|
|
CHAPTER 5
THE
LAST ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE ANSWERED.
III.
I COME, in the next place, to the third and last argument,
drawn from the Scripture, wherewith the Arminians and their
successors (as to this point) do strive to maintain their figment
of universal redemption; and it is taken from such texts of
Scripture as seem to hold out the perishing of some of them for
whom Christ died, and the fruitlessness of his blood in respect
of divers for whom it was shed. And on this theme their wits are
wonderfully luxuriant, and they are full of rhetorical strains to
set out the unsuccessfulness and fruitlessness of the blood of
Christ in respect of the most for whom it was shed, with the
perishing of bought, purged, reconciled sinners. Who can but
believe that this persuasion tends to the consolation of poor
souls, whose strongest defense lieth in making vile the precious
blood of the Lamb, yea, trampling upon it, and esteeming it as a
common thing? But, friends, let me tell you, I am persuaded it
was not so unvaluable in the eyes of his Father as to cause it to
be poured out in vain, in respect of any one soul. But seeing we
must be put to this defense, — wherein we cannot but
rejoice, it tending so evidently to the honor of our blessed
Savior, — let us consider what can be said by Christians (at
least in name) to enervate the efficacy of the blood-shedding, of
the death of him after whose name they desire to be called. Thus,
then, they argue: — “If Christ died for reprobates and
those that perish, then he died for all and every one, for
confessedly he died for the elect and those that are saved; but
he died for reprobates, and them that perish: therefore,”
etc.
Ans.
For the assumption, or second proposition of this
argument, we shall do what we conceive was fit for all the elect
of God to do, — positively deny it (taking the death of
Christ, here said to be for them, to be considered not in respect
of its own internal worth and sufficiency, but, as it was
intended by the Father and Son, in respect of them for whom he
died). We deny, then, I say, that Christ, by the command of his
Father, and with intention to make satisfaction for sins, did lay
down his life for reprobates and them that perish.
This,
then, they prove from Romans 14:15; 1 Corinthians 8:11; 2 Peter
2:1; Hebrews 10:29. Now, that no such thing as is pretended is
proved from any of the places alleged, we shall show by the
consideration of them in the order they are laid down in.
1.
The first is Romans 14:15, “But if thy brother be
grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy
not him with thy meat for whom Christ died.”
Ans.
Had we not experience of the nimbleness of our adversaries in
framing arguments for their cause, I should despair to find their
conclusion pressed out of this place; for what coherence or
dependence, I beseech you, is here to be discerned? “The
apostle exhorteth strong and sound believers to such a moderate
use of Christian liberty that they do not grieve the spirit of
the weak ones, that were believers also (professors, all called
‘saints, elect, believers, redeemed,’ and so in charity
esteemed), and so give them occasion of stumbling and falling off
from the gospel: therefore, Jesus Christ died for all reprobates,
even all those that never heard word nor syllable of him or the
doctrine of the gospel.” Must he not be very quick-sighted
that can see the dependence of this inference on that exhortation
of the apostle? But ye will say, “Is it not affirmed that he
may perish for whom Christ died?’
Ans.
In this place there is no such thing at all once mentioned or
intimated; only others are commanded not to do that which goeth
in a direct way to destroy him, by grieving him with their
uncharitable walking. “But why should the apostle exhort him
not to do that which he could no way do, if he that Christ died
for could not perish?”
Ans.
Though the one could not perish in respect of the event, the
other might sinfully give occasion of perishing in respect of a
procuring cause. May not a man be exhorted from attempting of
that which yet if he should attempt he could not effect? No
thanks to the soldier who ran a spear into the side of our dead
Redeemer, that therewith he brake none of his bones. Besides, is
everyone damned that one attempts to destroy, by grieving him
with uncharitable walking? Such arguments as these are poor men
of straw. And yet, notwithstanding, we do not deny but that many
may perish, and that utterly, whom we, in our walking towards
them and converse with them, are bound to conceive redeemed by
Christ; even all being to be thought so who are to be esteemed
“saints and brethren,” as the language of the Scripture
is concerning the professors of the gospel. And this is most
certain, that no one place makes mention of such to be bought or
redeemed by our Savior, but those which had the qualification of
being members of this visible church; which come infinitely short
of all and everyone.
2.
But let us see a second place, which is 1 Corinthians 8:11,
“And through thy knowledge shall thy weak brother perish, for whom Christ died.”
