Universal redemption of mankind, by the Lord Jesus Christ stated and cleared by the…

3. However, it is desperate Doctrine to teach poor Christians, that they have no ground to ⟨p. 163⟩Love or Thank Christ for Redeeming them, till the Spirit have without any signs revealed their Election to them (which I think it never doth.

Lastly, The Spirit witnesseth with our Spirit: Now our Spirit witnesseth only from evidence that we are Gods Children, and not without; and therefore whether the Spirit be a concurring witness in the same Testimony, or its Testimony be a concomitant Testimony, distinct from though conjunct with that of our Conscience, (I think the former) yet alls one to the point in hand, seeing they witness together.

So much for the Minor, viz. that the Elect are bound to love and thankfulness for Redemption before they know themselves Elect. Now for the consequence of the Major, it it clear from what is said, that the Elect could not be bound to this, except the Non-Elect are also: Because (as is proved) no Man can know whether he be Elect or not, before he know himself so much as obliged to love and gratitude for Redemption. For Elect and Non-Elect are not to to be discerned till Faith and love do put a difference. And therefore, methinks, I may conclude confidently, that the Non-Elect are bound to love and thankfulness for Redemption, or satisfaction, and therefore they are redeemed or satisfied for.

So much for the Minor, viz. that the Elect are bound to love and thankfulness for Redemption before they know themselves Elect. Now for the consequence of the Major, it it clear from what is said, that the Elect could not be bound to this, except the Non-Elect are also: Because (as is proved) no Man can know whether he be Elect or not, before he know himself so much as obliged to love and gratitude for Redemption. For Elect and Non-Elect are not to to be discerned till Faith and love do put a difference. And therefore, methinks, I may conclude confidently, that the Non-Elect are bound to love and thankfulness for Redemption, or satisfaction, and therefore they are redeemed or satisfyed for.

1. The Doctrine which I oppose is that Christ hath not only died for Men if they will believe, but died only for the Elect that they might believe; so that it is determined by name for whom he Died, and the rest he Died not for at all; and therefore his Dying for another, is not that which obligeth a man to Thankfulness: And their Ignorance that they are excluded, I have showed, can add no obligation.

1. The Doctrine which I oppose is that Christ hath not only died for Men if they will believe, but died only for the Elect that they might believe; so that it is determined by name for whom he Died, and the rest he Died not for at all; and therefore his Dying for another, is not that which obligeth a man to Thankfulness: And their Ignorance that they are excluded, I have shewed, can add no obligation.

2. Mens believing will not cause Christ to Die for them, nor is it a condition of it, as if Christ would Die for Men if they will believe; Believing presupposeth Christs Dying for us, and what then can be their meaning that say Christ Died and Satisfied for all men if they will Believe? When they say absolutely withal, that he Died not for all at all, but only for the Elect, that they might believe. Will they say that he Died for the Non-elect, if they will believe? Then either they must mean that he underwent the Penalty, and left it undetermined quorum loco, in whose stead and for whose sins it should be, till their believing determine it: But 1. This is as much denied by those whom I oppose, as by me. 2. And it is a contradiction. For it is Essential to Punishment to be propter peccatum; that Relation is its formal Nature, as it differs from Affliction in general; And therefore Christ suffered no Punishment, if it were not determinately for Sin: And the meritorious cause is considered as before the effect, and not after it; Or else if they speak of [Believing] not as any condition on mans part, but a Divinely-infused Character of those for whom Christ Died, then the sense of their words is but this [Christ Died ⟨p. 165⟩for the Non-elect, if they be Elect] or [Christ satisfied for all men, if all men be Elect] or [Christ Died in stead of all, if he will give Faith to all.] And who sees not that these words are a plain Negation, and all one with these [Christ satisfied not for all] q. d. [I leave in my Will such a Legacy to Titus, if Titus be not Titus, but Sempronius] what Lawyer knows not that is a denial, or an illusory nothing! And how then can this bind men to Love and Gratitude.

