Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	adam_n	die_v	life_n	4,790	5	5.0368	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A95338	Truths conflict with error. Or, Universall redemption controverted, in three publike disputations. The first between M. John Goodwin, and M. Vavasour Powell, in Coleman-street London. The other two between M. John Goodwin, and M. John Simpson, at Alhallowes the great in Thames-street: in the presence of divers ministers of the City of London, and thousands of others.	Goodwin, John, 1594?-1665.; Weekes, John.; Powell, Vavasor, 1617-1670.; Simpson, John, 17th cent.	1650 (1650)	Wing T3167B; Thomason E597_2; ESTC R202232	95,080	122

in one sence He Died as a meanes effectuall and in another sence not He Died as a meanes effectuall thus that there was nothing more required on His Part nor of Him that should performe or undertake the office of a Mediator or maker of attonement for Man so far the means which Christ exhibited in His Death it was as effectuall as effectualnesse it self or any efficacy whatsoever could be but if by effectuall you meane such a means which doth take effect that is which doth end and issue in the salvation of all so I affirme that Christ Died as a Means ineffectuall Mr. Symp. I conceive that this answer of yours is no answer at all to my argument my reason is this because I look upon all the posterity of Adam not as Believers or Unbelievers but only under that notion and consideration as the Posterity of Adam and so my argument is not yet answered for if all the Posterity of Adam be lookt upon Jesus Christ did not die as an effectuall or ineffectuall means of their Salvation and therefore your Answer doth not reach my Argument in hand answer therefore to it as the posterity of Adam whether Christ Died for them and whether His Death was an effectuall or an ineffectuall means of their Salvation Mr. Goodw. Sir will you please thus I did not neither do I intend in that Answer which I have given nor in any which I shall give to make answer to any thing that is in your conception beneath either on the one hand of your Argument or on the other but take your Argument in that forme and tenor of words wherein it was directed to me and so I have cleerly answered it for your Proposition was that Christ Died neither as a means effectuall nor ineffectuall and I have shewed how your conjunction is invalid and how and in what sence he dyed as an effectual means and how not Now if you would take away my Answer you must prove That Christ dyed in no sence as a means effectual nor in any sence as a means ineffectual for the Salvation of all men Mr Ames Sir the distinction of the Respondent is this That the Death of Christ is in a sense effectual for the Salvation of all and in a sense not Now you are to answer to what part of the distinction you please Mr Symp. If the Death of the Lord Jesus Christ be not effectual for all in any sence then your Answer is not good But the Death of the Lord Jesus Christ is not effectual for all in any sence Ergo. Mr Goodw. Prove your minor and you shall do well Mr Symps Sir I desire you plainly to shew me in what sence it is effectual for it is a clear contradiction to say that the same thing should be effectual and ineffectual also Mr Goodw. I have explained it in part and shall be willing to do it yet more fully In this sence therefore I say that the Death of Christ is effectual for all that is In case all men shall beleeve as I suppose they may having means vouchsafed by God unto them for that end there needs no more dying nor attonement nor sacrifice for the Salvation of all these men then that which Jesus Christ hath already exhibited and performed but there is a vertue worth substance and what ever is requisite in an attonement or sacrifice for the Salvation of all men But now if you respect the event or issue of this Sacrifice and Attonement that is Whether all men come in time to be saved by it or no in this sence it is ineffectual in point of event but it is most effectual every way in respect of intrinsecal worth and value This is my clear sence Mr Symp. I prove That Christ did not dye as an effectual means for all or as a Sacrifice for all men thus If God did not intend to give that to some without which he certainly knew that it could not be an effectual means to all then Iesus Christ did not dye as an effectual means for all But God did not intend to give that to some without which it could not be an effectual means to all and therefore on Gods part it was not an effectual means to all Mr Goodw. I answer briefly to the Major Proposition or indeed to either That the efficacy of the Death of Christ for all men it doth not at all depend nor hath it any relation to any intention in God otherwise that is either to give this or that to any man or unto all men which should make it de facto or eventually effectual to all but the efficacy of the Death of Christ is to be measured and judged of by the intrinsecal and essential value