CHAPTER VI – Answer to Chap. 20 of Universality of Grace
CHAPTER VI – Answer to Chap. 20 of Universality of Grace An answer to the twentieth chapter of the book entitled, "The Universality of God's Free Grace," etc., being a collection of all the arguments used by the author throughout the whole book to prove the universality of redemption.
THE title pretends satisfaction to those who desire to have reason satisfied; which is a great undertaking, I easily grant; but for the performance of it,
"hic labor, hoc opus."
289 I would greatly marvel that Christian reason, rightly informed by the word of God, should ever be satisfied with any doctrine so discrepant from the word, so full of contradiction in itself and to its own principles, as the doctrine of universal redemption. Therefore, I am persuaded that the author of the following arguments (which, lest you mistake them for others, he calls "reasons") will fail of his intention to satisfy all those who have enough reason as to know how to make use of reason, and so much grace as not to love darkness more than light. The only reason I can conceive of as to why he calls this collection of all the arguments and texts of Scripture, which he had cited before and produced at large, so many "reasons" is, I suppose, that he has given them a logical, argumentative form in this place. I will briefly consider them. And, by the way, take notice of his skill in the regular framing of arguments to which he evidently pretends here. His first reason, then, is as follows:
Arguments made by Thomas Moore:
I. Scripture declares that Christ gave himself a ransom for every man.
"What the Scripture often and clearly affirms in plain words is certainly true and is to be believed, Prov. 22:20, 21;
290 Isa 8:20; 291 2Pet. 1:19, 20;
"But that Jesus Christ gave himself a ransom, and by the grace of God tasted death for every man [1Tim 2:6], is often and plainly affirmed in Scripture, as shown before in chapters 7 to 13;
294 Acts 26:27."
"Therefore, the same is certainly a truth to be believed, John 20:31, First, the proposition of this argument is clear, evident, and acknowledged by all professing the name of Christ; but with this caution and proviso: that by the Scripture affirming anything that is to be believed in plain words, you understand the plain sense of those words, plain sense which is made clear by rules of interpretation. It is the thing signified that is to be believed, and not the words alone, which are the sign of that thing. Therefore, the plain sense and meaning is what we must inquire after, and that is what is intended when we speak of believing the plain words of the Scripture. But if by "plain words" you understand the literal importance of the words, which may perhaps be figurative, or have various meanings, and are capable of extension or restriction in their interpretation, then there is nothing more false than this assertion; for how can you then avoid the blasphemous folly of the Anthropomorphites, assigning a body and human shape to God, simply because the plain words of the Scripture often mention his eyes, hands, ears, etc. Is it not apparent to every child that the true importance of those expressions is not to be found at all in their gross carnal conception? Won't transubstantiation, or its younger brother consubstantiation, also become an article of our creeds? With this limitation, then, we pass over the proposition with the passages of Scripture brought to confirm it, only with this observation: there is not one of them suited to the purpose in hand. And because they do not relate to the argument under consideration, we only leave it to men's silent judgments.
Secondly, we absolutely deny one portion of the assumption, or minor premise, that Christ should be said to give himself a ransom for every man; it is neither often, nor once, nor plainly, nor obscurely affirmed in the Scripture, nor is it at all proved in the place referred to. So this is but an empty flourishing.
For the other expression, of "tasting death for every man," we grant that the words are found in Heb. 2:9; but we deny, first, that "every man" always signifies all and every man in the world. Col. 1:28, "Warning every man and teaching every man." Every man in the world is not there; neither are we to believe that Paul warned and taught every particular man, for it is false and impossible. So that every man, in the Scripture, is not universally collective of all of all sorts, but either distributive, for some of all sorts, or
collective, being restricted to all of some sort. As used in Paul's phrase, "every man" was only those to whom he had preached the gospel.
Secondly, in the original there is only huper pantos "for every", without the substantive "man", which might be supplied by other words as well as man, such as "elect", or "believer".
Thirdly, "every one" is clearly restrained to all the members of Christ, and the children brought to glory by him, as we have declared before. So this passage is not in any way useful to confirm the assumption, which we deny in the sense in which they intend it; and we are sure that we will never see a clear, or even so much as a probable, testimony for confirming it.
To conclude the syllogism, the author, to manifest his skill in disputing in such an argumentative way as he undertakes, adds some further proofs. It seems he was conscious that it had little strength from the propositions from which it is enforced; and therefore he thought to give some new support to it, although with very ill success, as will easily appear to anyone that will but consult the passages quoted, and consider the business in hand. In the meantime, this new logic of filing proofs to the conclusion which are suitable to neither proposition, and striving to give strength to that by new testimony which it does not have from the premises, deserves our notice in this age of learned writers. "Heu quantum est sapere."
296 Such logic is fit to maintain such divinity. And so much for the first argument.
II. Christ came to save all sinners, not just some of them.
"Those whom Jesus Christ and his apostles affirm that Christ came to save, in plain terms, without any exception or restraint, he certainly did come to save; and to that end he died, and he gave himself a ransom for, and is a propitiation for their sin; and he gave himself a ransom for them, and he is the propitiation for their sins, Matt. 26:24; John 6:38; 1Cor. 15:3,
4; Heb. 10:7; John 8:38, 45; 2Pet. 1:16; Heb. 2:3, 4; [Who are they?] "Jesus Christ and his apostles have, in plain terms, affirmed that 'Christ came to save sinners,' 1Tim. 1:15; the 'world,' John 3:17; that he died for the 'unjust,' 1Pet. 3:18; the 'ungodly,' Rom. 5:6; for 'every man,' Heb.
2:9; he 'gave himself a ransom for all men,' 1Tim. 2:6; and he is the 'propitiation for the sins of the whole world,' 1Jn. 2:2. Every one of these
affirmations, without any exception or restraint, says that "all" refers to the unjust, the ungodly, sinners, and men, and these are of the whole world, Rom. 3:10, 19, 20, 23; Eph. 2:1-3; Tit. 3:3; John 3:4, 6.
"Therefore, Jesus Christ came to save, and he died for, and he gave himself a ransom for all men; and he is the propitiation for their sins, John
1:29."
As to the proposition of this argument, I desire only to observe that we do not affirm that in any place does the Scripture lay an exception or restraint upon those persons for whom Christ is said to die. It is not as though in one place it affirms that he died for all men, and in another some exception against it, as though some of all those men were excluded. That would feign a repugnancy and contradiction in the word of God. We only say that one place of Scripture interprets another, and it declares that sense which may have been ambiguous and doubtful in another place.
For instance: when the Scripture shows that Christ died or gave himself a ransom for all, we believe it; and when, in another place, he declares that "all" to be his church, his elect, his sheep, all believers, some of all sorts, out of all kindreds, nations, and tongues under heaven; this is not to lay an exception or restraint upon what was said of "all" before, but only to declare that the "all" for which he gave himself for a ransom was "all his church", "all his elect", "all his sheep", "some of all sorts": and so we believe that he died for all. With this observation we let pass the proposition, taking out its meaning about as well as the phrase by which it is expressed will afford it. And we accept it together with the vain flourish and pompous show of many texts of Scripture brought to confirm it, not one of which offers anything to the purpose. I am persuaded that he put down names and figures at a venture, without once consulting the texts, having no small cause to be confident that none would trace him in his flourish, and yet that some eyes might dazzle at his super-numerary quotations.
Let me urge the reader to turn to those passages, and if any one of them offers anything to the purpose or business in hand, let the author's credit be of weight with him another time. O let us not be as many, who corrupt the word of God! But perhaps it is a mistake in the impression, and for Matt.
26:24, he intends verse 28, where Christ is said to shed his blood for many.
In John 6, he mistook verse 38 for 39, where our Savior affirms that he came to save what his Father gave him so that none should be lost; which
certainly are the elect. In 1Cor. 15:3, 4, he was not much amiss, the apostle conjoining in those verses the death and resurrection of Christ, which he says was for us; and we have declared before how far this advantages his cause in hand. By Hebrews 10:7, I suppose he meant verse 10 of the chapter, affirming that by the will of God, which Christ came to do, we are sanctified, even through the offering of the body of Jesus, ascribing our sanctification to his death, which is not effected in everyone. Though perhaps he supposes the last clause of the verse, "once for all," to make his argument for him. But some charitable man, I hope, will undeceive him by letting him know the meaning of the word ephapaz.
297 The same thing may be observed about the other passages: that there is nothing at all in them which addresses the proposition in hand, and there is near enough in them to at least undermine it. And so his proposition in sum is this: "All those for whom the Scripture affirms that Christ died, for them he died;" which is true; and so this proposition is granted without doubt.
The assumption affirms that Christ and his apostles in the Scriptures say that he died to save sinners, the unjust, the ungodly, the world, all. Based on this, the bare conclusion ought to be, "Therefore Christ died for sinners, the unjust, the ungodly, the world, and the like."
To which we say, First, this is the very same argument, for substance, with what went before, as also are some of those which follow; only some words are varied to change the outward appearance so as to make show of a number.
Secondly, the whole strength of this argument lies in turning indefinite propositions into universals; he concludes that because Christ died for sinners, therefore he died for all sinners; because he died for the unjust, ungodly, and the world, that therefore he died for every one that is unjust, or ungodly, and for every one in the world; because he died for "all", it therefore means for every single one of all sorts of men.
Now, if this is good arguing, I will furnish you with some more such arguments as you have occasion to use them:
First, God "justifies the ungodly," Rom. 4:5; therefore, he justifies every one that is ungodly. Now, "whom he justifies, them he also glorifies;" and therefore every ungodly person will be glorified.
Secondly, when Christ came, "men loved darkness rather than light," John 3:19; therefore, all men loved darkness, and so none believed.
Thirdly, "The world knew not Christ," John 1:10; therefore, no man in the world knew him, and so none believed.
Fourthly, "The whole world lies in wickedness," 1Jn. 5:19; therefore, every one in the world lies in wickedness.
I could easily furnish you with such arguments as these, by turning indefinite propositions into universals, for any purpose to which you will use them.
Thirdly, if you extend the words in the conclusion no further than their intent in the passages of Scripture recited, then we may safely grant the whole: namely, that Christ died for sinners and the world, for sinful men in their several generations living in the world; but if you mean "all" as a universal collective in the conclusion, then the syllogism is sophistical and false.
300 No place in Scripture affirms or produces that conclusion; the object of the death of Christ is assigned in indefinite terms. It receives light and clearness from a more restrained sense in those passages where these terms are expounded, and by which is meant "all his own people", and "the children of God scattered throughout the world."
