The Universalist Examined and Convicted, Chapter 4
CHAP. IIII. Of the divers manner of mentioning theſe ends in Scripture.
HE thinketh to extract much from the divers manner of propounding the Death of Chriſt with the ends of it; as in that ſometimes more ends are joyned, ſometimes one only: Alſo the Ranſome is conſidered as in it ſelfe made, or as made known, or as men are convinced by it: Alſo, it is delivered in a different Perſon, ſometimes in firſt, ſometimes ſecond, ſometimes third Chapter: Theſe are the Allegations of his whole Chapter; but what matter there is in all theſe I ſhall Examine.
[Sometimes that end of his Death which was for Propitiation, or Ranſome, is coupled with the end which was to teſtifie love, and faithfulneſſe in his Miniſtration, propounded for our example, and then ſuch generall words, as [world,] [all men,] are not uſed, becauſe his Miniſtration on earth did not reach to all the world.]
1. This ſeemes to affirme that the Ranſome and Miniſtration of Chriſt are diſtinct ends and not coincident, which I ſee not cleare, ſeeing his giving life a Ranſome is the greateſt peece of Service that he did for us, in doing this he did all: And this was not only one, but the greateſt peece of his Miniſtration. In that our Saviour ſaith, [I came to ſerve, and give my life a Ranſome for many;] He doth not in his latter words diſcover a diſtinct end, but rather it is an explanation of the ſervice of which he ſpeaketh; to any eye it may appeare, that to [Serve,] and to [give his life a Ranſome,] ſpeake one and the ſame thing: Chriſts words otherwhere ſeemeth to cleare it, Luk. 22.27. Having eaten the Supper with his Diſciples, taking his laſt leave, bequeathing himſelfe to his Croſſe, he ſaith, (I am as he that ſerveth,) which to me referreth to his Death that was ſhortly to enſue; And do not the Apoſtles words cleare it, Phil. 2.6, 7, 8. where he makes the Death of Chriſt, and his being obedient to the Death of the Croſſe, the explanation of his being a Servant? Nay, do not the Authors words cleare it: He ſaith, Pag. 21. [His faithfulneſſe in Miniſtration is ſet downe as an example to us to lay downe our lives for the Brethren: 1 Joh. 3.16.] Now what is that which moves us to lay downe our lives for the Brethren all along in Scripture, is it not Chriſts laying downe his life? Yea, that Text plainly ſpeakes of it as this Argument to move us; whereby it appeares, that to ſerve, and to give his life a Ranſome, are one, and not diſtinct ends, therefore his expreſſes are not conſonant to truth: As if he teſtified greater love and faithfulneſſe, or more prevalently moved us to give our lives for the Brethren, in any thing than in this giving his life a Ranſome.
2. Whereas he ſaith, [Such generall words are not uſed becauſe his Miniſtration reaches not to all.] This is nobis cauſam tradere, to give us the Queſtion: If his giving his life a Ranſome was his ſerving, and his ſerving reach not to all, how can the other? where is his Doctrine then? And till he can prove that his ſerving, and his giving his life a Ranſome are diſtinct, I ſhall accept his poſition, viz. his Miniſtration reached not to all the world, ſo neither his giving his Life a Ranſome.
