The Universalist Examined and Convicted, Chapter 6
CHAP. VI. Of the differences of the extent of the ſame word, when ſpoken of and by men, and when of and by God, alſo when the oppoſition is betwixt men and men, and when betwixt God and men.
THe end of the Author in this Chap. (as I conceive) is this: Seeing the Seat of much Controverſy is placed in theſe words (All,) (Every,) (World,) urged in all places cited by them, to be taken in an abſolute generall ſenſe, taking in all the Individualls in the world: But by us they are urged to have a limited ſenſe, as we inſtance in many Scriptures, wherein they cannot be taken ſo largely; His intent therefore is to ſhew the weakeneſſe of our Allegations, and that our places are not to be rules for the expounding of theirs becauſe ours are ſpoken of and by men, theirs of and by God; but how he quits himſelfe herein I ſhall in few words examine. Now wherein we both agree is as followeth:
[That the ſame words in divers Sentences may differ much in ſignification and extent, and yet by the Sentence the ſignification will clearly appeare; thus he ſaith Pag. 28.] This I acknowledge and ſhall improve, for then,
1. Why doth the Author ſay that (All,) when ſpoken of Creation, and when of Redemption, muſt be taken in the ſame ſence and latitude, will he not be ſo farre fixed to his principles as to ſuffer the divers matter treated of to alter the ſignification of the ſame word?
2. It deſerveth examination, whether the matter treated of in thoſe places doth ſuffer the words to be taken in that large ſenſe, which light is to be fetched from Scriptures, which teacheth us that the word (All) when ſpoken of Redemption is to to be taken ſo largely, or elſe what he ſaith will want proofe.
Againe we agree in this.
[It is ungodly and unequall to compare God and man, and to make them to be alike and equall, Iſa. 40.13, 14. and mere ungodlines to compare the words, workes, and thoughts of God with mans, and to make them equall and alike, Iſa. 55.8, 9.] Thus he urgeth Pag. 29.
This I grant: But then I muſt advertiſe the Author of two things.
1. It is one thing to compare the beings of man and God together, of which his quoted Text ſpeaketh, which cannot be alike, and another to compare Gods Actions and words, which may be alike ſometimes, as we are commanded to be like our heavenly father, this laſt is no ſuch ungodlineſſe as he pretendeth.
2. There is a difference betwixt mans words as comming from man and oppoſed to Gods, and mans words as comming from God and the dictate of his Spirit, of this ſecond ſort it is no ungodlineſſe to compare them to Gods, for they are his own, which will be uſefull to us.
Thirdly we further agree in this.
[It is eaſie for men to underſtand a difference in the extent of the ſame word ſpoken of and by God, and ſpoken of and by men, and when the oppoſition is betwixt God and men, and when between men and men.] This I grant, for 1. Joh. 2.20. he ſaith (ye know all things,) and Cap. 3.20. he ſaith, (He (viz. God) knoweth all things,) no reaſon will hence conclude that God knoweth no more then man knoweth, or that man is omniſcient,
2. It is eaſie alſo to know the difference of the ſame word when ſpoken of and by God, if ſo be it be concerning divers Actions, as 1 Joh. 2. [The Spirit ſhall teach you all things,] and Cap. 3. he ſaith, [He knoweth all things:] So Joh. 2.24. [He knoweth all men:] and Joh. 12.32. [I will draw all men to me;] No reaſon will infer that he will draw all, or ſo many as in that place he is ſaid to know; ſo when he is ſaid to create all things, and to reconcile all things, Col. 1 16.20. both cannot be taken in the ſame latitude and extent, becauſe he made the fallen Angels, but he never reconciled them.
3. It is alſo cleare that many places ſpeakes of God, and is ſpoken by God, and holy men inſpired by God, which is all one as if it was Gods immediate word, yet thoſe words (All,) &c. cannot beare that large extent, as Matth. 2.3. Mark. 13.13. Luk. 16.16. Ioh. 12.32. Acts 2.44. 1 Cor. 14.5. 2 Cor. 3.2. Phil. 2.21. Col. 1.28. But what need I fill Paper and trouble the Reader, when my Adverſary confeſſeth that the word (all) is ſometimes taken for all upright, ſometimes for all ungodly: certainly then thoſe words when ſpoken of and by God are not alwaies to extend themſelves to that large ſenſe he pretendeth, which being true, ſheweth the weakeneſſe of that diſtinction, and freeth thoſe following examples from that ignorance, raſhneſſe, which he out of greater ignorance and raſhneſſe chargeth them with.
