The Universalist Examined and Convicted, Chapter 12
CHAP. XII. Of the Conſideration of like Scriptures ſpeaking in like manner.
HIs drift in this Chapter, is to borrow ſome ſtrength from other Scriptures, pretending that it is the ordinary language of Scripture, and not of 1 Tim. 2.6. Heb. 2.9. therefore his ſeverall Texts I ſhall examine.
[2 Cor. 5.19. God was in Chriſt reconciling the World to himſelfe, not imputing their treſpaſſes.] This text I have formerly treated of in my ſecond Chapter, and there ſhowne that this Text favoureth him not for two reaſons. Firſt, becauſe this Text ſpeaketh of the application of the blood of Chriſt, as I have ſhowne by foure particulars in the ſecond Chapter, to which I referre the Reader, which the Author is very averſe to, and ſtrongly denieth, but weakely diſproveth. His reaſons why this meaneth not of the application by his ſpirit is twofold; [1. It ſaith not God will be reconciling the world to himſelfe, as ſpeaking of the worke of his Spirit;] as if no worke of God upon the hearts of men by his Spirit was done and paſt, ſo that it might not be ſaid he was ſo working; certainely he had reconciled many mens hearts to himſelfe by the Goſpel, long before the Apoſtle ſpoke theſe words; ſo that though he ſpake of that act of his ſpirit, he might ſay foreign, God was reconciling; therefore this is no convincing argument. [2. It ſaith not God was in the world reconciling, as if he ſpake of the application in the hearts of men.] Neither is it ſo to be meant [in Chriſt] as if God working in the heart of Chriſt. But in Chriſt, as no more then [by Chriſt] and [for Chriſt] but this phraſe is as ſuitable to the application of his blood, as well as the procurement by his blood, if the Apoſtle ſay true, Epheſ. 1.3. If all ſpirituall bleſſings be given us in him, then ſurely reconcileing our hearts, being one, is alſo in him, and in verſe 10. he plainely ſaith, that the faithfull are gathered together in one in Chriſt: therefore though it ſaith not in the world, but in Chriſt, it may well be meant of the application of Chriſts blood in the hearts of men.
A ſecond reaſon why this place favoureth him not, is; Becauſe though it did ſpeake of the Act of Chriſt as mediatour procuring reconciliation; yet it doth not ſay for all, or every ſonne of Adam, but for the world: which phraſe is taken in Scripture not ſo largely, as 1 John. 5.19. [The whole world lieth in wickedneſſe;] this cannot take in every ſonne of Adam, becauſe may are affirmed to be of God in the ſame verſe, and ſo not to ſinne, however not to lie in ſinne. So Coloſ. 1.6. though the Goſpel brought forth fruite in all the world, yet not in every ſonne of Adam, 1 Tim. 3.16. beleeved on in the world, but not of every ſonne of Adam, but men living in the world.
Some reaſons he attempts to produce, to prove that this world meanes all Adams ſonnes, and thoſe reaſons he draweth from, 2 Cor. 5. his generall deduction is this, [What world it is that he reconciled, let the Text ſhew,] ſo I ſay alſo, he urgeth thus. [The world of mankinde, verſe 11. we perſwade men;] it is true he perſwaded men, not God, as Gal. 1.10. and the world of mankinde, men living in the world; and thus we grant that God was in Chriſt reconciling men. But our Author would have (men) in verſe 11. to denote every individuall man, but this without ground; for this phraſe, [He perſwades men] is of like ſenſe with Luke. 5.10. [thou ſhalt catch men.] and 1 Cor. 14.3. [he that propheſieth ſpeaketh unto men] but theſe take not in every ſonne of Adam, nor can be ſo meant.
2. He thus urgeth, [And theſe men that muſt appeare before the Judgement ſeat of Chriſt.] Verſe 10. true, and ſuch we grant God in Chriſt reconciled, but not all that muſt ſo appeare; for though all ſhall appeare, yet he ſpeaketh not of all that ſhall appeare: it is we that have the earneſt of the ſpirit, verſe 5. wee that walke by faith not ſight, verſe 7. we that love to dwell with the Lord, verſe 8. we that covet to be acceptable to the Lord, verſe 9. it is the ſame we that he ſaith muſt appeare before Chriſts judgement; and the ſame wee, we grant, are reconciled in Chriſt. But none of all theſe former take in all the ſonnes of Adam; therefore are not well produced to prove the word World, verſe 19. to take in every individuall ſon of Adam.
