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.
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 ae 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.
A second Objection, is, That many other Scriptures do assert Christ to be given, and to have laid down His life for the World: Therefore it cannot be absurd to say, that in some sense Christ hath redeemed all: and particularly that place, Joh. 3.16. is urged (for our scope suffereth us not to digress to more) to wit, God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son; that whosoever should believe in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. In reference to which place, we say, 1. That the scope is not to show, that Christ was given for all the World, taken distributively, that is, for every person that should be in the World, because it is only brought-in here to confirm this general sum of the Gospel which is laid down, vers. 15. That whosoever believeth in Christ, should not perish but have eternal life. Now, vers. 16. is brought-in as a confirmation of this; for (saith He) God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, for this very end, That whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have eternal life. Where Gods end in giving of His Son, is mentioned to be a ground of quietness to all that should believe, and will bear that Universal well, whosoever believeth are redeemed, and may expect the benefits of Christs Redemption; because the justifying and saving of such, was the end for which God sent His Son: and to extend the place any further, will not be consistent with the scope thereof. If it be said, that Gods respect and love to the world indefinitely, is mentioned here; Be it so, yet that will not infer, that because He had respect to the world, That therefore He intended that Christ should die for all and every individual person in the world; but, it will only infer this much at most, as if we said, in common speech, such a Christian King, or potent man had such a respect to Christians, or to men of such a Nation, as to send such a great sum to redeem so many of them as he particularly condescended upon, from the bondage of the Turks: it may well be said, that such a great man had respect to Christians or to such a Nation, because he purposed to redeem many of them when he took no thought of others;
A second Objection, is, That many other Scriptures do assert Christ to be given, and to have laid down His life for the World: Therefore it cannot be absurd to say, that in some sense Christ hath redeemed all: and particularly that place, Ioh. 3.16. is urged (for our scope suffereth us not to digresse to more) to wit, God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son; that whosoever should believe in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. In reference to which place, we say, 1. That the scope is not to shew, that Christ was given for all the World, taken distributively, that is, for every person that should be in the World, because it is only brought-in here to confirm this generall sum of the Gospel which is laid down, vers. 15. That whosoever believeth in Christ, should not perish but have eternal life. Now, vers. 16. is brought-in as a confirmation of this; for (saith He) God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, for this very end, That whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have eternall life. Where Gods end in giving of His Son, is mentioned to be a ground of quietnesse to all that should believe, and will bear that Universal well, whosoever believeth are redeemed, and may expect the benefits of Christs Redemption; because the justifying and saving of such, was the end for which God sent His Son: and to extend the place any further, will not be consistent with the scope thereof. If it be said, that Gods respect and love to the world indefinitly, is mentioned here; Be it so, yet that will not infer, that because He had respect to the world, That therefore He intended that Christ should die for all and every individuall person in the world; but, it will only infer this much at most, as if we said, in common speach, such a Christian King, or potent man had such a respect to Christians, or to men of such a Nation, as to send such a great sum to redeem so many of them as he particularly condescended upon, from the bondage of the Turks: it may well be said, that such a great man had respect to Christians or to such a Nation, because he purposed to redeem many of them when he took no thought of others;
yet it cannot be said, that he intended the redeeming of all, either absolutely or conditionally, seeing he did appoint the price given, to be paid for such and such as himself thought meet to redeem, and not for others: Just so is it here in this case, at the most; and so Gods respect to the world, may be opposite to His passing-by of all the fallen Angels. Again, secondly, we say, that if World, in this place, be to be understood of particular persons, and an universality of them, It must be understood of the Elect World, as in the Verse ⟨p. 321⟩following is clear, where Gods purpose of sending His Son, is expressed to be, that the world through Him might be saved. Now, there can no other universality be thought to be intended, to be saved by God (as was formerly cleared) but the universality (to speak so,) or, the World, of the Elect. Neither will the reading be absurd, to understand it thus, That God so loved the Elect World, that He gave His only begotten Son to death for them, that by their believing on Him they should not perish, but have eternal life. And so this place will be interpreted by the parallel thereof. 1 Joh. 4.9. In this was manifested the love of God towards us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him: for, us and we, in the one place, are equipollent to world and whosoever will believe, in the other. That thus it is to be understood, appeareth in this, that even according to the grounds of this opinion there can none be expected to believe but the Elect; and in the Text, there are none profited by this fruit of Christs love to the world, but the Believers: Therefore this love, which giveth this gift, must be said to respect the Elect only, especially considering, that it is in a matter which is the evidence of Gods most special love, as was formerly said. Only, it is expressed in this general, whosoever shall believe, &c. because the extending of it, in this indefinite expression, doth sure best with the proposed mould of the offer of the Gospel, which is not to invite men to believe, because they are particularly elected, or redeemed; but to invite men to believe, because God hath promised to save such as believe, and because He doth by the outward Ministry call hearers thereunto.