and worth of it and not by any thing that God should do in any other Dispensation of his for or towards the Salvation of men Mr Symps You give me no Answer to my Argument which is That it is not an effectual means on Gods part because he was resolved not to give that without which it could not be effectual Mr Goodw. This I denyed and gave you this reason for it because Gods giving or not giving though my Judgment is that he doth give sufficient means to all to render the Death of Christ effectual to them though it is not necessary for me to declare my Judgment in this point But this is sufficient as to the Answer of your Argument That the efficacy of the Death of Christ for all is not suspended or doth not depend upon any Intention of God touching any other Dispensation to men one or more but before any such Intention be considerable in him the Death of Christ is as efficacious and as inefficacious as ever it will be the nature virtue worth and value of it doth not suffer any change either diminution or augmentation by any after-dispensation whatsoever Mr Symps I suppose your Answer doth not reach my Argument neither is there any validity in what you say for if what you say be true then there is a Contradiction in the Intentions of God For there is one Intention say you wherewith he intends the Salvation of all men and according to my Argument there is another Intention That he will not save all men So that there seems to be a Contradiction in the Intention of God Mr Ames I humbly conceive that you are come to the head of this Argument and that your sence Mr Goodwin is this That the Death and Passion of Jesus Christ doth carry in it worth and merit every way sufficient for the Salvation of all those that shall by Faith through Grace lay hold upon it and that there is also a sufficiency in it even for those who dye in their unbelief And I humbly conceive that this doth not at all cross the learned Opponents sence Mr Goodw. I should be very glad that he and I could meet together in this Mr Ames Sir I suppose Mr Sympson your sense is

have said something to it but this hath been answered before He doth not say here in these words that the purpose of God according to Election might stand concerning Esau and Jacob personally or particularly but that Purpose of God according to Election whereof he here speaks respects universally the whole World And the reason why Jacob and Esau are here mentioned and so the reason of what was said to the Mother of them when she was big with them it was by way of confirmation of the Decrees of God from Eternity touching the whole world For it 's clear The children being not yet born neither having done any good or evil that the Purpose of God according to Election might stand He doth not say That any Decree of Election or Purpose of God about Election in reference to Jacob and Esau might stand Mr Symps It 's plain in reference to Jacob and Esau personally as he proves it Esau have I hated and Jacob have I loved Mr Goodw. That is nothing else but an Explication from the Prophet Malachi of the former Oracle of God concerning these two children as they were Heads of the Nations and it doth no way prove that the Decree here of Election did respect their particular persons personally considered no nor that they did respect their posterity but onely that these persons and their posterity were so ordered and disposed of by God that they should serve as it were by way of Doctrinal Type and Instruction to the WORLD how and upon what terms and under what Covenant GOD would justifie and save them Mr Symps Mr Moderator you see what liberty Mr Goodwin takes in holding forth his Opinion He hath delivered his thoughts and I desire that I may have the same liberty to deliver my thoughts and what I hold concerning Election and Reprobation Mr Ames Mr Sympson If you please to discourse from the 11 and 12. Verses and shew by a necessary Consequence That Gods Purpose and Decree doth mind from Eternity particular persons then shall you directly oppose the Answer which the learned Opponent hath given Mr Symps For that I have plainly held it forth and my Argument is not yet answered I say that Jacob and Esau were particular persons and that the Decree of God respected them and that before they had done either good or evil That he loved the one before he had done any good and hated the other before he had done any evil and therefore the Decrees of God do not respect sorts or kindes of men but particular persons And that there are a particular number of men whom God did love from Eternity not from any fore-seen Faith or Works in them And that there are a particular number of men who are reprobated from Eternity not in consideration of any sin or unbelief found in them This is that which I hold out even an Eternal Decree of God concerning the Salvation of particular persons not in consideration of Faith or Holiness in them but meerly from his own Love or Bené placitum that being the ground of his Election God doth not choose men because he fore-sees that they will be holy but he doth therefore choose them that they may be holy as the Apostle doth plainly make it out to us in Ephes 1. 