And ſtill I admit,
[That if a man ſpake of a Family, and ſay this man governes all, it is to be meant of all in the Family, ſo of a Corporation and a Kingdome,] But he muſt obſerve this, that ſo we could not underſtand unleſſe that the word (All) in propriety might have a limited ſence.
And we grant alſo, [That if we ſay God governeth all, we meane all in the World,] But if our Author had gone on to make his matter out he ſhould have ſaid, [So if we ſhould ſay Chriſt redeemed all, we muſt meane all in the world.] Herein he would have erred, ſeeing there is no proportion betwixt his Gubernation and his Redemption, the difference of matter treated of admits of a difference in the ſignification of the ſame word, according to his owne principles. And herein the Author is at a loſſe in all this, for all that he hath ſaid in this buſineſſe is to make way for this, That where God or Chriſt is ſaid to Redeeme or Ranſome all, it muſt be all and every man in the world; but this will not be admitted, though when we ſay God governeth all, we meane all things in the world. Now to proceed to the Texts alleaged by us, Luk. 2.1. & 15.1. Ioh. 3.26. Act. 2.8. Where we urge that world, whole world, all men, every man, are not to be taken in that large and generall ſenſes; therefore without further reaſon we cannot grant thoſe places alleadged by him to be ſo generall; he thus anſwers, [It will be found either ignorance or raſhneſſe to compare, and make of like large extent the word (world) in Luk. 2.1. and the word (world) in 1 Joh. 2.2.] But it will be found an ignorant Calumny ſo to charge us, we make them not of like large extent, as if he were the Propitiation for the ſins of no more then was in the Roman Empire, or went then to be taxed, this is abſurd to affirme, and a wilfull injury to faſten it on us; but thus we ſay, that as the word (world) in Luk. 2.1. (being ſpoken by the Evangeliſt inſpired by God) doth not take in all and every Individuall in the world: So neither the word (World) in 1 Ioh. 2.2. though ſpoken of God and Chriſt; and where is the ignorance and raſhneſſe in all this?
As for that Text Luk. 2.1. [There went a Decree that all the world ſhould be Taxed.] If it had run thus [that all ſhould be taxed] it had ſuted with his expreſſions, and we might eaſily apprehend it to extend to no further then all of the Roman Empire: But this more Emphaticall [that all the world ſhould be taxed.] Let the Author tell me why, when the Spirit of God is to ſpeake of ſome only in the Roman Empire, he ſhould uſe ſuch a generall word as (All the world) it this Phraſe might not be taken in a limited ſence even when it is ſpoken of and by God. So the (All) that came to Chriſt, Luk. 15.1. we make not of large and like and equall extent with the (All) he dyed for: 2 Cor. 5.14. As if he dyed for no more then at that time came to Jeſus. But thus we ſay, that if when the Evangeliſt ſaith, All came to him, it taketh not in every Individuall Sinner in the world: So when the Apoſtle ſaith Chriſt dyed for all, it is not neceſſarily taken in that large ſence which the Author pretends; and all this ſheweth no weakeneſſe in our cauſe, the weakeneſſe may be eaſily ſeene elſewhere. In the cloſe of this Chapter he deſcendeth to ſhew how many waies thoſe Phraſes (All men,) (Every man,) (World,) (Whole world,) are taken: But no whit pertinent to his buſineſſe in this Chapter, yet I ſhall recite them, happily ſome may be advantagious to us.
1. [For every one of mankind without exception, as all are gone out of the way, all have ſinned, all muſt appeare before God.] This we grant, but he cannot prove that the Scripture affirmeth Chriſt to have dyed for (All,) or that thoſe places wherein Chriſt is ſaid to dye for (All) to be taken in this ſence.
2. [For one another, rich and poore, Beleevers and unbeleevers.]
If he meane all and every one of thoſe kinds, then it is the ſame with the firſt, and ſo a vaine repetition, and if but ſome of thoſe kinds, then it is nothing againſt us, for that is ſtill a limited ſenſe, and we grant that he dyed for all; and thoſe places that ſay Chriſt dyed for all we willingly grant them in this ſenſe, whether ſpoken by men, or by God.
