general expressions, viz. to temper those particular ones which he had used before, with which those general might agree, yet cure some mistakes that might and did arise from the particular; the reason he sets down and then answers, this reason is grounded on the ensuing particulars which he reciteth.  
The ground of it in full vigour is thus; the legal pedagogy that was the finger to point at Christ to type him out, was exhibited only to the Jews, as privileges 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 only; Christ himself said he was sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, Mat. 15.24. He forbade 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 Jews only. To this he thus replieth.  
[This part of the reason is weak and frothy, for it is evident to a mean understanding, that our Saviour Matthew. 15.24. speaketh not of his mission to die, etc. but his mission for his ministration here on earth, which was for the Jews, Rom. 8.9. which mission with greater enlargedness he left with his Disciples, Matt. 28.20.] I shall first clear further the force of the reason, then rejoin to his reply; the first I shall do in showing these 3 particulars.  
1. That there were many things at which the Jews might take occasion to stumble at the Gentiles; as Christ being borne of the Jews, the seed of Abraham, brought up amongst them, exercising his ministry, living, dying amongst them, chargeing his Apostles not to go to the Gentiles as strangers and dog; which are clear, Rom. 9 3, 4, 5. Mat. 10.5.  
2. That from those there was an actual stumbling at them, as a people estranged and unclean; 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 believed they admired, Acts 10.45. even believing Jews, Acts. 11.18. they said [than 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 himself was not free from this, in that a vision was sent to him to prepare him to go to Cornelius a Gentile, and from his own words, Acts, 10.34. [of a truth I perceive that God is no respect 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 general expresses (all men) (every man,) the one being in the Hieroglyphic, what the other is in viuâ voce, and both these to prevent and remove the same stumbling block against the Gentiles.  
Now to consider his reply.  
He faith this reason is weak 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 ransom 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 chief part, and all things else in reference to it, Mat. 20.28. [To minister and to give his life a ransom for many,] therefore for him to say not to die but to minister to, is weak 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 jews, 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 wholly exclusive, yea or no, it sufficeth us if there was good ground so to think, as any may see there was, when he answered to her suit, [I was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,] now the Jews being ready to snatch at the word, [house of Israel] as their proper privilege, 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 virtue of his mission, but only to hid and secure himself in those parts of Tyre and Sydon; therefore this accidental 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 only to promulge the Gospel, the one, or other, or both; yet his speech Mat. 15.24 gave good occasion to the Jews 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 further 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 sheep of the house of Israel; he came to save that which was lost, to redeem, to die for. John. 3.16. But when Christ sent his Disciples to the lost sheep of Israel, Mat. 10.5. he sent them not to die for them, to be their Saviour's; Christ was sent to perform 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 do more, even to die.  
[This could be no reason to darken or straighten the extent of the death of Christ, much less of using such general terms as all men, etc.] True, neither did he straighten it, but enlarged it, not larger than it was indeed, but larger than the Jews did apprehend it; and this was reason enough of using such general terms as made way for the Gentiles. But he attempteth to prove that those general terms could not be produced to cure such an offence taken from such speeches. Mat. 15 24. Thus,  
[1. Before the mission of Christ's Disciples, or his speaking to the woman of Canaan, he was said to be send into the world, that the world might be saved, etc.] Which proveth it not, because although those say 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 equal occasion. To pass by all the Prophecies, types, prefigurations of Christ which were exhibited to the Jews only; in which regard they have the pre-eminence of the Gentiles; but Mat. 1.21. he is said by the angels to be the Saviour of his people: and expressly, Mat. 2.6. Israel, this was enough to create that stumbling against the Gentiles, but this was before any such general terms.  
Besides the word world, doth not temper those confining expressions, because that word might and is used as to include no more than the Jews, they being most potent and catholic in the world, Luke, 2.1.  
[2. Their mission was afterwards enlarged to go into all the world, Mat. 20.28. and then no necessity of using words importing more than truth.] To wave his expresses of [using words importing more than 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 coming to the Gentiles, Acts. 11.1.2.3. and they were not satisfied till he shows them the vision, which was but equivalent to these general terms, and then they admitted them, but with admiration, that to them should be granted repentance.  
[3. Whilst these general words were frequent in use, the same is still affirmed of Christ's administration, that it was for the Circumcision. Rom. 15.8, 9▪] And good reason because those general expresses were to let in the Gentiles, not to exclude the jews; but therein, Rom. 15.8, 9 both Jew and Gentile are inserted, that they might both mutually embrace each other, this argueth not those general expresses were not used to cure a mistake in the jews excluding the Gentiles, when there were no such expressions as did let them in: if he had produced any Text, speaking of the jews so exclusively as formerly, than he had said something; but take his reasons as they are, and they are reasonless and miserable, and by this it appears 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.  
[Haddit not the Jews been for a long time the only 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 general words should be used, which might inform the jews, 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 been as backward to, as to eat the creatures that he called unclean; and he was moved thereto, when he knew that of every Nation those that work righteousness 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 weak and frothy, he foams out little but such expressions of venom and contempt, but how doth he make it appear?  
Thus, [The ignorance of some in the mysteries of grace, is no proof that the God of Truth will speak 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 again that Gods using such expressions, when yet he means but some, is no way contrary to truth. This I have proved at large, and it is in many pages confessed by himself, 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 natural import seem to yield an other meaning; and where is the emptiness in all this? So for the rest of his reply, it is nothing but a heap of reiterate 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 only I shall in few words rejoin.  
He saith, page 83. 84. [The Jews that believed, did not contend for preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, (as doubting of ransom for them) but for fellowship and partaking of their privileges, being not regulated to them; therefore that place, Act. 10.45. & 11.18. etc. is misalledged.] Hence inferring, that these expresses (All men) (every man) being applied to the death and ransom of Christ, needed not to be produced to cure any such stumbling of the jews, because there was no stumbling concerning the Gospel or death or ransom, but only at their partaking of privileges: now the argument is good, but weakly founded, as elsewhere when he produceth that which is pertinent, he falleth short in proof.  
For,  
1. There was as fair occasion of stumbling at the Gentiles receiving of the Gospel, or any spiritual benefit from Christ's death, as any temporal; the discrimination is more made in spiritual then temporal privileges, as appears Mat. 10.5. go not to the Gentiles, that is, to preach the Gospel, Rom. 9 covenants, glory, law, promises, Christ, were their peculiar privileges, Rom. 3. the oracles of God.  
2. That they did stumble at that is evident; by the cure we may gather the disease; what was the vision to prepare Peter for? Acts, 10. to receive them into some outward privilege only? or whether to go to them to preach the Gospel? consult with that Text, any that please; what was the occasion that the jews contended with Peter? was it because the Geniles had partaken of outward privileges? or because they had received the word of God? consult with Acts, 11.1. what is more clear than that the jews stumbled at the preaching Gospel to them?  
3. To say they stumbled not at their receiving of the Gospel, but partaking of privileges, is too weak; they are not to be opposed; for in partaking of the Gospel they looked at it as partaking of their chief privilege; for so it was, Rom. 3.2.3. & 9.3.4, 5.  
4. What did the Jews admire, what were they astonished at? not for any outward privileges, 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 belonged to them; this is clear to any capacity; therefore it is reason that such terms 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 believing Jews in respect of themselves, because they reckoned themselves the people of God.] Which might well have been spared, because we plead it not to confirm the Jews of themselves, but to let in the Gentiles of whom they doubted: yet something in respect of themselves, that they might not think themselves solely the seed of Abraham, or because lineally descended, but that they are so by the faith of Abraham, and all that believe are so, which the Apostle labours much to press. Rom. 9.6.7.8. Gal 3.7.8.9. which is much helped by such general expressions letting in the Gentiles. [For the Jews in respect of Gentiles, it could be no reason whilst the ministration of the Gospel was not sent to the Gentiles.] To this I say, neither were such general expressions frequent or much used, if at all, till such times as the Apostles commission was enlarged, but if any be found, it was to prepare them for that business before hand, as the vision was sent to Peter before he heard of his going to Cornelius. Again,  
[We see it had not that effect with the believing Jews, 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.  
Again he urgeth, [On the part of such Gentiles as were brought to believe, before the use of such general words, it could be no reason; and yet to them is the Gospel set forth in general terms.] None of his produced Texts, viz. Rom. 3.22. & 5.12.18. prove that any Gentile was converted before the use of such general terms; 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 privileges, as being endeared to the jews being Proselytes, and so under the notion of jews; but hitherto there was no way for Gentiles as Gentiles, and unproselyted to the jews 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 own words, let our weak and and frothy reasons, his irreffragable and strong answers, and the dealing with Scripture in both be well prepended, and then we are content that those Epithets, injurious, unjust, absurd, false, weak, fraudulent, ungodly, deceitful, frothy, (terms which he much trades in) rest where they fall; and let me counsel him ere I go from this, to be more merciful to himself, and spare those loads of epithets of calumny, (symptoms of a bad cause, or weak maintainers of a good one) for in the upshot they prove commonly his own share, and so in branding an other, he pictureth out himself to the life.    

CHAP. XIIII. Of answering a second Objection.  
THe second Argument which he undertaketh to refute as he produceth, it is this.  
[Saint john makes it an infallible mark of the love of Christ to them for whom he died and laid down his life, 1 john. 3.16.  
But God hath not loved every man in the world, for he hated Esau, Rom. 9, 13. but his Church whom he loveth to the end, Ephes. 5.25.  
Ergo, Christ did not die for every man.] The former which he produced, was no argument; and this so miserably abused, that any intelligent man may be ashamed to own it, and confident I am he cannot produce it from any pen, unless such as himself, propounding it purposely to make it vile and odious; that wherein the vigour of the argument lieth, is left out, and a superfluity of confusion intermingled, which giveth us a taste of his faithfulness in this business, which he at first promised; if he do it willingly, he is to be blamed; if ignorantly, he will not I hope think much to be informed: the argument in its genuine shape runs thus, and it was the sixth in order in the conscience at Hague.  
[Those for whom Christ died, he loved them (some) with the top and greatest love that is shown to man,  
But so he loveth not all and every man with his greatest love.  
Ergo, He died not for every man,] that is for every son of Adam.]  
The major proposition, is grounded on many Texts, wherein the love of Christ in dying for us is not set down as an expression of love barely, but with an emphasis and transcendebly, as Rom. 5.8. a love with all commendation or magnification, 1 john. 3.16. He so loved the world; not great love only but greatest, John 15.13. no greater love than for a man to lay down his life for his friend; but Christ's greater, in that he did it when we were enemies; therefore we propound it not so remissely as he fallaciously, [whom he dieth for he loveth,] and no more, but loveth eminently with the greatest love.  
The minor is undeniable; for that God should love every man most and with his greatest love, yea the damned with so great, as beloveth the saved withal, the Arminians durst never yet affirm, Scripture no where speaketh, and the Author himself overthroweth, page 89. [to some more especial love is shown.] Now any may see the wide difference betwixt the argument in its genuine force, and as he propounds it, and all his answers fall to the ground, being apted not to the argument, but his perversions of it, yet I shall reply that I may reduce him to truth.  
As for that Text 1 john, 3.16. it is picked out of purpose by himself, it is not so clearly holding f●ith the force of the argument as many others; yet to take it as it lieth, let us consider that it meaneth that transcendent love, beyond the greatest of man's. Hereby perceive we that love, Cap. 4.10, 11. and if he so loved us, and behold what love. Cap. 3 ver. 1. Now can every son of Adam? say, I perceive the greatest love of God to me in that Christ died for me; if every man perceiveth the greatest love, than no room for his express, page 89. [to some more special favour i● shown.]  
His after-plea [The place speaks of the perception of love by beleivers,] helpeth not, because it speaketh of no other perception then what arose from the former assertion: [Christ hath died for us,] it is a conclusion from infallible premises which any may conclude that can so premise; there is such a connexion betwixt his dying for and his greatest love, that every one that affirmeth the one, doth (in eodem instanti) affirm the other; it is no special privilege of some to perceive his greatest love in dying for them, but of all for whom he died. Thus for the major.  
He then violently assaulteth the minor thus,  
[The assumption is full of infidelity and blasphemy.] A heavy charge, if he can make his charge good; but like ●ailing Ra●shekah, he oftener barketh than biteth; but how great is his impudence and injury to misalledge his adversary into infidelity and blasphemy? let him take the assumption as he should propound it. viz. [God loveth not every man with his greatest love,] then either it is not infidelity and blasphemy, or else he is equally guilty with us: for he saith, page 89. [God giveth to some more special love] if so, than he loveth not every man with his special and greatest love; nay, yet further he saith, page 90. [If it had been God loveth not every man in the world, it might be granted and proved,] which is more than he can prove; but if it be a truth that he loveth not every man in the world, then certainly it is far from infidelity and blasphemy, to say that he loveth not every man with his transcendent and greatest love; no nor ever hath loved every man with his greatest love. Neither is it such blasphemy as he pretendeth, to say, that he hath not nor doth love any but his Church with his transcendent or greatest love; the Apostle giveth great reason so to affirm, Ephes. 5.25, 26. He therefore exhorteth to conjugal affection, which is the greatest and strongest of all relations, and to the greatest and highest degree of that kind; and the pattern of this he fetcheth from Christ to his Church, and that expressed in giving up himself to death for them; is it not clear that he loveth his Church with his transcendent and greatest love? nay, this he plainly affirmeth, page 9●. from this very Text Ephes. 5.25. where he saith, [That Text speaks of higher ends of giving himself then ransom, even of the special fruits of application, ver. 26. so the Author, page 94.] So intimating that the application holds forth, greater love than the giving his life to procure; but this is groundless; for though the Text speaketh of the application of his blood, yet the specimen of his transcendent love is not in that, but his giving himself to that end, [In that he loved it and gave himself for it.] Besides Scripture speaketh as if to give his life to procure, is a sign of greater love, then to give his spirit to sanctify; the Apostle enforceth from the greater to the less, if he gave us him to die for us, much more with him will he give us all things; spirit to help infirmities, vocation, justification, glorification, Rom. 9.32. And when the Scripture commendeth his love, it is not that he gives them Spirit to apply, but his life to merit, in that he died; and no better testimony do I desire then of the Remonstrants themselves. 
Collat. Hagien. in Arg. 6. ] [Quum vitâ nullum pretiosius pignus quia pro alio constituere potest, merito dicitur summam esse charitatem vitam deponere; hoc cum scipo Christi convenit, sicut & cum aliis locis, Ephes. 1.2. 1 john. 3.16.] That is, seeing none can lay down for any a greater pledge than life, therefore it is deservedly said, that it is the greatest love to lay down life for one: by which the evidence both of Major and M●nor appeareth.  
But here in page 90, he instanceth where the blasphemy of our assumption lieth, viz. in contradicting and blaspheming many Texts of Scripture, as john, 3.16. where it speaks of God's love to the world; true, but is in the believing part of it, as the afterwords show, for them that believe not, whom God forseeth, how doth God express his love to them? doth he send his son to die for them? that as many of them (whom he forseeth to persist in unbelief) as that believe, should not perish? So he saith it blasphemeth, [Psal. 145.8.9.136.25. where it saith, the Lord is good to all,] but d●th our affirmation, viz. [that God loveth only his Church with his highest and greatest love?] contradict that of the Psalmist, viz. [that God is good to all?] let the Author better consider, hath the Lord nothing to bestow, unless he give them the top of his love? Thirdly, he saith it contradicteth [the force of all his exhortations, and calls to such as refuse,] nay, it leaveth a way for these, there being not his highest love; for greater it is for God to give hearts willing to obey his call, which his very words intimate he giveth not to all, therefore loveth not all with his highest love. And so for the rest, they are weak and to no purpose alleged, only apted against this position, [that God hath not loved every man at all,] which is not our affirmation; let them that broach it maintain it.  
But he hath a more stupendious piece of blasphemy against our assumption, viz.  
[It saith he hath not loved any other of mankind, no not when he made and beheld them all righteous, but hated them; Oh fearful to say! that he hateth the righteous, Psalm. 45.7.] But here envy speaketh, and ignorance admires; for we say not, nor can it be inferred from us, that God loved not innocent man at all, but that he loved not him with his transcendent and greatest love, he did not manifest the top of his love to him: and this is no such blasphemy or fearful thing to say; for the gift that he gave to his Church, viz. (His Son) was greater than primitive grace, or any thing that he conferred in the creation, and our deserts less; for though in creation we could deserve no good, and so his gift be free: yet now in in our restoring we deserved much evil; in creation what good he gave us was only without merit, but he now bestoweth all against our me it; hence the scripture puts the emphasis of love upon the work of redemption, mercy having more in it then mere goodness: by the former rather than by the latter, he would be known as by his glory. Exod. 33.19. & 34.6.7.  
But besides why should he fasten that on us as blasphemy, which will prove the result of his own words? he saith, [to hate is to love in a less degree,] page 92. now doth not God love the righteous in a less degree than he loveth his only Son in? then he hateth the righteous by his own doctrine; oh fearful to say! but thus much is clear, that grant him that God loved innocent man; yet it followeth not, that he loved every man with the top and greatest of his love; so that our Minor yet standeth good.  
But he descendeth to give some satisfactory answer to the argument, and it is well he doth so, for his former words have yielded but little, it is well if his afterwords yield more; we shall not shut our eyes against it. He would have the Scripture shown where it speaketh of the love and hatred; let it be so, as also his words which are these. [The Scripture mentioneth a divers kind and degree of love and hatred in God shown in the effects of it.] Now herein I shall willingly join issue with him, seriously to consider and weigh not only what Scripture saith, but what the Scripture meaneth in such speeches, lest we vent our own conceits unworthy the nature of God; love and hatred is no more attributed to God, then desire, grief, rejoicing, with all other affections and passions of men, which in us are perturbations, and why not then love and hatred? but to grant any perturbations in God, comes little short of blasphemy; therefore it may be controverted, whether as all the rest of our affections (incident to us) so love and hatred be attributed to God properly, or only by an Anthropopathy; as the members of our body are given to him by an Anthropomorphy; that there is such a thing in God which we call love I grant; but that the name of love and hatred is but figuratively given to it, that also I affirm; God's love is generally thus defined. [Velle dare bonum creaturis,] a will to bestow good upon his creatures; now this will is properly said to be in God, but it is (as I conceive) figuratively called love, after the manner of men, because whom man loveth, to him he willeth to bestow good: So Gods will to bestow good is termed his love; yet this is the difference, man's will to bestow good is an effect of his love; but God when he willeth to give good, it is not any effect of his love, but his love itself. Scripture furnisheth us with such expressions, John. 3.16. God so loved the world that he sent his Son, that is, his actual sending is an effect of his love, that is of his will to send; but we never find this nor any such, God so loved that he willed to send his Son, because his will to send his Son is that love itself. Hence that assertion of Cortinus in Molin. l. 5. s. 3 [Letoy him that will consult with him] about that expression. [Alius affectus mensura alterius affectus & causa quod deus decretum faciat;] hath not stabiliment at all in Scripture; this being considered, it will appear that God's love hath no augmentation, diminution, alteration, diversification, 
Aquin. p. 1● Q 20. Art. 30. Q. 20. Art. 20. Q. 23. Art. 30.  but what proceeds from the good things bestowed, or will to bestow them; so that as God is said to will a greater or less good, so he is said to love more or less, [Ex parte boni voliti unum diligit magis aut minus.] And as the willeth some good freely, and yet some evil for the sin of the creature, that creature may be said to be both loved and hated, [Idem potest odio haberi & amari; diversa ratione peccator & amatur & odio habetur,] and that as God willeth to give this man eternal life, and to deny that man the same good, he is said to love the one, and hate the other, although to both he give some good. [Deus omnes amat in quantum omnibus dat aliquod bonum; in quantum aliquibus non dat vitam aeternam, ideo eos od o habet.] These being considered, I shall make it appear that there is more fear of his confounding the degrees of his love of compassion then that we should confound his love of compassion and delight as he speaketh. Now to proceed to what he saith of God's love and hatred: of God's love he speaketh of a double sort.  
Love of 

