The Universalist Examined and Convicted, Chapter 14
CHAP. XIIII. Of anſwering a ſecond Objection.
THe ſecond Argument which he undertaketh to refute as he produceth, it is this.
[Saint Iohn makes it an infallible marke of the love of Chriſt to them for whom he died and laid down his life, 1 Iohn. 3.16.
But God hath not loved every man in the world, for he hated Eſau, Rom. 9, 13. but his Church whom he loveth to the end, Epheſ. 5.25.
Ergo, Chriſt did not die for every man.] The former which he produced, was no argument; and this ſo miſerably abuſed, that any intelligent man may be aſhamed to owne it, and confident I am he cannot produce it from any pen, unleſſe ſuch as himſelfe, propounding it purpoſely to make it vile and odious; that wherin the vigour of the argument lyeth, is left out, and a ſuperfluity of confuſion intermingled, which giveth us a taſte of his faithfulneſſe in this buſineſſe, which he at firſt promiſed; if he do it willingly, he is to be blamed; if ignorantly, he will not I hope thinke much to be informed: the argument in its genuine ſhape runs thus, and it was the ſixth in order in the conſcience at Hague.
[Thoſe for whom Chriſt died, he loved them (ſome) with the top and greateſt love that is ſhowne to man,
But ſo he loveth not all and every man with his greateſt love.
Ergo, He died not for every man,] that is for every ſon of Adam.]
The major propoſition, is grounded on many Texts, wherein the love of Chriſt in dying for us is not ſet downe as an expreſſion of love barely, but with an emphaſis and tranſcendebly, as Rom. 5.8. a love with all commendation or magnification, 1 Iohn. 3.16. He ſo loved the world; not great love onelyonly but greateſt, John 15.13. no greater love then for a man to lay downe his life for his friend; but Chriſts greater, in that he did it when we were enemies; therefore we propound it not ſo remiſſely as he fallaciouſly, [whom he dieth for he loveth,] and no more, but loveth eminently with the greateſt love.
The minor is undeniable; for that God ſhould love every man moſt and with his greateſt love, yea the damned with ſo great, as beloveth the ſaved withall, the Arminians durſt never yet affirme, Scripture no where ſpeaketh, and the Author himſelfe overthroweth, page 89. [to ſome more eſpeciall love is ſhowne.] Now any may ſee the wide difference betwixt the argument in its genuine force, and as he propoundes it, and all his anſwers fall to the ground, being apted not to the argument, but his perverſions of it, yet I ſhall reply that I may reduce him to truth.
As for that Text 1 Iohn, 3.16. it is picked out of purpoſe by himſelf, it is not ſo clearly holding f…ith the force of the argument as many others; yet to take it as it lieth, let us conſider that it meaneth that tranſcendent love, beyond the greateſt of mans. Hereby perceive we that love, Cap. 4.10, 11. and if he ſo loved us, and behold what love. Cap. 3 ver. 1. Now can every ſon of Adam? ſay, I perceive the greateſt love of God to me in that Chriſt died for me; if every man perceiveth the greateſt love, then no roome for his expreſſe, page 89. [to ſome more ſpeciall favour i… ſhowne.]
His after-plea [The place ſpeakes of the perception of love by beleivers,] helpeth not, becauſe it ſpeaketh of no other perception then what aroſe from the former aſſertion: [Chriſt hath died for us,] it is a concluſion from infallible premiſes which any may conclude that can ſo premiſe; there is ſuch a connexion betwixt his dying for and his greateſt love, that every one that affirmeth the one, doth (in eodem inſtanti) affirme the other; it is no ſpeciall priviledge of ſome to perceive his greateſt love in dying for them, but of all for whom he died. Thus for the major.
