he should not set free from sin all and every man in the world Furthermore if God shall not justifie and set free all men there will be fraud and folly imputed to God and Christ for where there is fair and honest dealing the buyer and the seller are agreed upon the same terms as if the buyer intendeth to have so many in number be it ten twentie an hundred or a thousand the seller intendeth the same number also and the same persons or else there is fraud in the one and folly in the other now Christ is the purchaser and if he intended by his death to ransom all men then God the Father must intend the same and must justifie and deliver from wrath even all men He must in justice deliver as many as Christ bought and the same persons that is all men in the world or else you impute fraud and folly to God and to Christ I shall inlarge my self upon this last Argument by descending to some particulars as thus If God shall not justifie and save eternally Judas Pharaoh Cain Corah and his wicked company for whom Christ died as say Arminians then he shall be very unjust this I thus prove If Christ died for Judas Pharaoh and other abominable wicked men then have they suffered in this life the full wrath of God for all their sins and have made a sufficient and perfect satisfaction to Gods justice already here for though they suffered not in this life in their own persons yet if it be true that Christ died for them then they suffered in the person of Christ when in this life he died on the Cross for them which is to be reckoned as their own death and suffering This I thus prove Look what a mans surety performs for him that is reckoned as done by himself as in case my surety payeth my debt it is reckoned as my payment for thereby I am discharged So if Christ paid the debt of Judas Pharaoh and the rest it is as if they had paid it in their own persons and so they must be discharged Hence it follows That since Judas and others have suffered in the person of Christ which is to be reckoned as their own suffering 1. That Judas and Pharaoh have made a full and perfect satisfaction to Gods justice for all their sins having suffered in this life the second death and hell with the pains thereof or what is equivalent thereunto 2. That God must in justice justifie and save this wicked crue eternally or else he will be an unjust Judge for he shall punish one sin twice once in Christ the suretie and once again in Judas the principal So much for proof of my Major as for my Minor it needs no proof it being so clear Answer Arminians do answer thus to my Major That it followeth not that if Christ died for all men then God must justifie and save all men for God may interpose the condition of faith to go between Christs death for Judas and others and the act of Gods justification and so as though Christ died for all men yet God will not justifie any of them unless they first believe Reply 1 It is absurd to suppose that God would put in a condition after he hath taken a ransom and payment of a full price Conditions are always made before the price is payd but never after the price is paid and received what man that selleth house or land doth put in a condition after he hath received his money Wherefore since Arminians will not have the condition of Faith to go before Christs death it is too late to put in this condition after Christs death for by his death the ransom and price is fully paid and received paid by Christ and received by God the Father 2 If Christ died for Judas and all men considered absolutely as sinners and without faith as Arminians hold then God the Father must justifie Judas and all men considered absolutely as sinners and without Faith and so the condition of Faith cannot be interposed for the Buyer and Seller if there be fair dealings between them so as one doth not over-reach the other are both agreed upon the same terms so as if the Buyer purchaseth and payeth the price without any condition then the Seller that takes the price must give up the thing bought and paid for without any condition and so God cannot be said to put in the condition of Faith between Christs death and the act of justification 3 Since Arminians hold that Christ died for all men as sinners and without the condition of Faith God cannot in justice require the condition of Faith before he will justifie them for if he shall require it then many thousands for whom Christ died dying without Faith must be damned and suffer for their sins eternally in the next life now if Christ died for them in this life and suffered for them and in their room stead and place then God shall be unjust to punish these men for their sins in the next life though they die without faith for so he shall punish one sin twice once in Christ their suretie and once in themselves the principal Since Judas hath suffered for his sins in the person of Christ in this life God shall be an unjust Judge to punish Judas for his sins in the next life though he hath no faith for God hath as they say punished Judas his sins in the person of Christ and therefore he shall be unjust to punish him also in his own person It is extream injustice to require a debt both of the suretie and also of the principal wherefore Judas his debt being paid to God by Christ God cannot in justice require the condition of Faith of him so as for want of it to damn him and to cause him to suffer for his sins in the next life and so to pay his own debt in his own person for so God should require one debt to be twice paid and so you see that the condition of faith cannot be interposed betwixt Christs death and justification being that God in justice must justifie and set free from the debt of punishment all those men whose debt Christ hath paid whether they believe or not believe when God looks upon Judas as having suffered in the person of Christ he cannot but see his justice fully satisfied and therefore cannot but justifie and free him believing or not believing wherefore to interpose the condition of Faith is to make God an unjust Judge 4 I shall here add one thing which will both strengthen my Major and also confute their answer They say Christ died for all men and therefore they must so generally understand the Text 2. Cor. 5.15 which saith He died for all c. now all those who Christ died for those he reconciled to God his father He is the reconciliation not for our sins onely but also for the sins if the whole world 1. John 2.2 And all
say Christ intended to die for the salvation of all men and yet denie them the knowledge of it by the Gospel preached So much for my Major But Christ neither would nor hath caused the Gospel to be preached to all men whereby they should be brought to faith and be the better for his death This I thus prove 1. The Gospel is not in these days preached to many Indians and barbarous nations 2. In old time before us the Gospel or any thing of Christ was not preached to millions of Gentiles Psal 147.19 20. Acts 10.12 28. and 16.6 7. Ephes 2.11 12 13 14. 3. Christ preached to some men in parables and darkly to this end that they should not obtain remission of sins and be the better for his death Mark 4.11 12. So much for my Minor and the conclusion follows Therefore Christ did not so love all men as to give himself and to die for all men Before I have done with this Argument I must answer an Objection which my Reader may make and confute an Answer which the Arminians do make the Objection is this you said in your first Argument that Christ would not have the word concerning his death which is Gospel to be preached to wicked impenitent and unbelieving men and here in this third Argument you say that the Gospel ought to be preached to all men and among all men are many wicked men c. Hereunto I answer that this is no contradiction for in my first Argument I spake absolutely and as the truth is but here in my third Argument I speak not absolutely but conditionally with an if as If Christ died for all men then the Gospel must be preached to all men be they godly or wicked so this I speak but upon a supposition of the truth of the Arminian tenent which if it be true then this follows that Gospel must be preached to all men good and bad So much of this Objection and now I come to the answer of Arminians which is this The Arminians in their Acta Synodalia de Morte Christi pag. 327 328. do answer this my third Argument thus that a limitation is to be added to my Major and then my Minor will be false thus therefore they frame it a new and limit it If Christ so loved all men as to die for all men then would he have caused the Gospel to be actually preached to all men or else be prepared and in a readinesse to have it preached so soon as men be fitted to receive it The better to colour this limitation they make a twofold calling a common or general calling and a special calling by the general calling they understand the law and light of nature as the natural knowledge that there is a God and of the law of God to which men ow obedience now to him that useth this aright God is prepared to communicate unto him his special calling which is the preaching of the Gospel so the well using of that is a fitting and preparing of men for this and the reason why many men are denied the Gospel is their own fault because they do abuse the light of nature or the general calling so then Gods will is to have the Gospel preached actually to all men that are fitted for it and is prepared to have it preached to others so soon as they be fitted for it and so be they do not put a bar in the way to hinder God by their evil deserts and unfitedness Hereunto I thus reply I will not contend about this order and method of God that first he willeth all men to make good use of the law and light of nature and then and not before to vouchsafe the Gospel to them be this true or false I will not question it but rather grant it for argument sake but yet this I denie though it be never so true in it self that this limitation shall be added to my Major That God is prepared to have the Gospel preached to men so soon as men be fitted for it and not before for this is an absurd limitation and it is to maintain one Errour by another the which I make thus appear 1 They say as it is implied in the antecedent part of my Major That Christ died for all men and then they would add to it this That some of those men are not fit to know it or not fitted to hear of it and receive it for this is implied in their limitation now is not this an absurd thing to be added as first to hold that Christ died for all men and then to add to this that some of those men are not fit to hear of it or to know it This werâ—â—â—â—erable if it were held that though men be unfit to know it at some one time of their lives yet they should be fit at some other time before death but forasmuch as men abuse the light of nature