Compassion.  
and Delight.    
I shall not insist on these terms, though I might and show his want of wisdom in hinting such expressions without explanation; for true, the Scripture gives to God [compassion,] but in compassion there must needs be passion, but none in God: Nor yet to insist upon what he saith of either by way of bounding to each its limits in good things bestowed, though I might expatiate myself herein; for he maketh God's compassion and mercy to extend no further then to make men salvable, and his delight to be in the giving union and possession of all privileges, but this division is without ground; for all good that God gives to fallen man, even to glory itself, floweth from his compassion and mercy; glory in heaven is mercy as well as any thing we receive on earth, 2 Tim. 1.18. and all that love that rests not till the party loved be brought into union etc. is that love of compassion, (though he make it to be the love of delight,) which properly rests not till all that be done; for delight is rather in the thing done, then tending to the doing of it; these two constitute not a good distinction as he boundeth them: but these with many other things I pass by, and come to examine what he speaketh of hatred: that also he saith is twofold.  
[1. A not so much loving, as Gen. 29.30.31.33. Luke. 14.26.  
2. A positive and furious hatred tending to the destruction of the hated, Deut. 19.11.]  
Now that a not so much loving should be called hatred, is not clear from those Texts alleged; as for Gen. 29.30. that Text speaketh not of a less degree of love, but of no love at all, that is, conjugal affection; so he loved her not at all, therefore hated her: and for Luke, 14.26. there is not spoken of a less love, but absolute hatred, if they stand in opposition to Christ; for else it is enough to give worldly respects some part, so that we give Christ the greatest part of our love; but this is not sound divinity. Again if a not so much loving be hating, than it is no such fearful thing to say that God hateth the righteous; for certain it is that he loveth not them so much as he doth his only Son. But to let this pass, I am now to examine how he welldeth these weapons to cut down our assumption. That of God's love he pursueth thus fare.  
[A love of compassion and mercy, Psalm. 136.25.145.8.9. is such a love as extendeth itself so fare for the good of man loved in good things afforded, that a man is made salvable and so much done for him that in accepting, etc. he maybe saved. Psal. 36.5.6.7.]  
That God is full of compassion, and his mercy is over all his works, and he saveth man and beast, those Texts affirm, and that by the virtue of his compassion the sons of men come to partake of the well of life we grant; but all the rest is of his own making: none of these Texts say that every of the sons of men have so much of God's compassion as to have life procured for them by Christ's death, no nor yet that every man enjoyeth the height of God's compassion, this is to be yet proved; for if creatures irrational, may have much of God's compassion, and yet not the height of his compassion; why may not some men have much compassion, yet not the height of it: yet our assumption stands firm.  
Again he saith, [Less love than this was not to the Angels before they fell, nor less love to mankind before the fall, Ecel. 7.29. Gen. 12.] This though it serve him not, yet he discovereth his folly; for this supposeth that Angels and men had compassion shown them before they fell; but this is false; for compassion presupposeth misery and the fall which was not before the fall; but what is the result of all this? no more but this, that all men have some degree of God's compassion manifested on them; but what is all this to prove that every man hath the height of his compassion? so that his reasoning cometh to this head: every man hath some compassion showed him, therefore that is high blasphemy to say that every man hath not the height of his compassion; this is but miserable reasoning.  
Again thus he urgeth, [The love of compassion, and the hatred that is in a less degree of love, may stand together both in God and man, Hos. 11.5. Jer. 9.1.2.] This is a truth, nay I shall grant further, that his love of compassion and his positive hatred may stand together, that is, God may give some expresses of his compassion to many whose destruction he willeth, and whom he purposeth to destroy; and this is so far from overthrowing, that it confirmeth our assumption. For it cleareth this, that every degree of his compassion enjoyed, doth not argue an eye to the salvation of them whom God bestoweth that low degree of compassion on; therefore the compassion that God showeth to many, is no argument that every man enjoyeth also the height of God's compassion: Yet hitherto we are untouched.  
He saith further, [To say whoever he loveth with the love of compassion he loveth for ever, or to say he hateth (with any other hatred then that which is in the less degree of love,) any before they have hardened their hearts against him, etc. is contrary to Hosea, 9.10. to 15. Zach. 7.11.13. & 1.18.28. & 2.4.5.] In which words there is confusion, impropriety, and fallacy.  
1. He speaks confusedly, not distinguishing the several degrees of his compassion; for it may be granted that to whom he giveth some degrees of his compassion, he continueth not that for ever, because some good he may give that is not to last for ever, viz. a temporal good; yet certainly to whom he giveth his highest pitch of compassion, he loveth such for ever: Will he say that Rom. 6.15. is not an everlasting compassion? that compassion mentioned, jer. 31.33.34. is not for ever continued: consult with 36.37.  
2. He speaketh improperly, because though hatred may stand with a less degree of love, that is, he may deny some good to them to whom he giveth some good; yet it is not proper to say that hatred consists in that less degree of love; for in that he bestoweth any good he hateth not, neither can hatred consist in the giving that good, but rather in the denial of a greater good; he hated nor Esau in that he gave him some good, but in that he gave him not that great good that he gave to Jacob.  
3. He speaketh fallaciously, suggesting to his followers that we hold that God hateth with a hatred, that is without any degree of love; that is, he so willeth evil to to them, that he willeth not to bestow any good at all; but this we say not; for the greatest hatred, is to will to deny grace and glory, but God may give much good to such; he hateth not the reprobate with the hatred that excludeth all good; yet some, and many he hateth so as to deny them the top and height of his compassion, and that before they turn away their hearts from him; and how doth he in all this overthrow the Minor? but by this hatred which he makes to be after their turning away from him. I suppose he meaneth (or at least should do) his will to deny saving grace and glory, and then happily  
4. He may seem to speak falsely; for his will so to do is not after their turning away from him, but long before it; there is a double hatred of God mentioned in scripture. 1. A denial of saving grace to some which he giveth others, whence their turning away from him followeth, which others having turn not away. 2: A punishment of such for turning away; now the first is proper to our controversy, and it is no way against Scripture to say that such hatred is before men turn away from God; of the latter his Texts speaks, as Hos. 9.15. and nothing to the purpose; for more than this cannot be concluded; that God destroyeth none till they turn away from him, which any may grant: our hardening or not hardening our hearts cannot be the measure of his giving or denying grace, or will so to do, because his giving or not giving saving grace, is before our hardening or not hardening our hearts; as also because God doth not deny grace and glory to all that turn from him: all turning from him are not so hated of him. Paul did so in a greater measure than many that God never willed to give grace or glory to, and in them who are given over, and denied his special grace and so hated of him; he doing of it in time willed to do so before time, as be confesseth p. 121. If so, he hated them before they hardened themselves against him; Esau was hated before he had done good or evil; now if he be hated (as they would have it) in a small degree, without and before his evil, why may not God hate him in the highest degree before his evil? Justice is seen in small things as well as great ones; if any shall say, his foresight of their sins is the cause why he so hateth them: I demand why did not the foresight of Paul's infidelity move him to hate him which he saw to be greater than of many who were hated, and passed by both in respect of grace and glory? but he concludeth, wherein if ever, he must undo our assumption.  
[For such as while his compassion floweth, etc. they will persist till he give them up to Satan, such are reprobated of God, and so hated of him, 
Ezeck. 24.13. jer. 6.16.27.30. 1 joh. 5.18  etc. and none but such set forth in Scripture to be hated of God, Prov. 1.23.33. which overthroweth the assumption.] Which words are yet very fallacious, therefore not fit to satisfy us withal; for, we grant such as persist till they be given up are hated, and that in the highest degree; but here is the question, do they then begin to be hated of him? doth God's hatred follow or precede their being given up, yea their persisting? God's hatred or reprobation we make no more than a will in God to deny both special grace and glory. Now did he not will to deny it, nay did he not deny it actually to them before they persisted? certainly he did, else they would not so persist.  
We never find this method, or God thus saying [If thou persist I will reprobate thee.] Or, [if thou persist till I give thee over to Satan, I will deny thee my special grace and decree so to do,] let the Author produce such if he can. But wherein hath he in all this overthrown the assumption? his assertions are overthrown, and therefore have not strength to overthrow this assumption, that is settled upon such evidence; clear it is, (all that he saith notwithstanding) that God did decree to deny the height of his compassion to many, long before they persisted in rebellion; if so, than he did not intent Christ to them, which is the height of his compassion.  
Those Texts cited by him do all speak thus much, that every man is not loved with the height of his compassion, as Rom. 9.13. speaketh thus much, that Esau was not so much loved as jacob; and therein affirmeth that he was not loved with the height of his love; for if he had been so loved, he had received so much grace as to have kept his birthright. And this the Author granteth, page 93. [That Esau was hated in respect of peculiar love.] But he saith, [The hatred of Esau may stand with the love of compassion.] Let it be so, yet we are safe; for his hatred cannot stand with the height of his compassion, which is our assumption.  
Again he saith, [If laying his Mountain's waste did witness such hatred, did not the giving him those Mountains testify like love, though not so much as to jacob?] Were it so, yet we are where we were by his own confession. Esau was not loved with the height of his compassion, because not so much as jacob.  
Besides let the Author consider, were not those say waste, and so God's hatred of Esa●, and love to jacob, though shown in part in temporal things, yet to be accomplished in spiritual? how comes the Apostle in Rom. 9 to use this example in his business which was to prove that all Abraham's seed according to the flesh, were not heirs according to promise? As for his reiterated calumny, viz. that our assumption confoundeth the love of compassion and delight, it is not worth the naming, the contrary hath appeared; rather he confounds the several degrees of compassion, in arguing that because every man partaketh of some degree of compassion, therefore every man must partake of the highest degree; but this reasoning can never overthrow our assumption, and so our argument still holdeth firm.  
I shall again resume it.  
Those for whom Christ died so as to procure eternal life for, he loved with height and top of his love.  
But he loveth not every son of Adam with the height of his love.  
Ergo, He did not lay down his life for every son of Adam, so as to procure eternal life for them; and what passage is there in all his discourse that everteth either of these premises, from which the conclusion followeth firm?   

CHAP. XV. Of the third Objection.  
THe third Argument which he pretendeth to answer is this.  
[All they for whom Christ died to satisfy his Father's justice, are justified by his blood, etc.  
But. But every son of Adam is not justified by his blood, etc.  
Ergo, He did not die for, nor satisfy his father's justice for every son of Adam,] which argument though any that will may find it propounded in other terms, 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 himself, 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 appear in its native and intended strength. For God not to deal with Christ according to the exigence of his merits, and with us according to the merit of our mediator, 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, paid his debt, satisfied his father justice, and took away sin, and all that stood cross to our salvation, and abolished death; all which he affirms for every son 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 sin in his own person; for so the Author is pleased to say page 17. certainly then every man should stand acquitted from that charge, God's 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 principal, and as it had not been agreeing with Justice to require a second payment, if man had been able to undergo the wrath of God due to sin, and to rise out of it; so is it equally disagreeing to justice to require a second payment of any, seeing Christ hath paid it in his own person. For herein he did not die (for) but die (with) them that so die: Hence I conclude that if Christ satisfied his Father's justice for every man, they should be freed from the curse due to sin, 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 refer the several 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 mind 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 justify.  

2. To declare him justified.  
3. The Believer to apprehend or conclude himself justified.   
Justification as it is in God, existing in ment divinâ, I find 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 righteousness of Christ, and to deal with us as righteous persons; now the Arminians have, and our Author doth grant such decrees to be in God eternal, 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 runs the definition of our modern Divines: as Daven. de Justif. 310. Ames. Medul. 188. And of this justification the Scripture always speaketh, or most frequently, to wit of the promulgation of it: See Evangelii tenorem; and so only the faithful and penitent are said to be justified, and so in present existing, because to such only hath he pronounced justification; and thus he is said to justify the believer or him that believeth 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 justify the ungodly; Rom. 4.5. for so he willeth nor to impute their sins, whilst they remain ungodly, but he never pronounceth any one justified whilst they remain ungodly, Scripture not 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 clearly 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 physical 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 mind; and this act doth no more make a man (Justificatum,) than election maketh him (electum;) yet none will deny election to be an imminent action; and why God may not as well justify us from eternity, that is will not impute our sins, as to elect us, that is, will to bring us to salvation, I am not able to see. And if any object the usual stream of Scripture language, viz. that we are justified by faith, and he justifieth him that believeth in Jesus: by considering this distinction, we may break through that, and say that that is only meant of the pronunciation of it according to the tenor 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 speaks of justification through faith, etc. is because as in judiciary affairs 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 look at his legal sentence pronounced; that by the law, the person himself, and the spectators, is looked at at his absolution or acquittance. So in this case, we look at our absolution from the anour of the Gospel, thereby men come to know us, and we ourselves to be justified: this pronunciation is called justification, and this is to Believers only.  
That which in this may seem harsh, is [That a man remaining a sinner may be said to be justified;] but if it be well considered, it will not appear more harsh than this. That a man whilst a sinner, is elected to life; both are pressed with the same pretended absurdities: Again God is said to justify the ungodly Rom. 4.5. but this he doth not (quoad evangelicam promulgationem) for that is only to believers; but believers when so, are not branded with the title of ungodly; and may not this, [We are justified whilst enemies,] be received as well as this, [We are reconciled whilst enemies?] Rom. 5.10. This I commend to the Author's consideration.  
Again it is to be enquired into, from what justification freeth us; we find it thus expressed, [A peccato & morte] from sin and death, 
Ames. med.  and of this Episcopius is a sound interpreter: when it is said (a peccato,) it is no more than this, [A paenis peccati] from the punishment of sin. Disp. 45. Thes. 3. [a reatu peccatorum] from the guilt of sin. Thes. 5. and that not from the guilt of some, or one, but all sins and all condemnation, [absolutio a peccatis & omni condemnatione,] from sins 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. they. 6. ibid.  [Ab omnibus per totam vitam perpetratis,] from all committed through whole life; and when it is said, by it we are delivered from death, he meaneth eternal death: So Episcopius, [per paenam peccati intelligimus proptie paenam aeternam, quae mors aeterna dicitur in Scr.] That is, by the punishment of sin, we mean eternal death; so that now it appeareth hereby, that justification exempts not from the being of sin, nor from temporal death, nor from afflictions; for such cease to be satisfactory punishments, though they relate to sin, as Episcopius, [desinunt esse paenae, etiamfis non sine respectu ad peccatum immittantur,] but that which it removeth is the guilt and obligation to eternal 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 Father's justice for, they are justified in God's account, and shall be justified by the manifestation of this in time, both in the Gospel and their own consciences, and at last be invested with eternal life, else may Christ complain 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 seems the Minor he giveth for truth, viz. that all are not justified; but then why hath he contended for this, that all, ye every son 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 between Christ and Adam it appears, that though all men be in the public person Justified▪ yet by and through him, of the benefit of that Justification do none partake but such as have a being of him.]  
If he had shown what Scripture this had been contrary to, that we might have examined those Texts he had done fair, but he would have his Readers acted by an implicit 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 Father's justice for, shall in time to come have a being from him.  
3. His expresses in the comparison betwixt Adam and Christ, are so fare from contradicting, that they confirm the proposition: For he saith, [Though all men be in the public person justified;] doth he not here tacitly grant, that every man by virtue of his death and ransom as public 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 hindereth not; for they shall have that faith in his blood whereby they may receive this atonement; again, true, the evangelical pronunciation of satisfaction is by faith, but how doth he prove that in the mind of God, they are not justified before faith?  
[Justification is not by blood shed only, but the application of his blood.] His expressions are herein something wild, but I guess at his meaning thus; that justification is not till another work of the Spirit to be done upon the heart: but then I say if he mean it as done in the mind 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 work 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 fare 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 john, 1.7. and forgiveness verse. 9 it speaks 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 guess at his meaning; further than that, he must mean one of these two, or both; further than justification, or a cleansing further than that which is by the bloodshed of Christ; but both these are false; that it speaks of cleansing from guilt by justification, appears by ver. 9 where it expounds it by forgiving our sins, and that is such as is by bloodshed, appears 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 business 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 only false and gross in itself, but denies many say of Scripture, as john, 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 than 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 sin; and John, 8.23.24. ye shall die in your sins; by these it appeareth that all that he died for and saveth, are not justified and saved from wrath; and this may seem a specious allegation; but it hath little in it. For, by (World) in the Author's judgement is meant every Son of Adam; so that john, 3.16. saith he saved the world, john, 16.8.11. saith he shall convince the world, that is in both, every son 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 believe 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 believing, did not afterward believe; for every man that is saved, hath h●s t●me of unbelief wherein he may be convinced for not believing; therefore this Text convinceth not that they did never believe for whom Christ died.  
2. That place john, 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 sin of the world, john, 1.29. and yet he shall convince the world of sin; they shall be judged by believers, 1 Cor. 6.2. and be condemned, 1 Cor. 11.32. in all the (World) now than cannot be verified of the world the same way taken; but he saveth the world [Quoad partem credentem,] according to the believing part, and he shall condemn the (world) for sin, that is the unbelieving 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 john. 16.8.11. doth not say be satisfied his Father's 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 bear 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. etc.] It cannot but be judged too great a prodigality of time and pains to insist upon such jejune and empty expressions, that have not the least show of reason; but the nature of my Antagonist requireth it: doth the proposition say that all do not bear the image of the earthy? certainly no. It supposeth the contrary that all do; 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 bear the Image of the earthy. Justification doth not immediately reflect upon the being of sin, but obligation to punishment; and this may suffice for the two first Texts alleged by him. As for Rom. 4.5. it speaketh not of such a justification as is by faith; it speaketh of believing on him that justifieth he ungodly, but not of his justifying the ungodly upon their believing; therefore he misalledgeth that Text; he is said to justify the ungodly; but believers are never called so; especially if he reflect upon his own sense of ungodly, page 10. besides the Text showeth not that all the ungodly be justified, do 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 remain without that justification that is in him,] wants proof; for those Texts alleged do not make it appear 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 down 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 Father's 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; do 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 unless he save them from wrath to come? weak argument! and of this stamp are the rest that follow, clearly confuted in several 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 do not justify and save from wrath all those for whose sins he hath satisfied, he should be unjust; to this be answers. [A presumptuous rashness in an intimate charging God with injustice.] But where lieth the rashness, 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 himself saith page, 97. [That were injustice not only to require the whole debt again, but even any part of it, either of him or any other that are discharged by him, or to detain from him or his any thing that by virtue of his ransom 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 again 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 Author's words page 4. [All the sins the law could charge mankind withal were imputed to him; he suffered the curse, and died as the sinner, and risen acquit of all our sins, 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 sins he stood acquitted? But he saith he did so for every son of Adam, therefore doth not justify the reason of the proposition, and show the vanity of this his rash charge.  
But he thinketh to press the reason of the proposition with an absurdity.  
[God 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 sins with stripes.] Wherein it seemeth strange that the Author's ignorance should put God to his purgatories to clear his justice; but it is an easy thing to clear his justice, in that his people have both sins and sufferings: when yet it would be too clear if they should not have eternal life, because Christ did not procure that they should be taken out of an estate of sin presently, or freed from all temporal afflictions, to correct, reduce, warn themselves and others; but that they should be in part renewed, and at last come to life; but he in satisfying God's justice for them did actually free them from the curse due to sin, which is eternal death; therefore to punish any such with eternal death would entrench on his justice. I say not that temporal sufferings is endured as satisfactions for sins. I leave that soppery to the Authors; neither do 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 show as they were punishments, so they were for castigation and correction only, not satisfaction, as the eternal torments of them that perish are; but so weakly are his Texts quoted all along, as if he intended to make the word of God seem vile.  
The text by which we prove the proposition, is Rom. 5.9. [If whilst enemies we were reconciled by the death of his Son, much more being reconciled shall we be saved by his life.] To this he thus answereth, [It saith not that all Christ died for etc. shall be saved by his life; but speaking of Believers etc. they should much more be saved by his life.] Which is a mere shift, and no handsome one neither. For let us but seriously consider he makes reconciliation, and his death is of equal extent, if we were reconciled by his death, and so doth the Author. Secondly, he maketh reconciliation and salvation of equal 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 gloss, [But speaking of Believers he saith that much more they shall be saved.] It is a perversion of a clear Text; for it saith not [Much more shall we believers be saved,] which it would have been, if his perversion had been right; but it is much more, we being reconciled, not, [we believers,] but [we reconciled;] their confidence of salvation was deduced not from their condition of believing; but what Christ hath done by dying, viz. reconciled them, and this drawn 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 [Gross ignorance in the end of Christ's 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, freedom from death, enjoyment of life in him.] How he discovereth his own ignorance, to make the ignorance of his advantage known? he discovers ignorance  
1. Of the nature of justification; for that expression, [Be possessed of all that justification,] implieth that justification is successive, and retained 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 spiritual work which leadeth to it; therefore he is either ignorant, or perverse thus to say.  
3. If we be ignorant in the end of Christ's death, I believe he will not inform 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 height justify them that believe, 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 believe, and condemn them that believe not, than a joint end of his death was to condemn contrary to John, 3.17. I came not to condemn.  
3. Herein is not mentioned that end, Tit. 2.14. viz. to purchase holiness, that we may be fitted for glory: if he know it not, he is ignorant; if he wilfully leave it out, worse.  
4. This description excludes all purpose to have any saved; but if they either be saved by faith, or condemned for unbelief, 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, than he is too remiss 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 business I have shown Chapter 3. that the main end so fare as it relateth to man, is to give eternal life, and all those are but intermediate ends as to become their Lord, etc.  
As for that which he produceth as one end, viz. satisfaction of his Father's justice, it is not intended for itself, but for something further; now what can he intent less in satisfying his Father's justice, then that they for whom he so did should not answer or suffer for any of those sins? doth then, to say that all those for whom he so satisfied shall be free from suffering for those sins, argue any ignorance in the ends of Christ's death? or he that denyeth it, it discovers more? let any judge.  
But he cometh to answer the objection, page 10. it seems he hath done nothing all this while; but how?  
[If Christ strive in the means, and they be found hardening themselves, it increaseth their debt; and if he punish, he is just.] True, because Christ's death never procured an immunity from temporal 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 unbelief, (as he hath if that be true which the Author saith, page 4. that he was charged with all the sins the law could charge man with; certainly then with all the Gospel could) than his justice seemeth blemished in damning them for it; eternal death is not correctory, but satisfactory.  
[Unbelief is the main sin, etc. and this is the debt which God requires, etc. so that here is not two payments of one debt; but a new debt in despising God's goodness.] I demand when he saith, [Christ satisfied for sin,] what sin he means? what only for original, and lest us to satisfy for actual? or for some actual, and left us to made out the rest? Was the unbelief of Paul, in the time of non conversion, a new debt not satisfied for? can any be saved and their sins not satisfied for? is any able to satisfy but Christ? and the sinner be capable of life? O impious doctrine, derogatory to the sufferings of Christ; is not Christ's work a perfect work, but a man may have a new debt, that was not thought on by Christ? strange divinity, how must the dear children of God do with their past rebellions against means of grace? it is a new debt Christ satisfied not, they are not able? doth not he do well to charge others with gross ignorance, that he may have some fellows? Hath he so soon forgot his protestation against popery, and to defend the doctrine of the church of England against all popish innovation, which doctrine runs thus  
[That Christ suffered for all sins of men, original and actual.] 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 mankind became his, page 3.] is not contempt of means and rebellion against Gods call part of our debt? certainly herein the Author discovered too much ignorance, with which he is pleased to brand others; certainly those for whom Christ undertook, he satisfied for all their sins, original, actual, against Law, against Gospel; his satisfaction was not done to the half to need a corrival in that work; therefore such can have no new debt, and such cannot in justice be bound over to suffer eternal torments for any sin, no not for any pretended new debt; he hath taken away all that stands cross to our salvation; so the Author speaketh, page 18. 19 And all that he saith notwithstanding the proposition standeth firm.   