[Sometimes that end which was for Ranſome, is coupled together with that end which was for ſealing the New-Teſtament, which belong not to all men, but his choſen ones, that have partaken of his heavenly Call; and then ſuch generall words as cannot in any ſenſe be appropriated to ſome particular, as (world) (all men) are not uſed, nor yet ſuch a word as may not be applyed ſo generally, but ſo as his word may be applyed to either or both ſenſes as occaſion ſhall ſerve. Hence Math. 26.28. This is my Bloud of the New-Teſtament, which is ſhed for many for the remiſſion of Sins,]
1. Whereas he ſpeaketh of a [New-Teſtament, and the ſealing thereof, which belongeth not to all;] either I underſtand him not, or he underſtandeth not himſelfe: Firſt, I underſtand not whether he meaneth not the Teſtament it ſelfe, or the ſealing thereof belongs not to all: for he loveth to lurke in ambiguities, (though but poor ſhelter,) If he meane the latter, then he intimateth that the Covenant is not ſealed to ſo many as it is made, which is not probable: If he meane the firſt, I am yet to ſeeke what he meaneth by the New-Teſtament; if I underſtand him, he meaneth nothing but the new Covenant promiſed to Abraham, and Adam, and preached by Chriſt and his Apoſtles. Now that Covenant and Teſtament are Synonimous is cleare from Scripture, Heb. 8. in many places mentioneth the Old and New-Teſtament, in 8, 9, 10. verſes, which allude to Jer. 31.31, 32, 33. but there the Text runneth Covenant, not Teſtament; Nay, ſome Tranſlations read Heb, 8.8, 9, 10. Covenant, ſome read Teſtament; where ever the word Covenant or Teſtament is uſed, it is by the word foreign, So Matth. 26.28. it is foreign, And Gal. 4.24. ſome read it two Teſtaments, but it is foreign, And in that Text cited by him Heb. 9.14, 15. Mediatour of the New-Teſtament, yet it is foreign. So it is cleare that Covenant and Teſtament is all one. Indeed every Covenant is not a Teſtament, but in this caſe every Covenant that God makes with us is made in Chriſt, and ſealed with the death of the Covenant-maker, therefore a Teſtament. And this appeares by his own words, [All which being by Covenant,Pag 20. or as in a Will and Teſtament plainely recorded, are called the New Teſtament.] Now if I underſtand him in all this, he ſpeaketh thus much, that [The new Covenant belongs not to all, but to his choſen ones;] but herein I thinke he doth not well underſtand himſelfe. Now that he thus meaneth appeareth by his own words, Pag. 20. [For ſuch as beleeve, and ſo come in to Chriſt, there are for them many gracious Promiſes from Chriſt and his Father, contained in one generall, viz. Eternall life:] But here he engageth the Remonſt. againſt him, they contend that God doth (Novum foedus inire cum onibus,) Enter into a new treaty with every man; and Corvinus labours in vaine when he thus proveth,In Molin, c. 29. Sect. 15. [Quare quum primum foedus pertinuerit ad omnes quia cum primo homine ut gener is bumani ſtirpe fuit initum, oportet ut eadem ſit ratio ſecundi foederis;] That is, As the firſt Covenant was to all men, ſeeing made to the firſt Man, as the Stock or Root of all; So it is requiſite it ſhould be in the ſecond;] & it hath hitherto been the taske of the contra-Remonſtrants to prove that the new Covenant belongeth only to ſome, as appeares in that from Gen 3.Ibid. Molin pleades it to be peculiar, but Corvinus anſwereth, [Merito dicimus eſſe generalem quum non probas eam reſtringi.] But now the Author ſaves us that labour, we have it ex confeſſo; but that I may in a few words preſent him with the conſequences of this his Aſſertion, I would have him ſhew me what is the new Covenant? I know he will ſay the Promiſe of eternall life; ſo he intimateth Pag. 20 and of thoſe things that conduce to it: Then I aske how this life is promiſed, abſolutely, or upon condition? I know he will ſay upon the condition of Faith, Beleeve and thou ſhalt be ſaved: and ſo all the conducements to eternall life, and life it ſelfe, as Pag. 20. are by the new Covenant tyed to Faith in Jeſus Chriſt. Now let him tell me, are not all under this Covenant? Do not all come under the Notion of ſalvability by vertue of this Covenant, becauſe they may have life upon beleeving? Are not all under the Command of beleeving? And doth the Command go without the Promiſe? Let him ſtand to his owne principles, and ſpeake out. Can every man be ſaid to be Reconciled, Redeemed, Juſtified, Saved, if they be not under ſuch a Covenant or Promiſe of having Actuall Reconciliation, Redemption, Juſtification, Salvation, if they beleeve? What is that new Treaty that he ſpeakes of Pag. 17. into which God brings all men? Nay, this overthroweth his whole Diſcourſe. What Goſpell is there to be preached to them that are not under the Covenant? The Goſpell ſaith, Beleeve and live; but is this to be preached to them that are not under the Covenant of having life upon Faith? Theſe if he be fixed to his owne principles are of ſome force. It is not enough to ſay that the Covenant belongs only to Beleevers, that they ſhall not periſh, for he holds that yet every particular it is true of them that they ſhall have life (and it is ſo promiſed) upon beleeving, as he urgeth, Pag. 130. [It is ſo a truth for mankind, that it is a truth for them all, that whoever of them beleeve ſhall not periſh but have everlaſting life.] And what is this but to be under the Covenant? The buſineſſe muſt come to this iſſue, that there are two new Covenants, the one under which the Elect is, the other under which the reſt are, which will be hard to prove; or elſe that all men are under the Covenant of Grace; or thirdly, that God hath not entered into a new Covenant and Treaty by Chriſt with every man, according to which God may conferre and deny life, both which latter are diſſonant to himſelfe, and deſtructive to his cauſe: This I ſay, not to oppoſe his Aſſertion, viz. [That the New-Teſtament belongs not to all:] If it had not been his, it ſhould have been mine; But I herein diſcover, when a man underſtandeth not himſelfe, how ſoone he may cut his throat with his owne knife, and ſtrangle his opinion with his owne words.