4 5. where it is said That we are elected in Christ Jesus that we might be holy So that no holiness or faith or any thing in the creature is the ground of electing of any person but only the Will of God Who works all things saith the Apostle according to the counsel of his own Will and therefore saith Christ I thank thee O Father Lord of Heaven and Earth that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and hast revealed them unto Babes and when he had done so he layeth down no other reason but this Even so O Father because it pleased thee And so likewise the Apostle in Rom. 8. in that golden Chain of Calling and Justification and Glorification he doth not make them Antecedents to Election as they who hold Universal Redemption do but Consequences of Election and this is the point which I desire liberty to prove namely That there are some particular persons hated of God from all eternity and that there are others loved of God from eternity and that God did really intend the Salvation of the one by the Death of Christ and not in good ernest the Salvation of the other but rather the aggravation of their condemnation thereby Mr. Ames Here hath been much liberty of speaking and it is now desired that ye would betake your selves to a more strict way of Disputation Mr Goodwin we humbly desire an Answer to those three Verses in Rom. 9. 11 12 13. from whence it hath been intimated from Esau and Jacob That the eternal Decrees of God have an eye to particular persons Mr. Griffith Both Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Sympson agree in this That the Decrees of God from eternity do respect the persons of men only one fastens it upon the state and the other upon the person and therefore if it please you I desire that they may be recalled to what they have said And concerning this Scripture so far as it concerns this Dispute that they would only proceed and then leave it to the Congregation Mr Simpson The words are not considerable as spoken of persons under such or such a state for this reason because it is said before they had done good or evil c. Mr Goodwin There hath been answer given to that already there cannot be any thing proved here to be spoken of the two children but of the two Nations and I told you moreover concerning those words That the purpose of God according to election might stand they contain that great Declaration of the absolute purpose of God by which and according to the tenor of which he intends to justifie the world and the Apostle had nothing to do about personall Election Mr Simpson For that we must refer it to the wisdom which God hath given to his servants to judge Whether Election be of particular persons or of states and conditions It is the desire of the Moderator that I addresse my self to a new Argument against your Position which I do That Iesus Christ did not dye intentionally on his Fathers part for all the posterity of Adam My Argument is this Christ did not dye to save those whom his Father had actually damned before he suffered But there were some that were actually damned before Jesus Christ suffered death and therefore God the Father in the death of his son did not intend the Salvation of all men Mr Goodwin I absolutely deny your Major Proposition for it holds as effectually against those who dyed in the Faith of Jesus Christ as those who dyed in their unbeleef if the death of Christ onely wrought forward Mr Simpson I prove the Proposition that God did not intend the Salvation of those who

himself as Jeremy before he had a Being he was the Object of Gods Decree but not God Mr. Goodw. This is the thing which I grant There is a difference some kind of difference indeed between God and the Decrees of God yet really and substantially they are but one and the same And though there be a difference herein yet notwithstanding it is not such as that the Objects of these Decrees as they were in God should be capable of Election or Reprobation Mr Cranf You are fallen upon a Question which I confess if it was in the Schools only among Schollars it might perhaps deserve some ventillation about the pre-existency of things in the knowledg of God You know the large Treatises written upon this Subject by Schoolmen But I verily believe that if you argue upon this Subject till to morrow morning the people will not be able to understand you whilst you dispute upon these Metaphysical Notions Mr Goodw. The Argument which I have urged against Reprobation from Eternity I conceive it is so clear and obvious and lies so near the understanding and capacity of the weakest who are present that there is none of them all but may fully and clearly apprehend it namely this That it is impossible there should be any thing reprobated from eternity that was not And again That there was nothing from eternity but God