all their lives long and so die impenitently therefore they must hold that many men are never fit to hear of or know what Christ hath done for them and is it not absurd to say Christ died for many men who nor are nor ever shall be fit to know it or Christ died for many who shall never be fit to know what he hath done for them are they fitted for Christ to die for them and not fitted to know he died for them This conceit is like unto this A man pays a ransom to redeem one from captivitie or prison but the prisoner or captive is not fit to hear or know of it so long as he liveth or like unto this A Physitian makes an excellent and healthfull potion or cordial for his sick patient but adds this saying He shall know of it so soon as he is fit to know of it and to receive it when as he knows the patient shall never be fit so long as he lives is not this absurd â—â—â—refore if they will hold that Christ died for all men they must hold also that they are fit to know and hear of it which being so this is a frivolous and absurd limitation to add saying or else God and Christ be prepared to cause the Gospel to be preached to men so soon as they be fitted for it or be fit to receive it 2 Christ foresaw that many men in the world would never make a good use of the law and light of nature whereby to be fitted to know of his death If therefore this was no hinderance for Christ to die for them then this is no hinderance for the Gospel to be preached to them for there is as good reason for the one as the other yea the reason is stronger to think mens unfitness should rather hinder Christ to die for them than to hinder a sermon of Christs death to be preached to them for Christ his bloud is of more value than a ministers words and breath wherefore if Christ died for all men then are all men fit
to hear of it and so this limitation of fitness is frivolous Furthermore those whom Christ died for those he loved infinitely and unspeakably John 3.16 and 15.13 now if it be true as Arminians say that Christ died for all men then he infinitely and unspeakably loved all men even those who abused the general call the light of nature albeit he foresaw they would live and die in in the abuse of it and was his love so hot and strong to those men as to pass by this abuse when he shed his hearts bloud for them and was it become so cold and weak to them afterward as to stick at it and not pass it by when he thought of causing a sermon of his death to be preached to them whereby they might be the better for his death was Christs love so hot as to require no fitness in them when he died for them and was it become so cold afterward as to stick at these mens unfitness to hear a sermon of his death surely if nothing in these men could hinder Christ to die for them then nothing in them can hinder a sermon of Christ to be preached to them if there needed no qualification in them to render them fit for Christ to die for them then there needs no qualification in them to fit them to hear a sermon of Christ unless you suppose more virtue or dignitie to be in a sermon of Christ than is in the bloud of Christ so you see this limitation of fitness is vain 3 To say Christ died for all men and then to add this unto it That they shall not have the Gospel which is a necessary means of obtaining the end of Christs death preached unto them unless they be fit for it or untill they be fitted to receive it is a very absurd addition and limitation as you have seen so it is also as absurd to say God or Christ is prepared and in a readiness to have the Gospel preached so soon as men be fitted for it for there be thousands of Indians and others who live and die in the abuse of the law and light of nature and so are never fit for the Gospel and who never heard the Gospel now can it be truly said that God or Christ hath prepared himself to use and apply means unto such as never will be capable of the means and unto such as he well knows and fore-sees will never be capable of it did ever any wise man prepare himself to do any thing the which he fore-sees shall never be done and yet such a preparation Arminians do ascribe unto the wise God Will a Physitian prepare himself to give phisick to a dead man or to one whom he knows will never be fit to take it Moreover If this fitness be pre-required then thus I reason God not onely fore-sees that many will never be fit for the Gospel but also is resolved in himself that the Gospel shall never be preached to them because he fore-sees they shall and will live and die unfitted now can it be said that God is prepared to do that thing which he is resolved in himself shall never be done you may as well say God is prepared to save the reprobate angels and devils Thus you see there is cause enough for me to reject this limitation and addition to my Major wherefore my Argument must stand as I framed it without this their addition and then it is strong and good to prove that Christ died not for all men and it is unanswerable their answer being confuted So far of my third Argument ARGUM. IV. If God the Son died for the sins of all men then God the Father will justifie the persons and pardon the sins of all men But God the Father will not justifie the persons and pardon the sins of all men for if he should then all men should be saved Mark 16.16 Luke 13.3 Revel 21.8 Therefore God the Son did not die for the sins of all men As for my Major thus I prove it 1 Arminians say that by the word world John 3.16 we are to understand all men in the world now if God the Father so exceedingly loved all men as to give his onely begotten Son to die for them John 3.16 then he can do no less than justifie the persons and pardon the sins of all men because 1. He loved all men and he gave his Son for none other end but for all men to obtain justification and pardon of sin now surely God will not loose his love nor fail of his end nor waste and spill in vain the bloud of his onely Son all which he should do if he should not justifie all men after he had given his Son for them and to justifie them If it be in his power will any wise man loose his love be frustrated of his end and spend all his labour and cost in vain 2 Christ is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world John 1.29 now if Christ hath taken away by his death the sins of the world that is as Arminians say of all men then God the Father cannot retain their sins those mens sins which are removed or taken away cannot be unpardoned or remain upon them wherefore if Christ died for all men and hath taken away the sins of all men then surely God the Father hath or will justifie and pardon the sins of all men or else Christ that Lamb hath not taken away their sins 3 If God the Father gave Christ his Son to die and pacifie his wrath for the sins of all men John 3.16 then God the Father cannot but accept of his sons death it being according to his own will and being his own gift and if he accepts of it then his wrath must needs be pacified for the sins of all men and so he cannot denie to justifie all men and pardon their sins 4 God the Father in giving his Son and God the Son in giving himself both aimed at one and the same end namely justification and pardon of sin and both aimed at the same persons for obtaining this end or else God the Father and God the Son were not both of one mind but of diverse or contrary minds wherefore if God the Son died to obtain pardon of sins for all men then God the Father will vouchsafe pardon of sins to all men 5 If God should not justifie all those men for whom Christ died he should be unjust for Christ gave himself to death as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a ransom for all men as Arminians say 1. Tim. 2.6 a ransom is the full price for the redemption of a prisoner or captive now when a king takes a ransom for a thousand captives if he deliver not them all and every one he is unjust so God the Father having taken and received at the hands of Christ a full price and ransom for the sins of all men as Arminians say he should be unjust if
those who Christ died for 2. Cor. 5.15 God the Father reconciled unto himself 2. Cor. 5.19 God was in Christ and reconciled the world to himself that is God was in Christ when he died on the Cross for the sins of all men and reconciled them unto himself now as God reconciled all men or the world so he justified them all for the Text saith He did not impute their sins unto them 2. Cor. 5.19 Furthermore reconciliation doth presuppose justification to go before for the partie offended is not said to be reconciled untill he hath first forgiven the offence and the offender So then the world which Christ died for the same world God justified thus you see my Major confirmed Next to confute their answer Faith cannot be interposed betwixt Christs death and Gods justification so as to hinder any man for whom Christ died from justification because those whom Christ died for 1. John 2.2 2. Cor. 5.15 those God justified not imputing their sins unto them 2. Cor. 5.19 and those God reconciled unto himself 2. Cor. 5.19 so Faith cannot be any condition so as to hinder any man by want of it for whom Christ died from justification because all those Christ died for all those God reconciled and justified if Christ died for Judas then God justified Judas yet Judas had no faith interposed betwixt Impetration and Application for he was no believer If Arminians say Christ died for all men then Paul saith God justified all men and I may say God justifieth them whether they believe or not believe for faith cannot be interposed So much for my fourth Argument ARGUM. V. If Christ died for all men then God the Father loved all men and that with a special and incomparable love My reason here is Because God the Father gave his Son yea his onely Son to death for them now for a Father to deliver up to death his Son yea his onely Son for a man this bewrays love to that man yea matches love See a text for it John 3.16 God so loved the world that he gave his onely begotten Son c. What greater love than this did ever God shew to the world than when he gave his onely begotten Son to die for them But God the Father did not love all men with a special and incomparable love This I thus prove Because there are and ever were many unbelieving wicked and impenitent men in the world who lived and died in Gods hatred I have loved Jacob and have hated Esau Rom. 9.13 and see Rom. 9.22 The wicked and him that loveth iniquitie doth his soul hate Psal 11.5 Thou hatest them that work iniquitie Psal 5.5 6. Therefore Christ did not die for all men To avoid the strength of this Argument Arminians perhaps will answer thus That God loved all men as sinners but hateth them as impenitent sinners c. Hereunto I reply That this is a distinction unheard of and no where grounded in the Scriptures that I know of and therefore it is to be rejected That God loveth all men as his creatures may pass as a sound position but that God loveth all men as sinners and that with an incomparable and matchles love is to me most unsound for a thing considered as evil is no object of love but of hatred and so much for my fifth Argument Thus I have by five Arguments proved That Christ died not for all men and so I have finished the first thing propounded at the beginning and now I come to the second which is to make answer unto the Texts of Scripture brought by Arminians to prove That Christ died for all men An Answer unto the Texts alleadged by Arminians to prove an Universal Redemption JOHN 3.16 God so loved the world that he gaue his onely begotten Son c. BY this Text Arminians would prove that Christ died for all men and for this end they urge the word world in the Text which they will needs have generally and universally taken so as to signifie all men in the world whether good or bad believers or unbelievers and so as Christ should die for all men in the largest sense Answer 1 I take it for a great weakness in Arminians to build so confidently upon the word world urging that it must be generally taken here for all men in the world who knoweth not that knows any thing in Scripture that general words are very often used by holy pen-men particularly The general word all is often used particularly for some or for many as in Matth. 