A commentary upon the book of the Revelation Wherein the text is explained, the…A commentarie upon the book of the Revelation Wherein the text is explained, the…
A commentary upon the book of the Revelation Wherein the text is explained, the series of the several prophecies contained in that book, deduced according to their order and dependence on each other; the periods and succession of times, at, or about which, these prophecies, that are already fulfilled, began to be, and were more fully accomplished, fixed and applied according to history; and those that are yet to be fulfilled, modestly, and so far as is warrantable, enquired into. Together with some practical observations, and several digressions, necessary for vindicating, clearing, and confirming many weighty and important truths. Delivered in several lectures, by that learned, laborious, and faithful servant of Jesus Christ, James Durham, late Minister of the Gospel in Glasgow. To which is affixed a brief summary of the whole book, with a twofold index, one of the several digressions, another of the chief and principal purposes and words contained in this treatise.
A commentarie upon the book of the Revelation Wherein the text is explained, the series of the several prophecies contained in that book, deduced according to their order and dependance on each other; the periods and succession of times, at, or about which, these prophecies, that are already fulfilled, began to be, and were more fully accomplished, fixed and applied according to history; and those that are yet to be fulfilled, modestly, and so far as is warrantable, enquired into. Together with some practical observations, and several digressions, necessary for vindicating, clearing, and confirming many weighty and important truths. Delivered in several lectures, by that learned, laborious, and faithfull servant of Jesus Christ, James Durham, late Minister of the Gospel in Glasgow. To which is affixed a brief summary of the whole book, with a twofold index, one of the several digressions, another of the chief and principall purposes and words contained in this treatise.
James Durham 1622–1658Edinburgh: printed by Christopher Higgins, 1658
[8], 787, [17] p. · 683k words · Wing D2805 · ESTC R216058
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
If any should say, that these Scriptures do not deny but such may be brought to reckon for their own sin, for whom Christ did only conditionally pay the debt; and the condition not being fulfilled by them, there is no absurdity that they themselves should be again called to reckon for the same: as also considering, that the Lords acceptation of such a price for them, was only upon the fulfilling of the condition of believing, wherein they have failed. To this we answer, First, that according to the former grounds notwithstanding of Christs death, payment might be exacted again, even from the Elect, if the Lord Himself did not graciously and freely enable them to fulfil the condition, because they are but conditionally redeemed also, and have not Faith purchased to them by Christs death more than the other. But because some may shift this, we answer Secondly, That such a conditional payment is not spoken of in Scripture, neither do these places of Scripture speak of some whose iniquity Christ hath born, who shall thereby have freedom from being ⟨p. 314⟩called to a reckoning; but they do speak absolutely of all for whom Christ hath suffered, and in whose name He hath paid any thing to God: for, all of them give ground for this connection, Christ hath born their sin, was made a curse for them, &c. Therefore, they shall be justified and freed from the curse, &c. And this reasoning will not hold, except this universal proposition be presupposed, to wit, that all whose sins Christ hath born, whose debt He hath undertaken, and in whose name He hath paid any price to the Justice of God, &c. shall be justified, absolved from their debt, and not brought to a reckoning for the same. Now, it must either be assumed, that Christ hath paid a price in the name of many Reprobates, and hath born their sin before the Justice of God; and it is evident how false the conclusion will be, Therefore the minor must be false, seeing the major is true; Or, we must subsume thus, But none of the Reprobates shall ever be justified or absolved from their own debt, Therefore it will follow, that for none of these did Christ become a curse or satisfy the Justice of God: which is a truth. If it be yet said, that His suffering in their name, was but conditional; and so it cannot be said simply, that He paid their debt, but upon such and such conditions only;
If any should say, that these Scriptures do not deny but such may be brought to reckon for their own sin, for whom Christ did only conditionally pay the debt; and the condition not being fulfilled by them, there is no absurdity that they themselves should be again called to reckon for the same: as also considering, that the Lords acceptation of such a price for them, was only upon the fulfilling of the condition of believing, wherein they have failed. To this we answer, First, that according to the former grounds notwithstanding of Christs death, payment might be exacted again, even from the Elect, if the Lord Himself did not graciously and freely enable them to fulfill the condition, because they are but conditionally redeemed also, and have not Faith purchased to them by Christs death more than the other. But because some may shift this, we answer Secondly, That such a conditionall payment is not spoken of in Scripture, neither do these places of Scripture speak of some whose iniquity Christ hath born, who shall thereby have freedom from being ⟨p. 314⟩called to a reckoning; but they do speak absolutely of all for whom Christ hath suffered, and in whose name He hath paid any thing to God: for, all of them give ground for this connexion, Christ hath born their sin, was made a curse for them, &c. Therefore, they shall be justified and freed from the curse, &c. And this reasoning will not hold, except this universall proposition be presupposed, to wit, that all whose sins Christ hath born, whose debt He hath undertaken, and in whose name He hath paid any price to the Justice of God, &c. shall be justified, absolved from their debt, and not brought to a reckoning for the same. Now, it must either be assumed, that Christ hath paid a price in the name of many Reprobates, and hath born their sin before the Justice of God; and it is evident how false the conclusion will be, Therefore the minor must be false, seing the major is true; Or, we must subsume thus, But none of the Reprobates shall ever be justified or absolved from their own debt, Therefore it will follow, that for none of these did Christ become a curse or satisfie the Justice of God: which is a truth. If it be yet said, that His suffering in their name, was but conditionall; and so it cannot be said simply, that He paid their debt, but upon such and such conditions only;
and so He did not bare their iniquity, but upon condition that they should believe. To this we answer, First, This is almost one with the former objection, and may be again refelled, thus; either that conditional bearing of their iniquity, was a paying something in their name, or, it was not: If it was a paying in their name, and a laying out of any price by the Mediator, Then the consequence from the former Scriptures will still be urgent what ever the condition be; because, they assert, that all for whom Christ hath laid out His sufferings, and in whose room He hath sustained any part of the curse, &c. shall be partakers of Justification and Life. And what ever the condition be, this conditional Redemption supposeth a price actually to have been laid down. If it be said, that actually Christ did lay down nothing for them, and in their name, when He suffered, but upon condition that it should be imputed to them when they should actually believe, Then it must be said that Christ hath paid for none till they believe, because it is His purpose and Covenant with the Father that doth make His sufferings to be accounted a price for any: and if so, then Faith cannot be said to be purchased contrary to what was formerly said. Beside, if none can be said to be redeemed but a Believer, Then it cannot be said, that Christ hath paid any thing in the name of any Reprobate, seeing he hath paid only for them who shall believe, which no Reprobate can do. Further, though the imputation of Christs laid-down price be conditional; yet the paying of it is absolute: for, He (according to this opinion) did really lay it down; and if such should after believe, there were need of paying no more in their name. Yea, what is actually laid down, is supposed to be equivalent to their Redemption, and with what is laid down for the Elect: otherwise, the price would not be proportioned to the supposed end, to wit, Redemption, and so it would be nothing.