2. Mens believing will not cause Christ to Die for them, nor is it a condition of it, as if Christ would Die for Men if they will believe; Believing presupposeth Christs Dying for us, and what then can be their meaning that say Christ Died and Satisfied for all men if they will Believe? When they say absolutely withal, that he Died not for all at all, but only for the Elect, that they might believe. Will they say that he Died for the Non-elect, if they will believe? Then either they must mean that he underwent the Penalty, and left it undetermined quorum loco, in whose stead and for whose sins it should be, till their believing determine it: But 1. This is as much denyed by those whom I oppose, as by me. 2. And it is a contradiction. For it is Essential to Punishment to be propter peccatum; that Relation is its formal Nature, as it differs from Affliction in general; And therefore Christ suffered no Punishment, if it were not determinately for Sin: And the meritorious cause is considered as before the effect, and not after it; Or else if they speak of [Believing] not as any condition on mans part, but a Divinely-infused Character of those for whom Christ Died, then the sence of their words is but this [Christ Died ⟨p. 165⟩for the Non-elect, if they be Elect] or [Christ satisfied for all men, if all men be Elect] or [Christ Died in stead of all, if he will give Faith to all.] And who sees not that these words are a plain Negation, and all one with these [Christ satisfied not for all] q. d. [I leave in my Will such a Legacy to Titus, if Titus be not Titus, but Sempronius] what Lawyer knows not that is a denyal, or an illusory nothing! And how then can this bind men to Love and Gratitude.

If I could bethink me of any other considerable Objection I would answer it: But I cannot.

Furthermore for the Antecedency of the obligation to love, mark how Christ maketh it a condition to his own Love and his Fathers (as in a greater degree, and as manifested) Joh. 14. 21. He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest my self to him. Christ Loveth Men before they Love, as he is Dominus Absolutus and a free Benefactor, (and as a Natural Lover of his own Workmanship) But he loveth man after his Faith and Love to him as Rector per Leges, as putting on the resemblance of goodness, and justice in civil Sense, and as he now stands in that Relation to them, in which he is by his own Law, as it were obliged to do them good: Note this difference of Christs love, Prov. 8. 17. I love those that love me, and those that seek me early shall find me. So ver. 21. Luke 7. 47. Many sins are forgiven, for she loved much. If it be meant [therefore she loved much] yet it would not make against this.

From John 3. 19. I argue thus. If men are condemned for loving darkness rather than Light, (and Christ is this Light) then they were obliged to love Christ the Light. But, &c. Ergo, &c.

And I have showed it is as Redeemer that he must be loved: For to Love Christ as an excellent Prophet only, that a Turk may do, for Mahomet so confesseth him to be, Mat. 10. 37. It is Christs condition propounded to all, That if they love not him better than Father, Mother, House, Land or Life they cannot be his Disciples; So that those that are not yet his Disciples, are obliged at once to love him above all, and become his Disciples. 1 Cor. 16. 22. If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ let him be Anathema, Maran-atha.

And I have shewed it is as Redeemer that he must be loved: For to Love Christ as an excellent Prophet only, that a Turk may do, for Mahomet so confesseth him to be, Mat. 10. 37. It is Christs condition propounded to all, That if they love not him better than Father, Mother, House, Land or Life they cannot be his Disciples; So that those that are not yet his Disciples, are obliged at once to love him above all, and become his Disciples. 1 Cor. 16. 22. If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ let him be Anathema, Maran-atha.

And then more specially for Gratitude (because I have hitherto insisted on the other species, Love) there are many Parables in the Gospel that show that wicked men are condemned for ingratitude to their Redeemer, Mat. 21. 37, 40. &c. Christ convinceth his Auditors, that those unthankful Husband-men, that refused to pay the Fruits, and killed the Son that was sent to them; (he was sent to be entertained as Redeemer) would deservedly be destroyed with a miserable destruction, and the Vineyard let out to others, i. e. that the Kingdom of God should be taken from them and given to a Nation bringing forth the Fruits thereof. And what is that Kingdom (here meant) but the Gospel? The proclaiming and offer of Christ as Redeemer, and of mercy in and with him? Mat. 22. 8. It is unthankful refusal of the feast prepared, when all things were ready, and they invited which was the unworthiness ⟨p. 167⟩that there is mentioned, which shut out those Guests, Mat. 18. 32. Unthankfulness is intimated as part of the Sin of that wicked Servant, who took his fellow Servant by the throat for 100. Pence, when himself had been forgiven 10000 Talents: [I forgave thee all the debt] signifieth such a mercy as Men may have that perish (as is plain verse 34. 35.) and yet certainly presupposeth Christs dying for them, and obligeth them to thankfulness: If any ask the sense of the Text, I shall give it after by it self more fitly.

