The Sum of Christian Religion, Animadversions · Articles · Article 2 – Article 3
ARTICLE II.
Therefore Jeſus Chriſt, the Saviour of the world, dyed for all and ſingular, and ſo far, that he hath obtained reconciliation and remiſſion of ſins for all by his death: but on this condition, that no man can really enjoy the ſaid remiſſion of ſins, except the faithfull man; and this is according to the Goſpel, John 3.16. God ſo loved the world, that he gave his onelyonly begotten Son; that whoſoever beleeveth in him might not periſh, but have life eternall. And, 1 John 2.2. And he is the propitiation for our ſins; and not for ours alone, but for the ſins of the whole world.
The Examination.
THis is no new matter, which the Remonſtrants handle in this Article: for, of old the Semipelagians in Marſiles, and Syracuſa held the ſame, in theſe words, Our Lord Jeſus Chriſt dyed for all mankind, Proſper Epiſt. ad Auguſt.and no man at all is exempted from the redemption of his bloud, although his mind hath been quite averſe all his life from him; becauſe the myſterie of mercy belongs to all men: by which therefore many are not renewed, becauſe they are fore-knowne, that they account it needleſſe to be renewed: Therefore, ſo far as concernes God, life eternall is prepared for all; but, as for mans liberty of will, it is received by them, who, of their owne accord, ſhall beleeve God, and ſhall receive the help of grace, by the merit of their faith.
By this Article, although in ſhew they amplified Gods grace, and mans redemption; yet, in effect, they minced both: giving to God an indifferent grace, to Chriſt the merit of redemption, but to free-will the efficacie of both. And while they would overthrow the doctrine of Predeſtination, which Auſtin did maintaine out of the Apoſtle, they did, indeed, ſhake the whole Goſpel, in aſcribing the cauſe of faith and perſeverance; and conſequently, of mans ſalvation, to God and Chriſt indifferently, but to mans wit and free-will determinately: which, what it is, they that are taught by God doe underſtand: For, where is that of the Apoſtle? Who hath ſeparated thee? What haſt thou, which thou haſt not received? But, 1 Cor. 4.7. Jerem. 17.5.if thou haſt received, why doſt thou brag, as if thou hadſt not received it? Curſed is he that maketh fleſh his arme.
So they in this Article, concerning a generall obtaining of reconciliation of all men with God by Chriſts death, make ſhew of enlarging the grace of Chriſts death; indeed, they doe the very ſame that the former did. And while they think to overthrow the Apoſtolicall Predeſtination, which diſcriminates thoſe that ſhall be ſaved, from them that ſhall not be ſaved; they go about to bring in their own eventuall predeſtination, of thoſe that ſpontaneouſly beleeve and perſevere, or who determine themſelves to faith and perſeverance, after faith and perſeverance; which, indeed, is rather to be called Poſtdeſtination, then Predeſtination. And while they endeavour to make mens will the miſtreſſe of reſiſtible grace, and expoſe to mans will reconciliation by Chriſts death, they evacuate the faith of grace, and weaken that comfort which we have by Chriſts death.
Now they think, as the former did, that Predeſtination is hence everted, thus: If God gave his Son to the world, and would have him dye not onelyonly for ſome, but equally for all men; and Chriſt, according to his Fathers will, did dye for all men alike: God therefore hath not by his predeſtination elected ſome only to life eternall, and rejected others: neither can Chriſt be ſaid to dye onelyonly for ſome, or for the elect alone. But eternall Predeſtination is not hence prejudiced: for, notwithſtanding it, God would have his Son dye, whom he gave to the world; and Chriſt did dye, according to his Fathers counſell: otherwiſe indeed, or in another ſenſe, for all men alike, whether they be elected and faithfull, or reprobate and infidels; but otherwiſe, or in another ſenſe, for the elect onelyonly and faithfull.
