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.
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:
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
we say, That this Answer doth confirm our Arguments for, if it was not the purpose of the Father and the Mediator, that the fruits of Christs death should be effectual to such and such, Then Christs death cannot be called a satisfaction for such; because His death is regulated in its extent according to that purpose, and is a satisfaction for none, but such for whom it was purposed to be made effectual: for, to make it a satisfaction for any, not only is it necessary that there should be a sufficient price, but also that it should be intended to be paid and accepted, as such, for such and such persons: Therefore, seeing it was not intended for them as such, they cannot any way be said to be redeemed by Christs death, seeing still the purpose and intention of the Parties contracting, is wanting, without which it can neither be a Satisfaction, nor a Redemption. If it be said, that there was an intention to make a conditional Redemption. Answ. This being understood as contradistinct from the absolute Redemption, as necessarily it must be, its as much as to say, that the Father and Son in the Covenant of Redemption did intend for such and such persons, in stead of a conditional Redemption, a non-redemption, or, ineffectual Redemption; and so it cometh to this, that their Redemption was never intended at all.
we say, That this Answer doth confirm our Arguments for, if it was not the purpose of the Father and the Mediator, that the fruits of Christs death should be effectual to such and such, Then Christs death cannot be called a satisfaction for such; because His death is regulated in its extent according to that purpose, and is a satisfaction for none, but such for whom it was purposed to be made effectuall: for, to make it a satisfaction for any, not only is it necessary that there should be a sufficient price, but also that it should be intended to be paid and accepted, as such, for such and such persons: Therefore, seing it was not intended for them as such, they cannot any way be said to be redeemed by Christs death, seing still the purpose and intention of the Parties contracting, is wanting, without which it can neither be a Satisfaction, nor a Redemption. If it be said, that there was an intention to make a conditionall Redemption. Answ. This being understood as contradistinct from the absolute Redemption, as necessarily it must be, its as much as to say, that the Father and Son in the Covenant of Redemption did intend for such and such persons, in stead of a conditional Redemption, a non-redemption, or, ineffectuall Redemption; and so it cometh to this, that their Redemption was never intended at all.
A second absurdity, is, that this seemeth to imply a contradiction, to wit, that the Reprobate, whom God hath passed-by, are redeemed by Christs death; yea, that the unredeemed are redeemed: For, if the redeemed be distinguished from others in this place, Then these to whom they are opposed must be unredeemed. Neither can it be said, that the opposition is not ad idem, because the one are absolutely redeemed, and the other conditionally; for, upon the matter, the denying of an absolute and effectual Redemption, is the denying of any Redemption at all. Again, as to the first part, if any say, that though Christ died for all men, yet did He die for no Reprobate as a Rep•bate: which some of late (even walking under the name of Orthodox) do assert, because it is absurd to say, that Christ died for any Reprobate. We Answer, In Christs Redemption, the Elect are considered as Elect; for, them He redeemeth absolutely: Therefore, on the contrary, He must consider others as Reprobates, or at least as not Elected; And can any be considered as not Elected, but he must also be considered as a Reprobate, seeing there is not a mids? Therefore, either Christ must be said to redeem all men, without respect either to Election or Reprobation, which is false, because the Elect are in all the business of Redemption considered as such; or, He must be said to die for the Reprobates as Reprobates, which is the absurdity they would shift: or, it must be said, that in the laying down of His life, He had no respect to them under any consideration: which is the truth. For, the decree of Reprobation, being in order of nature, and according to our conception, prior to the decree and Covenant of Redemption, as was said, such as are contained therein, cannot but be looked upon under that consideration. And, by the way, it would not seem inconsiderable as to our purpose, to think, that before this transaction of Redemption were concluded (to speak according to our uptaking of first and last in Gods purposes) He should determine concerning the ultimate estate of all men by His decrees of Election and Reprobation, and when marches are rid, and bounds (never to be changed) set, then to come to the transaction of Redemption.
A second absurdity, is, that this seemeth to imply a contradiction, to wit, that the Reprobate, whom God hath passed-by, are redeemed by Christs death; yea, that the unredeemed are redeemed: For, if the redeemed be distinguished from others in this place, Then these to whom they are opposed must be unredeemed. Neither can it be said, that the opposition is not ad idem, because the one are absolutely redeemed, and the other conditionally; for, upon the matter, the denying of an absolute and effectual Redemption, is the denying of any Redemption at all. Again, as to the first part, if any say, that though Christ died for all men, yet did He die for no Reprobate as a Repbate: which some of late (even walking under the name of Orthodox) do assert, because it is absurd to say, that Christ died for any Reprobate. We Answer, In Christs Redemption, the Elect are considered as Elect; for, them He redeemeth absolutely: Therefore, on the contrary, He must consider others as Reprobates, or at least as not Elected; And can any be considered as not Elected, but he must also be considered as a Reprobate, seing there is not a mids? Therefore, either Christ must be said to redeem all men, without respect either to Election or Reprobation, which is false, because the Elect are in all the businesse of Redemption considered as such; or, He must be said to die for the Reprobates as Reprobates, which is the absurdity they would shift: or, it must be said, that in the laying down of His life, He had no respect to them under any consideration: which is the truth. For, the decree of Reprobation, being in order of nature, and according to our conception, prior to the decree and Covenant of Redemption, as was said, such as are contained therein, cannot but be looked upon under that consideration. And, by the way, it would not seem inconsiderable as to our purpose, to think, that before this transaction of Redemption were concluded (to speak according to our uptaking of first and last in Gods purposes) He should determine concerning the ultimat estate of all men by His decrees of Election and Reprobation, and when marches are rid, and bounds (never to be changed) set, then to come to the transaction of Redemption.