and so He did not bare their iniquity, but upon condition that they should believe. To this we answer, First, This is almost one with the former objection, and may be again refelled, thus; either that conditional bearing of their iniquity, was a paying something in their name, or, it was not: If it was a paying in their name, and a laying out of any price by the Mediator, Then the consequence from the former Scriptures will still be urgent what ever the condition be; because, they assert, that all for whom Christ hath laid out His sufferings, and in whose room He hath sustained any part of the curse, &c. shall be partakers of Justification and Life. And what ever the condition be, this conditionall Redemption supposeth a price actually to have been laid down. If it be said, that actually Christ did lay down nothing for them, and in their name, when He suffered, but upon condition that it should be imputed to them when they should actually believe, Then it must be said that Christ hath paid for none till they believe, because it is His purpose and Covenant with the Father that doth make His sufferings to be accounted a price for any: and if so, then Faith cannot be said to be purchased contrary to what was formerly said. Beside, if none can be said to be redeemed but a Believer, Then it cannot be said, that Christ hath paid any thing in the name of any Reprobate, seing he hath paid only for them who shall believe, which no Reprobate can do. Further, though the imputation of Christs laid-down price be conditionall; yet the paying of it is absolute: for, He (according to this opinion) did really lay it down; and if such should after believe, there were need of paying no more in their name. Yea, what is actually laid down, is supposed to be equivalent to their Redemption, and with what is laid down for the Elect: otherwise, the price would not be proportioned to the supposed end, to wit, Redemption, and so it would be nothing.
That we may follow this conditional Redemption a little, It is otherwise in some things expressed by some others, thus, to wit, that Christ in some sense is a ransom for all, and yet not in that special manner as for His people: He hath brought others under the conditional Gospel-covenant, but them under the absolute: He hath according to the tenor of this Covenant procured Salvation to all, if they will believe; but He hath procured for His chosen, even this condition of believing. Thus Learned Baxter, in His Saints Rest, Part, 1. pag. 153. which may be yet variously understood as to one branch thereof: for, though he doth there speak of all to be conditionally redeemed, and elsewhere often hints this, yet by several expressions of his, it would seem to be restricted, at least, in a special manner to the visible Church: because, he saith these all, are by His death brought under the conditional Gospel-covenant, which elsewhere, (to wit, in the Appendix to his Aphorisms, pag. 241. in the last Edition) is acknowledged to be that which is revealed and offered in the Church. And in that part of his Saints Rest, pag. 156. it is said, not to be offered to all; and that expression is used by him, that the conditional Covenant is made with all, at least, with the Church. Also others have many hints to this purpose, and the Learned Tuisse doth cite this saying out of Verstius, lib. pre. pag. 195. Et sanè nisi pro voca•is saltem omnibus, mortuus esset Christus, tum fraestr••i omnes credere •uberentur. Therefore it will be meet to touch a little this conditional Redemption, as it may relate to all men indifferently, and more particularly, as it may relate to the visible Church; and because of the nearness of the matter and grounds thereof, both may be done as we go on. Although this ⟨p. 315⟩opinion, as thus expressed, may seem more plausible; yet we conceive, that it will neither be found agreeable to the former grounds, nor to the Text, nor to reason, nor yet any way more conducing to remove, or prevent these difficulties which are supposed to follow upon the Doctrine of particular Redemption, as it was formerly explained:
That we may follow this conditionall Redemption a little, It is otherwise in some things expressed by some others, thus, to wit, that Christ in some sense is a ransom for all, and yet not in that speciall manner as for His people: He hath brought others under the conditionall Gospel-covenant, but them under the absolute: He hath according to the tenor of this Covenant procured Salvation to all, if they will believe; but He hath procured for His chosen, even this condition of believing. Thus Learned Baxter, in His Saints Rest, Part, 1. pag. 153. which may be yet variously understood as to one branch thereof: for, though he doth there speak of all to be conditionally redeemed, and elsewhere often hints this, yet by several expressions of his, it would seem to be restricted, at least, in a speciall manner to the visible Church: because, he saith these all, are by His death brought under the conditionall Gospel-covenant, which elsewhere, (to wit, in the Appendix to his Aphorisms, pag. 241. in the last Edition) is acknowledged to be that which is revealed and offered in the Church. And in that part of his Saints Rest, pag. 156. it is said, not to be offered to all; and that expression is used by him, that the conditionall Covenant is made with all, at least, with the Church. Also others have many hints to this purpose, and the Learned Tuisse doth cite this saying out of Verstius, lib. pre. pag. 195. Et sanè nisi pro vocais saltem omnibus, mortuus esset Christus, tum fraestr i omnes credere uberentur. Therefore it will be meet to touch a little this conditionall Redemption, as it may relate to all men indifferently, and more particularly, as it may relate to the visible Church; and because of the nearnesse of the matter and grounds thereof, both may be done as we go on. Although this
