troublesome inmate. Where is the uprightness and innocency we have hitherto conceived our first parents to have enjoyed before the fall? A repugnancy to the law must needs be a thing sinful; an inclination to evil, to a thing forbidden, is an anomy, a deviation, and discrepancy, from the pure and holy law of God: we must speak no more then of the state of innocency, but only of a short space, wherein no outward actual sins were committed; their proper root, if this be true, was concreated with our nature. Is this that obediential harmony to all the commandments of God, which is necessary for a pure and innocent creature, that hath a law prescribed unto him? By which of the ten precepts, is this inclination to evil required? is it by the last, Thou shalt not covet? or by that sum of them all, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, &c.? is this all the happiness of paradise? to be turmoiled with a nature swelling with abundance of vain desires? and with a main stream carried headlong to all iniquity, if its violent appetite be not powerfully kept in by the bit and bridle of original righteousness? So it is we see with children now, and so it should have been with them in paradise, if they were subject to this rebellious inclination

to sin.

Thirdly, and principally, Whence had our primitive nature this affection to those things that were forbidden it? this rebellion and repugnancy to the law, which must needs be an anomy, and so a thing sinful; there was as yet no demerit, to deserve it as a punishment? what fault is it to be created? The operation of any thing which hath its original with the being of the thing itself, must needs proceed from the same cause, as doth the essence or being itself: as the fires tending upwards, relates to the same original, with the fire and, therefore, this inclination or affection, can have no other author but God; by which means he is entitled not only to the first sin, as the efficient cause, but to all the sins in the world, arising from thence. Plainly and without any strained consequences, he is made the author of sin for even those positive properties, which can have no other fountain but the author of nature, being set on evil

Vidi ego zelantem parvulum qui nondum loquebatur, et intuebatur pallidus, amaro aspectu colluctaneum suum. Aug.

h. Operatio quæ simul incipit cum esse rei, est ei ab agente, a quo habet esse, sicut moveri sursum inest igni a generante. Alvar. p. 199.

are directly sinful. And here the idol of free-will may triumph in this victory over the God of heaven: heretofore all the blame of sin lay upon his shoulders, but now he begins to complain, οὐκ ἐγὼ αἴτιος εἰμι ἀλλὰ ζεὺς καὶ μοῖρα· it is God and the fate of our creation, that hath placed us in this condition of naturally affecting that which is evil: back with all your charges, against the ill government of this new deity, within his imaginary dominion: what hurt doth he do, but incline men unto evil; and God himself did no less, at the first? But let them that will, rejoice in these blasphemies, it sufficeth us to know, that God created man upright, though he hath sought out many inventions; so that in this following dissonancy, we cleave to the better part.

[blocks in formation]


Of the death of Christ, and of the efficacy of his merits.

THE sum of those controversies, wherewith the Arminians and their abettors have troubled the church, about the death of Christ, may be reduced to two heads. First, Concerning the object of his merit, or whom he died for. Secondly, Concerning the efficacy and end of his death, or what he deserved, procured, merited, and obtained, for them for whom he died. In resolution of the first, they affirm, that he died for all, and every one; of the second, that he died for no one man at all; in that sense Christians have hitherto believed that he laid down his life, and submitted himself to bear the burden of his Father's wrath, for their sakes, It seems to me a strange extenuation of the merit of Christ, to teach, that no good at all by his death doth redound to divers of them for whom he died: what participation in the benefit of his suffering, had Pharaoh or Judas? Do they not at this hour, and shall they not to eternity, feel the weight and burden of their own sins? Had they either grace in this world, or glory in the other, that they should be said to have an interest in the death of our Saviour? Christians have hitherto believed, that for whom Christ died, for their sins he made satisfaction; that they themselves should not eternally suffer for them: is God unjust to punish twice, for the same fault? His own Son once, and again the poor sinners, for whom he suffered? I cannot conceive an intention in God, that Christ should satisfy his justice for the sin of them that were in hell some thousands of years before, and yet be still resolved to continue then punishment on them to all eternity? No, doubtless; Christ giveth life to every one, for whom he gave his life; he loseth not one of them, whom he purchased with his blood.