Fourthly, the particular passages of Scripture urged in the beginning of the assumption, 1Tim. 1:15; 1Pet. 3:18; Rom. 5:6, are not at all pertinent to the purpose in hand. John 3:17; Heb. 2:9; 1John 2:2, have been already considered. Rom. 3:10, 19, 20, 23; Eph. 2:1-3; Tit. 3:3; John 3:4, 6, added at the close of the same proposition, prove that all are sinners and children of wrath; but there is not the least intimation that Christ died for all sinners, or for all those children of wrath. And this may suffice to answer the first two arguments, and might easily be a retort to the author. The Scripture is full and plain to confirm the position which he intends to oppose.
III. The purpose of Christ's death and exaltation is to be Lord of all.
"What the Scripture presents as one purpose of the death of Christ, and as one basis and cause of God exalting Christ to be the Lord and Judge of all, and as the equity of his judging, is certainly to be believed, Ps. 12:6,
18:30, 119:4; "But the Scripture does present this for one purpose of the death and resurrection of Christ: that he might be the Lord of all, Rom.
14:9; 2Cor. 5:14, 15. And for that cause (i.e. his death and resurrection) God has exalted him to be the Lord and Judge of all men; and his judgments will be just, Rom. 14:9, 11, 12; 2Cor. 5:10; Phil 2:7-11; Acts
17:31; Rom. 2:16:
"Therefore, that Christ so died, and rose again for all, is a truth to be believed," 1Tim. 2:6
First, I will not much trouble myself with the unlearned framing of this argument, the uncouth expressions of what is intended, and the failing in its particulars by ascribing it to the person and not the cause; as to the rest,
First, there is an artificial regularity to it caused by bringing his minor proposition, that Christ is made Lord and Judge of all, into the major proposition. By including this term in all three propositions, he makes the whole almost unintelligible.
Secondly, he interprets the cause of Christ's exaltation to include his death. "For this cause God exalted Christ." Yet it was specifically his resurrection in which he was "declared to be the Son of God with power,"
Rom. 1:4; this was the glorious part of his exaltation. To examine and lay open the weakness and folly of countless such things as these, which occur everywhere, would be lavish with precious moments. Those who have the least taste of learning or of the method of reasoning easily see the vanity of these arguments; and for the rest, especially the poor admirers of these foggy sophisms, I will not say, "Quoniam hic populus vult decipi, decipiatur, 301 "but, "God give them understanding and repentance to acknowledge the truth."
Secondly, I have nothing to say to this whole argument as it lies before us, except to entreat Mr. Moore, that if the misery of our times should call upon him to write again, he would cease expressing his mind by syllogisms, and speak in his own manner; by the confusion of countless tautologies in this current work, he may have puzzled his reader a little. For, truly, the kind of arguing used here is exceedingly ridiculous, with its lack of logic by which he is himself deceived, and with its delight in sophistry by which he deceives others; for none can be so blind but that, at first reading the argument, he will see that Mr. Moore asserts what was not in either of the
premises, nevertheless inferring it in the conclusion, and "strengthening" it with a new testimony. These passages speak of the exaltation of Christ to become judge of all, which refers to his own glory; the conclusion that Mr.
Moore makes, that Christ therefore died for all, necessarily aims at and intends their good, not Christ's exaltation. Would it not be a noble design to banish all human learning, and to establish such a way of arguing in its place? "Hoc Ithacus velit, et magno mercentur Atridae."
Thirdly, the force and sum of the argument is this: "Christ died and rose again that he might be Lord and Judge of all; therefore, Christ died for all."
Now, ask what he means by "dying for all", and the whole treatise answers that it is paying a ransom for all, so that they might be saved. Now, how this can be extorted out of Christ's dominion over all, with his power of judging all those who were given to him, which also extends to the angels for whom he did not die? Let those who can understand it rejoice in their quick apprehension, for I confess it escapes me.
Fourthly, the manner of arguing being so fruitless, let us see whether there is any more weight in the matter of the argument. Many texts of Scripture are piled up and variously applied to the several propositions. In those taken out of Ps. 12:6, 18:30 (as I suppose it should be, and not 130, as it is printed), and 119:4, there is some mention of the precepts of God, and the purity and perfection of his word. I cannot perceive what they have to do with the business in hand. The text in 2Tim 2:6, which is added to the conclusion, is one of those places presented on every occasion as the supposed foundation of the whole assertion. But that is without cause, as has often been shown. Among those texts which are annexed to the minor proposition, we find 2Cor. 5:14-15. I have already made clear the mind of the Holy Ghost in this passage, and made it obvious that no such thing as universal redemption can be wrested from it. So too in this present argument, it has no reference at all. It does not contain one syllable concerning the judging of Christ and his power over all, which was the point insisted on. Phil. 2:7-11, Acts. 17:31, and Rom. 2:16 do mention, indeed, Christ's exaltation, and his judging all at the last day. But to say that because he shall judge all at the last day, and therefore he died for all, will take more pains to prove than our adversary intends to take in this cause.
The weight, on the whole, must depend on Rom. 14:9, 11, 12; which will be briefly considered as the only place that gives any semblance of right to this
kind of arguing. It is the lordship and dominion of Christ over all which the apostle largely insists upon in that passage. It evidences this to believers so that they might be provoked to walk blameless and without offense towards one another, knowing the terror of the Lord, and how all men, even themselves, must come to appear before his judgment-seat. There it will be a sad thing to have to give an account of scandals and offenses. To further ingraft and fasten this upon them, he declares to them the way by which the Lord Christ attained and came to this dominion and power of judging. All things being put under his feet, he also declares what design he had in undertaking the office of mediation, which is there expressed by "dying, rising, and reviving": namely, that he might execute judgment over all those committed to him, which is part of the "glory set before him," and which caused him to "endure the cross and despise the shame," Heb. 12:2.
So that all of what is intimated here concerning the death of Christ is about the end, effects, and result that his death had towards himself, not what his intention was towards those for whom he died. To die for others at least denotes to die for their good, and in the Scripture it always denotes to die in their stead. Now, I sincerely profess that I am in no way able to perceive that it can deduced from this that Christ died for all. It simply says that by his death he made a way to enjoy that power by which he is Lord over all, and by which he will judge all, casting the great part of men into hell by the sentence of his righteous judgment. If men will still contend that Christ must be said to die for all, simply because by his death and resurrection he attained the power of judging all, then I will only leave them with these three things: first, if this is so, then countless souls will be judged by him for not walking according to the light of nature left to them, which directs them to seek the eternal power and Godhead of their Creator, even though they have not the least rumor of the gospel to direct them to a Redeemer,
Rom. 2:12-16; 303and what good will it do such men that Christ died for them? Secondly, it also means that he died for the devils, because, by his death and resurrection, he has attained a power of judging them also.
Thirdly, the whole assertion has nothing to do with the business in hand; our inquiry is about those whom our Savior intended to redeem and save by his blood; respond with this, about those he will one day judge: "quaestio est de alliis, responsio de cepis."
IV. Christ is the Savior of the whole world, but only believers receive life.
"What the Scripture sets forth as a general truth for all the world of mankind, is certainly a truth to be believed, Acts 5:20.
305 The truth it sets forth is that whoever believes the particulars so as to come to Christ and receive him shall not perish, but shall have everlasting life.
"That God sent forth his Son to be the Savior of the world is indeed generally set forth in Scripture for all men, that whoever believes the particulars so as to come to Christ and receive him shall not perish, but shall have everlasting life, John 3:16-18, 36, 1:4, 11, 12: "Therefore, it is a certain truth that God sent his Son to be the Savior of the world, 1Jn.
4:14."
I hope that no ingenuous man, who knows anything of the controversy in hand, and what issue is driven between us and our adversary, or who is in any measure acquainted with arguing, will expect us to spend many words on such poor flourishes, vain repetitions, confused expressions, and illogical deductions and argumentations, as this pretended new argument presents. Indeed, it is the same argument as the first two, and with almost all that follow. Nor will I be expected to waste much time or pains about them. For my own part, I would in no way be able to undergo the tediousness of the review of such things as these, but that "eundem est quo trahunt fata ecclesim."
306 I do not, then, want to trouble the reader any more with a declaration of what in particular he must be sufficiently convinced of by barely looking over these reasons. Namely, that this author is utterly ignorant of the way of reasoning, and he does not know how to tolerably express his own conceptions, nor how to infer one thing from another in any regular way. I answer in reply to his arguments,
First, that whatever the Scripture presents as a truth to be believed is certainly so, and is to be embraced.
Secondly, that the Scripture sets forth the death of Christ as an allsufficient means to bring sinners to God, to all those to whom the gospel is preached, so that whoever believes it and comes in to him will certainly be saved.
Thirdly, we cannot perceive anything can be concluded from this except that the death of Christ is of such infinite value that it is able to completely save everyone to whom it is made known, if by true faith they obtain an interest in it and a right to it. We have previously confirmed this truth by many testimonies of Scripture, and we conceive that this innate sufficiency of the death of Christ is the foundation of its promiscuous proposal to elect and reprobate alike.
Fourthly, that his conclusion, if it is to have any semblance of an argument, should at least include the entire proposition, namely, "That Christ is set forth to be the Savior of the world, so that whoever believes the particulars," etc. And then we may fully grant that it makes no argument at all for universal redemption, but only for the fullness and sufficiency of his satisfaction.
Of the word "world", enough has been said before.
V. Christ gave himself for all, to gain the right of Lordship over all.
"That God will one day cause every man confess to the glory of God is certainly a truth, for God will own no lie for his glory, John 3:33; Rom.
3:3, 4; "But God will one day cause every man to confess Jesus (by virtue of his death and ransom) to be the Lord, even to the glory of God, Phil.
2:7-11; Isa. 45:22, 23; Rom. 14:9, 11, 12; Ps. 136:9.
"Therefore, it is certainly a truth that Jesus Christ has given himself a ransom for all men, and thereby has the right of lordship over them; and if any will not believe and come into this government, yet he remains faithful, and cannot deny himself, but will one day bring them before him, and cause them to confess him Lord, to the glory of God. On that day they will be denied by him, for denying him in the days of his patience, 2Tim.
2:12-14; Matt, 10:32, 33; 2Cor. 5:10."