3.5 1. Cor. 1.5 and 13.2 7. and 9.25 and 6.12 and 10.23 33. many examples may be given for other words also but passing by them I shall instance in the word in question The word world is sometime taken for all men in the world as in Rom. 5.12 and sometime it is taken for all men in the world excepting eight persons as in 2. Pet. 3.6 1. Pet. 3.20 The world that then was perished over-flowed with water and sometime it is taken for the most men in the world as in 2. Cor. 4.4 John 15.18 19. and 17.9 The God of this world hath blinded the minds c. and sometime it is taken for the lesser number of men in the world as in Acts 17.6 John 12.19 These are they which have subverted the state of the world And Behold the world goeth after him Now since this word is so variously used how can they be so confident as to averr that it must be taken in the largest sense My answer therefore is that as the word world is sometime taken for the lesser number of men in the world which are Disciples and followers of Christ as in John 12.19 so it may be taken also in their Text alleadged John 3.16 for believers who are the lesser number of this world and this is my first Answer 2 I shall prove that the word world is used for believers onely and then it will follow that as there is a world of the wicked so there is a world of believers also for this end See John 1.29 Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world Though Arminians say that Christ this Lamb of God died for the sins of the world and for all men by way of Impetration yet they hold that Christ hath not justified or procured justification for all men in the world by way of Application nor for any men but for believers onely now this Text speaks of Taking away the sins of the world which is no less than to procure Justification and to make Application of Christs death by freeing men from their sins and therefore this text is not to be understood of the world of all men but of believers onely and of the world of believers for no mens sins are Taken away but believers onely see 2. Cor. 5.19 God was in Christ and reconciled the world unto himself not imputing their sins unto them Here the world that were reconciled
world for the Text saith not onely the world as in John 3.16 but the whole world to note the universalitie 2 The Text saith not for our sins onely that is not for our sins onely who are believers but also for the sins of the whole world that is for the sins of unbelievers as well as believers and so all men in the world both believers and unbelievers even the whole world are here meant Answer Enough hath been said in my former answer touching the word World shewing that it is often taken not for all men but for some and for many men in the world and for the world of believers and so in this last sense it may be taken in this Text 1. John 2.2 But whereas they urge us in this Text with the word whole in that S. Iohn saith the whole World this will nothing mend their cause for as the word World is often used for some or for many men in the world so are these words the whole World for this end note 1. That other expressions equivalent to this and of as large extent as this yet are not to be taken in the largest sense but are used for many in the world as in Isa 23.17 and 34.1 Lament 4.12 Col. 1.6 Mark 16.15 Secondly these very words in question namely the whole World are used for many in the world as in Rom. 1.8 your faith is published throughout the whole World it is not credible that every particular man and woman in the whole World had heard of the faith of these Râ—mans And see 1. Ioh. 5.19 we know that we are of God and this whole World lieth in wickednesse If the whole World here mentioned so taken in the Arminian sense for all and every man in the world how could S. Iohn exempt himself and other godly persons living then with him from lying in wickedness so you see that by these words the whole World is not always meant all and every particular man woman in the world Arminians may as well say that S. John saith Ioh. 5.19 that all men then living were wicked men none godly as to say that the same Apostle in 1. Ioh. 2.2 saith that Christ died for all men in the whole World none excepted for S. Iohn mentions the whole World in both Texts So much for answer to their first inference from the Text. As for their second inference from this Text it is built upon a needless and groundless exposition of the Text for thus they expound it He is the reconciliation for our sins that is for the sins of us believers now living in the world and not for ours onely but also for the sins of the whole World that is not for our sins onely who are believers now living in the world but also for the sins of unbelievers now living in the world and so he is a reconciliation for the sins of the whole World now living both believers and unbelievers To this I thus answer 1 For them to expound the Text as belonging to wicked ungodly men and unbelievers must needs be a false exposition for it maketh God and Christ to express their singular matchless and incomparable love unto such men as they foresaw would live and die in their wickedness hatred of God impenitency and unbelief now the Scriptures inform us that God is so far off from loving such men as that he hateth and abhorreth them Psal 5.5 6. Psal 11.5 wherefore the Text must not be enlarged unto unbelievers 2 The enlargement of Christs death and reconciliation at the end of the verse may very well and safely be understood of believers onely after this manner He is the reconciliation not onely for our sins who are believing Iews but also for the sins of the whole world of believers both Iews and Gentiles or thus He is the reconciliation not onely for our sins who are believers now living but also for the sins of the whole World of believers living before our time in our time or that shall believe hereafter The death and reconciliation of Christ is to be extended unto all times past present and to come Jesus Christ is yesterday and to day and the same for ever Heb. 13.8 Thus you see how this Text may well be understood not of all men but of believers onely and this sense suiteth well with the context and matter in hand or with the persons spoken of who are believers onely as you may see 1. Ioh. 2.1 3. So much for answer to their second Text 1. Ioh. 2.2 and so I come to their third Text. 1. TIM 2.6 Who gave himself a ransom for all men c. Lo here say they it is clearly expressed that Christ died and gave himself to death not for some men onely but for all men and it is evident also by the context that this word all must be universally taken and in the largest sense for so it is taken vers 1. I exhort that prayers be made for all men vers 2. and for all that are in authority vers 4. who will that all men shall be saved and come unto the acknowledging of the truth Answer Here again you see the weakness of Arminians in that they build so confidently upon the word all as if they had never read or heard that this word all is very often used in Scripture particularly for some or for many as in Matt. 3.5 Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about Jordan and were baptized c. Matt. 4.23 Jesus c. healed all or every sickness all or every disease c. Rom. 15.13 The God of hope fill you with all joy c. but carnal joy is not prayed for here and see 1. Cor. 1.5 and 13.7 and 9.25 and 10.33 23. and 6.12 Phil. 2.21 3. John 12. Thus you see how the word all in 1. Tim. 2.6 may be understood of all that are believers who are not all men in the world but some onely or many Whereas they endeavour to prove by the context that the word all must be taken in the largest sense because it is so taken in the former verses my answer is that the matter in the first six verses is not one and the same but diverse In vers 1 2. the matter is about good government but in vers 4 5 6. the matter is about mans salvation now being the matter is diverse therefore the word all may be diversly understood as universally in vers 1 2. and particularly for some in vers 4 5 6. and this is usual in expounding of Scripture to take the word all generally in some matter treated of and particularly in some other matter treated of Whereas they urge the fourth vers who will that all men shall be saved my answer is that here the word all must not be taken in the largest sense for God will not have all and every man to be saved for he willeth not the salvation of reprobates impenitent
