A Confutation of the Dutch Arminian Universal Redemption, Discourse

A Confutation of the Dutch Arminian Universal Redemption · Discourse

p. 1A CONFUTATION of the ARMINIAN Tenent, of Univerſal Redemption.

IN handling this Controverſie, I ſhall firſt propound ſundrie Arguments againſt it. Secondly, I ſhall make anſwer unto the Texts alleadged by Arminians, for proof of their Tenent. Thirdly, I ſhall confute a common Anſwer of theirs, given to a notable Objection of ours. And Fourthly, I ſhall confute their diſtinction of Impetration and Application. I begin with the firſt of theſe: and theſe are my Arguments againſt it.

p. 2ARGUM. I.

If Chriſt forbade his ministers, to give, or deliver his Word and Sacrament concerning his death, unto all men, as unto unbelieving, impenitent, ſcandalous, and wicked men; Then Christ did not give or deliver himſelf to death for all men: or, then Chriſt died not for all men. The reaſon hereof is this; If Chriſt had given himſelf to death for all men, good and bad, then would he have his miniſters to do ſo too, in delivering the Word and Sacrament; and it is againſt reaſon to think, that Chriſt ſhould give himſelf for all men, and forbid his miniſters to give him to all men, or to ſome men: ſo there is the ſame reaſon of both: Now if he forbade his miniſters, to deliver his Word and Sacrament unto all men, unto wicked and impenitent men, then ſurely, he did not deliver himſelf to death for all men.

For 1. It is abſurd to think, that a miniſters Commiſſion, in delivering the Word and Sacrament concerning Chriſts death, ſhould be of leſs extent than Chriſt his death is of; as, that his Cōmiſſion ſhould extend but to ſome men onelyonly, when Chriſt his death extends p. 3to all men: wherefore if his Commiſſion be but unto ſome men onelyonly, then Chriſt his death is not to, or for all men, but to and for ſome men onelyonly. 2. The Word and Sacrament concerning Chriſt his death, are ſigns repreſenting Chriſts death unto us; now the ſign and the thing ſignified by it, muſt be of equal extent; as, if the ſign belong but unto ſome men onelyonly, then Chriſt his death, the thing ſignified by it, belongs not unto all men, but unto ſome men onelyonly. 3. If Chriſt would not permit his miniſters, to give the bread and wine in the Sacrament (which is the leſſer) unto all men, then much leſs would he give himſelf which is the greater) unto all men: If he forbade his miniſters, to give his bread and wine unto all men, muchleſs would he give his life, his own bodie and bloud for all men: if he denied the Sign unto wicked and impenitent perſons, then much more would he denie there the thing ſignified, which is, his pretious bodie and bloud: ſo much for my propoſition.

But Chriſt forbade his miniſters, to p. 4give, or deliver his Word and Sacrament concerning his death unto all men, as unto unbelieving, impenitent, ſcandalous and wicked men. This my aſſumption I thus prove, firſt concerning the Sacrament.

1. It is the doctrine, both of our own and other reformed Churches, that Chriſt would not have the Sacrament of the Lords ſupper, given by the miniſter unto unbelievers, impenitent, ſcandalous, and wicked men. 2. Philip would not give the Sacrament of Baptiſm unto the Eunuch, but upon the condition of his faith firſt, Acts 8.37. S. Paul would not have the Lords ſupper given unto the inceſtuous perſon, 1. Corinth. 5.1, 5, 13. nor unto impenitent wicked men, as not unto fornicatours, idolaters, drunkards, railers, nor extortioners, 1. Cor. 5.11. and ſee Matth. 18.17. So much for the Sacrament, next for the Word.

2. Concerning the Word: Chriſt would not have the word concerning his death, given or delivered by his miniſters unto unbelievers, impenitent, ſcandalous, and wicked men; which I thus prove:

p. 5In the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, the Miniſter delivers the bread, with theſe words of Chriſt, This is my bodie, which is broken for thee: the which words, are according to Chriſts inſtitution, 1. Cor. 11.24. Luke 22.19. now foraſmuch as Chriſt would not have impenitent wicked perſons admitted to the Lords Supper, he would not have his miniſters deliver unto them, this his word concerning his death, This is my bodie: which is broken for thee: ſo Chriſts miniſter may not ſay to a wicked man, Chriſt died for thee. Yet if Arminians doctrine be true, that Chriſt died for all men, then a miniſter may ſay to the vileſt impenitent perſon, were he a Judas or worſe, Chriſt died for thee. And by the way, I wonder that Independents can hold forth Chriſt to all men in a Sermon, ſaying, Come whore-maſter, drunkard, &c. Chriſt died for thee; and yet refuſe to give the Lords ſupper to ſcandalous perſons, ſaying to them; Chriſt died for thee. 2. Our Saviour would not have holy things given to dogs, nor pearls to ſwine, Matth. 7.6. now wicked and impenitent perſons, appearing incorrigible, p. 6are dogs and ſwine; & Chriſt, whether given in the word or in the ſacrament, is an holy thing, and a pearl: wherefore a miniſter may not give Chriſt to an incorrigible wicked man, ſaying, Chriſt died for thee. 3. S. Paul preached the word concerning Chriſts death at Antioch, Acts 13.14, 16, 27, 38. where being a mixt multitude, of ſheep and goats, of wheat and tares, he directs his ſpeech unto the ſheep and wheat, not unto the goats and tares; for he ſpake as he ſaid, To thoſe that fear God, Acts 13.16, 26. and ſo ſoon as ſome of his Auditours appeared to be goats and tares, and ſuch as feared not God, he turned away from them, and carried away the Goſpel unto the Gentiles, refuſing to preach the word of Chriſt unto them, Acts 13.45, 46. and ſee Acts 19.9. whereby you ſee, S. Paul a miniſter of Chriſt, would not deliver the word concerning Chriſts death, unto wicked men, and ſuch as feared not God.

It may be objected, that S. Paul ſaith, It was neceſſarie, that this word ſhould firſt be preached unto them, that is, unto thoſe goats and tares, the obſtinate p. 7Jews Acts 13.46. and ſo Paul preached of Chriſts death, as well to wicked men as to the godly. Hereunto I anſwer, 1. As the Husband-man beſtoweth the ſame pains, upon the tares as upon the wheat, before the tares appear to him to be tares; ſo the Apoſtle might preach Chriſt to the wicked, as well as to the godly, they being together in a mixt aſſembly, before the wicked appeared to him to be wicked: but yet as the husband-man takes pains for the wheats ſake, and not for the tares ſake; ſo Paul might preach Chriſt, for the godly's ſake, and not for the wicked's ſake: and it is evident in the Text to be ſo: for Paul directs his ſpeech unto the godly in the Aſſembly, to thoſe that feared God, Acts 13.16.26. excluding the wicked: for when in an Aſſembly, there are both godly and wicked, if the miniſter directs his ſpeech to the godly, he excludes the wicked; or if he directs an uſe to the wicked, he excludes the godly. 2. So ſoon as theſe tares, the obſtinate Jews, appeared to Paul to be tares, as you ſee, he refuſed to preach Chriſt unto them, Acts 13.45, p. 846. and for the ſame cauſe, had he known them at the firſt to be tares, and if he could have ſeparated them from the aſſembly of the godly, he would not have preached Chriſt unto them at the firſt. True it is, Paul ſaith, It was neceſſarie that the Word ſhould be preached vntounto them: for it could not be avoided, being they were mixed with the godly, and did not at firſt appear to be tares: it was therefore neceſſarie for Paul to preach unto them, with the godly at the firſt, though he intended not his doctrine to be for them. Thus I have proved my Aſſumption: and ſo the concluſion follows thus,

Therefore Chriſt did not give or deliver himſelf to death for all men: or, Chriſt died not for all men. So much for my firſt Argument.

ARGUM. II.

If Chriſt would not pray for all men, then Chriſt would not die for all men. The reaſon thereof is this; If Chriſt would not do the leſſer for all men, then he would not do the greater for all men: If Chriſt would not offer to God, the calves of his lips for all men, p. 9then he would not offer to God the ſacrifice of his pretious bodie and bloud for all men: If Chriſt would not beſtow ſo much love upon all men as to pray for them, then would he not beſtow ſo much love upon all men as to die, and to ſhed his heart bloud for them: In a word, If Chriſt would exclude ſome men from his prayers, ſurely he meant to exclude them from his bitter death and paſſion. So much for my propoſition.

But Chriſt would not pray for all men. For proof hereof ſee John 17.8, 9. where believers are diſtinguiſhed from the world, that is, from the world of unbelievers; and for theſe men who then did believe, Chriſt prayed, ſaying, I pray for them, verſ. 9. and Chriſt prayed alſo for thoſe men, who ſhould afterwards to the worlds end believe in him verſ. 20. but for the world, that is, for the world of unbelievers, Chriſt would not vouchſafe ſo much as to pray to God for them, ſaying, I pray not for the world, verſ. 9. So much for proof of my Aſſumption, and ſo my Concluſion follows.

Therefore Chriſt would not die for all p. 10men. And by conſequence, Chriſt did not die for all men: for look what Chriſt would not do, that he did not do: unleſs we ſhould imagine, that Chriſt his will, and his actions, were contrary one to the other: or, that he did do that, which he did not firſt will to do.

Arminians in their Acta Synodalia, de Morte Chriſti, pag. 319. do anſwer to my Aſſumption, and to my Text brought to prove it, thus; Chriſt ſaith not, that he would not pray for the world, that is, that he would never afterwards pray for them; but thus he ſaith, that he doth not pray for the world, that is, that he doth not for that preſent time pray for them; or that he doth not in this particular prayer, John 17.9. pray for them. Hereunto I thus reply.

1. Though I ſhall prove by and by, that there is more in Chriſts words, than Arminians do grant, yet this which they do grant, is ſufficient to make good my argument: for this is in the Text, and they grant it, that Chriſt ſaid, He did not pray for the world, that is, at that time and in that particular prayer, he did not pray p. 11for them: from which it doth undeniably follow, that as he did not then pray for them, ſo he would not then pray for them; or it was his will, at that time and in that prayer, not to pray for them, but to exclude them from his prayer, and from the benefit thereof. This I thus make good.

A wiſe mans actions and words, do flow from his underſtanding and his will; and his words and deeds, are regulated and governed by his will; ſo as what he doth or ſpeaketh, the ſame he firſt willed; and what he refuſeth to do or to ſpeak, the ſame he willeth, or willeth not to do or ſpeak, I ſay, being a mans actions and words are regulated by his will, both in his ſpeech, and in his ſilence refuſing to ſpeak, whenſoever, he is ſo ſilent, as that he refuſeth to ſpeak, it is manifeſt that it is his will to be ſilent, and to refuſe to ſpeak: wherefore when Chriſt ſaid, I pray not, or I do not now in this prayer pray for the world; hereby it is evident, that at that time his will, was not to pray for them; but that his will was againſt it, or his will was againſt praying for them at that p. 12time: becauſe he willed ſilence at this time, and refuſed to pray for them in this prayer.

When a father having ten ſons, ſaith, I give unto my nine elder ſons, an hundred pounds apeece, but is ſilent ſaying nothing of his tenth or youngeſt ſon; ſuppoſe it will not hence follow, that the fathers mind and will was to denie him, and to refuſe to give him an hundred pounds; yet it is otherwiſe in this caſe: for when the father ſaith, I give an hundred pounds apeece to my nine elder ſons, but as for my tenth and youngeſt ſon, who is a wicked man, a riotous and prodigal ſon, I give him nothing; here it is manifeſt, that the fathers will was, to exclude the youngeſt ſon, and to be unwilling at that time that he ſhould have an hundred pounds: ſo our Saviour, having many good and godly followers of him, who were believers, ſaith, I pray for them John 17.9. and for all them, John 17.20. but as for the world, that is, for impenitent and unbelieving men, I pray not for them, John 17.9. here it is clear, that as he did not then pray for them, ſo he would not p. 13at that time pray for them: for he voluntarily excluded them from his prayer, when he prayed for others.

