The Universalist Examined and Convicted, Chapter 5
CHAP. V. Of divers waies of propounding the Death of Chriſt in Scripture, and how here in 1 Tim. 2.6. Heb. 2.9.
HE begins with ſuch waies of propounding, as (he ſaith) do not ſhew for how many Chriſt dyed.
1. [Sometimes for an example to Beleevers to follow in love, and as a motive thereto, Eph. 5.1, 2.] This is a truth, but then let us conſider the manner of propounding, when the Apoſtle propounds the duty of love, we may aſſure our ſelves he uſeth the moſt forcible arguments, and that would be the great love of God, for certaine it is, the greater the love of God appeares to us, the more forcible argument it is to love others; but in our Authors judgement, the love of God is then magnified when it appeares to be to all and every man; therefore certainly the Apoſtle would have uſed this argument if it had been truth that Chriſt gave himſelfe for every Son of Adam. When our Saviour exhorteth to love of Enemies (though a ſufficient argument he might have had from the love of God to ſome being enemies) he uſeth this argument, becauſe in truth he might, that Gods love is to all, Sun ſhineth on juſt and unjuſt, Math 5.44, 45. Then did he magnifie the goodneſſe of God: Certainly then if it had been ſo that Chriſt had given himſelfe for all, he would have expreſſed it, as the moſt forcible argument of love.
[If the love be of Beleevers one to another, then he thus ſets it forth, as having loved us.] True, but then we muſt conſider what kind of love it is that he exhorteth to, it is not ſuch as is common to all with Beleevers, but a love peculiar to Beleevers: Eph. 5 1, 2. Walke in love one to another; we are to beare ſome degree of love to all as to compaſſionate them, but inward love of complacency we owe only to the Saints. Col. 1.4. Now let us conſider what is a ſutable argument to move to this, a love that is common to all, or a peculiar love? Certainly a common love cannot be a fit argument to move to a ſpeciall love, it ſeemes conſonant to reaſon, that as it was a peculiar love he exhorted them to, ſo it was a peculiar love he exhorted them by. Now if he exhort them by a peculiar love, and this love is limited to, and expreſt by, his giving himſelfe for them, it cannot be meant of ſuch a giving for them that is common to all with them.
[If the love be to be enlarged to any relation, as Husband and Wife, then thus; hath loved his Church and given himſelfe for it, Eph. 5.25.] True, But let us conſider that the love of Husbands is to be ſuch to their Wives as excludeth love to any other; Then certainly the love by which he moveth to it is ſuch as is to h…s Church and no other: for that love which is common to all cannot be a fit argument to a peculiar love to our Wives only; he ſaith not, Husbands love your Wives, for God is good, he loveth all, cauſeth Sun to ſhine on good and bad, then might a man thus argue.
I muſt love my Wife as Chriſt loved his Church: But Chriſt loved his Church ſo as that he loved every man elſe, therefore I may love my Wife yet ſo as to love every woman, what would this open a doore unto and follow our Author? and this cannot be avoyded; therefore his giving himſelfe for his Church, being an argument to move to a ſpeciall love, cannot be thought to be in common to all.
[If the love be to be exerciſed to unbeleeving ones, or Adverſaries, then it is thus, he hath ſuffered for us, 1 Pet. 2.18, 24. for the unjuſt, 1 Pet. 3.14, 18.] The Author miſtaketh thoſe Texts, they ſhew not our duty to love Adverſaries, but to be obedient to froward Maſters, and to be patient under ſufferings for well-doing, and as an argument he uſeth Chriſts Death for Sinners, and for them being Sinners. But to take his argument as it is laid downe by him, the love is a generall love to all, even enemies. Now certainly if the thing had been true, he would have uſed this as an argument, for he dyed or ſuffered for all, but this he no where doth, no nor by a diviſion which taketh in all, as he dyed for juſt and unjuſt, but only unjuſt; not meaning all unjuſt, but them Beleevers who were unjuſt when Chriſt dyed for them: Therefore conſidering that in ſuch a caſe it is a moſt pregnant argument, and he not uſing it, it may appeare that it is not a truth that Chriſt gave himſelfe for all and every man. Under this ranke of Scriptures there are few others that require any anſwer, they being not places uſed by us, therefore might be paſſed by; but one place or two I ſhall mention.
[1 Cor 8.11, 13.] Which place, he ſaith, containeth an argument to make love operative to Brethren. But let us conſider the expreſſion: If the Authors Doctrine had been truth, certaine it would have run thus, [Shall a man periſh for whom Chriſt dyed?] Becauſe he ſaith that Chriſt dyed for all men as men: But he ſaith, [ſhall a Brother periſh for whom Chriſt dyed?] As if he dyed for none but ſuch as come under the notion of Brother.