Which certainly must suppose, that He intended not to confound the difference He had made by that after-covenant, but thereby to provide a mean for making the decree of Election effectual; which mids was necessary for this, but not necessary as for the other.
Which certainly must suppose, that He intended not to confound the difference He had made by that after-covenant, but thereby to provide a mean for making the decree of Election effectuall; which mids was necessary for this, but not necessary as for the other.
A third absurdity, is, that this doth extend Christs death further and maketh it more common than the Scripture doth: for, in Scripture, Christ is said to die for His People, Matt•. 1.21. for His Sheep, Joh. 10.11, 15. to gather the sons of God, Joh. 11.52. for His own, Joh. 17. vers. 6. with 19. and such like. And in this place, it is said to be for some of all Kindreds, Tongues, and Nations, and not for all indifferently. Now, according to ⟨p. 320⟩this opinion, Christ may be said not only to die for His Sheep, but for all and every Man, &c. There are two special Objections against this, The first, is, That although Christ be said to die for His Sheep, and to have redeemed some out of every Nation, &c. yet saith a late Learned Abettor of this opinion (to wit, Dallaeus in his Apology,) that it will not follow; because He died for these, Therefore He died for no other; more than it will follow from Paul's word, Gal. 2.20. He loved me, and gave Himself for me, Therefore He did love and gave Himself for no other. It is sad, that Learned men should so please themselves, to shift Arguments: for certainly, a clear difference may be observed between Pual's saying, Christ gave His life for me, and between Christs saying, I laid down My life for My sheep: this doth expressly hold forth Christs differencing of these for whom He was to die, and His contradistinguishing of them from others who were not of His Sheep, nor given to Him; and therefore for them He was not to lay down His life: whereas that word of Pauls, is not spoken to contradistinguish him from any other Believer, but to comfort himself in the application of that truth to himself, that Christ who died for His Sheep, did also lay down His life for him as one of them. Again, when Christ speaketh of His People, of His Sheep, and of His Own in this case, He doth particularly (to say so) consider them as a species or kind of people by themselves, and differenced, in the respect mentioned, from others, as the scope cleareth: but when Paul speaketh of himself in the application foresaid, will any think that he speaketh of himself as differenced from all, and not rather as one individual of the species foresaid? Therefore although we may conclude thus, God hath made man a reasonable creature according to His own Image, Therefore no other creature is such, because, by this qualification, man;
or that species (to say so) is differenced from all other creatures on earth; yet, it will not follow, Peter is a reasonable creature according to Gods Image, Therefore no other man is so: because Peter is but an individual• person under the same species with others. Just so is it here, Christs Sheep, Own, People, &c. denote a species, as it were, differenced by such relations from others, whereas Paul is but an individual Believer comprehended under the same.
or that species (to say so) is differenced from all other creatures on earth; yet, it will not follow, Peter is a reasonable creature according to Gods Image, Therefore no other man is so: because Peter is but an individual• person under the same species with others. Just so is it here, Christs Sheep, Own, People, &c. denote a species, as it were, differenced by such relations from others, whereas Paul is but an individuall Believer comprehended under the same.
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:
. 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.
•
A third absurdity, is, that this doth extend Christs death further and maketh it more common than the Scripture doth: for, in Scripture, Christ is said to die for His People, Matt•. 1.21. for His Sheep, Ioh. 10.11, 15. to gather the sons of God, Ioh. 11.52. for His own, Ioh. 17. vers. 6. with 19. and such like. And in this place, it is said to be for some of all Kindreds, Tongues, and Nations, and not for all indifferently. Now, according to ⟨p. 320⟩this opinion, Christ may be said not only to die for His Sheep, but for all and every Man, &c. There are two speciall Objections against this, The first, is, That although Christ be said to die for His Sheep, and to have redeemed some out of every Nation, &c. yet saith a late Learned Abettor of this opinion (to wit, Dallaeus in his Apologie,) that it will not follow; because He died for these, Therefore He died for no other; more than it will follow from Paul's word, Gal. 2.20. He loved me, and gave Himself for me, Therefore He did love and gave Himself for no other. It is sad, that Learned men should so please themselves, to shift Arguments: for certainly, a clear difference may be observed between Pual's saying, Christ gave His life for me, and between Christs saying, I laid down My life for My sheep: this doth expresly hold forth Christs differencing of these for whom He was to die, and His contradistinguishing of them from others who were not of His Sheep, nor given to Him; and therefore for them He was not to lay down His life: whereas that word of Pauls, is not spoken to contradistinguish him from any other Believer, but to comfort himself in the application of that truth to himself, that Christ who died for His Sheep, did also lay down His life for him as one of them. Again, when Christ speaketh of His People, of His Sheep, and of His Own in this case, He doth particularly (to say so) consider them as a species or kind of people by themselves, and differenced, in the respect mentioned, from others, as the scope cleareth: but when Paul speaketh of himself in the application forsaid, will any think that he speaketh of himself as differenced from all, and not rather as one individuall of the species foresaid? Therefore although we may conclude thus, God hath made man a reasonable creature according to His own Image, Therefore no other creature is such, because, by this qualification, man;