This
seemeth to have more color, but really yieldeth no more strength
to the persuasion for whose confirmation it is produced, than the
former. A brother is said to perish for whom Christ died. That
by perishing here is understood eternal destruction and
damnation, I cannot apprehend. That which the apostle intimates
whereby it is done, is eating of things offered to an idol, with
conscience or regard of an idol, by the example of others who
pretended to know that an idol was nothing, and so to eat freely
of the things offered to them. That so doing was a sin in its own
nature damnable, none can doubt. All sin is so; every time we
sin, for anything that lieth in us, we perish, we are destroyed.
So did the eater of things offered to idols. But that God always
revengeth sin with damnation on all in whom it is, we deny; he
hath otherwise revealed himself in the blood of Jesus Christ.
That every such a one did actually perish eternally, as well as
meritoriously, cannot be proved. Besides, he that is said to
perish is called a brother, — that is, a believer; we
are brethren only by faith, whereby we come to have one Father.
As he is said to be a brother, so Christ is said to die
for him. That a true believer cannot finally perish may
easily be proved; therefore, he who doth perish is manifestly
declared never to have been any: “They went out from us,
because they were not of us.” If any perish, then, he was
never a true believer. How, then, is he said to be a brother?
Because he is so in profession, so in our judgment and
persuasion; it being meet for us to think so of them all. As he
is said to be a brother, so Christ is said to die for him, even
in that judgment which the Scripture allows to us of men. We
cannot count a man a brother, and not esteem that Christ died for
him; we have no brotherhood with reprobates. Christ died for all
believers, John 17. So we esteem all men walking in the due
profession of the gospel, not manifesting the contrary; yet of
these, that many may perish none ever denied. Farther; this, so
shall he perish, referreth to the sin of him that layeth the
offense; for aught that lieth in him, he ruins him irrecoverably.
Hence see their argument: — “The apostle telleth
persons walking offensively, that by this abusing their liberty,
others will follow them, to the wounding of their conscience and
ruin, who are brethren, acknowledged so by you, and such as for
whom Christ died: therefore, Christ died for all the reprobates
in the world. ‘Is it just and equal,’ saith the
apostle, ‘that ye should do such things as will be
stumbling-blocks in the way of the weak brother, at which he
might stumble and fall?’ therefore, Christ died for
all.” We do not deny but that some may perish, and that
eternally, concerning whom we ought to judge that Christ died for
them, whilst they live and converse with us according to the nile
of the gospel.
3.
The next place is much insisted on, — namely, 2 Peter
2:1,
“There shall be false teachers, denying the Lord that bought them, and bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”
All
things here, as to any proof of the business in hand, are
exceedingly dark, uncertain, and doubtful. Uncertain, that
by the Lord is meant the Lord Christ, the word in
the original being Despo>thv, seldom or never ascribed to him;
uncertain, whether the purchase or buying of these false
teachers refer to the eternal redemption by the blood of Christ,
or a deliverance by God’s goodness from the defilement of
the world in idolatry, or the like, by the knowledge of the
truth, — which last the text expressly affirms; uncertain,
whether the apostle speaketh of this purchase according to
the reality of the thing, or according to their apprehension and
their profession.
On
the other side, it is most certain, — First, That
there are no spiritual distinguishing fruits of redemption
ascribed to these false teachers, but only common gifts of light
and knowledge, which Christ hath purchased for many for whom he
did not make his soul a ransom. Secondly, That, according to our
adversaries, the redemption of any by the blood of Christ cannot
be a peculiar aggravatior of the sins of any, because they say he
died for all; and yet this buying of the false teachers is held
out as an aggravation of their sin in particular.
Of
the former uncertainties, whereon our adversaries build
their inference of universal redemption (which yet can by no
means be wire-drawn thence, were they most certain in their
sense), I shall give a brief account, and then speak something as
to the proper intendment of the place.
For
the first, It is most uncertain whether Christ, as
mediator, be here intended by Lord or no. There is not
anything in the text to enforce us so to conceive, nay, the
contrary seems apparent, — First, Because in the
following verses, God only, as God, with his dealings towards
such as these, is mentioned; of Christ not a word. Secondly, The
name Despo>thv, properly “Herus,” attended by
dominion and sovereignty, is not usually, if at all, given to our
Savior in the New Testament; he is everywhere called Ku>riov, nowhere
clearly Despo>thv, as is the Father, Luke 2:29, Acts 4:24, and
in divers other places. Besides, if it should appear that this
name were given our Savior in any one place, doth it therefore
follow that it must be so here? nay, is the name proper for our
Savior, in the work of redemption? Despo>thv is such a Lord or
Master as refers to servants and subjection; the end of
Christ’s purchasing any by his blood being in the Scripture
always and constantly expressed in other terms, of more
endearment. It is, then, most uncertain that Christ should be
here understood by the word Lord.
