Universal Redemption of Mankind, Chapter 7 · Argument 9 – Argument 12
Arg. 9th. A Sufficientià pretii pro omnibus.
If Chriſt died for all Men quoad ſufficientiam pretii, then he hath ſatisfied for all. But he died for all Men quoad ſufficientiam pretii Ergo, &c. The Minor is maintained by the generality of our Ancienter Proteſtant Divines, who uſe ordinarily this diſtinction to ſolve the doubt, whether Chriſt died for all? viz. he died for all ſufficiently, and for the Elect only effectually. And indeed this one diſtinction rightly underſtood, and this anſwer thence fitted, is moſt full and apt for the reſolution of the queſtion. The Schoolmen go the ſame way.
The conſequence of the Major propoſition is acknowledged by our late moſt rigid Anti-Arminians, who on that reaſon do deny the Minor. For our new Divines have utterly forſaken the old common opinion, and in ſtead of ſaying that [Chriſt died for all Men ſufficienter] They will not ſo much as ſay that [His Death was ſufficiens pretium pro omnibus] But only that [It is ſufficient to have been a price for all.] For all our former Divines (and the moſt of theſe times; ſo far as I can diſcern) who acknowledg that Chriſt died for all Men quoad ſufficientiam pretii, and for the Elect quoad efficaciam; they ſay the ſame, and as much as I; and therefore I need not ſay much more to them. For Chriſt cannot dye for Men ſufficienter and yet not die for them at all, or not ſatisfie for them. I may well take up with this one argument. If Chriſts Death be a ſufficient price for all, then it is a Price for all: But Chriſts Death is (by their confeſſion) a ſufficient Price for all: Therefore it is a Price for all. Here underſtand that it is firſt in order of nature a Sacrifice expiatory, or a ſatisfaction, before it is meritorious of further benefits, or is a Price for them. Had it not been to ſatisfie Juſtice, God would have been ſo far from taking his Sons Death for meritorious, that he would have been utterly diſpleaſed in it: For he delighteth not in the Death of him that dieth; how much leſs of the innocent; and leſt of all of his only Son.
Note here alſo in what ſence we ſay, Chriſts Death is ſufficient, and in what ſence it is called effectual: There is a double effect of Chriſts Death, and ſo a double efficacy, and ſo a double ſufficiency to thoſe effects. The firſt effect is to be a ſatisfaction to the offended Juſtice of God, and a demonſtration of his legal Juſtice. The ſufficiency to this effect was in the dignity of the Perſon, and greatneſs of the ſuffering, ſuppoſing Gods voluntary Acceptation of it, inſtead of the Sinners own ſuffering. The efficacy immediately followed the ſuffering: Yea it went long before it, upon the undertaking and the acceptation as in Moral Cauſes it is not unuſual. The 2d. ſort of effects, are more remote, even the actual good of the Sinner: Of theſe ſome are general and common, (as the freeing of all Men from that neceſſity of periſhing, which lay on them by the Curſe of the firſt Law as it ſtood without remedy, &c.) And ſo Chriſts Death is ſufficient for all and effectual too. Some fruits of his Death are ſpecial and follow the performance of the condition impoſed on us (Faith and Repentance) ſuch are Pardon, Juſtification, Adoption, Sanctification, Glorification. Theſe being the main effects of Chriſts Death which Scripture moſt frequently mentioneth, and to which the reſt are but general preparatives, therefore our Divines uſe to call theſe peculiarly [Redemption] and [the Effects of Chriſt Death] and they ſay his Death is effectual, when theſe effects are produced. And ſo I conclude that as to the firſt effect of ſatisfaction to God, Chriſts Death is both ſufficient and effectual for all: Or elſe he could not be ſaid to die for all, quoad ſufficienciam pretii. For it is impoſſible that Chriſt ſhould intend it as a Price, and make it a ſufficient Price, and yet that God ſhould not accept it as ſuch: Seeing Chriſt is God; and the will of the Father and the Son is one. And the like I ſay of the General Common benefits. And as for the great particular ſpecial benefits of Pardon and Sanctification and Glory. I ſay Chriſts Death is ſufficient for all; but effectual only for the Elect. And this muſt needs be the meaning of our forementioned Divines. For the ſufficiency to Juſtification and Salvation, containeth the efficacy and effect in point of ſatisfaction.