himself Mr Symps I conceive there is none here so irrational but can easily distinguish between the Decree of God and the Object of that Decree You are to prove That the Object of Gods Decree is God himself M. Goodw. If by Object you meane any thing that was from eternity I have proved it already if you meane any thing else it is not to the point I am to prove that there was no Reprobation from Eternity Now if there was no Object from Eternity then there could bee no such Act from Eternity But the time is past and I have spent my selfe and fear that I have incurr'd some inconvenience in my health yet notwithstanding I have been freely willing to give testimony to the Truth of the Lord Jesus Christ which will be witnessed at the great Day of His appearing And till then I shall be willing to lie under what reproach either you or whosoever else shall cast upon me I have stood up here as you see and denied my self many wayes in the thing and shall now refer both my cause and yours to the righteous judgement of God who we are sure cannot be deceived Mr. Cranf Sir you was pleased to signifie unto the People that your Argument lies so neare to their understanding that there are none heere present but are capable of it and can carry it away namely that there can be no Decree of Reprobation from Eternity because there was no Object of Reprobation only God Himself which is as much as to say I cannot determine what I will doe with any Worke which I purpose to make hereafter because that Worke is not yet in being Take Election and Reprobation for the Decree of God how He will dispose of such Creatures when they shall have a being this might be from Eternity though the Creatures themselves had not then an actuall being But if you take Election and Reprobation as you seeme to hint for the execution of this Decree in time none opposes For known unto God of old are all His Workes And therefore if the People understand the Argument they understand no more but this that GOD could not execute His Decrees but in Time M. Goodw. I fully accord and close with you in this and desire the People to take knowledge of it that there is no Election or Reprobation from Eternity but Decrees of Election and Reprobation only which I fully and freely assent unto and am of the same judgement with you herein I say there is no Reprobation of persons from Eternity because it is impossible there should be any persons from Eternity But the Decrees of God being nothing else but God Himself therefore to deny such Decrees from Eternity is to deny God Himself But this is that which I deny that these Decrees respect persons personally considered but they only respect Species of men As for example The Decree of Election from Eternity was that whosoever believes should be saved and on the contrary that who ever lives and dies in unbelief should be condemned this is the Decree of Reprobation And this is that which I say that there is no other Decree of Election and Reprobation from Eternity but only this And so I have done Mr. Symp. There is a Proposition which lies upon you to prove namely that the Object of Gods Decree and his Decree it self are the same If you have any ability therefore in you either prove it because you make it such an invinciable Argument or else go off as you did the last time not able to make good what you say For you have not answered your promise which was to prove that the Workes of Creation were a sufficient means to hould forth the Gospell I as Respondent shall look to my duty and if you will hear me I shall be willing to doe it M. Goodw. To prove any thing to them that are incapable of proof I am not able to do it I am I confesse more conquered with your weaknesse then with your strength M. Powel I desire leave to speake a few words and so we shall conclude The ground and occasion of the first Dispute with Master Goodwin it was some difference between Master Goodwins People and others And the end of it was for Reconciliation not for Contention When we came together the first Question was concerning Universall Redemption where M. Goodwin did assert this Position that Christ did die intentionally on His Fathers part and on His own to save all the Posterity of Adam Mr. Goodwin was oponent and he urged this Argument that if God did love all then He did intend the Salvation of all by the Death of Jesus Christ There was an Answer then given unto that Scripture which he then urged 3 John But I passe from thence and come to the second Disputation which lay upon Mr. Sympson to prove the contrary that Christ did not die on His Fathers part nor on His own part for the Salvation of all Men intentionally M. Sympson urged severall Arguments against that Position and this for one that if God did intend the Salvation of all Men by the Death of Christ then He did intend to give sufficient meanes unto all men for their Salvation Now the Result of that Dispute was this that when Mr. Sympson came to urge a Scripture in Acts 14. That the Heathen were left without the Gospell and that they had but showers and fruitfull Seasons to discover a God unto them Mr. Goodwin was pleased to say thus that he would undertake to prove that such showers and fruitfull Seasons did discover a Mediator which he