yet it cannot be said, that he intended the redeeming of all, either absolutely or conditionally, seing he did appoint the price given, to be paid for such and such as himself thought meet to redeem, and not for others: Just so is it here in this case, at the most; and so Gods respect to the world, may be opposite to His passing-by of all the fallen Angels. Again, secondly, we say, that if World, in this place, be to be understood of particular persons, and an universality of them, It must be understood of the Elect World, as in the Verse
And this is the more to be observed, because Christ here, as a good Minister of the Gospel, is preaching to Nicodemus, and laying before him the sum of the Gospel, and that which must be the object of his faith; and therefore it was necessary that He should take that way of preaching these truths to him, so that as upon the one side, He doth hold forth Gods peculiar respect to the Elect World; so, upon the other, He doth hold forth Gods acceptation of all whosoever shall believe, that the peculiarity of the Redemption may not stumble any in their approaching to Christ, who have the offer of the Gospel made unto them: for, the Word saith in sum, a Believer cannot fail of Salvation, seeing God had that respect to His Elect, as to give His only begotten Son to purchase this unto them: and this is to be preached in these indefinite terms, and cannot but be true, seeing it is the revealed will of God.
And this is the more to be observed, because Christ here, as a good Minister of the Gospel, is preaching to Nicodemus, and laying before him the sum of the Gospel, and that which must be the object of his faith; and therefore it was necessary that He should take that way of preaching these truths to him, so that as upon the one side, He doth hold forth Gods peculiar respect to the Elect World; so, upon the other, He doth hold forth Gods acceptation of all whosoever shall believe, that the peculiarity of the Redemption may not stumble any in their approaching to Christ, who have the offer of the Gospel made unto them: for, the Word saith in sum, a Believer cannot fail of Salvation, seing God had that respect to His Elect, as to give His only begotten Son to purchase this unto them: and this is to be preached in these indefinit terms, and cannot but be true, seing it is the revealed will of God.
A fourth difficulty following this opinion, is, That it will be hard to conceive how Christ could conditionally die and lay down His life for the redeeming of many who were actually already condemned in Hell: yet, this Universal conditional Redemption will infer this, otherwayes the Reprobates, who lived before Christs death, were not so much obliged to Him as these who did succeed. If it be said, that although Christ actually died in time, yet the transaction was eternal before any man lived in the world. This will not remove the difficulty, because, though it was transacted before time; yet, no question, it was so regulated as it might be performed in time. Now, can it be supposed that the transaction was in these terms, that the Mediator should die and lay down a price for so many Elect, who by the virtue of His death were to be brought to Glory before His sufferings; and that also He should pay so much in the name of so many Reprobates, who for their own sins were to be actually damned at the time of payment? And whatever be said of the transaction, yet when it came to Christs suffering, it must either be said, that these were scored out, so as Christ did not bear their iniquity, or die for them in any respect; or, it must be said, that before Gods Justice, Christ did bear the iniquity, and pay in the name of such as were actually in Hell, suffering for their own sins at that same instant of time.