CHAP. XVI. Of the fourth Objection.  
A Fourth Argument is this.  
Those to whom he would not vouchsafe to manifest himself, or to pray for, for those he would not die. John. 17.9.  
But he would not manifest himself to, nor pray for the world of ungodly and wicked men.  
Ergo, He did not die for the world of ungodly or wicked men.]  
Before I come to his answers, I shall take notice of his dealing with the argument to make it fit for his purpose.  
1. He confoundeth two arguments together; for [Manifestation of himself,] that belongeth to an other argument; neither can he give any precedent of jumbling these two together, which confusion will make the argument not clear, and the answers obscure.  
2. He cannot produce any that citeth John, 17.9. to prove the Major.  
3. Nor any that maketh the Minor to run thus. [But he prayed not for the world of ungodly; or the conclusion to run thus. [Ergo, [He died not for the world of ungodly,] all these are purposely foisted in to make the argument seem vile; this is no faithful dealing as he promised, the argument runneth thus, in the seventh Argument in Hag. Col.  
Those whom he reconciled he interceded for. John. 17.9.  
But He interceded not for all and every son of Adam. John. 17.9.  
Ergo, He reconciled not every son of Adam. John. 17.9.  
The Major is thus grounded, Rom. 8.32. he saith, [If he give us his Son, he will much more give us all things,] The Argument is this, if he gave us the greater, he will certainly much more give us the less; so if he die for us, he will pray for us; so in the negative we conclude, if he pray not for the world which is the less, he did not die for or reconcile which is the greater. Now to perpend his answers, he giveth this general and facile refutation. [This objection is false many ways.] And that which he driveth at I guess to be the ground of the reason, that is the ground of proceeding from the less to the greater negatively, that he would prove it is no good reason to say because he would not pray, therefore he would not die for the world, and he urgeth thus.  
[It is not right reason to say God would not make Heaven, etc. whom he would not preserve in that good estate.] But had he been in his right reason he would have seen this very impertinent to our purpose; our argument proceeds from the less to the greater negatively; but his instance proceedeth from the greater to the less negatively: which is unsound and quite contrary to the business in hand; for to preserve in a good estate is a greater mercy then to create in such estate only; so that though this is not sound, he will not create because he will not preserve; yet this is good, if he will not create which is the less, he will not preserve which is the greater; and this serveth us, the less may include the greater negatively, but the greater cannot the less.  
As for those expresses that touch that part of the argument, viz. [the manifesting of himself to the world,] it is not to this argument; which mixture of Heterogeneous expresses will perturb the reader in the clear decision of this argument; therefore I wave them. Again he urgeth.  
[If Christ had said he never did nor would pray for the world, (which he never said) yet it were evil in us to use that as an argument to deny the truth of his own words as that he died for all and every one.] But rather an evil in himself, to obtrude such a sense on those places that contradict Christ's own words, or the true consequences from the same; it is no evil in us to gainsay the fancy or gloss that the Author puts on those Texts: from this I can gather little, but that the Author would have all the say of our Saviour to take the model of their interpretations from his own conceits upon those places. 1 Tim. 2.6. Heb. 2.9. which is not a reasonable postulatum; as for that parenthesis (which he did not) if he once said he did not, and it cannot be proved that ever he did pray for that world, we may presume he meaneth, he never had nor would pray for them.  
[This confoundeth his love of compassion, common to all, and of delight peculiar to Believers.] It is hard to divine his meaning herein, unless he meaneth that his dying for, be only the love of compassion, and his (praying for) the love of delight; and so to pray for us, to be a greater love than dying for us; for so he maketh the love of delight to be the greatest love; but this is not apparent by any Scripture; and how this argument confoundeth compassion and delight, the Author would have done well to have discovered to them that see it not.  
[This confoundeth the death of Christ as ransom (for all) and his advocation that is only for Believers.] I know the Author's understanding is not able to reach the difference betwixt confounding, and (not dividing;) the argument contends for the non dividing of his death and advocation, but not to confound them; the argument and them that form it hold it distinct. But we would have his advocation and death to be to the same persons, and so his death and ransom not for all and every son of Adam. 2. Whereas he saith, his advocation is peculiar to believers, I conclude he hath lost part of his lesson, viz. the distinction of Arminius of Advocation into general and special; for without this how will he free himself from a contradiction, in that he saith here, that his advocation is peculiar to believers? yet he contendeth page 110. 111. that he prayed for the world, John, 9.21. for transgressors, Isay. 53.12. for crucifiers, Luke, 23.34. all which he opposeth to elect and believers. 3. How his advocation is proper to believers, (that is in act) I see not, because he prayed for some that after should believe, and therefore then did not, ver. 22. 4. That his advocation is proper to believers, (that is such as are or shall be) I grant; but then why his oblation should be of larger extent I see not; they are joined acts in his mediatorship, the one shedding, 
Col Hag. in Arg.  the other presenting that blood as shed. Hence the Remonstrants grant, [pro omnibus Christum imercedere ut pontifices ejus typi solebant,] and these acts are never disjoined but connected, as Rom. 8.34. 1 John. 2.1.2. for him to appear on earth for them for whom he appeareth not in heaven, Scripture owneth not: and if he can prove Christ to have interceded for all, I for my part shall grant him to have offered blood for all; and seeing he granteth intercesion to be peculiar, so shall I conclude oblation also, they being both of the same latitude; and whereas he saith, [This confoundeth ransom (for all) and advocation (for believers] is a weak confutation, because in in it there is (petitio principii) a supposing that his ransom is for all and every man, which is yet (sub judice,) nay clear to the contrary.  
Yet upon this weak battery, he can after his usual custom manfully conclude that, [The whole argument is fallen without further answer.] But why doth he attempt works of supererogation, in producing so many leaves in a business that is done already? but his meaning is, (as much as it will with all the rest that follow;) he then attempt th● to answer that Text Rom 8.32. wherein the strength of the proposition lieth, and from it we urge, if he gave us his Son, his Son will give us his prayers; if not the latter, not the former; to this he thus answers.  
[This is not spoken in the third person, nor of ransom only, nor as a proposition to bring men in to believe.] This antidote like an Empiric he applieth to every Text, not considering how it is applied to the constitution of the same; for what though it be not in the third person, the consequence is good, that to whom he giveth his Son, to them he giveth all things, and that as firm as if the words had run thus; [If he hath given his Son to every man, how shall he not with him give them all things,] what person soever it be spoken in, first, second, or third; yet this is firm, that if he give the greater gift, he will not be niggardly of a less: the argument of confidence is not drawn from the persons to whom, but the gift that was given. 2. Whereas he saith, that this phrase (He hath delivered him up for us all,) meaneth not of ransom only, it is false and contrary to any common understanding; it is clear that these words relate to his death in which he is said to be delivered up for us.  
But he urgeth further.  
[It serveth not the proposition; for it saith not, how shall he not freely give us all things? but how shall he not with him freely give us all things? so speaking of his free giving him to us, and with him all things.] A wise interpreter would stand the Author in much stead, to explicate his meaning herein; the difference betwixt, [Shall he not give us all things,] and this, [Shall he not with him give us all things] is very obscure; and had he kept his own council, we should have remained expectants of some rare discovery; but from page 107. we may gather what his abuse of the Text is, and what he meaneth by this phrase, [With him give us all things,] there I find this express. [They now by believing receipt having Christ and in him life, and being sons thereby, which giveth hope of all good, he concludeth, having freely given us this his own Son, (whom before he delivered up for us,) how shall he not with him freely give us all things?] So that hence I conceive his evasion is this, viz. that phrase, [With him,] speaks of such a giving his Son, as consists in giving his Spirit, by bringing them in to believe; and being so, a being made sons, and having adoption, and thus having him given us, with him thus given we shall have all things; but this is injurious to the Text many ways, as 1. Then the sense must be thus, having the Son and all things with him, how shall he not with him give us all things? this would be absurd. Let the Author tell me what thingt are they of which he concludes upon the having of Christ; are they not all those things mentioned in the Chapter? as redemption of our body, ver. 23. spirit to help infirmities, ver. 26. the utility of all things for good, v. 28. conformity to his Son, ver. 29. vocation, justification, glorification: yea as as a strong Remonstrant affirmeth, [Omnia quae spectant ad vocationem & glorificationem nostram.] Certainly then if vocation and spirit, 
Cornel. A lapid. in locum.  be those things that he concludeth from Christ's being given, than those things are not included in that giving of Christ; than it would mean thus; if we have vocation and spirit, how shall he not with those things give us those things? but this sense I leave to the Author. 2. Is it not as clear as the light that this phrase [with him] is no more but with him so delivered up for us? there is no mentioning of a giving of Christ as distinct from his being delivered up for us, as he suggests. 3. This would intimate that to be brought in to believe, is set out in Scripture by this phrase of having Christ (given for us,) or having given (to us,) but this I no where find; where Christ is said to be given either by his Father or himself, it relateth to his death and ransom, as Mat. 20.28. Joh. 6.17. Luk 22.19. Ephes. 5.2. especially where this phrase, (delivered up for us) is used, that is most clear, that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I never read (when spoken of Christ) in an other sense: but when the Scripture speaketh of giving faith, confidence, Sonship, or any of the choice benefits, it saith not, he giveth his (Son) but his (Spirit) Luke, 11.12. Rom. 5.5. 1. Thes. 4 8. and Gal. 4.4.6. the difference is clear on both parts. He sent his Son, verse 4. He sent the spirit of his Son, ver. 6. So that it is clear that the Apostle draweth this conclusion, not from the receipt of the Spirit of Christ in believing, but from Christ's being delivered up for them to die; and good ground: for grace saith Sonship, glory; all come short of Christ himself; and the argument is strong from the greater to the less; and doth not all that he saith appear rather to pervert, then to satisfy the Text?  
Thus having done with the proposition, he invadeth the assumption which is, [That he did not intercede for every man, John, 17.9.].  
Now against this he thus saith, [That doth not say the world of wicked and ungodly men, as the assumption saith.] Neither doth the assumption say so, but when it is altered and corrupted by himself; we say he prayed not for every son of Adam; we have no reason to say he prayed not for the world of ungodly, because all the wicked and ungodly are not of that world of ungodly that was excluded his prayers.  
But he further saith thus, [The word (world) ver. 9 includeth all the Elect that were in and of the world, and uncalled forth and this appeareth in that for the same things for which he prayed for them that did believe, ver. 6.9. he prayeth for the same, for them that after should believe on him, ver. 20.] The contrary whereof doth clearly appear; for if at the same time he prayed for the same things, for some elect and yet uncalled home, ver. 20. it is clear that when he excluded the world from his prayers, that word (world) doth not take in the elect uncalled, for whom he prayeth, ver. 20. for then such must be both prayed for, and yet excluded his prayers, at the same time, and for the same things; herein he doth implicate himself. But rather the word (world) is meant of those unregenerate men, that neither did nor afterwards should believe in him; for such he prayed not for faith, or union, or perseverance, or glory. As for that which followeth, viz. [All the way from ver. 9 to 21. there is no petition for any thing, for any before they believe, or yet might bring them in to believe. [Which is false, if he mean neither expressly, nor implicitly; for implicitly he prayed for faith, whereby they are made one with Christ and the Father, unless the Author will say that Christ prayed that such as did not believe, might be one with him, without the consideration of faith, which I cannot conceive; certainly in praying for the end, he prayed for the means inclusively.  
But he further urgeth.  
[So that the assumption rendering the word [World] for the wicked, none elect opposed to elect, maketh two sorts of elect, one sort prayed for verse 9 another sort prayed for verse 20.] These words deserve hissing, rather than a solicitous answering, and cannot be reduced to common reason; we may affirm the elect prayed for, though in a divers state and condition, the elect believing, ver: 9 the elect unbelieving, ver. 20. and this without absurdity; but then we oppose not the elect to the non elect, but believers to such as yet do not believe, both being elect; neither do we oppose but distinguish them; we may clearly see two sorts of men. 1. Such as are prayed for, and they are such as did for the present or afterwards should believe: such as did ver. 9 such as should, ver. 20.2. Such as are excluded his prayers, and they must be such as they neither did nor should; and I may urge, if by (world) he meaneth elect unbelieving, then Christ did exclude such his prayers. But this is false from ver. 20.  
[Or else it granteth a sort of people in the world, that are neither of the world nor of the elect.] But this he spoke at a venture without consideration. I shall again reassume the parts: those prayed for ver. 9 were elect called out of the world; those prayed for ver. 20. were elect uncalled, yet to be called; those excluded his prayers ver. 9 were non elect, of the world and never to be taken out of it; now let him clear up his sight, and tell me if we make a sort of men that are neither elect nor of the world; but this serveth with the rest to fill paper and puzzle his ignorant Reader.  
As also that which followeth.  
[Which way soever the assumption will have it, it holds forth this falsehood, that none of the elect were, are, or shall be beholden to the prayers of Christ for all or any of that patience etc. extended before faith; or for the means of grace, by which they are brought in to believe, or for faith, seeing no such thing is prayed for here for any but the world, verse 21.23.] Wherein these two things are granted and affirmed. 1. That Christ prayeth for patience, means of grace, faith, for the world, opposed to such as believe, ver. 9 or should believe, ver. ●0. 2. That he prayed not for faith, etc. for any but that world,] both these are false; the first is false, upon this ground, he excluding that world from his prayers, for unity with the Father and the Son, would not pray for faith by which they are to be made one; certainly if he exclude from the end, he doth exclude from the means. 2. How Christ should pray for them that neither did nor should after believe, any that acknowledgeth Christ's prayers not to be frustrate cannot comprehend. 3. This is grounded on the 21. ver. where it saith, [That the world may believe,] and so from hence he urgeth that Christ did pray for faith for the world: so presuming that the word (believe) means saving saith, by which we are made one with God and so saved. But this is not clear. I conceive it only meant of conviction of the mind, and making them to know, as ver. 23. expounds it as the Devils may do, and such as neither do nor shall believe; of the like nature is Psal. 83. last. Psal. 59.13. The second is false; for either he prayed for faith for them, ver. 20. which were not of the world, excluded, ver. 9 or else he prayed for oneness with himself, and glory without faith; this latter is improbable.  
But he further urgeth,  
[The Text saith not he will not, but in the present tense, in that very time it's not in the preterfective tense, or future tense.] This is a very empty evasion; for if he once said, I pray not for the (world) [and that indifinitely, without such limitations as the Author pretendeth; as [for these things] or [at this time,] which if he had thus said [I pray not for the world at this time, or for these things;] this evasion had some colour:] but when he saith I pray not for the (world,) and that it cannot be produced either before or after that he did pray for them, it is no better than presumption to conclude that either he did it before or after pray for the world.  
But to this he opposeth.  
[He did pray for such as were none of those prayed for verse 9.20. even for transgressors, Isay. 53.12. crucifyers, Luke. 23.34.] This is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and height of the answer, both of the Author and most acute Remonstrants to overthrow the Minor, but not to satisfaction: for those prayed for, ver. 9 were transgressors, if john be right, 1 John. 1.8. In many things, we sin all; those prayed for ver, 20. were transgressors, because not called home, and might be some of his crucifyers whom he prayed for and were converted; now how doth it appear, that seeing he prayed for transgressors and crucifyers, that he prayed for such as were not prayed for, ver. 9.20. or how will the Remonstrants prove that he prayed for all transgressors, all crucifyers, which is to the purpose? therefore this gloss is vain and empty. Yet he seeketh to temper the Text by these words.  
[I pray not for the world, that is not so much, so chiefly.] That the word (no●) is sometimes so used I grant; but if we shall use that liberty to expound all Texts so, we should destroy the Scripture; as for those examples produced by him, as 1 Cor. 1.17. it appeareth that Paul did baptise some; when therefore he saith [I came not to baptise,] it must mean not solely, or not chiefly; but this gloss cannot be fastened on john. 17.9. because it appeareth not that Christ ever prayed for any that never should believe on him; therefore that applied to this Text, is to pervert, not to satisfy it.  
Again he urgeth.  
[The things prayed for, from verse 9 to 20. are of an higher nature than those things we are to pray for the world or any in it till they be called.] Which contradicteth not only himself, but our Saviour also. Himself it doth, because he before said, [Christ prayed for the same things, for them that shall afterwards believe on him: that he asked for them that do believe on him;] certainly then if he prayed for them that should believe, he prayed for them before they were called home. And our Saviour he contradicteth, because for those things he doth pray, v. 20 even for them that yet did not believe; therefore he doth charge Christ with doing that which is unfit.  
Again he further urgeth.  
[Christ in john. 17.9. prayed not only as a ransome-giver and a Mediator between God and man, as 1 Tim. 2.6. but as a Prince, High Priest, the Mediator of the New Testament, which is not where said to be for all.] Wherein,  
1. The acuteness of the Author distinguisheth betwixt Mediator betwixt God and man, and Mediator of the New Testament, which I would have made clear.  
2. Affirmeth that Christ in dying and ransomeing is not a Mediator of the New and better Testament, but that this belongs to his Advocation, not Oblation; which I would have him to prove. Heb 9.15. seems to speak otherwise: [He is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death,] where his dying evidenceth him a Mediator of a better Testament.  
3. Whereas he saith, [The advocation of Christ is not said to be for all men,] is to destroy his own words, and grant the assumption, which he hath all this while been so strongly oppugning; and this I grant, and conclude that because his advocation is not general, his obligation was not; both are of like extent; and whether he hath overthrown or rather established the argument, I leave to any to judge, and it standeth firm thus. Those for whom he would not pray, he would not die; but he would not pray for every Son of Adam. Ergo, he would not die for every son of Adam.   

