CHAPTER V – Further Distinctions
CHAPTER V – Further Distinctions Of application and impetration.
We intimated and declared the correct use and sound understanding of this distinction before. Now, seeing that this is the primary falsehood of the opposite opinion, I will give it one more blow, and leave it dying, I hope.
Impetration and Application may be distinct, but they cannot be separate.
I will briefly declare that, although these two things may be distinct, they cannot be separate. For whomever Christ obtained good, that good must be applied to them; for whomever he worked reconciliation with God, they must actually be reconciled to God. So the blood of Christ, and the virtue of his death, cannot be looked on as medicine in a box, available for any who will take it. It is not applied to one or another without any difference, as though it was intended no more for one than another. He did not obtain all that good only to be indifferent and uncertain whether it would ever be ours.
The Arminians say that, notwithstanding the fact that Christ purchased these glorious things for all by his death, those for whom the purchase was made may still be damned, as the great part of them certainly will be. Now to show why these two things should not be separated.
First, what is obtained is certainly possessed.
Separating the impetration of a benefit from the application of that benefit is contrary to common sense and our usual form of speaking. Its meaning must be twisted to force our understanding of it. When a man has obtained an office, or someone else has obtained it for him, can it be said that it is uncertain whether he will have that office or not? If it is obtained for him, does it not belong to him by right, even if it is not actually in his possession yet? What is impetrated or obtained by petition belongs to the one it was obtained for. It violates common sense to say that something may not belong to a man when it is obtained for him. In saying that we obtained it for him, we are saying that it is his. The same is true of the purchase made by Jesus Christ, and the good things that were obtained by him for all those for whom he died.
Secondly, if Christ died for them, the benefit belongs to them.
It is contrary to reason to think that God intended the death of Christ to be applied to anyone who would not share in the merits of that death. God's will that Christ should die for someone, means he intended that someone to have a share in the death of Christ, to derive the benefit of it. He intended it to belong to him, to be applied to him. In this case, it is applied to anyone who is his according to the will of God. But the death of Christ, according to the opinion we oppose, is applied to all, and yet the fruits of his death are never made known to the great part of them.
Thirdly, if a ransom is paid for them, the captives must be freed.
It is contrary to reason to think that a compact would be made to deliver captives on payment of their ransom, and yet those captives would not be freed once the payment was made. The death of Christ is a ransom (Matt.
20:28). He paid that ransom under a compact with his Father providing for the deliverance of the captives for whom it was a ransom. His Father promised their deliverance when Christ engaged himself to be a Savior.
Having performed what was required, it seems strange and improbable that a great number of these captives would never be released.
Fourthly, Scripture ties Application to Impetration.
It is contrary to Scripture, as declared before. See Book III, chapter 10.
What is obtained is not obtained conditionally.
But our adversaries think they will wipe all this away with one slight distinction, which is this: "It is true," say they, "that all things absolutely procured and obtained for someone do presently become theirs in right; but things that are obtained conditionally do not become theirs until the condition is fulfilled. Now, Christ has purchased all good things by his death for all men conditionally, not absolutely; and until that condition is
fulfilled, unless they perform what is required, they have neither part nor portion, neither right to them nor possession of them." They variously describe what this condition is. Some call it not resisting this redemption which is offered to them. Some call it yielding to the invitation of the gospel. Some simply call it faith. Now, if it is true that Christ purchases all things for us, to be bestowed on this condition of believing, then I assert that, First, such a condition ought to be revealed.
Certainly this condition ought to be revealed to everyone for whom this purchase was made, if it is earnestly intended for them. All for whom he died must have the means to know that his death will do them good if they believe. This is especially so considering that it is in his power alone to grant them these means. Let us say that I entreat a physician who can cure a disease, to cure all that come to him. And then I let many remain ignorant of this opportunity to be cured, knowing that I am the only one who can tell them about it. Do I really intend the healing of those people whom I see but fail to tell? Undoubtedly not. The application is too easy for me not to tell them if that was my intent.
Secondly, such a condition must be within our power to perform.
This required condition is either in their power to perform, or it is not. If it is, then all men have the power to believe, which is false. If it is not, then the Lord will grant them the grace to believe, or he will not. If he will, then why do not all believe? Why are not all saved? If he will not, then this impetration, obtaining salvation and redemption for all by his blood, comes down to this: God would have intended Christ to die for all to procure a remission of sins for them, reconciliation with himself, and eternal redemption and glory. And yet they will never realize these glorious things unless they do what he knows they cannot do, and which no one besides him can enable them to do. He would be resolved not to enable the great part of them to enjoy the benefits that are theirs. Is this what God intended when he sent Christ to die for them for their good? Did he intend Christ to die for them, only to expose them to shame and misery? It is like promising a blind man a thousand dollars on the condition that he see.
Thirdly, the condition of faith is procured by Christ.
Either this condition of faith is procured for us by the death of Christ, or it is not. If universalists say it is not, then the primary grace of believing, without which redemption itself has no value, is not caused by Christ's meritorious death on the cross. First, this is insulting to our blessed Savior, and serves only to diminish the honor and love due to him. Secondly, it is contrary to Scripture: Tit. 3:5, 6; 2Cor. 5:21, "He became sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." How we could become the righteousness of God except by believing, I do not know. The apostle expressly says, "It is given to us for Christ's sake, on the behalf of Christ, to believe in him," Phil. 1:29; "God blessing us with every spiritual blessing in him," Eph. 1:3; surely faith is not the least of these blessings.
If it is a fruit of the death of Christ, then why is it not bestowed on all, since he died for all? The whole impetration of redemption is worthless without it. If the universalists invent a condition on which this redemption is bestowed, the vanity of it will be discovered later. For the present, if this condition is that we do not refuse or resist the means of grace, then let me ask something. Will the fruit of the death of Christ be applied to all that fulfill this condition of not refusing or resisting the means of grace? If not, then why is that fruit produced? If so, then all who do not resist the means of grace must be saved. That includes all pagans, infidels, and those infants to whom the gospel was never preached.
Fourthly, if it were conditional, then Christ would only be half a mediator.
This whole assertion tends to make Christ only a half mediator. He would procure the end, but not the means to obtain it.
So, notwithstanding this new distinction, our assertion stands firm. The fruits of the death of Christ, with regard to impetration of good and its application to us, should not be divided. Our arguments to confirm it are unshaken.
In summation, Christ did not die for anyone on the condition that they believe. Instead, he died for all God's elect, so that they would believe, and by believing have eternal life. Faith itself is among the principal effects and fruits of the death of Christ, as will be declared. Nowhere does Scripture say that if we believe, then Christ died for us. It would be as though our believing created what otherwise did not exist, an act creating the object toward which it acts. Christ died for us so that we would believe. Salvation
is indeed bestowed conditionally; but faith, which is the condition, is absolutely procured by Christ's death.
The question being stated, we next proceed to make some of those arguments, demonstrations, testimonies, and proofs, by which the truth we maintain is established. We only desire the reader to keep in mind some of the fundamentals laid down in general before. They are so related to the arguments which we will use, that I am confident not one of them can be thoroughly answered without turning them inside out.
BOOK III