for, first, what we urged from these Scriptures that speak but of one absolute Redemption, and do ever knit Justification and life with Christs bearing the iniquity of any, or satisfying in their room, will also be binding here against this conditional Redemption. For, if any way Christ hath born their iniquity, Then they must be justified: otherwise, the former connection, which is so strongly urged in the Scripture, will fail: or, if he hath not born their iniquity nor paid any thing in their name, Then it cannot be said, that He hath any way died for them or redeemed them. Secondly, The Text will confirm this, for, in it, all men are divided in these two ranks, to wit, the past-by body of Nations and Kingdoms, &c. and these few that are redeemed out of these Tongues, Nations, &c. But this conditional Redemption can agree to neither member: Therefore, it cannot be admitted. It cannot be applied to the redeemed who praise; for, they are all absolutely redeemed and made Kings and Priests to God, &c. nor will it agree to the past-by multitude of the un-redeemed that are contradistinguished from the former; because, First, The place doth assert the actual enjoyment of friendship with God, (and, being made Kings and Priests, &c.) to be the proper fruit of Christs blood and purchase, and not the having of these things made possible upon a condition, as was formerly laid down. Secondly, Because that past-by multitude, is expressly contradistinguished from the redeemed, and these who partake of the benefits of Christs purchase: and therefore the one being called the redeemed, the others may be called non-redeemed: and they are distinguished from, and opposed to the other here, not by any distinction simply founded upon the effect of Christs death, to wit, that the one are made Kings and Priests, and the other not; but it looketh to the meritorious cause procuring these effects, and making them certain to the one, and leaving others without all title thereunto, to wit, Christs death; and so it is to be understood, we are redeemed by thy blood, that is, Thou hast paid the price of our Redemption in our name by Thy blood, which hath not been done in respect of the multitude of these same Nations, whereof we are a part. Thirdly, There is but one Class of the redeemed, and these are absolutely Redeemed;
so there is but one Class distinguished from these, and these must be such who are no ways redeemed: for, what must be said of the one as to Redemption by Christs blood, must be denied of the other; for thus not to be amongst the redeemed, is indeed to be un-redeemed. This will strongly militate against any who should restrict this conditional Redemption to the visible Church: for, that would make, upon the one side, two Classes of such as are redeemed, to wit, some absolutely and some conditionally to be such, whereas the Text doth acknowledge but one: and it would also constitute two Classes of the un-redeemed, to wit, some that are without the visible Church and conditional Covenant, and some that are within; whereas it is clear, that these within the Church, who belong not to Christ, are equally contradistinguished from the redeemed with others that are without.
so there is but one Classe distinguished from these, and these must be such who are no wayes redeemed: for, what must be said of the one as to Redemption by Christs bloud, must be denied of the other; for thus not to be amongst the redeemed, is indeed to be un-redeemed. This will strongly militate against any who should restrict this conditionall Redemption to the visible Church: for, that would make, upon the one side, two Classes of such as are redeemed, to wit, some absolutely and some conditionally to be such, whereas the Text doth acknowledge but one: and it would also constitute two Classes of the un-redeemed, to wit, some that are without the visible Church and conditionall Covenant, and some that are within; whereas it is clear, that these within the Church, who belong not to Christ, are equally contradistinguished from the redeemed with others that are without.
In the third place, This opinion will not be found consistent with reasons drawn from the Scripture, as, 1. It cannot be denied but Christs satisfaction and intercession must be of equal extent, seeing they are both parts of His Priestly Office; and it is His satisfaction that regulateth (to say so) His intercession: Now, it is clear in Scripture, that Christs intercession is qualified by Gods Decree of Election, therefore He prayeth, (Joh. 17. For these whom God hath given Him: whereby it is not only implied, that He doth not pray for the world which were not given Him, but expressly He doth exclude them, I pray not for the world, saith He, vers. 9. Therefore, it must be supposed, that He did no way die for the world, seeing He doth not pray for them, because He did not satisfy for them; and He did not satisfy for them, because they were not given unto Him. And we can no more say that there is a conditional satisfying for, and redeeming of, all, than we can say, that there is a conditional praying for all; and we cannot say, that there is a conditional intercession for all, seeing He doth so expressly, and absolutely exclude the Reprobate world from His Prayers; and upon that implied ground, because God did not own them as His, and had not given them to the Mediator to be owned and redeemed by Him, Therefore He doth solemnly disown them.
In the third place, This opinion will not be found consistent with reasons drawn from the Scripture, as, 1. It cannot be denied but Christs satisfaction and intercession must be of equal extent, seing they are both parts of His Priestly Office; and it is His satisfaction that regulateth (to say so) His intercession: Now, it is clear in Scripture, that Christs intercession is qualified by Gods Decree of Election, therefore He prayeth, (Ioh. 17. For these whom God hath given Him: whereby it is not only implied, that He doth not pray for the world which were not given Him, but expresly He doth exclude them, I pray not for the world, saith He, vers. 9. Therefore, it must be supposed, that He did no way die for the world, seing He doth not pray for them, because He did not satisfie for them; and He did not satisfie for them, because they were not given unto Him. And we can no more say that there is a conditionall satisfying for, and redeeming of, all, than we can say, that there is a conditionall praying for all; and we cannot say, that there is a conditionall intercession for all, seing He doth so expresly, and absolutely exclude the Reprobate world from His Prayers; and upon that implied ground, because God did not own them as His, and had not given them to the Mediator to be owned and redeemed by Him, Therefore He doth solemnly disown them.