The first part of this controversy, may be handled, under these two questions. First, Whether God giving his Son, and Christ making his soul a ransom for sin, intended thereby to redeem all and every one, from their sins, that all and

[blocks in formation]

every one alike from the beginning of the world, to the last day, should all equally be partakers of the fruits of his death and passion; which purpose of theirs is in the most frustrate. Secondly, Whether God had not a certain infallible intention, of gathering unto himself a chosen people, of collecting a church of first-born, of saving his little flock, of bringing some certainly to happiness, by the death of his only Son, which in the event he doth accomplish.

The second part also may be reduced to these two heads. First, Whether Christ did not make full satisfaction for all their sins for whom he died, and merited glory, or everlasting happiness, to be bestowed on them, upon the performance of those conditions, God should require? Secondly (which is the proper controversy I shall chiefly insist upon), Whether Christ did not procure for his own people, a power to become the sons of God, merit and deserve at the hands of God for them, grace, faith, righteousness, and sanctification, whereby they may be enabled infallibly, to perform the conditions of the new covenant, upon the which they shall be admitted to glory.

To the first question, of the first part of the controversy, the Arminians answer affirmatively, to wit, that Christ died for all alike, the benefit of his passion, belongs equally to all the posterity of Adam. And to the second, negatively, that God had no such intention of bringing many chosen sons unto salvation by the death of Christ; but determined of grace and glory, no more precisely to one than to another, to John than Judas, Abraham than Pharaoh? both which, as the learned Moulin observed," seem to be invented to make Christianity ridiculous, and expose our religion to the derision of all knowing men. For who can possibly conceive that one by the appointment of God should die for another; and yet that other, by the same justice be allotted unto death himself, when one's death only was due: that Christ hath made a full satisfaction for their sins, who shall everlastingly feel the weight of them, themselves; that he should merit and obtain reconciliation with God for them, who live and die his enemies: grace and glory for them, who are graceless in this life, and damned in that which is

Molin. suffrag. ad Synod. Dordra.

to come: that he should get remission of sins for them, whose sins were never pardoned? In brief, if this sentence be true, either Christ by his death did not reconcile us unto God, make satisfaction to his justice for our iniquities, redeem us from our sins, purchase a kingdom, an everlasting inheritance for us, which, I hope no Christian will say, or else all the former absurdities must necessarily follow, which no rational man will ever admit.

[ocr errors]

Neither may we be charged, as straiteners of the merit of Christ: for we advance the true value and worth thereof (as hereafter will appear) far beyond all the Arminians ascribe unto it; we confess that that blood of God;' Acts xx. 28. of the Lamb without spot or blemish;' 1 Pet. i. 19. was so exceedingly precious, of that infinite worth and value, that it might have saved a thousand believing worlds; John iii. 16. Rom. iii. 22. His death was of sufficient dignity, to have been made a ransom, for all the sins of every one in the world: and on this internal sufficiency of his death and passion, is grounded the universality of evangelical promises, which have no such restriction in their own nature, as that they should not be made to all, and every one, though the promulgation and knowledge of them, is tied only to the good pleasure of God's special providence; Matt. xvi. 17. As also that economy and dispensation of the new covenant, whereby the partition wall being broken down, there remains no more difference between Jew and Gentile, the utmost borders of the earth being given in for Christ's inheritance. So that in some sense, Christ may be said to die for all, and the whole world: first, Inasmuch as the worth and value of his death, was very sufficient to have been made a price for all their sins: secondly, Inasmuch as this word all, is taken for some of all sorts, not for every one, of every sort, as it is frequently used in the Holy Scripture, so Christ being lifted up drew all unto him;' John i. 2. 32. that is, believers out of all sorts of men; the apostles cured all diseases, or some of all sorts, they did not cure every particular disease, but there was no kind of disease, that was exempted from their power of healing: so that where it is said, that Christ died for all, it is meant either, first, All the faithful; or, secondly, Some of all sorts; thirdly, Not only Jews, but Gentiles. For,

[ocr errors]
« VorigeDoorgaan »