TRUTHS Conflict with ERROR OR Universall Redemption CONTROVERTED In three Publike DISPUTATIONS The first between M. John Goodwin and M. Vavasour Powell in Coleman-street LONDON The other two between M. John Goodwin and M. John Simpson at Alhallowes the great in Thames-street In the presence of divers Ministers of the City of London and thousands of others 2 Cor. 13. 5. Examine your selves whether ye be in the faith prove your own selves c. Prov. 18. 13. He that answereth a matter before he heareth it it is folly and shame unto him Prov. 29. 11. A fool uttereth all his mind but a wiseman keepeth it in til afterwards London Printed by Robert Austin on Adlin-Hill 1650. To the Reader Good Reader WHat ever becoms of the Controversie yet depending or on which side soever the truth shall fall concerning the intention of God the Father in the death of his Son and the nature and kind of his Decrees to be sure the law of life established in heaven is both inviolable and irreversible herein that the crown of life it must be run for and it is not a seeking but a striving that must carry it It 's true what the Wiseman saith that knowledge is easie to him that will understand yet not to every loose or faint desire but to the strength of such a will which through desire doth separate it self to intermeddle with all wisdome For it is with truth the off-spring of the God of truth as it is with God himself who though he be light and in him there is no darknesse at all yet is he said somtimes to make darknesse his pavilion round about him and to veile the light of his glory till we seek him diligently Even such is the nature of truth especially of such which are inriched with excellency and have a proper tendency to inrich the creature accordingly there is a holy disdain and secret digret in them as it were to be beheld or looked upon with common thoughts and apprehensions but they do require a singularnesse of intention and raisednesse of mind and spirit to go forth to meet them Nothing fills the world in generall with more complaints at this day nor the Commonwealth of Christians in particular with more divisions and thereupon with great thoughts of heart then the diversity of opinions or apprehensions rather concerning Truth Which notwithstanding did not the voluntary and affected ignorance of some the petulancy and frowardnesse of others and the supine negligence and remisnesse of most too much indulge and cherish might have received a great allay before this Buy the truth saith Solomon but sell it not Earnestly contend for the faith saith the Apostle which was once delivered unto the Saints And precious is our Saviours advice Call no man Master upon earth for one is your Master which is in heaven Too excellent above measure is the nature of the soule to be subjugated to the lawes and edicts of men No it must confesse its soveraigne Lord from whom it received its being and at whose will and pleasure it must be for ever And too invaluable is that pearle of price the truth of the Gospell to be found without much seeking yea without much searching and inquiring after Which being so doth add much weight and worth to this and such like ingagaments and pleads their righteousnesse and equity with a lip of excellency For should that question now be resumed againe and put to many which was somtime put to Christ What is Truth I meane in the particularities of it as they have been received and acknowledged doubtlesse many pretenders to this understanding would fall short in point of answer daily experience in all ages witnessing and sealing to it which in some measure me thinks should heal the offence which comes by it that as one Generation passeth and another comes the former resigning up and giving place to the latter so those Conceptions of Truth which have lookt very lovely for a season after a time they have lost their beauty the shining of a clearer light detecting them of weaknesse and expelling them as darknesse for though the night be far past and the day at hand yet such is the nature of Truth as that of Light to shine yet more and more unto the perfect day What thou hast here presented to thy view I nothing doubt but thou didst either here or els hast heard of the sound of it having gone forth both far and neare neither was it done in a corner The ground and reason of the first originall writing was mainly this to preserve the honour of Truth in the discovery and manifestation of it together with the integrity of the ingaged Parties or otherwise to recover their innocency from under that slander and calumny which ignorance and prejudice might be apt to cast upon them upon such ingagements experience whereof hath been too manifest in this particular through too much credulity that epidemicall