ANS : Based on the premises, the conclusion of this argument ought to be this, and not otherwise: "Therefore, it is certainly a truth that Jesus Christ is the Lord, and is to be confessed Lord to the glory of God,." This is all the conclusion this argument ought to have, unless, instead of a syllogism, you intend to state three independent propositions, each one standing on its own strength. What is inserted concerning giving himself a ransom for all, and
what follows of the conviction and condemnation of those who neither believe nor obey the gospel, confirmed from 2Cor. 5:10, 2Tim. 2:12-14, is altogether heterogeneous to the business in hand. Now, if this is the conclusion intended, and our author supposes that those who deny universal redemption question the truth of it, I do not wonder at all why he left all other employment to take up writing controversies. He has such obvious advantages against his adversaries, and small mistakes such as this are able to furnish his conceit with that conclusion. But it may be an act of charity to part him and his own shadow, which are so terribly at variance here and in other places; therefore, I beg him to hear a word in his heat, and to take notice, First, we do not ascribe a fruitless, ineffectual redemption to Jesus Christ; nor do we say that he loved any with that entire love which moved him to lay down his life, except his own church; and all his elect are effectually redeemed by him. Yet we do not deny that he will also judge the reprobates, namely, all those who do not know, who deny, who disobey and corrupt the truth of his gospel. Nor do we deny that all will be convinced that he is Lord of all at the last day: so the author may spare his pains of proving such unquestionable things. I extremely desire to follow this with something, but indignation must be bridled.
Secondly, as to that cause in the second proposition, "By virtue of his death and ransom given," we deny that it is intimated once, anywhere in the Scripture, that the ransom paid by Christ, in his death for us, was the cause of his exaltation to be Lord of all. Rather, it was his obedience to his
Father in his death, and not his satisfaction for us, that is proposed as the antecedent of this exaltation; as is apparent in Phil. 2:7-11.
VI. The plain meaning of Scripture is that Christ died for all men.
"What may be proved in and by the Scripture, both by plain sentences in it and necessary inferences drawn from them, without wresting, wrangling, adding to, taking from, or altering the sentences and words of Scripture, is a truth to be believed, Matt. 22:29, 32; Rom. 11:2, 5, 6;
"That Jesus Christ gave himself a ransom for all men, and by the grace of God tasted death for every man, may be proved in and by the Scripture,
both by plain sentences in it and necessary inferences drawn from them, without wresting, wrangling, adding to, or taking away from, or altering the sentences and words, as was already shown in chapters 7 and 13, which will now be ordered into several proofs:
"Therefore, that Jesus Christ gave himself for all men, and by the grace of God tasted death for every man, is a truth to be believed, Mark 1:15;
16:15,18; 1Jn. 4:14."
ANSWER:
First, the meaning of this argument is that universal redemption may be proved by the Scripture; which, being the very thing in question, and the thesis to be proved, there is no reason why it should itself be an argument, except to increase the number of arguments. For my part, they should pass without any other answer except that they certainly are a number, but that only those which are actually arguments are to be considered.
Secondly, concerning the argument itself (seeing it must go for one), we say:
First, as to the first proposition, laying aside the unnecessary expressions, I take the meaning to be this: "What is affirmed in the Scripture, or may be deduced from it by just inference, following those ways of interpretation, affirmation, and inference by which the Spirit of God leads us into the knowledge of the truth, is certainly to be believed;" all of which is granted, although it is not proved by the passages quoted (Matt. 22:29, 32, Rom.
11:2, 5, 6). And this is the only foundation of that article of faith which you oppose.
Secondly, as to the second proposition that Christ gave himself a ransom for all and tasted death for all, it is the very word of Scripture. It was never denied by anyone. But making "all" to be "all and every man" in both passages cited is your addition, and not the Scripture's assertion. If you intend, then, to prove that Christ gave himself a ransom for all, and tasted death for all, you may save your labors; it is confessed by all hands, and no one ever denied it. But if you intend to prove that those "all" are "all and every man", of all ages and kinds, elect and reprobate, and not all his children, all his elect, all his sheep, all his people, all the children given him of God, some of all sorts, nations, tongues, and languages only, then I will, by the Lord's assistance, willingly join issue with you or any man
breathing, to search out the meaning of the word and mind of God in this.
We will hold ourselves to the proportion of faith, the essentiality of the doctrine of redemption, the scope of the passages where such assertions are found, comparing them with other passages, and in similar ways laboring in all humility to find the mind of the Lord according to his own appointment.
I am, by the grace of God, exceedingly confident of the success of such a trial, laying aside such failings as will adhere to my personal weakness. I have, by his goodness, received some strength and opportunity to search into and seriously weigh whatever the most famous assertors of universal redemption have been able to say in this cause, whether Lutherans or Arminians.
For the present, I address myself to what is before me. I only desire the reader to observe that the assertion to be proved by Mr. Moore is this: "That Jesus Christ, according to the counsel and will of his Father, suitable to his purpose of salvation in his own mind and intention, did, by his death and oblation, pay a ransom for all and every man, elect and reprobate, both those who are saved and those who perish, to redeem them from sin, death, and hell, in order to recover salvation, life, and immortality for them; and he did not do these things only for his elect, or the church, who were chosen to be an inheritance before the foundation of the world." To confirm this assertion, Mr. Moore has produced various passages which, by the Lord's assistance, we will consider in order.
Proof 1 of argument 6 – God gave his Son to be Savior of the world.
"God so loved the world, that he gave his Son to be the Savior of the world, 1Jn. 4:14; and sends his servant to bear witness of his Son, that all men through him might believe, John 1:4, 7; that whoever believes on him might have everlasting life, John 3:16, 17. And he is willing that all should come to the knowledge of the truth, 1Tim. 2:4, and be saved, 1Tim.
1:15. Nor will he lack sufficiency to help them if, as light comes, they will suffer themselves to be worked upon and receive it, Prov. 1:23, 8:4, 5.
And is not this plain in Scripture?"
ANSWER:
First, the main, indeed, the only thing to be proved, as we observed before, is that those indefinite propositions which we find in the Scripture concerning the death of Christ are to be understood universally. It must be
proved that the terms "all" and "world", when they denote the object of the death of Christ, signify all and every man in the world. Unless this can be done, all other labor is useless and fruitless. Now, as to this, there is nothing at all urged in this pretended proof except a few ambiguous passages barely recited, with a false observation based upon them, for which they give no substance.
Secondly, 1Jn. 4:14, God sending his Son to be the "Savior of the world," and sending his servant to testify of him, is nothing more than to be the Savior of men living in the world; which his elect are. A hundred such passages as these, so clearly interpreted as they are in other passages, would provide nothing at all suitable to the purpose. The next thing is from John
1:4, 7. Verse 4 is that Christ was the "life of men", which is most true. No life can be had for any man except in and through him. This does not at all answer the question. The next words of verse 7, that "all men through him might believe;" when pieced together with the sense of another fraction of Scripture, seem to have some weight, as though Christ were sent so that all men through him might believe.
Good show! This seems to prove universal redemption in the same way that the Scripture cited by the devil, after he cut off part of it, proved that our
Savior should cast himself from the pinnacle of the temple. But if you cast aside the sophistry of the old serpent, the expression of this passage will serve to invalidate the thesis sought to be maintained by it. The words are,
"There was a man sent by God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the light, that all men through him might believe." Now, who do you think is there meant by "through him?" Is it
Christ, the light? or John, the witness of the light? Certainly it is John, as almost all expositors agree, except certain Papists, and Grotius, that Ishmael. So it is by the Syriac interpreter, reading, "By his hand or ministry." And so the word itself infers; for we are not said to believe "by Christ," or, as it would be here, "by the light." But instead, as in John 12:36, it reads "in the light," and not by it; and Acts 9:42, "believed in the Lord;" so also, Rom. 9:33, "Every one that believes on him." So it is in various passages: "in him". But no mention is made of believing by him. That denotes the instrument of believing, which is the ministry of the word, rather than the object of our faith, which is Christ. This being apparent, let
us see what is affirmed about John, why he was sent "that all through him might believe."
Now, this word "all" here has all the qualifications which our author requires of it, to always certainly express a collective universality, that it is spoken of God, etc. And yet who, I ask, were these "all" that were intended to be brought to the faith by the ministry of John? Were they all those who lived throughout the world in his days, and not only those to whom he preached a few years in Judea? Were they also all those who were dead before his birth, and that were born after his death, and will be born to the end of the world everywhere under heaven? Let those who can believe it enjoy their persuasion with this assurance: that I will ever be their rival. For I am fully persuaded that "all men" here means only some of all sorts, those to whom his word actually came. So the necessary sense of the word "all" here completely destroys the proposition.
Thirdly, what is urged from John 3:16, 17, that God sent his Son so that "whoever believes on him might have everlasting life," is not under debate among Christians as to its sense, as far as I know.
Fourthly, for God's willingness that all should be saved, from 1Tim. 2:4 (to which a word is needlessly added from 1Tim. 1:15 for show; the text is for another purpose), taking "all men" there to mean the universality of individuals, I then ask, First, what act of God is it in which this willingness consists? Is it in the eternal purpose of his will that all should be saved? Why then is it not accomplished? For "Who has resisted his will?"
309 Is it his antecedent desire that all men should be saved, though in the end he fails? Then the blessed God is most miserable, for it is not in him to accomplish his just and holy desires. Is it some temporary act of his by which he has declared himself to them? Then, I say, if you will grant that salvation is only to be had in a Redeemer, in Jesus Christ, and if you can give me an instance how God, in any act whatever, has declared his mind and revealed himself to all men, of all times and places, concerning his willingness to save them by Jesus Christ, a Redeemer, and I will never more trouble you in this cause.
Secondly, does this will equally respect the "all" intended here, or does it not? If it does, then why does it not have equal effect on all? What reason
can be assigned? If it does not equally respect all, then where does that appear? There is nothing in the text to intimate any such diversity. For our part, we understand "all men" to mean some of all sorts throughout the world. We do not doubt that, to the fair reader, we have made it apparent from the context and circumstances of the passage. The will of God there is what is mentioned by our Savior in John 6:40.
What follows in the close of this proof, of God's "not lacking sufficiency to help those who, as light comes, suffer themselves to be worked upon and receive it," is a poisonous sting in the tail of the serpent. In this is couched the whole Pelagian poison of free-will, and Popish "merit of congruity," with Arminian sufficient grace in its whole extent and universality. There is not the least witness given to either of these things in the passage produced.
The sum and meaning of the whole assertion is that there is sufficient grace universally granted to all men, subjective grace, enabling them to obedience. That grace receives addition, increase, degrees, and augmentation, according to how those who have it make use of what they presently enjoy. This is a position so contradictory to countless passages of Scripture, so derogatory to the free grace of God, so destructive to the efficacy of grace, and such a clear exaltation of the old idol Free-Will to the throne of God, as to rival anything the decaying estate of Christianity has invented and broached. It is so far from being "plain and clear in Scripture," that it is universally repugnant to the whole dispensation of the new covenant which is revealed to us there. If ever the Lord calls me to, I hope very clearly to demonstrate that fact. For the present, it does not belong immediately to the business in hand, and therefore I must leave it.