Such negative ſpeeches as this in John 17.9. are voluntary denials, refuſals, or excluſions; not onelyonly ſignifying a thing not done, but alſo a will not to do it, as you may ſee John 8.11, 50. and 13.18. Gal. 2.2.

Thus it is proved, that as Chriſt did not in that prayer pray for the world, ſo it was not his will but againſt his will, then to pray for them: now hence it followeth, That if at any time Chriſt did voluntarily refuſe to pray for any men, then he would not die for them, or then he would refuſe to die for them: and ſo you ſee, that from what Arminians do grant, my argument is made good: but I ſhall further prove, more to be in Chriſts words, than what they grant, and thus I prove it.

2. As Chriſt did not pray for the world, and alſo as is proved, Chriſt would not at that time and in that prayer pray for them; ſo it is gatherable from the Text and context, that Chriſt would never afterwards pray for them; the which Arminians deny, p. 14and this I here prove: Chriſt his prayer, though uttered and made then, yet the virtue and extent of it laſted after, or unto the death of that preſent world of impenitent wicked men: for as Chriſts prayer, once made for the godly, extends it ſelf for their good, unto their death, John 17.9, 11, 15, 21, 24. ſo Chriſts excluſion of that wicked world, from the benefit of his prayer once, muſt be an excluſion of them for ever after: unleſs it could be ſhown, that after Chriſts prayer, that wicked world converted and believed, which cannot be ſhown. Now if this wicked world were ever after the ſame, why ſhould Chriſt alter his mind towards them? why ſhould he pray for them afterwards, more than he did before? and I can but marvel, that Arminians ſhould grant, that once Chriſt did not pray for that world, and yet ſuppoſe that afterwards he did pray for them; and yet have no ground for this ſuppoſed thing.

2 The ground and reaſon of Chriſt his prayer, will clear it up, that as he did not for the preſent pray for the world, ſo he would not for the future p. 15pray for them; or ſo he would never after pray for them. The reaſon why Chriſt prayed for believers, was becauſe they believed in him, John 17.8, 9, 20. and becauſe they were Gods people, for they are thine, John 17.9. and becauſe God the Father had given them to Chriſt, John 17.9. On the contrary, the reaſon why Chriſt prayed not for the world, muſt needs be, becauſe they were worldlings, wicked and impenitent perſons, unbelievers, and were none of Gods people, nor given to Chriſt: now this being the cauſe, why Chriſt refuſed to pray for them at that preſent time, John 17.9. for the ſame cauſe, Chriſt could never pray for them afterwards: for many of that wicked world, lived and died impenitently, and in unbelief, Luke 7.30. John 3.19. Acts 13.45, 46, 50. Luke 19.41, 42. Rom. 9.27, 31, 32. 2. Cor. 3.14, 15. Mark 4.11, 12. If their unbelief hindered Chriſts prayer at that time, John 17.9. it muſt for ever after hinder his prayer: becauſe many of them were ever after unbelievers, and the very ſame men as before, when Chriſt refuſed to pray for them. p. 16So much for my ſecond Argument.

ARGUM. III.

If Christ ſo loved all men, as to give himſelf and die for all men; then would he have cauſed the Goſpel to be preached to all men; by means whereof, they ſhould have knowledge of his death, and might believe in him, ſo as to be the better for his death. This I thus prove.

1 He that willeth the End, he willeth the means tending unto it, and whereby it muſt be obtained: the end and the proper or neceſſary means cannot be ſeparated: Chriſts death for men, is the End, the preaching of Chriſts death in the Goſpel, is the means for men to know it, and to believe in him, ſo as to be the better for it: wherefore, if Chriſt ſo loved all men, as to die and give himſelf for them, he could not but out of the ſame his love, have given them knowledge of it by preaching, which is the means of faith, that ſo they might partake of the benefit of his death.

2 If Chriſt out of his love John 3.16. and 15.13. died for all men, then if he would not give all men knowledge p. 17of it, whereby they might apply it to themſelves, or believe in him, that ſo they might be the better for his death; then he is like a Phyſician, pretending the greateſt love poſſible to cure his friend, by preparing and making a moſt ſoveraign potion for him; but ſets it behind or under the bed, or in ſome ſecret corner of the chamber, where it is impoſſible for the ſick man to find it: all this is but a pretence of love: for if it were true love, he would have ſet it where the ſick man ſhould have had knowledge of it, or he would have given him knowledge of it, that ſo he might make uſe of it for his health: ſo if Chriſt had died for all men, all men ſhould have known it, and muſt have had it preached unto them, that ſo they might make uſe of it for ſalvation.

3 They may as well ſay, God intendeth by ordinary means, to ſave a mans natural life, and yet denie him food, as to ſay, Chriſt intended to die for the ſalvation of all men, and yet denie them the knowledge of it by the Goſpel preached. So much for my Major.

p. 18But Chriſt neither would nor hath cauſed the Goſpel to be preached to all men; whereby they ſhould be brought to faith, and be the better for his death. This I thus prove, 1. The Goſpel is not in theſe days preached to many Indians, and barbarous nations. 2. In old time before us, the Goſpel, or any thing of Chriſt, was not preached to millions of Gentiles, Pſal. 147.19, 20. Acts 10.12, 28. and 16.6, 7. Epheſ 2.11, 12, 13, 14. 3. Chriſt preached to ſome men in parables, and darkly, to this end, that they ſhould not obtain remiſſion of ſins, and be the better for his death, Mark 4.11, 12. So much for my Minor; and the concluſion follows.

Therefore Chriſt did not ſo love all men, as to give himſelf, and to die for all men.

Before I have done with this Argument, I muſt anſwer an Objection, which my Reader may make; and confute an Anſwer, which the Arminians do make: the Objection is this you ſaid in your firſt Argument, that Chriſt would not have the word concerning his death (which is Goſpel) to be preached to wicked, impenitent, p. 19and unbelieving men: and here in this third Argument, you ſay, that the Goſpel ought to be preached to all men; and among all men, are many wicked men, &c. Hereunto I anſwer, that this is no contradiction: for in my firſt Argument, I ſpake abſolutely and as the truth is; but here in my third Argument, I ſpeak not abſolutely, but conditionally, with an if: as, If Chriſt died for all men, then the Goſpel muſt be preached to all men, be they godly or wicked: ſo this I ſpeak but upon a ſuppoſition of the truth of the Arminian tenent, which if it be true, then this follows, that Goſpel muſt be preached to all men, good and bad. So much of this Objection: and now I come to the anſwer of Arminians, which is this.

The Arminians in their Acta Synodalia, de Morte Chriſti, pag. 327, 328. do anſwer this my third Argument thus: that a limitation is to be added to my Major, and then my Minor will be falſe: thus therefore they frame it a new, and limit it: If Chriſt ſo loved all men, as to die for all men; then would he have cauſed the Goſpel to be actually preached to all men; or elſe p. 20be prepared and in a readineſſe to have it preached, ſo ſoon as men be fitted to receive it.

The better to colour this limitation, they make a twofold calling, a common or general calling, and a ſpecial calling: by the general calling, they underſtand the law and light of nature, as the natural knowledge that there is a God, and of the law of God, to which men ow obedience: now to him that uſeth this aright, God is prepared to communicate unto him his ſpecial calling, which is, the preaching of the Goſpel: ſo the well uſing of that, is a fitting and preparing of men for this: and the reaſon why many men are denied the Goſpel, is their own fault, becauſe they do abuſe the light of nature, or the general calling: ſo then Gods will is, to have the Goſpel preached actually to all men that are fitted for it; and is prepared to have it preached to others, ſo ſoon as they be fitted for it, and ſo be they do not put a bar in the way to hinder God, by their evil deſerts, and unfitedneſs.

Hereunto I thus reply, I will not contend about this order and method p. 21of God, that firſt he willeth all men, to make good uſe of the law and light of nature; and then and not before to vouchſafe the Goſpel to them; be this true or falſe, I will not queſtion it, but rather grant it for argument ſake: but yet this I denie, (though it be never ſo true in it ſelf) that this limitation ſhall be added to my Major, That God is prepared to have the Goſpel preached to men, ſo ſoon as men be fitted for it and not before; for this is an abſurd limitation: and it is to maintain one Errour by another, the which I make thus appear,

1 They ſay, as it is, implied in the antecedent part of my Major, That Chriſt died for all men: and then they would add to it this, That ſome of thoſe men are not fit to know it, or not fitted to hear of it and receive it (for this is implied in their limitation:) now is not this an abſurd thing to be added? as firſt to hold, that Chriſt died for all men, and then to add to this, that ſome of thoſe men are not fit to hear of it, or to know it? This wer… …erable, if it were held, that though men be unfit to know it at ſome one time of their lives, p. 22yet they ſhould be fit at ſome other time before death; but foraſmuch as men abuſe the light of nature all their lives long, and ſo die impenitently, therefore they muſt hold, that many men are never fit, to hear of or know, what Chriſt hath done for them: and is it not abſurd to ſay, Chriſt died for many men, who nor are, nor ever ſhall be fit to know it? or Chriſt died for many, who ſhall never be fit to know what he hath done for them? are they fitted for Chriſt to die for them, and not fitted to know he died for them?

This conceit is like unto this; A man pays a ranſom, to redeem one from captivitie or priſon, but the priſoner or captive is not fit to hear or know of it, ſo long as he liveth: or like unto this, A Phyſitian, makes an excellent and healthfull potion or cordial for his ſick patient, but adds this, ſaying, He ſhall know of it ſo ſoon as he is fit to know of it and to receive it, when as he knows the patient ſhall never be fit ſo long as he lives; is not this abſurd: …refore, if they will hold, that Chriſt died for all men, they muſt hold alſo, that they p. 23are fit to know and hear of it: which being ſo, this is a frivolous and abſurd limitation, to add ſaying, or elſe God and Chriſt be prepared, to cauſe the Goſpel to be preached to men, ſo ſoon as they be fitted for it, or be fit to receive it.

2 Chriſt foreſaw, that many men in the world, would never make a good uſe of the law and light of nature, whereby to be fitted to know of his death. If therefore this was no hinderance for Chriſt to die for them, then this is no hinderance for the Goſpel to be preached to them: for there is as good reaſon for the one as the other: yea the reaſon is ſtronger, to think mens unfitneſs ſhould rather hinder Chriſt to die for them, than to hinder a ſermon of Chriſts death to be preached to them: for Chriſt his bloud is of more value, than a miniſters words and breath: wherefore, if Chriſt died for all men, then are all men fit to hear of it: and ſo this limitation of fitneſs is frivolous.

Furthermore, thoſe whom Chriſt died for, thoſe he loved infinitely, and unſpeakably, John 3.16. and 15.13. now if it be true, as Arminians p. 24ſay, that Chriſt died for all men, then he infinitely and unſpeakably loved all men, even thoſe who abuſed the general call, the light of nature, albeit he foreſaw they would live and die in in the abuſe of it: and was his love ſo hot and ſtrong to thoſe men, as to paſs by this abuſe, when he ſhed his hearts bloud for them; and was it become ſo cold and weak to them afterward, as to ſtick at it and not paſs it by, when he thought of cauſing a ſermon of his death to be preached to them, whereby they might be the better for his death? was Chriſts love ſo hot, as to require no fitneſs in them, when he died for them, and was it become ſo cold afterward, as to ſtick at theſe mens unfitneſs to hear a ſermon of his death? ſurely, if nothing in theſe men, could hinder Chriſt to die for them; then nothing in them, can hinder a ſermon of Chriſt to be preached to them: if there needed no qualification in them, to render them fit for Chriſt to die for them; then there needs no qualification in them, to fit them to hear a ſermon of Chriſt: unleſs you ſuppoſe more virtue or dignitie to be in a p. 25ſermon of Chriſt, than is in the bloud of Chriſt: ſo you ſee, this limitation of fitneſs is vain.