And then more specially for Gratitude (because I have hitherto insisted on the other species, Love) there are many Parables in the Gospel that shew that wicked men are condemned for ingratitude to their Redeemer, Mat. 21. 37, 40. &c. Christ convinceth his Auditors, that those unthankful Husband-men, that refused to pay the Fruits, and killed the Son that was sent to them; (he was sent to be entertained as Redeemer) would deservedly be destroyed with a miserable destruction, and the Vineyard let out to others, i. e. that the Kingdom of God should be taken from them and given to a Nation bringing forth the Fruits thereof. And what is that Kingdom (here meant) but the Gospel? The proclaiming and offer of Christ as Redeemer, and of mercy in and with him? Mat. 22. 8. It is unthankful refusal of the feast prepared, when all things were ready, and they invited which was the unworthiness ⟨p. 167⟩that there is mentioned, which shut out those Guests, Mat. 18. 32. Unthankfulness is intimamated as part of the Sin of that wicked Servant, who took his fellow Servant by the throat for 100. Pence, when himself had been forgiven 10000 Talents: [I forgave thee all the debt] signifieth such a mercy as Men may have that perish (as is plain verse 34. 35.) and yet certainly presupposeth Christs dying for them, and obligeth them to thankfulness: If any ask the sense of the Text, I shall give it after by it self more fitly.

Let me therefore conclude thus. That Doctrine which subverteth a very great part of Religion is not of God: But so doth this which denieth Universal satisfaction: Therefore it is not of God. The Minor is proved from what is said: It destroyeth the ground of all Mens first love to Christ for Redeeming them: It justifieth all the Non-Elect in their ingratitude and not loving Christ as their Redeemer: Besides what was said before of its destroying the use of repentance and all Means. But we shall recollect more of these consequences in the end, and show you more fully the face of the Doctrine which I dispute against.

Let me therefore conclude thus. That Doccrin which subverteth a very great part of Religion is not of God: But so doth this which denieth Universal satisfaction: Therefore it is not of God. The Minor is proved from what is said: It destroyeth the ground of all Mens first love to Christ for Redeeming them: It justifieth all the Non-Elect in their ingratitude and not loving Christ as their Redeemer: Besides what was said before of its destroying the use of repentance and all Means. But we shall recollect more of these consequences in the end, and shew you more fully the face of the Doctrin which I dispute against.

I have proved that all Men that hear the Gospel, owe Christ love and thankfulness for Redeeming them by dying for them. I should next show that all Men in the World do owe God love and thankfulness for those mercies which are the effects of Christs satisfaction: But especially those within the Church who have in the New Covenant, made over to them a conditional remission of their Sins, and adoption, and everlasting life, viz. If they will accept Christ with his benefits: Those that are sanctified with ⟨p. 168⟩the Blood of the Covenant, and are made partakers of the Holy Ghost and were escaped from the pollutions of the World through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and and have tasted the good word of God and the Powers of the World to come, &c. Certainly these have received the fruits of Christs satisfaction for which they were bound to be thankful. But of those more particularly in their place.

I have proved that all Men that hear the Gospel, owe Christ love and thankfulness for Redeeming them by dying for them. I should next shew that all Men in the World do owe God love and thankfulness for those mercies which are the effects of Christs satisfaction: But especially those within the Church who have in the New Covenant, made over to them a conditional remission of their Sins, and adoption, and everlasting life, viz. If they will accept Christ with his benefits: Those that are sanctified with ⟨p. 168⟩the Blood of the Covenant, and are made partakers of the Holy Ghost and were escaped from the pollutions of the World through the knowledg of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and and have tasted the good word of God and the Powers of the World to come, &c. Certainly these have received the fruits of Christs satisfaction for which they were bound to be thankful. But of those more particularly in their place.

Arg. 14th. Acertitudine fidei, & possibilitate rectè credendi.