[3. He urgeth, And thoſe men that were dead, verſe 14.] True, let him well underſtand the Text, and I grant it; all that were dead to ſinne, as I have ſhowen in the ſecond Chapter, and then I grant that Chriſt reconciled the All in the world that died to ſinne and themſelves: but this taketh not in every ſonne of Adam. And ſo for the reſt that he ſaith in this point, from what I ſaid in Chap. 2. may appeare not to availe any thing to prove the word world in verſe 19. to take in every individuall ſon of Adam: So that this Text helpeth him not.
A ſecond Text is,
Iohn, 1.9. He is the true light that enlightneth every man that cometh into the world.] And his deduction here from Is this, [through the ranſome given there is ſome light afforded to every man.] Lombard citing this Text, giveth this ſenſe, [Non quod nullus ſit qui non illuminetur, ſed quia niſi ab illo nullus illuminatur;] and this with no little probability.
But Secondly, the Authour ſhould have ſhowen what enlightning this ſpeaketh of; it may be ſo underſtood as no way to favour him, as not ſpeaking of the ſame thing whereof he affirmeth: it ſeemeth to ſpeake of the light that he put into men in the creation, as may appeare from verſe 5. and 10. immediately after theſe words; we find the world was made by him, he cannot (I beleeve) prove it to be underſtood of the redemption.
And herein he proceeds to ſhow, how many wayes the Scripture affirmeth the ſame of the world.
1. Of the world in generall. John. 1.29. & 3.17.] I know what he meaneth by (generall) if he meane as it is a totum aggregatum, of which an action may be predicated, yet it agrees but to one part of it; as the world is ſaid to lie in wickedneſſe, when it agreeth onelyonly to the unbeleeving part, and ſo he ſhall convince the world of ſin, that is, the unbeleeving part: ſo on the other ſide, he taketh away the ſins of the world, that is, of the unbeleeving part thereof, this I grant.
2. Of the world diſtributed into its parts, ſome beleeving, ſome not. John. 3.16.18.] But will the Author ſay that he came to ſave both parts of the world? the Text ſaith no ſuch thing, but that thoſe that beleeve might not periſh. God is ſaid to love the world, it is true; but diſtribute this world into its parts, and what love doth the Text ſet forth to both its parts? his love to the world, as (totum quid) is there intimated, and ſhowne in his love to the beleeving part thereof, and to the beleeving part in that they ſhall be ſaved: but wherein is the love of God expreſt to the unbeleeving part, let the Text, or the Author from the Text ſpeake. So that though he be here ſaid to love the world, and that is diſtributed into parts, yet no love is expreſſed to both parts of that diſtribution.
3. Of the world oppoſed to Beleevers, in the world. 1 John, 2.1.] It is cleare to every eye that there is no oppoſition at all in that Text, onelyonly a diverſification. (2.) Neither can he prove that there is a diſtinction of beleevers from unbeleevers, but onelyonly of ſome beleevers, to whom he wrote from beleevers all over the world. (3.) For ſuch an aſſertion as this, that Chriſt gave himſelfe a ranſome for a world oppoſed to beleevers, it is ſuch as cannot be found in any beſide our Author: the Remonſtrants that have made the number as large as may either by ſhew of reaſon or Scripture; yet they profeſſe that [In horum numero cenſeri non debent impaenitentes, Act. Synod. 285. 286.increduli, rebelles, &c. qua tales,] that is, in this number of All, the unbeleeving and impenitent, are not to be reckoned; and thus, [Infidelibus & rebellibus quâ talibus gratia impetrata non eſt:] that is, grace was not impetrated or procured for the unbeleevers, as ſo. But if our Authors words be true, that he died for the world oppoſed to beleevers; then he dyed for unbeleevers as ſo conſidered; but this no Scripture ſpeaketh.