If it be said, that, in that place, our Lord Jesus doth only pray for these who did ⟨p. 316⟩actually believe? The very contrary will be found in the Text: for, (Joh. 17.20.) He intercedeth for all who should after believe; and through the Chapter, for all these whom God had given Him. Beside, it were hard to say, that our Lord Jesus did comprehend all that were unrenewed under the title World; for so, many unrenewed Elect would have been excluded. Seeing therefore Christ excludeth the Reprobate world from His intercession, even when He includeth many unrenewed Elect then lying in profanity and nature, The former Argument doth bind the more strongly. From which also we may remove a second exception, to wit, that by World there are understood such as Christ foresaw should reject the Gospel and continue members of this world, notwithstanding of His death and call, or such as did for that time violently reject the same. To this we say, that if Christ meant by World, present contemners and rejecters, then would many Elect be excluded, as is said. Again, if he understood such as He foresaw would continue in opposition and unbelief to to the end, Can it be reasonably thought that He would immediately offer Himself in their room upon condition of their believing in Him, whom He did not only foresee to continue in unbelief and never to perform that condition; but also whom He had instantly in express terms excluded from His prayers and intercession as having nothing to do with them? and so according to the former ground, to wit, that His intercession and satisfaction are of equal extent, they cannot be understood any way to come in under either of them.
If it be said, that, in that place, our Lord Jesus doth only pray for these who did ⟨p. 316⟩actually believe? The very contrary will be found in the Text: for, (Ioh. 17.20.) He intercedeth for all who should after believe; and through the Chapter, for all these whom God had given Him. Beside, it were hard to say, that our Lord Jesus did comprehend all that were unrenewed under the title World; for so, many unrenewed Elect would have been excluded. Seing therefore Christ excludeth the Reprobate world from His intercession, even when He includeth many unrenewed Elect then lying in profanity and nature, The former Argument doth bind the more strongly. From which also we may remove a second exception, to wit, that by World there are understood such as Christ foresaw should reject the Gospel and continue members of this world, notwithstanding of His death and call, or such as did for that time violently reject the same. To this we say, that if Christ meaned by World, present contemners and rejecters, then would many Elect be excluded, as is said. Again, if he understood such as He foresaw would continue in opposition and unbelief to to the end, Can it be reasonably thought that He would immediatly offer Himself in their room upon condition of their believing in Him, whom He did not only foresee to continue in unbelief and never to perform that condition; but also whom He had instantly in expresse terms excluded from His prayers and intercession as having nothing to do with them? and so according to the former ground, to wit, that His intercession and satisfaction are of equal extent, they cannot be understood any way to come in under either of them.
If it be said, that His intercession respecteth only the efficacy of His death; and therefore must be bounded with the Elect: This will say, that this satisfaction also must respect that only, seeing they are of equal extent. Again, why prayeth He only in reference to the efficacy? It is because He hath ground to own no moe as Gods or His; and that will say, that He will not satisfy for them either. Lastly, He boundeth His dying and praying in these words, (vers. 19. of the forecited Chapter,) for their aches sanctify I my self, to wit, for their sakes for whom He prayed; in their room al•anerly did He devote Himself to be a Sacrifice.
If it be said, that His intercession respecteth only the efficacie of His death; and therefore must be bounded with the Elect: This will say, that this satisfaction also must respect that only, seing they are of equal extent. Again, why prayeth He only in reference to the efficacie? It is because He hath ground to own no moe as Gods or His; and that will say, that He will not satisfie for them either. Lastly, He boundeth His dying and praying in these words, (vers. 19. of the forcited Chapter,) for their akes sanctifie I my self, to wit, for their sakes for whom He prayed; in their room al•anerly did He devote Himself to be a Sacrifice.