3 To ſay, Chriſt died for all men; and then to add this unto it, That they ſhall not have the Goſpel (which is a neceſſary means of obtaining the end of Chriſts death) preached unto them, unleſs they be fit for it, or untill they be fitted to receive it, is a very abſurd addition and limitation as you have ſeen: ſo it is alſo as abſurd, to ſay, God or Chriſt is prepared and in a readineſs, to have the Goſpel preached ſo ſoon as men be fitted for it: for there be thouſands of Indians and others, who live and die in the abuſe of the law and light of nature, and ſo are never fit for the Goſpel, and who never heard the Goſpel: now can it be truly ſaid, that God or Chriſt hath prepared himſelf, to uſe and apply means unto ſuch, as never will be capable of the means? and unto ſuch, as he well knows and fore-ſees will never be capable of it? did ever any wiſe man prepare himſelf, to do any thing, the which he fore-ſees ſhall never be done? and yet ſuch a preparation Arminians do aſcribe unto p. 26the wiſe God. Will a Phyſitian prepare himſelf, to give phiſick to a dead man, or to one whom he knows will never be fit to take it?

Moreover, If this fitneſs be pre-required, then thus I reaſon: God not onelyonly fore-ſees that many will never be fit for the Goſpel, but alſo is reſolved in himſelf, that the Goſpel ſhall never be preached to them; becauſe he fore-ſees, they ſhall and will live and die unfitted; now can it be ſaid, that God is prepared to do that thing, which he is reſolved in himſelf ſhall never be done? you may as well ſay, God is prepared to ſave the reprobate angels and devils. Thus you ſee, there is cauſe enough for me to reject this limitation and addition to my Major: wherefore my Argument muſt ſtand as I framed it; without this their addition: and then it is ſtrong and good to prove, that Chriſt died not for all men: and it is unanſwerable, their anſwer being confuted. So far of my third Argument.

ARGUM. IV.

If God the Son, died for the ſins of p. 27all men; then God the Father, will juſtifie the perſons, and pardon the ſins of all men.

But God the Father, will not juſtifie the perſons, and pardon the ſins of all men: for if he ſhould, then all men ſhould be ſaved, Mark 16.16. Luke 13.3. Revel. 21.8.

Therefore God the Son, did not die for the ſins of all men.

As for my Major, thus I prove it. 1 Arminians ſay, that by the word world, John 3.16. we are to underſtand, all men in the world: now if God the Father ſo exceedingly loved all men, as to give his onelyonly begotten Son to die for them, John 3.16. then he can do no leſs than juſtifie the perſons, and pardon the ſins of all men: becauſe, 1. He loved all men: and he gave his Son for none other end, but for all men to obtain juſtification, and pardon of ſin: now ſurely, God will not looſe his love, nor fail of his end, nor waſte and ſpill in vain, the bloud of his onelyonly Son: all which he ſhould do, if he ſhould not juſtifie all men, after he had given his Son for them, and to juſtifie them. If it be in his power, will any wiſe p. 28man looſe his love, be fruſtrated of his end, and ſpend all his labour and coſt in vain?

2 Chriſt is the Lamb of God, that taketh away the ſins of the world, John 1.29. now if Chriſt hath taken away by his death, the ſins of the world, that is, (as Arminians ſay) of all men; then God the Father, cannot retain their ſins: thoſe mens ſins, which are removed or taken away, cannot be unpardoned or remain upon them: wherefore if Chriſt died for all men, and hath taken away the ſins of all men, then ſurely God the Father, hath or will juſtifie and pardon the ſins of all men, or elſe, Chriſt that Lamb hath not taken away their ſins.

3 If God the Father, gave Chriſt his Son, to die and pacifie his wrath for the ſins of all men, John 3.16. then God the Father, cannot but accept of his ſons death; it being according to his own will, and being his own gift: and if he accepts of it, then his wrath muſt needs be pacified for the ſins of all men, and ſo he cannot denie to juſtifie all men, and pardon their ſins.

p. 294 God the Father, in giving his Son; and God the Son, in giving himſelf, both aimed at one and the ſame end, namely juſtification and pardon of ſin; and both aimed at the ſame perſons for obtaining this end: or elſe, God the Father, and God the Son, were not both of one mind, but of diverſe or contrary minds: wherefore, if God the Son died to obtain pardon of ſins for all men, then God the Father, will vouchſafe pardon of ſins to all men.

5 If God ſhould not juſtifie all thoſe men, for whom Chriſt died, he ſhould be unjuſt: for Chriſt gave himſelf to death, as foreign a ranſom for all men, as Arminians ſay, 1. Tim. 2.6. a ranſom, is the full price for the redemption of a priſoner or captive: now when a king takes a ranſom for a thouſand captives, if he deliver not them all and every one, he is unjuſt: ſo God the Father, having taken and received at the hands of Chriſt, a full price and ranſom, for the ſins of all men, as Arminians ſay, he ſhould be unjuſt, if he ſhould not ſet free from ſin, all and every man in the world. Furthermore, if God ſhall not juſtifie p. 30and ſet free all men, there will be fraud and folly imputed to God and Chriſt: for where there is fair and honeſt dealing, the buyer and the ſeller are agreed upon the ſame terms, as if the buyer intendeth to have ſo many in number, be it ten, twentie, an hundred, or a thouſand, the ſeller intendeth the ſame number alſo, and the ſame perſons: or elſe there is fraud in the one, and folly in the other: now Chriſt is the purchaſer, and if he intended by his death to ranſom all men, then God the Father, muſt intend the ſame, and muſt juſtifie and deliver from wrath even all men: He muſt in juſtice deliver as many as Chriſt bought, and the ſame perſons, that is, all men in the world: or elſe, you impute fraud and folly to God and to Chriſt.

I ſhall inlarge my ſelf upon this laſt Argument, by deſcending to ſome particulars, as thus; If God ſhall not juſtifie and ſave eternally Judas, Pharaoh, Cain, Corah and his wicked company, for whom Chriſt died, as ſay Arminians; then he ſhall be very unjuſt: this I thus prove: If Chriſt died for Judas, Pharaoh, and other abominable p. 31wicked men; then have they ſuffered in this life, the full wrath of God for all their ſins, and have made a ſufficient and perfect ſatisfaction to Gods juſtice already here: for though they ſuffered not in this life in their own perſons; yet if it be true, that Chriſt died for them, then they ſuffered in the perſon of Chriſt, when in this life he died on the Croſs for them, which is to be reckoned as their own death and ſuffering. This I thus prove; Look what a mans ſurety performs for him, that is reckoned as done by himſelf: as, in caſe my ſurety payeth my debt, it is reckoned as my payment: for thereby I am diſcharged. So if Chriſt paid the debt of Judas, Pharaoh and the reſt, it is as if they had paid it in their own perſons: and ſo they muſt be diſcharged. Hence it follows,

That ſince Judas and others, have ſuffered in the perſon of Chriſt, which is to be reckoned as their own ſuffering, 1. That Judas and Pharaoh, have made a full and perfect ſatisfaction to Gods juſtice for all their ſins, having ſuffered in this life the ſecond death, and hell with the pains thereof, or p. 32what is equivalent thereunto. 2. That God muſt in juſtice, juſtifie and ſave this wicked crue eternally: or elſe he will be an unjuſt Judge: for he ſhall puniſh one ſin twice, once in Chriſt the ſuretie, and once again in Judas the principal. So much for proof of my Major: as for my Minor, it needs no proof, it being ſo clear.

Anſwer.

Arminians do anſwer thus to my Major: That it followeth not, that if Chriſt died for all men, then God muſt juſtifie and ſave all men: for God may interpoſe the condition of faith, to go between Chriſts death for Judas and others, and the act of Gods juſtification: and ſo as though Chriſt died for all men, yet God will not juſtifie any of them, unleſs they firſt believe.

Reply.

1 It is abſurd to ſuppoſe, that God would put in a condition, after he hath taken a ranſom and payment of a full price. Conditions are always made before the price is payd; but never after the price is paid and received: what man that ſelleth houſe p. 33or land doth put in a condition, after he hath received his money? Wherefore, ſince Arminians will not have the condition of Faith, to go before Chriſts death, it is too late to put in this condition after Chriſts death: for by his death, the ranſom and price is fully paid and received; paid by Chriſt, and received by God the Father.

2 If Chriſt died for Judas and all men, conſidered abſolutely as ſinners and without faith, as Arminians hold; then God the Father, muſt juſtifie Judas and all men, conſidered abſolutely as ſinners and without Faith, and ſo the condition of Faith cannot be interpoſed: for the Buyer and Seller (if there be fair dealings between them, ſo as one doth not over-reach the other,) are both agreed upon the ſame terms; ſo as if the Buyer purchaſeth and payeth the price without any condition, then the Seller that takes the price, muſt give up the thing bought and paid for, without any condition: and ſo God cannot be ſaid, to put in the condition of Faith, between Chriſts death and the act of juſtification.

p. 343 Since Arminians hold, that Chriſt died for all men as ſinners, and without the condition of Faith; God cannot in juſtice require the condition of Faith, before he will juſtifie them: for if he ſhall require it, then many thouſands for whom Chriſt died, dying without Faith, muſt be damned, and ſuffer for their ſins eternally in the next life: now if Chriſt died for them in this life, and ſuffered for them, and in their room, ſtead and place, then God ſhall be unjuſt to puniſh theſe men for their ſins in the next life, though they die without faith: for ſo he ſhall puniſh one ſin twice, once in Chriſt their ſuretie, and once in themſelves the principal. Since Judas hath ſuffered for his ſins, in the perſon of Chriſt in this life, God ſhall be an unjuſt Judge, to puniſh Judas for his ſins in the next life, though he hath no faith: for God hath (as they ſay) puniſhed Judas his ſins in the perſon of Chriſt, and therefore he ſhall be unjuſt to puniſh him alſo in his own perſon. It is extream injuſtice, to require a debt both of the ſuretie, and alſo of the principal: wherefore Judas his debt, being paid p. 35to God by Chriſt, God cannot in juſtice require the condition of Faith of him, ſo as for want of it to damn him, and to cauſe him to ſuffer for his ſins in the next life, and ſo to pay his own debt in his own perſon: for ſo God ſhould require one debt to be twice paid: and ſo you ſee, that the condition of faith, cannot be interpoſed betwixt Chriſts death, and juſtification; being that God in juſtice muſt juſtifie and ſet free from the debt of puniſhment, all thoſe men whoſe debt Chriſt hath paid, whether they believe or not believe: when God looks upon Judas, as having ſuffered in the perſon of Chriſt, he cannot but ſee his juſtice fully ſatisfied, and therefore cannot but juſtifie and free him, believing or not believing: wherefore, to interpoſe the condition of Faith, is to make God an unjuſt Judge.

4 I ſhall here add one thing, which will both ſtrengthen my Major, and alſo confute their anſwer. They ſay, Chriſt died for all men; and therefore they muſt ſo generally underſtand the Text, 2. Cor. 5.15. which ſaith, He died for all, &c. now all thoſe who Chriſt p. 36died for, thoſe he reconciled to God his father. He is the reconciliation not for our ſins onelyonly, but alſo for the ſins if the whole world. 1. John. 2.2. And all thoſe who Chriſt died for, 2. Cor. 5.15. God the Father reconciled unto himſelf. 2. Cor. 5.19. God was in Chriſt, and reconciled the world to himſelf; that is, God was in Chriſt, when he died on the Croſs for the ſins of all men, and reconciled them unto himſelf: now as God reconciled all men or the world, ſo he juſtified them all: for the Text ſaith, He did not impute their ſins unto them; 2. Cor. 5.19. Furthermore, reconciliation, doth preſuppoſe juſtification to go before: for the partie offended, is not ſaid to be reconciled, untill he hath firſt forgiven the offence and the offender. So then the world which Chriſt died for, the ſame world God juſtified: thus you ſee my Major confirmed.

Next to confute their anſwer: Faith cannot be interpoſed betwixt Chriſts death, and Gods juſtification, ſo as to hinder any man for whom Chriſt died from juſtification: becauſe thoſe whom Chriſt died for, 1. John 2.2. 2. Cor. 5.15. thoſe God juſtified, not imputing p. 37their ſins unto them, 2. Cor. 5.19. and thoſe God reconciled unto himſelf, 2. Cor. 5.19. ſo Faith cannot be any condition, ſo as to hinder any man by want of it, for whom Chriſt died, from juſtification: becauſe all thoſe Chriſt died for, all thoſe God reconciled and juſtified: if Chriſt died for Judas, then God juſtified Judas; yet Judas had no faith interpoſed betwixt Impetration and Application, for he was no believer. If Arminians ſay, Chriſt died for all men; then Paul ſaith, God juſtified all men; and I may ſay, God juſtifieth them whether they believe or not believe: for faith cannot be interpoſed. So much for my fourth Argument.