He then violently aſſaulteth the minor thus,
[The aſſumption is full of infidelity and blaſphemy.] A heavy charge, if he can make his charge good; but like …ailing Ra…ſhekah, he oftner barketh then biteth; but how great is his impudence and injury to miſalledge his adverſary into infidelity and blaſphemy? let him take the aſſumption as he ſhould propound it. viz. [God loveth not every man with his greateſt love,] then either it is not infidelity and blaſphemy, or elſe he is equally guilty with us: for he ſaith, page 89. [God giveth to ſome more ſpeciall love] if ſo, then he loveth not every man with his ſpeciall and greateſt love; nay, yet further he ſaith, page 90. [If it had been God loveth not every man in the world, it might be granted and proved,] which is more then he can prove; but if it be a truth that he loveth not every man in the world, then certainely it is far from infidelity and blaſphemy, to ſay that he loveth not every man with his tranſcendent and greateſt love; no nor ever hath loved every man with his greateſt love. Neither is it ſuch blaſphemy as he pretendeth, to ſay, that he hath not nor doth love any but his Church with his tranſcendent or greateſt love; the Apoſtle giveth great reaſon ſo to affirme, Epheſ. 5.25, 26. He therefore exhorteth to conjugall affection, which is the greateſt and ſtrongeſt of all relations, and to the greateſt and higheſt degree of that kinde; and the patterne of this he fetcheth from Chriſt to his Church, and that expreſſed in giving up himſelfe to death for them; is it not cleare that he loveth his Church with his tranſcendent and greateſt love? nay, this he plainely affirmeth, page 9…. from this very Text Epheſ. 5.25. where he ſaith, [That Text ſpeakes of higher ends of giving himſelfe then ranſome, even of the ſpeciall fruits of application, ver. 26. ſo the Author, page 94.] So intimating that the application holds forth, greater love then the giving his life to procure; but this is groundleſſe; for though the Text ſpeaketh of the application of his blood, yet the ſpecimen of his tranſcendent love is not in that, but his giving himſelfe to that end, [In that he loved it and gave himſelfe for it.] Beſides Scripture ſpeaketh as if to give his life to procure, is a ſigne of greater love, then to give his ſpirit to ſanctifie; the Apoſtle inforceth from the greater to the leſſe, if he gave us him to die for us, much more with him will he give us all things; ſpirit to helpe infirmities, vocation, juſtification, glorification, Rom. 9.32. And when the Scripture commendeth his love, it is not that he gives them Spirit to apply, but his life to merit, in that he died; and no better teſtimony doe I deſire then of the Remonſtrants themſelves.Collat. Hagien. in Arg. 6.] [Quum vitâ nullum pretioſius pignus quia pro alio constituere poteſt, merito dicitur ſummam eſſe charitatem vitam deponere; hoc cum ſcipo Chriſti convenit, ſicut & cum aliis locis, Epheſ. 1.2. 1 Iohn. 3.16.] That is, ſeeing none can lay downe for any a greater pledge then life, therefore it is deſervedly ſaid, that it is the greateſt love to lay downe life for one: by which the evidence both of Major and M…nor appeareth.
But here in page 90, he inſtanceth where the blaſphemy of our aſſumption lyeth, viz. in contradicting and blaſpheming many Texts of Scripture, as Iohn, 3.16. where it ſpeakes of Gods love to the world; true, but is in the beleeving part of it, as the afterwords ſhow, for them that beleeve not, whom God foreſeeth, how doth God expreſſe his love to them? doth he ſend his ſonne to die for them? that as many of them (whom he foreſeeth to perſiſt in unbeleefe) as that beleeve, ſhould not periſh? So he ſaith it blaſphemeth, [Pſal. 145.8.9.136.25. where it ſaith, the Lord is good to all,] but d…th our affirmation, viz. [that God loveth onelyonly his Church with his higheſt and greateſt love?] contradict that of the Pſalmiſt, viz. [that God is good to all?] let the Author better conſider, hath the Lord nothing to beſtow, unleſſe he give them the top of his love? Thirdly, he ſaith it contradicteth [the force of all his exhortations, and calls to ſuch as refuſe,] nay, it leaveth a way for theſe, there being not his higheſt love; for greater it is for God to give hearts willing to obey his call, which his very words intimate he giveth not to all, therefore loveth not all with his higheſt love. And ſo for the reſt, they are weake and to no purpoſe alledged, onelyonly apted againſt this poſition, [that God hath not loved every man at all,] which is not our affirmation; let them that broach it maintaine it.
But he hath a more ſtupendious piece of blaſphemy againſt our aſſumption, viz.
