Universal Redemption of Mankind, Chapter 7 · Argument 7
Arg. 7th. A veritate promiſſionis, & fidei conditionalitate.
If Chriſt ſatisfied not for all thoſe to whom God promiſeth pardon and Life on condition of believing, then God maketh promiſes which he would not, nor could he fulfill though the condition were performed. But the conſequent is falſe: Therefore ſo is the Antecedent.
There is nothing here requires any proof but the conſequence of the Major propoſition: And that is proved thus. God would not nor could give pardon and Life to any Man for whom Chriſt hath not ſatisfied. Therefore the conſequence is good. 1. Elſe God ſhould give pardon and Life without a Redeemer: Which he will not. 2. And he ſhould do that which in the Judgment of moſt Divines he cannot do: (Not through impotence, but becauſe of the inconvenience and unfitneſs of the thing:) For though he can alter the nature of the Creatures, and ſo make that to be fit which now is unfit, yet stante rerum naturâ he cannot make thoſe things fit, which ex natura rei are unfit: Nor can God do that which is unfit. And if it had not been unfit for the ſupream Rector of the World to pardon Mans Sin without ſatisfaction, God would not ſo dearly have ſatisfied his own juſtice. Yea all ſay, that quoad potentiam ordinatam, God would not forgive Sin without ſatisfaction, whatſoever he might have done quoad potentiam abſolutam. Now how groſs is it, for any Man to imagine, that God ſhould make ſo ſolemn a promiſe, in form of a Law of Grace, that he will pardon and ſave Men if they will believe, when if they could and ſhould believe, he neither would nor could pardon or ſave them, for want of ſatisfaction to his Juſtice! Yea that he ſhould require his Miniſters ſo importunately, and unweariedly to intreat Men in his name to believe and be reconciled to him, and to tell them from him Man by Man [If thou wilt believe thou ſhalt be ſaved] When yet if he did believe he ſhould not be ſaved.
Object. But if he ſhould believe then he is one that Chriſt ſatisfied for; and therefore ſhould be ſaved.
Anſ. The Perſons are determined of long ago for whom Chriſt ſatisfied. Either he hath ſatisfied for me or he hath not, before my Faith. If he have not, then my Faith will not cauſe him to ſatisfie for me, either by ſuffering again, or by making that ſatisfaction to have been paid for me, which was not.
Object. But it is a thing that never will be, for one to believe for whom Chriſt did not ſatisfie: And therefore it is a thing not to be ſuppoſed.
Anſ. 1. Things may and muſt be ſuppoſed in diſpute that never will be. That the Elect ſhould have the deſert of their Sin, or be unredeemed, or be forſaken of God, or deprived of any mercy which God will give them, are all things that never will be: And yet a Chriſtian may argue on ſuppoſition they had been or ſhould be, to raiſe his thankfulneſs: What if God ſhould have denied me his Grace? Or his Redemption? Or let me periſh in my Sin, and State of nature? What a Caſe would my Sin have brought me under.
2. If it be a thing not to be ſuppoſed in diſpute, that a Man ſhould believe for whom Chriſt ſatisfied not, then it is becauſe it implieth a contradiction. (Elſe it may be ſuppoſed.) But it implieth no contradiction, Ergo, &c.
Object. It is a contradiction: Becauſe Chriſt purchaſed Faith for all thoſe for whom he ſatisfied; and therefore for a Man to believe for whom Chriſt purchaſed not Faith is a contradiction.