2. Whereas he ſaith, [Belong not to all, but to his choſen ones] he is here ſo confuſed and indiſtinct, becauſe his choſen ones may be all men in the Authors Divinity, for he makes an Election to Service, with which all are Elected to Service, Pag. 118.
3. Whereas he explaineth (Choſen ones) by [partaking of the heavenly Call.] Herein he needeth an Interpreter,Pag. 9. becauſe in many places of his Diſcourſe he contendeth for this, that all men partake of the heauenly Call, as [Thus he calls in ſome degree or other all the Sons of men;] And to this end, that they might be convinced of Sin: Pag. 23. There is a difference between partaking of the Call, and the efficacie thereof, in being by it wrought upon to beleeve; the latter I confeſſe he ſaith is not to all, but the firſt is, if he divine right; Therefore for him to ſay, [To his choſen ones that partake of his heavenly Call,] unleſſe he will have all to be choſen, involveth himſelfe, and if he will, he doth no leſſe for to ſay (it belongs not to all, but to his choſen ones, and thoſe that partake of the heavenly Call,) which may take in (all) is abſurd: But any may ſee he ſeekes ſo to temper his Pen, that his Reader may mould him either way according to his owne temper, but this becomes impoſtors rather then thoſe that pretend they preach Chriſt.
4. Whereas he ſaith, [And then ſuch generall words as (world,) (all men,) which cannot be (in any ſence) applyed to ſome only, are not uſed;] wherein he tacitely implyeth that the words [World,] [All men,] are never taken for ſome only; The proper deciſion of which will fall in another place; therefore I ſhall only put him in mind of his owne words, Pag 30. where he ſaith, [The Phraſe (All men) is uſed ſo, as it cannot be meant of Gods people, good men, hearers of the Word, &c. nor the Elect of God.] Certainely then if all the Elect of God, and all Beleevers, and Hearers of the Word of God be excluded, this Phraſe is to be meant but of ſome: and now his taske will be to give a good Reaſon why the words (All men,) may not meane, all the Good, excluding the Bad, as well as all the Bad, excluding the Good; the propriety of Language is indifferent to either; Nay, ſhame will not ſuffer him to prevaricate, but he confeſſeth Pag. 31. [That there is an All of upright and Beleevers,] as 1 Cor. 4.5. Every man ſhall have praiſe of God, as well as an All of Bad, 2 Theſ. 2.3. So that I need not oppoſe him in his Aſſertion, he doth it effectually for me himſelfe.
5. Whereas he ſaith, [He ſo ſpeaketh as the words may be taken in either or both ſenſes, as occaſion ſhall ſerve,] Is an affirmation concerning Scripture beyond all preſident, that one word (like Rebecca her wombe) ſhould containe in the bowels of it two ſuch different ſenſes as (All,) and (but ſome only,) and that to ſerve two Sentences, as men ſhall refer it to one or the other, this is to make his owne Calumny that he groundleſly laid on our backs to be his own burthen: that is, to make the Word of God like the Heathen Oracles, true whether way ſoever we take them; neither is there any need in this place ſo to torture the words of Scripture, for both Phraſes, viz. (Bloud in the New-Teſtament,) and [Shed for Remiſſion of Sins,] will both agree in (many) taken in one ſence, and that taken as ſignifying only ſome. But whether all this tendeth, it is not eaſie to determine, but I conjecture it is this, to prove that where he ſpeakes of Chriſt Death, and uſeth this word (Many) it is no argument againſt him, becauſe (All) are (Many,) and the word (Many) may comprehend (All) Thus the Remonſt, ſpeake, and I ſuppoſe he intendeth: but then he muſt know this is brought but as a probable Argument, that ſeeing the Scripture ſaith (All,) ſometimes (Many;) it is probable that (All) is expounded by (Many,) and herein it is ſtill in force, that ſeeing more places may be brought (yet hundreds to one) where the word Many excludes All, then where it taketh in All, we are to follow moſt frequent acceptation of Scripture unleſſe we find ſome let from other Scriptures, or the Analogy of Faith.