But our new more rigid Divines will make me more work: And therefore to them I muſt forme my Argument otherwiſe, or elſe they will ſay, I beg the queſtion: With them therefore I argue thus.
If Chriſts Death be ſufficient for all, then Chriſt ſatisfied for all: But Chriſts Death is ſufficient for all: Ergo, &c.
In theſe terms they uſe to acknowledg the Minor propoſition themſelves. And as to the ſeveral effects, 1. They frequently ſay that Chriſts Death is ſufficient for the Pardon and Salvation of all Men in the World, if they will believe. Where the Words [if they will believe] muſt needs be referred to the effect [Pardon and Salvation] and not to [ſufficient:] For Mans belief addeth not to the ſufficiency of Chriſts Death. Nor will Faith make it ſufficient, if it were not ſo before. The ſufficiency goes before Faith: But that which is ſufficient to juſtifie men, ſhall not actually do it till Men believe 2. They ſay, that Chriſts Death is ſufficient ut eſſet pretium pro omnibus, to have been a Price for all. But then they ſay, that it is not ſufficiens pretium a ſufficient price for all, becauſe no price for all. Now I ſhall prove that both their conceſſions do warrant my conſequence; and, 1. That If Chriſts Death be ſufficient for the Pardon of all, if they would believe, then he hath ſatisfied for all; and it was all Mens Sins that procured his puniſhment, and which he bore on the Croſs: Or that Chriſts Death is inſufficient to the Pardon of any one for whom he hath not ſatisfied. 1. That which hath not ſatisfied offended Majeſty, is not ſufficient to the pardon of Mans Sin though he ſhould believe. But Chriſts Death (As theſe Men ſay) Hath not ſatisfied the offended Majeſtie: Therefore it is not ſufficient, &c. He that denieth the conſequence muſt hold, that Sin may be pardoned without Chriſts ſatisfaction 2. That which leaveth the great impediment of Mens Remiſſion unremoved, and not removeable by Faith, is not ſufficient to the Pardon of Men, though they ſhould believe. But Chriſts Death, if it be not ſuffered for Men, o… have not ſatisfied for their Sin, doth leave the great impediment of remiſſion unremoved, and not removable by Faith: Therefore it is not ſufficient to the pardon of theſe Men though they ſhould believe.
The impediment I mean, is in a word all that which did neceſſitate or require ſatisfaction: That Faith, cannot ſatisfie God inſtead of Chriſts Death, is undeniable: Nor yet can it make that ſatisfaction or be mine that was never made for me. There is neither in the nature of Faith, nor in the Office which God hath appointed it, any ſufficiency to be inſtead of a Redeemer, or ſatisfaction. And therefore it is not merely nor chiefly for want of faith that ſuch would periſh, but through the inſufficiency of Chriſts Death. If they ſhall ſtill ſay, that it is not to be ſuppoſed that the Nonredeemed ſhould believe: I Anſwer: Do not they ſuppoſe it themſelves when they ſay that, the Death of Chriſt is ſufficient for the Pardon and Salvation of all Men, if they would believe.
3. That which leaveth the ſtrongeſt Faith (ſuppoſing it were) both without ground, and uſe or profit. is not ſufficient to remiſſion or Salvation, though Men ſhould believe: But ſo doth Chriſts Death, if it be not ſuffered for Men, and have not ſatisfied for them: Ergo, &c. 1. If all the Faith in Chriſt that is in all Men in the World were confined to one Man, it would not do the leaſt good to his Juſtification or Salvation, if Chriſt have not ſatisfied for him as is already proved. 2. Nay indeed ſuch a Faith would be but an ungrounded fancy or preſumption. To expect pardon from a ſatisfaction that was never made for me, is a vain expectation.
4. If Chriſts Death have no more conducibility, or virtue for any Mens remiſſion and Salvation, then if he had never died at all; then it is not ſufficient to Pardon thoſe Men if they will believe. But if Chriſt hath not ſatisfied for Men, his Death hath no more conducibility or vertue for the Remiſſion of thoſe Mens Sins, or for their Salvation then if he had never died at all: Therefore his Death is not ſufficient to the Pardon or Salvation of thoſe Men, though they ſhould believe.