A fourth difficulty following this opinion, is, That it will be hard to conceive how Christ could conditionally die and lay down His life for the redeeming of many who were actually already condemned in Hell: yet, this Universall conditionall Redemption will infer this, otherwayes the Reprobates, who lived before Christs death, were not so much obliged to Him as these who did succeed. If it be said, that although Christ actually died in time, yet the transaction was eternal before any man lived in the world. This will not remove the difficulty, because, though it was transacted before time; yet, no question, it was so regulated as it might be performed in time. Now, can it be supposed that the transaction was in these terms, that the Mediator should die and lay down a price for so many Elect, who by the vertue of His death were to be brought to Glory before His sufferings; and that also He should pay so much in the name of so many Reprobates, who for their own sins were to be actually damned at the time of paiment? And whatever be said of the transaction, yet when it came to Christs suffering, it must either be said, that these were scored out, so as Christ did not bear their iniquity, or die for them in any respect; or, it must be said, that before Gods Justice, Christ did bear the iniquity, and pay in the name of such as were actually in Hell, suffering for their own sins at that same instant of time.
Fifthly, It may be asked, what doth become of all infants, whether in the Visible Church, or without it, who die in their infancy? According to the former grounds, it will be hard to determine: for, none can say, upon the one side, that they are all absolutely redeemed and saved, there being no warrant in Scripture for this; on the other side, to say, that Christ died for them, upon condition that they should believe in Him, cannot be well understood: for, though some of them be within the conditional Covenant made with the Church, and therefore cannot be more rigidly constructed of than these at age; yet are they not in a capacity to perform acts of Faith, and to fulfil that condition: and this incapacity doth not merely flow from mens corruption, as it doth in men at age; but is natural to young ones, as not to understand, speak, or walk, are: now, it were unreasonable to say, that such children who die in their infancy, were redeemed by Christ, upon condition ⟨p. 322⟩that they should understand, speak, walk, &c. or, of a child dying in such a condition (suppose it be one not absolutely redeemed) It cannot be said, that that child was redeemed upon this condition, that it had walked, spoken, &c. when as yet it was not (possibly) of one hours age. Again, can it be said of children within the Visible Church, which are not absolutely redeemed, that it is indeterminable whether Christ did die conditionally for them, or not, at least till they come to such an age as they themselves may act Faith? Neither can it be said here, that He redeemed Reprobate children in the Church conditionally, as He did absolutely redeem these that are Elect, although even these cannot act Faith: for, He purchaseth to the Elect saving Grace in the seed thereof, and a new nature to be communicated to them, whereof the youngest children are capable, seeing therein they are merely passive: But, in that conditional Redemption, there is nothing purchased to any but upon condition that they receive Christ offered and believe in Him; which doth suppose an activeness, and acting to be in these to whom the offer is made: of which, children are not capable.
Fifthly, It may be asked, what doth become of all infants, whether in the Visible Church, or without it, who die in their infancie? According to the former grounds, it will be hard to determine: for, none can say, upon the one side, that they are all absolutely redeemed and saved, there being no warrant in Scripture for this; on the other side, to say, that Christ died for them, upon condition that they should believe in Him, cannot be well understood: for, though some of them be within the conditionall Covenant made with the Church, and therefore cannot be more rigidly constructed of than these at age; yet are they not in a capacity to perform acts of Faith, and to fulfill that condition: and this incapacity doth not meerly flow from mens corruption, as it doth in men at age; but is naturall to young ones, as not to understand, speak, or walk, are: now, it were unreasonable to say, that such children who die in their infancie, were redeemed by Christ, upon condition
And if this condition could be supposed only to infer something wherein children might be merely passive, Then this will be the meaning thereof, to wit, that Christ redeemed such children upon condition that He Himself should confer such and such things on them, in receiving of which, they could only be passive: which would not look like a conditional Covenant; for, the performing of the condition will be on Christs side, and not upon theirs: and so it would be absolute as in the case of the Elect children. Neither will it remove this difficulty, to say, that children are partakers of the fathers privileges, and are to be reckoned accordingly: for, this cannot be said of saving privileges, so as if no Elect parent could have a Reprobate child; or, no Reprobate parent, an Elect child dying at such an age; because these things belong unto the Sovereignty of God, and He is not so to be bounded in respect of all particular children. Beside, experience in the Word giveth ground to us to call it in question. It must then be understood only of federal privileges, and that in respect of the external administration of the Covenant: and this will say nothing to the difficulty; because the doubt is still, what to say of children that are within the conditional Covenant in respect of their parents, that are within the Visible Church; yet, supposing them to die instantly, or in their nonage, they cannot be said to be conditionally redeemed, because of the reasons foresaid.