now I come to their similitudes and first to that of a Physician 1 This simily of a Physician is altogether impertinent to their purpose for by this simily it is cleared that God in justice may damn Judas once because he refuseth to believe but it doth not clear that which is in question which is that God in justice may damn Judas twice for his sin of unbelief that is once in his surety Christ and once more in his own person this is high injustice no similitudes may or can make God to be unjust If the patient refuseth to receive and apply the potion he is to bear the blame but it is not so in Judas if he refuseth to believe and apply Christ because if Christ died for Judas absolutely and without respect to his belief or unbelief as Arminians say then he is not bound to believe in Christ as a means to free him from damnation for Christ hath already suffered his damnation for him before God the Father required any faith in him when he died for him considered as a sinner or unbeliever so Judas is not to be blamed for not believing since Christ in dying for him and in his room required or respected no faith in him and it is too late for God the Father to require the condition of faith in him after he hath punished him and his sin in Christ Further though in Physick the patient is to apply the potion to avoid death yet it is not so in the potion of Christs death to free us from death for here man is to do nothing but to be passive if Christ died for all unbelievers but it is God who is to make application to apply Christs death to men whether they believe or believe not because he received and accepted Christs death for all men believers or not believers in what condition Christ gave himself for men in such condition God received Christ for men 1 Though a Physician tenders a potion to his patient so as he refuseth to apply it he must die yet it is not so to be applied as if God tendered Christ upon the condition of faith so as if they refuse to believe they must be damned for it is absurd to think or say that after God had received and accepted of Christ and his death for men without any condition at all be it faith or any other he should afterwards require a condition or tender Christ upon a condition of faith God having received Christs death for men without condition he hath no tender to make unto men now but to tender them justification glorification and freedom from condemnation this or nothing is to be tendered for after God hath punished and damned a man in Christ it is most absurd to think he should then require of him faith as a condition and means to free him from damnation Thus much for the simile of a Physiciaâ— 2 As for the other simile of a King and the Captives this is also impertinent for 1. Be it so that Judas and other captives do despise Christs ransom and faith the means of it yet this will not clear God of injustice if he punish Judas twice once in Christ his suretie and once again in his own person no simile can make God unjust or to punish one man or one sin twice God in justice may punish Judas his dispising once as in Christ or in Judas but not twice as in Christ and in Judas both 2. This simile is unfit for the purpose and therefore to be rejected if it were fitted to our question it should be thus framed A King having many subjects in captivity to a forreign King pays their ransom by his son who is put into captivitie for them and lies there in their room but they despise their libertie choose to live in captivitie still wherefore the forreign King may keep both the Kings son and the captives also in prison and captivitie can the forreign King do this injustice So much for their second similitude I cannot imagine what Arminians should say to evade these things unless they will coyn a new distinction and strange to Christian ears and so make a hotchpotch of the work of Redemption saying that Christ died for some of a mans sins but not for all his sins as not for his final unbelief or new infidelitie or infidelitie unrepented of as they express it and then they think to evade all by this answer that God punished Christ for all Judas his sins excepting his infidelitie and punished Judas for his infidelitie and so God punisheth no sin twice nor is he unjust But to this new distinction I thus reply 1 It maketh Christ to be but a partial Saviour or an half Saviour for by this distinction they say Christ died for some or many of a mans sins but not for all for not for unbelief 2. It maketh Christ to die for some of Judas his sins and Judas himself to die for other some of his sins 3. It maketh Judas and other wicked men and unbelievers to suffer hell torments for none of all their horrible and abominable sins committed in their life time but onely for their final unbelief for they say Christ died and suffered for all their other sins Now to say that wicked men do not suffer in hell for their other horrible sins besides infidelitie is not onely absurd but manifestly false as is to be seen Matth. 25.41 42 43. John 5.29 Rom. 2.6 8 9. Jude 7. Revel 21.8 where we see that wicked men suffer in hell for their unmercifulness contention unrighteousness fornication murther sorcerie idolatrie and lyes so you see they can make no evasion but by coyning of a new distinction which makes an hotchpotch of the work of Redemption and is not onely absurd but also manifestly false as is proved 2. If Christ died not for new infidelitie then he died not for all men for many believe not after invitation by the Gospel preached which they call new infidelitie Iohn 12.37 So much for confutation of the Arminian answer saying to us that therefore God may justly damn Judas because he will not believe Now their answer being confuted our objection remains good namely that if Christ died for all men then it follows that no man shall be damned but that Judas and all men shall be saved And so I come to the fourth and last thing propounded to be handled which is A Confutation of their distinction of Impetration and Application The distinction of Impetration and Application confuted FIrst we must know what Arminians understand by these terms By impetration they understand the death and passion of Christ whereby he merited remission of sins and justification for all men By application they understand the fruit and benefit of Christs death and passion which is as I conceive it must be the real and actual remission of sins and justification applied unto the faithfull The former namely Impetration is proper to God the Son
is to punish twice over for the same sins which is an act of injustice in God now this must be so if you distinguish of impetration and application in such sort as they concurr not in the same persons but are divided so as impetration belongs unto unbelievers but application belongs not to them for if application and justification belongs not to them then they must suffer punishment for their sins in the next life and so God shall be unjust for after he hath punished unbelievers in Christ their suretie he shall punish them again in their own persons so you see impetration and application are not to be distinguished in respect of persons as if the one belonged to some persons but not the other unless you will make God to be an unjust Judge 3 I shall confute this distinction by a Text of Scripture understanding it in the Arminian sence see 2. Cor. 5.15 19. In verse 15. speaking of Christ and his death it saith one died for all c. Here I understand the word all in the Arminian sense and then in verse 19. it speaketh again of Christ and his death saying God was in Christ that is in Christ upon the Cross when he died for all and reconciled the world unto himself not imputing their sins unto them So here you have the impetration of Christs death and the application of it in reconciliation and not imputation of sins now here application is made as large as impetration and to belong unto the same persons without distinction or division for those all which Christ died for were all of them reconciled to God and justified their sins not being imputed unto them the same world which Christ died for John 3.16 the same was reconciled and had no sins imputed to them So S. Paul did not allow of this Arminian distinction and division of impetration and application in the Arminian sense so as impetration should be understood more largely for persons than application or as if impetration had been for all men and application but for some men 4 This distinction is guiltie yet of another absurditie for it makes the means of faith to be used altogether too late and so to become an unprofitable and frivolous means for Arminians make faith to be a means to avoid an evil after the evil is past They say Christ by his impetration suffered the evil of death for unbelievers now in as much as Christ suffered death and bore the evil of punishment of unbelievers for them and in their stead and room they themselves have suffered death and bore the evil of punishment in the person of Christ now after unbelievers have born the evil of punishment it is too late to use faith as a means to obtain application and justification and a freedom from the evil of punishment for thus they should use a means to avoid an evil after the evil is past and so the means of faith is made unprofitable and frivolous wherefore should I use any means to avoid imprisonment when my Suretie hath suffered imprisonment for me were not means in this case frivolous If Christ did impetrate and die for Iudas and in his stead then Iudas hath suffered death by his Suretie Christ what need then is there of faith in Judas as a means to obtain application and freedom from death after he hath suffered death as by his Suretie This is as if a Judge should hang a man for his offence and then require him to use means to free himself from death And so much for confutation of this distinction of Impetration and Application FINIS
A CONFUTATION of the DUTCH-ARMINIAN TENENT of Universal Redemption With Relation in special unto certain Sectaries in ENGLAND By name the Morians or Revelators with others tracing them who hold That Christ died for all men good and bad By THEOPH BRABOURN Matth. 