Secondly, In the first ground, laid down, we said, That Christs satisfaction, as to the object thereof, was to be regulated by the Fathers proposal to Him; so that He died and satisfied for such, and such only as was proposed to Him. It being cleared there, that all were not proposed; therefore there is no warrant to say, that Christ in any respect, did be•• the iniquity of any other. Neither can there be any end of His undertaking to pay for moe than was proposed to Him; neither can it be thought, that any other was proposed to Christ, but such as were given to Him absolutely to be redeemed; because there is no word in Scripture that speaketh of proposing any to Christ to be bought, but the Elect, who, for that cause, are peculiarly named by this title, those that were Christs own, and given to Him, &c. If any should say, that they were conditionally given and proposed (which indeed must be supposed in this conditional Redemption) Then (beside what was said) it may be asked, If the Father, by proposing such, did intend their Redemption, and their obtaining of any benefit by Christs death? If He did, Why is it not effectual? If He did not, To what end was such a proposal made by the only wise God? Again, we may conceive this conditional proposal to be thus upon the Fathers side, I do propose and give such and such persons to Thee that are not Elected, to be redeemed, and to partake of Th• Redemption, providing they shall believe, and I will absolutely exact the price from Thee, which yet is not to be imputed to them till they believe; and yet they cannot believe except God give the same freely, according to the first opinion; or, till Christ purchase the same, according to the second: yet (might He say) neither do I mind to give it to them, nor mind I to propose it to be bought by Thee for their use. This certainly would not lo•• like the Wisdom, Sovereignty and Grace that do shine in the bargain of Redemption: yet, such a conditional proposal must be supposed as in these terms. And so they are proposed to the Mediator to be redeemed by Him, when yet the necessary mids, and supposed condition of their Redemption is never so much as proposed to be purchased, but the contrary is included; And so at the most, the Father proposeth but one part of their Redemption to the Market, to wit, the end without the mids:
Secondly, In the first ground, laid down, we said, That Christs satisfaction, as to the object thereof, was to be regulated by the Fathers proposall to Him; so that He died and satisfied for such, and such only as was proposed to Him. It being cleared there, that all were not proposed; therefore there is no warrant to say, that Christ in any respect, did be the iniquity of any other. Neither can there be any end of His undertaking to pay for moe than was proposed to Him; neither can it be thought, that any other was proposed to Christ, but such as were given to Him absolutely to be redeemed; because there is no word in Scripture that speaketh of proposing any to Christ to be bought, but the Elect, who, for that cause, are peculiarly named by this title, those that were Christs own, and given to Him, &c. If any should say, that they were conditionally given and proposed (which indeed must be supposed in this conditional Redemption) Then (beside what was said) it may be asked, If the Father, by proposing such, did intend their Redemption, and their obtaining of any benefit by Christs death? If He did, Why is it not effectuall? If He did not, To what end was such a proposall made by the only wise God? Again, we may conceive this conditionall proposall to be thus upon the Fathers side, I do propose and give such and such persons to Thee that are not Elected, to be redeemed, and to partake of Th Redemption, providing they shall believe, and I will absolutely exact the price from Thee, which yet is not to be imputed to them till they believe; and yet they cannot believe except God give the same freely, according to the first opinion; or, till Christ purchase the same, according to the second: yet (might He say) neither do I mind to give it to them, nor mind I to propose it to be bought by Thee for their use. This certainly would not lo like the Wisdom, Soveraignty and Grace that do shine in the bargain of Redemption: yet, such a conditionall proposall must be supposed as in these terms. And so they are proposed to the Mediator to be redeemed by Him, when yet the necessary mids, and supposed condition of their Redemption is never so much as proposed to be purchased, but the contrary is included; And so at the most, the Father proposeth but one part of their Redemption to the Market, to wit, the end without the mids:
and therefore consequently, the Mediator must undertake for paying for the end, when He hath not the mids by which it is attained, made (to speak so) redeemable, because it is never offered to the market: and what wise man would make such a bargain?
Thirdly, It seemeth not consistent with reason and equity to say, that such as are by ⟨p. 317⟩Gods Sovereign decree absolutely reprobated, and decerned to be made to reckon for their own sins; and yet to say, that our blessed Lord Jesus should have that debt imputed to Him, and thereby conditionally to purchase for them a freedom from that curse which is already determined to be executed justly upon them: for, the decree of Reprobation must be, even in order of nature, as soon as the decree of Election. Now, it being clear, that the Work of Redemption doth presuppose Election to have preceded; so that in the order of nature, and according to our uptaking of things, we must conceive Gods absolute Electing of some to Eternal life, to be prior to the Covenant of Redemption, because these who are given to Christ in that Covenant, are said to be Gods own by virtue of that decree before that, Joh. 17.6. which will infer that Gods absolute decree of Reprobation must be so also, seeing the decree of Election doth necessarily infer the decree of Reprobation; for, where there is an Election of some, there is a pretirition of others. And therefore, we must say, that Christ conditionally had proposed to Him, and did conditionally pay according to that proposal, the debt of many, that by a prior decree were absolutely reprobated. And as to the last opinion hinted, there being but one decree of Reprobation, It will follow that either all these must be under a conditional Redemption, which yet cannot be said so confidently, as to such who are without the conditional Covenant; or, all must be excluded therefrom.
Thirdly, It seemeth not consistent with reason and equity to say, that such as are by ⟨p. 317⟩Gods Soveraign decree absolutely reprobated, and decerned to be made to reckon for their own sins; and yet to say, that our blessed Lord Jesus should have that debt imputed to Him, and thereby conditionally to purchase for them a freedom from that curse which is already determined to be executed justly upon them: for, the decree of Reprobation must be, even in order of nature, as soon as the decree of Election. Now, it being clear, that the Work of Redemption doth presuppose Election to have preceded; so that in the order of nature, and according to our uptaking of things, we must conceive Gods absolute Electing of some to Eternal life, to be prior to the Covenant of Redemption, because these who are given to Christ in that Covenant, are said to be Gods own by vertue of that decree before that,
Fourthly, From the grounds of this opinion, it may be thus argued, If Christ redeemed any Reprobate conditionally, Then the performing of this condition is either in their own power, or it is a singular gift of God procured by Christs death. The first they will not assert who own this opinion, as was formerly observed: Therefore it must be something that can no otherwayes be procured but by Christs purchase. And according to what is said, it is not purchased to any Reprobate, though it be necessary for their obtaining of any benefit of Christs purchase, Therefore it cannot be said, that they are redeemed. For, at most, it saith that they are redeemed upon a condition, which they can never possibly perform; and this will infer, That they are not redeemed at all: for, a peremptory exclusive conditional offer, where the condition is impossible, and known to be so to the offerer, is equipollent to an absolute refusal, as, suppose one would offer to relieve another from bondage, or, to pay their debt for them, upon condition, and no otherwayes, that such a person should at once drink up the whole sea: that offer so circumstantiated, could not be looked upon otherwayes but as an absolute refusal. Again, if He hath not purchased Faith to them, Then there is no saving Grace purchased to them. And if neither Faith nor any saving Grace be purchased to them, It will be hard to say, that Christ hath died for such, for whom no saving Grace is purchased.