ARGUM. V.

If Chriſt died for all men, then God the Father loved all men, and that with a ſpecial and incomparable love. My reaſon here is; Becauſe God the Father gave his Son, yea his onelyonly Son to death for them: now for a Father to deliver up to death his Son, yea his onelyonly Son, for a man; this bewrays love to that man, yea matches love. See a text for it, John 3.16. God ſo loved the world, that he gave his onelyonly p. 38begotten Son, &c. What greater love than this did ever God ſhew to the world, than when he gave his onelyonly begotten Son to die for them?

But God the Father did not love all men, with a ſpecial and incomparable love. This I thus prove: Becauſe there are, and ever were many unbelieving wicked and impenitent men in the world, who lived and died in Gods hatred: I have loved Jacob, and have hated Eſau, Rom. 9.13. and ſee Rom. 9.22. The wicked, and him that loveth iniquitie, doth his ſoul hate, Pſal. 11.5. Thou hateſt them that work iniquitie, Pſal. 5.5, 6.

Therefore Chriſt did not die for all men.

To avoid the ſtrength of this Argument, Arminians, perhaps, will anſwer thus, That God loved all men as ſinners, but hateth them as impenitent ſinners, &c. Hereunto I reply, That this is a diſtinction unheard of, and no where grounded in the Scriptures that I know of, and therefore it is to be rejected. That God loveth all men, as his creatures, may paſs as a ſound poſition; but that God loveth all men, as ſinners, and that with an p. 39incomparable and matchles love, is to me moſt unſound: for a thing conſidered as evil, is no object of love, but of hatred: and ſo much for my fifth Argument.

Thus I have by five Arguments proved, That Chriſt died not for all men: and ſo I have finiſhed the firſt thing propounded at the beginning: and now I come to the ſecond, which is to make anſwer unto the Texts of Scripture, brought by Arminians to prove, That Chriſt died for all men.

An Anſwer unto the Texts alleadged by Arminians, to prove an Univerſal Redemption.

JOHN 3.16.

God ſo loved the world, that he gaue his onelyonly begotten Son, &c.

BY this Text Arminians would prove, that Chriſt died for all men: and for this end, they urge the word world in the Text; which they will needs have generally and univerſally taken, ſo as to ſignifie all men in the world, whether good or bad, believers p. 40or unbelievers: and ſo as Chriſt ſhould die for all men in the largeſt ſenſe.

Anſwer.

1 I take it for a great weakneſs in Arminians, to build ſo confidently upon the word world, urging, that it muſt be generally taken here, for all men in the world: who knoweth not, that knows any thing in Scripture, that general words are very often uſed by holy pen-men particularly? The general word all, is often uſed particularly for ſome, or for many, as in Matth. 3.5. 1. Cor. 1.5. and 13.2, 7. and 9.25. and 6.12. and 10.23, 33. many examples may be given for other words alſo; but paſſing by them, I ſhall inſtance in the word in queſtion.

The word world, is ſometime taken for all men in the world, as in Rom. 5.12. and ſometime it is taken for all men in the world, excepting eight perſons, as in 2. Pet. 3.6. 1. Pet. 3.20. The world that then was periſhed, over-flowed with water: and ſometime it is taken for the moſt men in the world, as in 2. Cor. 4.4. John 15.18, 19. and 17.9. The God of this world hath blinded the minds, &c. and ſometime it is taken for the leſſer number p. 41of men in the world, as in Acts 17.6. John 12.19. Theſe are they which have ſubverted the ſtate of the world. And, Behold the world goeth after him. Now ſince this word is ſo variouſly uſed, how can they be ſo confident as to averr, that it muſt be taken in the largeſt ſenſe?

My anſwer therefore is, that as the word world, is ſometime taken for the leſſer number of men in the world, which are Diſciples and followers of Chriſt, as in John 12.19. ſo it may be taken alſo in their Text alleadged, John 3.16. for believers, who are the leſſer number of this world: and this is my firſt Anſwer.

2 I ſhall prove, that the word world, is uſed for believers onelyonly: and then it will follow, that as there is a world of the wicked, ſo there is a world of believers alſo: for this end,

See John 1.29. Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the ſins of the world. Though Arminians ſay, that Chriſt, this Lamb of God, died for the ſins of the world, and for all men, by way of Impetration; yet they hold, that Chriſt hath not juſtified, or procured juſtification for all men in the p. 42world, by way of Application; nor for any men but for believers onelyonly: now this Text ſpeaks of Taking away the ſins of the world, which is no leſs, than to procure Juſtification, and to make Application of Chriſts death, by freeing men from their ſins: and therefore this text is not to be underſtood, of the world of all men, but of believers onelyonly, and of the world of believers: for no mens ſins are Taken away, but believers onelyonly, ſee 2. Cor. 5.19. God was in Chriſt, and reconciled the world unto himſelf, not imputing their ſins unto them. Here the world that were reconciled, & juſtified, their ſins being not imputed, was not the world of all men, but of believers onelyonly; it was the world of believers only, unles you will ſay, all men in the world are juſtified.

See Rom. 11.12, 15. If the fall of them, be the riches of the world, &c. Again, If the caſting away of them, be the reconciling of the world, &c. Here by the world, is not meant all men in the world, but the Gentiles onelyonly: for the Jews are not compriſed in the word: nor are all the Gentiles compriſed therein, but onelyonly the believing Gentiles: for the fall of the p. 43Jews, was no riches to unbelieving Gentiles; nor was the caſting away of the Jews, the reconciling of unbelieving Gentiles: and that it is ſpoken of believing Gentiles, may further appear by theſe words in the Chapter Rom. 11.11. Through their fall, ſalvation unto the Gentiles, Rom. 11, 17. Some of the branches be broken off, and thou a wild olive tree, was grafted in, and partaker of the root and fatneſs of the olive tree, Rom. 11.20. Through unbelief they are broken off, and thou ſtandeſt by faith.

See John 6.33. The bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Here by the word world, we muſt underſtand, believers, and the world of believers: for Chriſt giveth not life to unbelievers.

Thus by four Texts I have proved, that the word world, is often uſed for believers, and for the world of believers: now from hence my anſwer is this, that ſince the word world is often uſed for believers, & for the world of believers; therefore this their alleadged text Jo. 3.16. may be underſtood of believers onelyonly, and of the world of believers: and this is my 2^d Anſwer.

p. 443 I ſhall here prove, not onelyonly (as before) that by the word world, believers, and the believing world may be meant; but that they are and muſt of neceſſitie be meant, and this is evident by the Text and context.

For this is a Rule, that general words are to be reſtrained according to the matter in hand: now the matter in hand, or the perſons handled and ſpoken of, are believers; this you may ſee clearly expreſſed, in John 3.15, 16. That whoſoever believeth in him, &c. verſ. 15. God ſo loved the world, &c. that whoſoever believeth in him, &c. verſ. 16. wherefore believers, being the perſons ſpoken of, the general word world, is to be reſtrained to believers.

The queſtion or main thing laboured to be proved and cleared, is, That believers ſhall not periſh, but have life eternal, as you may ſee John 3.15. to prove and amplifie this, S. John brings a reaſon in the next verſe, John 3.16. as you may ſee by the particle (for, or becauſe.) For, God ſo loved the world, that he hath given his onelyonly Son, that whoſoever believeth in him, ſhould not periſh, but have life eternal; p. 45which is as if he had ſaid, Believers ſhall not periſh, as the queſtion is in verſe 15. For, God ſo loved believers, or the world of believers, as to give his onelyonly ſon for them, that whoſoever doth, will, or ſhall hereafter believe in him, ſhall not periſh, as it is in the reaſon alleadged in verſe 16. I confeſs, the word believeth, or according to the Original believing, is in the preſent tenſe or time, but it muſt be underſtood of all tenſes and times, paſt, preſent, and to come: ſo as Gods love in Chriſt, was to them that did believe before Chriſts time, to them that do believe in Chriſts time, and to them that ſhall or will believe after Chriſts time: this is added, to prevent an Arminian objection, ſaying, if by world, believers be meant, then the word whoſoever, implies a diſtinction, as if there were two ſorts of believers, one believing, the other not believing at one and the ſame time: but the word whoſoever, may be underſtood diſtributively or diſtinctively, of believers before Chriſts time, of believers in Chriſts time, and of believers after Chriſts time, to the worlds end. But to return, p. 46for as much as the queſtion and thing to be amplified, was the ſalvation of believers verſe 15. it is not reaſonable, to underſtand the reaſon and amplification brought to confirm it in verſe 16. of any other perſons than believers. It were impertinent to argue thus, Believers ſhall not periſh; for, or becauſe God loved the world of all men, and gave Chriſt his Son for all men: this is to prove a ſpecial and peculiar mercy belonging unto ſome men onelyonly, by an argument which is general, and belongs to all men. Now by the ſame Argument, it may as ſoundly be proved, that not onelyonly Believers ſhall not periſh, but alſo that no man in the world ſhall periſh; for, or becauſe God loved the world of all men, and gave Chriſt his Son for all men: and ſo you ſee, that by the word world, believers and the world of believers onelyonly, muſt of neceſſitie be meant.

The Text ſaith, God ſo loved the world: now it is clear, that God doth not love all men in the world, with ſuch a peculiar, matchleſs, & incomparable kind of love, as the Text ſpeaketh of: for there are many thouſands p. 47of men in the world, which God is ſo far off from loving, as that the Scripture ſaith expreſly, God hateth them: Eſau have I hated Rom. 9.13, 22. Prov. 16.5. and 6.16, 17, 18, 19. Pſal. 5.5, 6. and 11.5. wherefore, ſince God loveth not all men in the world with an incomparable love, therefore by the word world in John 3.16. cannot be meant, all men in the world: nor any beſides believers: for God ſo loved them onelyonly.

4 Arminians may as well ſay and hold, that all men in the world ſhall be juſtified and ſaved eternally; as to ſay and hold, that Chriſt died for all men in the world: for it is ſaid, 2. Cor. 5.19. God was in Chriſt, and reconciled the world to himſelf, not imputing their ſins. If here the word world be largely taken, after the faſhion of Arminians, then all the men in the world, are reconciled to God, and their ſins forgiven, or not imputed unto them; and then they muſt be eternally ſaved. And ſee Rom. 11.15. The caſting away of the Jews, was the reconciling of the world. And ſee 1. John 2.2. He is the reconciliation for our ſins; and not for ours onelyonly, but p. 48alſo for the ſins of the whole world. And ſee John 1.29. Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the ſins of the world: ſo if by the word world, they will underſtand all men, then they muſt hold alſo, that all men in the world are reconciled to God, juſtified, and their ſins taken away: and this is my laſt Anſwer to their Text John 3.16. and ſo I come to anſwer another of their Texts.

1. John 2.2.

And he is the reconciliation for our ſins: and not for ours onelyonly, but alſo for the ſins of the whole world. Here again they urge the word world: and ſay it muſt be taken in the largeſt ſenſe, for all men in the world: for the Text ſaith, not onelyonly the world, as in John 3.16. but the whole world, to note the univerſalitie.

2 The Text ſaith, not for our ſins onelyonly, that is, not for our ſins onelyonly who are believers; but alſo for the ſins of the whole world, that is, for the ſins of unbelievers as well as believers: and ſo all men in the world, both believers and unbelievers, even the whole world are here meant.

p. 49Anſwer.

Enough hath been ſaid in my former anſwer, touching the word World; ſhewing that it is often taken, not for all men, but for ſome, and for many men in the world, and for the world of believers; and ſo in this laſt ſenſe it may be taken in this Text, 1. John 2.2.