Again, He urgeth ſomething from the various conſideration of the Ranſome, thus.
1. [As made in Chriſt with for God men, without the knowledg of men.
2. As made knowne in the Goſpell, that they may be convinced.
3. As men thereby wrought upon to receive him, and ſubmit to him, and beleeve on him; the two firſt are common and generall, the laſt peculiar not common.]
Here we have many words to little purpoſe; in this Controverſie ranſome was never yet taken in any other ſence then as made in Chriſt, and made known in the Goſpell: It was never yet queſtioned whether the Application of it was common, or whether every man was wrought upon by the Goſpell to receive him, therefore he might have reſerved his deciſion in theſe words, [The laſt is peculiar not common,] till it had been ſeaſonable. And this he ſaith is common to all, and every Son of Adam, but he proveth it not.
2. As for the ſecond, viz. (The making of it known in the Goſpell,) he affirmeth it to be generall, and done to every Son of Adam, but he produceth not one Text that proveth it: Yea, he elſewhere affirmeth, that every man hath ſo much light as that he may be thereby convinced, becauſe he hath not beleeved, as P. 23. But this wanteth its proofe from the Word of God: Certainely if ſome ſhall be judged without the Law, ſome ſhall be judged without the Goſpell, for thoſe that are judged without Law, are judged meerely by the light of Nature, but ſuch are judged without Goſpell, for Nature meerely ſo, diſcovereth no Goſpell, and why thoſe that never knew it a duty to beleeve, can be ſaid to have ſo much light as to convince them for not beleeving, I ſee not. Certainely that which doth not convince me that it is my duty to beleeve, cannot convince me it is my Sin not to beleeve; the Remonſt. durſt not riſe ſo high as to ſay that every man had ſo much light;Arm. in Pork. 158, 159. but thus, he either hath or might have had, if he had uſed naturals well, or had it not been for their Predeceſſors that refuſed Grace and ſupernaturall Light, as [Cauſa cur Deus non omnibus & ſingulis hominibus Chriſtum revelet, haec eſt, quod parentes illorum verbum Evangelii repudiaverunt.] And if inſtead of proving the third not to be common, (which he undertaketh) he had proved the former two to be common to, and for every man, he had better quit himſelfe. As for that Expreſſion, [He ſhall ſo farre ſee the travell of his Soule,] argues that either he ſeeth not ſome part of his travell, becauſe he inſerts that diminutive (ſo far;) or elſe that Chriſt in his bitter Paſſion travelled with nothing but this, that men might be convinced that Chriſt is their Lord, either in Salvation or Condemnation: both which are abſurd. Now by this diſtinction he hath gotten nothing, becauſe that the hearts of all men are wrought on by the Goſpell to receive Chriſt, no man hath ſaid: and that the Ranſome was made in Chriſt with God for every man, or diſcovered to every man and Son of Adam, no man (that I know of) ever yet proved.
Having diſpatched a twofold diverſity, he comes to third, and more elaborate, but as little ſucceſſefull, and that is from the diverſity of Perſon, and he ſaith thus.
[The Ranſome in himſelfe [as the Creation of men by Chriſt] is mentioned diverſly in reſpect of Perſon.] Herein I may not paſſe by his fallacious jumbling together Creation and Redemption, which are not of equall latitude and extent, which I ſhould not have noted here (ſeeing there is a particular Chapter for it,) but that his fallacy herein may dazle the eyes of his non-diſcerning Readers, therefore I only now ſay thus much, that betwixt Creation and Redemption there is no proportion nor Argument validly drawne, either Negative or Affirmative; as if all thoſe were Redeemed that were created; Certainly if Creation ſhould be the meaſure of Redemption, then all Creatures ſhould be Redeemed, yea devils; and thoſe Creatures that had the preheminence in the Creation ſhould have it alſo in Redemption, but we ſee it in both contrary, in that the fallen Angels are not redeemed at all; and theſe two [He hath Created all things, Col. 1.16.] and [He hath reconciled all things.] Ver. 20. Are not of the ſame latitude: For take the latter in the largeſt ſenſe you can deſire, yet it will come ſhort of the former; in that he created all things, yea Thrones, Principallities, even Angels that fell: but no Scripture ſaith that he reconciled them. Beſides whom he Reconciled he dyed for; but it is no Scripture Language to ſay that he dyed for all things, or for all that he Created, but only for man, in ſo much as he aſſumed no other but mans nature; of this more in its place, only this I deſire, that he will ſtand to his principles, Pag. 31. [That the matter treated of alters the ſence of the ſame words,] and ſo from Creation to Redemption, the Argument will not follow; this being conſidered I proceed.