Proof 2. Christ came to take away the sins of the world, a propitiation for all.
"Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came into the world to save the world, John 12:47; to save sinners, 1Tim. 1:15; to take away our sins and destroy the works of the devil, 1Jn. 3:5, 8; to take away the sins of the world, John
1:29; therefore he died for all, 2Cor. 5:14, 15; and gave himself a ransom for all, 1Tim. 2:6; to save what was lost, Matt. 18:11. And so his propitiation was made for the world, 2Cor. 5:19; the whole world, 1Jn.
2:2. And all this is full and plain in Scripture."
Ans: Those passages of this proof where there is mention of "all" or "world", such as John 12:47, John 1:29; 2Cor. 5:14, 15; 1Tim. 2:6; 2Cor.
5:19; 1Jn. 2:2, have all been considered already, and I am unwilling to trouble the reader with repetitions. See those passages and I have no doubt you will find that, far from giving any strength to the thing he intended to prove, much rather they evert it. As for the rest, (1Tim. 1:16; Matt, 18:11;
1Jn. 3:5, 8), I cannot see how anything can be extracted from them to give substance to universal redemption. The case they make against it has been previously declared. We then pass to, Proof 3. Christ invites all to repent and believe through his Spirit.
"God in Christ does, in some means or other of his appointment, give some witness to all men of his mercy and goodness procured by Christ,
Ps. 19:4; Rom. 10:18; Acts 14:17; and through this, at one time or another, God sends forth some stirrings of his Spirit to move in and knock at the hearts of men to invite them to repentance and to seeking God, and thus to lay hold of the grace and salvation offered: and this not done in a show or by pretence, but in truth and good will God is ready to bestow it on them.
And this is all fully testified in Scripture, Gen. 6:3; Isa 45:22; Acts 17:30, 31; John 1:19."
ANSWER:
311 If universal redemption has need of such proofs as these, it has great need indeed, and little hope of support. Universal vocation (i.e. calling) is asserted here, to maintain universal redemption. "Manus manum fricat,"
First, "Parvas habet spes Troja, si tales habet."
312 or rather, "Muli se mutuo scabiunt."
313 The one is often called in to support the other; and they are the two legs of that idol free-will, which is set up for men to worship. When one stumbles, the other steps forward to uphold the Babel. I will not now address universal vocation (a gross figment
314), but will only say for the present that it is true that God at all times, ever since the creation, has called men to the knowledge of himself as the great Creator. He has done so in those things which might be known of him by means of the visible creation,
"even his eternal power and Godhead," Rom. 1:19, 20; Ps. 19:1, 2; Acts 14:17.
Secondly, that after the death of Christ, by the preaching of the gospel far and wide, he called home to himself the children of God, scattered abroad in the world, where before his elect were confined almost to one nation, thus giving a right to the gospel to be preached to "every creature," Mark
16:15; Rom. 10:18; Isa. 45:22; Acts 17:30, 31.
Thirdly, that God should at all times, in all places, in all ages, grant means of grace, or call to Christ as a redeemer, or to partake of his mercy and goodness manifested in him, with strivings and motions of his Spirit for men to close with those invitations. This is so opposite to God's distinguishing mercy, so contradictory to express passages of Scripture and the experience of all ages, that I wonder how any man has the boldness to assert it, much more to produce it as a proof of an untruth more gross than itself. Were I not resolved to tie myself to the present controversy, I should not hold back from producing some reasons to evert this fancy; something may be done afterward, if the Lord does not prevent me. In the meantime, let the reader consult Ps. 147:19, 20; Matt. 11:25, 22:14; Acts 14:16, 16:7;
Rom. 10:14, 15.
Proof 4. The Holy Ghost will judge all as to the sin of not believing in Christ.
"The Holy Ghost that comes from the Father and the Son will reprove the world of sin (even that part of the world that refuses now to believe that they are under sin), because they do not believe on Christ, and it is their sin that they have not believed on him. And how could it be their sin not to believe in Christ, and for that cause be under sin, if there were neither enough in the atonement made by Christ for them, nor truth in God's offer of mercy to them, nor will and power in the Spirit's moving at one time or other in any way sufficient to have brought them to believe? And yet this is evident in Scripture, and will be made out by the Holy Spirit to be their great sin, which fastens all other sins on them, John 3:18, 19, 8:24, 12:48,
15:22, 24, 16:7-11."
ANSWER:
The intention of this proof is to show that men will be condemned for their unbelief, for not believing in Christ; the author says this cannot be unless three things are granted, First, that there is enough in the atonement made by Christ for them.
Secondly, that there is truth in God's offer of mercy to them.
Thirdly, that at some time or other, there is sufficient will and power given to them by the Spirit to believe.
Now, though I believe no man can perceive what may be concluded from this for universal redemption, yet I will observe a few things:
As to the first thing required, I say that if by "enough in the atonement for them," you mean that the atonemen, which was made for them has enough in it, we deny it; not because the atonement doe not have enough in it for them, but because the atonement was not for them. If you mean that there is a sufficiency in the merit of Christ to save them if they should believe, we grant it, and we affirm that this sufficiency is the main ground of proposing it to them (meaning those to whom the gospel is preached).
As to the second, there is truth in all the ways and words of God, and so there is truth in his offer of mercy to whomever it is offered. If we take the command to believe, with the promise of life upon doing so, as an offer of mercy, then there is an eternal truth in it. That truth is that God will assuredly bestow life and salvation upon all believers; the proffer immediately declares our duty to believe; secondly, linking faith and life does not at all consider God's intention towards the particular soul to whom the proffer is made: "For who has known the mind of the Lord, and who has been his counselor?"
To the third, the Spirit's giving will or power, I say, First, that you set the cart before the horse, placing the will before power.
Secondly, I deny that any internal assistance is required to render a man inexcusable for not believing, if he has the object of faith propounded to him; of himself he has neither the power nor the will to believe, having lost both in Adam.
Thirdly, how a man may have a will to believe given him, and yet not believe, I ask you to declare in the next controversy you undertake.
This being observed, I will take leave to put this proof into such form as it alone is capable of, so that the strength of it may become apparent, and it is this: "If the Spirit convinces all those of sin to whom the gospel is preached, that do not believe, then Christ died for all men; he died for both those who have the gospel preached to them and those who do not. The first part is
true, for their unbelief is their great sin. Ergo, Jesus Christ died for all." If this is an argument at all, it is "a baculo ad angulum, "from the beam to the shuttle."
315 The passages of Scripture cited, John 3:18-19, 316 8:24,
12:48, 318 15:22, 24, 319 prove that unbelief is a soul-condemning sin; and it is a sin for which those who have the gospel preached to them will be condemned, having rejected it. But quid ad nos?
One place is more urged, and because it is more abused than the rest, it must be clarified a little; it is John 16:7-11. The words are, "I will send the Comforter to you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in me; of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and you will see me no more; of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged."
First, it is uncertain whether our author understands the words of the Spirit in and with Christ at the last day, or in and with the ministry of the word now, in the days of the gospel. If the first, he is foully mistaken; if the latter, then he should know that the conviction mentioned here intends only those to whom the gospel is preached. What advantage that has for universal redemption, which comprises all those who lived before as well as those who lived after the death of Christ, I do not know.
But, secondly, it is uncertain whether he assumes this conviction of the Spirit attends the preaching of the gospel only, or if it consists in strivings and impulses even in those who never hear the word of the gospel; if he means the latter, then we wait for a proof.
Thirdly, it is uncertain whether he assumes that those who are thus convinced are converted, and brought to the faith by that conviction, and by that attending effectualness of grace.
Nonetheless, the text has been presented and insisted upon. To further manifest how little reason there was for producing it, I will briefly open the meaning of the words. In this, his last sermon, our Savior Christ intends to comfort his apostles in their present sad condition, which was brought on by telling them that he must leave them and go to his Father. He knew full well that their sorrow and sadness would be further increased when they beheld the vile, ignominious way by which their Lord and Master would be taken from them. He also knew all those reproaches and persecutions which would attend them once they were so deprived of him. He bids them not to
be troubled, nor filled with sorrow and fear for all of this. He assures them that all this loss, shame, and reproach would be abundantly made up for by what he would do for them, and bestow upon them, when his bodily presence was removed from them.
And as to that particular, which was the head of all, that he should be so vilely rejected and taken out of the world as a false teacher and seducer, he tells them he will send them in his stead "another Comforter," John 14:16, one that will "vicariam navare operam,"
321 as Tertullian said, to fill them with all that consolation of which they might be deprived by his absence; and not only so, but also to be present with them in greater things than any for which he had yet employed them. He reminds them of this again in chap. 16:7.
322 Now, the one who is promised is properly "an advocate," that is, one who pleads the cause of a person that is guilty or accused before any tribunal, and is opposed there, Rev. 12:10;
323 and that is how this word is translated in 1Jn. 2:1.
324 Christ, then, tells them here that, because he will be their advocate with the Father, he will send them an advocate to plead his cause with the world; that is, with those men in the world who had so vilely traduced 325 and condemned him as a seducer, laying this as a reproach on all his followers. Doubtless this principally referred to the plentiful effusion of the Spirit upon the apostles at Pentecost, after the ascension of our Savior; though in some respect, it has continued to all ages in the ministry of the word. Yet what he meant is also made more apparent by considering what he affirms the advocate will do, namely,
1. "He will reprove" or evidently "convince, the world of sin, because they did not believe on him;" This he surely did abundantly in that sermon of Peter in Acts 2, when the enemies and haters of Christ were so reproved and convinced of their sin that, upon the pressing urgency of that conviction, they cried out, "Men and brethren, what shall we do to be saved?" Then the world was brought to voluntarily confess the sin of murdering Jesus Christ.
2. He will convince the world of "righteousness, because he went to his Father;" not to reprove it of its own righteousness, because it is not righteous; but he will convince the men of the world, who condemned
Christ as a seducer, of his righteousness, that he was not a blasphemer as they pretended, but he is the Son of God, as he himself testified. They will be forced to acknowledge this when, by the effusion and pouring out of the
Spirit upon his apostles, it will be made evident that he has gone to and been received by his Father, and is owned by him, just as the centurion would presently do upon Christ's death.