[It ſaith he hath not loved any other of mankinde, no not when he made and beheld them all righteous, but hated them; Oh fearefull to ſay! that he hateth the righteous, Pſalm. 45.7.] But here envy ſpeaketh, and ignorance admires; for we ſay not, nor can it be infer'd from us, that God loved not innocent man at all, but that he loved not him with his tranſcendent and greateſt love, he did not manifeſt the top of his love to him: and this is no ſuch blaſphemy or fearefull thing to ſay; for the gift that he gave to his Church, viz. (His Son) was greater then primitive grace, or any thing that he conferred in the creation, and our deſerts leſſe; for though in creation we could deſerve no good, and ſo his gift be free: yet now in in our reſtoring we deſerved much evill; in creation what good he gave us was onelyonly without merit, but he now beſtoweth all againſt our me it; hence the ſcripture puts the emphaſis of love upon the worke of redemption, mercy having more in it then meere goodneſſe: by the former rather then by the latter, he would be knowne as by his glory. Exod. 33.19. & 34.6.7.
But beſides why ſhould he faſten that on us as blaſphemy, which will prove the reſult of his owne words? he ſaith, [to hate is to love in a leſſe degree,] page 92. now doth not God love the righteous in a leſſe degree then he loveth his onelyonly Sonne in? then he hateth the righteous by his owne doctrine; oh fearefull to ſay! but thus much is cleare, that grant him that God loved innocent man; yet it followeth not, that he loved every man with the top and greateſt of his love; ſo that our Minor yet ſtandeth good.
But he deſcendeth to give ſome ſatisfactory anſwer to the argument, and it is well he doth ſo, for his former words have yeelded but little, it is well if his afterwords yeeld more; we ſhall not ſhut our eyes againſt it. He would have the Scripture ſhewed where it ſpeaketh of the love and hatred; let it be ſo, as alſo his words which are theſe. [The Scripture mentioneth a diverſe kinde and degree of love and hatred in God ſhewen in the effects of it.] Now herein I ſhall willingly joyne iſſue with him, ſeriouſly to conſider and weigh not onelyonly what Scripture ſaith, but what the Scripture meaneth in ſuch ſpeeches, leaſt we vent our owne conceits unworthy the nature of God; love and hatred is no more attributed to God, then deſire, griefe, rejoycing, with all other affections and paſſions of men, which in us are perturbations, and why not then love and hatred? but to grant any perturbations in God, comes little ſhort of blaſphemy; therefore it may be controverted, whether as all the reſt of our affections (incident to us) ſo love and hatred be attributed to God properly, or onelyonly by an Anthropopathy; as the members of our body are given to him by an Anthropomorphy; that there is ſuch a thing in God which we call love I grant; but that the name of love and hatred is but figuratively given to it, that alſo I affirme; Gods love is generally thus defined. [Velle dare bonum creaturis,] a will to beſtow good upon his creatures; now this will is properly ſaid to be in God, but it is (as I conceive) figuratively called love, after the manner of men, becauſe whom man loveth, to him he willeth to beſtow good: So Gods will to beſtow good is termed his love; yet this is the difference, mans will to beſtow good is an effect of his love; but God when he willeth to give good, it is not any effect of his love, but his love it ſelf. Scripture furniſheth us with ſuch expreſſions, John. 3.16. God ſo loved the world that he ſent his Sonne, that is, his actuall ſending is an effect of his love, that is of his will to ſend; but we never finde this nor any ſuch, God ſo loved that he willed to ſend his Sonne, becauſe his will to ſend his Sonne is that love it ſelfe. Hence that aſſertion of Cortinus in Molin. l. 5. ſ. 3 [Let him that will conſult with him] about that expreſſion. [Alius affectus menſura alterius affectus & cauſa quod deus decretum faciat;] hath not ſtabiliment at all in Scripture; this being conſidered, it will appeare that Gods love hath no augmentation, diminution, alteration, diverſification,Aquin. p. 1• Q 20. Art. 30. Q. 20. Art. 20. Q. 23. Art. 30. but what proceeds from the good things beſtowed, or will to beſtow them; ſo that as God is ſaid to will a greater or leſſe good, ſo he is ſaid to love more or leſſe, [Ex parte boni voliti unum diligit magis aut minus.] And as the willeth ſome good freely, and yet ſome evill for the ſinne of the creature, that creature may be ſaid to be both loved and hated, [Idem poteſt odio haberi & amari; diverſa ratione peccator & amatur & odio habetur,] and that as God willeth to give this man eternall life, and to deny that man the ſame good, he is ſaid to love the one, and hate the other, although to both he give ſome good. [Deus omnes amat in quantum omnibus dat aliquod bonum; in quantum aliquibus non dat vitam aeternam, ideo eos od o habet.] Theſe being conſidered, I ſhall make it appeare that there is more feare of his confounding the degrees of his love of compaſſion then that wee ſhould confound his love of compaſſion and delight as he ſpeaketh. Now to proceed to what he ſaith of Gods love and hatred: of Gods love he ſpeaketh of a double ſort.