weaknesse of many to believe every thing That thou wast no sooner prevented with it the interposition of indispensible occasions otherwise must plead for it Take it as it was or well could be taken without further Rhetorick or Arethmetick not the least materiall addition or Substraction onely some impertinent Multiplication first divided and then cancell'd And this be pleased to take not upon a single accompt but upon a three-fold testimony first duely comparing consenting and agreeing in one That which I shall further add in reference to it is onely this the nature of the subject my hope is will command an excellency of engagement and the formall manner of transacting so rarely seen or known in this our generation no doubt but will add some further weight to the consideration of it beware of prejudice that great enemy of Truth and perverter of Justice Labour with thy self what thou canst to behold a double object with a single eye Look not in an oblique manner or angularly upon the persons but with a direct and full aspect upon their respective Arguments and Conclusions take heed of rash and hasty inferences from inconsiderate and indigested premises First read and then judge and afterwards give sentence John Weekes Postscript GOod Reader to prevent thy stumbling at the threshold the entrance of this Discourse which otherwise thou canst not well avoid be pleased to take notice that there was a former meeting between Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Powell to which the first page relates but nothing of consequence did then passe onely something was spoken as to the stating of a Question which should afterwards be discussed THE FIRST DISPUTATION BETWIXT Mr. John Godwin and Mr. Vavasour Powell in Coleman-street London Decemb. 31. 1649. M. Ja. Cranford M. D. Lordell Moderators After the setling and composing themselves unto the Work it began thus Mr. Goodwin IF it be thought meet that we make choice of Moderators I shall desire that the same may Moderate who did before though I will not restrain Mr. Powell of

that expresly and punctually in the letter affirme that he Died for all therefore cleare it is at least thus far that all those arguments which are brought from the Scriptures to prove the contrary they must be founded and built upon the Discussions Issuings and givings out of the reasons and Apprehensions of men Mr. Symp. I crave leave to add one word in answer to what you have spoken for the first thing I shall not speak much to it but shall shew of what necessity this Point is I hope in the prosecution of our Discourse But secondly whereas you seeme to work upon the People by telling them that you were formerly of that Opinion and Judgement which I stand here to maintaine I shall only say this and leave it with you That Master Goodwin is not the first Man that hath held forth the Truth of Jesus Christ and afterwards departed from it But then whereas you say that Christ Dying for all is from expresse Scripture and that the contrary must be infer'd only by reason and argument this is the businesse of our Dispute and therefore you ought not without liberty to have spoken to it Mr. Goodwin Sir you impose a great necessity upon me To returne a word or two unto you you informe this People with as much disparagement and uningenuity as likely can be in so many words by telling them that I was not the first Man that departed from the Faith of Jesus Christ to an heterodox Faith and Opinion wherein you certainely triumph before the Battell and cry victoria before you put on your harnesse Possitively concluding that though I was not the first yet I am in the number and retinue of those who have deserted the Christian Faith and turned in unto error and I hope I may as freely say this that as you are not the first so I hope you will not be the last who shall dissert an Error and Opinion and wayes that are not streight to turne into the wayes of Life and Peace I had rather professe my hope and Christian Belief concerning you herein then to censure or determine any thing against you as you your self have done against me and for my part it is in vaine for me to dispute if it be already concluded and determined before hand that I am one of those Mr. Symp. I speak my apprehension in the Presence of God I conceive that it is an error which you maintaine that Christ Died for all the posterity of Adam and that it is a Truth that he died in a particular manner for some And therefore according to my apprehension I cannot but deale plainly and ingenuously by you to tell you in the Presence of God that if you did first hold this and afterwards depart from it that then you forsooke the truth to imbrace an error But because replies will be infinitum will you please Sir to pitch upon a Moderator an indifferent Man who may judge of our Syllogismes and keep us to the question Mr. Goodwin I suppose his interest who ever he be will be only to see the Disputation fairely carried and that the Reasonings and Arguings