That this may be the better underſtood and demonſtrated, the Article is to be examined more accurately; and it hath foure parts: 1. A propoſition, that Chriſt dyed for all and ſingular, which is ambiguous. 2. A Gloſſe, that hee hath obtained for all reconciliation and remiſſion of ſins, which is equivocall, and falſe. 3. A Condition, that none but the faithfull enjoy really this reconciliation, which is true: it limiteth the Propoſition, and overthrowes the Gloſſe. 4. A Proofe, by the two alledged places of Scripture, which directly doe not concerne the Propoſition: for, in neither of the alledged places is there any mention made of Chriſts death for all and ſingular; ſo that I wonder how the Authours could not call to mind fitter places: yea, the later member of the firſt compells them to limit the Propoſition, and refells their Gloſſe; therefore ſome true paſſages are mixed with ambiguities and falſhoods. I ſay, 'tis true, That no man really enjoyes the remiſſion of ſins, but the faithfull man: For, he that beleeveth not, the wrath of God abides on him, not remiſſion or reconciliation; except that under theſe words, really enjoy, there ſeemes to lye hid the buskin of the two-fold fruition of remiſſion of ſins, or reconciliation: The one reall by faith, proper onelyonly to the faithfull, which onelyonly is true: The other not reall, without faith, common to all, even to Infidels, which is fictitious and nothing. Hence is gathered, that Chriſt properly dyed for all, and onelyonly the faithfull, for none of the unfaithfull; and ſo he dyed not abſolutely for all and ſingular: for, to dye for one, is properly by death to free one from death, or, to dye in the ſtead of another, that he may live; as is plaine, 2 Sam. 18.33. Would to God I had dyed for thee; that is, in thy ſtead, that thou mightſt live. And of Chriſt, Rom. 5.6, 8. He dyed for us, when we were wicked, and ſinners; that is, in our ſtead, that we, being delivered from ſin and death, may live to righteouſneſſe, or, may have life eternall. So 1 Cor. 5.15. 1 John 3.16. and 4.9. John 15.13. &c.
The Propoſition is ambiguous, becauſe imperfect: Our Saviour Jeſus Christ dyed for all and ſingular. If you adde, For beleevers, the Propoſition will be cleere and true. If, For men, it will remaine ambiguous: for, it may be underſtood, either of the greatneſſe of the merit of Chriſts death, ſufficient to all men for reconciliation; or, of the efficacie thereof, in reconciling all men. In the former ſenſe, the Propoſition is true: for, Chriſts death, in reſpect of its greatneſſe and power, is a moſt ſufficient remedy, to expiate the ſins of all and of every one; neither is any thing wanting for a reall reconciliation to all, and every one that receives it by faith. In this ſenſe Chriſt may be ſaid to dye for all and every one: as (for example) the Phyſician, when the whole Citie is infected, preparing a ſufficient antidote for all the ſick, may be ſaid to prepare it for all; and in this ſenſe, theſe ſayings in Scripture,1 Tim. 2.6. Hebt. 2.2. 1 John 2.2. where Chriſt is ſaid to dye for all, To have taſted death for all, To be a propitiation for the ſins of all the world, are commonly not unfitly underſtood, although they may be taken more ſtrictly.
In the later ſenſe, concerning the fruit or efficacie of that moſt ſufficient remedie, which is a reall reconciliation with God, and a reſtitution from death to life, the Propoſition is falſe: for, to ſay, that Chriſt dyed ſo for all and ſingular, that he hath reconci…ed to God all and ſingular promiſcuouſly, faithfull and faithleſſe, who either know not Chriſt, or oppoſe him, is to contradict the Goſpel; which, with great conſent, challengeth the efficacie of Chriſts death for all beleevers only: For proving of which, that one ſaying of our Saviour Chriſt alledged in the Article, John 3.16. That all, &c. is ſufficient: for, he faith not, that all and ſingular men may have life eternall; but, That all who beleeve in him may not periſh, but may have life eternall, according as the reall fruition of the remiſſion of ſins is limited in the Article. Whence, in the fore-alledged ſayings, 1 Tim. 2.6. Hebr. 2.9. 1 John 2.2. &c. when they are underſtood of the efficacie of Chriſts death, the univerſall All is neceſſarily to be reſtrained to the univerſalitie of beleevers, and of the elect; of which univerſality, Proſper writes finely:Lib. 1. de vocat. Gent. c. 3. In the elect (ſaith he) and in them that are ſeparated out of the generality of all men, there is accounted a ſpeciall kind of univerſality, that, out of all the world, all the world may ſeem to be delivered: and, out of all mankind, all men may ſeem to be aſſumed.