Love of
Compaſſion.
and Delight.
I ſhall not inſiſt on theſe termes, though I might and ſhow his want of wiſdome in hinting ſuch expreſſions without explanation; for true, the Scripture gives to God [compaſſion,] but in compaſſion there muſt needs be paſſion, but none in God: Nor yet to inſiſt upon what he ſaith of either by way of bounding to each its limits in good things beſtowed, though I might expatiate my ſelfe herein; for he maketh Gods compaſſion and mercy to extend no further then to make men ſalvable, and his delight to be in the giving union and poſſeſſion of all priviledges, but this diviſion is without ground; for all good that God gives to fallen man, even to glory it ſelfe, floweth from his compaſſion and mercy; glory in heaven is mercy as well as any thing we receive on earth, 2 Tim. 1.18. and all that love that reſts not till the party loved be brought into union &c. is that love of compaſſion, (though he make it to be the love of delight,) which properly reſts not till all that be done; for delight is rather in the thing done, then tending to the doing of it; theſe two conſtitute not a good diſtinction as he boundeth them: but theſe with many other things I paſſe by, and come to examine what he ſpeaketh of hatred: that alſo he ſaith is twofold.
[1. A not ſo much loving, as Gen. 29.30.31.33. Luke. 14.26.
2. A poſitive and furious hatred tending to the deſtruction of the hated, Deut. 19.11.]
Now that a not ſo much loving ſhould be called hatred, is not cleare from thoſe Texts alledged; as for Gen. 29.30. that Text ſpeaketh not of a leſſe degree of love, but of no love at all, that is, conjugall affection; ſo he loved her not at all, therefore hated her: and for Luke, 14.26. there is not ſpoken of a leſſe love, but abſolute hatred, if they ſtand in oppoſition to Chriſt; for elſe it is enough to give worldly reſpects ſome part, ſo that we give Chriſt the greateſt part of our love; but this is not ſound divinity. Againe if a not ſo much loving be hating, then it is no ſuch fearefull thing to ſay that God hateth the righteous; for certaine it is that he loveth not them ſo much as he doth his onelyonly Sonne. But to let this paſſe, I am now to examine how he welldeth theſe weapons to cut down our aſſumption. That of Gods love he purſueth thus farre.
[A love of compaſſion and mercy, Pſalm. 136.25.145.8.9. is ſuch a love as extendeth it ſelfe ſo farre for the good of man loved in good things afforded, that a man is made ſalvable and ſo much done for him that in accepting, &c. he maybe ſaved. Pſal. 36.5.6.7.]
That God is full of compaſſion, and his mercy is over all his workes, and he ſaveth man and beaſt, thoſe Texts affirme, and that by the virtue of his compaſſion the ſonnes of men come to partake of the well of life we grant; but all the reſt is of his owne making: none of theſe Texts ſay that every of the ſonnes of men have ſo much of Gods compaſſion as to have life procured for them by Chriſts death, no nor yet that every man enjoyeth the height of Gods compaſſion, this is to be yet proved; for if creatures irration…ll, may have much of Gods compaſſion, and yet not the height of his compaſſion; why may not ſome men have much compaſſion, yet not the height of it: yet our aſſumption ſtands firme.
Againe he ſaith, [Leſſe love then this was not to the Angels before they fell, nor leſſe love to mankinde before the fall, Ecel. 7.29. Gen. 12.] This though it ſerve him not, yet he diſcovereth his folly; for this ſuppoſeth that Angels and men had compaſſion ſhowen them before they fell; but this is falſe; for compaſſion preſuppoſeth miſery and the fall which was not before the fall; but what is the reſult of all this? no more but this, that all men have ſome degree of Gods compaſſion manifeſted on them; but what is all this to prove that every man hath the height of his compaſſion? ſo that his reaſoning cometh to this head: every man hath ſome compaſſion ſhowed him, therefore that is high blaſphemy to ſay that every man hath not the height of his compaſſion; this is but miſerable reaſoning.