But whereas they urge us in this Text, with the word whole, in that S. Iohn ſaith the whole World, this will nothing mend their cauſe: for as the word World, is often uſed for ſome, or for many men in the world, ſo are theſe words, the whole World: for this end note. 1. That other expreſſions, equivalent to this, and of as large extent as this, yet are not to be taken in the largeſt ſenſe, but are uſed for many in the world, as in Iſa. 23.17. and 34.1. Lament. 4.12. Col. 1.6. Mark. 16.15. Secondly, theſe very words in queſtion, namely the whole World, are uſed for many in the world: as in Rom. 1.8. your faith is publiſhed throughout the whole World: it is not credible, that every particular man and woman, in the whole World, had heard of the faith of theſe R…mans. p. 50And ſee 1. Ioh. 5.19. we know that we are of God, and this whole World lieth in wickedneſſe. If the whole World here mentioned, ſo taken in the Arminian ſenſe, for all and every man in the world, how could S. Iohn exempt himſelf and other godly perſons living then with him, from lying in wickedneſs? ſo you ſee, that by theſe words the whole World, is not always meant, all and every particular man & woman in the world. Arminians may as well ſay, that S. John ſaith, Ioh. 5.19. that all men then living were wicked men, & none godly; as to ſay, that the ſame Apoſtle in 1. Ioh. 2.2. ſaith, that Chriſt died for all men in the whole World, none excepted: for S. Iohn mentions the whole World, in both Texts. So much for anſwer to their firſt inference from the Text.

As for their ſecond inference from this Text, it is built upon a needleſs and groundleſs expoſition of the Text: for thus they expound it. He is the reconciliation for our ſins; that is, for the ſins of us believers now living in the world: and not for ours onelyonly, but alſo for the ſins of the whole World; that is, not for our ſins onelyonly who are believers p. 51now living in the world, but alſo for the ſins of unbelievers now living in the world: and ſo he is a reconciliation for the ſins of the whole World now living, both believers and unbelievers. To this I thus anſwer.

1 For them to expound the Text, as belonging to wicked ungodly men and unbelievers, muſt needs be a falſe expoſition: for it maketh God and Chriſt, to expreſs their ſingular, matchleſs, and incomparable love, unto ſuch men, as they foreſaw would live and die in their wickedneſs, hatred of God, impenitency, and unbelief: now the Scriptures inform us, that God is ſo far off from loving ſuch men, as that he hateth and abhorreth them, Pſal. 5.5▪6. Pſal. 11.5. wherefore the Text muſt not be enlarged unto unbelievers.

2 The enlargement of Chriſts death and reconciliation, at the end of the verſe, may very well and ſafely be underſtood of believers onelyonly, after this manner: He is the reconciliation not onelyonly for our ſins, who are believing Iews; but alſo for the ſins of the whole world of believers, both Iews and Gentiles: or thus, He is the p. 52reconciliation not onelyonly for our ſins, who are believers now living; but alſo for the ſins of the whole World of believers, living before our time, in our time, or that ſhall believe hereafter. The death and reconciliation of Chriſt, is to be extended unto all times, paſt, preſent, and to come: Jeſus Chriſt, is yeſterday, and to day, and the ſame for ever, Heb. 13.8. Thus you ſee, how this Text may well be underſtood, not of all men, but of believers onelyonly: and this ſenſe ſuiteth well with the context, and matter in hand, or with the perſons ſpoken of, who are believers onelyonly, as you may ſee 1. Ioh. 2.1, 3. So much for anſwer to their ſecond Text, 1. Ioh. 2.2. and ſo I come to their third Text.

1. TIM. 2.6.

Who gave himſelf a ranſom for all men, &c. Lo, here ſay they, it is clearly expreſſed, that Chriſt died, and gave himſelf to death, not for ſome men onelyonly, but for all men: and it is evident alſo by the context, that this word all, muſt be univerſally taken and in the largeſt ſenſe: for ſo it is taken verſ. 1. I exhort that prayers be made for all men, verſ. 2. and for all p. 53that are in authority, verſ. 4. who will that all men ſhall be ſaved, and come unto the acknowledging of the truth.

Anſwer.

Here again, you ſee the weakneſs of Arminians, in that they build ſo confidently upon the word all; as if they had never read or heard, that this word all is very often uſed in Scripture particularly, for ſome, or for many: as in Matt. 3.5. Then went out to him Jeruſalem, and all Judea, and all the region about Jordan, and were baptized, &c. Matt. 4.23. Jeſus, &c. healed all or every ſickneſs, all or every diſeaſe, &c. Rom. 15.13. The God of hope fill you with all joy, &c. but carnal joy is not prayed for here, and ſee 1. Cor. 1.5. and 13.7. and 9.25. and 10.33, 23. and 6.12. Phil. 2.21. 3. John 12. Thus you ſee, how the word all, in 1. Tim. 2.6. may be underſtood of all that are believers; who are not all men in the world, but ſome onelyonly, or many.

Whereas they endeavour to prove by the context, that the word all muſt be taken in the largeſt ſenſe; becauſe it is ſo taken in the former verſes: my p. 54anſwer is, that the matter in the firſt ſix verſes is not one and the ſame, but diverſe. In verſ. 1, 2. the matter is about good government, but in verſ. 4, 5, 6. the matter is about mans ſalvation: now being the matter is diverſe, therefore the word all may be diverſly underſtood, as univerſally in verſ. 1, 2. and particularly for ſome, in verſ. 4, 5, 6. and this is uſual in expounding of Scripture, to take the word all generally in ſome matter treated of, and particularly in ſome other matter treated of.

Whereas they urge the fourth verſ. who will that all men ſhall be ſaved; my anſwer is, that here the word all muſt not be taken in the largeſt ſenſe: for God will not have all and every man to be ſaved: for he willeth not the ſalvation of reprobates, impenitent, and unbelieving perſons, as you may ſee in Rom. 9.11, 13, 18, 21, 22, 27. Rom. 11.8, 9, 10. 1. Pet. 2.8. 2. Theſ. 2.10, 11, 12. Ioh. 3.18. Mark. 16.16. Revel. 21.8. Mark. 4.11, 12.

To conclude, as the Text ſaith, He will that all men ſhall be ſaved: ſo it ſaith, that they ſhall all come to the knowledge of the truth, verſ. 4. now p. 55this cannot be underſtood of all men in the largeſt ſenſe: for God doth not vouchſafe the Goſpel and knowledge of the truth in our time unto many Indians and wild ſavages: and before our time, the Apoſtle Paul was forbidden of the holy Ghoſt, to preach the word in Aſia and Bythinia, Act. 16.6, 7. and further ſee theſe Texts Mark 4.11, 12. Mat. 11.25. Ioh. 12.39, 40. Pſal. 79.6. ſo you ſee, the word all is not univerſally to be taken: and ſo much for anſwer to their third Text.

ROM. 14.15. and 1. COR. 8.11.

Deſtroy not him with thy meat, for whom Chriſt died. Rom. 14.15. Through thy knowledge ſhall the weak brother periſh, for whom Chriſt died. 1. Cor. 8.11. From both theſe Texts they gather, that Chriſt died for thoſe that periſh, as well as for thoſe that periſh not, but are ſaved: and if he died for thoſe that periſh, and for thoſe that periſh not; then he died for all men.

Anſwer.

1 That Chriſt died for thoſe that periſh not, but are ſaved: this they ſay, we grant: and that Chriſt died alſo for thoſe that periſh, and are not ſaved: p. 56this they prove by theſe two Texts, Rom. 14.15. 1. Cor. 8.11. To this their proof I thus anſwer, To deſtroy is one thing, and to occation or hazard deſtruction is another. To periſh is one thing, and to occation or hazard perdition is another. Now theſe two Texts may be underſtood of the latter onelyonly, namely of the occation and hazard of perdition and deſtruction: for thoſe ſtrong Chriſtians, did by their unſeaſonable uſe of meats offend the weak, and did thereby give them an occation of falling, of perdition and deſtruction: this ſenſe the contexts give light unto, both in Rom. 14.13. and in 1. Cor. 8.9. and me think, Arminians cannot think, that the ſtrong Chriſtians, did by their unſeaſonable uſe of meats, really and actually destroy all thoſe weak Chriſtians, who ſaw them eat theſe meats, or who by their example, were emboldened to eat them: now if they did not periſh and were indeed deſtroyed, how can Arminians ſay, Chriſt died for thoſe that periſh?

2 I anſwer, Whereas they undertake to prove, that ſome periſhed for whom Chriſt died: this is falſe, and p. 57cannot be proved by theſe two Texts: for admit, that by example of the ſtrong, the weak Chriſtians did eat meats againſt their conſcience, and ſo ſinned; yet it will not follow, that they were therefore deſtroyed, and periſhed eternally: unleſs Arminians will ſay, that by repentance of that ſin, they could not be ſaved; or will be ſo uncharitable, as without a ground for it, to ſay, they lived and died in this ſin without repentance. Sure I am, repentance is a ſalve for greater ſins than this, Acts 11.18. So it cannot be proved, that thoſe weak Chriſtians periſhed; and therefore it cannot be proved, that Chriſt died for thoſe that periſhed. So much for anſwer to theſe two Texts, Rom. 14.15. and 1. Cor. 8.11.

HEBR. 10.29.

Of how much ſoever puniſhment ſuppoſe ye ſhall he be worthy, which treadeth under foot the Son of God, & counteth the bloud of the Teſtament as an unholy thing, wherewith he was ſanctified. Here ſay they, are ſome men for whom Chriſt died, being that they were ſanctified by Chriſts bloud; and yet p. 58became apoſtates, and ſhall be ſorely puniſhed: ſo then Chriſt died for thoſe that periſh, as well as for thoſe that periſh not: and if he died for both, then he died for all men.

Anſwer.

Whereas they collect from this Text, that ſome believers and ſanctified by the bloud of Chriſt, did indeed make apoſtaſie, and ſo as they periſhed; this collection is groundleſs: for the Text may be underſtood conditionally, or as a ſuppoſition; as if the Apoſtle had ſaid, If a believer, and one ſanctified by the bloud of Chriſt, ſhall make apoſtaſie and tread under foot the bloud of Chriſt, he ſhall periſh, or be ſurely puniſhed. Or thus, Of how much ſorer puniſhment ſhall a man be worthy, if he treads under foot the Son of God, &c. Now a conditional ſpeech, or a ſuppoſition, doth not affirm and aſſert the thing to be done indeed, but onelyonly it ſuppoſeth a thing, or puts a caſe, as in Hebr. 10.26, 38. ſo this Text doth not aſſert and affirm, that ſome believers either did or ſhould make apoſtaſie, and ſo periſh: that the Text may be underſtood p. 59conditionally, as a ſuppoſition, and as a caſe put, I make it thus appear.

1 Theſe are equivalent propoſitions; He that doth ſuch a thing, and, If one doth ſuch a thing: for example, He that ſheds mans bloud, by man ſhall his bloud be ſhed, Gen. 9.6. the which is equivalent to this, If one ſheds mans bloud, by man ſhall his bloud be ſhed. So in like manner, He that apoſtatizeth and treads under foot the bloud of Chriſt, ſhall periſh or be ſorely puniſhed, Heb. 10.29. the which is equivalent to this, If one apoſtatizeth and treads under foot the bloud of Chriſt, he ſhall periſh or be ſorely puniſhed, ſo it is indifferent to take either of the two expreſſions: and further note, that neither of the two do aſſert and affirm the thing to be indeed done; as it is not affirmed, that any have ſhed mans bloud, ſo it is not affirmed, that any believer hath apoſtatized, and troden under foot the bloud of Chriſt: it is onelyonly ſaid, He that doth it, &c. or, If one doth it, &c.

2 In Heb. 10.26. our tranſlators render it thus, If we ſin willingly, &c. p. 60the which in the Original is in the participle thus, We ſinning willingly, &c. now ſince this latter, may be rendered conditionally, (ſo it muſt be rendered, unleſs we make believers guilty of wilfull ſinning,) why may it not be ſo too, three verſes after? for in Heb. 10.29. in the Original it is in the participle thus, Treading under foot, &c. which may be rendered thus, If he tread under foot, &c. and ſo the Apoſtle doth not aſſert or affirm, that any man doth or hath indeed, troden under foot the bloud of Chriſt, or made apostaſie. Note further, that in verſ. 26.27. you have the queſtion: in verſ. 28. you have the argument: and in verſ. 29. is the application of it to the queſtion. Now where the queſtion is conditional, the application muſt not be abſolute: and therefore the 29. verſ. muſt be conditionally underſtood.