With theſe two truths the Remonſtrants are evidently held: 1. That Chriſt, in reſpect of the ſufficiencie of his price and merit, dyed for all and ſingular, and would dye, and according to his Fathers counſell ſhould dye. 2. In reſpect of the fruit and efficacie of his death; that is, of a reall reconciliation and reſtitution with God, that he did not dye for all and ſingular, but for all and only the beleevers he would and ſhould dye, as his Father had decreed. The firſt truth they are not ſound anywhere in the conference plainly to prove, nor openly to deny; nor can they deny it, unleſſe they will make his merit inſufficient. The later truth they grant, in reſpect of the event: that all men are not really renewed in Chriſt, nor reſtored into the ſtate of grace; but they deny it in reſpect of our Saviours intention, or the counſell of his Father, then which, what can be more abſurd and falſe? For, whom God, by the death of his son, doth not indeed reſtore in time, them he never intended or decreed from eternitie really to reſtore: For, ſurely,Pſal. 115.3. our God hath done whatſoever hee pleaſed. What then hee hath not done, nor doth in time, neither did he will it from eternitie: And whom Chriſt, by his death, hath not really reſtored, them he did not will to reſtore, nor by his Fathers counſell ſhould he. But, by their own confeſſion, Chriſt did not really reſtore all men into the ſtate of grace; therefore they muſt needs confeſſe, that Chriſt hath not really willed their reſtitution, nor ſhould hee, according to his Fathers counſell: Otherwiſe they muſt ſay, that Chriſt did not ſomething, which every way he was willing to doe, and ſo let them deny his omnipotencie; or, what by his Fathers counſell hee ſhould have done, ſo let them deny his obedience. If they object, that Chriſt would have gathered the ſons of Jeruſalem, but that he did not; let them alſo ſay, that God by all meanes would have gathered them; not onelyonly by outward calling, and invitation to repentance, by his Prophets, his owne, and his Apoſtles preaching; but alſo by the drawing of his inward grace and power: and that for all that he prevailed not. Now let them ſee how they doe not accuſe Gods omnipotent Son of impotencie, and attach themſelves of blaſphemy.
Being then, nill they, will they, forced by both theſe truths, they muſt needs give their ingenuous conſent with the orthodoxall Church, or not: If they acknowledge a conſent, how do they not condemne themſelves of perfidiouſneſſe, for tearing the united Churches with vain verball digladiations, and diſturb the quietneſſe of the Common-wealth? If they deny a conſent in the former, how doe they not blaſpheme the death of the Son of God, as an inſufficient ranſome? If in the later, how do they not entangle themſelves in a contradiction? For, if they deny, that Chriſt, in reſpect of the efficacie and fruit of his death, did not dye for all and ſingular, but onelyonly for the beleevers; they muſt needs affirme to the contrary, that Chriſt, in reſpect of the fruit and efficacie of his death, dyed for all and every man, and not for the beleevers alone; that is, that he hath reconciled all, and every one to God, and not the beleevers alone: or, which is all one, that he hath made all and every particular man enjoy really remiſſion of ſins; but they plainly deny this affirmation, in the limitation of their Article, when they ſay, That no man doth really enjoy remiſsion of ſins, except the faithfull man. And more plainly in the conſerence, That all men are not really renewed by Christ, and reſtored into the ſtate of grace. Col. p. 497.They are held faſt then by this contradiction, That all are really reſtored and reconciled; and, That all are not really reconciled.