7.6 Give ye not that which is holy to dogs neither cast ye your pearls before swine LONDON Printed by WILL. BENTLEY Anno Domini 1651. To the READER THis ensuing Discource Christian Reader lying by me and fitted for the Press but with thoughts never to have it Printed so long as I live my mind is now altered very lately upon this occation Finding by sad experience that this Dutch-ARMINIAN Tenent of Universal Redemption hath of late invaded our English Nation and infected the minds and perverted the judgement of many who pretend highest for God and godliness I could not but alter my thoughts and resolve to publish this Discource if it may be to prevent the further growth and spreading of it There is a Sect of Revelators or Manifestators called Morians of one MORE dwelling near Wisbech who with his Disciples about eight or nine years since were orthodox in this point with us but since finding this new light of Universal Redemption to be a notable means to further an other and more ancient new light which formerly he had received and taught namely his doctrine of Free-grace as he calls it presently he set abroach this Universal Redemption among his Disciples of and from whom as I suppose our Independents of later time have borrowed this light for of late some of them are not ashamed to teach and preach it publickly offering Christ and the benefits of his death to dogs and swine to the worst of men saying Come Whoremaster come Drunkard the work is wrought for you believe it c. and they may as well say Come Rascal come Rogue come Tag and Rag believe it Christ died for you all Thus they fear not to give Christ that Pearl and Holy thing unto dogs and swine Their new Arminian light hath taught them to give the Childrens bread to dogs Not long since some of the Bishops were tainted with this Error and how odious were they for it in the eyes of these very men but now themselves are infected with the same Error and it is become a lovely Truth and what have these men to say for this Error more than the Bishops had surely if so much yet nothing more unless it be this that it is a bright beam of new light arisen to them of late and notably tending to their new doctrine of Free grace as they call it and that the spirit hath taught it them but remember that there is a Spirit of Truth and a spirit of Error 1. John 4.6 and so I end THEO BRABOURN A CONFUTATION of the ARMINIAN Tenent of Universal Redemption IN handling this Controversie I shall first propound sundrie Arguments against it Secondly I shall make answer unto the Texts alleadged by Arminians for proof of their Tenent Thirdly I shall confute a common Answer of theirs given to a notable Objection of ours And Fourthly I shall confute their distinction of Impetration and Application I begin with the first of these and these are my Arguments against it ARGUM. I. If Christ forbade his ministers to give or deliver his Word and Sacrament concerning his death unto all men as unto unbelieving impenitent scandalous and wicked men Then Christ did not give or deliver himself to death for all men or then Christ died not for all men The reason hereof is this If Christ had given himself to death for all men good and bad then would he have his ministers to do so too in delivering the Word and Sacrament and it is against reason to think that Christ should give himself for all men and forbid his ministers to give him to all men or to some men so there is the same reason of both Now if he forbade his ministers to deliver his Word and Sacrament unto all men unto wicked and impenitent men then surely he did not deliver himself to death for all men For 1. It is absurd to think that a ministers Commission in delivering the Word and Sacrament concerning Christs death should be of less extent than Christ his death is of as that his Cōmission should extend but to some men onely when Christ his death extends to all men wherefore if his Commission be but unto some men onely then Christ his death is not to or for all men but to and for some men onely 2. The Word and Sacrament concerning Christ his death are signs representing Christs death unto us now the sign and the thing signified by it must be of equal extent as if the sign belong but unto some men onely then Christ his death the thing signified by it belongs not unto all men but unto some men onely 3. If Christ would not permit his ministers to give the bread and wine in the Sacrament which is the lesser unto all men then much less would he give himself which is the greater unto all men If he forbade his ministers to give his bread and wine unto all men muchless would he give his life his own bodie and bloud for all men if he denied the Sign unto wicked and impenitent persons then much more would he denie there the thing signified which is his pretious bodie and bloud so much for my proposition But Christ forbade his ministers to give or deliver his Word and Sacrament concerning his death unto all men as unto unbelieving impenitent scandalous and wicked men This my assumption I thus prove first concerning the Sacrament 1. It is the doctrine both of our own and other reformed Churches that Christ would not have the Sacrament of the Lords supper given by the minister unto unbelievers impenitent scandalous and wicked men 2. Philip would not give the Sacrament of Baptism unto the Eunuch but upon the condition of his faith first Acts 8.37 S. Paul would not have the Lords supper given unto the incestuous person 1. Corinth 5.1 5 13. nor unto impenitent wicked men as not unto fornicatours idolaters drunkards railers nor extortioners 1. Cor. 5.11 and see Matth. 18.17 So much for the Sacrament next for the Word 2. Concerning the Word Christ would not have the word concerning his death given or delivered by his ministers unto unbelievers impenitent scandalous and wicked men which I thus prove In the Sacrament of the Lords Supper the Minister delivers the bread with these words of Christ This is my bodie which is broken for thee the which words are according to Christs institution 1. Cor. 11.24 Luke 22.19 now forasmuch as Christ would not have impenitent wicked persons admitted to the Lords Supper he would not have his ministers deliver unto them this his word concerning his death This is my bodie which is broken for thee so Christs minister may not say to a wicked man Christ died for thee Yet if
Arminians doctrine be true that Christ died for all men then a minister may say to the vilest impenitent person were he a Judas or worse Christ died for thee And by the way I wonder that Independents can hold forth Christ to all men in a Sermon saying Come whore-master drunkard c. Christ died for thee and yet refuse to give the Lords supper to scandalous persons saying to them Christ died for thee 2. Our Saviour would not have holy things given to dogs nor pearls to swine Matth. 7.6 now wicked and impenitent persons appearing incorrigible are dogs and swine Christ whether given in the word or in the sacrament is an holy thing and a pearl wherefore a minister may not give Christ to an incorrigible wicked man saying Christ died for thee 3. S. Paul preached the word concerning Christs death at Antioch Acts 13.14 16 27 38. where being a mixt multitude of sheep and goats of wheat and tares he directs his speech unto the sheep and wheat not unto the goats and tares for he spake as he said To those that fear God Acts 13.16 26. and so soon as some of his Auditours appeared to be goats and tares and such as feared not God he turned away from them and carried away the Gospel unto the Gentiles refusing to preach the word of Christ unto them Acts 13.45 46. and see Acts 19.9 whereby you see S. Paul a minister of Christ would not deliver the word concerning Christs death unto wicked men and such as feared not God It may be objected that S. Paul saith It was necessarie that this word should first be preached unto them that is unto those goats and tares the obstinate Jews Acts 13.46 and so Paul preached of Christs death as well to wicked men as to the godly Hereunto I answer 1. As the Husband-man bestoweth the same pains upon the tares as upon the wheat before the tares appear to him to be tares so the Apostle might preach Christ to the wicked as well as to the godly they being together in a mixt assembly before the wicked appeared to him to be wicked but yet as the husband-man takes pains for the wheats sake and not for the tares sake so Paul might preach Christ for the godly's sake and not for the wicked's sake and it is evident in the Text to be so for Paul directs his speech unto the godly in the Assembly to those that feared God Acts 13.16.26 excluding the wicked for when in an Assembly there are both godly and wicked if the minister directs his speech to the godly he excludes the wicked or if he directs an use to the wicked he excludes the godly 2. So soon as these tares the obstinate Jews appeared to Paul to be tares as you see he refused to preach Christ unto them Acts 13.45 46. and for the same cause had he known them at the first to be tares and if he could have separated them from the assembly of the godly he would not have preached Christ unto them at the first True it is Paul saith It was necessarie that the Word should be preached vnto them for it could not be avoided being they were mixed with the godly and did not at first appear to be tares it was therefore necessarie for Paul to preach unto them with the godly at the first though he intended not his doctrine to be for them Thus I have proved my Assumption and so the conclusion follows thus Therefore Christ did not give or deliver himself to death for all men or Christ died not for all men So much for my first Argument ARGUM. II. If Christ would not pray for all men then Christ would not die for all men The reason thereof is this If Christ would not do the lesser for all men then he would not do the greater for all men If Christ would not offer to God the calves of his lips for all men then he would not offer to God the sacrifice of his pretious bodie and bloud for all men If Christ would not bestow so much love upon all men as to pray for them then would he not bestow so much love upon all men as to die and to shed his heart bloud for them In a word If Christ would exclude some men from his prayers surely he meant to exclude them from his bitter death and passion So much for my proposition But Christ would not pray for all men For proof hereof see John 17.8 9. where believers are distinguished from the world that is from the world of unbelievers and for these men who then did believe Christ prayed saying I pray for them vers 9. and Christ prayed also for those men who should afterwards to the worlds end believe in him vers 20. but for the world that is for the world of unbelievers Christ would not vouchsafe so much as to pray to God for them saying I pray not for the world vers 9. So much for proof of my Assumption and so my Conclusion follows Therefore Christ would not die for all men And by consequence Christ did not die for all men for look what Christ would not do that he did not do unless we should imagine that Christ his will and his actions were contrary one to the other or that he did do that which he did not first will to do Arminians in their Acta Synodalia de Morte Christi pag. 319. do answer to my Assumption and to my Text brought to prove it thus Christ saith not that he would not pray for the world that is that he would never afterwards pray for them but thus he saith that he doth not pray for the world that is that he doth not for that present time pray for them or that he doth not in this particular prayer John 17.9 pray for them Hereunto I thus reply 1. Though I shall prove by and by that there is more in Christs words than Arminians do grant yet this which they do grant is sufficient to make good my argument for this is in the Text and they grant it that Christ said He did not pray for the world that is at that time and in that particular prayer he did not pray for them from which it doth undeniably follow that as he did not then pray for them so he would not then pray for them or it was his will at that time and in that prayer not to pray for them but to exclude them from his prayer and from the benefit thereof This I thus make good A wise mans actions and words do flow from his understanding and his will and his words and deeds are regulated and governed by his will so as what he doth or speaketh the same he first willed and what he refuseth to do or to speak the same he willeth or willeth not to do or speak I say being a mans actions and words are regulated by his will both in his speech and in his silence refusing to speak whensoever he is