Againe thus he urgeth, [The love of compaſſion, and the hatred that is in a leſſe degree of love, may ſtand together both in God and man, Hoſ. 11.5. Jer. 9.1.2.] This is a truth, nay I ſhall grant further, that his love of compaſſion and his poſitive hatred may ſtand together, that is, God may give ſome expreſſes of his compaſſion to many whoſe deſtruction he willeth, and whom he purpoſeth to deſtroy; and this is ſo far from overthrowing, that it confirmeth our aſſumption. For it cleareth this, that every degree of his compaſſion enjoyed, doth not argue an eye to the ſalvation of them whom God beſtoweth that low degree of compaſſion on; therefore the compaſſion that God ſhoweth to many, is no argument that every man enjoyeth alſo the height of Gods compaſſion: Yet hitherto we are untouched.
He ſaith further, [To ſay whoever he loveth with the love of compaſſion he loveth for ever, or to ſay he hateth (with any other hatred then that which is in the leſſe degree of love,) any before they have hardened their hearts againſt him, &c. is contrary to Hoſea, 9.10. to 15. Zach. 7.11.13. & 1.18.28. & 2.4.5.] In which words there is confuſion, impropriety, and fallacy.
1. He ſpeakes confuſedly, not diſtinguiſhing the ſeverall degrees of his compaſſion; for it may be granted that to whom he giveth ſome degrees of his compaſſion, he continueth not that for ever, becauſe ſome good he may give that is not to laſt for ever, viz. a temporall good; yet certainely to whom he giveth his higheſt pitch of compaſſion, he loveth ſuch for ever: Will he ſay that Rom. 6.15. is not an everlaſting compaſſion? that compaſſion mentioned, Ier. 31.33.34. is not for ever continued: conſult with 36.37.
2. He ſpeaketh improperly, becauſe though hatred may ſtand with a leſſe degree of love, that is, he may deny ſome good to them to whom he giveth ſome good; yet it is not proper to ſay that hatred conſiſts in that leſſe degree of love; for in that he beſtoweth any good he hateth not, neither can hatred conſiſt in the giving that good, but rather in the deniall of a greater good; he hated nor Eſau in that he gave him ſome good, but in that he gave him not that great good that he gave to Jacob.
3. He ſpeaketh fallaciouſly, ſuggeſting to his followers that we hold that God hateth with a hatred, that is without any degree of love; that is, he ſo willeth evill to to them, that he willeth not to beſtow any good at all; but this we ſay not; for the greateſt hatred, is to will to deny grace and glory, but God may give much good to ſuch; he hateth not the reprobate with the hatred that excludeth all good; yet ſome, and many he hateth ſo as to deny them the top and height of his compaſſion, and that before they turne away their hearts from him; and how doth he in all this overthrow the Minor? but by this hatred which he makes to be after their turning away from him. I ſuppoſe he meaneth (or at leaſt ſhould doe) his will to deny ſaving grace and glory, and then happily
4. He may ſeeme to ſpeake falſely; for his will ſo to doe is not after their turning away from him, but long before it; there is a double hatred of God mentioned in ſcripture. 1. A denyall of ſaving grace to ſome which he giveth others, whence their turning away from him followeth, which others having turne not away. 2: A puniſhment of ſuch for turning away; now the firſt is proper to our controverſie, and it is no way againſt Scripture to ſay that ſuch hatred is before men turne away from God; of the latter his Texts ſpeakes, as Hoſ. 9.15. and nothing to the purpoſe; for more then this cannot be concluded; that God deſtroyeth none till they turne away from him, which any may grant: our hardning or not hardning our hearts cannot be the meaſure of his giving or denying grace, or will ſo to doe, becauſe his giving or not giving ſaving grace, is before our hardning or not hardning our hearts; as alſo becauſe God doth not deny grace and glory to all that turne from him: all turning from him are not ſo hated of him. Paul did ſo in a greater meaſure then many that God never willed to give grace or glory to, and in them who are given over, and denied his ſpeciall grace and ſo hated of him; he doing of it in time willed to do ſo before time, as be confeſſeth p. 121. If ſo, he hated them before they hardned themſelves againſt him; Eſau was hated before he had done good or evill; now if he be hated (as they would have it) in a ſmall degree, without and before his evill, why may not God hate him in the higheſt degree before his evill? Juſtice is ſeene in ſmall things as well as great ones; if any ſhall ſay, his foreſight of their ſinnes is the cauſe why he ſo hateth them: I demand why did not the foreſight of Pauls infidelity move him to hate him which he ſaw to be greater then of many who were hated, and paſſed by both in reſpect of grace and glory? but he concludeth, wherein if ever, he muſt undoe our aſſumption.
