Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	apostle_n	gospel_n	preach_v	2,817	5	6.7760	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A29082	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. Brabourne.	Brabourne, Theophilus, b. 1590.	1651 (1651)	Wing B4089; ESTC R37451	38,222	107

and unbelieving persons as you may see in Rom. 9.11 13 18 21 22 27. Rom. 11.8 9 10. 1. Pet. 2.8 2. Thes 2.10 11 12. Ioh. 3.18 Mark 16.16 Revel 21.8 Mark 4.11 12. To conclude as the Text saith He will that all men shall be saved so it saith that they shall all come to the knowledge of the truth vers 4. now this cannot be understood of all men in the largest sense for God doth not vouchsafe the Gospel and knowledge of the truth in our time unto many Indians and wild savages and before our time the Apostle Paul was forbidden of the holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia and Bythinia Act. 16.6 7. and further see these Texts Mark 4.11 12. Mat. 11.25 Ioh. 12.39 40. Psal 79.6 so you see the word all is not universally to be taken and so much for answer to their third Text. ROM 14.15 and 1. COR. 8.11 Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died Rom. 14.15 Through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died 1. Cor. 8.11 From both these Texts they gather that Christ died for those that perish as well as for those that perish not but are saved and if he died for those that perish and for those that perish not then he died for all men Answer 1 That Christ died for those that perish not but are saved this they say we grant and that Christ died also for those that perish and are not saved this they prove by these two Texts Rom. 14.15 1. Cor. 8.11 To this their proof I thus answer To destroy is one thing and to occation or hazard destruction is another To perish is one thing and to occation or hazard perdition is another Now these two Texts may be understood of the latter onely namely of the occation and hazard of perdition and destruction for those strong Christians did by their unseasonable use of meats offend the weak and did thereby give them an occation of falling of perdition and destruction this sense the contexts give light unto both in Rom. 14.13 and in 1. Cor. 8.9 and me think Arminians cannot think that the strong Christians did by their unseasonable use of meats really and actually destroy all those weak Christians who saw them eat these meats or who by their example were emboldened to eat them now if they did not perish and were indeed destroyed how can Arminians say Christ died for those that perish 2 I answer Whereas they undertake to prove that some perished for whom Christ died this is false and cannot be proved by these two Texts for admit that by example of the strong the weak Christians did eat meats against their conscience and so sinned yet it will not follow that they were therefore destroyed and perished eternally unless Arminians will say that by repentance of that sin they could not be saved or will be so uncharitable as without a ground for it to say they lived and died in this sin without repentance Sure I am repentance is a salve for greater sins than this Acts 11.18 So it cannot be proved that those weak Christians perished and therefore it cannot be proved that Christ died for those that perished So much for answer to these two Texts Rom. 14.15 and 1. Cor. 8.11 HEBR. 10.29 Of how much soever punishment suppose ye shall he be worthy which treadeth under foot the Son of God counteth the bloud of the Testament as an unholy thing wherewith he was sanctified Here say they are some men for whom Christ died being that they were sanctified by Christs bloud and yet became apostates and shall be sorely punished so then Christ died for those that perish as well as for those that perish not and if he died for both then he died for all men Answer Whereas they collect from this Text that some believers and sanctified by the bloud of Christ did indeed make apostasie and so as they perished this collection is groundless for the Text may be understood conditionally or as a supposition as if the Apostle had said If a believer and one sanctified by the bloud of Christ shall make apostasie and tread under foot the bloud of Christ he shall perish or be surely punished Or thus Of how much sorer punishment shall a man be worthy if he treads under foot the Son of God c. Now a conditional speech or a supposition doth not affirm and assert the thing to be done indeed but onely it supposeth a thing or puts a case as in Hebr. 10.26 38. so this Text doth not assert and affirm that some believers either did or should make apostasie and so perish that the Text may be understood conditionally as a supposition and as a case put I make it thus appear 1 These are equivalent propositions He that doth such a thing and If one doth such a thing for example He that sheds mans bloud by man shall his bloud be shed Gen. 9.6 the which is equivalent to this If one sheds mans bloud by man shall his bloud be shed So in like manner He that apostatizeth and treads under foot the bloud of Christ shall perish or be sorely punished Heb. 10.29 the which is equivalent to this If one apostatizeth and treads under foot the bloud of Christ he shall perish or be sorely punished so it is indifferent to take either of the two expressions and further note that neither of the two do assert and affirm the thing to be indeed done as it is not affirmed that any have shed mans bloud so it is not affirmed that any believer hath apostatized and troden under foot the bloud of Christ it is onely said He that doth it c. or If one doth it c. 2 In Heb. 10.26 our translators render it thus If we sin willingly c. the which in the Original is in the participle thus We sinning willingly c. now since this latter may be rendered conditionally so it must be rendered unless we make believers guilty of wilfull sinning why may it not be so too three verses after for in Heb. 10.29 in the Original it is in the participle thus Treading under foot c. which may be rendered thus If he tread under foot c. and so the Apostle doth not assert or affirm that any man doth or hath indeed troden under foot the bloud of Christ or made apostasie Note further that in vers 26.27 you have the question in vers 28. you have the argument and in vers 29. is the application of it to the question Now where the question is conditional the application must not be absolute and therefore the 29. vers must be conditionally understood 3 The Apostle saith in the last vers save one Heb. 10.38 If any withdraw himself c. In which words he speaks of apostasie and withdrawing conditionally wherefore the apostasie and treading under foot Christs bloud mentioned before in Heb. 10.29 ma● be understood conditionally also and so nothing

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 wer●●●●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 ●●●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