[Sometimes in the firſt Perſon ſingular, concerning the ſpeaker, Gal. 1.20. Who gave himſelfe for me. Job 10.8. Thy hands have made me; no reaſonable underſtanding can inferre hence, therefore no other.] The drift of this is to take away the force of thoſe places, Joh. 10. I lay downe my life for my ſheepe. Epheſ. 5.25. Gave himſelfe for his Church; and this Allegation is framed to his hand in the Conference at Hague, where the Remonſt. ſeeking to evade ſuch Texts, anſwer thus, true, [Mortum eſt pro ovibus, pro populo, Co… Hog. 1…anne ergo pro ſolis ovibus, pro ſolo populo? ſic Gal. 2.20. Paulus dixit Chriſtus tradidit ſe pro me, anne licebit concludere ergò pro nemine praeterea?] That is, [Chriſt dyed for his Sheep, for his People, but will it therefore follow that he dyed for his Sheep and People only? ſo Paul ſaith Gal. 2.20. Chriſt gave himſelfe for me, will it follow that he gave himſelfe for none beſides?] And is not this the current in which the Author runneth? But let the Author know that ſtill thoſe Texts are valid to prove that Chriſt dyed for his Sheep only, for we muſt know there is a difference betwixt Individuals, and a ſpecies or kind in this way of arguing, as when we ſay, [Petrus eſt rationalis,] and when we ſay, [homo eſt rationalis:] It is one thing to ſay [Peter is rationall,] another to ſay [Man is rationall] In the firſt, it is not Peter only, but in the other, it is man only; to inſtance in that Text Gal. 2.20. he ſaith, I am Crucified with Chriſt, and I live by Faith in the Son of God, none will inferre hence, that only Paul was, and did ſo; but if he had ſaid, Beleevers are Crucified with Chriſt, and live by Faith, then I hope it is as valid as if he had ſaid Beleevers only. Now Peter is rationall becauſe a man, and Rationality agreeth firſt to man, and then to Peter becauſe a man, ſo though not Peter only, yet Man only is rationall: So Paul is redeemed becauſe a Sheepe, but being Redeemed, agrees firſt to the Sheep of Chriſt, then to Paul being one of them: Therefore though not Paul only, yet for his Sheepe only, and this place contradicteth it not. And if the Authors underſtanding had been but of a reaſonable ſize he might have ſeen this.
[Sometimes in the firſt Perſon Plurall, where the Speaker couples thoſe he ſpeakes to with himſelf, as he delivered him up for us all, Rom. 8, 31. Propitiation for our Sins. 1 Joh. 2.1. No right reaſoning can infer hence, therefore no other.] To this I anſwer, That ſeeing the Apoſtles in their particular Epiſtles wrote to particular Beleevers, as in Corinth, Galatia, Epheſus, thoſe Expreſſions do not argue that he gave himſelfe for no other Beleevers then thoſe to whom he wrote, yet herein he toucheth not the force of the fore alleadged places: for (this notwithſtanding) yet thoſe places ſpeaking of his dying for his Sheep which comprehendeth all Beleevers, Such places may be underſtood as if he had ſaid for his Sheepe only. I remember not where his cited Texts are produced by us as arguments on our ſide; yet there is more in them then he diſcovereth or refelleth: As for that Text Rom. 8.32. It is plaine he wrote to Beleevers, and Saints, Rom. 1.7. Now the Queſtion is, whether he ſpeake thoſe things of them as (Men,) or as Beleevers? As to inſtance, [If God be for us who can be againſt us?] Ver. 31. Let the Author tell me, Is it the Interrogation of every man or men, or of Beleevers as ſo? this will decide it, to conſider, whether the firſt words [If God be one our ſide] be to be taken Hypothetically, or Categorically? It cannot be taken Hypothetically, only upon ſuppoſition, if God be on our ſide who is againſt us: For thus Reprobate men, deſperate devils, condemned ſinners, may ſay, if God were on our ſide who could be againſt us? but certainely there is more in the Apoſtles words then what the Devils may ſay; no certainly the words are to be meant as affirming that God was for them, therefore certainly concluding none could be againſt them, and for this I find the authority of a ſtrong Remonſt. and one of our Authors Judgement, who calleth theſe Texts [Impenetrabile ſanctorum ſcutum] an impregnable ſhield of Saints, not men as men,…orn. a lap. …n locum. and he giveth the ſenſe thus, [Quis daemonum vel hominum inſurgat ut noſtram impediat ſalutem, cum Deus eam cu…at per aeternam praedeſtinationis propoſitum, vocationem, juſtificationem & glorificationem ſuam.] But if he did not ſo ſay, the Text doth evince it; ſeeing all the after particulars, as Ver. 32, 33, 34. runne all poſitively, he hath done ſo and ſo, therefore who ſhall condemne: Now let us conſider, can Beleevers, or all men generally ſay, as Verſ. 31, 32, 33, 34. who can be againſt us? Who ſhall lay any thing to our charge? who ſhall condeme? What ſhall ſeperate? we are more then Conquerours over all thoſe; Certainly only Beleevers and (qua tales) can draw ſuch concluſions.