3 The Apoſtle ſaith in the laſt verſ. ſave one, Heb. 10.38. If any withdraw himſelf, &c. In which words, he ſpeaks of apoſtaſie and withdrawing conditionally: wherefore the apoſtaſie and treading under foot Chriſts bloud, mentioned before in Heb. 10.29. ma… p. 61be underſtood conditionally alſo: and ſo nothing is aſſerted as done.

4 In the laſt verſ. Heb. 10.39. the Apoſtle ſpeaking of believers, as he doth alſo in Heb. 10.26, 29. ſaith, we are not they which withdraw our ſelves. Whereby he plainly ſignifieth, that the believers of whom he wrote in Heb. 10.29. had not, or did not withdraw themſelves, or make apoſtaſie: wherefore the apoſtacy, in treading Chriſts bloud under foot, mentioned Heb. 10.29. is not aſſerted or affirmed, as a thing indeed done by believers; but as a ſuppoſition, as if in caſe a believer ſhould do ſuch a thing, then he ſhould periſh or be ſorely puniſhed. So much for anſwer to this Text, Heb. 10.29.

2. PET. 2.1.

There ſhall be falſe teachers among you, &c. denying the Lord that bought them, and bring on themſelves ſwift damnation. Here ſay they, S. Peter affirms, that ſome men bought by the bloud of Chriſt, ſhall be falſe teachers, bring in damnable Hereſies, deny the Lord Chriſt, and ſhall bring on themſelves damnation: whence they argue as before, that Chriſt p. 62bought or died for thoſe that periſh and are damned; and conſequently for all men: for we ſay, Chriſt died for thoſe that periſh not, but are ſaved: and they prove by this Text, that Chriſt died for thoſe that do periſh, and are damned: ſo if Chriſt died for thoſe that periſh, and for thoſe that periſh not, then he died for all men: of this ſee their Acta Synodalia de morte Chriſti, pag. 346.

Anſwer.

1 It cannot be proved by this Text, that Chriſt bought thoſe that did periſh and are damned: for the Text doth not expreſly ſay or intimate, that theſe falſe teachers, did ever after live and die in impenitency: for be it ſo, that they taught falſe Doctrine, brought in damnable Hereſies, and denied the Lord Chriſt Jeſus; yet they might repent of all theſe ſins before they died, and ſo be eternally ſaved: Paul when he was a Saul, was a blaſphemer, a perſecutor, and an oppreſſor; and yet he was upon his rePentance received to mercy, 1. Tim. 1.13, 16. and he thought he was bound to do, many contrary things againſt the p. 63name of Jeſus Chriſt, Act. 26.9, 10, 11. whereby he denied the Lord that bought him, and yet he was not damned.

But perhaps they will urge the laſt words of the Text, that they ſhall bring on themſelves ſwift damnation. To which I anſwer, that from theſe words it cannot be proved, that they were damned: for theſe words muſt be underſtood with an exception, unleſs they repent: as Mat. 3.10. every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, is hewn down, and caſt into the fire, that is, unleſs they repent. Revel. 21.8. But the fearfull, and the unbelieving, &c. ſhall have their part in the lake, which burneth with fire and brimſtone, that is, if they repent not, but go on ſtill in their ſins till death: ſo, they ſhall bring on themſelves ſwift damnation, unleſs they repent, and this is my firſt anſwer.

2 Whereas Arminians underſtand by the word [Lord] in the Text, the Lord Chriſt Jeſus: and by the word [bought] in the Text, the redemption from ſin and eternal wrath by the bloud of Chriſt: I deny both theſe ſenſes of the words; and ſhall ſhew, p. 64that they may be well and ſafely taken in other ſenſes, which will nothing further their cauſe.

Firſt, for the word Lord: it may be underſtood of God the Father, or of God in general: for the clearing up of this, note, that in the new Teſtament, the word whereby Chriſt is noted uſually is foreign tranſlated Lord; but in this Text of Peter, we have an other word, which is foreign, and tranſlated Lord: and being an other word, and not uſual to note Chriſt, it is likely enough to be of an other ſenſe: we find this word foreign tranſlated Lord, and uſually applied to God the Father, or to God in general, or to earthly and fleſhly Lords and Maſters, not unto Chriſt as Mediator, as in theſe Texts, Luke 2.29. Act. 4.24. 2. Tim. 2.21. Jude 4. 1. Tim. 6.1, 2. Tit. 2.9. 1. Pet. 2.18. wherefore ſince this word is uſually, ſpeaking of God, underſtood of God the Father, why may it not be ſo underſtood alſo in this their Text, 2. Pet. 2.1. and ſince it is ſeldom, or rather never underſtood of Chriſt as Redeemer, why ſhould it be ſo underſtood in this Text, 2. Pet. 2.1.

p. 65Secondly, for the word bought: this may be underſtood of Gods buying and redeeming his people, from their bondage in Egypt, or from ſome other ſlavery, ſervitude, and bondage to their enemies; of which you may read in Deut. 9.26. 2. Sam. 7.23. Pſal. 10.7.2, 3. Jer. 15.21. Mich. 4.10. Jer. 31.10, 11. And then the words of S. Peter, may be underſtood as an agravation of the ſin of thoſe falſe teachers, for that they ſhould bring into the Church, ſuch damnable Hereſies, as whereby they ſhould deny even the Lord their God, who bought and redeemed them from ſervitude and ſlavery, unto their oppreſſing enemies in the fleſh. And the rather this ſenſe may ſtand, becauſe it ſo well ſuites with the other word foreign Lord, the which is taken for God the Father, but ſeldom or rather never for Chriſt the Redeemer, and this is my ſecond anſwer.

3 As touching the word foreign, tranſlated bought them: it may be rendered taught them: it may be tranſlated taught: ſee Criſpine and Scapula, who ſay, that the Noun foreign, hath (beſides an other ſignification) p. 66this for one, it ſignifieth an oration or ſermon: & the Verbs foreign, and foreign, ſignifie to preach or teach: yea the word foreign, ſignifies not onelyonly to buy, but alſo to conſult, and to give counſel: wherefore the Text may be thus tranſlated: Denying the Lord that taught them, or gave them counſel. Now this makes nothing for proof that the Lord bought them, or redeemed them: and this is my third Anſwer.

4 If for all this, they will preſs the Text, and underſtand it of the Lord Chriſt, and that he hath bought and redeemed wicked perſons and unbelievers, 2. Pet. 2.1. they may as well ſay alſo, that God juſtified the world of wicked men and unbelievers, 2. Cor. 5.19. and that God juſtifieth the ungodly, as ungodly, Rom. 4.5. which is contrary to Prov. 17.15. and ſo much for anſwer to this their Text, 2. Pet. 2.1.

ROM. 5.6.

For when we were yet without ſtrength, in due time Chriſt died for the ungodly. Lo here ſay they, is it not ſaid expreſly, that Chriſt died for the ungodly? If therefore Chriſt died as p. 67well for the ungodly, as for the godly, then Chriſt died for all men, for good and bad.

Anſwer.

There is another Text of like kind, 1. Pet. 3.18. Chriſt hath once ſuffered, the Just for the unjuſt, &c. Wherefore one Anſwer ſhall ſerve to both.

True it is, that Chriſt died for the ungodly, and for the unjuſt: and had he not died for ſuch, it had been wo to all godly perſons: for as Paul ſaith of the godly and believing Corinthians, that there was a time, when they were ungodly and unjuſt, as idolaters, adulterers, drunkards, and extortioners, &c. 1. Cor. 6.9, 10, 11. ſo may I ſay, there was a time before our converſion, when we were ungodly and unjuſt: if therefore Chriſt had not died for ungodly and unjuſt perſons, no godly man now living could poſſibly be ſaved.

Wherefore we muſt diſtinguiſh of ungodly perſons thus: There are ſome ungodly perſons, who are become believing and penitent godly perſons: and for theſe ungodly perſons Chriſt died, as the Text ſaith: p. 66and of ſuch the Text ſpeaketh, as is plain Rom. 5.6, 8, 10. but there are other ungodly perſons, who perſiſt ſtill even unto death in their ungodlineſs, refuſing to repent and believe: now I denie that Chriſt died for theſe; or that the Text is to be underſtood of theſe. Theſe are dogs and ſwine, wherefore Chriſt the pearl is not to be given to theſe, Matth. 7.6. Chriſt would not vouchſafe to pray for theſe, John 17.9. and therefore he would not die for them: and this is my Anſwer to this Text.

Thus I have made anſwer, to all the Texts of Scripture, which ſeem to have any weight in them, for the Arminian cauſe: they have alſo ſome arguments, as two or three, but the one of them onelyonly deſerves an anſwer, ſo paſſing by the other, I ſhall here propound it, and make anſwer to it: you ſhall find it in their Acta Synodalia pag. 337. de Morte Chriſti

ARGUMENT.

Whoſoever are bound to believe in Chriſt Jeſus, for them Chriſt died.

But all men are bound to believe in Chriſt Jeſus.

p. 69Therefore for all men Chriſt died.

As for the Major they prove it by this reaſon: becauſe if it be not true, ſome men, as thoſe for whom Chriſt died not, are bound to believe a lye or a falſhood: which is very abſurd. The Minor they prove by this Text, John 3.19, 36.

Anſwer.

I denie their Major: for it is not true, that Chriſt died for all thoſe men who are bound to believe in him: that is, to believe in him, that he is the Son of God, and Saviour of the world, which is the right object of faith. And as for the reaſon, whereby they labour to prove their Major, it is unſound: for it leans upon an unſound (though common) deſcription of juſtifying faith: for they deſcribe it thus: Faith in Chriſt, is a certain & full or plerophorie perſwation of the mind, whereby we embrace Chriſt, with this confidence, that he died not onelyonly for others, but alſo for us, or for me and my ſins in particular. This deſcription however common, yet is it unſound: for it cannot be proved in Scripture: for I no where find in the Scripture, p. 70that the object of faith, is to believe that Chriſt died for us, or for thee and me in particular, as they ſuppoſe in their Argument: this I deny, and they muſt prove it if they can, and when they can. The object of juſtifying and ſaving faith is, to believe that Chriſt is the Son of God, the Meſſias, the Saviour of the world, and the like: and this is the current of the Scriptures every where: in particular ſee John 20.31. Theſe things are written, that ye might believe, that Jeſus is that Chriſt the Son of God: and that in or ſo believing, ye might have life, &c. All men may be bound to believe this, and yet not bound to believe a lye: or thoſe for whom Chriſt died not, may be bound to believe all this, and yet not be bound to believe a lye or a falſhood.

Now that the Scriptures do every where make this the object of faith, that Chriſt is the Son of God, the Meſſias, the Saviour of the world, and the like; beſide the Text alleadged John 20.31. See alſo theſe Texts, Matth. 16.16. the object of S. Peters faith, whereof he made confeſſion unto, and before Chriſt, was this, Thou art Chriſt, p. 71the Son of the living God. Acts 8.37. The object of the Eunuch's faith was the ſame, I believe that Jeſus Chriſt is the Son of God. Acts 9.20. the ſum of Pauls preaching, to beget ſaving faith in men, was this, That Chriſt was that Son of God. Acts 2.36. the ſum of Peters ſermon, as touching Faith, whereby he converted three thouſand ſouls unto the faith, was this, That he whom they had crucified, God had made him both Lord and Chriſt. 1. John 5.5. who is he that overcometh the world, but he who believeth, that Jeſus is that Son of God? So you ſee, the victorious faith is, to believe, that Chriſt is the Son of God. Acts 17.3, 4. Paul preached, that Chriſt died and roſe again; and that this is Jeſus Chriſt. And by this ſermon of Chriſt, he won many to the faith, as you may ſee in the fourth verſe. Acts 18.5. here you have another ſermon of Pauls, that Jeſus was the Chriſt; and this is the object of faith. John 1.29, 34. S. Johns ſermon was this, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the ſins of the world, &c. and This is that Son of God. John 1.49, 50. Nathanaels confeſſion of faith, was this, Thou art that Son of p. 70God. John 4.7, 25, 29, 39, 42. The faith of the woman of Samaria, and of other the Samaritanes, was this, that Jeſus was the Meſſias, and the Chriſt: and that Jeſus was that Chriſt, the Saviour of the world. John 11.27. the faith of Martha was, that Chriſt was the Son of God. Thus you ſee, that according to the current of the Scriptures, the object of faith is, To believe that Chriſt is the Son of God, the Saviour, with the like: now all men may be bound to believe theſe things of Chriſt, and yet not be bound to believe a lye, or thoſe for whom Chriſt died not, may be bound to believe theſe things of Chriſt, and yet are not bound to believe a falſhood: nor hence will it follow, that Chriſt died for them that are bound to believe this. But I no where read, that Chriſt required, or that the Apoſtles preached for ſuch a particular applicatorie faith as this, That Chriſt is mine, or that Chriſt died for our ſins, or that Chriſt died for thee, or for me in particular.