But here they will retreat to the gloſſe of their Propoſition, That Chriſt dyed for all and ſingular ſo, that he hath impetrated by his death to all men, reconciliation and remiſsion of ſins: As if this were the third ſenſe, in which Chriſt may be ſaid to dye for all, beſides the reſpect of the ſufficiencie and efficacie of his death: and ſo the former diſtinction is made void; becauſe he hath impetrated for all men reconciliation by his death. But I deſire, that they would tell us, what the meaning of this high-ſtrained phraſe is, by which they have eluded above ten times the anſwers of their brethren at the conference. The Scripture ſpeaks no-where thus, That Chriſt impetrated for all men reconciliation; but ſpeaks openly,Col. 1.10, 11. 2 Cor. 5.19. That God in Christ did reconcile to himſelfe all things in heaven and in earth: That hee reconciled the world to himſelfe: That Christ reconciled all things by his bloud; ſignifying, that Chriſt really did reſtore into the ſtate of grace the world, ſynecdochically; that is, all beleevers in the world:John 12.47. John 17.21. as in theſe words, I came not to condemne the world, but to ſave it. That the world may know that I am ſent by thee: where the world cannot be underſtood, but of the world of the Elect. Againe, all things; that is, all that are juſtified by faith, as is plaine, Rom. 5.11.
If in this ſenſe they will, that Chriſt impetrated reconciliation for all, for, that he really reconciled all; why doe not they ſpeake plainly? and why doe they not expreſſe to which all he impetrated this? If to all beleevers, what need they wrangle? If to all men promiſcuouſly, let them tell how he impetrated: whether by the greatneſſe of his merit, or alſo by its efficacy? If by the greatneſſe of his merit, againe why do they wrangle? If by efficacy alſo, let them ſpeake, whether abſolutely and without faith, or under condition of faith? If abſolutely to all, even without faith, how doe they not againe intangle themſelves in a contradiction, by their limited condition, That no man really doth enjoy reconciliation, except the faithfull man? If under condition of faith, how are they not tied with another knot of contradiction? for, if he hath obtained to all under condition of faith; therefore, the condition of faith failing, he hath not obtained: but many are deſtitute of this condition of faith; that is, many are Infidels: therefore to theſe many he hath not obtained. But, againe, are not theſe contradictory ſayings, He hath impetrated for all, He hath not impetrated for many? Which way ſoever then they turne their cothurne, they will be found either diſturbers of peace by their Logomachie, or elſe intangled in a contradiction.
But this their cothurne or buskin muſt be ſomewhat more exactly diſcuſſed, that it may appeare, how fit it is for both feete; that is, that it may appeare out of the ſignification of the words, how it hides the true and falſe meaning. Reconciliation is a reſtitution or rendring of diſagreeing parties into favour: actively it is attributed to God and Chriſt; paſsively to us. The word impetrate is equivocall, ſignifying divers things; ſometimes to intreat, ſometime to prepare, procure, merit, acquire, obtaine, conferre, &c. therefore this phraſe, Chriſt obtained reconciliation for all, muſt needs be very equivocall: but, to play with equivocations is not for Divines, but for Sophiſters, who would deceive. Yet, this phraſe cannot have above three meanings; Either that Chriſt by his death obtained reconciliation for all, by a certaine Metalepſis, by meriting or pro-meriting matter ſufficient enough of reconciliation to all men: as for example, The Phyſician (of whom before) preparing a moſt ſufficient cure for all ſick people, or obtaining it elſe-where, may be ſaid to have prepared or obtained health for all: Or, that he hath properly obtained reconciliation for all, conferring the ſame upon all; that is, hath really reconciled all: and that, either abſolutely without condition; as for example, Joab, 2 Sam. 14.21, 33. Eſther 7.2, 13.by the interceſſion of the woman of Tekoa, did abſolutely obtaine reconciliation from David for the paricide Abſalom; that, without any condition, he ſhould be brought into the Kings ſight, and that the father ſhould kiſſe his ſon: As alſo Eſther is ſaid to have obtained for the Jews ſecurity, abſolutely without condition: Or under condition of faith to be required in all, that if all beleeve in the Son, they may indeed be reconciled; if they beleeve not, they may be debarred from reconciliation: as for example, Impunity was obtained from Salomon to ſeditious Adomiah upon condition of his innocency,1 King. 1.52. If he be a worthy man, a haire ſhall not fall from his head, but if evill be found in him, he ſhall die.