Fourthly, From the grounds of this opinion, it may be thus argued, If Christ redeemed any Reprobate conditionally, Then the performing of this condition is either in their own power, or it is a singular gift of God procured by Christs death. The first they will not assert who own this opinion, as was formerly observed: Therefore it must be something that can no otherwayes be procured but by Christs purchase. And according to what is said, it is not purchased to any Reprobate, though it be necessary for their obtaining of any benefit of Christs purchase, Therefore it cannot be said, that they are redeemed. For, at most, it saith that they are redeemed upon a condition, which they can never possibly perform; and this will infer, That they are not redeemed at all: for, a peremptory exclusive conditionall offer, where the condition is impossible, and known to be so to the offerer, is equipollent to an absolute refusall, as, suppose one would offer to relieve another from bondage, or, to pay their debt for them, upon condition, and no otherwayes, that such a person should at once drink up the whole sea: that offer so circumstantiated, could not be looked upon otherwayes but as an absolute refusall. Again, if He hath not purchased Faith to them, Then there is no saving Grace purchased to them. And if neither Faith nor any saving Grace be purchased to them, It will be hard to say, that Christ hath died for such, for whom no saving Grace is purchased.
Fifthly, We say further, If all men be conditionally redeemed, Then we must say that all the midses necessarily concurring in the Work of Redemption for making of it complete, must be conditionally purchased also: for, as by the acknowledged ground, that is called absolute Redemption, wherein Faith and all the midses are absolutely purchased, So it will follow, that in this conditional Redemption all these midses must be conditionally purchased: for, the end and midses are in one bargain; where the one is purchased, the other is purchased; so where the one is absolutely purchased, the other is so also: and therefore where the one is conditionally purchased, the other must be so also: but it cannot be said, that the midses, to wit, Faith, Regeneration, and other Graces, are conditionally purchased, because this will be the sense thereof, that Christ hath purchased Faith in Himself to such persons upon condition that they should believe in Him: which, I suppose, none will affirm. It will follow therefore that they cannot be said to be conditionally redeemed, even as to the end.
Fifthly, We say further, If all men be conditionally redeemed, Then we must say that all the midses necessarily concurring in the Work of Redemption for making of it compleat, must be conditionally purchased also: for, as by the acknowledged ground, that is called absolute Redemption, wherein Faith and all the midses are absolutely purchased, So it will follow, that in this conditional Redemption all these midses must be conditionally purchased: for, the end and midses are in one bargain; where the one is purchased, the other is purchased; so where the one is absolutely purchased, the other is so also: and therefore where the one is conditionally purchased, the other must be so also: but it cannot be said, that the midses, to wit, Faith, Regeneration, and other Graces, are conditionally purchased, because this will be the sense thereof, that Christ hath purchased Faith in Himself to such persons upon condition that they should believe in Him: which, I suppose, none will affirm. It will follow therefore that they cannot be said to be conditionally redeemed, even as to the end.
Sixthly, If any conditional Redemption be supposed to be, or, if Christ be said to have paid the debt of all even conditionally, Then this must be looked upon as a singular effect of Gods Grace, and a special evidence of the excellent freeness thereof for provoking the hearts of all such to praise for the same: now, such a mould of conditional Redemption as is proposed, doth no way look like Grace, nor tendeth to the engaging of such as are so redeemed to bless and magnify God: Therefore it is not to be admitted. That it doth not look like Grace, will easily appear by considering, 1. that Grace is every way Grace, else it is no way Grace (according to an ancient saying of Augustine) that is, it is Grace in the end, and Grace in respect of the midses also. But here, whatever may be said of the end, ⟨p. 318⟩sure there is no Grace in respect of the midses, seeing no necessary and effectual mids for attaining of the end, is provided for in this supposed bargain of conditional Redemption: Therefore, it can neither be said to look like a bargain of Grace, nor yet to tend to the commendation thereof. 2. We may consider, that as to the effect or end, this bargain doth not make the same free unto these that are comprehended under it: for, it leaveth them to perform a condition for obtaining of the end, and that in their own strength without furnishing them for the performance of it, even though they be of themselves in an incapacity to perform the same: and how unlike this is to a Covenant of Grace, may easily be gathered. 3. This conditional Redemption, doth neither make the effect, supposed to be purchased, certain, nor possible: certain, it cannot be, seeing it never cometh to pass: possible it is not, seeing it dependeth upon a condition, which (as it is circumstantiated) is simply impossible; yea, and is supponed to be so in the Covenant of Redemption: for, we must look upon this condition, in respect of its possibility, not only with regard to men, as men endued with natural faculties; but we must look upon it with respect to men as they are in their corruption incapacitated to do any thing that is spiritually good, such as this act of believing is. Now, in the Covenant of Redemption, it is supposed, not only that Faith is necessary; but also that man is corrupt, sold under sin; and so cannot of himself (except it be given him) believe:
Sixthly, If any conditionall Redemption be supposed to be, or, if Christ be said to have payd the debt of all even conditionally, Then this must be looked upon as a singular effect of Gods Grace, and a speciall evidence of the excellent freenesse thereof for provoking the hearts of all such to praise for the same: now, such a mould of conditionall Redemption as is proposed, doth no way look like Grace, nor tendeth to the engaging of such as are so redeemed to blesse and magnifie God: Therefore it is not to be admitted. That it doth not look like Grace, will easily appear by considering, 1. that Grace is every way Grace, else it is no way Grace (according to an ancient saying of Augustine) that is, it is Grace in the end, and Grace in respect of the midses also. But here, whatever may be said of the end,