Anſ. 1. I ſhall take it as a groundleſs fancy till it be proved, that Chriſt purchaſed Faith to be eventually certainly given to all thoſe for whom he ſatisfied. 2. If he had, this argument is not from ſatisfaction as ſuch, but as it is meritorious of Faith. 3. ſtill it is no contradiction, becauſe it implyeth no contradiction for a man to believe without that Grace which Chriſt hath purchaſed; though it be a thing that will never be done. 4. They that will ſtill affirm the contrary do the more deſtroy their own Cauſe. For they then aſſert, that all Gods commands by his Laws and Miniſters to the unredeemed, (as they ſuppoſe them) for believing in Chriſt, do require meer impoſſibilities, and ſuch contradictions as are not to be ſo much as ſuppoſed in diſpute, which I think few ſober men will grant; but rather avoid that opinion that is the ground of ſuch an aſſertion. 5. And (which is more) the ſame abſurdity will follow, as to all other means whatſoever, (as well as Faith) which God hath preſcribed to ſuch men for pardon and ſalvation; (as they are means) and ſo bring this reproach on the whole New Law, as made to all ſuch Men.
Object. But the ſame may be ſaid against Gods Foreknowledge or Decree. For if God Fore-know or Decree that men ſhall certainly periſh, then it may as well be ſaid, that though they ſhould believe, God neither would nor could ſave them.
Anſw. 1. As to the Power of God, it is not ſtraitened by his Decree. It follows not [God will not do ſuch a thing, therefore he cannot,] The ſame Divines whom I now argue againſt, uſe to argue thus about Phyſical Predetermination [Gods Determination of his own will, deſtroyeth not his Power or liberty to the contrary act; therefore his determination of our wills, deſtroyeth not our Power or Liberty to the contrary acts] whereby they grant that God can ſave thoſe that he decreeth not to ſave; and ſo can give them Faith. &c. and that he is ſtill free to do it or not do it.
Object. If he ſhould believe and be ſaved, whom God hath foreknow nor decreed to be condemned for Unbelief, then God ſhould be deceived or change. But it is impoſſible for God to be deceived or change; therefore it is impoſſible for him to believe and be ſaved whom God hath foreknown or decreed to condemn for unbelief.
Anſw. It is a vicious Argument. There's more in the concluſion than in the premiſes. No more will follow but this, [therefore he will not believe and be ſaved whom God, &c.] not [it is impoſſible] for God never foreknew or decreed that it ſhould be impoſſible for him to believe and be ſaved, but only that he would not eventually believe and be ſaved.
2. When I ſpeak (before in the Argument) of Gods will, it is not of his will of Decree, but of his will as he is in the relation of Rector per Leges and ſo giveth that Salvation as executor of his Laws and Sentence, which by his Laws he firſt gave Right to. God as Rector and Legiſlator neither will nor can give Salvation to any that Chriſt dyed not for, if they ſhould believe: But God as Legiſlator or Rector would give ſalvation to all that Chriſt Dyed for if they believe, though it were ſuppoſed that he had foreknown or decreed that ſuch men would not believe. Only it would follow that God was miſtaken▪ And therefore ſuch a thing will never come to paſs▪ for God will not be miſtaken. It is God as …egiſlator to whom it belongs to be true, in making good his promiſes, which is the thing in Queſtion.
3. The want of an expiatory ſacrifice doth morally neceſſitate the Damnation of Man, though he ſhould believe both in reſpect of the Law of works (as …hriſts Death is Cauſa neceſſaria liberationis; as want of a Ranſome may be ſaid to neceſſitate a Captives periſhing) and properly in reſpect to the new Law, whoſe Penalty is, 1. Non-liberation. 2. And a ſorer puniſhment. For the chief cauſe of that Non-liberation or Non-ſalvation muſt needs be the defect of that which ſhould be the chief cauſe of Deliverance and Salvation rather than the defect of (Faith) a ſubſervie… cauſe or condition which ever ſuppoſeth th… former cauſe. If two men at Chriſts bar be …leaded as lyable to Damnation; and it be …d to one [Thou haſt no Right to Salvation for Chriſt never Dyed for thee] and to the other, [thou haſt no right, becauſe thou didſt not believe; is not the former more valid, then the latter; or as valid: But to ſay, [Thou haſt no right becauſe God did decree the contrary is not right arguing. 4. We muſt not argue a minus notis, as the Decrees are, as ſhall be ſhewed.