The Universalist Examined and Convicted, Chapter 18
CHAP. XVIII. Of the ſixth Objection.
THe ſixth Argument is this.
[The ranſome is no larger then his Prieſtly Regall Prophetique offices.
But thoſe offices appertaine onelyonly to his Church and choſen.
Ergo, The ranſome and mediation appertaines to no more.]
This argument I find not any where urged; certainely it is of his owne framing, which is too great a priviledge for him to aſſume, to forme argument for himſelfe to anſwer, and which he might improve ſo farre as to give more ſatisfactory anſwers then he doth to this argument; I ſhall not undertake to defend it, yet I ſhall obſerve how abſurd anſwers he giveth to a weake argument. He ſaith,
[This ſober objection denieth not his death for all, but onelyonly his ranſome and mediation.]
But this is hardly a ſober ſolution to that ſober argument; for if the Author had been as ſober as the objector, he might have ſeene that in denying his ranſome for all, he denyeth his death for all, becauſe his ranſome is by dying, and whom he ranſomed he died for; and ſo for whom he died not, he did not ranſome.
2. If he ſaid no more, the concluſion oppoſeth the authors doctrine ſtrongly, which in every leafe is for univerſall ranſome and mediation, as appeareth by his after words.
[He could not be Lord of all nor challenge ſubmiſſion, &c. if he had not ranſomed them.]
The emptineſſe of which hath been often diſcovered; his being Lord of all, challenging ſubmiſſion, does no way inferre a a ranſome; the Father is and doth all thoſe things mentioned, yet he never ranſomed them, o… died for them; the Father was Lord, and challenged ſubmiſſion of man in innocency, when no need of ranſome; and ſo for all the reſt I have ſhowne that they doe not neceſſarily infer a ranſome.
But he afterwards ſaith,
[The anſwer to that objection is eaſie.]
But what need an anſwer if the objection be ſo ſober as not to oppoſe him? and eaſie it is to give an anſwer; but to give ſuch an one as ſatisfieth, that is not ſo eaſie; as appeareth by his whole diſcourſe; but let us ſee his facile and obvious anſwers; it is this.
[As the mediation of Chriſt is both more generally and more ſpeciall; the firſt as he is Mediatour between God and man, 1 Tim. 2.5. the ſecond as he is Mediatour of the New Teſtament, Heb. 9.14. ſo in all his offices there is that which is more generall, and that which is more ſpeciall.]
Now this labours with a double error; for neither is his mediation twofold, neither are his offices twofold, that is generall and ſpeciall; as for the firſt, viz. his diſtinction betwixt his mediation of the New Teſtament, and his mediation betweene God and man, is ridiculous and not conſonant to Scripture; for, when he was ſaid to be a mediatour betwixt God and man, 1 Tim. 2 5. was he not in that mediation a mediatour of the New Teſtament? is there any mediation that is not by a New Teſtament, even for tranſgreſſors that were under the former Teſtament? as Heb. 9.15. and was not his mediation, Heb. 9.15. a mediation between God man? is there any mediation that is not between God and man? was not that mediation in Heb. 9.14.15. for the redemption of tranſgreſſors, and by death? and was not that in 1 Tim. 2.5. the like? and is there any mediation for tranſgreſſors, and by death, but ſuch as is between God and man? no marvell if ſuch anſwers be eaſie and ready at hand.
Againe he urgeth thus,
[as a Prieſt he offered ſacrifice in reſpect of one end, (viz.) propitiation for all men, Heb. 9.26. & 2.9. Iohn. 1.29. 1 Iohn. 2.2. but in reſpect of all ends, propitiation, ſealing the New Teſtament, teſtification of truth, and for the uttermoſt end in all, for his called and choſen ones, Heb. 9.14.15.]
As for his diſtinction of ends, dividing ſome to all, others for his choſen, is without ground, as I have ſhowen in the former part of my treatiſe; and cleare it is, becauſe his propitiation is nowhere ſaid to be for every man, therefore all the ends of his death are for the ſame perſons. Yea that Text Heb, 9.14.15. hinteth of no other end but propitiation or redemption of tranſgreſſions as ver. 15. yet the Author himſelfe confeſſeth that it is for his called and choſen ones, and that thoſe Texts Heb. 2.9. 1 John, 29. 1 Iohn. 2.2. doe not hold ſuch a generall popitiation, I have ſhowen at large; this is but [petitio principij.] And why he ſhould produce a double oblation from 1 Tim. 2.5. and Heb. 9.14.15. I ſee not, ſeeing he cannot produce any differing circumſtance; both by Chriſt, both by death, both for tranſgreſſions, both that thoſe that are called might receive the promiſe; now if he ſhall ſay the one is for all, the other for his choſen, this is not againſt us, but giveth us the queſtion, and granteth that the all in 1 Tim. 2.5. is no more then the choſen ones in Heb. 9.14.15. Hereby we may have a taſte, that let the argument be as weak as it can, yet his anſwers are as weake and come farre ſhort of diſcovering any weakeneſſe in it.