and yet, in this same Covenant, It is agreed, that Faith be purchased and bestowed upon some, because of the former reasons; and even then, such who a•e supposed conditionally to be redeemed, are past-by, and deliberately no such thing is capitulated-for concerning them. Therefore the effect must, notwithstanding of this, be still impossible. And if so, Can it be said to be of Grace, which is so clouded in the terms thereof, and doth neither make any good possible to these who are comprehended in the same, nor give through occasion to glorify Grace as shining in the freedom, comfortableness and refreshfulnesse thereof? and in effect, it seemeth rather to obscure Grace, than to manifest the same: and therefore ought not to be pressed in the Church. For, a conditional transaction in this mould, would be, as if one should be said to have paid the Turks for so many slaves, to be sent home to him in such and such Ships, as himself only could send for them; and that this purchase should be valid, as to these slaves, upon condition allanerly that they should return in such and such Ships unto him; and yet in the mean time he never intend to send these Ships for them, but in the same bargain conclude that Ships should be sent only for such and such others; would not these slaves necessarily continue under their bondage? and, would this so be accounted a Redemption amongst men, or yet a wise conditional bargain? and is that to be attributed to the only wise and gracious God and our blessed Lord Jesus, which is, upon the matter, the same? to wit, that our Lord Jesus should pay the debt of so many, upon condition that they should believe in Him, by such Faith as He only can procure unto them; and withal, that in the same Covenant it should be expressly capitulated, that our Lord Jesus His sufferings should be accepted for procuring of Faith to some others allanerly, and to none else; whereby these, supposed to be conditionally redeemed, are absolutely excluded upon the matter? This conditional Redemption therefore is not to be contended-for.
and yet, in this same Covenant, It is agreed, that Faith be purchased and bestowed upon some, because of the former reasons; and even then, such who a•e supposed conditionally to be redeemed, are past-by, and deliberately no such thing is capitulated-for concerning them. Therefore the effect must, notwithstanding of this, be still impossible. And if so, Can it be said to be of Grace, which is so clouded in the terms thereof, and doth neither make any good possible to these who are comprehended in the same, nor give through occasion to glorifie Grace as shining in the freedom, comfortablnesse and refreshfulnesse thereof? and in effect, it seemeth rather to obscure Grace, than to manifest the same: and therefore ought not to be pressed in the Church. For, a conditionall transaction in this mould, would be, as if one should be said to have paid the Turks for so many slaves, to be sent home to him in such and such Ships, as himself only could send for them; and that this purchase should be valid, as to these slaves, upon condition allanerly that they should return in such and such Ships unto him; and yet in the mean time he never intend to send these Ships for them, but in the same bargain conclude that Ships should be sent only for such and such others; would not these slaves necessarily continue under their bondage? and, would this so be accounted a Redemption amongst men, or yet a wise conditionall bargain? and is that to be attributed to the only wise and gracious God and our blessed Lord Jesus, which is, upon the matter, the same? to wit, that our Lord Jesus should pay the debt of so many, upon condition that they should believe in Him, by such Faith as He only can procure unto them; and withall, that in the same Covenant it should be expresly capitulated, that our Lord Jesus His sufferings should be accepted for procuring of Faith to some others allanerly, and to none else; whereby these, supposed to be conditionally redeemed, are absolutely excluded upon the matter? This conditionall Redemption therefore is not to be contended-for.
Lastly, Besides these, this opinion will infer many absurdities and intricacies not easily extricable, as, First, If Christ Jesus hath died for all conditionally, Then it will follow, that either He died equally for all, or one way for some, and another way for others: to say, He died equally for all, is absurd, and acknowledged to be so by the Asserters of this opinion: and of this we spake in the former part of this Question. If it be said, that He did in a different manner die for the Elect, and for these that are not actually redeemed, Then it may be enquired, wherein this difference doth consist? for, it must either be in the matter, or price (to say so) that is given, to wit, that He gave more for those whom He absolutely redeemed, than for these whom He only did conditionally purchase; or, it must be in His intention in the laying down of His life, and in the Fathers will in ordering of the same, to wit, that it was not Christs intention, nor the Fathers will to bestow Faith upon such and actually to redeem them; and so to have His death accepted as a satisfaction for them, as He had condescended in respect of others: If the first be said, to wit, that Christ hath given more for the one nor for the other; Then it will follow, that Christ hath not satisfied for these who are said to be conditionally redeemed, because He hath not paid sufficiently for them. Beside, it will not be found in Scripture, that Christ hath paid a part of ⟨p. 319⟩the debt of any, where He hath not paid it all. If it be said, that the price, materially considered, was equal, Then it will follow, that Christ suffered as much wrath and curse materially for Judas, as He did for Peter: which will not look like the peculiarity of that love that appeareth in Christs suffering for any; nor yet sound well to the thankful heart of a redeemed one, as if Christ had paid no more for him than for Judas. If it be said, that the difference is in Gods purpose, and Christs intention, who did design these sufferings to purchase Faith to the one, and so to make their Redemption effectual; which was not purposed in reference to the other. To this we say, 1. If the price laid down be equal in reference to all, Then it would seem just that Judas should have no less fruit thereby than Peter, seeing no less was paid for him; But, 2.
