before he himself died." To this it is answered *. , as before, that "special regard is had to those who live after Christ died, and to whom the gospel is preached, that though those who died in their impenitence before the death of Christ, could receive no benefit by it; yet Christ is truly said to die for them, since, had they seriously converted themselves to God, as they might by the grace of God, they would have found remission of sins in the blood of Christ hereafter to be shed; even as those did who repented and died in piety before the death of Christ. That the case of Judas is single, and is no exception to the universality of Christ's death; though there is no need to except him, for Christ may be rightly said to die for him, and he might have been a partaker of the benefit of Christ's death, and that on a twofold account. First, inasmuch as by grace communicated to him, because of the death of Christ, a little after to be endured, he might have abstained from the great sin of betraying him. And secondly, had he repented, he would have obtained pardon of God for it." I reply, as before, that the controversy between us, is not whether Christ died for those who lived before or after his death, but whether he died for all the sons and daughters of Adam, whether they lived before or after his death? And if he died only or chiefly for those who lived after his death, and to whom the gospel is preached, then not for all men; since the far greater part of mankind lived before his death, and to whom the gospel was never preached. With what view, upon what consideration or account soever, could Christ be said to die for those that were already dead in their impenitence? Had he died for them, grace would have been communicated to them on the account of his death hereafter to have been endured, as the author says in the case of Judas; and so they would have repented and been converted, as well as have received remission of sins in his blood hereafter to be shed. But inasmuch as they neither had grace to repent, nor forgiveness of sins, by virtue of the future death of Christ, as others had, it is most reasonable to conclude, he never died for them; for to what purpose should he or could he die for them that were already damned? As to the case of Judas, though single, it must be an exception to Christ's dying for every individual man; though I think the cases of Cain, the Sodomites, Pharaoh, such who have sinned the sin against the Holy Ghost, antichrist, the man of sin, &c. are much alike exceptions to it. What grace Judas had communicated to him on the account of Christ's death, a little after to be endured, by which he might have abstained from the sin of betraying of him, I do not understand, when his betraying of him was to be the means of his death: and as for his repentance, this writer himself owns, that God justly deprived him of the power of repenting, and so the death of Christ was of no advantage to him. IX. Another argument against universal redemption, stands thus: "If they can perish, and some of them do perish, for whom Christ died, then their sins are twice punished: once in Christ, who died for them, and again in themselves undergoing the punishment of everlasting fire:" which is contrary to the justice of God, which will never * Limborch, p. 329. inflict punishment and require satisfaction twice for the same offence, and must greatly reflect upon the satisfaction and atonement of Christ as insufficient. The answer to this * is, "that Christ was not properly punished for men, nor did he properly translate the punishment of sin from sinners to himself, that their sins might be punished in him." But surely, if Christ did not translate to himself and bear the punishment of our sins, how could he be said to be made sin and a curse for us, to have the chastisement of our peace upon him, to be wounded, bruised, and die for our sins, to be stricken and cut off in a judicial way for the transgressions of his people? And if he was, and underwent all this for all mankind, their sins must have been punished in him; and therefore it would not be consistent with the justice of God to send any of them into everlasting fire, when Christ bore what was equivalent to it in their room and stead. X. "If Christ died for all men, then also for infants dying in their infancy; but this the Remonstrants do not believe; since they affirm, that infants are born without original sin, and are not guilty of eternal condemnation; and therefore, according to them, need no Redeemer :" and, indeed, if they have neither original nor actual sin, and so not liable to condemnation and death, what should they be redeemed from? The answer is †, "Not from sin, but from an hereditary death they derived from Adam." But how comes death to be hereditary to them, or how come they to derive it from Adam, if they are not involved in his sin and guilt? Besides, they are not redeemed by Christ from this hereditary corporal death; Death reigned from Adam to Moses, and so it has ever since, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression §. Should it be said, they will be redeemed from it in the resurrection; so will all the wicked, who will have no share in eternal life, and so no proof of their redemption by Christ; should it be urged, that they will not only be redeemed from this death, but also translated into the possession of eternal life, through the death of Christ; this must be in consequence of their redemption from sin, the cause of this death, by virtue of Christ's righteousness wrought out for them, which justifies from sin, and gives a title to eternal life. The case is this, either infants dying in infancy are sinners, or they are not; if they are, they must be so by virtue and in consequence of original sin, which the Arminians deny; if they are not sinners, they stand in no need of a Saviour, they are not the objects of redemption, Christ died not for them; and if not for them, then not for all mankind. XI. The last argument is, "If Christ died for all men, even for them that can and do perish, then no consolation nor certainty of salvation can be had from the death of Christ, even by those that believe he died for them, seeing, notwithstanding he has died for them, they may perish: but this is absurd, and contrary to Rom. viii. 34. where believers conclude, from the death of Christ, that they cannot come into condemnation." The consequence of this argument is denied ||. But how is it possible, that there should be any * Limborch, p. 329. † 2 Cor. v. 21; Gal. iii. 13; Isa. lii. 5,6; 1 Cor. xv. 3; Isa. liii. 8. Limborch, p. 330. § Rom. v. 14. || Limborch, p. 330. solid comfort or real certainty of salvation from the death of Christ, when, notwithstanding complete redemption is obtained by it, the benefit of it enjoyed, sin really forgiven in Christ, and the remission of it truly applied, yet persons may fall from the enjoyment of these benefits through sin and unbelief, and eternally perish? So that the benefit of Christ's death, and continuance in the enjoyment of it, depend on the will of man, and certain conditions to be performed by him; whence if any comfort or assurance of salvation arise, which must be very low and precarious, they must