to and fro be pertinent and close and direct to the Point in hand and therefore to me its all of one and the same consideration who is the Man that shall undertake it Two Moderators chosen Mr. Griffith and Mr. Ames Mr. Symp. If you please we shall desire one of the Moderators to speak a word unto the Lord for it is the Rule of the Apostle to doe all things in the Name of the Lord Jesus and unto God by him Mr. Ames then Prayed c. And afterwards the dispute proceeded thus Mr. Symp. Sir this is your Position as I have received it from the hand of Mr. Powel which I intend by the assistance of the Lord to oppose That Jesus Christ on Gods Part and on his own Part in His Death died intentionally to save all the Posterity of Adam Is this the Position that you intend to maintaine Mr. Goodw. If it please you there are no termes in that tenor or forme that doe much displease me but I had rather contract if it you will and let it be thus that Iesus Christ Died intentionally for all Men or the Death of Christ was intended by God for all Men. Mr. Ames Sir there seemes I humbly conceive to be a necessity for the putting in of some other words to the right stating of this question those who understand the great Controversie betweene the one and the other in this Point call for some other stating of it as namely thus Whether or no Iesus Christ in His Death and Passion did equally intend the Salvation of all the Posterity of the first Adam one and other without any difference pardon Me Sir herein that I am put upon it to speak Mr. Goodw. Sir I conceive a pardon is only in case of offence and transgression but I know none that you have committed in what you have now spoken only I suppose that the interposition of that word equally will not so much modell the Question as multiply questions and of one it will beget many for to inquire whether Christ Died equally for all it seemes to import this not only whether Christ in the first and primary intention of His Death did intend the Salvation of all Men but whether notwithstanding any difference that should arise in Men from themselves in the course of their Lives and Conversations afterwards whether yet after any such difference as for example after their Apostacy or committing the sin against the Holy Ghost that yet the Death of Christ was or is then equally referrable and relating to the Salvation of these Men as well as of any other Now this as I say is a question altogether excentricall to that question which we are now come together to argue and to consider of Mr. Symp. Mr. Moderator if you please let that alone for it will fall in of it self Sir I prove then that Iesus Christ did not die intentionally for all the posterity of Adam Mr. Goodw. Very well Mr. Symp. First Argument If Christ Died intentionally for the Salvation of all the Posterity of Adam then he Died as a means of their Salvation But he did not die as a meanes of their Salvation and therefore he did not die for all the Posterity of Adam Mr. Goodw. For the present I shall not distinguish but deny your Minor I shall have opportunity to distinguish it afterwards in the prosecution Mr. Symp. The Proposition to be proved is this That Jesus Christ did not die as a meanes for the Salvation of all Men which I prove thus If He Died as a meanes of the salvation of all Men He Died as an effectuall or as an ineffectuall meanes But Jesus Christ neither Died as an effectuall nor as an ineffectuall And therefore He did not die as a meanes at all Mr. Goodw. I answer by distinguishing of your Minor Proposition

not To oppose the sufficiency of the merit of the Death of Christ for all men but the universality of Intention on Gods part in the Death of Christ for a Ransom for all men Mr Symps My Argument is not yet answered I prove That there is not any such Intention on Gods part for then there should be contradictory Intentions in him if according to Mr Goodwins Opinion he intends the Salvation of all and according to that which I prove there is an Intention that he will not save all Because he will not give that to some without which the Death of Christ could not be effectual to them Mr Ames I humbly conceive that this is a second Argument Mr Symps No It is but a further progress in the Argument I prove That God did not intend it as an effectual means because he did not intend to do that without which he knew it would not be effectual and if God did intend it as an effectual means then there is a Contradiction in Gods Intention Mr Griffith If you please Sir draw it up into an Argument Mr Symps If God intended the Death of Christ as a means for the Salvation of all then there are Contradictions in the Intentions of God But there are no Contradictions in Gods Intentions Ergo. Mr Griffith Then there are Contradictory Intentions in God I suppose you mean Sir Mr Goodw. I deny your Major Proposition It doth not follow from hence from Gods Intention that the Death of Christ should be Effectual for all that therefore there should be