I confeſs I read of Thomas his faith, Iohn 20.28. ſaying, Thou art my Lord and my God. And of Pauls faith, Gal. p. 732.20. ſaying, Who hath loved me, and given himſelf for me. Theſe indeed were acts of the two Apoſtles faith; but I no where read, that Chriſt required of every man this faith, as neceſſary to ſalvation; nor do I read, that the Apoſtles or any one of them, did preach this faith to the people, when in their ſermons they preached to beget men unto the faith: wherefore I judge, 1. That this kind of faith is proper unto Apoſtles, and unto Chriſtians of the higheſt form in the ſchool of Chriſt; and not common to every weak Chriſtian: for how then ſhould they be ſaved? ſince many hundreds of weak Chriſtians, neither can nor dare ſay, Chriſt is mine: or Chriſt died for me in particular. 2. I judge, that this act or kind of faith, is a conſequent of juſtifying faith, and may ſafely and comfortably be concluded and collected, by ſtrong Chriſtians from it, thus; He that hath juſtifying faith, Chriſt is his, and Chriſt died for him. But I in particular have juſtifying faith: for I believe, that Chriſt is the Son of God, and the Saviour of the world; and my faith is accompanied with good works, as p. 74Sanctification and Mortification, &c. Therefore Chriſt is mine, and Chriſt died for me in particular. So much for clearing of my Anſwer: and ſo much alſo for anſwer to their argument.

By this time we have finiſhed theſe things propounded to be handled; Firſt we have by ſundrie Arguments proved, That Chriſt died not for all men. Secondly, we have anſwered all their Texts of Scripture, and their Argument, whereby they would prove the contrary. Now in the third place, we confute a common anſwer of Arminians, which they give to a notable objection of ours.

p. 75The Confutation of a common Anſwer of Arminians, which they give to a notable Objection of ours.

FIrſt I ſhall propound our Objection. Secondly I ſhall give you the Arminian anſwer. And Thirdly I ſhall confute it in my Reply.

Objection.

If Chriſt died for Judas, and all other wicked and ungodly men, why are they not all ſaved? how can any be damned, for whom Chriſt died? for if Chriſt died for them, then have they ſuffered in this life in the perſon of Chriſt their ſuretie, the torments of the next life, which Chriſt upon the Croſs bore for them, and in their room and place: now God having puniſhed Judas and the reſt, in the perſon of Chriſt on the Croſs in this life, with the puniſhment due to the next life; he cannot puniſh them again in the next life, unleſs he be an unjuſt Judge, puniſhing the ſame men for the ſame ſins twice: once in this life, and once more in the next life: and p. 76therefore Iudas and all other men, muſt be ſaved, if Chriſt died for all men.

Anſwer.

Hereunto Dutch and Engliſh Arminians both, make this anſwer, Iudas and the reſt will not believe: they refuſe to believe in Chriſt, and ſo to apply him: and therefore God may juſtly damn them, Joh. 3.18. Mark. 16.16. ſee their Acta Synodalia, de Morte Chriſti, pag. 320. and this they endeavour to clear by ſome ſimilitudes: If a Phyſician tenders a potion to a patient, he is not to be blamed, if the patient will not receive it and apply it; but the fault and blame is onelyonly in the patient. So if God offers Chriſt, to Iudas and all other wicked men; but they will not believe in him and apply him, then the blame is theirs, and ſo God is free of injuſtice, though he damn them. An other ſimily is this; A King having many ſubjects in captivity under a forreign King, payes a full and ſufficient ranſom for every one of them; now many of thoſe captives deſpiſe their liberty, and chuſe to live in captivity and bondage; In this caſe there is p. 77no blame in the King, but in the captives onelyonly: So God and Chriſt have ranſomed all men, but many men deſpiſe this ranſom, by refuſing to believe, and ſo chooſe to live in captivity and thraldom ſtill; wherefore if God keep them under everlaſting thraldom, he is not unjuſt or blameable, but theſe deſpiſers onelyonly are blameable.

Reply.

I ſhall firſt deal with their anſwer, and then with their ſimilitudes: I begin with their anſwer.

1 Be it ſo, that Judas doth not and will not believe, but obſtinately refuſeth to believe; yet this freeth not God of injuſtice if he damn Judas; ſuppoſing that Chriſt died for Judas: for clearing of this, I aſk Arminians, whether Chriſt died for men, conſidered as believers, or as ſinners and unbelievers? Hereunto they will not ſay, as believers: for ſo they ſhould juſtifie our Doctrine, which is, that Chriſt died for believers, and for them onelyonly: wherefore they muſt anſwer, that Chriſt died for men conſidered as ſinners and without belief; and ſo faith is no condition p. 78of impetration, or of Chriſts death and ranſom paid for men: now if Chriſt impetrating, and paying a ranſom for men, did it abſolutely and without any condition or conſideration of faith in them; then for application, God the Father cannot require faith in men before application, or before he will apply Chriſt his death unto them in juſtification: unleſs they will abſurdly think, that Chriſt and God were not of one and the ſame mind, but were at odds and difference in the work of Redemption: as if Chriſt ſhould buy and purchaſe us abſolutely without a condition, but God ſhould ſell us upon a condition; ſo abſurdly they ſhould think, the buyer and ſeller ſhould be at odds, and not agreed both upon the ſame terms: now ſince it muſt follow, that if Chriſt died for Iudas without reſpect to faith in him, then God cannot but juſtifie and ſave Iudas without regard to faith in him; then though Judas doth not believe, and wilfully refuſeth to believe, yet God cannot in juſtice damn him for his not believing: becauſe when Chriſt bought Iudas of God the Father, p. 79and God the Father ſold Iudas to Chriſt, there was no condition of faith intended betwixt them: and therefore Iudas muſt be ſaved. If you ſay, that Chriſt died for Iudas, then God cannot require faith of him, ſo as he ſhould for his infidelity, in juſtice damn & puniſh him in the next life; God cannot be ſo unjuſt, as to puniſh one man twice for his ſins, as once in Chriſt his ſurety, and once again in himſelf the principal; one debt muſt not be twice payed: wherefore to alleadge a reaſon from Iudas his unbelief, why God may damn him in the next life, is to alleadge a reaſon, why God may deal unjuſtly in the next life.

Now what they ſhould ſay to this I cannot deviſe, unleſs they will diſtinguiſh of Iudas his ſins, and ſo make an hotchpotch of the work of Redemption, ſaying, that Chriſt died for ſome of Iudas his ſins, but not for all, as not for his unbelief: and then it will follow, that Chriſt is made an half Saviour, or a partial Saviour: and Chriſt died for ſome of Iudas his ſins, and Iudas dieth for other ſome of his ſins: and, Chriſt died for all Iudas his p. 80ſins ſave that one of unbelief, and Iudas is now in Hell for no ſins committed, but ſuffers onelyonly for one ſin, namely his unbelief: theſe are abſurd and groundleſs fantaſies, never broched by any Chriſtian man, unleſs Arminians will be the firſt. 2. So ſaying, they contradict themſelves: For if Chriſt died not for unbelief, then he died not for all men: for many men are unbelievers, 2. Theſ. 3.2. Chriſts death was for believers, or for unbelievers: we ſay, it was for believers, ergo they muſt hold, that it was for unbelievers. So much touching their anſwer; and now I come to their ſimilitudes, and firſt to that of a Phyſician.

1 This ſimily of a Phyſician, is altogether impertinent to their purpoſe; for by this ſimily it is cleared, that God in juſtice may damn Judas once, becauſe he refuſeth to believe; but it doth not clear that which is in queſtion, which is, that God in juſtice may damn Judas twice for his ſin of unbelief; that is, once in his ſurety Chriſt, and once more in his own perſon: this is high injuſtice: no ſimilitudes may or can make God to be unjuſt.

p. 81If the patient refuſeth to receive and apply the potion, he is to bear the blame; but it is not ſo in Judas, if he refuſeth to believe and apply Chriſt: becauſe if Chriſt died for Judas abſolutely, and without reſpect to his belief or unbelief, as Arminians ſay, then he is not bound to believe in Chriſt, as a means to free him from damnation; for Chriſt hath already ſuffered his damnation for him, before God the Father required any faith in him, when he died for him, conſidered as a ſinner or unbeliever: ſo Judas is not to be blamed for not believing; ſince Chriſt in dying for him and in his room, required or reſpected no faith in him; and it is too late for God the Father, to require the condition of faith in him, after he hath puniſhed him and his ſin in Chriſt.

Further, though in Phyſick, the patient is to apply the potion to avoid death, yet it is not ſo in the potion of Chriſts death, to free us from death: for here man is to do nothing, but to be paſſive, if Chriſt died for all unbelievers; but it is God who is to make application, & to apply Chriſts p. 82death to men, whether they believe or believe not: becauſe he received and accepted Chriſts death for all men, believers or not believers: in what condition Chriſt gave himſelf for men, in ſuch condition God received Chriſt for men.

1 Though a Phyſician tenders a potion to his patient, ſo as he refuſeth to apply it he muſt die; yet it is not ſo to be applied, as if God tendered Chriſt upon the condition of faith, ſo as if they refuſe to believe they muſt be damned: for it is abſurd to think or ſay, that after God had received and accepted of Chriſt and his death for men, without any condition at all, be it faith or any other; he ſhould afterwards require a condition, or tender Chriſt upon a condition of faith. God having received Chriſts death for men without condition, he hath no tender to make unto men now, but to tender them juſtification, glorification, and freedom from condemnation; this or nothing is to be tendered: for after God hath puniſhed and damned a man in Chriſt, it is moſt abſurd to think, he ſhould then require of him, faith as a condition p. 83and means to free him from damnation. Thus much for the ſimile of a Phyſicia….

2 As for the other ſimile of a King and the Captives, this is alſo impertinent: for 1. Be it ſo, that Judas and other captives do deſpiſe Chriſts ranſom, and faith the means of it, yet this will not clear God of injuſtice, if he puniſh Judas twice; once in Chriſt his ſuretie, and once again in his own perſon: no ſimile can make God unjuſt, or to puniſh one man or one ſin twice: God in juſtice may puniſh Judas his diſpiſing once, as in Chriſt, or in Judas; but not twice, as in Chriſt and in Judas both. 2. This ſimile is unfit for the purpoſe, and therefore to be rejected: if it were fitted to our queſtion, it ſhould be thus framed: A King having many ſubjects in captivity to a forreign King, pays their ranſom by his ſon, who is put into captivitie for them, and lies there in their room; but they deſpiſe their libertie, chooſe to live in captivitie ſtill; wherefore the forreign King, may keep both the Kings ſon, and the captives alſo in priſon and captivitie: can the forreign King do this injuſtice? So much p. 84for their ſecond ſimilitude.

I cannot imagine what Arminians ſhould ſay to evade theſe things, unleſs they will coyn a new diſtinction, and ſtrange to Chriſtian ears, and ſo make a hotchpotch of the work of Redemption, ſaying, that Chriſt died for ſome of a mans ſins, but not for all his ſins, as not for his final unbelief, or new infidelitie, or infidelitie unrepented of, as they expreſs it: and then they think to evade all by this anſwer, that God puniſhed Chriſt for all Judas his ſins, excepting his infidelitie, and puniſhed Judas for his infidelitie; and ſo God puniſheth no ſin twice, nor is he unjuſt. But to this new diſtinction I thus reply.