CHAP. XVII. Of the fifth Objection.  
THe fifth Argument is this.  
[Christ died and gave himself a ransom for no more than the Father elected to sonship, and eternal inheritance.  
But he hath not elected every man, etc. Ergo, he gave not himself a ransom for every man.  
But the argument in its genuine force runneth thus.  
[Christ gave himself a ransom to purchase grace and glory, for no more than his Father had elected to grace and glory.  
But his Father hath not elected, All and every man to grace and glory.  
Ergo, He gave not himself a ransom to purchase grace and glory for all and every man.]  
Let us now view his answers.  
[This first proposition is contrary to Scripture, Heb. 2.9. 1 Tim 26.] But this very weakly, because those Texts speak not of the connexion betwixt the Father's election, and sons redemption, wherein the strength of the proposition lieth, and that from the oneness of his will with the Fathers; therefore those Texts cannot be contradicted by the proposition.  
[If to possess men of the inheritance had been the first and only end of Christ his death and ransom, there might have been some colour to have paused on this false and bold assertion; but that is already proved false in Cap. 2.] Here he discovereth much soul dealing, for in that 2. Chap. that end, viz. to possess men of the inheritance, is not so much as named: much less proved not to be the main end of his death, which I blamed in that Chap. that treateth of the ends of Christ's death; because in that discourse he omits, and I think purposely, the end which Scripture hinteth so much upon, that is to give grace and glory, for both I make the inheritance, john, 11.5.2. That he might gather in one all the children of God, John. 17.10. That they might be sanctified through the truth. Tit. 2.14. That he might sanctify a peculiar people, Heb. 9.15. That they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance, Eph. 5.25. That he might present it a glorious Church; all which and many other show that a main end of his death was to possess men of the inheritance, therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the blood of sprinkling, sprinkled upon all them for whom it was shed. So, not ours in affirming, but his in denying the main end of his death to be to possess men of grace and glory, is the bold and false assertion, and therefore by his own confession there is more strength in the proposition than he everteth.  
But in his afterwards, we have a taste of his reason.  
[There belongs more than Christ's death and ransom, to bring men to the inheritance.]  
But is this a good reason to prove, that to bring men to possess the inheritance is not the main end of Christ death? he leaneth to the reason of Corvinus, that God intendeth not man's salvation absolutely, because he willeth to save him by faith; the non satisfaction I have already discovered; shall we say that habitation and dwelling is not the main end of laying the foundation and perfecting the outside of my house, because there is something more requisite to my dwelling in it, as cleansing, adorning, furnishing? this would he weak reasoning.  
[The Scripture saith he died, etc. that he might be Lord of quick and dead.]  
Admit it, yet Scripture nowhere saith that that is the main end of his death; nay his Lordship and power is but subservient to a further end, viz. to bring them to glory, John, 17.2. He gave him power over all flesh, that be might give eternal life, etc. So that hitherto whether the objection deserve abhorring, or his answers hissing, let any judge.  
But he proceeds to examine those Texts that are by himself produced, as proving the proposition, as Rom. 8.28.29.30. Ephs. 1.3. to 11. which places I have not observed to be applied to this article of Redemption; but in Election, there we shall find this golden chain used; therefore I am not engaged to justify them, as holding forth the strength of the proposition; yet if any have to that end quoted them, I shall guess at their drift herein, and free them from his responsory cavils.  
Rom. 8.28.29.30. Their thoughts on this place I conceive to be these, God's foreknowledge, praedestination, vocation, justification, glorification, yea redemption are connected in the same persons, as in a chain, and of equal latitude and extent; the top of that chain is his foreknowledge and praedestination, and all the rest runs in equipage with them; Christ is so one in will with his Father, that he would not redeem any but whom his Father foreknew and praedestinated to it; his Father so constant to himself, that he calleth, justifieth, glorifieth those and only those whom he fore knew and praedestinated; he worketh according to his purpose:  
That we may understand this more fully, we must consider that the business which the Apostle is to make clear is this. [That all things, even afflictions shall work together for good to them that are called of his purpose,] this he layeth down ver. 28. now the words that follow are to make this good, as appears by the word (For) ver. 29, now that which worketh this good is this, [Such shall be glorified,] such as are called shall come to glory, that all afflictions that are to them in [Serie mediorum] a series of means to that end, shall further not impede their glorification, therefore shall work together for good. But this than is to be proved, that those that are called, shall be glorified, and he proveth it by this, such were foreknown and predestinated to glory; so that they that are called may look backward to God's predestination, and forward to their glorification; such as were predestinated, such shall be glorified; but then further this must be proved that those that were predestinated, shall be glorified; this he proveth by the contiguity and connexion of all those links in that golden chain; whom he foreknew, he predestinated, whom predestinated, them he called, whom he called, them he justi●fied; whom he justified, them he glorified: & so they that love God and are called, may conclude they were predestinated, they shall be glorified; and hence conclude all things shall work together for good, and therefore they conclude for many privileges to themselves, v. 31.32.33.34.35. some whereof are, he gave him for us to death, ver. 33. It is Christ that is dead, ver. 34. all which they had by virtue of God's predestination, or election, ver. 33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods chosen? I should willing embrace a better coherence and sense of the place, and if this be the right it doth strengthen the proposition. That seeing all things that are in Serie mediorum, as means conducing to salvation, bear an equipage to his election, the redemption of Christ is not to exceed it. And so for Eph. 1.3 to 11. there is an ennumeration of privileges from election, ver. 3. to glorification, ver. 11. but election leadeth the way, and bounds all the rest.  
Now to examine what he answers to these.  
[This is a far fetched inference, evading the business in hand; for the business opposed in the inference, is the redemption made by Christ in his own body for men; and those places mentioned, speak of the benefits thereof, etc. yea such as many believers want.]  
First here is a falsity; because it is clear Rom. 8.32. speaketh of the ransom of Christ and of what he did for men in his body; He was delivered up for us, and died for us, ver. 34. and whether doth the expression denote his death or the benefits thereof? (Secondly,) suppose it do, yet clear it is that all there mentioned, and so all that tend to salvation, are but equal with his election, which confirmeth the proposition; and this is rather a cavil then satisfaction. Again he saith thus,  
[Neither it is said doth and will justify and glorify, but did and hath predestinated, called, glorified, which I hope none will affirm of all the elect, much less of all Christ died for.] Wherein he discovereth but a gross understanding of the Text, I hope he will not so limit the sense of it, as that it shall come short of truth; for all whom he hath predestinated, he hath not yet called: all whom he hath called, he hath not yet glorified them. Let the Author speak, hath he called and glorified all whom he hath foreknown or predestinated, or much more had he glorified all that he had predestinated, when the Apostle spoke these words? he himself granteth that it cannot be affirmed of all the elect; but how then shall the truth of the Text appear, if he confine the Text to that sense? certainly he hath miss the mark herein; for though it be in such a sense as may be w●ll translated [hath] yet is used in such a Text as will not suffer it to be confined to that sense, but to be understood [Hath] [doth] [will.] and if this cavil had carried any weight in it, the Remonstrants certainly would gladly have embraced it, but they conclude the contrary. [Nota (vocavit) i. e. vocat, vocavit, aut vocabit, 
Cornel. A lapid in locum. Act. Syn. in locum.  (justificavit) i. e. justificavit, justificat, aut justificabit; praeterita enim more Haebreo ponuntur pro quolibet tempore,] and the Remonstrants jointly agree herein. [Justificavit, i. e. approbavit, vel approbaturus, remittit vel remissurus est, glorificavit id est gloriae praemia donabit,] all arising to this, whom he (hath called,) that is (hath) (doth) or (will,) so in the rest. Now the reason why all the words are in the perfect tense (hath) is because the two first (praenotion) and (praedestination) are acts that are past, and the rest shall as infallibly follow as if they were passed already; to some they are all past; to all the predestinated they shall all be; so that the sense is this, whom he hath predestinated he hath or will call; whom he hath called, he hath or will glorify, and all certain from predestination. And this is but parallel to what he must say upon that Text John. 17.2. [To give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.] Now by giving to Christ, he saith page 149. is meant [bringing on men to believe in the heavenly call,] and so the sense must be this [He hath given him power over all flesh, to give eternal life to as many as he hath given to him, that is brought in to believe in the heavenly call.] Now hence I question, had Christ received power to give eternal life to no more than were at that time brought in to believe? let him answer herein, he must salve it this way or none. (He hath) that is to whom he either hath or shall bring in to believe; so why not this Text? and then thus we shall not be afraid to affirm of all the elect they either are or shall be called, justified, glorified; therefore what he saith herein is a wilful perversion, no satisfaction to the text.  
Again he urgeth,  
[This reason given to fortify the proposition, mistaketh the end of the Apostles connexion of privileges, which is not to set forth for how many Christ hath died, or shall receive the fruits of his death, but it is to set forth the privileges of those that have begun to receive the choice fruits of both his propitiation, and advocation.] True, the end and scope of the Apostle is neither of these, but to show and make good his own words, viz. [that all things, and so crosses and afflictions shall work together for the good of them that are called of his purpose;] yet he doth it so as hit he doth in it virtually show who are, and how many are elected, justified, glorified; those and so many are elected, as some to be called and glorified, those and so many are called as are elected; those and so many are justified as are elected and called; those and so many are glorified and shall be, as are elected, called, and justified, or shall be; and thus they are the boundaries of one an other; and so, Christ's being given for us, being one of those connected privileges, it followeth that those and only such have life procured and purchased for them, who were elected to it, and come in glorification to partake of it.  
2. It is clear that the Text doth not show the privileges of them only who have begun actually to receive the benefits of Christ's oblation and advocation, because it showeth the privileges of all them that are predestinated and foreknown; and this the Author granteth, page 115. 116. [the concatenation of these high favours is the privilege of the elect sons of God;] but all that are foreknown and are predestinated, do not yet actually partake of the choice benefits of Christ's oblation and advocation; therefore this hitherto is perversion, not satisfaction.  
Again he giveth a third Answer.  
[This inference from these places destroyeth the distinction between the Gospel and the communication of the choice benefits thereof, between the atonement made by Christ, and the receipt of it by his chosen ones.] But this without any show of truth; we plead indeed for a non division or separation of the one from the other, and that for whom he made an atonement, they shall receive it in time; and this be might have seen, if envy and calumny had not blinded him, and his sufficiently confuteth him; and this we affirm from this irrefragable chain, Rom. 8. all from election to glorification are inseparable.  
Again he saith thus.  
[The connexion itself is wrested for this inference, etc. as if all Christ died for and ransomed, must of necessity partake of all these privileges; nor as if all that partake of some fruits of his ransom, should partake of them all; nor as if all that were called, must partake of them all.] But this hath as little force as any of the former words, for  
1. The connexion is not wrested if we find the death of Christ one, of those connected privileges; for than it will appear that he that partakes of any one, shall of all the rest; else how are they privileges connected? none ever yet doubted of this; now that this is one of those connected privileges, it will appear if we seriously consider the Chapter; we must know that under those generals, many particulars are to be included: as under (vocation): he effectual power and spirit of God by which we are called, and sanctification the effects of it; under justification is contained the death of Christ the meritorious cause; and this is one to be included, that not only by consequence but clearly expressed, as may appear from the Apostles repetition of those privileges, ver. 31.32.33.34. where he reassumeth the election, ver. 33. [Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect?] Also justification, ver. 33. [It is God that justifieth.] He assumeth also vocation in ver. 35. (who shall separate us from the love of Christ?) they were so far from being separated from the love of Christ by them, that they are more than conquerors over them; and such is a spirit befitting them that are called of his purpose, ver. 28. he reassumeth also the death of Christ, ver. 32.34 [He hath delivered him up for us, and [Christ hath died for us,] and that to make up the same confidence, with election, justification, and vocation; and what is more clear than that the death of Christ is one of the connected privileges? and then the connexion is not wrested.  
2. Whereas he saith, [As if all that partake of some fruits of his ransom, must partake of all.] It is too general to be pertinent; I know not what he may introduce under the notion of fruit of his ransom; this is our inference, that whoever partaketh of any of those connected privileges, shall partake of all of them in time; else they are not connected.  
3. Whereas he saith, [Nor as if all that were called should partake of them all.] evidenceth that he doth steel his forehead to outface a clear Text; doth he not say whom he hath called, he hath justified and glorified, that is, hath or will? or else it discovereth that he hath blinded his eyes so far as to understand the word (called) of outward call only: but then where is the truth of the Text, (whom he hath called, he hath justified) all that are outwardly called, he neither hath nor will justify nor glorify; nay all should then be justified and glorified, because in his judgement all the sons of men are called; this will prove no propitious interpretation of the Text.  
But fearing that what we have said should prove impregnable, he hath an other assault, and seeks to enervate it, by proving though it be one of the connected privileges, yet it followeth not that because every one that partaketh of those privileges had Christ delivered up for them, therefore every one that have Christ delivered up for them, partake of all the privileges; and this he doth thus. [Psalm. 111. 4 5. He is gracious, full of compassion, giveth meat to them that fear him; it will not hence follow that he giveth meat, and is compassionate to no other.] Which if it had not been purposely produced to pervert the Text more than to satisfy, he could not but have seen this example impertinent to the case in hand; for this in Psal. 111.4.5. it is clear, it hath not such a convertible connexion as that Text Rom. 8. from which convertibility the force of the argument is deduced: as those whom he predestinateth, them he calleth all, and only those, and so in the rest which cannot be in the instance produced by him; for though he be compassionate to all that fear him, yet all do not fear him to whom he is compassionate and giveth meat; therefore that rock is easily avoided, and the folly and falsehood lights upon himself.  
But that he might illustrate himself in the point of election, he craveth leave to thrust out some of his own conceits about the same, some whereof that are most momentous I shall examine; Having spoken of the election of the man Christ, he saith h●.  
[So all other chosen, being affirmed chosen in him, Eph. 1.4. he must needs be chosen first, else how are they chosen in him?]  
See how presently he taketh leave to vary from Scripture; he said as he found, so he believed; what he believeth I know not, but I think that he findeth it not said that Christ was first elected; this phrase if any such be, of which anon, is so fare from arguing him to be elected first, that it doth not argue him elected at all; for when the Text saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Col. 1.16. In him were all things created, doth this infer, that he was first created, or created at all, and will he thus argue, else how are they created in him? 2. But it may be to this he will repose, that that place speaks of an efficient, but this Eph, 1.4 of a meritorious cause; therefore to instance to his mind Col. 1.14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, In whom we have redemption; doth this infer that either he was redeemed first, or redeemed at all? or will he thus argue? else how are we redeemed in him? So 2 Cor. 5.19. In him we are reconciled.  
But (latet anguis in herbâ,) there is something yet behind which the Arminians contend for, and which I believe the Author in endeth, viz. Christ to be the first Elect, we elect in him as the head from which our election is conveyed and by whom procured, 
Exam. Perkins. 31.  as Arminius himself. [Christus secundum Apostolum non tantum est medium per quod salus obtinetur, sed tanquam causa meritoria cujus respectu electio nostra facta sit;] That is, he is not only the means of salvation, but the meritorious cause of election; and I believe this is the Author's judgement; thus he [Christ is first elect, and so the root in whom all are elected, page 115.] Now if we be elected in Christ as the root, he must convey election to us, as the root doth sap to the branches; but this is not clear from Scripture; for if we be elected in Christ as the root, then as the sap is first in the root, then in the branches, and the same identical sap which was in the root, is conveyed to the branches; so must the same election wherewith Christ was elected, be translated upon us, and so our election be one with Christ's, and Christ his election one with ours; but neither of these do I for the present comprehend, for that election wherewith we are elected, is such as hath sinners for the object of it. [Electio versatur circa bomines ut peccatores consideratos, 
Ibid. ] but Christ was never a sinner or so considered: so never elected with that election that hath sinners for the object, and as such as needs pardon of sin, so that our election is not compatible to Christ.  
Again Christ's election in all Remonstrants and our Author, is nothing but a destination to that office of a Mediator, and so to a Kingdom for the recompense of that service. So our Author 118.119. but this election is not compatible to us; for than should we be elected mediators; how then it should be that we are elected in him as the root, I see not.  
But happily he will say that his meaning is thus, Christ was first chosen to his office of a mediator, and so by his mediation he merited our election, as Arminius in the forequoted place; so that to be [elected in him,] is not only for Christ to be elected first, but that he also merited our election, and so, as reconciliation, sanctification, adoption, glorification, flow from him as the head, so doth election also.  
To which I will reply only thus much, this is more than any Scripture speaketh, it is the general consent of Schoolmen and modern Divines, that praedestination or election hath no cause in respect of the praedestinator, so no merit to move it. But I shall not trouble the Author with testimonies of this nature, I shall be content with his own words, page 119. [All that election of Christ and his sons was free from eternity, and no cause but his will.] Which is altogether false if Christ merited our election; for that which is grounded on the death of Christ as the meritorious cause, cannot be grounded on God's mere will.  
Again, though Arminius would have Christ the meritorious cause of our election, yet he hath much to do so to temper his pen as not to betray his cause and speak truth at once; for let us take a survey of his own words.  