[Secondly],
But suppose he should, it is most uncertain that by buying
of these false teachers is meant his purchasing of them with the
ransom of his blood; for, — First, The apostle
insisteth on a comparison with the times of the Old Testament,
and the false prophets that were then amongst the people, backing
his assertion with divers examples out of the Old Testament in
the whole chapter following. Now, the word ajgora>zw, here
used, signifieth primarily the buying of things;
translatitiously, the redemption of persons; — and the word hd;P;
in the Old Testament, answering thereunto, signifieth any
deliverance, as Deuteronomy 7:8, 15:15, Jeremiah 15:21, with
innumerable other places: and, therefore, some such deliverance
is here only intimated. Secondly, Because here is no
mention of blood, death, price, or offering of Jesus Christ, as
in other places, where proper redemption is treated on;
especially, some such expression is added where the word ajgora>zw
is used to express it, as 1 Corinthians 6:20, Revelation 5:9,
which otherwise holds out of itself deliverance in common from
any trouble. Thirdly, The apostle setting forth at large
the deliverance they had had, and the means thereof, verse 20,
affirms it to consist in the “escaping of the pollutions of
the world,” as idolatry, false worship, and the like,
“through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ;” plainly declaring that their buying was only in
respect of this separation from the world, in respect of the
enjoyment of the knowledge of the truth; but of washing in the
blood of the Lamb, he is wholly silent. Plainly, there is no
purchase mentioned of these false teachers, but a deliverance, by
God’s dispensations towards them, from the blindness of
Judaism or Paganism, by the knowledge of the gospel; whereby the
Lord bought them to be servants to him, as their supreme head. So
that our adversaries’ argument from this place is this:
— “God the Lord, by imparting the knowledge of the
gospel, and working them to a professed acknowledgment of it and
subjection unto it, separated and delivered from the world divers
that were saints in show, — really wolves and hypocrites, of
old ordained to condemnation: therefore, Jesus Christ shed his
blood for the redemption and salvation of all reprobates and
damned persons in the whole world.” Who would not admire our
adversaries’ chemistry?
Thirdly,
Neither is it more certain that the apostle speaketh of the
purchase of the wolves and hypocrites, in respect of the reality
of the purchase, and not rather in respect of that estimation
which others had of them, — and, by reason of their outward
seeming profession, ought to have had, — and of the
profession that themselves made to be purchased by him whom they
pretended to preach to others; as the Scripture saith [of Ahaz],
“The gods of Damascus smote him,” because he himself so
imagined and professed, 2 Chronicles 28:23. The latter hath this
also to render it probable, — namely, that it is the
perpetual course of the Scripture, to ascribe all those things to
everyone that is in the fellowship of the church which are proper
to them only who are true spiritual members of the same; as to be
saints, elect, redeemed, etc. Now, the truth is, from this
their profession, that they were bought by Christ, might the
apostle justly, and that according to the opinion of our
adversaries, press these false teachers, by the way of
aggravating their sin. For the thing itself, their being bought,
it could be no more urged to them than to heathens and infidels
that never heard of the name of the Lord Jesus. Now, after all
this, if our adversaries can prove universal redemption from this
text, let them never despair of success in anything they
undertake, be it never so absurd, fond, or foolish. But when they
have wrought up the work already cut out for them, and proved,
— first, That by the Lord is meant Christ as
mediator; secondly, That by buying is meant
spiritual redemption by the blood of the Lamb; thirdly, That
these false teachers were really and effectually so redeemed, and
not only so accounted because of the church; fourthly, That
those who are so redeemed may perish, contrary to the express
Scripture, Revelation 14:4; fifthly, Manifest the strength
of this inference, “Some in the church who have acknowledged
Christ to be their purchaser, fall away to blaspheme him, and
perish forever: therefore, Christ bought and redeemed all that
ever did or shall perish;” sixthly, That that which
is common to all is a peculiar aggravation to the sin of any one
more than others; — I will assure them they shall have more
work provided for them, which themselves know for a good part
already where to find.
4.
The last place produced for the confirmation of the argument
in hand is Hebrews 10:29,
“Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?”
“Nothing,”
say our adversaries, “could be affirmed of all this
concerning apostates, — namely, ‘That they have trodden
under foot,’ etc., unless the blood of Christ was in some
sense shed for them.”