so silent as that he refuseth to speak it is manifest that it is his will to be silent and to refuse to speak wherefore when Christ said I pray not or I do not now in this prayer pray for the world hereby it is evident that at that time his will was not to pray for them but that his will was against it or his will was against praying for them at that time because he willed silence at this time and refused to pray for them in this prayer When a father having ten sons saith I give unto my nine elder sons an hundred pounds apeece but is silent saying nothing of his tenth or youngest son suppose it will not hence follow that the fathers mind and will was to denie him and to refuse to give him an hundred pounds yet it is otherwise in this case for when the father saith I give an hundred pounds apeece to my nine elder sons but as for my tenth and youngest son who is a wicked man a riotous and prodigal son I give him nothing here it is manifest that the fathers will was to exclude the youngest son and to be unwilling at that time that he should have an hundred pounds so our Saviour having many good and godly followers of him who were believers saith I pray for them John 17.9 and for all them John 17.20 but as for the world that is for impenitent and unbelieving men I pray not for them John 17.9 here it is clear that as he did not then pray for them so he would not at that time pray for them for he voluntarily excluded them from his prayer when he prayed for others Such negative speeches as this in John 17.9 are voluntary denials refusals or exclusions not onely signifying a thing not done but also a will not to do it as you may see John 8.11 50. and 13.18 Gal. 2.2 Thus it is proved that as Christ did not in that prayer pray for the world so it was not his will but against his will then to pray for them now hence it followeth That if at any time Christ did voluntarily refuse to pray for any men then he would not die for them or then he would refuse to die for them and so you see that from what Arminians do grant my argument is made good but I shall further prove more to be in Christs words than what they grant and thus I prove it 2. As Christ did not pray for the world and also as is proved Christ would not at that time and in that prayer pray for them so it is gatherable from the Text and context that Christ would never afterwards pray for them the which Arminians deny and this I here prove Christ his prayer though uttered and made then yet the virtue and extent of it lasted after or unto the death of that present world of impenitent wicked men for as Christs prayer once made for the godly extends it self for their good unto their death John 17.9 11 15 21 24. so Christs exclusion of that wicked world from the benefit of his prayer once must be an exclusion of them for ever after unless it could be shown that after Christs prayer that wicked world converted and believed which cannot be shown Now if this wicked world were ever after the same why should Christ alter his mind towards them why should he pray for them afterwards more than he did before and I can but marvel that Arminians should grant that once Christ did not pray for that world and yet suppose that afterwards he did pray for them and yet have no ground for this supposed thing 2 The ground and reason of Christ his prayer will clear it up that as he did not for the present pray for the world so he would not for the future pray for them or so he would never after pray for them The reason why Christ prayed for believers was because they believed in him John 17.8 9 20. and because they were Gods people for they are thine John 17.9 and because God the Father had given them to Christ John 17.9 On the contrary the reason why Christ prayed not for the world must needs be because they were worldlings wicked and impenitent persons unbelievers and were none of Gods people nor given to Christ now this being the cause why Christ refused to pray for them at that present time John 17.9 for the same cause Christ could never pray for them afterwards for many of that wicked world lived and died impenitently and in unbelief Luke 7.30 John 3.19 Acts 13.45 46 50. Luke 19.41 42. Rom. 9.27 31 32. 2. Cor. 3.14 15. Mark 4.11 12. If their unbelief hindered Christs prayer at that time John 17.9 it must for ever after hinder his prayer because many of them were ever after unbelievers and the very same men as before when Christ refused to pray for them So much for my second Argument ARGUM. III. If Christ so loved all men as to give himself and die for all men then would he have caused the Gospel to be preached to all men by means whereof they should have knowledge of his death and might believe in him so as to be the better for his death This I thus prove 1 He that willeth the End he willeth the means tending unto it and whereby it must be obtained the end and the proper or necessary means cannot be separated Christs death for men is the End the preaching of Christs death in the Gospel is the means for men to know it and to believe in him so as to be the better for it wherefore if Christ so loved all men as to die and give himself for them he could not but out of the same his love have given them knowledge of it by preaching which is the means of faith that so they might partake of the benefit of his death 2 If Christ out of his love John 3.16 and 15.13 died for all men then if he would not give all men knowledge of it whereby they might apply it to themselves or believe in him that so they might be the better for his death then he is like a Physician pretending the greatest love possible to cure his friend by preparing and making a most soveraign potion for him but sets it behind or under the bed or in some secret corner of the chamber where it is impossible for the sick man to find it all this is but a pretence of love for if it were true love he would have set it where the sick man should have had knowledge of it or he would have given him knowledge of it that so he might make use of it for his health so if Christ had died for all men all men should have known it and must have had it preached unto them that so they might make use of it for salvation 3 They may as well say God intendeth by ordinary means to save a mans natural life and yet denie him food as to
is asserted as done 4 In the last vers Heb. 10.39 the Apostle speaking of believers as he doth also in Heb. 10.26 29. saith we are not they which withdraw our selves Whereby he plainly signifieth that the believers of whom he wrote in Heb. 10.29 had not or did not withdraw themselves or make apostasie wherefore the apostacy in treading Christs bloud under foot mentioned Heb. 10.29 is not asserted or affirmed as a thing indeed done by believers but as a supposition as if in case a believer should do such a thing then he should perish or be sorely punished So much for answer to this Text Heb. 10.29 2. PET. 2.1 There shall be false teachers among you c. denying the Lord that bought them and bring on themselves swift damnation Here say they S. Peter affirms that some men bought by the bloud of Christ shall be false teachers bring in damnable Heresies deny the Lord Christ and shall bring on themselves damnation whence they argue as before that Christ bought or died for those that perish and are damned and consequently for all men for we say Christ died for those that perish not but are saved and they prove by this Text that Christ died for those that do perish and are damned so if Christ died for those that perish and for those that perish not then he died for all men of this see their Acta Synodalia de morte Christi pag. 346. Answer 1 It cannot be proved by this Text that Christ bought those that did perish and are damned for the Text doth not expresly say or intimate that these false teachers did ever after live and die in impenitency for be it so that they taught false Doctrine brought in damnable Heresies and denied the Lord Christ Jesus yet they might repent of all these sins before they died and so be eternally saved Paul when he was a Saul was a blasphemer a persecutor and an oppressor and yet he was upon his rePentance received to mercy 1. Tim. 1.13 16. and he thought he was bound to do many contrary things against the name of Jesus Christ Act. 26.9 10 11. whereby he denied the Lord that bought him and yet he was not damned But perhaps they will urge the last words of the Text that they shall bring on themselves swift damnation To which I answer that from these words it cannot be proved that they were damned for these words must be understood with an exception unless they repent as Mat. 3.10 every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire that is unless they repent Revel 21.8 But the fearfull and the unbelieving c. shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone that is if they repent not but go on still in their sins till death so they shall bring on themselves swift damnation unless they repent and this is my first answer 2 Whereas Arminians understand by the word Lord in the Text the Lord Christ Jesus and by the word bought in the Text the redemption from sin and eternal wrath by the bloud of Christ I deny both these senses of the words and shall shew that they may be well and safely taken in other senses which will nothing further their cause First for the word Lord it may be understood of God the Father or of God in general for the clearing up of this note that in the new Testament the word whereby Christ is noted usually is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated Lord but in this Text of Peter we have an other word which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and translated Lord and being an other word and not usual to note Christ it is likely enough to be of an other sense we find this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated Lord and usually applied to God the Father or to God in general or to earthly and fleshly Lords and Masters not unto Christ as Mediator as in these Texts Luke 2.29 Act. 4.24 2. Tim. 2.21 Jude 4. 