in Perkins. 31.32.  [Nam Apostolus inquit nos in Christo electos esse tanquam in mediatore.]  
Now if he had been constant to himself, and resolved to make out his own assertion he should have said, [Cujus sanguine parta est electio nostra,] that is, [by whose blood our election was obtained,] then he had spoken to the purpose, but then (as he knew well enough) he had spoken beside Scripture, therefore he saith thus.  
[Cujus sanguine nobis salus parta est & vita, & ut in capite ex quo ista bona a derivantur.]  
That is, [by whose blood salvation and life are obtained, and that as head from whom those good things are derived,] and is this all for us to be elected in Christ? as he saith afterward, Christ to be the meritorious cause of grace and glory; this cometh fare short of his being the meritorious cause of our election; all they can make out is this, viz. Christ is the meritorious cause of bestowing all good things that follow and flow from election; but there is a wide difference betwixt election and the good things communicated by virtue of it.  
But still the argument of Arminius and so of our Author is unsatisfied, viz.  
[Else how are we said to be elected in him, Ephes. 1.4.]  
To this I only advertise the Author that he maimeth the Text; let him produce it entire, and satisfaction will be more easy; it is thus, [He hath elected us in him that we should be holy;] now it must be decided whether the phrase [in Christ] be referred to the word (elected) as if Christ was the meriter of election, or to (us) as if he elected none but whom he foresaw [in Christ] that is believers, or to the words [that we should be holy,] that is he elected us to obtain holiness and other blessings (in Christ,) that is [for Christ,] and ground there is for this Query, because the Remonstrants take the liberty to be fluctuating in their sentence about it, especially about the two first acceptations, sometimes affirming the first, sometimes the second, sometimes both; the Remonstrants in their Synod. Script. appropriate it to the word (us, 
Synod. scrip. 60. in Molin. c. 25. s. 14. in Perk. 32. ) and so to denote the object of election, that is such as are (in Christ) believers: yet Corvinus who is one of the cited Remonstrants, he applied it to the word (elected,) so to denote the foundation of election and meritorious cause of it. And Arminius putteth both together, and saith both are meant, which to me seems rather to strangle the text then to interpret it; now seeing they do so vary, it gives us occasion to think that there may be a fourth interpretation, which may come as near the mind of the Apostle as any of the former, and that is to refer the words [in Christ] to the last phrase [that we should be holy,] and so to show, in whom, that is by and for whom we come to partake of our holiness and graces, as Col. 1.28. perfect in Christ Jesus: and if thus, his argument herefrom falleth to the ground.  
Indeed Corvinius saith, [Ista verba liquido conjungenda sunt ad verbum elegit,] that is, 
in Molin. c. 25. s. 14.  [those words in Christ plainly appear to be referred to the word (elected),] but his bare word is all we have for it, and to his adversaries charge he layeth rash bodlnesse if he say otherwise, and I think his share is no less in so saying without ground; all his reason that I can conceive is thus much, because they are so near in place, therefore they must be referred each to other in construction, but this is invalid, for in 2 Cor. 5.19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God was in Christ reconciling,] where the placing of the words are much alike with Eph. 1.4. And Ambrose following the method of Corvinus, referring the word (in Christ) to the foregoing words, interpreteth it thus. [Deus erat in humanitate,] the godhead was in the manhood; but thus Gorvinus himself interpreteth it not, but referreth the phrase (in Christ) to the afterwords [Reconciling the world.] So Col. 1.19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. [In him it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell;] why doth he not say that this phrase (in him) should be referred to the word [it pleased,] as if Christ was the meritorious cause of that good pleasure; there is as much ground for this, as that Eph. 1.4. yet so he doth not I think; but clear it is that though [in him] be first in the Text, yet in construction it agreeth with the last [dwell,] dwell in him; let the Author rejoin for Corvinus his friend, and show me why the phrase [in Christ] may not in Eph. 1.4. be refered to the afterwords, as well as in those places forenamed, and so the sense to be this, Christ is the meritorious cause of our holiness, not of our election.  
Besides, were it so that the words were to be read thus [He hath elected us in him;] yet we may find a more commodious interpretation than this, that Christ merited our election; and to be elected in Christ, is no more than to be destined to obtain grace and glory by Christ, and so Christ shall be an essential to the definition of election; but then, his place shall be in the good things elected to, not the election itself.  
Thus Molineus interpreteth ●t, elected us in Christ, is no more than to be elected to salvation in Christ; which Corvinus brandeth with boldness, in referring the words to [salvation] upon this ground, [verba autem [ad salutem] non extant, 
Ibid. ] that is because the words [To salvation] are not in the Text; but then he did not remember, or not well consider that Arminius whom he defendeth lieth under the same lash; for he saith, 
in Petk. 31.  [Apostolus inquit nos in Christo electos esse tanquam in capite & mediatore;] that is we are elected in Christ as in the head and Mediator, when yet those last words are not extant in the Text; therefore Corvinius might have had so much candour as to think that as Arminius added these words not as the Text, but as the meaning, so doth his adversary, and then his words are no opposition. And Corvinus himself cannot deny, but that by [He hath elected us,] is meant to salvation. [Ad salutem electionem intelligi non nego; 
Ibid. ] so that now let us take the Text as it is meant, [He hath elected us to salvation in Christ,] is no more than 1 Thes. 5.10. appointing us to obtain salvation by Christ, and so Christ to be means of salvation, not election; and this he might have seen from Arminius himself, whom in that section he defendeth; for let it be granted that by these words, [He hath elected us in him,] it appears that Christ is the foundation of election, yet than we must inquire what it is for Christ to be the foundation of election. 
disp. thes. 40. sect. 5.  Arminius explaineth himself, [esse causam meritoriam istorum bonorum quae fidelibus in isto decreto destinata sunt,] that is, it is to be the meritorious cause of all good things decreed in election; and in that enumeration of good things which we have by Christ, he mentioneth only grace and glory, not election. 
sect. 5.  [Materia est benedictiones spirituales, gratiae & gloriae nominibus appellari solitae.] So in Disp. pub. Thes. 15. sect. 5.6. Whence it appeareth that election is not any of those spiritual blessings which we have in Christ. Hence it appeareth, that the expresses of our Author of Christ being first elect, or we elect in him as the head, or him to merit our election, is besides the language of Scripture, and I fear above his understanding; I hold Christ and his members elected together in one act, and if we should be put upon a priority in nature, I think first the faithful, then Christ; for it is suitable to Scripture, to say that Christ was elected to his office, that he might save his people; but we find it nowhere said, that God elected some to life, that Christ might become a Saviour; certainly the work is in intention before the workman.  
Again having mentioned God's election of his Son, and his members, and his servants, and his decree to create the world, He thus saith  
[He decreed to do all this by and through his son Christ and for him.]  
Wherein he lurketh under a manifold obscurity. For,  
1. It is hard to determine to what these words [to do all this,] are referred, whether to all that went went before, as election of Christ, of his members to sonship, and the rest to service and the creation, setting man in a public place, creating a world of creatures for man's use; all this he had spoken of before; or whether only to the fourth Section and the particulars therein contained, viz creation of man and a world of creatures.  
2. It is hard to determine whether by [for Christ,] he make Christ the final cause or meritorious of all those decrees; the phrase [for Christ] will admit either: and I may well-query, because his quoted Texts Col. 1.16, 17, 18. Rom. 11.36. clearly import the final cause; but there it speaketh both of God and Christ, making the world for him. And his expressions, viz. [doing all this for his son Christ,] clearly denote the meritorious cause, as it is taken where ever God is said to do any thing for Christ.  
But which way soever he meaneth, in either there is a manifest falsity; for God did not elect his Son, for his Son Christ, nor elect the faithful for his Son Christ, he merited not either of those; neither did he create the world for his Son Christ, he did not merit that; he came to save the lost, we find not that he merited that the world should be made; these are jumbled notions that he never found in Scripture.  
A third particular observable is that he saith, 
3. page 119.   
[That this decree was free without any foresight of good and evil, or respect had to it, but because he so willed.].  
Herein I must advertise him of his remiss expressions; he should have said, [Without foresight of good or evil as the cause to determine his election,] else his Reader may well charge him with a contradiction; for in the next Section he saith thus. [That God foreseeing that Adam would fall and lose himself and his, he did elect etc.] Now for God to elect foreseeing, and yet without foresight of evil, is very strange.  
A fourth particular is that he saith, 
4. 119.   
[In this praedestination he did praedestinate all his elect sons to the adoption of sons.] Which neither Scripture speaketh nor reason comprehendeth, for his elect sons to be the object of praedestination; for them that are elect sons, to be praedestinated to the adoption of sons, are new found discoveries: It seems they were first elected, then praedestinated; many have to little purpose it seemeth perplexed themselves with the object of praedestination in their supra, and sub-Lapsarian disputes, some for the mass not made but to be made, others for the mass made but not fallen, a third for the mass made and fallen; but they may leave such notions; here is a new discovery; the object of praedestination, (with our Author) is the elect, but herein he is by himself.  
Whereas he saith, 
5. 118.   
[In that election he appointed a great number of other men to be servants to his Son Christ, and those chosen in him.]  
Wherein he seemeth to affirm that there is an election of all to service, but this without Scripture; for that there is an election of all to any thing, Scripture speaketh not, nor that this destination to service is called election; it is better ranked under reprobation or preterition, as he himself gives the hint, page, 41. premis. 1. Where he hath these words, [In that election of some to sonship, and preterition or appointment of others to be servants;] where he affirmeth that his appointment of men to be servants, is rather his preterition or non election, than his election; yet here it must be inserted in his discourse about election; he is not very constant to himself.  
2 He opposeth sons and servants, which the Scripture owneth not; they that are sons are servants both to Christ, and one to another. Eph. 6.6. Gal. 5.13.  
He saith, 
6. 119. 120.   
[To this end he decreed to use such means, etc. to call both sons and servants to acknowledge this their Lord that they might be happy.]  
To let slip many particulars I shall pitch but on this one, his words import that God giveth means to call such and make such happy (that is eternally,) as are destined only to service; but this is not consonant to right reason or Scripture, upon this double ground.  
1. For any to be Christ's servants, needeth not the call of God to bring it about, because the non elect are Christ's servants, but either active or passive, to serve him or he to serve himself of them, and they to be used as other creatures in his work; and this they shall do whether any call or no.  
They that are destined to service, are not destined to sonship, or life, as appeareth by his distinction, or rather opposition, page 118. Nay it appeareth that such in regard of sonship and eternal life are passed by, page 41. That is he hath decreed not to bring in such to the inheritance. Nay further that such [being the residue of men not elected to sonship,] are from eternity decreed to obduration, and to be given up, and that he will not overpower them, as he doth his elect; yet such in his divinty God decreed in time to call that they might be happy: He blusheth not to affirm this of God; but as well may he tell us, that when God hath decreed the world shall not see light, he shall create the Sun to enlighten it; but of this more presently.  
Making clear the business of election, he thus saith,  
[God decreed to overcome his elect, freely forgiving disobedience, by his Spirit making them willing, bringing them in to believe. Secondly, to harden the residue, and give them up for contempt of means.] Wherein some particulars are observable.  
1. Speaking of the first, he giveth the name of elect as well he may, because that decree to overcome and bring them in to believe, constituteth them the elect both to grace and glory; but when he speaketh of the other sort, he giveth them only the name of [the residue,] as if his decree to harden did not bring them under the notion of reprobation, as well as the decree to overcome did bring the other under the notion of election; wherein he is either miserably blind, or wilfully dissembles, when he professeth that he is such a stranger to reprobation in Scripture. Seeing now he is able to see from Scripture that God from eternity did decree to harden most men, and reprobation is nothing else.  
2. It is strange that the Author treating of election, should produce this decree in God to harden most men from eternity; is this a particular of election? then reprobate men, desperate devils may be said to be elected: certainly the●e expressions had been better reserved till he had treated of reprobation, as he doth afterwards.  
But herein a piece of his egregious dissimulation is seen, in that this which is reprobation, is here shuffled in to pass untaken notice of in the business of election; that so when he cometh to speak of reprobation, he may say, (as he doth,) that the Scripture scarce owneth a reprobation but an actual, done in time; when he had inserted these words in their proper place, he might have seen that there is a reprobation from eternity.  
3. In the pursuance of that act concerning the residue that are not elect, he willingly stifleth a clear truth; it is granted on all hands that election and reprobation are opposite, and reprobation denyeth that which election granteth: therefore when he saith that he did decree to overpower his elect by his grace, it must follow that he did deny to overpower the rest; and so decreed to deny them that grace which he giveth to the rest; and this goeth before their hardening for contempt of means, yea in nature before God's decree so to do, and their contempt of means is a consequent of that; God denieth grace, and man contemneth it, which is an act in God, first in order of nature in this act of reprobation; but this he concealeth, which doth not discover ingenuity not to produce the strength of the business, though against himself; for if he had done it, he would not have been such a stranger to reprobation in God, and that from eternity.  
Many more instances I could produce, to show his rude and impolished thoughts about election, wherein he hath discovered much of himself without any necessity. But to return to the argument again, at last he ariseth to this assertion.  
[Through this whole discourse it appeareth, that the death of Christ for all men impeacheth not the doctrine of election.] Therefore I shall reassume some of his expressions again which he hath granted, and then let the world judge how well universal ransom intended by God or Christ, consisteth with it; he granteth,  
[That God did elect but some, and to harden the residue for the contempt of means, and that from eternity, page. 120.]  
Now considering such a decree to harden most men, I gather these two things.  
First that there can be no such decree in God, or will to send Christ to procure life for them.  
Secondly, that there can be no execution of such a decree.  
Not the first, for then that decree must be either in time or from eternity; but Arminius will not say that God's decrees are in time, for he granteth that his decree of election is from eternity; so that I do not conclude for reprobation from their simultaneity, the one being done when the other is; but his reason given for election, 
Arm. disp. de praedest.  will reach to reprobation, and this it is [Deus nihil in tempore facit quod ab ●eterno facere non decreverit, secus deo mutatio impingitur;] that is, God doth nothing but what he decreed from eternity to do. And the Author granteth, page 120. [All his decrees are done at once before the world or time was;] so that there is no such decree in time.  
Secondly, if it be so as the Author saith, than God must decree it from eternity; but this he doth not; for then there must be a decree to harden, and yet to procure life and salvation for them, which cannot be in God, because they cannot both have their execution: the same man, no not by divine power, cannot be saved eternally and damned eternally; let us a while consider, God willeth to harden for contempt of means, he must so will till they come to destruction, else he changeth. He willeth to save them by Christ, and this he must will till they be saved, else he changeth; which Arminius dare not admit; so that those two decrees must be in God at the same time, so that either God shall decree and not execute, or else the same man shall be both saved by Christ and hardened, and so destroyed for contempt of means; but neither of these are to be granted; this controversy, any that will, may find scanned by Corvinus, in Mol. cap. 5. of the antecedent and consequent will; Molineus weighing the nature and event of such warring decrees, presseth that doctrine with a various absurdity; wherein I shall expatiate myself a little, it being of no small concernment to the clearing of this point; for although the controversy betwixt Corvinus and his adversary, and that betwixt me and my Antagonist seem to be divers, yet they come to one and the same issue; for this is the question ventilated in bo●●. [Au Deus simul vel●● omnes salvari & aliquos da●●ari,] that is whether God may or doth will to save all, and yet to damn some; and so by consequence at the same time, will to save and damn the same persons; 
Cap. 5. de vol. Antec. & consequ. sect. 11.  the affirmative of which is adjudged absurd by Molineus, but Corvinus by his reason attempts to prove it not so. What are his reasons, I shall in part show wherein they satisfy me not, and leave the determination to the Learned.  

Absurd. 1.  
Molin presseth that doctrine with this first absurdity, viz. [Deus flatuitur velle quod ab aeterno certus est non agere, (as Corvinus himself relateth it);] that is, 
c. 5. sect. 8.  by that doctrine, (God is set out to will that which he at the same time knoweth shall never come to pass.) For in willing their salvation, he willed that to many to whom he knew it should never come to pass, he having at that time appointed them to destruction for contempt of means, as our Author saith; now such a will is not to be found (in homine insipienti) in foolish man, much less in the all wise God. I shall press Corvinus only with this, if God will that which he forseeth shall never come to pass, then either his decree doth not introduce a necessity, or his prescience not an infallibility into the event; either of which puts Arminius his Master to a loss, whom he defends; as for the thing itself, I transmit it to any Judge, how discrepant it is to the wisdom of God to will, and not only so but to use means, and not only so, but such means as the death of his son, his only beloved son, to effect that I say, which he knew shall never come to pass.  
To his Corvinus replieth thus.  