Lastly, Besides these, this opinion will infer many absurdities and intricacies not easily extricable, as, First, If Christ Jesus hath died for all conditionally, Then it will follow, that either He died equally for all, or one way for some, and another way for others: to say, He died equally for all, is absurd, and acknowledged to be so by the Asserters of this opinion: and of this we spake in the former part of this Question. If it be said, that He did in a different manner die for the Elect, and for these that are not actually redeemed, Then it may be enquired, wherein this difference doth consist? for, it must either be in the matter, or price (to say so) that is given, to wit, that He gave more for those whom He absolutely redeemed, than for these whom He only did conditionally purchase; or, it must be in His intention in the laying down of His life, and in the Fathers will in ordering of the same, to wit, that it was not Christs intention, nor the Fathers will to bestow Faith upon such and actually to redeem them; and so to have His death accepted as a satisfaction for them, as He had condescended in respect of others: If the first be said, to wit, that Christ hath given more for the one nor for the other; Then it will follow, that Christ hath not satisfied for these who are said to be conditionally redeemed, because He hath not paid sufficiently for them. Beside, it will not be found in Scripture, that Christ hath paid a part of
opinion, as thus expressed, may seem more plausible; yet we conceive, that it will neither be found agreeable to the former grounds, nor to the Text, nor to reason, nor yet any way more conducing to remove, or prevent these difficulties which are supposed to follow upon the Doctrine of particular Redemption, as it was formerly explained:
for, first, what we urged from these Scriptures that speak but of one absolute Redemption, and do ever knit Justification and life with Christs bearing the iniquity of any, or satisfying in their room, will also be binding here against this conditionall Redemption. For, if any way Christ hath born their iniquity, Then they must be justified: otherwise, the former connexion, which is so strongly urged in the Scripture, will fail: or, if he hath not born their iniquity nor payd any thing in their name, Then it cannot be said, that He hath any way died for them or redeemed them. Secondly, The Text will confirm this, for, in it, all men are divided in these two ranks, to wit, the past-by body of Nations and Kingdoms, &c. and these few that are redeemed out of these Tongues, Nations, &c. But this conditionall Redemption can agree to neither member: Therefore, it cannot be admitted. It cannot be applied to the redeemed who praise; for, they are all absolutely redeemed and made Kings and Priests to God, &c. nor will it agree to the past-by multitude of the un-redeemed that are contradistinguished from the former; because, First, The place doth assert the actuall enjoyment of friendship with God, (and, being made Kings and Priests, &c.) to be the proper fruit of Christs bloud and purchase, and not the having of these things made possible upon a condition, as was formerly laid down. Secondly, Because that past-by multitude, is expresly contradistinguished from the redeemed, and these who partake of the benefits of Christs purchase: and therefore the one being called the redeemed, the others may be called non-redeemed: and they are distinguished from, and opposed to the other here, not by any distinction simply founded upon the effect of Christs death, to wit, that the one are made Kings and Priests, and the other not; but it looketh to the meritorious cause procuring these effects, and making them certain to the one, and leaving others without all title thereunto, to wit, Christs death; and so it is to be understood, we are redeemed by thy bloud, that is, Thou hast paid the price of our Redemption in our name by Thy bloud, which hath not been done in respect of the multitude of these same Nations, whereof we are a part. Thirdly, There is but one Classe of the redeemed, and these are absolutely Redeemed;
. which will infer that Gods absolute decree of Reprobation must be so also, seing the decree of Election doth necessarily infer the decree of Reprobation; for, where there is an Election of some, there is a pretirition of others. And therefore, we must say, that Christ conditionally had proposed to Him, and did conditionally pay according to that proposal, the debt of many, that by a prior decree were absolutely reprobated. And as to the last opinion hinted, there being but one decree of Reprobation, It will follow that either all these must be under a conditional Redemption, which yet cannot be said so confidently, as to such who are without the conditionall Covenant; or, all must be excluded therefrom.
⟨p. 318⟩
sure there is no Grace in respect of the midses, seing no necessary and effectuall mids for attaining of the end, is provided for in this supposed bargain of conditionall Redemption: Therefore, it can neither be said to look like a bargain of Grace, nor yet to tend to the commendation thereof. 2. We may consider, that as to the effect or end, this bargain doth not make the same free unto these that are comprehended under it: for, it leaveth them to perform a condition for obtaining of the end, and that in their own strength without furnishing them for the performance of it, even though they be of themselves in an incapacity to perform the same: and how unlike this is to a Covenant of Grace, may easily be gathered. 3. This conditionall Redemption, doth neither make the effect, supposed to be purchased, certain, nor possible: certain, it cannot be, seing it never cometh to passe: possible it is not, seing it dependeth upon a condition, which (as it is circumstantiated) is simply impossible; yea, and is supponed to be so in the Covenant of Redemption: for, we must look upon this condition, in respect of its possibility, not only with regard to men, as men endued with natural faculties; but we must look upon it with respect to men as they are in their corruption incapacitated to do any thing that is spiritually good, such as this act of believing is. Now, in the Covenant of Redemption, it is supposed, not only that Faith is necessary; but also that man is corrupt, sold under sin; and so cannot of himself (except it be given him) believe:
⟨p. 319⟩
the debt of any, where He hath not paid it all. If it be said, that the price, materially considered, was equal, Then it will follow, that Christ suffered as much wrath and curse materially for Iudas, as He did for Peter: which will not look like the peculiarity of that love that appeareth in Christs suffering for any; nor yet sound well to the thankful heart of a redeemed one, as if Christ had paid no more for him than for Iudas. If it be said, that the difference is in Gods purpose, and Christs intention, who did design these sufferings to purchase Faith to the one, and so to make their Redemption effectuall; which was not purposed in reference to the other. To this we say, 1. If the price laid down be equal in reference to all, Then it would seem just that Iudas should have no lesse fruit thereby than Peter, seing no lesse was paid for him; But, 2.