3. He will "convince the world of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged;" He will manifest to all those of whom he speaks, that the one whom they despised as the carpenter's son, and bid come down from the cross if he could, is exalted to the right hand of God. All judgment has been committed to him, having beforehand, in his death, judged, sentenced, and overcome Satan, the prince of this world, who was the chief instigator of his crucifiers and who had the power of death.
326 And this I take to be the clear, genuine meaning of this passage. It includes the efficacy of the Spirit who is working in the same manner (though not to the same degree) for the same end, in the majesty of the word, to the end of the world. But what this has to do with universal redemption, let those who can understand it keep it to themselves, for I am confident they will never be able to make it out to others.
Proof 5. God testifies that he wants his Son to redeem all men.
"God has testified, both by his word and his oath, that he would have his Son so far save as to redeem all men, and likewise bring all to the knowledge of the truth, that thereby redemption might be worked in and upon them, 1Tim. 2:4, with John 3:17. So he does not will, nor does he have any pleasure in, the death of any who dies (even the wicked), but rather that he turn and live, Ezek. 18:23, 32, 33:11. And dare any of us say, the God of truth says and swears what he does not mean inwardly and seriously? O far be such blasphemy from us!"
ANSWER:
First, saying, "That God testifies, by his word and oath, that he would have Christ so far save us," etc., is a bold calling of God to witness what he never affirmed; nor did this ever enter into his heart. For he has revealed his will: that Christ should completely save those who come to him, and not save "so far", as is boldly, ignorantly, and falsely intimated. Let men beware of provoking God to their own confusion; he will not be a witness to the lie of false hearts.
Secondly, saying "That Christ should so bring all to the knowledge of the truth, that thereby redemption might be worked in and upon them," is
another bold corruption of the word, and it is bearing false witness in the name of God. Is it a small thing for you to weary and seduce men? Will you weary our God also?
Thirdly, for passages of Scripture corrupted to the sense imposed: In John 3:17, God is said to "send his Son, that the world through him might be saved;" not be saved so far, but saved "from their sins," Matt. 1:21, and "completely," Heb. 7:25: so that the world of God's elect, who are the only ones so saved, is the only world to be understood there, as has been proved.
In 1Tim. 2:4, there is something concerning the will of God to save all sorts of men, as has been declared; but nothing conducive to the bold assertion used in this place.
Fourthly, to those verses is added Ezek. 18:28, that God has no "pleasure at all that the wicked should die," "and, verse 32, "no pleasure in the death of the one who dies." Now, these texts are quite useless to the business in hand. They might have some value as to universal vocation (calling), but none as to universal redemption. There is no mention of Christ or his death in the passage from which they are cited. Yet, because our adversaries are frequently knitting knots from this place to lure and hamper the simple, I will add a few observations to clarify the meaning of the text, and to demonstrate how it has nothing at all to do with the business in hand.
First, then, let us consider to whom and of whom these words are spoken.
Is it to and of all men, or only to the house of Israel? Doubtless, the latter.
Only they are intended, and only they are spoken to: "Hear now, O house of Israel," verse 25. Now, will it follow that because God says he does not delight in the death of the house of Israel, to whom he revealed his mind and required their repentance and conversion, that therefore he says so of all men? Does he mean even those to whom he never revealed his will as he revealed it to Israel? Has he called these others to repentance as he did
Israel in Psalm 147:19-20? So the very ground-work of the whole conclusion is removed by this first observation.
Secondly, "God does not will the death of a sinner," means either, "God purposes and determines that he will not die," or, "God commands that the sinner shall do those things by which he may live." If it means the first, then why are they not all saved? Why do sinners die? For God's counsel is immutable, Heb. 6:17; "His counsel shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure," Isa. 46:10. If it means the latter, commanding the sinner, then
the sense is that the Lord commands those whom he calls to do their duty, so that they may not die (although he knows that they cannot do this without his assistance). Now, what this contributes to general redemption,
I do not know.
Thirdly, let me end with this: the whole passage, in its scope and aim, and in the intention of the prophet, is miserably mistaken by our adversaries, and wrested to apply to what there is not the least thought of in the text.
The words are part of the answer which the Lord gives to the repining Jews, concerning their proverb, "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge." Now, to what did they apply this proverb? Why, "concerning the land of Israel," in verse 2,
327 the land of their habitation, which was laid waste by the sword (as it affirms) for the sins of their fathers, though they themselves were innocent. So the issue this verse addresses is God's temporal judgments in overturning their land and nation; the Lord justifies himself by declaring the equity of these judgments by reason of their sins, those sins for which the land devoured them and spewed them out. He is telling them that his justice demands they should surely die for such things, and that their blood should be upon them, verse 18.
328 They will be slain with the sword, and cut off by those judgments which they deserved. He is not saying that shedding their blood and casting out their carcasses was a thing so pleasurable in itself, or so desirable to him, that he did it only for his own will. He says for them to leave their abominations, and test whether their lives would not be prolonged in peace.
This is the plain, genuine scope and meaning of this passage, as it presents itself to every unprejudiced man upon first viewing. I have often admired how so many strange conclusions have been wrested from it purporting to show mercy to all: universal vocation and redemption; and also how it has been produced to give substance to that heap of blasphemy which our author calls his "fifth proof".
Proof 6. The very words and phrases of Scripture imply no less than all men.
"The very words and phrases used by the Holy Ghost in Scripture implies no less than all men when he speaks of the death of Christ, the ransom and propitiation, as to whom it belongs, and who may seek it, and in believing
find life. For instance: "All nations," Matt. 28:19, 20; "the ends of the earth," Isa 45:22, 49:6; "every creature," Mark 16:15; "all," 2Cor. 5:14,
15, 1Tim. 2:6; "every man," Heb. 2:9; "the world," John 3:16, 17, 2Cor.
5:19; "the whole world," 1Jn. 2:2; "what was lost," Luke 19:10; "sinners,"
Matt. 9:13; "unjust," 1Pet. 3:18; "ungodly," Rom. 5:6. Among those referred to, whoever repents and believes in Christ will receive his grace,
John 3:16, 18, Acts 10:43. Now, all these words and phrases being so often and indifferently used, is it not pride and error to devise glosses to restrain the sense in which the Scripture presents them, which is so full and large for all men?"
ANSWER:
First, this argument, which is taken from the words and phrases which express the object of the death of Christ in the Scripture, is what fills up both pages of this book. It is a repeated argument, and most of the passages cited here have been urged a hundred times over. And yet it is so far from being a pressing argument, that indeed it is nothing but a bare repetition of the very thing which is in debate, concluding according to his own persuasion. The main quare 329 between us is whether the words "all" and "the world" are to be taken universally? He says so, and then he says so again, which is all the proof we have. He is repeating over and over the thing which is to be proved, instead of offering a proof.
Secondly, for those passages which affirm that Christ died for "sinners," the "ungodly," "what was lost," etc., as in Luke 19:10; Matt. 9:13; 1Pet. 3:18; and Rom. 5:6, I declared before how exceedingly unserviceable they are to universal redemption.
Thirdly, for those passages where the words "all," "every man," "the world," "the whole world," are used, we have heard them over and over; and they likewise have been considered.
Fourthly, for the expressions "all nations," Matt. 28:19-20, and "every creature," Mark 16:15, as they are used concerning those to whom the gospel is preached, I say, First, that they do not comprise all individuals, nor all nations at all times, much less all singular persons of all nations (if we look upon the accomplishment and fulfilling of that command to disciple all nations); nor, as a matter of fact, was the gospel ever preached to all, although it is
fit and suitable in the dispensation of that command that the gospel is to be preached to all, as was declared.
Secondly, the command to preach the gospel to all does not in the least manner prove that Christ died with an intention to redeem all; but it has other grounds and other ends, as has been manifested.
Thirdly, we deny that the ransom belongs to all to whom the gospel is proposed; there are other ends of that proposal; and Christ will say to some of them that he never knew them: therefore, certainly, he did not lay down his life for them.
Fourthly, "The ends of the earth," in Isa 45:22, refers to those who look up to God from all parts of the earth and are saved, which is surely not everyone. And to give Christ to be a "salvation unto the ends of the earth,"
Isa 49:6, is to do no more among the Gentiles than God promises in the same passage that he will do for his own people, which is to "gather the preserved of Israel;" in this way he will carry out the salvation of God, and gather the preserved remnant of his elect to the ends of the earth.
And now, I hope, I need not mind the intelligent reader that the author of these collections could not have invented a more ready way to ruin the thesis which he seeks to maintain than by producing those passages of Scripture just recounted to confirm it. He has granted that "all" and "the world" are no more than "all the ends of the earth," mentioned in Isa 45:22,
49:6. It is evident beyond denial that these expressions clearly intimate in both places only the elect of God and believers. So that, interpreting the one by the other in those passages where "all" and "the world" are spoken of, only the elect and believers are intended. "If pride and error" had not taken full possession of the minds of men, they could not so far deny their own sense and reason as to contradict themselves, and the plain texts of Scripture, by trying to maintain their false and corrupt opinions.
Proof 7. The unique privileges of believers do not exclude ransom for all.
"There are certain high and unique privileges of the Spirit contained in the New Testament and sealed by the blood of Christ, which do not belong to all men, but only to the saints, the called and chosen of the Lord. And when they are distinctly mentioned alone, they are spoken of as belonging to them only, Matt. 13:11; John 14:17, 21-23, 16:13-15, 17:19, 20; Acts
2:38, 39; 1Cor. 2:9, 14; Heb. 9:15, 8; 1Pet. 2:3, 9. Yet many of these
unique privileges are spoken of as joined together with the ransom and propitiation, which belong to all. In such cases, they are not spoken of in such a restraining and exclusive manner, or with such appropriating words, but in such a way as to leave room to apply the ransom to all men.
And with that, they demonstrate the privileges that are proper to those who believe, so that they may have both their comfort and especial hope.
But they also hold forth the ransom and keep open the door for others to come in and partake with them in belief and in receipt of the propitiation.
And so it is for his "sheep," and for "many;" but nowhere is it to be only for his sheep, or only for many: which is a strong proof of the ransom for all men, as is shown in chap. 3:10."
Ans: The strength of this proof, as to the business in hand, is completely hidden from me; neither do I perceive how it may deserve the name of a proof so as to maintain the intended main thesis. The force which it has is in an observation which, if it has any sense at all, is neither true nor even once attempted to be made good; for, First, to say that there are unique high privileges belonging to the saints and called of God, is a thing which needs no proof. Among these privileges is the death of Christ for them. He did not die for them as saints, but as elect, who by the benefit of that death and blood-shedding are to be made saints, and accounted to be the holy ones of God. For "he redeemed his church with his own blood," Acts 20:28; he "loved and gave himself for it," Eph. 5:25; even "us," Tit. 2:14; As diverse as the privileges intimated here are, they are expressly assigned to elect, such as those in John 17:19-20.