2. Verſe 32. ſaith, [Shall he not much more give us all things,] which containe all things neceſſary to Salvation, and Salvation it ſelfe; But is this the deduct that every man may make, [If he ſpared not his owne Son, much more ſhall he not give us all things?] Their owne principles admit it not; therefore it is cleare that when he ſaith, He gave him up for (us,) much more will he give (us) all things with him, he meaneth himſelfe, and them to whom he wrote, as Beleevers, ſo as to take in all Beleevers, and (as Beleevers,) and it muſt follow, that ſuch things do agree omnibus, yet ſolis, to all, yet only to Beleevers.
3. If he had taken the words (us) in the former verſes, in ſuch a Latitude as that it might take in every man, and Son of Adam, Certainly then his query in the 33. ver. [Who ſhall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect?] had been ſhort of his purpoſe, and very impertinent; from that it is cleare, that by (us) he meanes Beleevers, (for ſo Elect and Beleevers are termes Convertible, that is Elect, and ſuch as are, or ſhall be Beleevers, are one in ſignification;) and he ſeemes not to ſtay his Expreſſes in their Perſons, but rather their condition and qualification, which being conſidered, let us come to right reaſoning, which the Author pleadeth much for, but affordeth as little as may be; Let but the Author take any Expreſſion where he uſeth the word (us) from the 31. to the 34. Verſe, or elſewhere in the Chapter, for it is often repeated, and tell we whether the Apoſtle doth not plainly define (not how many, but) what kind of men they are, for whome ſuch things are done, and of whom ſuch things were ſpoken, as …o inſtance, [What ſhall we ſay then?] …hat indeed doth not number the Individuals, but it defineth the condition, and that with a diſcrimination, viz. none but Beleevers, and they all may make ſuch concluſions. So in this, [God being for us who can be againſt us?] This argueth not that only them to whom he wrote, were out of the verge of any adverſe thing, it clearely affirmeth that only Beleevers are in ſuch a condition as nothing ſhall prevaile againſt them. So in this, [He delivered him up for us all.] This denoteth not the preciſe number, nor argueth that he was given up only for them to whom he wrote being Romans, but thus far it is firme that he was given up for Beleevers only, and this ſufficeth us. So that when the Author ſaith, [No right reaſoning can inferre hence therefore no other,] It is true if he meane no other Individuals, for he was ſo given up for them, as that he was alſo for all other Beleevers; but right reaſoning may inferre that he was given up for none other but Beleevers; and where is the obliquity of this reaſoning?
[Sometimes in the ſecond Perſon with perſonall Application, as my Bloud which is ſhed for you, Luk. 22.20. 1 Pet. 1.18 19, &c. Reaſon muſt yield, ſuch ſayings ſhew not how many he redeemed.] This is of the ſame nature with the former, therefore the ſame anſwer is to be given; Th…ſe Texts ſhew not the preciſe number, but the condition of them that are ſo redeemed, as that Text, 1 Pet. 1.18, 19. [Ye were redeemed from vaine converſation,] none ever ſaid that this Text doth ſhew the number of them that were redeemed from vaine converſations, for many Gentiles were to whom he wrote not; neither hath any denyed but that this limiteth the condition, that only Beleevers are Redeemed from vaine Converſations, as in the next verſe, [And he was manifeſted in the laſt times for you.] It doth not ſhew for how many, but yet it doth for whom he was revealed, viz. Beleevers, as appeares in the next words, [Who by him beleeve in God,] hereby any may ſee through thoſe miſts which he caſteth before cleare truths.