And if this condition could be supposed only to infer something wherein children might be meerly passive, Then this will be the meaning thereof, to wit, that Christ redeemed such children upon condition that He Himself should confer such and such things on them, in receiving of which, they could only be passive: which would not look like a conditionall Covenant; for, the performing of the condition will be on Christs side, and not upon theirs: and so it would be absolute as in the case of the Elect children. Neither will it remove this difficulty, to say, that children are partakers of the fathers priviledges, and are to be reckoned accordingly: for, this cannot be said of saving priviledges, so as if no Elect parent could have a Reprobate child; or, no Reprobate parent, an Elect child dying at such an age; because these things belong unto the Soveraignty of God, and He is not so to be bounded in respect of all particular children. Beside, experience in the Word giveth ground to us to call it in question. It must then be understood only of federall priviledges, and that in respect of the externall administration of the Covenant: and this will say nothing to the difficulty; because the doubt is still, what to say of children that are within the conditionall Covenant in respect of their parents, that are within the Visible Church; yet, supposing them to die instantly, or in their nonage, they cannot be said to be conditionally redeemed, because of the reasons foresaid.
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;
⟨p. 321⟩
following is clear, where Gods purpose of sending His Son, is expressed to be, that the world through Him might be saved. Now, there can no other universality be thought to be intended, to be saved by God (as was formerly cleared) but the universality (to speak so,) or, the World, of the Elect. Neither will the reading be absurd, to understand it thus, That God so loved the Elect World, that He gave His only begotten Son to death for them, that by their believing on Him they should not perish, but have eternal life. And so this place will be interpreted by the parallel thereof. 1 Ioh. 4.9. In this was manifested the love of God towards us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him: for, us and we, in the one place, are equipollent to world and whosoever will believe, in the other. That thus it is to be understood, appeareth in this, that even according to the grounds of this opinion there can none be expected to believe but the Elect; and in the Text, there are none profited by this fruit of Christs love to the world, but the Believers: Therefore this love, which giveth this gift, must be said to respect the Elect only, especially considering, that it is in a matter which is the evidence of Gods most special love, as was formerly said. Only, it is expressed in this generall, whosoever shall believe, &c. because the extending of it, in this indefinit expression, doth sure best with the proposed mould of the offer of the Gospel, which is not to invite men to believe, because they are particularly elected, or redeemed; but to invite men to believe, because God hath promised to save such as believe, and because He doth by the outward Ministrie call hearers thereunto.
⟨p. 322⟩
that they should understand, speak, walk, &c. or, of a child dying in such a condition (suppose it be one not absolutely redeemed) It cannot be said, that that child was redeemed upon this condition, that it had walked, spoken, &c. when as yet it was not (possibly) of one houres age. Again, can it be said of children within the Visible Church, which are not absolutely redeemed, that it is indeterminable whether Christ did die conditionally for them, or not, at least till they come to such an age as they themselves may act Faith? Neither can it be said here, that He redeemed Reprobate children in the Church conditionally, as He did absolutely redeem these that are Elect, although even these cannot act Faith: for, He purchaseth to the Elect saving Grace in the seed thereof, and a new nature to be communicated to them, whereof the youngest children are capable, seing therein they are meerly passive: But, in that conditionall Redemption, there is nothing purchased to any but upon condition that they receive Christ offered and believe in Him; which doth suppose an activenesse, and acting to be in these to whom the offer is made: of which, children are not capable.