[2. Cor. 5.14.] Which he ſaith is an argument to make love operative to all men, but therein he is deceived, there is no ſuch duty commanded in that Text. But the Author diſcovers his ingenuity in that he bringeth this Text in the number of them that do not ſhew how many he dyed for, when they ſay he dyed for all, and in other places is produced as a proofe for his firſt Redemption for all and every man; one more there is of ſome conſequence.
[Sometimes it is propounded to ſuch as are overſeers of Congregations, as to admoniſh them to keep this Doctrine firmely, and teach it. 1 Tim. 1.11.15. To provoke them to watchfulneſſe over them. Act. 20.28. To conſtancy in ſufferings. 2 Tim. 3.8. But theſe ſhew not how many he dyed for.]
1. As for that Text, I wonder that he ſhould ſay that that place, 1 Tim. 1.15. ſheweth not how many he dyed for, what was the reaſon that in Pag. 3. he brings this place to prove the firſt Redemption for all and every one? And that place that proves that, certainly ſheweth for how many he dyed, for he dyed not for more then All, however the Author hath loſt his memory in the croud of Notions.
2. For that Text Act. 20.28. We muſt firſt conſider that this is a ſpeciall and peculiar care that the Apoſtle exhorteth to, and the arguments by which he moveth is twofold: Firſt, Their Charge, they were made overſeers. Secondly, Chriſts Purchaſe, he purchaſed them with his owne Bloud. Now cleare it is that that care the Apoſtle exhorteth them to was a peculiar care, and that firſt argument from their Charge was a peculiar and ſpeciall Charge, and ſo muſt the ſecond be alſo of Chriſts Purchaſe, for ſtill I ground my reaſon upon this, [Aequalis acquiſitio non poteſt eſſe fundamentum inaequalis curae.] What reaſon can be ſhewen why the Death of Chriſt, and the Purchaſe with his Bloud, can be given as an argument to move the Elders to a peculiar care over the ſlocke above others, if he equally purchaſed others with them. It is not congruous with Scripture to give ſuch Heterogenious arguments; when God commanded not to ſhed the bloud of men, he ſaith not becauſe he is a Creature, for this being common with other Creatures moves no more to the care of mans life, then to care for any Creatures life; But thus, for he is the Image of God, and this is peculiar to man from other Creatures. Let the Author ſearch the Scripture, and ſee whether it gives any argument from a common thing to move to a ſpeciall duty and faithfulneſſe over ſuch and ſuch. Till I heare further I ſhall conclude that Chriſt purchaſed none but the Flocke.
So that theſe places produced by him, although they do not define how many he dyed for, yet they clearely ſay that he did not dye for all, and by cleare and ſtrong intimation averre that he did not give himſelfe for every man in the world.
A ſecond ſort of waies of propounding follows, wherein he ſaith, that we have it ſhewne for how many Chriſt dyed, as followes,
[Sometimes it is laid downe as the foundation laid to offer life, and bring in ſuch as knew it not, to beleeve. Joh. 1.29. & 3.16, 17. Sometime to ſuch as beleeve, to ſhew what Goſpell was preached among them, 1 Joh. 4.14, &c. To be a ground of praiſe for ſuch as beleeve not. 1 Tim. 2.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. And here ſhall we find the queſtion reſolved how many he dyed for.]
Whereas he ſaith, [It is propounded as a ground to offer life, and bring in men to beleeve,] He ſeems to averre theſe three things, all which want truth, however probation.
1. That whereſoever the Death of Chriſt is propounded as a ground of offering life, it is propounded in generall termes, as All men, Every man, The world: But this is falſe, for it is laid downe as a ground of Faith and offering life, Joh. 3.16, 17. 1 Tim. 1.15. Math. 1.21. Joh. 11.51. In all theſe it is as plainly propounded for a ground of offering life as any he can produce, yet not in generall termes.
2. That where it is propounded in generall termes, it is propounded as a ground of Faith and offering life: but this is falſe, for in 1 Tim 2.6. there it is in generall termes, but it not to offer life, or beget Faith, but to move Beleevers to love, and to exerciſe it in praiſe for all men: as Ver. 1, 2.
3. That there is no ground to offer life unleſſe it be propounded in generall termes: but this is falſe, for that in Joh. 3.16. is a firme ground of offering life, and the marrow of the Goſpell, yet no generall termes: Though this be true, that Chriſt purchaſed life and Salvation but for ſome of all ſorts, yet this is ground enough of offering life to all of all ſorts, and to admoniſh every man to repent.
So for the reſt much may be ſaid to them, but in all there is not the leaſt beame of light added to the Truth, multitude of words ſerve only to bleare the eyes of his Reader, and this advantage he hath by them, the Truth hath none; and cleare it is that thoſe Texts 1 Tim. 2.6. Heb. 2.9. are to be explained by places that are propounded to the ſame end, which do not at all neceſſitate them to be taken in that generall ſeace.