330 Reckoned among these also, and in the same rank with them, is Jesus' "sanctifying himself for their sakes;" that is, to be an oblation, verse 19. In a word, all unique saving privileges belong only to God's elect, purchased for them, and for them alone, by the blood of Jesus
Christ, Eph. 1:3-4.
Secondly, For the other part of the observation, that where mention is made of these together with the ransom, there is room left to extend the ransom to all, I answer, First, this is said, indeed, but not once is it attempted to be proved. In anything of this importance, we have small cause to believe the author upon his bare word.
Secondly, as to leaving room to apply the ransom to others, I perceive that if it is not left, you will make it left, even though you must jostle the true sense of the Scripture quite out of its place to do so.
Thirdly, I have already shown that where "many" are mentioned, only the ransom is expressed, as also where "sheep" are spoken of; the same may be said where the word "all" is used; so that there is not the least difference between them.
Fourthly, in various passages, the ransom of Christ and those other unique privileges (which indeed are fruits of it), are so united together as to make it impossible to apply the latter to some and the former to all, seing that both the reansom and its fruits are restricted to his saved ones,
Rev. 5:9-10.
332 Redeeming his people by the ransom of his blood, and making them kings and priests, are united actions; no room is left to extend the ransom to all. It is punctually
333 assigned to those who are saved and crowned, as distinguished from the rest of the nations and languages from whom they were taken, and who were passed by in the payment of the ransom. This is directly opposite to all the sense I can make of this observation.
Fifthly, of "sheep, and sheep only," enough has been said before.
Proof 8. As in Adam all fell, in Christ all are redeemed.
"The restoration worked by Christ in his own body for mankind is set forth in Scripture to be as large and as full for all men, and of as much force, as the fall of the first Adam was worked by and in himself for all men; in which respect, the first Adam is said to have been a figure of Christ, the second Adam, Rom. 3:22-25, 5:12, 14, 18; 1Cor. 15:21-22, 4547: as was shown before in chap. 8."
ANSWER:
First, it is most true that in some of the passages mentioned here (such as Rom. 5:12, 18) that Christ and Adam are compared together: the righteousness of Christ was communicated to all those who are his, and the disobedience and transgression of Adam was likewise communicated to all those who are born of him. But evidently the comparison is not between the righteousness of Christ and the disobedience of Adam extensively, with regard to their respective objects, but intensively, with regard to the efficacy
334 The apostle asserts that the righteousness of Christ is effectual unto justification, answering the prevalence of Adam's sin which is effectual unto condemnation. Just as Adam's transgression brought the guilt of condemnation upon all those who are his natural seed, so the righteousness of Christ procured the free gift of grace unto justification for all those who are his spiritual seed, those children given to him by his Father. of the one and of the other.
Secondly, 1Cor. 15:21-22, speaks of the resurrection from the dead, and that is a resurrection only of believers; for though he mentions them all in verse
22, "In Christ all shall be made alive," yet, in verse 23, he plainly interprets those "all" to be all that are "Christ's:" not that the other dead shall not also rise, but that theirs is a resurrection to glory by virtue of the resurrection of Christ, which is what the apostle speaks of here, and which certainly all will not have.
Thirdly, the comparison between Christ and Adam in verse 45 (to say nothing of the various readings of that passage), is only with regard to the principles which they were entrusted to communicate to others: "Adam a living soul," or a "living creature;" was naturally imbued with a principle of life to be communicated to his posterity; "Christ a quickening Spirit," communicated life, grace, and spirit to his posterity. And here I desire that it be observed that all the comparison that is made between Christ and Adam still comes to one thing: they were two common stocks or roots, communicating to those who are ingrafted into them (that is, ingrafted into Adam naturally by generation, and into Christ spiritually by regeneration) that with which they were filled. With Adam: sin, guilt, and disobedience; with Christ: righteousness, peace, and justification. As for the number of those who received these things from one or the other, its consideration is beyond the scope, aim, and end of the apostle in the passages where the comparison is made.
Fourthly, it is true in Rom. 3:23 that, "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God," which the apostle had largely proved before, thereby manifesting that there was no salvation to be attained except by Jesus
Christ. But if you will ask to whom this righteousness of Christ is extended, and to whom redemption is had in his blood, he tells you plainly, it is "to all and upon all those who believe," verse 22, whether Jews or Gentiles, "for there is no difference."
Proof 9. The gospel is to be preached to all, therefore all are capable of belief.
"The Lord Jesus Christ has sent and commanded his servants to preach the gospel to all nations, to every creature, and along with this to tell them that whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved, Matt. 28:19, 20;
Mark 16:15-16; and his servants have preached to all, 2Cor. 5:19; Rom.
10:13, 18. And our Lord Jesus Christ will make it to appear one day that he has not sent his servants upon a false errand, nor put a lie in their mouths, nor wished them to dissemble in offering to all what they knew belonged only to some, even to the fewest of all, but he wished them to speak truth, Isa 44:26, 61:8; 1Tim. 1:12."
ANSWER:
The strength of this proof is not easily apparent, nor is it obvious in which part or words it lies:
First, it is true that Christ commanded his apostles to "preach the gospel to all nations and every creature," and to tell them "that whoever believes shall be saved," Matt. 28:19, 20, Mark 16:15, 16. Without distinction of persons or nations, they are to call all men to whom the providence of God directs them, and from whom the Spirit of God does not withhold them (as he withheld from them those in Acts 16:6-7)
335; they are to warn them to repent and to believe the gospel.
Secondly, it is also true that, in obedience to this command, his servants beseeched men to repent and believe, and to be reconciled to God. They did so over all the nations, without distinction, except where they were forbidden, as mentioned above. They labored to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth, and not to confine it to the Jews, 2Cor. 5:19, 20; Rom.
10:18. It is also most certain that the Lord Jesus Christ did not send his servants with a lie, nor to offer to all what belonged only to some; but instead, they were to speak the truth, all of which needs no proof. But what can be concluded from this regarding universal redemption is not easily discernible.
Perhaps some will say that if Christ did not die for all those to whom the word is preached, then how can those who preach it in fact offer Christ to all? That is a poor proof, God knows!
First, the gospel was never preached to everyone, nor is there any such thing affirmed in the passages cited; you would have to prove that Christ died for those who never hear of the gospel as well as for those who do.
Secondly, what do those who preach the gospel offer to those to whom the word is preached? Is it not life and salvation through Christ upon the condition of faith and repentance? And does not the truth of this offer consist in this: that every one who believes shall be saved? And does not that truth stand firm and inviolable, so long as there is an all-sufficiency in Christ to save all who come to him? Has God entrusted the ministers of the gospel with his intentions, purposes, and counsels, or with his commands and promises? Is it a lie to tell men that the one who believes will be saved, even though Christ did not die for some of them?
Such proofs as these need to be well proved themselves, or else what they intend to prove will have a very weak conclusion.
Proof 10. Believers are to pray for all, therefore all may be saved.
"The Lord wills believers to pray even for the unjust and their persecutors, Matt. 5:44, 48; Luke 6:28; indeed, they are to pray 'for all men,' and 'for kings and all in authority,' even though few in authority loved
Christianity. Yet he did not say some of that sort, but, 'For all in authority.'
And that is done upon this ground: it is good in the sight of God 'who will have all men saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth,' Luke 10:5;
1Tim. 2:1-4. Surely there is a door of life opened for all men, 2Tim. 1:10; for God has not said to the seed of Israel, 'You seek me in vain,' Isa 44:19.
He will not have his children pray for things in vain."
ANSWER :
The strength of this proof lies in supposing a number of things.
First, that indefinite assertions are to be interpreted as universal, which is false, Rom. 4, 5.
Secondly, that "all" in 1Tim. 2:1 does not mean all sorts of men, and the word "all" is not to be taken distributively; yet the apostle, by enumerating various sorts, obviously demonstrates the distribution he intended.
Thirdly, that we are bound to pray that every single man be saved, 1. For which we have no warrant, rule, precept, or example;
2. It is contrary to the apostolical precept given in 1Jn. 5:16;
3. It is not our Savior's example, John 17:9;
4. The counsel and purpose of God, generally made known to us in Romans 9:11, 12, 15, and Romans 11:7, makes it evident that praying for "all" is only for all sorts of men, excluding none, and that those who are ordained to eternal life may believe.
Fourthly, it supposes there is nothing else that we are to pray for men except that they may be saved by Christ; which is apparently false, Jer. 29:7.
Fifthly, that our ground of praying for anyone is an assurance that Christ died for them in particular; which is not true, Acts 8:22, 24.
Sixthly, it most splendidly takes for granted that our duty is to conform our prayers to God's secret mind, purpose, and counsel in election.
Until every one of these suppositions is made good, (which will not be soon), there is no help in this proof nor strength in this argument: "We must pray for all; therefore God intends by the death of Christ to save everyone,"
Its sophistry and weakness is apparent. From our duty to God's purpose is not a good conclusion, though from his command to our duty is most certain.
Proof 11. Christ will always be with his people, preaching to and praying for all.
"The Lord has given his word and promise to be with his servants preaching the gospel to all, and with his people praying for all, wherever they may come, that they may proceed with confidence in both, Matt.
28:20; 1Tim. 2: 3, 8; Luke 10:5; Isa. 54:17.
Ans: It is as apparent that God will be with his people, whether preaching or praying, according to his will and their own duty, as it is apparent that this proves nothing for universal redemption; what can be more evident?
Proof 12. Christ made good his word to all, that none would exclude themselves.
"The Lord has already performed and made good his word to his servants and people, upon some of all sorts of men and all sorts of sinners, showing them mercy to the very end, that none might exclude themselves, but all
be encouraged to repent, believe, and hope thereby, Acts 2, 3, 8 – 11, 16, 19, 28; 1Cor. 6:10, 11; 1Tim. 1:13-16."
Ans: If you had told us that God had already made good his word to his servants in saving all and every man, and proved it clearly, you would have evidently and undeniably confirmed your main opinion. But now, by affirming only that he has showed mercy to some of all sorts, and all sorts of sinners, so that others of like sort might be induced to believe (the remainder of his elect who are yet uncalled), you have evidently betrayed your own cause and established that of your adversaries. You have shown how the Lord saves in the blood of Jesus only some of all sorts, just as your adversaries affirm, and not everyone, to which your tenet leads you.