1 It maketh Chriſt to be but a partial Saviour, or an half Saviour: for by this diſtinction they ſay, Chriſt died for ſome, or many of a mans ſins, but not for all; for not for unbelief. 2. It maketh Chriſt to die for ſome of Judas his ſins, and Judas himſelf to die for other ſome of his ſins. 3. It maketh Judas and other wicked men and unbelievers, to ſuffer hell torments, for none of all their horrible and abominable ſins committed in p. 85their life time; but onelyonly for their final unbelief: for they ſay, Chriſt died and ſuffered for all their other ſins. Now to ſay that wicked men do not ſuffer in hell, for their other horrible ſins beſides infidelitie, is not onelyonly abſurd, but manifeſtly falſe: as is to be ſeen Matth. 25.41, 42, 43. John 5.29. Rom. 2.6, 8, 9. Jude 7. Revel. 21.8. where we ſee, that wicked men ſuffer in hell, for their unmercifulneſs, contention, unrighteouſneſs, fornication, murther, ſorcerie, idolatrie, and lyes: ſo you ſee, they can make no evaſion, but by coyning of a new diſtinction, which makes an hotchpotch of the work of Redemption, and is not onelyonly abſurd, but alſo manifeſtly falſe, as is proved. 2. If Chriſt died not for new infidelitie, then he died not for all men: for many believe not after invitation by the Goſpel preached, which they call, new infidelitie, Iohn 12.37. So much for confutation of the Arminian anſwer, ſaying to us, that therefore God may juſtly damn Judas, becauſe he will not believe. Now their anſwer being confuted, our objection remains good, namely, that if Chriſt died for all men, then it follows, p. 86that no man ſhall be damned, but that Judas and all men ſhall be ſaved. And ſo I come to the fourth and laſt thing propounded to be handled, which is, A Confutation of their diſtinction of Impetration and Application.

The diſtinction of Impetration and Application confuted.

FIrſt we muſt know what Arminians underſtand by theſe terms. By impetration, they underſtand the death and paſſion of Chriſt, whereby he merited remiſſion of ſins and juſtification for all men. By application, they underſtand the fruit and benefit of Chriſts death and paſſion; which is (as I conceive it muſt be) the real and actual remiſſion of ſins and juſtification, applied unto the faithfull. The former, namely Impetration, is proper to God the Son: the latter, namely Application, is proper unto God the Father. Furthermore, they place Faith, between Impetration and Application; p. 87ſo as though Chriſt died and impetrated for all men, yet God juſtifies, and makes application of Chriſts death unto believers onelyonly: now the better to help on the matter, they ſay, that theſe being acts of grace and favour, God may according to his infinite wiſdom, order them according to his moſt free will: the which words, as I take it, are ſpoken in relation to Faith, that God may place it before or after impetration, as it pleaſeth his wiſdom. Having thus opened their meaning, I thus proceed.

As for this diſtinction of Impetration and Application, I acknowledge it: for as it is Chriſt that died or impetrated for us, ſo it is God that juſtifieth us, and makes application of Chriſts death unto us, Rom. 8.33. And I am content, that they call what Chriſt did for us on the Croſs, Impetration; and what God doth for us in relation to it, and by virtue of it, Application: but I miſlike of their diviſion, that they ſhould divide the works of Chriſt and God; ſo as if Chriſt ſhould impetrate and die for many men, to whom God makes no application of Chriſts death: for they ſay, p. 88Chriſt impetrated for all men, believers and unbelievers, but God applies Chriſts death for juſtification to believers onelyonly: now thus the Works of Chriſt and God, do not concurr in the ſame perſons, but are divided: for God makes no application unto many men, for whom Chriſt made impetration. On the contrary we hold, that the works of God the Father, and God the Son, are undivided: diſtinguiſhed they may be, but divided they may not be: they always concurr as touching the ſame perſons; to whomſoever God makes application, to and for thoſe and none other Chriſt made impetrations; and for whomſoever Chriſt impetrated, to thoſe and to all thoſe God makes application. And as touching faith, we hold, that as God reſpecteth faith in application, ſo Chriſt reſpecteth faith in impetration, ſo as faith is precedent in both: and ſo God and Chriſt, had reſpect unto the ſame perſons, and unto the ſame qualification of the perſons: but that faith is to come between impetration and application, is but an Arminian deviſe; dividing the conſideration and reſpects of God and Chriſt, of the Father p. 89and the Son, about one and the ſame work of Redemption: and ſo I come to the Confutation.

1 For the abſurdnes of this diſtinctiō of impetration and application; & the Arminian deviſe, of faith coming between them, as a condition of the latter onelyonly: put caſe, that a King, having ſubjects in thraldom and captivity under a forreign King, and to ranſom & redeem them, he ſends his onelyonly Son, to lay in bondage and captivity for them and in their ſtead and place; and this the King doth without any condition at all, to be performed by his ſubjects: If now the forreign King, refuſeth to deliver & ſet free the ſubjects, unleſs they will perform ſome condition firſt, which he impoſeth upon them, and which their own King never required of them in ſending his Son, nor did his Son go into captivity for them upon any ſuch condition: is it not abſurd to imagine, that the forreign King ſhould require a condition to be performed by the ſubjects, before he will apply the ranſom to them, and ſet them free? it muſt needs be abſurd, for you muſt imagine, folly & ignorance in the one King, or fraud p. 90and deceit in the other King, in that they were not firſt agreed both on the ſame terms, before the ſon was put into captivity. So is the caſe, if Faith goeth between impetration and application; and if Chriſt died for men abſolutely without the condition of Faith, and yet God will require the condition of Faith, before he will make application & ſet men free from their ſins and condemnation.

I know nothing they have to ſay, to free themſelves of this abſurdity but this, that both the Kings, Chriſt and God, were at the firſt agreed on the ſame terms, as thus: they both agreed, that Chriſt ſhould impetrate and die for all men abſolutely, without conſideration of any faith in them; but that God ſhould apply Chriſts death to none but believers, or to ſuch as did firſt believe: To this I reply, that this occaſion is guilty of theſe abſurdities.

1 That the King ſhould put his onelyonly ſon, to live in thraldom and bondage; and his ſon ſhould willingly endure all this miſery, for millions, even the greater number of his ſubjects in captivity, whom he foreſaw and knew well, ſhould not be a ruſh the better p. 91for it, becauſe they would not keep the condition agreed on. Will any wiſe man, give and pay a certain price certainly, for an uncertain poſſeſſion, be it of houſe or land? much leſs will any pay aforehand, for that land or houſe, which he foreſees he ſhall never enjoy? yet ſuch a purchaſer they make Chriſt to be by this agreement.

The abſurdneſs alſo of this may appear by this ſimile: Abraham bought of the Hittites, for 400 ſhekels of ſilver, a field to bury his wife in; and upon the payment of the mony, the field was delivered to him for a poſſeſſion, Gen. 23.16, &c. now is it not abſurd to imagine, that Abraham and the Hittites, ſhould both be agreed, that Abraham ſhould buy and pay for the field abſolutely without any condition, but yet the Hittites ſhould require a condition to go between paying and poſſeſſion, and before Abraham ſhould have poſſeſſion? and without it, no poſſeſſion? where a condition is required, it always goes before payment; never after, or between payment and poſſeſſion: ſo though they in words aſcribe wiſdom to God, ſaying, that God may according to his infinite p. 92wiſdom, order Faith to go before or after impetration, yet in this caſe indeed, they impute abſurdneſs and folly to God, in puting the condition of Faith after the price of Chriſts death. (The caſe is the ſame, in buying a thing, as Abraham did for himſelf, or for a mans friend or friends, as Chriſt did.)

1 They ſay, Chriſts intention was by his death to ſave all men, even unbelievers in Acta Synodalia, pag. 344. now for Chriſt to agree with God, to put in a condition of Faith after impetration, is a contradiction and croſſing of his intenſion: for by his death, he intended to ſave unbelievers, but by agreeing to require Faith of unbelievers, or they to be denied ſalvation, he (foreſeing they would not and ſhould not believe) intended not to have them ſaved: for he agreed to a condition which barred them from ſalvation: ſo much for the abſurdity of this agreement.

2 An other abſurdity in the diſtinction is this: It maketh God to be an unjuſt Judge: for Chriſt by his impetration and dying for the ſins of unbelievers, hath born the puniſhment of p. 93their ſins for them in this life; now for God to puniſh unbelievers for their ſins in the next life (as he will Mark 16.16.) is to puniſh twice over for the ſame ſins, which is an act of injuſtice in God: now this muſt be ſo, if you diſtinguiſh of impetration and application in ſuch ſort, as they concurr not in the ſame perſons, but are divided, ſo as impetration belongs unto unbelievers, but application belongs not to them: for if application and juſtification belongs not to them, then they muſt ſuffer puniſhment for their ſins in the next life, and ſo God ſhall be unjuſt: for after he hath puniſhed unbelievers in Chriſt their ſuretie, he ſhall puniſh them again, in their own perſons: ſo you ſee, impetration and application are not to be diſtinguiſhed in reſpect of perſons, as if the one belonged to ſome perſons, but not the other, unleſs you will make God to be an unjuſt Judge.

3 I ſhall confute this diſtinction by a Text of Scripture, underſtanding it in the Arminian ſence: ſee 2. Cor. 5.15, 19. In verſe 15. ſpeaking of Chriſt and his death, it ſaith, one died for all, &c. Here I underſtand the p. 92duplicate page p. 93duplicate page p. 94word all, in the Arminian ſenſe: and then in verſe 19. it ſpeaketh again of Chriſt and his death, ſaying, God was in Chriſt, (that is, in Chriſt upon the Croſs, when he died for all) and reconciled the world unto himſelf, not imputing their ſins unto them. So here you have the impetration of Chriſts death; and the application of it, in reconciliation and not imputation of ſins: now here application, is made as large as impetration, and to belong unto the ſame perſons, without diſtinction or diviſion: for thoſe [all] which Chriſt died for, were all of them reconciled to God, and juſtified, their ſins not being imputed unto them: the ſame world which Chriſt died for, John 3.16. the ſame was reconciled and had no ſins imputed to them. So S. Paul did not allow of this Arminian diſtinction and diviſion, of impetration and application, in the Arminian ſenſe, ſo as impetration ſhould be underſtood more largely for perſons than application; or as if impetration had been for all men, and application but for ſome men.

4 This diſtinction is guiltie yet of another abſurditie, for it makes the p. 95means of faith, to be uſed altogether too late, and ſo to become an unprofitable and frivolous means: for Arminians make faith to be a means to avoid an evil, after the evil is paſt. They ſay, Chriſt by his impetration, ſuffered the evil of death for unbelievers: now in as much as Chriſt ſuffered death, and bore the evil of puniſhment of unbelievers, for them and in their ſtead and room, they themſelves have ſuffered death, and bore the evil of puniſhment in the perſon of Chriſt: now after unbelievers have born the evil of puniſhment, it is too late to uſe faith as a means to obtain application, and juſtification, and a freedom from the evil of puniſhment: for thus they ſhould uſe a means to avoid an evil, after the evil is paſt, and ſo the means of faith is made unprofitable and frivolous: wherefore ſhould I uſe any means to avoid impriſonment, when my Suretie hath ſuffered impriſonment for me? were not means in this caſe frivolous? If Chriſt did impetrate and die for Iudas and in his ſtead, then Iudas hath ſuffered death by his Suretie Chriſt; what need then is there of faith in Judas, as a means to p. 96obtain application and freedom from death, after he hath ſuffered death, as by his Suretie? This is as if a Judge ſhould hang a man for his offence, and then require him to uſe means to free himſelf from death. And ſo much for confutation of this diſtinction, of Impetration and Application.

FINIS.

End of the text · Theophilus Brabourne, A Confutation of the Dutch Arminian Universal Redemption (1651)