3. [So as not meant of Gods people, good men, Beleevers.] True, and more oppoſite proofes might be produced then he bringeth; but this is not againſt us, or for him, becauſe he himſelfe will not ſay that Chriſt dyed for this All, and ſo to exclude his People and Beleevers, or any place ſo to be taken whether ſpoken by man or God.
4. [For all upright, Beleevers, ſpirituall men.] Which he doth not plainly ſet downe as a fourth acceptation of the Phraſe (All men,) which had been honeſt and ingenuous dealing, but he tacitely implyeth it, as if he would not have that taken notice of, as any may ſee Pag. 31. and he had good reaſon ſo to expreſſe himſelfe, for it doth not a little helpe us, for it that place 1 Cor. 4.5. where (All men) is uſed, doth not take in every individuall man in the world, even then when it is ſpoken of God, it may alſo be that thoſe places, 1 Tim. 2.6. Heb. 2.9. though ſpoken of Chriſt, are not taken in that large ſence that he pretendeth: And then to what iſſue all his words in this Chapter come, let the wiſe judge. Something I find in Pag 31, 32. purpoſely ſet downe to prevent miſtakes and cavills, he ſaith thus, [The Death of Chriſt as a Ranſome is to be underſtood of the Death of Chriſt as riſen, and aſcended,] Which words have neither pertinency nor perſpicuity, they are of no uſe at all in this Chapter, or the buſineſſe treated of in it, neither can they well be underſtood, therefore they no way conduce to prevent miſtakes, rather to raiſe them: his words are ſo laid downe as that no man can tell whether he make his Reſurrection and Aſcenſion conduce to his Impetration or Purchaſe, to his Application, to ſay, [That it was the Death of Chriſt as he is riſen again and aſcended,] May admit of either, there is a difference betwixt things aſſociated and coupled in the ſame Action: The manhood of Chriſt with his Divinity ſuffered, but not the manhood and the Divinity: Faith with Workes juſtified, but not Faith and Workes: So his Death with his Reſurrection was the means of Purchaſe or Ranſome, but hence it doth not follow that his Reſurrection and Aſcenſion are themſelves meanes of procurement, or belong to the Impetration; And this ambiguous way of expreſſion he borroweth from the Arminians, as Corvinus, [Cum amiſſae ſalutis Impetratio immediatus fructus eſt Chriſti mortis talis mors omnino intelligitur quae reſurrectionem habeat conjunctam.] And that to ſerve at need their contradictions in this point,In Molin, cap. 28.438. ſometimes affirming, ſometimes denying, that his Reſurrection and Aſcenſion belong to his Impetration: But this I ſay as formerly, that Reſurrection and Aſcenſion is ſo conjoyned with his Death that it hath equall ſhare in the Impetration, and hath no ſhare in the Application, as in every bargaine the bare depoſiting ſo much money as is agreed for any where, is no true payment, but the bringing of it to his houſe to whom it is paid, or at a place appointed, ſo in this, though nothing more was to be paid as price, yet ſomething elſe was to be done viz. preſenting that Bloud as ſhed, without which no perfect Impetration, as in the Law there there was as we I oſtenſio as mactatio, the ſhewing as the ſhedding of Bloud.
But to returne to the Author, either his Reſurrection and Aſcenſion belong to the Impetration, or not? if not? whether tend theſe words? [His Death, Reſurrection are herein comprehended. Pag. 32.] Meaning his firſt Redemption, and ſuch as is done for all, which in his Language is the Purchaſe or procurement, and if it do, whether tend theſe words? as [For effecting the other, viz. the ſecond Redemption (which is the Application) he left the world and went to his Father.] In one part he affirmeth them to belong to the Impetratory part, in another to belong to the Applicatory part: and is this to prevent doubts and cavills. Whoever followes the Author ſhall run into uncertainties and contradictions; and as carefull as he is to prevent miſtakes, and confident that any that will may underſtand, yet I dare avouch, that not any of his admiring Readers can give a good account of him, neither do they know whereof he affirmeth, I wiſh he himſelfe knew better.
In his ſeventh Chapter, I find the Authours Catechiſme wherein he hath the priviledge of framing both Queſtions and Anſwers: But therein there is nothing but what is ſpoken of elſewhere, therefore there being nothing worth repeating I paſſe over to the next, which is more materiall.