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.
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.
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.
Sixthly, If the Reprobate be conditionally redeemed, Then that Redemption of theirs is either transacted in the same Covenant with the absolute Redemption of the Elect, or not: they cannot be said to be comprehended within the same Covenant, because all such as are comprehended in it, are contradistinguished from others, as being the Lords chosen, and such as are given to Christ, &c. Again, this Covenant of Redemption includeth the means with the end; for, it is ordered in all things and sure; which cannot be said of this conditional Covenant: Therefore they cannot be comprehended in one. And it would not sound well, to say, that the Elects Redemption, and that of the Reprobates, were contained in one Covenant. Nor can it be said, that it is a distinct bargain beside the Covenant of Redemption: Because, 1. That were indeed to grant that it is no Redemption, seeing it is not comprehended in the Covenant of Redemption. 2. The business of Christs death, is only transacted in that Covenant, where the Redemption of the Elect is absolutely concluded; because it is the great mids designed for making of that effectual: therefore ought it, as to the extent of its merit, to be proportioned to the object of that Covenant, seeing by His undertaking therein alanerly, He becometh liable to death. 3. This would infer two Covenants of Redemption, whereas the Scripture doth but speak of one. And although some speak of a conditional Covenant with the visible Church; yet, neither can that be said to be made with all men, and so none without the visible Church should be redeemed; neither can that be called a Covenant of Redemption, distinct from that which is made in reference to the Elect; because nothing can be counted a Covenant of Redemption, even a conditional Covenant, but that wherein God and the Mediator are parties; for, no other can determine absolutely or conditionally upon the business of Redemption. Beside, what is revealed to the visible Church, and hath the form of a conditional Covenant, doth but flow from this, as the administration, application, or execution thereof: and therefore cannot be thought to contain any new article concerning the extent or fruit of Christs death, but must be regulated by the former, and is not to be looked upon as a distinct Covenant in it self.
Sixthly, If the Reprobate be conditionally redeemed, Then that Redemption of theirs is either transacted in the same Covenant with the absolute Redemption of the Elect, or not: they cannot be said to be comprehended within the same Covenant, because all such as are comprehended in it, are contradistinguished from others, as being the Lords chosen, and such as are given to Christ, &c. Again, this Covenant of Redemption includeth the means with the end; for, it is orderd in all things and sure; which cannot be said of this conditionall Covenant: Therefore they cannot be comprehended in one. And it would not sound well, to say, that the Elects Redemption, and that of the Reprobates, were contained in one Covenant. Nor can it be said, that it is a distinct bargain beside the Covenant of Redemption: Because, 1. That were indeed to grant that it is no Redemption, seing it is not comprehended in the Covenant of Redemption. 2. The bussinesse of Christs death, is only transacted in that Covenant, where the Redemption of the Elect is absolutely concluded; because it is the great mids designed for making of that effectuall: therefore ought it, as to the extent of its merit, to be proportioned to the object of that Covenant, seing by His undertaking therein alanerly, He becometh liable to death. 3. This would infer two Covenants of Redemption, whereas the Scripture doth but speak of one. And although some speak of a conditionall Covenant with the visible Church; yet, neither can that be said to be made with all men, and so none without the visible Church should be redeemed; neither can that be called a Covenant of Redemption, distinct from that which is made in reference to the Elect; because nothing can be counted a Covenant of Redemption, even a conditionall Covenant, but that wherein God and the Mediator are parties; for, no other can determine absolutely or conditionally upon the bussinesse of Redemption. Beside, what is revealed to the visible Church, and hath the form of a conditionall Covenant, doth but flow from this, as the administration, application, or execution thereof: and therefore cannot be thought to contain any new article concerning the extent or fruit of Christs death, but must be regulated by the former, and is not to be looked upon as a distinct Covenant in it self.
The last thing which we have to say, is, that this mould of a conditional Redemption ⟨p. 323⟩of all men, doth not bring with it any more solid way to satisfy or remove the difficulties that are pretended to follow the former. And indeed the way of grace being a mystery and depth which is unsearchable, and the giving of Christ unto death being the most mysterious part of all this mystery; what wonder is it that carnal reason cannot reach the grounds of the Lords sovereign proceeding therein? and what presumption may it be thought to be to endeavour such a mould of this, as may mar the mysteriousness thereof, and satisfy reason in all its proud Objections? Yet, we say, this will not do it: for, First, it doth not prove any way more conducible for the glorifying of grace in respect of these who are conditionally redeemed, as was formerly shown, but rather the contrary. Nor doth it conduce any more to the quieting and comforting of wakened Consciences, (whereof also something was spoken) nor doth it any way tend to make Reprobate sinners more inexcusable, as if thereby the justice of God were more clearly vindicated: for, by this Doctrine, He did not redeem them absolutely, neither did purchase Faith unto them, without which, even according to this conditional Covenant, they cannot be saved; and yet they can no more obtain Faith of themselves except by His purchase, than they can by themselves satisfy Divine Justice, had He not by His death interposed. Now may not carnal reason still cavil here, and say, that though Christ hath died and purchased them conditionally, yet seeing He hath not purchased Faith to them, their Salvation is no less impossible, than if there had been no such conditional Redemption at all. Neither can it be ever instanced, that this mere conditional Redemption did profit any person as to life, or any saving good, more than if it had not been at all: and so the matter upon which the pretended cavil doth rise, is but altered, but no way removed.