The Major is clear: The Minor is proved, in that ſatisfaction is the firſt and great effect of Chriſts Death, and where that is not made, there is nothing done by it that can any way Conduce to the Remiſſion of Sin: And if that ſatisfaction be not already made, it never will be; for there is no more Sacrifice for Sin. So that methinks I may confidently conclude, that they deny the Sufficiency of Chriſts Death for the Pardon of all Mens Sins though they ſhould believe, who ſay, he did not ſuffer and ſatisfie for all.
And that this is unſound Doctrine I will now prove only by their Judgments who are the owners of it: 1. Mr. Owen of Redemption Lib. 4. c. 1. Page 173. ſaith, [The maintaining and declaring of this (dignity, worth, preciouſneſs and infinite value of the Blood and Death of Jeſus Chriſt) is doubtleſs eſpecially to be conſidered: And every opinion that doth but ſeemingly claſh againſt it, is exceedingly prejudiced, at leaſt deſervedly ſuſpected; yea preſently to be rejected by Chriſtians, if upon ſearch it be found ſo do … really and indeed, as that which is injurious and Derogatory to the merit and honour of Jeſus Chriſt. The Scripture alſo to this purpoſe is exceeding full and frequent in ſetting forth the Excellency and Dignity of his Death and Sacrifice, &c.] And Page 174. [But its true worth conſiſts in the immediate effects products and Iſſues of it, with what in its own nature it is fit and able to do,] Is it not therefore ſtrange that this Author ſhould (Page 175. 176) ſay, [1. That this fulneſs and ſufficiency of the merit of the Death of Chriſt, is a foundation for the general publiſhing of the Goſpel to all Nations, with the right that it hath to be preached to every creature; becauſe the way of Salvation which it declares is wide enough for all to walk in: There is enough in the remedy it brings to light to heal all their diſeaſes, to deliver them from all their evils, If there were 1000 Worlds the Goſpel of Chriſt might on this ground be Preached to them all, there being enough in Chriſt for the Salvation of them all, if ſo be they will derive vertue from him by touching him by Faith; the only way to draw [refreſhment from this Fountain of Salvation] [2. That the Teachers of the Goſpel in their particular Congregations, &c. may from hence juſtifiably call upon every Man to believe, with aſſurance of Salvation to every Man in particular upon his doing. knowing and being fully perſwaded of this, that there is enough in the death of Chriſt to ſave every one that ſhall ſo do.] To all which I briefly reply 1. I have diſproved this in what is ſaid before; and ſhewed that Chriſts death cannot be affirmed ſufficient for any Mans Salvation, for whom it never ſatisfied, though he ſhould believe 2. How can he ſay [there is ſufficient merit] where there is no merit at all. The Death of Chriſt hath no merit as to the Pardon of Devils, or any for whom it was never ſuffered. 3. How can he call any thing [a way of Salvation wide enough] which preſuppoſeth not Chriſts ſatisfaction for the perſon? Can Men walk to Heaven by Faith without a Redeemer? Or is there ſuch a true Faith? 4. How can he truely ſay [there is enough in the remedy] Which is as to them no Remedy? Is there enough in that remedy to heal the Devils if they believed? 5. How can there be enough in it, or how can it be any remedy, to heal all diſeaſes, and deliver from all evils, before it have made ſatisfaction? Muſt it not do that before it can heal any other diſeaſe? 6. How can he ſay, [There is enough in Chriſt for the Salvation of them all, if ſo be they will derive virtue from him by touching him by Faith?] Muſt not the application be firſt to God by ſatisfying him before it can be made to Man by believing? Is not the Salvation of Men the Fruit of Chriſts dying for them? And can there be the effect without the cauſe? Hath Chriſt virtue to be derived for the ſaving of any that he died not for? Will believing make Chriſt to die for them that he hath not died for already. 7. In plain truth your ground of preaching Chriſt to all, is your foreknowledge that only the Elect will believe, and not the ſufficiency of Chriſts Death, knowing that there is nothing in Chriſts Death to ſave any man that he did not Die and Satisfie for, though he ſhould believe never ſo ſtrongly.