4. Of the world divided and ſuch particulars ſet out as cannot be the Elect of God. John. 12.47.48.] We had before in the ſecond acceptation, the world diſtributed into its parts, and now we have it divided into its parts; here is judicious diſtinction betwixt diſtributed and divided. (2.) That Text doth not ſay that he came to ſave that part of the world, which he ſaith cannot be meant of the Elect of God. (3.) It is not evident that that place ſpeaketh of ſuch as are not the Elect: many may not receive the word of Chriſt for the preſent, yet be one of Gods choſen, and thus much the Author confeſſeth page 69. thus, [Yea even among theſe are many of Gods Elect and choſen, to whom theſe ſayings agree,] and one of theſe ſayings is this, [neither receiveth nor perceiveth the things of the Spirit.] Yet now this expreſſion, (he that heareth my words and beleeveth not) muſt needs ſet out ſuch as cannot be Gods elect and choſen ones.
5. Of the world, as the Elect are in due time called out of the fellowſhip of it and diſtinguiſht from it, whileſt many of the Elect are in it.] He produceth many Texts wherein the word (world) is thus taken; but he produceth not one place wherein it is ſaid that Chriſt came to ſave that world, and therefore he herein requireth no anſwer; yet I ſay of that world he may be ſaid to be the Saviour, yet in reſpect of them that ſhall be called out in time; but that he is the Saviour of that world, out of which all his Elect are t…ken, no Scripture ſpeaketh; and therefore that fond flouriſh which he maketh in thoſe after words, the Reader may ſee he hath little ground whereas he ſaith [Of the World every way taken he is the Saviour,] he cannot, nor hath he proved that he is the Saviour of both parts, beleeving and unbeleeving, nor the world oppoſed to beleevers, nor ſuch as cannot be called the elect of God, nor that world out of which all the elect are choſen.
But after this ſpacious digreſſion upon the word (World) he comes to affirme that [the Elect is never called the World:] ſomething like that of the Remonſtrants, [vox mundus in Scripturis nunquam electos ſignificat] that is,act. Synod. 301. the word World doth never ſignifie the Elect, which I ſhall not at this time diſprove, but content my ſelfe with this, that there is no need to prove it; ſufficient it is now to prove that the word All doth not take in every ſonne of Adam, and that that thing is ſaid to be done to, and by, and in the World, that is done but to and by and in the beleeving part of the world: and this is not hard, Col. 1 6. 1 Tim. 3.19. Rom. 4.12.13. with others, in which places I thinke alſo the word World denoteth onelyonly the Elect of God, if beleevers be ſuch. But ſtill in proſecution of this, he hath ſeverall Queries, as
[If we looke at ſuch as ſtumble at Chriſt, doth not the Scripture ſay, ſuch periſh for whom Chriſt died?] To which I anſwer no; no Scripture affirmeth any ſuch thing, not that Text, 1 Corinth. 8.11. It is not affirmative but interrogatory.
And bring upon themſelves ſwift deſtruction, denying the Lord that bought them. 2 Pet. 2.1. I have ſaid ſomething upon this text before, but becauſe it againe offereth it ſelfe, I ſhall adde a few words more; true it is they are ſaid to deny the Lord that bought them; that is, as it is generally received foreign, according to their owne and others judgement; as Ahaz is ſaid to ſacrifice to the Gods of Damaſcus that ſmote him 2 Chron. 28.23. And how can the Author prove that Chriſt did ranſome or buy them any more them the Gods of Damaſcus did ſmite Ahaz: the one ſaith they denied the Lord that bought them, and the other ſacrificed to the gods that ſmote him; but I know the Author will not ſay that the Gods of Damaſcus did really and indeed hurt or ſmite Ahaz, but he thought ſo. This I overthrow not, but to it I adde thus much, it was not only as they thought, but [Secundum vanam jactantiam,] as they boaſted, they ſpake proud ſwelling word, ſpake much of Chriſt and his ranſome; now it is frequent in Scripture to upbraid the ſonnes of men with ſuch things as they boaſt of, as if they were ſo indeed, as Ezek 28.12. and ſo making their boaſting an aggravation of their ſinne, as Rom. 3.17.23. thou that glorieſt in God, and in the Law, doſt thou by breaking of the Law diſhonour God? So it was not an ordinary ſinne that theſe falſe Prophets are branding, not barely denying him that bought them, for ſo every unbeleever doth in his judgement, but this is more then every unbeleever is charged withall; ſeeing he that names Chriſt is tyed thereby to depart from iniquity, 2 Tim. 2.19. And they boaſting of Chriſt they were more obliged then others not to deny him, but they did deny the Lord that bought them, that is not that the Text lookes at the reality of the thing, but their boaſting that it was ſo, which made it be an aggravated ſin in thoſe falſe Prophets; and how this agreeth with the perſons ſpoke of and other Scriptures, let the Author perpend, and if ſo taken, how much it ſerveth his turne let him alſo judge.