The last thing which we have to say, is, that this mould of a conditionall Redemption ⟨p. 323⟩of all men, doth not bring with it any more solid way to satisfie or remove the difficulties that are pretended to follow the former. And indeed the way of grace being a mystery and depth which is unsearchable, and the giving of Christ unto death being the most mysterious part of all this mystery; what wonder is it that carnall reason cannot reach the grounds of the Lords soveraign proceeding therein? and what presumption may it be thought to be to endeavour such a mould of this, as may mar the mysteriousnesse thereof, and satisfie reason in all its proud Objections? Yet, we say, this will not do it: for, First, it doth not prove any way more conduceable for the glorifying of grace in respect of these who are conditionally redeemed, as was formerly shown, but rather the contrary. Nor doth it conduce any more to the quieting and comforting of wakened Consciences, (whereof also something was spoken) nor doth it any way tend to make Reprobate sinners more inexcusable, as if thereby the justice of God were more clearly vindicated: for, by this Doctrine, He did not redeem them absolutely, neither did purchase Faith unto them, without which, even according to this conditionall Covenant, they cannot be saved; and yet they can no more obtain Faith of themselves except by His purchase, than they can by themselves satisfie Divine Justice, had He not by His death interposed. Now may not carnall reason still cavill here, and say, that though Christ hath died and purchased them conditionally, yet seing He hath not purchased Faith to them, their Salvation is no lesse impossible, than if there had been no such conditionall Redemption at all. Neither can it be ever instanced, that this meer conditionall Redemption did profite any person as to life, or any saving good, more than if it had not been at all: and so the matter upon which the pretended cavill doth rise, is but altered, but no way removed.
Secondly, Seeing the asserters of this conditional Redemption do admit of an absolute Election unto life as we do, (at least, for ought I know) then they will have the same cavils to meet with: for, the connection betwixt Election, Faith, and Salvation, is no less peremptory, (so that none can believe and be saved, but an Elect▪) than the connection is betwixt Christs dying for one and his obtaining of Salvation; yea, the connection is no less peremptory, and reciprocal (to say so) betwixt absolute Redemption and life, and betwixt mere conditional Redemption and Damnation (to speak of a connection simply without respect to any causality) and that according to their grounds, than there is betwixt Redemption and life, and non-redemption and death, according to the grounds which we maintain: yet, I suppose, that none will account this absolute Election of some few, when others are past-by, to be any spot upon the sovereign and free grace of God; or yet any ground of excuse to such as are not thus Elected by Him: and yet without this, (as to the event,) it is certain, that they can never believe nor attain unto Salvation; yea, supposing that Election were grounded upon foreseen Faith, and supposing Reprobation to be grounded upon foreseen sin, and impenitency therein; yet, now both these Decrees being peremptorily and irrevocably past, this is certain, that no other will or shall be saved but such as are so Elected: and so that all others, to whom the offer of the Gospel cometh, shall necessarily perish, or, the former Decree must be cancelled, which is impossible; and this is true, although it be past (as they say) voluntate consequent, Now when the offer of the Gospel cometh, may not carnal minds raise the same cavil, and say, seeing the Lord foreknew that such and such would not believe, and for that cause did determine to glorify His Justice upon them; to what end then is this offer made to such, who are now by a Decree excluded from the same, what ever be the ground thereof? and indeed there is no end of cavilling, if men will give way unto the same: for, flesh will ask, even in reference to this, why doth he then find fault? and who hath resisted his will? for certainly if He had pleased, He might have made it otherwise; and seeing He pleased not to do so, Therefore it could not be otherwise, as the Apostle hath it, Rom. 9.19.
Secondly, Seing the asserters of this conditionall Redemption do admit of an absolute Election unto life as we do, (at least, for ought I know) then they will have the same cavils to meet with: for, the connexion betwixt Election, Faith, and Salvation, is no lesse peremptor, (so that none can believe and be saved, but an Elect) than the connexion is betwixt Christs dying for one and his obtaining of Salvation; yea, the connexion is no lesse peremptory, and reciprocall (to say so) betwixt absolute Redemption and life, and betwixt meer conditionall Redemption and Damnation (to speak of a connexion simply without respect to any causality) and that according to their grounds, than there is betwixt Redemption and life, and non-redemption and death, according to the grounds which we maintain: yet, I suppose, that none will account this absolute Election of some few, when others are past-by, to be any spot upon the soveraign and free grace of God; or yet any ground of excuse to such as are not thus Elected by Him: and yet without this, (as to the event,) it is certain, that they can never believe nor attain unto Salvation; yea, supposing that Election were grounded upon foreseen Faith, and supposing Reprobation to be grounded upon foreseen sin, and impenitency therein; yet, now both these Decrees being peremptorily and irrevocably past, this is certain, that no other will or shall be saved but such as are so Elected: and so that all others, to whom the offer of the Gospel cometh, shall necessarily perish, or, the former Decree must be cancelled, which is impossible; and this is true, although it be past (as they say) voluntate consequente, Now when the offer of the Gospel cometh, may not carnall minds raise the same cavill, and say, seing the Lord foreknew that such and such would not believe, and for that cause did determine to glorifie His Justice upon them; to what end then is this offer made to such, who are now by a Decree excluded from the same, what ever be the ground thereof? and indeed there is no end of cavilling, if men will give way unto the same: for, flesh will ask, even in reference to this, why doth he then find fault? and who hath resisted his will? for certainly if He had pleased, He might have made it otherwise; and seing He pleased not to do so, Therefore it could not be otherwise, as the Apostle hath it,
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 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, 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.
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.