2. But let us come to the firſt effect of Chriſts Death, and ſee whether it were ſufficient to that, viz. to be a ſatisfaction for the Sins of all: And here they do maintain that it is only materially or aptitudinally ſufficient, (as the money which my rich neighbour hath in his purſe, is ſufficient to pay my debt, which he reſolveth never to pay: Or as the Ranſome paid for one man, was enough to have redeemed another alſo, if it had been paid for him.) And what the better is he for whom it was never paid? And what difference (as to their ranſome) between moſt men, and Devils? For the form of a ſatisfaction or Price for all, they affirm, that Chriſts Death hath it not ſufficiently or at all. Theſe men muſt once more therefore new moddel their Doctrine, or reform their expreſſions, and give over ſaying that [Chriſts death is ſufficient for the pardon of all if they would believe,] for that is notoriously falſe (according to them;) ſeeing the effecting of ſatisfaction, is that wherein the ſufficiency of it lyes as to remiſſion: But they muſt hereafter ſay only that [Chriſts Death was ſufficient to have procured pardon for all men, if he would have ſuffered it for all.] And I will give them this encouragement ſo far to innovate, viz. Though they ſpeak not only againſt Scripture and the Primitive Fathers, and the Church of Chriſt in all Ages, and the generallity of our moſt ſevere Proteſtant Divines; yet becauſe, 1. It is againſt Arminius, an adverſary: 2. And tendeth to extreams. 3. And ſo is agreeable to Nature; they ſhall perhaps with applauſe, at leaſt with far leſs wounding of their Reputation, raiſe up theſe novelties, than a Sober, Moderate, Judicious Divine ſhall beat them down again, or revive any one Truth which extreams have clouded, laid by and trodden under foot.
But I will not ſtay here to ſhew the abſurdity of mens ſo confident aſſerting Chriſts death to be aptitudinally ſufficient for ſo many for whom it was never ſuffered, ſeeing I ſhall deal on this purpoſely in the next Argument: But how uſeleſs this ſufficiency is, and no foundation at all for our general offer of Chriſt and mercy to all if they will believe, may be ſeen in what is ſaid before. And how uſeleſs and inſufficient it is to encourage any man to believe, we ſhall yet further have occaſion to ſhew anon. In the mean time, I think the unſoundneſs of their Doctrine, who deny Univerſal Satisfaction is manifeſt hence, in that it fully overthrows the ſufficiency of Chriſts Death for the pardon of all mens ſins if they ſhould believe, which yet the generality of our Divines do maintain.
Arg. 10th. Ab abſurdo: & injurià coutrariae Doctrinae in Christum.
If Chriſt have paid a Price of ſatisfaction, ſufficient for the ſins of all the World, and yet paid it not for all the World, then he ſuffered much in vain. But he ſuffered not any thing in vain. Ergo, &c.
The Minor none will deny that is a Chriſtian.
The conſequence of the Major is proved ad hominem by the conceſſions of them of the contrary Opinion.
For, 1. No Reformed Divine doth deny but that as one part of the value of Chriſts ſufferings was from the Dignity of the perſon, ſo the other (and a neceſſary part) was from the greatneſs of his ſufferings.
2. And all conclude that there was more ſuffering neceſſary for the expiation of the ſins of all the World than for one particular ſin, or then for one mans ſins; and ſo more neceſſary to expiate the ſins of all men, then of the few only that are choſen: And conſequently, if Chriſt ſuffered no more than was ſufficient for the Redemption of the Elect, then it was not ſufficient for the Redemption of all. And if it were ſufficient for the Redemption of all (materially) then it was more than was ſufficient for the Redemption of the Elect. Our Divines generally diſclaim and exclaim againſt that preſumptuous fancy of the Fryers that ſay, Minima guttula ſanguinis Chriſti ſufficeret ad redimendos mille mundos. Vid. Parker de Deſcenſ. l. 3. p. 107, 108. And I meet yet with few that like John Geodwins conceit, of the ſufficiency of Chriſts meer willingneſs and readineſs to ſuffer, without any actual ſuffering. They that ſay, the ſame degree of ſuffering is ſufficient for a thouſand men as for one may, as well ſay next, that one ſigh or groan, or one drop of Chriſts Blood had been ſufficient for all: And next they may as well ſay, it had been ſufficient though he had only been willing to ſuffer; and next, that his ſuffering was needleſs. Socinianiſm, if not Infidelity, may eaſily creep in at this Gap.