Ans.
The intention of the apostle in this place is the same with
the general aim and scope of the whole epistle, — to
persuade and urge the Jews, who had embraced the doctrine of the
gospel, to perseverance and continuance therein. This, as he doth
perform in other places, with divers and various arguments,
— the most of them taken from a comparison at large
instituted between the gospel in its administration, and those
legal shadows which, before their profession, they lived under
and were in bondage unto, — so here he urgeth a strong
argument to the same purpose “ab incommode, seu effectu
pernicioso,” from the miserable, dangerous effects and
consequences of the sin of backsliding, and willful renunciation
of the truth known and professed, upon any motives and
inducements whatsoever; which he assureth [them] to be no less
than a total casting off and depriving themselves of all hopes
and means of recovery, with dreadful horror of conscience in
expectation of judgment to come, Hebrews 10:26, 27. Now, this he
confirms, as his manner is in this epistle, from some thing,
way, and practice which was known to them, and
wherewith they were all acquainted by that administration of the
covenant under which they had before lived, in their Judaism; and
so makes up his inference from a comparison of the less; taking
his example from the punishment due, by God’s own
appointment, to all them who transgressed Moses’ law in such
a manner as apostates sin against the gospel, — that is,
“with an high hand,” or “presumptuously:” for
such a one was to die without mercy, Numbers 15:30, 31.
Whereupon, having abundantly proved that the gospel, and the
manifestation of grace therein, is exceedingly preferred to and
exalted above the old ceremonies of the law, he concludes that
certainly a much sorer punishment (which he leaves to their
judgment to determine) awaits for them who willfully violate the
holy gospel, and despise the declaration of grace therein
contained and by it revealed; which farther also to manifest, he
sets forth the nature and quality of this sin in all such as,
professing redemption and deliverance by the blood of Christ,
shall willfully cast themselves thereinto. “It is,”
saith he, “no less than to tread under foot or contemn the
Son of God; to esteem the blood of the covenant, by which he was
set apart and sanctified in the profession of the gospel, to be
as the blood of a vile man; and thereby to do despite to the
Spirit of grace.” This being (as is confessed) the plain
meaning and aim of the apostle, we may observe sundry things, for
the vindication of this place from the abuse of our adversaries;
as, —
First,
He speaketh here only of those that were professors of the faith
of the gospel, separated from the world, brought into a church
state and fellowship, professing themselves to be sanctified by
the blood of Christ, receiving and owning Jesus Christ as the Son
of God, and endued with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, as Hebrews
6:4, 5. Now, it is most certain that these things are peculiar
only to some, yea to a very few, in comparison of the
universality of the sons of men; so that what is affirmed of such
only can by no means be so extended as to be applied unto all.
Now, if anyone may be exempted, universal redemption falleth to
the ground; from the condition of a very few, with such
qualifications as the multitude have not, nothing can be
concluded concerning all.
Secondly,
The apostle doth neither declare what hath been nor assert what
may be, but only adds a commination upon a supposition of a
thing; his main aim being to deter from the thing rather than to
signify that it may be, by showing the misery that must needs
follow if it should so come to pass. When Paul told the soldiers,
Acts 27:31, that if the mariners fled away in the boat they could
not be saved, he did not intend to signify to them that, in
respect of the event, they should be drowned, for God had
declared the contrary unto him the night before, and he to them;
but only to exhort them to prevent that which of itself was a
likely way for their ruin and perishing. Neither shall the
Remonstrants, with all their rhetoric, ever persuade us that it
is in vain and altogether fruitless to forewarn men of an evil,
and to exhort them to take heed of those ways whereby it is
naturally, and according to the order among the things
themselves, to be incurred; although, in respect of the purpose
of God, the thing itself have no futurition, nor shall ever come
to pass. A commination of the judgment due to apostasy, being an
appointed means for the preserving of the saints from that sin,
may be held out to them, though it be impossible the elect should
be seduced. Now, that Paul here deals only upon a supposition
(not giving being to the thing, but only showing the connection
between apostasy and condemnation, thereby to stir up all the
saints to “take heed lest there should be in any of them an
evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God”) is
apparent from Acts 27:26, where he makes an entrance upon this
argument and motive to perseverance: “For if we sin
wilfully.” That believers may do so, he speaks not
one word; but if they should do so, he shows what would be the
event; — as, that the soldiers in the ship should perish,
Paul told them not; but yet showed what must needs come to pass
if the means of prevention were not used. Now, if this be the
intention of the apostle, as it is most likely, by his speaking
in the first person, “If we sin wilfully,” then not
anything in the world can be hence concluded either for the
universality of redemption or the apostasy of saints, to both
which ends this place is usually urged; for “suppositio nil
ponit in esse.”