1. Tim. 6.1 2. Tit. 2.9 1. Pet. 2.18 wherefore since this word is usually speaking of God understood of God the Father why may it not be so understood also in this their Text 2. Pet. 2.1 and since it is seldom or rather never understood of Christ as Redeemer why should it be so understood in this Text 2. Pet. 2.1 Secondly for the word bought this may be understood of Gods buying and redeeming his people from their bondage in Egypt or from some other slavery servitude and bondage to their enemies of which you may read in Deut. 9.26 2. Sam. 7.23 Psal 10.7.2 3. Jer. 15.21 Mich. 4.10 Jer. 31.10 11. And then the words of S. Peter may be understood as an agravation of the sin of those false teachers for that they should bring into the Church such damnable Heresies as whereby they should deny even the Lord their God who bought and redeemed them from servitude and slavery unto their oppressing enemies in the flesh And the rather this sense may stand because it so well suites with the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord the which is taken for God the Father but seldom or rather never for Christ the Redeemer and this is my second answer 3 As touching the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated bought them it may be rendered taught them it may be translated taught see Crispine and Scapula who say that the Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath besides an other signification this for one it signifieth an oration or sermon the Verbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie to preach or teach yea the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not onely to buy but also to consult and to give counsel wherefore the Text may be thus translated Denying the Lord that taught them or gave them counsel Now this makes nothing for proof that the Lord bought them or redeemed them and this is my third Answer 4 If for all this they will press the Text and understand it of the Lord Christ and that he hath bought and redeemed wicked persons and unbelievers 2. Pet. 2.1 they may as well say also that God justified the world of wicked men and unbelievers 2. Cor. 5.19 and that God justifieth the ungodly as ungodly Rom. 4.5 which is contrary to Prov. 17.15 and so much for answer to this their Text 2. Pet. 2.1 ROM 5.6 For when we were yet without strength in due time Christ died for the ungodly Lo here say they is it not said expresly that Christ died for the ungodly If therefore Christ died as well for the ungodly as for the godly then Christ died for all men for good and bad Answer There is another Text of like kind 1. Pet. 3.18 Christ hath once suffered the Just for the unjust c. Wherefore one Answer shall serve to both True it is that Christ died for the ungodly and for the unjust and had he not died for such
it had been wo to all godly persons for as Paul saith of the godly and believing Corinthians that there was a time when they were ungodly and unjust as idolaters adulterers drunkards and extortioners c. 1. Cor. 6.9 10 11. so may I say there was a time before our conversion when we were ungodly and unjust if therefore Christ had not died for ungodly and unjust persons no godly man now living could possibly be saved Wherefore we must distinguish of ungodly persons thus There are some ungodly persons who are become believing and penitent godly persons and for these ungodly persons Christ died as the Text saith and of such the Text speaketh as is plain Rom. 5.6 8 10. but there are other ungodly persons who persist still even unto death in their ungodliness refusing to repent and believe now I denie that Christ died for these or that the Text is to be understood of these These are dogs and swine wherefore Christ the pearl is not to be given to these Matth. 7.6 Christ would not vouchsafe to pray for these John 17.9 and therefore he would not die for them and this is my Answer to this Text. Thus I have made answer to all the Texts of Scripture which seem to have any weight in them for the Arminian cause they have also some arguments as two or three but the one of them onely deserves an answer so passing by the other I shall here propound it and make answer to it you shall find it in their Acta Synodalia pag. 337. de Morte Christi ARGUMENT Whosoever are bound to believe in Christ Jesus for them Christ died But all men are bound to believe in Christ Jesus Therefore for all men Christ died As for the Major they prove it by this reason because if it be not true some men as those for whom Christ died not are bound to believe a lye or a falshood which is very absurd The Minor they prove by this Text John 3.19 36. Answer I denie their Major for it is not true that Christ died for all those men who are bound to believe in him that is to believe in him that he is the Son of God and Saviour of the world which is the right object of faith And as for the reason whereby they labour to prove their Major it is unsound for it leans upon an unsound though common description of justifying faith for they describe it thus Faith in Christ is a certain full or plerophorie perswation of the mind whereby we embrace Christ with this confidence that he died not onely for others but also for us or for me and my sins in particular This description however common yet is it unsound for it cannot be proved in Scripture for I no where find in the Scripture that the object of faith is to believe that Christ died for us or for thee and me in particular as they suppose in their Argument this I deny and they must prove it if they can and when they can The object of justifying and saving faith is to believe that Christ is the Son of God the Messias the Saviour of the world and the like and this is the current of the Scriptures every where in particular see John 20.31 These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is that Christ the Son of God and that in or so believing ye might have life c. All men may be bound to believe this and yet not bound to believe a lye or those for whom Christ died not may be bound to believe all this and yet not be bound to believe a lye or a falshood Now that the Scriptures do every where make this the object of faith that Christ is the Son of God the Messias the Saviour of the world and the like beside the Text alleadged John 20.31 See also these Texts Matth. 16.16 the object of S. Peters faith whereof he made confession unto and before Christ was this Thou art Christ the Son of the living God Acts 8.37 The object of the Eunuch's faith was the same I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God Acts 9.20 the sum of Pauls preaching to beget saving faith in men was this That Christ was that Son of God Acts 2.36 the sum of Peters sermon as touching Faith whereby he converted three thousand souls unto the faith was this That he whom they had crucified God had made him both Lord and Christ 1. John 5.5 who is he that overcometh the world but he who believeth that Jesus is that Son of God So you see the victorious faith is to believe that Christ is the Son of God Acts 17.3 4. Paul preached that Christ died and rose again and that this is Jesus Christ And by this sermon of Christ he won many to the faith as you may see in the fourth verse Acts 18.5 here you have another sermon of Pauls that Jesus was the Christ and this is the object of faith John 1.29 34. S. Johns sermon was this Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world c. and This is that Son of God John 1.49 50. Nathanaels confession of faith was this Thou art that Son of God John 4.7 25 29 39 42. The faith of the woman of Samaria and of other the Samaritanes was this that Jesus was the Messias and the Christ and that Jesus was that Christ the Saviour of the world John 11.27 the faith of Martha was that Christ was the Son of God Thus you see that according to the current of the Scriptures the object of faith is To believe that Christ is the Son of God the Saviour with the like now all men may be bound to believe these things of Christ and yet not be bound to believe a lye or those for whom Christ died not may be bound to believe these things of Christ and yet are not bound to believe a falshood nor hence will it follow that Christ died for them that are bound to believe this But I no where read that Christ required or that the Apostles preached for such a particular applicatorie faith as this That Christ is mine or that Christ died for our sins or that Christ died for thee or for me in particular I confess I read of Thomas his faith Iohn 20.28 saying Thou art my Lord and my God And of Pauls faith Gal. 2.20 saying Who hath loved me and given himself for me These indeed were acts of the two Apostles faith but I no where read that Christ required of every man this faith as necessary to salvation nor do I read that the Apostles or any one of them did preach this faith to the people when in their sermons they preached to beget men unto the faith wherefore I judge 1. That this kind of faith is proper unto Apostles and unto Christians of the highest form in the school of Christ and not common to every weak Christian for how then should they be saved since
many hundreds of weak Christians neither can nor dare say Christ is mine or Christ died for me in particular 2. I judge that this act or kind of faith is a consequent of justifying faith and may safely and comfortably be concluded and collected by strong Christians from it thus He that hath justifying faith Christ is his and Christ died for him But I in particular have justifying faith for I believe that Christ is the Son of God and the Saviour of the world and my faith is accompanied with good works as Sanctification and Mortification c. Therefore Christ is mine and Christ died for me in particular So much for clearing of my Answer and so much also for answer to their argument By this time we have finished these things propounded to be handled First we have by sundrie Arguments proved That Christ died not for all men Secondly we have answered all their Texts of Scripture and their Argument whereby they would prove the contrary Now in the third place we confute a common answer of Arminians which they give to a notable objection of ours The Confutation of a common Answer of Arminians which they give to a notable Objection of ours FIrst I shall propound our Objection Secondly I shall give you the Arminian answer And Thirdly I shall confute it in my Reply Objection If Christ died for Judas and all other wicked and ungodly men why are they not all saved how can any be damned for whom Christ died for if Christ died for them then have they suffered in this life in the person of Christ their suretie the torments of the next life which Christ upon the Cross bore for them and in their room and place now God having punished Judas and the rest in the person of Christ on the Cross in this life with the punishment due to the next life he cannot punish them again in the next life unless he be an unjust Judge punishing the same men for the same sins twice once in this life and once more in the next life and therefore Iudas and all other men must be saved if Christ died for all men Answer Hereunto Dutch and English Arminians both make this answer Iudas and the rest will not believe they refuse to believe in Christ and so to apply him and therefore God may justly damn them Joh. 3.18 Mark 16.16 see their Acta Synodalia de Morte Christi pag. 320. and this they endeavour to