Ibid.  [Non pugnant aliquid velle agere, & scire te id non facturum, fed velle aliquid agere & non velle agere illud,] That is, (to will a thing and to know it not to come to pass, are not repugnant, but to will to do a thing, and to will not to do it;) which solution doth rather divert then satisfy, it being resolved into that Logical nicety of a verbal contradiction; for though they do not verbally contradict each other, yet they may easily be found jointly to be repugnant to the wisdom of God, as in (aliquo tertio) which is as valid as if they were repugnant (inter se) in themselves; it is not suitable to the workings of rational agents, to have the will carried out in its acts on those things which a●e known certainly shall never come to pass; and my reason doth not satisfy me but that the will may be as soon carried out on impossibilities, as that which the understanding dictates shall never be obtained; for though some difference be betwixt impossibility and infallibibity of not being; yet both present to us the non obtaining of th●t object which before we will, deterreth us from positive willing that thing; therefore such a thing would be repugnant to the nature of God; and thus it may be demonstrated; if he will that which he knoweth shall never come to pass, than either must his will not be the cause of things, or his prescience not the measure of things, nor be infallible; both which not only the general stream of Schoolmen condemn, but Arminius himself dares not own.  
He saith, [Intellectus dei certus est, non potest falli, vidit omnia in seipsis & in causis;] and thus, 
disp. pub 4. sect. 36 54.  [Deus per voluntatem est causa omnium rerum mediante potentia,] that is, the prescience of God is infallible, his will the cause of all things; but now let us consider if his will to save them be the cause of their salvation, than it must exist necessarily by virtue of that decree and will.] If so, than his prescience by which he seethe it not to come to pass, must be infallible; and if that be not fallible, than their salvation must not exist; if not, his will whereby he willed their salvation is not the cause of it; thus must it one way or other be repugnant to the nature of God.  

part 1. Q. 14 Art. 8. & Q. 19 Art. 4.  Certainly seeing his prescience is [mensura rerum,] the measure of all things; and his will [causa rerum,] the cause of things, as Aquinas saith; needs must there be a due proportion and a fair correspondency betwixt both; for God to will one thing, and to foresee the contrary to come to pass, this is to overthrow both.  
2. Let us again view the reasoning of Arminius, and we shall further see that there is a repugnancy betwixt Gods willing a thing, and his knowing such a thing not to come to pass; 
in Perkins. 129. 142.  he thus saith. [Infallibiliter dicitur respectu praescientiae divinae, necessario respectu decreti & voluntatis divinae;] and elsewhere, [Ex praescientia concluditur infallibilitas, ex decreto necessitas,] both come to this, that necessity proceeds from God's decree, and infallibility from his prescience. Now to say that he willeth the salvation, and yet forseeth it not come to pass, doth argue that the salvation of all is necessary; yet the damnation of some shall be infallible, and so the same thing necessary, and yet the not being of it infallible; necessary to be by virtue of the will of God, infallibly not to be by virtue of his prescience; but certainly these are very repugnant; [necessitas eveniendi & infallibilitas non eveniendi,] a necessity of existing, and infallibility of not existing of the same thing at the same time, comes little short of a contradiction, and sure I am cannot both be true; And therefore as repugnant as the necessity of existing, and infallibility of non existing are; so repugnant are the will of God of a thing to be, and his foreknowledge of such a thing not to be, from which will and prescience such affections proceed and flow.  
So that we shall need more than his bare assertion, (beyond which we have not in that eight section) to convince us that Gods willing some men's salvation, 
c. 5. sect. 7.  and yet knowledge that such a thing shall never come to pass, are not repugnant.  
Indeed something more we have by way of illustration, but as little probation as formerly, which it is not amiss to rehearse also; he saith, [Deus quando aliquid intendit & vult, non necesse est ut consideret utrum id obtenturus sit nec ne;] that is, when God intendeth or willeth any thing, it is not necessary that he then consider whether he be to obtain it or no,] let it be so; yet the impertinency of his reply is obvious; the question is not whether God can will a thing, and not consider whether he be to obtain it or no; but whether he can will that which he knoweth shall not come to pass; now betwixt these is a great difference; they that have tasted of the logical rudiments know that though we may [praescindere rationalitatem ab homine,] yet we cannot [amovere,] that is though we may consider a man and not consider his rationality, yet we cannot consider a man, and consider him not rational; so in the case in hand, it is one thing for God to will a thing and not consider whether he shall obtain or no, and another to will a thing and consider himself not to obtain it; though neither can be, yet I shall grant the first for argument's sake: yet the second he cannot; and herein this is his argumentation, God may will a thing and yet not consider whether he will obtain it or no; therefore he may will a thing and consider himself not to obtain it or no:  
And again he thus saith, [Sicut homo potest desiderare quod non sit eventurum si modo sciat se obtinere posse, ita etiam de deo dici potest, 
Ibid.  that is as man may desire a thing which is not to come to pass, if we know he can obtain it, so we may say of God,] which reply labours not with a single impertinency, and is unsatisfactory many ways. For  
1. The question is not whether God may desire that which he knoweth shall never come to pass, but whether he can will that which he knoweth shall never come to pass; the controversy is not about his desire but will, as may appear by that position which his adversary oppugneth and he defendeth, viz. [simul possit velle omnes salvare, 
sect. 11:  & aliquos damnare,] that is, God may will to save all, and will to damn some at the same time; as also the absurdity which his adversary fastens on him and he attempts to remove, uïz. [Deus flatuitur velle quod scivit nunquam eventurum;] that is, 
sect. 8.  God willeth that which he knoweth shall not come to pass; as also his own words, Quum deus aliquid intendit ac vult, non necesse est etc. that is, when God willeth any thing, 
sect. 7.  it is not necessary that he should consider whether it will come to pass or no; now for him thus to reply, brings his argumentation to this issue. Man may desire that which is not come to pass, therefore God can will such a thing; or at best thus, God may desire, therefore he may will such a thing as he knoweth shall not come to pass; which is no sound reasoning; for though desire may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 attributed to God, which I grant not; yet it will not follow that if he can desire, he may will that which he knoweth shall not come to pass, neither doth it follow in man.  
2. The matter controverted, is not whether God may will that which is not to come to pass, but that which he knoweth shall not come to pass, which is all one in God, but not in the instance produced by him; he himself produceth his adversary thus speaking, 
sect. 8. sect. 7.  [Deus statuitur velle quod ab aterno certus est non agere;] and thus, [Deum intendere quod novit non futurum,] both propounding the absurdity thus, then God willeth that which he knoweth shall not come to pass; now to this he saith, man may will that which is not to come to pass, and what then? if he had been opposite he should have said thus, man may will that which he knoweth shall not come to pass; but this neither doth my reason comprehend, nor faith believe; and his ratiotination comes to this, man may will that which he knoweth shall not come to pass; therefore God may will that which he knoweth shall never come to pass, which is but a miserable consequence.  

Ibid.  Again he saith, [Legislator desiderat ut subditi omnes legem servant, etc. quanquam eam ab omnibus servatum non iri, non possit ignorari; quidni de deo idem dicamus?] That is, a Lawgiver may desire that his Subjects may keep the Law, though he know it is not to be done of all; what if we say the same of God?] Not to insist upon that diversion translating the question from the will of God to the desire of God, which in rational agents the one may be conversant about that which the other is not, for the desire may be conversant about impossibilities that they might be possible, but the will can never; to pass by that, there is a manifold discrepancy betwixt man and God in this case:  
1. The Lawgiver is bound by Gods revealed will to desire that all keep good Laws; but God no way bound.  
2. The Lawgiver cannot certainly know but that all may keep the Law, therefore may desire, and will also; but God is not so ignorant.  
3. It is not in the Lawgivers power to make all men keep the Law, therefore he may desire and wish; but not so of God; he may not only by his absolute power, but modo decenti in a manner becoming himself and man's nature, make all to keep his Law and be saved; therefore no cause why he should desire.  
4. The Lawgiver because he desireth, (and desire accomplished breeds joy, but disappointed breeds sorrow of heart,) useth all possible means that lie in his power, and which he knows are requisite to make men keep those Laws: but God doth not use all those means which he knoweth requisite to make men obey and believe, no not those which he might, and neither does any indecent thing to his own nature or man's liberty; therefore I see not how it may appear that God desireth the salvation of all, though that similitude hold on man's part.  
5. This reasoning and argumentation from man to God, I cannot see to be safe; too fair a way is there laid open to delirate with the gross Anthropomorthites, and to make man's imperfection the measure of God's perfection; and my Antagonist will tell Corvinus, 
Cap. 6.29.  that [It is ungodly to compare God and man, to compare the works, words and thoughts of man, to them of God, and to make them equal and alike.] And the argument herein comes to this issue. A Lawgiver that knoweth not but all may obey, hath it not in his power to make all obey; that useth all means to cause men to obey, may desire that all his subjects do obey; therefore God which knoweth that all shall not be saved, and in whose power it is to cause men to believe and be saved, and who useth not all means that he may to that purpose, may will the salvation of all; the validity of which reasoning is not clear. And in all these I can not conceive that his understanding did betray him to such inconsequences, but rather he desired to dazzle the eyes of his readers with such phrasiologies.   

Absurd. 2.  
The second absurdity is this. If God will from eternity the salvation of all, and yet the damnation of some; then [voluntas humana efficit ut deus rescindat voluntatem longe optimam, etc. That is, 
c. 5. s. 4.  than the will of man causeth that God doth cut of his antecedent will; from which Corvinus himself concludeth the mind of his adversary. [Vis dicere voluntatem dei mutabilem statui;] that is, thou wouldst say that we make Gods will mutable; and this indeed is the genuine absurdity that we fasten upon their doctrine, and upon examination I think it will be found to be neither (invidiose,) nor (misere,) enviously nor miserably, as he is pleased to reply; for let us consider God being affirmed by them to will the salvation of all from eternity, either he must retain and persist in that will to eternity, and so will it even then when they are actually condemned in hell; or not retain it. I suppose none will affirm that when men are irrecoverably in hell, that then God doth retain his will to save them; if he do not, then must he needs be mutable; but this Arminius himself durst not own, but granteth that act whereby he willeth any thing is [actus aeternus & immutabilis,] eternal and immutable, and his reason is, [nihil potest de novo bonum videri, 
disp. pub. Thes. 4.5.51.  & quod illi semel bonum visum fuit perpetuo illi tale videtur:] that is, nothing seemeth anew to God to be good, and what once seemeth good to him always appears under that notion; therefore what ever he willeth, and however, whether upon any condition or absolutely, he must so will to eternity, else is he mutable in Arminius reasoning. God's decrees are eternal, so the same granteth, and upon this ground [Secus deo mutatio impingitur, 
disp. pub. Thes. 15. sect. 6. ] otherwise a change may be fastened upon God; now that God's decrees may be eternal, requisite it is that they be so, both [ex parte ante,] and [ea parte post,] that is, both from eternity, and to eternity: he must neither begin to will that which before he did not, or leave of to will that which before he did; if either, he nor his will can be said to be eternal. So Aquinas explaineth himself, 
part. 1. Q. 19 Art. 7.  [Mutatio est in voluntate cum incipit velle quod alias non volebat, vel cum definit velle, etc. sed in deo nulla talis mutatio;] that is, the will is changed either when it beginneth anew to will what it did not, or doth desist to will that which it did, but no such change is in God; and Corvinus himself is afraid to own any such change in God; 
c. 5. s. 4.  he saith [Non definit deus velle quod vult voluntate antecedenti;] that is God doth not cease to will what he did from eternity by his antecedent will; and so seemeth to aver that to eternity God doth will the salvation of all; than it must follow that he willeth the salvation of all, either conditionally or absolutely, when many are in hell and there irrecoverably; his reason is annexed, [quia voluntas consequens est cum velleitate in contrarium;] that is, because the consequent will of God is always with a velleity to the contrary; the assertion impious, and the reason miserable: so that now the reader may easily conjecture how the case standeth herein; their doctrine throweth them upon one of these two rocks; either God doth retain that will to eternity, and so will to save many when they are in hell, which is ridiculous and impious to affirm, whether meant of a conditional or absolute will; or else God is mutable and changeth his will, ceaseth to will that which he formerly did will; the latter of these Corvinus seeketh to remove, and thus replieth.  
Cum divinam voluntatem mutabilem esse objecisti, 
Ibid.  parum attendisti ad ea quae â Thomâ disseruntur. 1. Quest. 19 Art. 7. Aliud esse mutare voluntatem, aliud velle retum mutationem; potest aliquis voluntate immobiliter eadem manente velle quod nunc fiat hoc, posts contrarium; immò de homine verum est ut absque voluntatis mutatione destruat quod fecit etiam velit aliquid facere ac simul intendat postea illud destruere; (that is) when thou objectest that the will of God is mutable, thou didst but little attend the words of Thomas, who saith it is one thing to change the will, an other to will a change of things; one may (the will remaining the same,) will that this shall be done, and afterwards the contrary; and it is true of man, that without the change of his will he may destroy that which he made, and will to do that which he may at the same time will to undo.  
In all which he doth discover sufficiently, that he hath not well considered the placita of that learned Schooleman, or however as little attended to the sense, as his Adversary to the words of that angelical Doctor. Clear it is to any man's reason, that the expresses of Aquinas take place in those things in which there may be a change; for God to will a change of things, necessarily supposeth that those may be changed: as to instance, God might and did will at one and the same act to create and to destroy the world; that change of things argued no change in God's will, but that he willed a change: but than it is because the world was capable of that change that is, it was both created and destroyed, and well might be so, and so the will of God fulfilled in both parts of it; the same might be said of making Saul King, and taking the kingdom away; and so the instance of Corvinus, [Man may make a thing and destroy it;] true, because that thing is capable of such making, and of an after destruction; but all these are impertinent to the case in hand; the thing about which we treat, is not capable of any change, no not by divine power; for let a man be eternally saved, and there shall not succeed an other eternity in which he may be damned. Let the ingenuity of Corvinus dictate to us.  
Can the same man be as easily saved eternally, and damned eternally, as the world be created, and so successively destroyed; or the same piece of work made by a man, may be made and then after destroyed? if not, why doth he darken such clear points with the mists of such empty allusions? and herein his argumentation comes to this issue, God may will a change in things that admit a change; therefore he may will a change in things that cannot (no not by divine power) admit any; or thus, he may will to create the world, and to destroy it without a change of his will; therefore he may will the salvation and eternal damnation of the same man at the same time; or thus, when he willeth to make and destroy the same thing, he willeth but a change not changing his will; therefore he changeth not his will when he willeth the salvation and damnation, and both eternal, of the same man, at the same same time; but of these I may say as he of his Adversary, [Jnvidiosè omnia & misere.] Thus fare I urge, seeing there can be no change in this, there must be a change in his will, in such a will as that is.   

Absurd. 3.  
If God will at the same time the salvation of all, and the damnation of some; so by consequence the salvation and damnation of the same persons at the same time; then [inducitur pugna inter duas dei voluntates;] that is, there is a fight and contrariety betwixt the wills of God; to will to save and yet to damn the same persons, are repugnant disagreeing wills, because they cannot both have execution. To this Corvinus replieth, [Diversitas objecti tollit contratietatem voluntatis. Objectum hic non est idem & eodem modo affectum; versatur prior voluntas circa hominem qua talem, posterior circa illum quâ fidelem vel infidelem; potest deus ante fidei considerationem velle omnes salvare, eâ conditione si oredant, & simul velle eos qui non credunt damnare;] That is, the diversity of the object taketh away the contrariety of the will: the object in this case is not considered as the same manner affected, so not the same; the first looks on man as man, 
c. 5. sect. 8. & 11.  the second as a believer or not believer. God may before he consider faith, will to save all, and yet at the same time will to damn them that believe not.] Which reply satisfi●th not upon this twofold ground.  
1. Be it granted, that a divers manner of considering the object may take away the contrariety of his will, yet such various and divers consideration of the same man is not compatible to God, nothing appeareth to God anew, every man appeareth to God under the same notion from all eternity to all eternity: there was no instant when God did not see, or not consider every man as he is; and whereas he saith, God might will to save all, [ante fidei considerationem,] before he considered faith, that there was an instant before he considered the faith of them that come to believe; but this is false. I shall only herein insist upon the placita of Arminius himself, who is of some authority with Corvinus; in his publ. disp. th'. s. 4. he saith thus, [Ab aeterno novit omnia, nihil de novo; non nunc intelligit quod non intelligebat antea.] Sect. 33. That is, he knows all things from eternity, nothing anew, nor that now which he knew not before. Again, [Jmmense novit omnia sine scientiae vel augmentatione vel decremento.] Ibid. That is, he knoweth all things immensly, without increase or decrease of his knowledge. Again, [Jmmutabiliter novit omnia non variata cognitime,] That is, he knoweth all things, immutably without variation of his knowledge. Again, [Vno & individuo actu omnia cognoscit non distractus in plurima.] He knoweth all things with one single and individual act, not distracted into more. Again, [Voluntas dei est aeterna, quia nihil potest de novo deo aut esse aut videri bonum,] That is, the will of God is eternal, because nothing can either be, or seem to be good to God anew. Again, [Jmmutabills, quia quod semel illi bonum fuit aut visum fuit, semper illi tale est & videtur.] That is, it is also immutable, because that which now is and seemeth good to him, ever did and shall seem so; now if these be true, (as clear it is they are,) that all things are present to God from eternity, and that he seethe all things with one individual identical act and prescience; then must it follow that every respect or qualification in which he forseeth any man to be, is but one and the same: now in an identical and individual tuition or prescience, there can be no divers respect or various qualifications, that may produce such various volitions in God; if he do not afterwards see any man incredulous whom he did not for ever see so, why should he under that notion will to damn him, whom before he had willed to save? in this my reason reacheth not the depth of his assertions, or why he should will to save any man upon condition of faith, whom he at that time looketh upon as incredu'ous, yea persisting in that incredulity, I cannot comprehend.  
2. Let it be granted for argumentations sake, that such various respects are incident to God, yet this wanteth proof, that such various respects tokes away the contrariety of will, which maketh his replication to labour with a second dissatisfaction. And to make this good I shall urge him with the words of Arminius himself, when the question was about God's willing of sin, by his will or decree, though he forbade it by his commands, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, called Signum voluntatis the sign of his will; this is pressed by Bellarmin and others, with this absurdity, than God must will contraries, if he determine one thing and command an other: to this Mr Perkins answers negatively, not contrary, because it is (called) and (forbidden) under a divers respect, to which Arminius replieth (though upon no fair occasion,) thus,  