[Sometime in the third Perſon with ſpeciall Application, and that ſometimes to the better part, as Joh. 10.15. (I lay down my life for my Sheep,) Sometimes to the worſe part, as 1 Cor. 8.11. (the weake brother for whom Chriſt dyed,) no ſober mind will ſay that any of theſe alone reſolve the Queſtion for how many Chriſt dyed.]
1. For his expreſſes, I demand why he putteth a weake Brother in the number of the worſe part? methinkes the name of Brother (though weake) ſhould have got him a place in the better ranke.
2. As for his aſſertion, [No ſober mind will ſay that any of theſe alone ſhew for how many he dyed [It is weake and impertinent, we never yet attempted to define the preciſe number, but the condition of them for whom he dyed, we ſay only for Beleevers, we meddle not for how many Beleevers, or Sheepe he dyed. Now if he deny that the Text, Joh. 10.15. ſhews for whom only he dyed, he hath drunke ſo deepe in Arminius his Cup, that he is not ſober yet; and to cleare it, let us view expreſſions of the like nature, that in this we may follow the genious of Scripture; Rom. 4.11. Abraham is there called the Father of them that beleeve. Now doth not this denote that he is the father of none elſe? as that Phraſe (of being Father) is there meant, we muſt ſo grant it, if we compare it with Gal. 3.7.29. And in that it ſaith he is the Father of them that beleeve, it is excluſive of ſuch as beleeve not.
[John 3.16. He ſent his Son that thoſe that beleeve might not periſh but have everlaſting life.] Let the Author tell me, doth not this Text ſo confine eternall life to Beleevers, as that none but Beleevers ſhall have it?
[Ezek. 34.11. I will ſearch my Sheep and bind them up, and bring them againe,] doth not this ſo confine theſe to his Sheep as that he will do them to none elſe?
[Matth. 25.33. He ſetteth his Sheepe on his right hand.] Is not this cleare that he ſetteth none but his Sheep on the right hand? Nay, in this Chapter, take any verſe or part of a verſe where the word Sheepe is, where they are ſaid to do any thing for him, or Chriſt to do any thing for them, and tell me if ſuch be not excluſive of all other, as firmly as if the word (only) had been expreſt; as my Sheepe here my voice; He calleth his ſhape by name; his ſheepe follow him; I know my ſheepe; doth not all this ſpeak thus much, that none but Sheepe heare his voice, he calleth none by name and leadeth them out but Sheep, none but Sheep follow him, he knoweth none but Sheep? for of others he ſaith, I know you not, nay, in that Phraſe, [The good Shepheard layeth downe his life for his Sheep] doth it not exclude all that are not his Sheepe? doth any Shepheard venture his life in the behalfe of the Woolfe, or any Sheep that is not under his charge? Now ſeeing this Phraſe runnes ſo in ſo many places in that Chapter, I ſay that no ſober mind will ſay that juſt in this verſe it ſhould admit ſuch a latitude as that he may be there ſaid to lay downe for any but his Sheep, ſuch expreſſions in Scripture have Materiam neceſſariam, and foreign, the termes are convertible. But that I may cleare it fully, in the ſame ſection there is ſomething that will ſeeme repugnant to this, and the objection may be thus framed.
[It cannot be meant ſo as if Chriſt dyed for none but his Sheep, becauſe the Scripture ſaith, he dyed for ſome that may periſh, 1 Cor. 8.11. &c. And thus the Arminians in the Conference at Hague object, Non pro ovibus ſolis, quia Paulus dicit pro me ſe tradidit, ſed non pro illo ſolo, ac Scriptura teſtatur Chriſtum mortuum pro eo cui contingit perdi & qui velox judicium ſibi accerſunt. 1 Cor. 8.11. 2 Pet. 2.2.] Which though it be unworthy of ſuch objectours, becauſe the argument is weake according to their owne principles; for Chriſt may dye for his Sheepe only, and yet dye for them that may periſh, becauſe with them this is truth, that they that are ſheepe may periſh if Corvinus be right,In Molin. c. 21. Sect. 6. when he ſaith, [Juſtificati poſſunt reprobari,] But it is worthy an Anſwer from us becauſe we hold no ſuch thing; but this Obiter.