I will ſpeake more briefly; Chriſt hath procured reconciliation for all men, either in reſpect of the amplitude of his merit, being moſt ſufficient for the reconciliation of all; or over and above, in reſpect of the efficacy of reconciling all men; and that either abſolutely, whether they beleeve or not; or conditionally, if all beleeve. Neither can there be a fourth ſenſe given of this phraſe; which, when the Remonſtrants alledge in their Conference, That Chriſt hath procured reconciliation for all; that is, hath cauſed, that God ſhould open againe the gate of his grace to ſinfull man, although no man ſhall enter into that communion of his grace, but by faith; either this is a new buskin, or an equivocall Scheme or Livery-cloak, by a limitation taking that away, which before it had ſet downe: (for, how hath he really obtained reconciliation, who hath cauſed the Prince to open the gate of his Caſtle to ſeditious people, through which, notwithſtanding, no man muſt paſſe, but by paying of a thouſand Crownes, then which, the condition of faith is farre better?) or, if it is to be called the obtaining of reconciliation, it belongs to the third conditionall way of impetration. There remaines then onelyonly three wayes of obtained reconciliation, with one of which they muſt ſay, that Chriſt obtained reconciliation for all.
If the firſt way, they agree with the orthodox Church: what then doe they trouble the Church and State? If the ſecond way, they contradict themſelves; affirming, that Chriſt did obtaine for all abſolute reconciliation; that is, that he did reſtore all men really into the ſtate of grace; as, Joab did abſolutely reconcile Abſalom to his Father; that is, reſtored him to his Fathers favour. But, contrarily, they plainly deny, in limiting of the Article in their Conference, That all are really repaired in Chriſt, and reſtored to the ſtate of grace; which contradiction is no leſſe apparent, then if they ſhould ſay, That Joab made Abſalom abſolutely obtaine his Fathers favour, and not abſolutely; or, he reſtored him really into his Fathers favour, and did not abſolutely reſtore him. If the third way, they are againe daſhed upon the rock of contradiction: for, if Chriſt by his intention obtained reconciliation for all men, upon condition of faith to be required in all men; then he obtained it to none without the condition of faith, or to none that want faith; or, Infidels, in whom it ought not to be: nor is it put caſually, either by God, who doth not give faith to all men, but to whom he pleaſeth; nor by free-will, which is dead in ſin, till God quicken it. Now, there have beene alwayes faithleſſe men, and yet are many; is not here then a manifeſt conflict? He hath procured for all, and he hath not procured for all. Which way ſoever then they uſe this buskin, either they meane the ſame thing with their equivocations, which orthodoxall men do; and ſo by their verboſity, they diſturbe the Church and State: or elſe, they are entangled with manifeſt contradictions: or, laſtly, (how ſtrange ſoever they ſeeme to make the matter) they are forced to betake themſelves unto the tents of the Maſſilian Semi-pelagians, maintaining an univerſall reconciliation, even of thoſe that live and die without the faith and knowledge of Chriſt: which Hereſie was lately renewed in Germany, by Huberus.