in Perkins. 128.  Responsio tua nodum non solvit; vella aliquid evenire & velle idem non evenire, non differunt tantum respectibus sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & integris essentils, neque ullus est respectus five modum secundum quem deus dici potest velle ut evenia● aliquid & simul velle ut idem non eveniat; non enim potest circa unu● idemque objectum, quibuscunque respectibus induatur, contrary actibus versari divina voluntas.] That is, thy answer doth not untie the knot; for to will a thing to come to pass, and to will the same thing not to come to pass, doth not differ in respects only, but in their whole and entire essences; neither is their any respect or manner according to which God may be said to will that a thing should come to pass, and yet that it should not come to pass; the will of God cannot be conversant in contrary acts about one and the same object with whatsoever respects that object be clothed.  
Thus he venteth himself against his adversary, and exspiateth himself as much against that, as Corvinus doth for it; now why may I not say, that the replication of Corvinus doth not unloose the knot? for this is clear, that for God to will to save, and yet to damn the same man, doth differ as much as for God to will to save; and not to save; because in his will to damn, there is contained a will not to save and his will to save and yet not to save, are as different as his will that a thing should come to pass, and yet will that it should not come to pass; and these in Arminius his divinity do differ in their entire essences; then they are not to be reconciled by their various divers respects; and if there be no respect, nor can be according to which God may will the same thing to come to pass, and not to come to pass; then there neither is nor can be any such divers respect, according to which he may will to save, and yet not to save the same person at the same time; and herein we may see how inconsistent the sentences of these two great Remonstrants are (though one defend the other eagerly;) the one saith, that a divers respect doth take away the contrariety of will; the other saith that the will of God cannot be versed about any one object in contrary acts, with what circumstances or respects soever it be clothed; the one grants that a divers respect takes away the contrariety; the other contendeth it doth not; the one saith, (that a divers respect maketh it not to be one and the same object;) the other saith, that it is one and the same object, with what respect soever it be clothed; and sure it is that if the expresses of Corvinus have weight in them, viz. [various respects make it not to be the same object;] then the words of Arminius, viz. [The same object what respects soever it is clothed with,] have more emptiness in them then Corvinus is willing to have them charged with.  
3. Corvinus speaking of the divers respect which God considers in man (as he saith) maketh God not to will contraries, goes further and saith, [Jmmo ne quidem mutatur dei voluntas;] That is, it is so fare from his willing contraries, that it doth keep his will from being subject to change. But this is not consonant to reason; various respects doth not take away a change, but rather [ponere rationē●tandi,] put a reason of a change; if the understanding of God may be obnoxious to a divers or various respect or consideration, why not his will? & if diversity of respect should take away mutation of will, than should man never be capable of changing his will; for it is against the working of rational agents, having placed the will upon an object, ever to change that will, without a variety of consideration or respect; they see something which they saw not before; but that man may change his will, no man yet ever hath doubted. To instance, a man determineth to give his estate to his son, because he is his son; but afterwards this son proveth disobedient and rebellious; now under this notion he determineth again to disinherit him, and not to give him his estate; now here is a divers respect considered; but we need not fear to say, that that father changeth his mind towards that son, but rather that divers respects showeth the cause why he changeth his mind.  
1. He willed that which he knew should never come to pass.  
2. He then must retain that will to eternity, and so will to save them when they are actually damned, or else be mutable in ceasing to will that which he once willed; both absurd to affirm.  
3. He then must will contrary things, and such things as can in no wise (no not by divine power) be concentred in an execution; happily from the Author we may receive some new satisfaction. I shall expect it; surely if not, they will make the doctrine of election as he setteth it down, and universal redemption to be inconsistent; and hereby I prove, that considering that will to give up many to destruction, there could be no such will from eternity to send Christ to save every man.  
Secondly, there is no such execution in time.  
Not by God, he sent not Christ for that end: upon Arminius his ground, God doth not any thing in time, but what he decreed before time.  
Not by Christ, he came not for that end, viz. to save them whom his Father had decreed to harden.  
This would entrench upon,  
1. His wisdom, in laying down his blood a price to ransom, that must of necessity be destroyed; that blood is shed in vain, in regard of that end: for when God hath decreed to harden and destroy a man, that decree of God bringeth a necessity upon his destruction, if Arminius be right. [Ex praescientia concluditur insallibilitas, ex decreto necessitas.] In Perkins. 142.  
2. His oneness in will with his Father, of which the Author speaketh much, page. 4. Section. 8. Now how is Christ's will and his Fathers one, and how could he say, I come to do thy will O God, if he came to save them whom his Father had decreed from eternity to harden and give up to destruction? How then do Gods decrees and Christ's general purchase agree? But he hath something more to repose.  
However all God's counsels stand, yet those that have known the same have not such use of it as to put any impossibility on God to do his creatures good. John knew stones were not elected, yet he said (not of his will but power,) God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham.]  
This being his last hold, if this be beat down, where he will be next I know not: Now it is to be considered, that the question doth not proceed upon God's absolute power, but his limited; as he hath limited it by his decree, we deny not but God could so have willed, but he did not; and willing to barden, cannot now will to save. It is no inconsistent thing with his omnipotency, to say that he cannot now [S●ante aeternâ electione,] show the top of his mercy to every man. It is true, all things are possible to him; yet this is also true, he cannot sinne, lie, deny himself, repent, change: so he cannot but proceed according to the council of his own will, else he should be impotent not omnipotent.  
Let men understand the counsels of God as they please, I shall not be afraid to affirm that as God hath set down his decrees from eternity, he cannot now show the top of his mercy to every man.  
But to his instances, whereby he refelleth this.  
Math. 3.9. God is able to raise children of these stones,] And saith the Author these were not elected; true, but john did not know but that God might not have willed to raise up children out of them; and he there speaketh of his absolute power: but had john known that God had determined not to raise up to Abraham children out of them, it is questionable whether he would have so expressed it. Rom. 11.23. God is able to graft them in again: true, and he decreed so to do; we daily expect it from the promise: what is this to the opening a way for Gods doing of that, which he hath decreed not to do?  
Mat. 26.33. I could obtain more than twelve Legions,] True, God could send so many by his absolute power; but considering his decree, he had tied himself; besides I dispute not about God's power, but will; not whether he can save them whom he resolved to harden, but whether he ever willeth so to do; and for this that example confirmeth me, because his father would nor grant, or he beg, because they had determined he should suffer. His hour was come.  
Then to conclude, let the Author bend himself to reconcile Christ's will to his Fathers, if he procure life for any man, either absolutely, or upon any condition; so that the Argument standeth firm, that seeing Christ's will is one with his Fathers: and his actions in time, do perfect his Father's decrees before time, his redemption but subservient to his Father's election, seeing his Father elected not every man to grace and glory, he purchased not grace and glory for every man, either absolutely, or on condition.    

CHAP. XVIII. Of the sixth Objection.  
THe sixth Argument is this.  
[The ransom is no larger than his Priestly Regal Prophetic offices.  
But those offices appertain only to his Church and chosen.  
Ergo, The ransom and mediation appertains to no more.]  
This argument I find not any where urged; certainly it is of his own framing, which is too great a privilege for him to assume, to form argument for himself to answer, and which he might improve so fare as to give more satisfactory answers than he doth to this argument; I shall not undertake to defend it, yet I shall observe how absurd answers he giveth to a weak argument. He saith,  
[This sober objection denieth not his death for all, but only his ransom and mediation.]  
But this is hardly a sober solution to that sober argument; for if the Author had been as sober as the objector, he might have seen that in denying his ransom for all, he denyeth his death for all, because his ransom is by dying, and whom he ransomed he died for; and so for whom he died not, he did not ransom.  
2. If he said no more, the conclusion opposeth the author's doctrine strongly, which in every leaf is for universal ransom and mediation, as appeareth by his after words.  
[He could not be Lord of all nor challenge submission, etc. if he had not ransomed them.]  
The emptiness of which hath been often discovered; his being Lord of all, challenging submission, does no way infer a a ransom; the Father is and doth all those things mentioned, yet he never ransomed them, o● died for them; the Father was Lord, and challenged submission of man in innocency, when no need of ransom; and so for all the rest I have shown that they do not necessarily infer a ransom.  
But he afterwards saith,  
[The answer to that objection is easy.]  
But what need an answer if the objection be so sober as not to oppose him? and easy it is to give an answer; but to give such an one as satisfieth, that is not so easy; as appeareth by his whole discourse; but let us see his facile and obvious answers; it is this.  
[As the mediation of Christ is both more generally and more special; the first as he is Mediator between God and man, 1 Tim. 2.5. the second as he is Mediator of the New Testament, Heb. 9.14. so in all his offices there is that which is more general, and that which is more special.]  
Now this labours with a double error; for neither is his mediation twofold, neither are his offices twofold, that is general and special; as for the first, viz. his distinction betwixt his mediation of the New Testament, and his mediation between God and man, is ridiculous and not consonant to Scripture; for, when he was said to be a mediator betwixt God and man, 1 Tim. 2 5. was he not in that mediation a mediator of the New Testament? is there any mediation that is not by a New Testament, even for transgressors that were under the former Testament? as Heb. 9.15. and was not his mediation, Heb. 9.15. a mediation between God man? is there any mediation that is not between God and man? was not that mediation in Heb. 9.14.15. for the redemption of transgressors, and by death? and was not that in 1 Tim. 2.5. the like? and is there any mediation for transgressors, and by death, but such as is between God and man? no marvel if such answers be easy and ready at hand.  
Again he urgeth thus,  
[as a Priest he offered sacrifice in respect of one end, (viz.) propitiation for all men, Heb. 9.26. & 2.9. john. 1.29. 1 john. 2.2. but in respect of all ends, propitiation, sealing the New Testament, testification of truth, and for the uttermost end in all, for his called and chosen ones, Heb. 9.14.15.]  
As for his distinction of ends, dividing some to all, others for his chosen, is without ground, as I have shown in the former part of my treatise; and clear it is, because his propitiation is nowhere said to be for every man, therefore all the ends of his death are for the same persons. Yea that Text Heb, 9.14.15. hinteth of no other end but propitiation or redemption of transgressions as ver. 15. yet the Author himself confesseth that it is for his called and chosen ones, and that those Texts Heb. 2.9. 1 John, 29. 1 john. 2.2. do not hold such a general popitiation, I have shown at large; this is but [petitio principij.] And why he should produce a double oblation from 1 Tim. 2.5. and Heb. 9.14.15. I see not, seeing he cannot produce any differing circumstance; both by Christ, both by death, both for transgressions, both that those that are called might receive the promise; now if he shall say the one is for all, the other for his chosen, this is not against us, but giveth us the question, and granteth that the all in 1 Tim. 2.5. is no more than the chosen one's in Heb. 9.14.15. Hereby we may have a taste, that let the argument be as weak as it can, yet his answers are as weak and come fare short of discovering any weakness in it.   

CHAP. XIX. Of the seventh Objection.  
A seventh argument produced by him is this.  
[If God intended life for all men by Christ death, he would certainly have used some means to bring all men to the knowledge of Christ, and so to repentance and faith.  
But to many he giveth no means at all; to others denied means when his servants would have carried the same. Therefore.]  
This argument was the fifth argument in the conference, and in its right formation runneth thus.  
[If Christ have procured reconciliation and remission by his death for every man, none excepted, than the word of reconciliation would and should have been preached to every man, none excepted.]  
But the word of reconciliation is not &c.  
Ergo, Christ did not procure remission for all and every man.]  
But to take his argument as it runneth, I shall first show the force of the argument; it is but consonant to the wisdom of God, to have made such a purchase by his Son, or Christ by himself at so dear a rate as his blood, and that for the good of men, that he should make a discovery of this, that so men might come to partake of it and the benefits of it; for no man can partake of this remission but by faith, Rom. 3.25. and faith is not ordinarily begotten but by the word, Rom. 10.14. hence the Apostle putteth both together, 2 Cor. 5.15.18.19. with dying and reconciling, he committed the Gospel of reconciliation to the Apostles; but that many millions die without any knowledge of Jesus Christ, Scripture showeth and experience witnesseth. Now to perpend his answer; hereto he saith.  
[This objection denyeth neither the death or ransom of Christ to be for all men, but only any intendment of life and saving grace thereby.]  
And doth this clear him from the force of this argument? he is sufficiently confounded hereby; because he holdeth that his purchase, and ransom, and death, was with an intendment of life to every man, as he saith, page 15. [He hath wrought for all men that they might be eternally saved;] doth not this sufficiently discover the folly of the Author in answering the objection with that which confirmeth it and overthroweth himself? He further saith.  
[Nor for any but where the Gospel is not granted.]  
And enough too; because if Christ died not for all those where the Gospel never cometh, he died not for every man without exception. Yet he can manfully say the force of the objection is weak, and his grounds follow.  
[The Scripture hath expressly affirmed God's intention to be that they all might be saved, and repent, and believe, and be further saved. Ezeck. 33.11. john. 3.17. john. 1.4.7. Rom. 2.4. 1 Tim. 2.4. 2 Pet. 3.9.]  
But what doth this help him? certainly nothing; because that to deny God's intendment of life to all, was nothing against him, as even now he professed.  
2. If he mean every son of Adam, no place cited by him cleareth it; it is not suitable to reason, that God should intent those men might or should believe and be further saved, whom he decreed from eternity should be damned: this I have at large proud.  
3. If the Author so confidently can say, that it is God's intention that all men should believe, he need not be so squeemish at the affirming that it is his intention that all men should be eternally saved, which I find him sometimes and others of his opinion so loath to affirm. But he further saith.  
[If we cannot in the works of God see the fulfilling of the say of God, it becomes us to admire his wisdom and holiness, and bewail our ignorance, etc. and not by rash judging deny the truth of his words, Rom. 11.33.]  
True, if we be sure such a thing is the work of God, if we cannot fathom it, to admire the wisdom of God is good, as Rom. 11.33. but we may admire our own folly and bewail it, to put such a sense on Scripture, as that we cannot make it and the wisdom of God to meet; we deny not the truth of God's words but the Author's gloss; and if he can prove it to be truly the work of God, or that it is a truth, I shall admire, though I cannot fathom it. Hitherto I conceive he hath been oppugning the major; afterwards he cometh to the minor, and thus saith.  
[The Scripture testifieth that God hath and doth use some means towards all men, not only in his works of creation and providence, which giveth some testimony of his goodness, etc. but with some further light, yea it may be some rumour of the Gospel, as much as drew Rahab to believe, etc.]  
Hereby attempting to prove, that some discovery of the purchase is made known to every man. But very confidently he saith God affordeth some means to all men, but shows not to what end, whether to manifest his power and Godhead, and mere goodness; or further to show his mercy in our repairing; but this latter is most suitable to his purpose and the argument; but what means doth he use? he saith, [not only by his works of creation and providence,] to intimate that those are means to discover something of Christ; but without ground; for the creation can no more alone discover a Saviour, than they could in the creature; goodness we may see in the creature, but not mercy: indeed if we have a word with them, it can tell us we have sinned and so forfeited all, than we may see mercy, not else, and all that the creation discovers is power and Godhead; but this there was before any mercy, and may be without it; but he saith, [With further light,] but speaketh not what that is, therefore I cannot answer; but he addeth, [It may be some rumour of the Gospel,] but no Scripture saith it; if it do, why doth he darken truth with [May be?] if it do not, why doth he oppugn truth with (may be?) he must not think to overthrow arguments with [May be●s;] as for the rumour that was made to Adam, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Jacob, Rahab, etc. unless he learn better skill in probation, 
Apolog. c. 7. s. 8. in resp. ad Art. 31. A 11.  it will not be very easy to prove that that those had knowledge of Christ, or of a Saviour; the Remonstrants will tell him that faith in Jesus was not required of the fathers under the Old Testament, but only in God: and Arminius will not only question but strongly argue, that the faithful in the Old Testament, did not know that the Law typed out Christ and his benefits; but I do not so satisfy the Author; but what if Adam, Noah, Shem, Abraham, etc. did hear and know something? what is this to every individual man that ever was or shall be? the strongest asserters of this general discovery of the gospel, have yet been forced to confess the contrary; 
in Perk. 258. Coru. in M. c. 28. s. 8. Act. Synod. 327. 316. 285. Col. Hag. 179. Col. Hag. in Arg. 5.  Arminius himself saith thus, Causa cur deus omnibus Christum non revelet est quod parentes repudiaverunt,] (that is) the cause why God doth not reveal Christ to all, is, because their parents have rejected: if he give a reason, then certainly that must be a truth of which he giveth a reason, that Christ is not revealed to all; and the Remonstrants confess, [Ecce populos quosdam etiam hujus temporis qui adhucdum nihil de hoc reconciliationis verbo sciunt;] (that is) there is a people in this time, that never heard a word of that work of reconciliation; and in this thing they miserably falter; sometimes they say, [As much as in him lieth he dispenseth it;] sometimes [for his part he is ready to take care that it be preached;] sometimes [he commandeth it to be preached;] sometimes [it aught to be preached;] sometimes [it may be preached;] and if it were possible, would say many more to salve it. And therefore though we will not say that God doth not use any means to know him and his Godhead, yet we may say, he useth no means to every man to discover Christ and the redemption by him. He further saith.  
[God denial of his servants to preach in some places for a time, as in Acts, 16.6, 7. proveth not an utter denial of all means to them (and among many reasons he giveth this one, but he may deny it for one time, yet grant it for an other.]  
All this may be received, yet we not hurt; for we say not that he denyeth them all means to know him, but means to know Christ he did; and what though he granted the Gospel afterwards to those places, yet in the interval of time did not many (thinketh he,) die without knowledge of Christ? as for example, many Gentiles perished in ignorance of Christ, during the time of the Gospel's confinement to the Jews, though afterward it was granted to the Gentiles: and if so, our Minor is yet firm; nothing of moment doth he else produce but what confirmeth that assumption that he would overthrow.  
Thus have I marshalled up our arguments in their native force, and his answers in their greatest strength; and herein have been as faithful as I am able; and whether he hath abated the force of any one argument, or given any thing but cavils to darken the truth, I leave to any indifferent reader to judge; and what faithfulness he hath observed in laying down our arguments, I leave also to judge; in the next Chapter we shall see if he have any more dexterity in producing his own arguments, than he hath manifested in reciting ours.   