Proof 13. The blessing of life extends to all mankind, overcoming God's chosen.
"The blessing of life has streamed to mankind in this doctrine of the love of God. Yes, in the tender and spiritual discovery of the grace of God toward mankind (in the ransom given and atonement made by Christ for all men, along with its fruits), God has overcome his chosen ones to believe and turn to God, Acts 13:48; Titus 2:11, 13, 3:4, 5."
ANSWER :
First, the freedom of God's grace, and the transcendency of his eternal love towards men, with the sending of his Son to die for them, to recover them to himself from sin and Satan, is a most effectual motive. And when it is set on by the Spirit of grace, it is a most certain operative principle of the conversion of God's elect. We most willingly acknowledge this. It is this in which our hearts rejoice, and by which they were endeared, and for which we desire to return thankful obedience every moment. But we utterly deny that extending this love to all was ever effectual, or at least effectual in invigorating it:
1. Because it is false, and it is a corrupting of the word of God, as was shown; and there can be no good consequence of a lie.
2. It quite enervates and plucks out the efficacy of this heavenly motive by turning the most intense and incomparable love of God towards his elect into a mere desire, wish, and affection of his nature (which, indeed, is opposite to his nature), failing in its end and purpose. This might even be consistent with the eternal destruction of all mankind, as I will abundantly
demonstrate, if Providence calls me to the other part of this controversy concerning the cause of sending Jesus Christ.
Secondly, there is nothing of this common love toward all in the passages cited; for, 1. The "grace" mentioned in Tit. 2:11, 13,
340 is the grace that brings salvation with certainty, which a common love does not; 341 and that grace was the cause of God sending Christ, "that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify to himself a special people, zealous of good works."
This is where we assert that redemption and sanctification are the immediate ends of the oblation of Jesus Christ; we declared previously how this destroys universal redemption.
2. So also is that "love and kindness" mentioned in Tit. 3:4-5; 342 By such love and kindness we receive the "washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost," verse 5; and justification, and adoption so as to be made heirs of eternal life, verse 7. Whether this is a common love towards all men, or a special love towards his elect, let all men judge for themselves.
3. Acts 13:47
343 (verse 48 contains as clear a restriction of this love of God toward his elect, as can be desired) presents the extent of the mercy of God in Christ, through the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles also, and not only to the Jews, as was foretold by Isaiah, chap. 49:6. This hardly gives substance to universal grace; it is the same affirmation we have in John
11:52, "gathering together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad."
Proof 14. Those who reject the gospel "choose" darkness and destruction.
"When the gospel comes to men, containing any spiritual light, and they refuse to believe it, and allow themselves to be withdrawn from its light by other things, they are said to love or choose "darkness rather than light," John 3:19. How could that be if no light of truth were intended for them? They follow lying vanities; forsake their own mercies, Jonah 2:8; harden their own hearts, Rom. 2:5; lose their souls, Matt. 16:26; and destroy themselves, Hos. 13:9. Being from Adam, they have fallen into darkness, hardness, and have lost their souls; the sentence of death has been passed on them. How could these things be if no life had been attained by Jesus Christ, no atonement made, no restoration made of their
souls, nor means procured and used so that they might be saved? God is no hard master, to gather where he has not sown."
ANSWER:
The sum of this argument is that those who do not believe upon the preaching of the gospel are the cause of their own ruin and destruction; therefore, Jesus Christ died for all and every man in the world.
344 Now, although it is clearly a waste of time and labor to answer such an argument,
I must add a few observations, lest any doubt remains with the weakest reader.
First, all have not had the gospel preached to them. From the beginning of the world, the great part of men have been passed by in the dispensation of the means of grace, Rom. 2:14; Acts 14:16, 17:30 ("winked at").
345 All these, then, must be left out in this conclusion, which renders it altogether useless as to the business in hand. For universal redemption falls to the ground if any one soul is not intended in the payment of the ransom.
Secondly, it is not disbelieving that the death of Christ was for every individual that ever was or will be that causes man's destruction (a belief which is nowhere required in Scripture). Rather, it is not believing in the all-sufficiency of the passion and oblation of Jesus Christ for sinners, so as to accept the mercy which was procured thereby, upon those terms and conditions that it is held forth in the gospel. This does not speak to the purpose and intention of God for whom Christ should die, but the sufficiency and efficacy of his death for all that receive him in a due manner: believing that he is the only true way, life, and light, there being no other name given under heaven by which men may be saved (Ac 4:12). It is
"loving darkness rather than light," as in John 3:19, which is the place urged in the proof. The word there is mallon, "rather;" it does not institute a comparison between their love of darkness and light, as though they loved both but darkness more. Instead, it plainly intimates opposition to the love of light by a complete love of darkness. "Men" are said to do thus. And, according to the rules of interpreting Scripture which are followed by this author, this should taken universally for "all men" because it is spoken indefinitely. But we are content that it is most men to whom Christ preached; for some of them also "received him," those to whom he "gave this privilege, that they should become the sons of God," John 1:12.
I can see no reason why you should interpret "love" here as "choose," either as though the words were equivalent, or the word in the original would signify either one: both are exceedingly false. There is a difference between loving and choosing; and as for agapesan (NT:25), he would be as bad a translator as an interpreter to render it "they choose." Now, what is loving darkness more than light except following and cleaving in affection and practice to the ways in which, being alienated from the life of God, they were laboring in 'unfruitful works of darkness,' (Eph 5:11)? They were refusing to embrace the heavenly doctrine of the gospel, which holds forth peace and reconciliation with God through Christ, along with life and immortality by doing so. To conclude from this, therefore, that Christ died for all and every man in the world, simply because the great part of those to whom he preached the gospel did not believe, is a wild kind of reasoning. It is much better that we infer from this that therefore he did not die for all men, because it is not "given to them, for his sake, to believe on him," Phil.
1:29.
The parenthetical statement, "How could that be, if no light of truth were intended for them?" does not give any light to the former inference. If the word "for" ("intended for them") denoted the intention and purpose of God, the truth is, we dare not say that God intends and purposes anyone to receive light who does not actually receive it. Otherwise, by saying so, we would make the Strength of Israel like our own, and contradict the One who has said, "My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure," Isa 46:10.
"The counsel of the Lord stands forever," Ps. 33:11; he is "the LORD, and does not change," Mal. 3:6; James 1:17; 2Tim. 2:19; Rom. 9:11. If "for them" means such a supply and fullness of light and grace as there is light in the sun for all the men in the world, though some are blind and cannot see it, then we agree. We say that there is such a light in the gospel for all those to whom it is preached; their own blindness is the sole cause of not receiving it: but this has not gotten the stone moved a step forward; it still rolls back upon him.
Thirdly, the other scriptures he urged do not offer so much as a hint that there is an advantage in considering them, as with any of his references to the business in hand. Jonah 2:8 concerns those who forsake the true God to follow idols, and thus they forfeit the mercies, both temporal and spiritual, which they had received before from the true God. Rom. 2:5 speaks of the
Gentiles who had the works of God to teach them, and the patience of God to wait upon them, yet they made no use of them other than, by vile rebellions, to add new degrees of hardness upon their own hearts. Matt.
16:26 concerns men losing their souls and destroying themselves by sin (Hos. 13:9); this is of equal force with the previous verse mentioned.
But, fourthly, the close of this proof seems to intimate a further view of the author, which is not apparent at first: namely, that all men are in a restored condition by Christ. It is not that a door of mercy was opened for them all, but that they are all actually restored into grace and favor, a position from which, if they do not fall, they shall surely be saved. And the argument by which he proves this is as follows: being lost in Adam, they could not be said to lose themselves unless they were first restored by Christ; in other words, being all darkness and hardness in Adam, unless all of them were first enlightened and mollified by Christ, they could not be said to love darkness nor to harden themselves. Now, if this is his intention (as it is too apparent that it is), then I must say something first to the argument, and secondly to the thing itself.
First, for the argument, what he says is this: by original sin men are guilty of death and damnation; therefore they cannot by actual sins make sure of and aggravate that condemnation, and so bring upon themselves a death unto death. Because there is a native, inbred hardness of heart in man, no one can add further degrees of contracted hardness and induration by actual rebellions. Because men are already blind, they cannot undervalue light (when indeed the reason why they undervalue it is because they are blind). Men who have time, opportunity, and means to save their souls, cannot be said to lose their souls, that is, to be condemned, unless their souls were already in a saved condition. Now, this is one of the proofs which, in the close, is called "plain, and according to Scripture." But, indeed, nothing can be more contrary to reason, Scripture, and the principles of the oracles of God, than this statement, and some of his others as well. I will add no more, knowing that no reader can be so weak as to conceive that refusing a proposed remedy, accompanied by infinite other contempts done to the Lord, is not sufficient to make men guilty of their own condemnation. I speak of those readers who enjoy the preaching of the gospel.
Secondly, for the thing itself, as to an actual restoration of all men by Christ into such a state as they had at first in Adam (I mean with regard to covenant, and not innocence). I take this to be the meaning of the author, because in another place he positively affirms that it is so, and that all are justified by Christ, though he is not able to declare how this is so. To this, then, I say, 1. That there is nothing in Scripture to give the least substance to this gross error, however improbable-sounding it may be. And,
2. It is contrary to a number of fundamental truths:
(1.) It is contrary to many passages affirming that we are "dead in trespasses and sins," Eph. 2:1; that "except we are born again, we cannot see the kingdom of God," John 3:3; that until we come by faith to Christ,
"the wrath of God abides on us," chap. 3:36; along with countless passages which reveal the universal alienation of all men from God until actual peace and reconciliation is made through Christ.
(2.) It is contrary to the very nature and essence of the new covenant of grace which proceeds from the free mercy of God toward his elect; that covenant is carried along with distinguishing promises from the first to the last of them, putting a difference between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, a difference in the members as well as in their federal Head; it is effective and actually works every good thing it promised in and towards all to whom it belongs (which certainly it does not do in all men); everywhere in Scripture this covenant is said to be made with the people of God, or those whom he will own, in opposition to the world; all of these along with various other things, are so plentifully affirmed in the Scripture, that not one can be true if all men are restored by Christ into covenant.
(3) It is contrary to the eternal purpose of God in election and reprobation; of which the latter is a resolve to leave men in their fallen condition, without any reparation by Christ.