And hither, truly, do almoſt all their Arguments, borrowed from the Huberians,Coll. pag. 141, 142, 143.213. aime. Hence they call Chriſt the reconciler, not onelyonly of the faithfull, but alſo of the whole world; that is, of Infidels too. From this Hypotheſis, are their Claſſicall abſurdities, which they caſt upon the orthodox Proteſtants; That otherwiſe, the unbeleevers, if Chriſt did not obtaine for them reconciliation, ſhould have nothing to beleeve: or, if they did beleeve, they ſhould beleeve a lye; which are moſt falſe: for, though Chriſt died not for all, in reſpect of the efficacy of his death; yet, he died for all, in reſpect of the ſufficiency of his merit. This all Infidels have, which they may beleeve in the Goſpell, that Chriſt ſuffered ſufficiently for the ſins of all the world, and paid a full ranſome, and reconciled all to God that beleeve in him; and therefore, ſhall be partakers of this merit and reconciliation, if of faithleſſe they will become beleevers: Now, in affirming and beleeving this, they do no wayes beleeve a lye. But Infidels ſhould beleeve a lye, if they ſhould conclude, or were taught, that while they remaine in infidelity, reconciliation is obtained for them in Chriſt. For, this is a lye, and not truth, that Chriſt hath obtained reconciliation for all, even for Infidels as they are, and remaine ſuch.
They ſuppoſe alſo, that many for whom Chriſt died, are damned; but the Apoſtle cries out againſt this as falſe, Who ſhall condemne? it is Chriſt that is dead: for,Rom. 8.34. this Apoſtolicall conſolation were in vaine, if this univerſall were not ſuppoſed; to wit, That no man is condemned, for whom Chriſt died. For, to this godly minds may firmely ſubſume; Chriſt died for me, and conclude; I ſhall not then be condemned. This is the Chriſtians comfort, from Chriſts death. But they deſtroy this, putting a particular inſtead of an univerſall; Some for whom Chriſt died ſhall not be condemned: for, what conſequence can ariſe of pure praticulars? or what comfort? And, in vaine do they alledge the words of the Catechiſme to cover their buskin and Maſſilianiſme, ſaying, If one will have obtaining to be altogether the ſame that reſtoring to the ſtate of grace, Coll. p. 172.what will be done to the Catechiſme, which, Anſw. 37. uſeth the ſame word? But, 1. this is falſe, that the Catechiſme uſeth the ſame words; for, it doth not ſay, That he might obtaine the grace of God, juſtice, and life eternall; but that he might acquire it. Then, if it ſhould uſe the ſame word obtained, this would helpe nothing the cothurne: for, it doth not ſay, for all; but, that to us; to wit, beleevers; of whom the queſtion is, What beleeveſt thou when thou ſayeſt, he ſuffered? Grace &c. he might acquire: But the Catechiſme evidently tieth them with a contradiction. For, it ſpeakes of the reall acquiſition of grace, or reſtitution into the ſtate of grace,Acts 20.28. with which Chriſt is ſaid, to have purchaſed the Church of God with his owne bloud; that is, to have reſtored her into the ſtate of grace. If then, he purchaſed, be all one with he obtained; it follows, that to obtaine, is all one with, to reſtore into the ſtate of grace; which they deny: and, to obtaine reconciliation for all, is the ſame that, to reſtore into the ſtate of grace; by denying of which in the Conference, they tye themſelves againe with the knot of contradiction.Coll. p. 497.
Nor can they free themſelves of this knot, by objecting that in the ſame Anſwer, Chriſt is ſaid to have ſuſtained the wrath of God againſt the ſins of all mankinde: for, theſe words will not ſuffer themſelves to be thus gloſſed upon and wreſted, That Chriſt by his death hath reconciled all mankinde, or hath impetrated reconciliation and remiſſion of ſins to all mankinde: for, to whom he purchaſed this, or, as they ſpeake, hath impetrated, the ſubſequent words teach, that by his paſsion, &c. But they declare and amplifie the cauſe and matter of his paſſion to have beene this; to wit, The ſenſe and induring of Gods wrath, kindled againſt the ſins, not of ſome men, but of all mankinde; from whence is made an univerſality of ſin, and of Gods wrath ſuffered by Chriſt againſt ſin: but no wayes an univerſality of reconciliation obtained or reſtored to all; for, the impetration or reſtitution of reconciliation declares the end and fruit of the paſſion; but theſe words ſpeake not of the end and fruit, but of the efficiency and matter of the paſſion. The knot then remaines, and in vaine do they ſeeke a pretext for their buskin in the Catechiſme.