CHAP. XX. Of the Arguments confirming the Proposition.  
WHerein I shall first touch his fair flourish in the entrance, viz.  
[To satisfy such as would have reason satisfied, reasons are added]  
So that now we may set up a general (siquis) if any would have his reason satisfied, let him come hither: and he doth well to satisfy reason, for he hath not yet confirmed our faith; but what persons are they that must be satisfied? certainly none but such as are satisfied with any thing; yet thus fare my reason is satisfied, that the Author hath not light upon forcible arguments to prove this position. As for his arguments produced, no answer need be given, muchless much pains to be spent in a solicitous answer; and this any intelligent Reader will grant, if he consider these particulars concerning them.  
1. Observe that in all he produceth Scriptures to bacl his conclusions, providing himself against such (as having as little skill as himself in ratiotination,) may deny the conclusion, which is against the rule of argumentation, in which if good, the conclusion hath strength enough from the premises, and let them be right, I will warrant his conclusion; now what strength of Argument can we expect from such as is so weakly versed in that way?  
2. His arguments are many, six in number, to call the eyes of men upon that truth that is backed by multitude of arguments, when he deceiveth them utterly; for his mediums are all coincident in one; let us view them. His 

[1. Saith, That which the Scripture plainly affirmeth in plain words, is true.  
2. Saith, T●●● for whom Christ and his Apostles in plain terms affirm Christ to come to save, them he did come to save.  
3. Saith, That which Scripture layeth down as one end of his death etc. is to be believed.  
4. Saith, That which the Scripture sets forth in general for the world, it a truth.  
5: Saith, That which may be proved in and by Scripture in plain sentences, etc. is a truth.]    
Now let any divine Chymnist extract a difference betwixt any of these; do they nor deserve by the variety of matter to be ranged as distinct arguments? should I have distinct answers, I should run into the Author's folly.  
3. Let us view the conclusions in all, and so see what he proveth in all his plain Scriptures. His 

[1. Thus, That he gave himself a ransom for all, and tasted death for every man.  
2. He came to save sinners, world, unjust, ungodly.  
3. That by his death he is Lord of all.  
4. That he was sent to be the Saviour of the world, that whoever believeth should not perish.  
5. That he hath in dying lordship over all.  
6. That he gave himself a ransom for all, and tasted death for every man.]    
Now not to insist on that peccancy, in having such various conclusions about one and the same question, wherein he cannot satisfy that requisite in reasoning to conclude with the question; this I say, none of these conclusions are against us, which may be reduced to that peccancy in reasoning which is called (ignoratio elenchi;) none of his arguments are in right form, they have more in the conclusion than his premises contribute to them, all have some or other obliquity; but seeing all of them are but one medium, and so in effect but one argument, I shall give this one answer, (conceditur totum,) and he can desire no more of us then to grant all he saith; now in the issue either his weakness appeareth in producing that against us which we may grant, or ours in granting that which maketh against us; let him put it to the trial.   

CHAP. XXI. Of removing some doubts hindering some from believing that which they confess.  
WHerein he personateth some that cannot deny but confess that [Christ gave himself a ransom for all, and tasted death for every man;] but they cannot believe that Christ died for all men; I shall not insist on the Author's dexterity in framing such arguments and doubts that he may easily answer, and render the objectors ridiculous; his forgery lieth in two particulars.  
1. He knoweth none that cannot believe that which they confess Scripture speaketh; some may not confess that which they believe; but that any should not believe that which they confess, I believe not.  
2. He knoweth none that believe that Christ gave himself a ransom for all, and yet do doubt whether he died for all or no; this would be to exceed the Author in folly; but here lieth the doubt, though the Text say He gave himself a ransom for all men; yet they cannot believe that it meaneth every individual man without exception, upon a threefold ground arising from several Scriptures. as first,  
Eph. 2.8. [By grace are ye saved through faith, and this not of ourselves, it is the gift of God;] from this Text I do not affirm, that faith is said to be the gift of God, though it be so, and other Scriptures hold it forth, yet I say not that this text saith so; for having said [ye are saved by grace through faith:] it saith [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] which is not of ourselves; it doth not well agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it being of the new●er gender, but rather with the whole sentence going before, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that salvation by grace through faith is the gift of God, as Rom 6.33. the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. But to take it as as he propoundeth it, and from this that faith is the gift of God which is a truth, hence the doubt is this. Seeing faith is the gift of God, and he hath determined not to give to every man that faith; therefore it is not probable that Christ would lay down his life for them, upon the condition of faith, whom he seethe cannot believe without God, and to them God will not give it; to the salving of which he speaks many things; but little to satisfaction, he seemeth to distinguish of salvation.  
1. A salvation, without man in Christ, for men.  
2. A salvation in men enabling men to believe.  
3. A salvation upon men both in soul and body complete in heaven. Now he saith that this phrase, [Ye are saved by grace through faith,] in Eph. 28. is meant of the second salvation; but first that is not clear; for then the sense must be this, ye are brought in to believe through faith: so that faith is by him the means conducing to faith; this is absurd; I think it plainly appears to be meant of complete salvation in heaven, and it saith ye are saved, because they were certainly to be saved through faith. But be it so as he saith; yet the doubt is where it was; yet that being saved by faith is the gift of God, and he not giving that grace to all, he would not give his Son to merit life for all upon the condition of believing; if I can in his next be informed of his strength in his expresses to this purpose, I shall say more.  
His second Text produced,  
[john, 6.37. All that my Father giveth me shall come unto me, and him that cometh I will not cast out.]  
Now from this Text here lieth the doubt; it is not consonant to reason or Scripture, that Christ would lay down his blood to purchase life for them whom his Father had not given to him; seeing his Father's giving is the measure of coming to him, and so being within the compass of the benefit of his impetration, his will being one with his Fathers, his impetration would be equal with his Father's giving to him; this he undertaketh to remove, by showing a fouretold giving of men to Christ.  

[1. Giving by election to sonship and inheritance.  
2. Giving men to him to undertake for them and to ransom them.  
3. Giving men to Christ, they to be his, and he to be their Lord.  
4. Giving men to Christ in the heavenly call, so they are given up to him.]   
But what need so many words to darken a clear Text? and what need so many acceptations, when it is clear that all of them cannot be the sense of this place, or give any light to it? The second giving cannot be meant, because all for whom he undertook and ransomed, in the Author's judgement, do not come to him, that is believe on him, so contrary to the text, all that my Father giveth me shall come to me.  
Neither can the third be the sense here meant, upon the same ground; many who are Christ's at his dispose, so as to be their Lord, they yet come not to him, that is believe on him; and those that by his judiciary power come to be judged, or come to sue for mercy, many of them are cast out: as is seem in the wedding, and the five foolish virgins; therefore little need be said of these, because they do not expound the Text by any one of these; all the contestation betwixt the Remonstrants and their adversaries, and me and my Antagonist, is betwixt the first and the fourth; he affirmeth the fourth to be the genuine sense of this place; but against not only reason but common sense; for by coming to Christ is certainly meant believing in him, coming by faith as is clear by many Scriptures, Mat. 11.28. [come unto me ye that are heavy laden,] that is believe in me, john, 6.64.65. compare them together, [ye believe not, no man can come unto me except my Father draw him, and ver. 35. both are put together, [He that believeth shall not hunger, he that cometh shall not thirst;] so according to him the sense must be this, they that have come shall come, or they that have believed shall believe; but this is very improbable; the gloss of the Remonstrants solveth it not, 
Act. Syn. in locum.  [veniet] for [venite debet] that is [shall come] by it is meant [aught to come] for it is still under the same absurdity to say they that have come aught to come, as to say they shall come.  
The next thing is to consider whether the first interpretation be the right or no; it seemeth to be the right, because the giving is antecedaneous to coming or believing, therefore most probable to be the giving by election; now of this sense he saith.  
[So they may be [though not in Scripture] truly said to be given him.]  
But whence doth he deduce this liberty, to say that it is truly said of Christ which is not said in Scripture? it seems the Scripture is not the adequate subject of truth.  
[But these are not the only number that are given to him; for as they are given to him to be heirs with him, so were all the rest given to him to serve him and his people.]  
Which is very impertinent to the case in hand; for we question not whether none be any way given to Christ, but such as are given by election: but whether in this Text the giving by election is meant or no; let all be given to Christ to be his servants, yet here those that come to him are given to him to be heirs with him; and this giving is before coming, therefore by election. Again,  
[Where election is set forth under this term of giving to Christ, is hard to find in Scripture.]  
But herein he did not compare his no●es well, and consider what he saith in the next page, 149. there he saith, [In all these three senses giving comprehends Adam and all that come of him, all men being given to Christ in all these three senses, as Scripture testifieth.] Now we must consider that the first of these three, is giving to Christ to be heirs and that by election, as he saith page 148. and this in one page he saith the Scripture testifieth that this election to sonship is understood by giving to Christ; but in page 148. he saith it is hard to find where it is so taken; this is an egregious contradiction, besides the extreme falsity, because we never find it testified that all are given by election to Christ to be heirs with him. And then he groundlessly concludes  
[In this place it neither is nor can be so taken.]  
But we have no reason nor Scripture to prove, but his bare word only to affirm it, but it is not of weight to carry it. 2. If it be not a giving by election, and yet antecedaneous to believing, I hope he will in his next make it appear what it is; and thus notwithstanding his groundless evasion, the doubt is still unsatisfied, from that Text John, 6.37. The third Text produced is, Acts, 13.48. As many as were ordained to eternal life believed;] the doubt hence is this, that seeing the reason why men believed, was because they were ordained to eternal life, and so the number of believers and the ordained to life are equal and run in an equipage, it is not probable that Christ would shed his blood for those to procure life upon faith whom he knew were not ordained to eternal life, This he would remove thus.  
[The words ordained to eternal life [it is to be feared] are mistaken, as if they signified only the prime election to sonship, whereas it is not found where that only sense is set forth in the words (ordained to life).]  
The clearest truth may be eclipsed by the interposition of humane glosses and suspicions; but to any unprejudiced man these three things may appear.  
1. That it was God that did ordain them, for so of his act it speaks, ver. 47. and of setting Paul to be for salvation, he did also ordain them to life that were to believe; indeed the Remonstrants are pleased to say, 
Act. Synod. in locum.  [non dicuntur ordinati a deo,] (that is) they are not said to be ordained of God; but what then? is it a hard thing to prove it so to be meant? why are we not to think it to be God's act in ordaining to life, as well as in appointment to life and salvation? as 1 Thes. 5.10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. He hath appointed us, viz. God, to obtain salvation; but if it be not God's act, let us be informed who it is that ordaineth men to life.  
2. We may see it is an appointment to eternal life, and that in plain terms; so that it must be an ordaining to sonship and inheritance.  
3. It is an act that was precedaneous to saith, as is clear; as many as were ordained to life then believed: therefore it could not be that temporary election, of which the Author speaks, therefore it must meant of the prime election; now seeing that it meaneth the prime election to inheritance, and he cannot produce any place of Scripture where this phrase signifieth any thing else, we may conclude that this phrase here signifieth only such prime ordaining to inheritance, and therefore the place is not abused. But I hope if he remove that sense, he will furnish us with some better, and not leave words without a sense, let us therefore see how it is taken in his judgement.  
He urgeth thus,  
[The word ordaining being found in Scripture to have a further sense, even of ordaining the elected; constitution, preparation, furniture, consecration for the business to which they are elected, 1 Pet. 1.20. Act. 10.42. Heb. 10.5. Eph. 2.10.]  
Wherein there is a learned discovery, but little to the purpose. For  
1. What matters it how the word be taken in itself; the question is how it is taken in this phrase, Ordained to life.  
2. He intimateth that to be ordained, constituted, consecrated to eternal life, is a further sense then to be elected to eternal life; let any intelligent man extract the difference.  
3. He cannot produce any Scripture, wherein the word in this Text signifieth preparation or furniture, to that thing which they were before elected to; if he can, I demand it.  
4. He produceth four several Texts (as he doth thousands to no purpose) to prove the words in Acts, 13.48. to have such a signification, when the word in that Text is not found in any of these four places; no nor the word ordained in our translation, in all of them. 1 Pet. 1.20. saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Acts, 10.42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Heb. 10.5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Eph. 2.10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; here is in every place a several word; and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Acts, 13.48. nor any word of that root to be found in any of those Texts; and yet these Texts are produced to show the meaning of that word, testifying his insufferable impudence to darken a clear Text upon such grounds, whereof he is altogether ignorant.  
5. Admit all he saith, yet doth the word (ordain) or the words in the original text, in 1 Pet. 1.20. Acts, 10.42. Eph. 2.10. comprehend any more than Gods instituting, appointing, consecrating Christ to his office and us to holiness, and not differing from his election to such things; what ordination of Christ to be the Lamb shine before the foundation of the world, but only in God's purpose? and was not this his prime election to that office? what vain flourishes he br●ngs to make us expect the explanation of that phrase (ordained to life,) when he doth not produce any place whereby it may be explained? He further addeth  
[So the word is used when spoke of the Church, Acts, 14.23. or of Gods ordaining, Rom. 13.1. 1 Cor. 12.28. 1 Tim. 2.7. Joh. 15.15.]  
Here is more forgery and falsehood still, no one place here mentioned, except Rom. 13.7. hath the same word as in Acts, 13.48. let any consult with the Text, and yet he dare aver that the word in Acts, 13.48. is used as he speaks in those Texts; how the man would boast of plenty of places to bacl his forgery upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; when he labours with a great penury? the word in Rom. 13.1. is the same, and signifieth appointment, not furniture, it is spoken of offices not officers which are appointed not furnished. He further addeth  
[And this word to be thus taken for an actual ordaining here, is evident by the like use of it in other places, speaking of the like blessing, 1 Col. 12.13. 1 Pet. 2.9. 1 joh. 5.11.12. joh. 6.36.]  
And because an actual ordaining, therefore not for ordaining by election, as if Gods ordaining by prime election was not actual ordaining; a senseless evasion.  
2. His Texts that he produceth are abused; for 1 Col 12.13. he vainly saith that they are of like use; is ordaining of men to life, and making them meet to partake of light, one and the same act? let reason determine; and for 1 Pet. 2.9. it is clear that they were called a chosen generation, in relation to prime election, as appears by the opposition, to them that were disobedient, to which they were appointed; as also from the entire sentence in the like case, 1 Thes. 5.10. He hath appointed us to obtain salvation; yet he abuseth, not satisfieth the Text: but what meaneth he by actual ordaining? by comparing his words, I gather this meaning, page 151.152. whereby he giveth this interpretation of the Text; [Those that were ordained to life, that is, had unfeigned and effectual faith wrought in them, and so did cleave to Christ, and give themselves up to him, etc. they believed;] Something allied to the gloss of the Remonstrants; but he I believe considered not what a monstrous interpretation this will invite; for then this must be the meaning: they that had faith in them believed; excellent interpreter! inferring that men may have faith, cleave to Christ, give themselves up to him before they believe; for clear it is that they were so ordained to life before they believed; but he hath an argument to prove that by (ordained to life) cannot be meant the prime election as he calleth, and it followeth in page 152.  
[It meaneth not so many as were elected in God's council to life; for than what becometh of all believers since? nor yet as many in that place or of that society; many such might be that were afterwards called.]  
Wherein he hath ploughed with the Arminian heifer; else this objection would not have been so ready at hand; 
Act. Synod. in locum.  [Si de electione absoluta haec verba accipienda essent, tum necessario sequeretur reliquos omnes etc. a deo reprobatos esse:] but to this we may answer divers ways. For  
1. Let it be as he would have it, that by ordaining to life, is to have faith wrought in them; will he say that all that had faith wrought in them, and so cleaved to Christ, did then believe? Scripture showeth the contrary; for than it must follow that all that did not at that time come in to believe, did not cleave to Christ, or give themselves to him, or in the Remonstrants' phrase, were not fit to receive the Gospel; but this is false.  
2. Our Author suggests an answer: As many in that place or in that society as were ordained to life believed; and all that he produceth against this, is this only; [Many there might be that were afterwards called,] but this is poor probation.  
3. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not always rendered As many, but (those) or (which;) the argument is not deduced from the quantity, but the quality of them that believed; in Acts, 9.39. it saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; yet we read it not they showed him as many coats as Dorcas made, but those coats which Dorcas made, that is, those coats that they showed him were of Dorcas her making; so here those which were ordained to life believed, that is, those that were believers were such as were ordained to eternal life; so that let the Author of these, be who it will, yet they are free from his responsary cavils.   

CHAP. XXII. Of the benefit of this Doctrine.  
IN which Chapter he attempts to lay lay down the utility of this doctrine, and that not without ground; that so it might appear that it is not without cause, that he compasseth sea and land to make Proselytes, runs and tides from Dan to Beersh●ba, as if the care of all Churches were laid upon his shoulders; leaveth his honest calling in which providence had placed him, to attend the preaching of that new gospel, neglecteth many gospel truths that may help to make the man of God wise to salvation; such being swallowed up by general atonement, as if the whole gospel was clasped up in this: now their evidence that it is not only profitable, but it intimateth some transcendent utility, either to God, or his Church, or himself; sure I am if it be a truth, it hath been the most profitable truth to him of all truths in the Bible.  
Now to this Chapter I shall only answer, first with Corvinus to his adversary, speaking of the utility of absolute predestination or election, he thus answers, 
Coru. in Molin. c. 2. Sect. 1.  [Si doctrina esset evangelium aut ejus pars, tum ad salutem esset necessario,] the sum of it is this, if it be true it is profitable, and then I answer with the scripture, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; everry scripture is of divine inspiration, and profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction, that the man of God may be perfect; let the Author first prove his doctrine to be true and Scripture, than we shall consider the utility of it, else herein we shall but beat the air at the best; for that which is not according to truth and sound words, as 1 Tim. 1.13. is at the best but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vain babble; 2 Tim. 2.16. profiteth nothing: and not only so, but increases to more ungodliness, and frets like a canker, 2 Tim. 2.17.  
In the following part of his discouse I find application made; but that I wave, because that which I undertake is the polemical part of his treatise; in which I have dealt as faithfully as my talon enableth me, and as candidly as the Author and the nature of his discourse doth admit, which I refer to himself or any unpraejudiced Reader. And when he shall prove that his doctrine is consonant to the words or true consequence of Scripture, I shall embrace it, press it, and magnify the utility of it.  
The Lord give us understanding in all things.   
FINIS.   

Imprimatur,  
James Cranford.   

ERRATA.  
IN Frontisp. for repudiant, read repudiat. In Epist. page 12. line 35. read protestation which tied him. p. 7. l. 11. for first, r. fifth. p. 13. l. 16. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 19 l. 23. for business, r. Basis. p. 20. l. 19 r. relating to the agent only is terminated. p. 28. l. 28. deal why. p. 29. l. 23. r. of it was intended. l. 34. for express, r. espy. l. 46. for he came out. r. he came not out. p. 34. l. 31. deal for. p. 40. l. 34. for obnoxious, r. obvious. p. 44. l. 33. 41. 43. for opposite, r. apposite. p. 60. l. 38. deal so.  
Page 141. l. 20. for approve. r. disprove. l. 35. for would them, r, would have. p. 148. l. 35. r. if the all men. p. 149. l. 35. r. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 151. l. 6. deal not. l. 33. for God working, r. God was working. ibid. for as r. is. p. 153 l. 3. r. I know not what. l. 8. for unbeleving, r. believing. p. 154. l. 41. for branding, r. branded with. p. 156. l. 23. 30. for nature, r. native. p. 161: l. 28. r. expressed not generally. p. 170. l. 23. for some, r. sum. p. 181. l. 32. deal that. l. 40. deal he. p. 182. l. 20. r. ungodly which be justified. p. 183. l. 10. r. doth he not justify. p. 18. r. would not be so clear. p. 184. l. 9 for advantage, r. adversary. p. 192. l. 16. for obligation. r. oblation. p. 204: l. 36. for infallible. r. fallible. p. 202. for he had, r. if he had.