Are they not ſaid to have troden under foote the Sonne of God?] Thus the Remonſtrant urges, [Apoſtatae dic…ur filium dei conculcare, act. Synod.&c. ergo filius dei illis aliquo modo eſt datus, fangu… teſtamenti ad aliquod gratiae faedus cum illis conſtituendum effuſus, &c.] That is they tread under foote the Sonne of God, therefore he is in ſome way given to them, and his blood ſhed to make ſome covenant of Grace with them; the ſtrength of which inferences I am not able to ſee; for they being gathered to the Church, and ſo hearing Chriſt preached, ſo outwardly profeſſing him, they afterward falling off and not applying themſelves to beleeve on him for ſalvation, tread under foote the Sonne of God; and this they may doe though Chriſt did never purchaſe life and ſalvation for them; as a man may kicke the image of his Soveraigne in his coine, though it was never intended for him.
Are they not ſaid to be trees twice dead, Jude, 12.] Yes we read ſo, but whether the argument framed therefrom be valid, I queſtion; for thus he reaſoneth, they are twice dead, once in Adam, now a ſecond time by their ſinnes: now this ſecond death ſuppoſeth a life intervening which they have from Chriſt; but this is extorted, and not the ſenſe of this nor any other Scriptures. For
1. For this ſuppoſeth all Adams ſonnes to be made alive, and to be alive, with a life that is beſide what of nature: for this ſpirituall death in ſin, is oppoſed to a ſpirituall life; but this is not the language of Scripture, not one place that I know that ſaith all Adams ſons are alive.
2. It is frequent with Scripture to ſpeake of things that doe appeare onelyonly as if they were, as Saint Paul, Rom. 7.9. Without the Law I was alive, that is I thought ſo, but when the Law came I died: here is a ſecond death, but that is oppoſed to an apparent life; ſo why may not this Text meane a death oppoſed to an apparent life of grace, which by their ſeeming holineſſe they ſeemed to live, but when they diſcovered themſelves, they are ſaid to die the ſecond time? and this ſeemes backed by the context, Clouds without water; Trees without fruite, twice dead.
3. Scripture phraſe ſpeaketh that condemnation in Hell is the ſecond death, Rev. 20.14. cum 6. and this ſpoken of men as if it was actually ſo, when yet it meaneth but thus, that it infallibly ſhall be ſo; as he that beleeveth not is condemned, that is, ſhall be in condemnation: he that beleeveth hath everlaſting life, that is, ſhall have it infallibly. So this twice dead, that is, they are ſuch as ſhall certainely die the ſecond death.
4. It is uſuall with Scripture, ſpeaking of that which is throughly done, or done indeed, to expreſſe it by twice done, or done doubly, Jer. 17.18. Deſtroy them with a double deſtruction, is deſtroy them throughly, or to the purpoſe, or deſtroy them indeed. So twice dead is dead indeed, throughly dead, dead every way; to this Mr. Perkins in his expoſition propendes.
5. The Authors Argument makes death in ſinne to be ſecond death, but this Scripture ſpeaketh not, Rev. 2. Rev. 20.6.14. Therefore the ſenſe of his cannot ſtand, nor his argument from it.