Laſtly,Coll. p. 171. I finde in the Conference one cunning trick, deviſed to elude the contradiction; where they write, That the paſsion and death of Chriſt doth in order precede both faith and infidelity; and therefore, the Remonſtrants thinke it an abſurdity, that Chriſt died for the faithfull and Infidels, as Infidels; and that they aſſented he did die for all men, of whom afterward ſome became Infidels, ſome beleevers: for they diſcerned betweene the ſtate of a ſinner before his infidelity, and in it; and ſo they thinke they have ſufficiently ſalved this contradiction; Chriſt died for all and ſingular; and, Chriſt died not for Infidels, whereof there be many: but indeed, they looſe not the knot with theſe ſubtleties, and new tragicall phraſes; but they lay open the hidden ulcer of their mindes, and the myſtery of the new propheſies: Therefore let us examine the particulars.
1. Though we grant that Chriſts death and paſſion do in order precede faith, yet 'tis falſe that it goeth before infidelity in order; for, infidelity in order goeth before mans ſin and his enmity againſt God, as in order the cauſe precedes the effect: but ſin and mans enmity againſt God in order precede the paſſion and death of Chriſt, as the Apoſtle witneſſeth, For Chriſt, when as yet we were without ſtrength, in his owne time he died for the wicked: Rom. 5.6, 8, 9.alſo, When as yet we were ſinners and enemies, we were reconciled by the death of his Son; therefore, infidelity in order precedes the paſſion and death of Chriſt.
Againe, there is no conſequence: Chriſts death in order precedes faith and infidelity; therefore, it is abſurd to ſay, that Chriſt died for the faithfull, and unfaithfull, as they were ſuch: for, they delude us under the fallacy of non cauſa; for, whatſoever becomes of the order of faith, and infidelity to Chriſts death, it is moſt true that Chriſt died for beleevers and unbeleevers as they were ſuch, removing the hidden equivocations.
Of unbeleevers, we have ſhewed out of the Apoſtle teſtimonie: for, if it be moſt true, that Chriſt died for ſinners and enemies, as they were ſuch; to wit, antecedently; that is, who in order were ſinners and enemies before Chriſts death; then it is moſt true, that Chriſt died for Infidels as they were ſuch; to wit, antecedently; that is, who in order before Chriſts death were Infidels, after ceaſed to be wicked, unbeleevers, enemies, by reaſon of their faith: The ſame is alſo moſt true of beleevers, and that whether Chriſts death be abſolutely conſidered in it ſelfe, or in relation to Chriſts intention, and the Fathers counſell.
If we abſolutely conſider Chriſts death, as in order it goeth before faith, we conclude, that it is abſurd to ſay, that Chriſt died for the faithfull as ſuch antecedently; that is, whoſe faith in order went before Chriſts death; for ſo beliefe muſt goe before the thing beleeved, which is abſurd; whereas, in ſuch relatives, beliefe is poſterior to the thing beleeved, as knowledge to the thing knowne; the ſenſitive act, to the ſenſible object, according to Ariſtotle. But, it is no abſurdity if we ſay,In Categ. c. 8. that Chriſt died for the faithfull as ſuch conſequently; that is, whoſe faith, looking on Chriſts death, and applying it to themſelves, might attaine the fruit and efficacy thereof; for, in this ſenſe our Saviour Chriſt plainly ſaith,Joh. 17.19, 20. John 15.13. John 10.51. that he prayeth and ſanctifieth himſelfe for thoſe that ſhould beleeve in him: that he layeth downe his life for his friends, and ſheepe; to wit conſequently, who in order after the beliefe of Chriſts death, ſhould be beleevers, friends, and ſheepe.