If Christ hath not satisfied for the Sins of all, then no Man hath a sufficient ground for his first justifying Faith: (All Men are left at an utter uncomfortable uncertainty whether they may believe to Justification or not) But the consequent is false: Therefore so is the Antecedent.

That which is said before doth show so much of the grounds of this Argument, that I shall be the shorter in it now. All the doubt is of the consequence of the Major, and to clear that, I suppose it is granted that all firm, sufficient Faith for justification, must not only have a command to warrant it, but also a fit object about which it must be exercised. God commandeth no Man to believe a falsehood to make it become true by believing it, nor to trust to a person or promise that is not to be trusted, as being not only fallible, but certainly will deceive. As for the Act of affiance or recumbency, commonly called the justifying Act, no Man can groundedly or ⟨p. 169⟩comfortably rest on Christ for justification by his Blood, who doth not first know that his Blood was shed for him, and hath satisfied for him: Else he must rest on that which he knows not to be sufficient for him to rest upon: For it hath been proved that Christs death is not sufficient to justify any for whom it was not suffered, though they should believe. He suffered not superfluously, as I have showed: Take the confession of a Divine that for fear of Arminianism joined Hands with the Antinomians, Maccovius colleg. disp. de justif. disp. 5. §. 22. Quoad substantiam poenae nihil olus perpessus est Christus quam per legem debebatur: Neque enim vel Amor Patris, vel etiam justitia permittere potuit, plura ut filio imponerentur, quam quae illi necessariò tanquam sponsori ferenda erant; Quoad circumstantias autem, patientis personam, patiendi causam, passionis efficaciam plusquam sufficiens satisfactio Christi. Neque enim lex requirebat ut Deus moreretur, neque ut sine peccato proprio quis moreretur, neque morstalis quae suffecisset pro peccatis totius mundi, sive pro omnibus & singulis hominibus. Here he confesseth that Christ suffered no more than was due by Law, and than was necessary for him to suffer as Sponsor: And yet that his Death was sufficient for the Sins of all the World, even for all Men and every Man. And if so, then either he suffered as Sponsor for all: Or else circumstances did make that Death sufficient for all, which yet quoad substantiâ poenae (as he calls it) had none of that which the Law required, and was necessary for the Sponsor to undergo.

That which is said before doth shew so much of the grounds of this Argument, that I shall be the shorter in it now. All the doubt is of the consequence of the Major, and to clear that, I suppose it is granted that all firm, sufficient Faith for justification, must not only have a command to warrant it, but also a fit object about which it must be exercised. God commandeth no Man to believe a falshood to make it become true by believing it, nor to trust to a person or promise that is not to be trusted, as being not only fallible, but certainly will deceive. As for the Act of affiance or recumbency, commonly called the justifying Act, no Man can groundedly or ⟨p. 169⟩comfortably rest on Christ for justification by his Blood, who doth not first know that his Blood was shed for him, and hath satisfied for him: Else he must rest on that which he knows not to be sufficient for him to rest upon: For it hath been proved that Christs death is not sufficient to justifie any for whom it was not suffered, though they should believe. He suffered not superfluously, as I have shewed: Take the confession of a Divine that for fear of Arminianism joyned Hands with the Antimonians, Maccovius colleg. disp. de justif. disp. 5. §. 22. Quoad substantiam poenae nihil olus perpessus est Christus quam per legem debebatur: Neque enim vel Amor Patris, vel etiam justitia permittere potuit, plura ut filio imponerentur, quam quae illi necessariò tanquam sponsori ferenda erant; Quoad circumstantias autem, patientis personam, patiendi causam, passionis efficaciam plusquam sufficiens satisfactio Christi. Neque enim lex requirebat ut Deus moreretur, neque ut sine peccato proprio quis moreretur, neque morstalis quae suffecisset pro peccatis totius mundi, sive pro omnibus & singulis hominibus. Here he confesseth that Christ suffered no more than was due by Law, and than was necessary for him to suffer as Sponsor: And yet that his Death was sufficient for the Sins of all the World, even for all Men and every Man. And if so, then either he suffered as Sponsor for all: Or else circumstances did make that Death sufficient for all, which yet quoad substantiâ poenae (as he calls it) had none of that which the Law required, and was necessary for the Sponsor to undergo.