(4.) It is accompanied with many strange, absurd, and groundless consequences, such as, [1.] All infants dying before they come to use reason and before committing actual sin must necessarily be saved. And yet our Savior has said that, "except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom
of God," John 3:3; and from Paul, the children of infidels are "unclean," 1Cor. 7:14; now no unclean thing will enter the new
Jerusalem, Rev. 21:27). By such reasoning, the infants of Turks, Pagans, infidels, and persecutors, if they die in infancy, are placed in a far more happy condition than the apostles of Christ, better than the best of believers who are not, according to the authors of this doctrine, out of danger of eternal perishing.
[2.] There is nothing more required to be saved than continuing in the estate in which a person was born (because Christ has actually restored all to covenant); and yet the whole word of God cries out that all those who abide in that estate will certainly perish everlastingly.
[3.] That everyone who perishes falls away from the grace of the new covenant, even though the promises of that covenant are that there will never be any total falling away of those who are in covenant.
[4.] That none can come to Christ except those who have fallen from him, for all others abide in him.
Countless other consequences such as these necessarily attend this false and heretical assertion that is so absolutely destructive of the free grace of God. I expect that such proofs as these will make thoughtful men search further into the matter intended to be proved, and yield good advantages which reveal the wretched lie of the whole of it.
346 I answer that God sowed that seed in Adam, and watered it with countless temporal blessings towards all men, and spiritual blessings in some, whose limit he will come to require from the world of unbelievers, and not in the blood of Jesus Christ,
Fifthly, as to the last words of the proof, 347 any further than as it has been certainly proposed to some of them and despised.
Proof 15. God's good intentions in pleading with all men requires that Christ saved all men.
"God earnestly expostulated, contended, charged, and protested to that group of which many perished, Rom. 9:27; Isa 10:22.
349 As for examples:
'O that there were such a heart in them, that they would fear me,' etc., 'that it might be well with them!' Deut. 5:29. 'What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?' etc., Isa 5:4-5. 'What
iniquity have your fathers found in me, that they have gone far from me?'
Jer. 2:5. 'Have I been a wilderness to Israel? A land of darkness?
Therefore my people say, "We are lords; we will come to you no more?"' verse 31. 'O my people, what have I done to you? In what have I wearied you? Testify against me,' Mic. 6:3. 'How often would I have gathered,' etc.', 'and you would not!' Matt. 13:37. 'O that my people had listened to me!' etc., 'I would soon have subdued their enemies,' etc., Pa 81:13, 14.
'Because I have called, and you refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded,' etc., Prov. 1:24-31. 'Because, when they knew
God, they did not glorify him as God,' etc., Rom. 1:21, 28. 'Therefore you are inexcusable, O man,' etc. 'You, after your hard and impenitent heart, treasure up wrath for yourself,' etc., Rom. 2:1, 5. I hope no Christian will reply against God and say, 'You never meant us good; there was no ransom given for us, no atonement made for us, no good done to us, no mercy shown to us, nothing, in truth, by which we might have been saved, nothing but an empty show, a bare pretence.' But if anyone should reason so evilly, such answers shall not stand."
ANSWER:
To this collection of expostulations I will very briefly answer with a few observations, showing how little use it is to the business in hand.
First, in all these expostulations there is no mention of any ransom given or atonement made for those who perish (which is the thing suggested in the close of his proof). Instead, they are all about temporal mercies, with the outward means of grace. To this, add what we observed in the foregoing argument, namely, that just as God does not expostulate with them about it, nor will they expostulate with God about it at the last day. I do not deny that there are sufficient things to expostulate about with sinners concerning the blood of Christ and the ransom he paid with it. By such things the elect may be drawn and worked upon toward faith and repentance, and believers may be more and more endeared to forsake all ungodliness and worldly lusts, and live to Christ who lived for them; and others may be left more inexcusable by them. Only, for the present there are no such expostulations expressed here, nor can any be found holding out the purpose and intention of God in Christ towards those who perish.
Secondly, all these passages speak to those who enjoyed the means of grace: those who, in the days in which those expostulations were made to
them, were a very small portion of all men. So nothing can be concluded from what is said to them of the mind and purpose of God towards all others, as in Ps. 147:19-20, 350 which undermines the general ransom. There are exceptions to this in Rom. 1:28 and 2:5, which apparently and evidently lay the inexcusableness of sin upon that knowledge which all men may have of God by the works of creation and providence. They reveal him as eternal, almighty, and powerful, yet without offering men the least intimation of any ransom, atonement, and redemption.
Thirdly, there are no men, especially none of those who enjoy the means of grace, who do not receive such mercies from God, that he may justly plead with them about their unthankfulness and their not returning obedience proportionate to the mercies and light which they received.
Fourthly, I would hope it is confessed by all, that God could not only expostulate with the sons of men about any one of these things, if they were absent, but he could, if it seemed good to him, effectually work them in their hearts by the exceeding greatness of his power. So none of these things declares his purpose which he might fulfil, if he pleased; "for who has resisted his will?" Rom. 9:19.
Fifthly, ascribing desires and wishes to God is opposite to his all-sufficiency and the perfection of his nature; they are no more in him than he has eyes, ears, and hands.
Sixthly, it is evident that all these are nothing but emotional declarations of our duty as we enjoy the means of grace, strong convictions of the stubborn and disobedient, with a full justification of the excellent ways by which God draws us to perform our duties; ergo Christ died for all men?
Seventhly, some particular passages that seem to be of more weight than the rest have already been examined.
Proof 16. Scripture says it is sin to refuse grace, indicating it belongs to all.
"The way Scripture presents the sin of those who despise and refuse this grace, their estate, and the persons perishing, indicates that Christ shed his blood for them. It says they 'turn the grace of God into wantonness,' Jude
4; 'tread under foot the Son of God, profane the blood of the covenant, with which they were sanctified, offer contempt to the Spirit of grace,'
Heb. 10:29; ' deny the Lord that bought them,' 2Pet. 2:1; 'those perish for
whom Christ died,' 1Cor. 8:11; 'trees twice dead, plucked up by the roots,' Jude 12, 13; 'and bring upon themselves swift destruction,' 2Pet.
2:l. And how could all this be if God had not given his Son for them in some way? If Christ had shed no blood to procure remission for them? If he had not bought them, nor had any grace or life by his Spirit to bestow on them?"
ANSWER:
First, in this proof there are three passages of Scripture which are frequently urged in this cause, namely, Heb. 10:29; 2Pet. 2:1; 1Cor. 8:11: they have been considered at large already, where it was evidenced that they in no way aid the assertion for which they are violently wrested, and the end for which their sense is perverted.
Secondly, as for Jude 4, 12, 13, I cannot perceive how they can be hooked into the business in hand. Some are said, in verse 4, to "turn the grace of God into wantonness;" that is, they abuse the doctrine of the gospel, and the mercy of God it reveals, to encourage themselves in sin. Thus, to conclude that Jesus Christ therefore died for all men is an unwarranted inference, because the apostle intimates that Christ did not die for these abusers of his grace. Instead, he affirms that they were "before ordained of old to condemnation;" this ordination stands in direct opposition to that love which moved the Lord to send his Son Christ to procure anyone's salvation.
The strength of the proof lies in the other passages, which have already been considered.
Proof 17. If some are judged to a second death, Christ first died for them.
"Jesus Christ, by virtue of his death, will be their judge, and by the gospel, in which they might have been saved, will he judge them to a second death; how can that be if he never died the first death for them, and if there were no truth in his gospel preached to them? Rom. 14:9-12; Phil.
2:7-11; Rom. 2:16; John 12:47-48, 50."
ANSWER:
First, it is confessed that Jesus Christ will be judge of all, and that all judgment is already committed to him. But it does not follow from this that he died for all, as already declared, unless you affirm that he also died for the devils, because they also must be judged by him.
Secondly, it is directly contrary to the gospel that all will be judged by the gospel, even those who never heard a word of it: "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law," Rom. 2:12. Doubtless every man shall be judged according to the light and rule which he did or might have enjoyed, and not according to something of which he was invincibly deprived.
Thirdly, saying that Christ died only the first death is neither an expression of the word, nor can it be collected from there. He died the death which was in the curse of the law, but of this he died only by the way.
Fourthly, you intimate that there would be no truth in the gospel unless Christ died for all, when indeed there is no assertion more opposite to the truth of the gospel. The passages urged mention Christ being Lord of all, exalted above all, being Judge of all, judging men according to the gospel – that is, those who enjoy it; 355 but how these passages may be wrested to the end proposed, I do not know.
Proof 18. Believers may contend for, and lose, a common salvation.
"Believers are exhorted to contend for the faith of this common salvation which was once delivered to the saints. Some having heard oppose it; others turn its offers into wantonness. By not heeding and not walking in the faith of this salvation, already worked by Christ for men, they deprive themselves of it. They unwind themselves from that salvation which Christ, by his Spirit, in applying faith, has worked in them; and so they deprive themselves of the salvation to come, Jude 3-5.
"And every [one] of these proofs is plain and according to Scripture, and if each has force, then how much more do they have altogether! They still justify the sense that 1Tim. 2:6 and Heb. 2:9 import, and the truth of the proposition made in the beginning."
ANSWER: I can see nothing in this proof, except that the salvation purchased by Christ is called "common salvation." If you conclude from there that it is common to all, then you may as well conclude that faith belongs to all, because it is called the "common faith" in Tit. 1:4; although it is termed the "faith of God's elect" in Tit. 1:1. Doubtless there is a community of believers, and what is common among them is extended to
357 and they are all saved by that common salvation, without any hint of that strange common salvation by which no one is saved, the kind maintained by this disputer. the whole church of God; there is totes mundus ex toto mundo;
The remainder of this proof is just so many words, characteristic of this author's persuasion; but in large part, they are unsuitable to the word of God and derogatory to the merits of Christ. They make the salvation purchased by him to be of no effect in itself, but instead leave it to the will of sinful, corrupted, accursed men, whether to make it available or to reject it.
And these are the proofs which this author calls "plain and according to Scripture." They are a recapitulation of almost all that he has said in his whole book, at least, for the argumentative part of it. There is nothing of weight omitted. And therefore I fixed on this chapter to return a full and punctual answer to it. The thing to be proved by him is this: it is plainly, clearly, and evidently confirmed from the Scripture that Christ paid a ransom for all and every man. Now, it is left to the judgment of the Christian reader, who will peruse them with the answers I have annexed, whether this was actually proved, or whether this heap of words is not childish, weak, and ridiculous. He calls them arguments, reasons, and proofs, but their manner of expression is obscure, uncouth, and ofttimes unintelligible. In their way of inference, in their allegations and interpretations of Scripture, they are perverse, violent, and mistaken. And through their ignorance, heedlessness, and corruption of judgment, their direct opposition to the mind and will of God is revealed.