3. And as thus it is evident that Chriſts ſuffering for ſome, had been enough to have redeemed all, doth make him to ſuffer in vain as to the proper end of his ſuffering (viz. Expiation of Sin) ſo they that go this way, have not yet ſhewed us, to what other end or uſe, ſuch great ſufferings of Chriſt were neceſſary: And till they have done that we muſt take it as if they charged Chriſt with ſuffering in vain.
4. Moreover, the conſequence is fully granted by themſelves. For they accuſe thoſe that maintain Univerſal Satisfaction, as making Chriſt to ſuffer in vain, if he ſuffered for thoſe that after periſh (though we can eaſily repel that vain objection by ſhewing them many excellent ends and effects of thoſe his ſufferings.) How much more evidently do they themſelves make him ſuffer in vain, that feign him to have ſuffered the ſame degree of Puniſhment, even enough for all the World; when yet (they ſay) he ſuffered it not ſo much as in the ſtead of all, nor as any ſatisfaction for their ſins. We ſay his Death was for all, in ſome kind, and therefore not vain. They ſay, it was for them in no kind, and yet enough for them; and therefore he ſuffered Superfluouſly.
Arg. 11th. Ab abſurdo, & injuriâ contra Juſtitiam Divinam.
If Chriſt ſuffered enough for to have been a ſatisfaction for all, and yet not for all, then God did inflict on him more ſufferings than were due to him. But God did not inflict on Chriſt more ſufferings than were due, Ergo, &c.
He that denyeth the Minor doth directly accuſe God of injuſtice.
The conſequence of the Major is proved thus: He that inflicteth that, or requireth as much for the Sins of the Elect only as is due for the ſins of all the World, doth inflict and require more than is due (for there is not ſo much due for the ſins of the Elect only as for the ſins of all the World) But thus they ſuppoſe God to have done, (which is not to be ſuppoſed,) Ergo, &c. They that will fly from the force of theſe Arguments by flat denying even the Material and Hypothetical ſufficiency of Chriſts ſatisfaction for all men, will fall under many and great inconveniencies before intimated and alſo under the force of this next Argument. (Read my Anſwer to their Fourth Argument aſſerted.
Arg. 12th. Ab injurioſa negatione Paſſionum Christi.
It is very injurious to Chriſt for men to extenuate or deny his ſufferings, but ſo do they that deny that he hath ſatisfied for all men. Ergo, &c.
When God hath laid upon him the Iniquity of us all, and he hath born the ſins of the whole World, and was a Propitiation for them, doth not that man vilifie (that I ſay not blaſpheme) his ſufferings, who ſhall ſay it is not ſo; he bore the Sins but of the few that are choſen; he ſuffered no more than was due to them; he paid no more than would diſcharge their Debt. If he that denyeth all Chriſts ſatisfaction, do ſin ſo damnably, then ſure he that denyeth the greateſt part both of his ſatisfaction formally, and his ſuffering materially, doth not lightly offend. If he ſhould ſin ſo hainouſly that ſhould deny God to be Creator of the greater part of the World, and ſo rob him of the honour of the moſt of his Workmanſhip, then it cannot be a trifle to deny the greateſt part of Chriſts ſufferings and ſatisfaction, and ſo rob him of ſo much of the honour of the work of Redemption, by the extenuation of his ſufferings: For God hath ſet up the work of Redemption, as that wherein he expecteth to be as much honoured as in the work of Creation. Suppoſe the Kings Meſſengers, Mat. 22. ſhould have told thoſe whom they invited, [Though we are commanded to invite you all to the Wedding, yet the truth is, there is not half proviſion enough made ready for you all, if you ſhould come, but yet we are commanded to perſwade you all, becauſe the King knows your minds that you will not come] ſhould theſe Meſſengers have deſerved thanks for ſuch a Meſſage.