To anſwer to 1 Cor. 8.11. whence our Author would prove that our weake may periſh for whom Chriſt dyed.
1. Was it ſo, this would not diſprove that Chriſt dyed for his Sheepe only, only it would averre that ſome for whom Chriſt dyed may periſh; for certainly in that he calleth him here a Brother, he granteth him a Sheep, he ſhould have produced a place that he dyed for ſome that are not ſheepe.
2. But no ſuch things follow from this Text, it queſtions, Shall he periſh? And commandeth, Let him not periſh, but it affirmeth nothing that he may or may not. Now we muſt be wary what Enunciatives we deduce from Intergatories or Mandatories: Suppoſe the Text had gone further,, even to an affirmation, and ſaid, [Thou haſt cauſed him to periſh for whom Chriſt dyed,] this would not argue any effect to be tranſient into the Patient, but to be with the Agent as if it had been done, as Heb. 6.6. [Seeing they crucifie to themſelves the Son of God afreſh:] This argueth no re-action upon the body of Chriſt in heaven; but that a freſh they brought the guilt of that Act upon them, in that they teſtifie they would crucifie if oportunity ſerved. So Matth 5.28. He that looketh on a woman to luſt foreign he hath committed adultery, this doth not argue any actuall deflouring, this cannot be meerly by the eye of another, that would be a mans or womans inevitable miſery to be involved in the guilt of anothers obliquity, yeelding neither direct nor indirect concurence: But it meaneth for his part he hath done that which is before God Adultery, having gone ſo farre in the fact as opportunity will give leave; ſo in this caſe (deſtroy not thy Brother,) argues not that a Brother may periſh Actually, but that a man by offenſive and ſcandalous walking may bring the guilt of a brothers deſtruction on him, becauſe ſuch an one that will needleſly be a ſcandall to his Brother, doth not much care though his Brother periſh, As for that Text, 2 Pet. 2.1. I might produce many expoſitions that are given to it, and all with great probability, any of which ſhew the weakeneſſe of his reaſoning: but herein I am no way ingaged thereto. If our Author will but conſider that the queſtion is, whether Chriſt purchaſed life and Salvation for his Sheepe only? we affirme it, he denyeth it upon this ground, becauſe he (bought) others; but this is a weake Inference, he bought them, therefore he purchaſed Eternall life for them: Emption doth no way ſuppoſe Redemption, he may buy them into his diſpoſe and be their Lord, and never intend eternall life for them.
[Sometimes in the third Perſon generall without any application reſtraining, as to be the Saviour of the world: 1 Joh. 4.14. He dyed for all: 2 Cor. 5.14, 15. And ſuch ſayings fully anſwer the Queſtion, for how many Chriſt dyed; the like may be ſaid, how many have ſinned, ſhall dye, riſe againe.] That ſuch generall termes are uſed I grant, that therein it is ſhewes for whom, (when he ſaith for how many, I thinke he miſtaketh, for from thence hee cannot give mee the number) I grant, but that there is a further thing contained in theſe generalls than was in the former, I deny, the Apoſtles (All) and yet expreſſions leſſe generall are equipollent as I have ſhewen, and after ſhall. And whereas he croudes that expreſſion, [He hath dyed for all,] among theſe, All have ſinned, All muſt dye, All muſt riſe, as if the word All muſt have the ſame ſignification in all them, is fallacious, and againſt his owne Judgement he ſaith that the ſame Phraſe uſed about divers things hath not the ſame ſenſe, ſo Pag. 31. [The Scripture ſpeaking on divers occaſions, of divers Perſons, to divers purpoſes, &c. Take the words (All men,) (Every man,) in a ſcanter or larger ſenſe▪] he muſt not then blame us if we ſwallow not that downe, which he hath not the immodeſty to owne, though much advantagious to his cauſe. And whereas he ſaith, [Theſe generall places are not to be oppoſed by thoſe with reſtrictive application.] True, but they are to be explained by them, that they are expoſitours one of another; we need not doubt but the generall cannot expound particulars, but the particulars may the generall, and that 1 Tim. 2.6. Heb. 2.9. ſpeake generally I grant, but that they ſettle us in the ſenſe without comparing with other places I queſtion: So in all this what he hath ſtrengthned himſelfe, or weakened us, let any judge.