Thirdly,
It is most certain that those of whom he speaks did make
profession of all those things whereof here is mention, —
namely, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, that they were
sanctified by the blood of the covenant, and enlightened by the
Spirit of grace; yea, as is apparent from the parallel place,
Hebrews 6:4, 5, had many gifts of illumination; besides their
initiation by baptism, wherein open profession and demonstration
was made of these things. So that a renunciation of all these,
with open detestation of them, as was the manner of apostates,
accursing the name of Christ, was a sin of so deep an
abomination, attended with so many aggravations, as might well
have annexed to it this remarkable commination, though the
apostates never had themselves any true effectual interest in the
blood of Jesus.
Fourthly,
That it was the manner of the saints, and the apostles
themselves, to esteem of all baptized, initiated persons,
ingrafted into the church, as sanctified persons; so that,
speaking of backsliders, he could not make mention of them any
otherwise than as they were commonly esteemed to be, and at that
time, in the judgment of charity, were to be considered. Whether
they were true believers or no, but only temporary, to whom this
argument against apostasy is proposed, according to the usual
manner of speech used by the Holy Ghost, they could not be
otherwise described.
Fifthly,
If the text be interpreted positively, and according to the truth
of the thing itself, in both parts thereof (namely,
1.
That those of whom the apostle speaketh were truly
sanctified;
2.
That such may totally perish), then these two things will
inevitably follow, — first, That faith and
sanctification are not the fruit of election; secondly, That
believers may fall finally from Christ; — neither of which I
as yet find to be owned by our new Universalists, though both
contended for by our old Arminians.
Sixthly,
There is nothing in the text of force to persuade that the
persons here spoken of must needs be truly justified and
regenerated believers, much less that Christ died for them; which
comes in only by strained consequences. One expression only seems
to give any color hereunto, — that they were said to be
“sanctified by the blood of the covenant.” Now,
concerning this, if we do but consider, — first, The
manner and custom of the apostles writing to the churches,
calling them all “saints” that were called, —
ascribing that to everyone that belonged only to some; secondly,
That these persons were baptized, (which ordinance among the
ancients was sometimes called fwtismo>v, “illumination,”
sometimes aJgiasmo>v, “sanctification,”) wherein, by
a solemn aspersion of the symbol of the blood of Christ, they
were externally sanctified, separated, and set apart, and were by
all esteemed as saints and believers; thirdly, The various
significations of the word aJgia>zw (here used) in the
Scripture, whereof one most frequent is, to consecrate and set
apart to any holy use, as 2 Chronicles 29:33, Leviticus 16:4; fourthly,
That Paul useth in this epistle many words and phrases in a
temple sense, alluding, in the things and ways of the Christian
church, unto the old legal observances; fifthly, That
supposed and professed sanctity is often called so, and esteemed
to be so indeed; — if, I say, we shall consider these
things, it will be most apparent that here is indeed no true,
real, internal, effectual sanctification, proper to God’s
elect, at all intimated, but only a common external setting apart
(with repute and esteem of real holiness) from the ways of the
world and customs of the old synagogue, to an enjoyment of the
ordinance of Christ representing the blood of the covenant. So
that this commination being made to all so externally and
apparently sanctified, to them that were truly so it declared the
certain connection between apostasy and condemnation; thereby
warning them to avoid it, as Joseph [was] warned to flee into
Egypt, lest Herod should slay the child; which yet, in respect of
God’s purpose, could not be effected. In respect of them
that were only apparently so, it held out the odiousness of the
sin, with their own certain inevitable destruction if they fell
into it; which it was possible they might do.
And
thus, by the Lord’s assistance, have I given you, as I hope,
a clear solution to all the arguments which heretofore the
Arminians pretended to draw from the Scripture in the defense of
their cause; some other sophisms shall hereafter be removed. But
because of late we have had a multiplication of arguments on this
subject, some whereof, at least in form, appear to be new, and
may cause some trouble to the unskillful, I shall, in the next
place, remove all those objections which Thomas More, in his book
of the “Universality of Free Grace,” hath gathered
together against our main thesis, of Christ’s dying only for
the elect, which himself puts together in one bundle, chap. 26.,
and calleth them reasons.