contradictory Intentions in God If you please a proof of that and I shall give you an account of this in my Answer Mr Symps God intended that the Death of Christ should not be an Effectual means for the Salvation of some and therefore if he intended the Salvation of all by his Death as a means then there are contradictory Intentions in the minde of God Mr Goodw. To this Answer hath been made before The Law of Contradictions and contradictory Intentions must relate ad idem it must be in respect of one and the same sence wherein both the Propositions pretended to be contradictory one to the other must be understood As to the point in hand We say that in one sence God did intend the Death of Christ to be Effectual to all and in other sence he intended it to be ineffectual I gave you an account of my distinction thus In this sence God did intend it an Effectual means to all that is In case that all the World should beleeve there should be a fountain and pienty of Salvation for all men in it But now in the other sence wherein I say that God did not intend it as an Effectual means my meaning is this That he did not intend that all men nor any one man whatsoever should ever partake of this satisfaction by the Death of Christ but only by and upon his beleeving In this sence I say God did intend that the Death of Christ should be ineffectual to all men if Intentions may be negative in God though I would not use that term but I follow your Argument and I trust to the capacity of all that hear me Mr Symps I oppose your Answer thus You say That God did intend the Death of Christ as a means in one sence and not in another You say He intended it not as an Effectual means for those who should not beleeve but he did intend it as an Effectual means to all those who should beleeve This I apprehend is the substance of your Answer Mr Goodw. No Sir There is one thing wanting For my Answer imports That even for those who do not beleeve the Death of Christ is sufficient and that according to the Intention of God as well as for those who do beleeve else I should not maintain an agreement with my self But in this sence I deny that God did intend it to be Effectual namely that it should actually produce or raise or bring to effect the Salvation of those who should not beleeve Mr Symps I do not speak of that as all I onely speak of the Death of Christ in a general way in relation to all the posterity of Adam not considering them as Beleevers or Unbeleevers Mr Goodw. Very well So I say it was Effectual for all Mr Symps I prove it could not be because God did intend that it should not be Effectual for some of the posterity of Adam Mr Goodw. Observe the inequality of your Reason You say That you do not consider men in your Argument as Beleevers or Vnbeleevers but when you come to inforce your Argument then you distinguish them which is not fair Mr Symps No I look upon the posterity of Adam not as Beleevers or Unbeleevers and prove That God did really intend that some of this posterity should not be saved by the Death of Christ Mr Goodw. If you please thus I do not say or did I ever say or think That God did ever intend to save all or any man actually by the Death of Christ but upon and by means of his beleeving and at the same time when he did intend the Salvation of all men he did intend likewise the Condemnation and perishing of all those that should dye in their unbelief And these two Intentions have no manner of repugnancy in God but are as fair and brotherly and as friendly and will lodg together in the same infinite Love and Grace there being no manner of opposition nor face of contrariety between them Mr Ames I humbly conceive that the Disputation sticks here in a non-right-understanding of that distinction concerning the Efficaciousness of the Death of Christ For in one sence Sir you are pleased to understand it Effectual to all namely so far onely as it carries in it a sufficiency and in another as it carries a certainty of event so you understand it ineffectual Now we humbly intreat you because these phrases or distinctions of Effectualness and Ineffectualness are not plainly understood that therefore you would please to explain your self a little further as to this Mr Goodw. I thought that I had explained my self to the apprehensions of most My sence is clearly this When I say that God did intend the Death of Christ to be Effectual unto all men my meaning is That he did intend that it should be of such a nature tendency worth merit and value that there is no creature nor person in all the world man or woman but that they might be saved by it that is In case they should beleeve in Iesus Christ they should not suffer loss of Salvation for want of merit attonement or reconciliation made with God for their sins In this sence I affirm it to be Effectual to all and that according to the Intention of God But then if by Effectual you mean this That God should intend that all men should be actually saved whether they beleeve or no that is without