But relatively to our Saviours intention, and his Fathers counſell, if we ſpeake of Chriſts death, as in this Queſtion we ought to ſpeake, and underſtand the phraſe, to die for another, is the moſt proper ſignification, as was ſaid above: it is moſt true that Chriſt died, and that he would and ſhould die, onelyonly for the faithfull as they are ſuch; that is, for ſuch as ſhould make his death by faith their owne: not for Infidels as they are ſuch; that is, for ſuch as by infidelity ſhould neglect and contemne his death. On the contrary, it is abſurd to ſay, that Chriſt in that moſt proper ſenſe did not die, nor would, nor ſhould die onelyonly for the faithfull; but alſo, that he died, and that he ſhould, and would have died for Infidels, as they are ſuch: For, that this is not onelyonly repugnant to holy Writ, and to the event (by which we ought to judge what our Saviours will, and his Fathers counſell was) but that it implies alſo a manifeſt contradiction, the Remonſtrants owne conſcience will tell them.
3. In that they aſſent, that Chriſt died for all men, it is well, if they meane of the greatneſſe of the price of Chriſts death, which was moſt ſufficient for all men; but if they meane the fruit and efficacy impetrated or purchaſed for all men, although both in life and death they be ſtrangers to Chriſt, they do not aſſent to Scripture, and to the event, but to the Maſſilian Semi-pelagianiſme.
4. It is true, that of all men, ſome in order after Chriſts death become faithfull: but 'tis falſe, that in order after Chriſts death ſome become unfaithfull; for, Chriſt being to die in order found all men in impiety, ſin, and enmity, Rom. 5. v. 6.8, 9. therefore he found all in infidelity.
5. In that they know how to diſcriminate, betweene the ſtate of a ſinner in his infidelity, and before it; they doubtleſſe had not this knowledge in Scripture, which knoweth not the ſtate of ſin or of ſinners before infidelity, or without it,Rom. 11.31. Epheſ. 2.2. & 5.6. Col. 3.6. but teſtifieth, that all men are borne the ſons of wrath, of infidelity, and of diſobedience. This then is that corrupt lurking ſort of myſtery of the new Propheſie, and the firſt lye upon which the five Articles, and divers other, both manifeſt and occult, are built; to wit, that man is borne without infidelity, and that there is no infidelity, till man be growne up, and rejects the Goſpell: and from hence, that originall ſin, if any ſuch be, is a puniſhment, not a fault; and hence is it, that the naturall man hath free-will to good and evill; otherwiſe, wrongfully is faith demanded of him, who hath not the faculty of beleeving: hence are predeſtination and election of fore-ſeene faith: hence an univerſall impetration of reconciliation by Chriſts death: hence is reſiſtible grace or indifferent: hence is the apoſtacy of the Saints, uncertain perſeverance, doubtful faith, & other hid matters which time wil reveale.
Out of all this, two things we have to obſerve: One is, that by this cunning ſhift, of the order of faith to Chriſts death, the contradiction is not unfolded or avoided, by which they are forced to entangle themſelves in this Article: That Chriſt died abſolutely for all and ſingular, and obtained reconciliation for all; and yet that he died not for Infidels, whereof there be many; nor obtained reconciliation for them, which is an evident argument of an evill cauſe: For, when the Adverſary is driven to admit of contradictions, he is gone. The other, becauſe this Article troubles the Church with contradictions and equivocations, and overthrowes it ſelfe, that it is not to be ſuffered in the Church.
ARTICLE III.
Man hath not ſaving faith from himſelfe, nor by force of his free-will; ſeeing that in the ſtate of defection and ſin, he cannot of himſelf either thinke or do any good, which is good indeed, ſuch as ſaving faith is; but, it is neceſſary that he be borne over againe by God in Chriſt through his holy Spirit, and that he be renewed in his minde, will, affections, and all his faculties; that he might think, underſtand, will, and performe that which is good, according to that of Chriſt, John 15.5. Without me yee can do nothing.