clear by some similitudes If a Physician tenders a potion to a patient he is not to be blamed if the patient will not receive it and apply it but the fault and blame is onely in the patient So if God offers Christ to Iudas and all other wicked men but they will not believe in him and apply him then the blame is theirs and so God is free of injustice though he damn them An other simily is this A King having many subjects in captivity under a forreign King payes a full and sufficient ransom for every one of them now many of those captives despise their liberty and chuse to live in captivity and bondage In this case there is no blame in the King but in the captives onely So God and Christ have ransomed all men but many men despise this ransom by refusing to believe and so choose to live in captivity and thraldom still wherefore if God keep them under everlasting thraldom he is not unjust or blameable but these despisers onely are blameable Reply I shall first deal with their answer and then with their similitudes I begin with their answer 1 Be it so that Judas doth not and will not believe but obstinately refuseth to believe yet this freeth not God of injustice if he damn Judas supposing that Christ died for Judas for clearing of this I ask Arminians whether Christ died for men considered as believers or as sinners and unbelievers Hereunto they will not say as believers for so they should justifie our Doctrine which is that Christ died for believers and for them onely wherefore they must answer that Christ died for men considered as sinners and without belief and so faith is no condition of impetration or of Christs death and ransom paid for men now if Christ impetrating and paying a ransom for men did it absolutely and without any condition or consideration of faith in them then for application God the Father cannot require faith in men before application or before he will apply Christ his death unto them in justification unless they will absurdly think that Christ and God were not of one and the same mind but were at odds and difference in the work of Redemption as if Christ should buy and purchase us absolutely without a condition but God should sell us upon a condition so absurdly they should think the buyer and seller should be at odds and not agreed both upon the same terms now since it must follow that if Christ died for Iudas without respect to faith in him then God cannot but justifie and save Iudas without regard to faith in him then though Judas doth not believe and wilfully refuseth to believe yet God cannot in justice damn him for his not believing because when Christ bought Iudas of God the Father and God the Father sold Iudas to Christ there was no condition of faith intended betwixt them and therefore Iudas must be saved If you say that Christ died for Iudas then God cannot require faith of him so as he should for his infidelity in justice damn punish him in the next life God cannot be so unjust as to punish one man twice for his sins as once in Christ his surety and once again in himself the principal one debt must not be twice payed wherefore to alleadge a reason from Iudas his unbelief why God may damn him in the next life is to alleadge a reason why God may deal unjustly in the next life Now what they should say to this I cannot devise unless they will distinguish of Iudas his sins and so make an hotchpotch of the work of Redemption saying that Christ died for some of Iudas his sins but not for all as not for his unbelief and then it will follow that Christ is made an half Saviour or a partial Saviour and Christ died for some of Iudas his sins and Iudas dieth for other some of his sins and Christ died for all Iudas his sins save that one of unbelief and Iudas is now in Hell for no sins committed but suffers onely for one sin namely his unbelief these are absurd and groundless fantasies never broched by any Christian man unless Arminians will be the first 2. So saying they contradict themselves For if Christ died not for unbelief then he died not for all men for many men are unbelievers 2. Thes 3.2 Christs death was for believers or for unbelievers we say it was for believers ergo they must hold that it was for unbelievers So much touching their answer and
the latter namely Application is proper unto God the Father Furthermore they place Faith between Impetration and Application so as though Christ died and impetrated for all men yet God justifies and makes application of Christs death unto believers onely now the better to help on the matter they say that these being acts of grace and favour God may according to his infinite wisdom order them according to his most free will the which words as I take it are spoken in relation to Faith that God may place it before or after impetration as it pleaseth his wisdom Having thus opened their meaning I thus proceed As for this distinction of Impetration and Application I acknowledge it for as it is Christ that died or impetrated for us so it is God that justifieth us and makes application of Christs death unto us Rom. 8.33 And I am content that they call what Christ did for us on the Cross Impetration and what God doth for us in relation to it and by virtue of it Application but I mislike of their division that they should divide the works of Christ and God so as if Christ should impetrate and die for many men to whom God makes no application of Christs death for they say Christ impetrated for all men believers and unbelievers but God applies Christs death for justification to believers onely now thus the Works of Christ and God do not concurr in the same persons but are divided for God makes no application unto many men for whom Christ made impetration On the contrary we hold that the works of God the Father and God the Son are undivided distinguished they may be but divided they may not be they always concurr as touching the same persons to whomsoever God makes application to and for those and none other Christ made impetrations and for whomsoever Christ impetrated to those and to all those God makes application And as touching faith we hold that as God respecteth faith in application so Christ respecteth faith in impetration so as faith is precedent in both and so God and Christ had respect unto the same persons and unto the same qualification of the persons but that faith is to come between impetration and application is but an Arminian devise dividing the consideration and respects of God and Christ of the Father and the Son about one and the same work of Redemption and so I come to the Confutation 1 For the absurdnes of this distinctiō of impetration and application the Arminian devise of faith coming between them as a condition of the latter onely put case that a King having subjects in thraldom and captivity under a forreign King and to ransom redeem them he sends his onely Son to lay in bondage and captivity for them and in their stead and place and this the King doth without any condition at all to be performed by his subjects If now the forreign King refuseth to deliver set free the subjects unless they will perform some condition first which he imposeth upon them and which their own King never required of them in sending his Son nor did his Son go into captivity for them upon any such condition is it not absurd to imagine that the forreign King should require a condition to be performed by the subjects before he will apply the ransom to them and set them free it must needs be absurd for you must imagine folly ignorance in the one King or fraud and deceit in the other King in that they were not first agreed both on the same terms before the son was put into captivity So is the case if Faith goeth between impetration and application and if Christ died for men absolutely without the condition of Faith and yet God will require the condition of Faith before he will make application set men free from their sins and condemnation I know nothing they have to say to free themselves of this absurdity but this that both the Kings Christ and God were at the first agreed on the same terms as thus they both agreed that Christ should impetrate and die for all men absolutely without consideration of any faith in them but that God should apply Christs death to none but believers or to such as did first believe To this I reply that this occasion is guilty of these absurdities 1 That the King should put his onely son to live in thraldom and bondage and his son should willingly endure all this misery for millions even the greater number of his subjects in captivity whom he foresaw and knew well should not be a rush the better for it because they would not keep the condition agreed on Will any wise man give and pay a certain price certainly for an uncertain possession be it of house or land much less will any pay aforehand for that land or house which he foresees he shall never enjoy yet such a purchaser they make Christ to be by this agreement The absurdness also of this may appear by this simile Abraham bought of the Hittites for 400 shekels of silver a field to bury his wife in and upon the payment of the mony the field was delivered to him for a possession Gen. 23.16 c. now is it not absurd to imagine that Abraham and the Hittites should both be agreed that Abraham should buy and pay for the field absolutely without any condition but yet the Hittites should require a condition to go between paying and possession and before Abraham should have possession and without it no possession where a condition is required it always goes before payment never after or between payment and possession so though they in words ascribe wisdom to God saying that God may according to his infinite wisdom order Faith to go before or after impetration yet in this case indeed they impute absurdness and folly to God in puting the condition of Faith after the price of Christs death The case is the same in buying a thing as Abraham did for himself or for a mans friend or friends as Christ did 1 They say Christs intention was by his death to save all men even unbelievers in Acta Synodalia pag. 344. now for Christ to agree with God to put in a condition of Faith after impetration is a contradiction and crossing of his intension for by his death he intended to save unbelievers but by agreeing to require Faith of unbelievers or they to be denied salvation he foreseing they would not and should not believe intended not to have them saved for he agreed to a condition which barred them from salvation so much for the absurdity of this agreement 2 An other absurdity in the distinction is this It maketh God to be an unjust Judge for Christ by his impetration and dying for the sins of unbelievers hath born the punishment of their sins for them in this life now for God to punish unbelievers for their sins in the next life as he will Mark 16.16