[For ſuch as while his compaſſion floweth, &c. they will perſiſt till he give them up to Satan, ſuch are reprobated of God, and ſo hated of him,Ezeck. 24.13. Ier. 6.16.27.30. 1 Ioh. 5.18 &c. and none but ſuch ſet forth in Scripture to be hated of God, Prov. 1.23.33. which overthroweth the aſſumption.] Which words are yet very fallacious, therefore not fit to ſatisfie us withall; for, we grant ſuch as perſiſt till they be given up are hated, and that in the higheſt degree; but here is the queſtion, do they then begin to be hated of him? doth Gods hatred follow or precede their being given up, yea their perſiſting? Gods hatred or reprobation we make no more then a will in God to deny both ſpeciall grace and glory. Now did he not will to deny it, nay did he not deny it actually to them before they perſiſted? certainely he did, elſe they would not ſo perſiſt.
We never finde this method, or God thus ſaying [If thou perſiſt I will reprobate thee.] Or, [if thou perſiſt till I give thee over to Satan, I will deny thee my ſpeciall grace and decree ſo to do,] let the Author produce ſuch if he can. But wherein hath he in all this overthrowne the aſſumption? his aſſertions are overthrowne, and therfore have not ſtrength to overthrow this aſſumption, that is ſetled upon ſuch evidence; cleare it is, (all that he ſaith notwithſtanding) that God did decree to deny the height of his compaſſion to many, long before they perſiſted in rebellion; if ſo, then he did not intend Chriſt to them, which is the height of his compaſſion.
Thoſe Texts cited by him do all ſpeake thus much, that every man is not loved with the height of his compaſſion, as Rom. 9.13. ſpeaketh thus much, that Eſau was not ſo much loved as Iacob; and therein affirmeth that he was not loved with the height of his love; for if he had been ſo loved, he had received ſo much grace as to have kept his birthright. And this the Author granteth, page 93. [That Eſau was hated in reſpect of peculiar love.] But he ſaith, [The hatred of Eſau may ſtand with the love of compaſſion.] Let it be ſo, yet we are ſafe; for his hatred cannot ſtand with the height of his compaſſion, which is our aſſumption.
Againe he ſaith, [If laying his Mountaines waſte did witneſſe ſuch hatred, did not the giving him thoſe Mountaines teſtifie like love, though not ſo much as to Iacob?] Were it ſo, yet we are where we were by his owne confeſſion. Eſau was not loved with the height of his compaſſion, becauſe not ſo much as Iacob.
Beſides let the Author conſider, were not thoſe ſayings waſte, and ſo Gods hatred of Eſa…, and love to Iacob, though ſhowne in part in temporall things, yet to be accompliſhed in ſpirituall? how comes the Apoſtle in Rom. 9. to uſe this example in his buſineſſe which was to prove that all Abrahams feed according to the fleſh, were not heires according to promiſe? As for his reiterated calumny, viz. that our aſſumption confoundeth the love of compaſſion and delight, it is not worth the naming, the contrary hath appeared; rather he confounds the ſeverall degrees of compaſſion, in arguing that becauſe every man partaketh of ſome degree of compaſſion, therefore every man muſt partake of the higheſt degree; but this reaſoning can never overthrow our aſſumption, and ſo our argument ſtill holdeth firme.
I ſhall againe reſume it.
Thoſe for whom Chriſt died ſo as to procure eternall life for, he loved with height and top of his love.
But he loveth not every ſon of Adam with the height of his love.
Ergo, He did not lay downe his life for every ſonne of Adam, ſo as to procure eternall life for them; and what paſſage is there in all his diſcourſe that everteth either of theſe premiſes, from which the concluſion followeth firme?