arise, not from the death of Christ, but from the performances of men: whereas, on the other hand, the doctrine of particular redemption secures grace here, and glory hereafter, to all the subjects of it; so that those who believe in Christ, may take solid comfort from his death, that they shall never enter into condemnation, but shall be for ever with him; and may be strongly assured of this, that maugre all the opposition of sin, Satan, and the world, they shall be saved with an everlasting salvation by him. CHAPTER IV. OF EFFICACIOUS GRACE. DR. WHITBY, in the second chapter of his Discourse of sufficient and effectual, common and efficacious grace *, proposes arguments to overthrow the doctrine of irresistible or unfrustrable grace, as necessary in the conversion of a sinner; and begins with some general considerations, which he thinks sufficient to cause any man to distrust, if not entirely reject it; as, that the defenders of it grant, what is inconsistent with it, "That preventing grace is given irresistibly and universally to men, and is never taken away by God from any man, unless he first, of his own accord, rejects it; that there are certain inward workings and effects wrought by the word and Spirit of God, preceding conversion and regeneration, in the hearts of persons not yet justified; which God ceaseth not to promote and carry on towards conversion, till he be forsaken of them by their voluntary negligence, and his grace be repelled by them; that God doth very seriously and in earnest call all those to faith and repentance, and conversion, in whom, by his word and Spirit, he works a knowledge of the divine will, a sense of sin, a dread of punishment, some hopes of pardon; and yet, that all these men, excepting the elect, are not converted, through a defectiveness in the grace of God to do it, or for want of means sufficient for their conversion, and because God never intended by these means salvation to any but the elect." Who these defenders are that make these concessions I am not concerned to know, the inconsistency of them with the doctrine of efficacious grace, will be * Whitby, p. 231-233; ed. 2. 226, 227. readily owned; how can grace be said to be given universally to men, when inmultitudes of them have not so much as the means of it? or be said to be given irresistibly, when man, of his own accord, may reject it? And though some certain effects may follow upon hearing the word-as, awakening of the natural conscience, fear of a future judgment, and trembling of the spirits in some persons-as in Felix, who never were or will be converted; yet these things are not promoted and carried on by God, nor were ever designed to be promoted and carried on by him towards conversion, or in order to it: had they been wrought or designed for that purpose, man's forsaking the Lord by voluntary negligence, or repelling his grace, could never frustrate his designs, or cause him to cease promoting the carrying on his own work until he has brought it to perfection. Nor is it true, that God calls all those to faith and repentance, and conversion, who have a knowledge of the divine will, a sense of sin, a dread of punishment, and some hopes of pardon: for the devils have all these but the last, whom he never calls to faith and repentance, and the latter, as well as the former, some men may have, and yet be never called by the grace of God; indeed, all those to whom God, by his Spirit and word, gives a spiritual knowledge of his will, a real thorough sense of the evil nature of sin, as well as of the punishment that comes by it, and a good hope through grace, of pardon through the blood of Christ, he not only calls seriously and in earnest to faith and repentance, but he bestows these gifts of his grace upon them. But I proceed to the consideration of the arguments which, it is said, evidently seem to confute the doctrine of irresistible and unfrustrable grace in conversion. The first four arguments, with the eighth and ninth, are founded upon passages of Scripture, which have been considered in the first Part of this work, to which the reader is referred; the rest shall be attended to, and are as follow. I. "If such a divine unfrustrable operation is necessary to the conversion of a sinner, then the word read or preached can be no instrument of their conversion, without this divine and unfrustrable impulse, because that only acts by moral suasion *." I answer: it is very true that the word read or preached is not, nor can it be an instrument of conversion, without the powerful and efficacious grace of God; and it is abundantly evident, that it is read and preached to multitudes on whom it has no effect, and to whom it is of no use and service. Some persons are, indeed, begotten with the word of truth, and through the gospel; and are born again of incorruptible seed by the word of God+; but then all this is by and through it, not as it comes in word only, or as it acts by moral suasion, or as it is a mere moral instrument, but as it comes in power and in the Holy Ghost, or with the demonstration of the Spirit and of power ‡. The Spirit of God is the efficient cause of regeneration and conversion, the word is only a means which he makes use of when he pleases; for though he, generally speaking, works upon men by and under the means, yet not always; the work * Whitby, p. 255; ed. 2. 249. † James i. 18; 1 Cor. iv. 15; 1 Pet. i. 23. 1 Thess. i. 5; 1 Cor. ii. 4. of grace upon the soul is not such an effect as doth entirely depend upon these two causes, so that, without the concurrence of them both, it will not be produced: wherefore the argument will not hold, that "he that hath it always in his power to resist, that is, to hinder the operation of the one upon him, must also frustrate the other, and consequently hinder the effect." For though the word, unattended with the Spirit and power of God, may be resisted, so as to be of no effect, yet neither the operations of the Spirit, nor the word, as attended with them, can be resisted, so as either of them should be ineffectual. And though the work of grace is wrought by an irresistible and unfrustrable operation, and the word without it is insufficient to produce it, yet it is not unnecessary; for it pleases God, by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe*; whereby he confounds the wisdom of the world; and, by making use of weak means, he magnifies his own grace and power; he puts the treasure of the gospel in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power † in conversion may appear to be of God, of his operation, and not of man's moral suasion. II. It is said, "Hence it must also follow, that no motive can be offered sufficient to induce the person who believes this doctrine, to enter upon a change of life, or a religious conversation, till he feel this irresistible impulse come upon him." I reply: that internal conversion, and an external change of life, regeneration, and a religious conversation, are different things. Though no man can be regenerated and converted without the powerful and efficacious grace of God, yet they may, without that grace, enter upon an outward change of life, and a religious conversation with and before men, though no motive can be offered sufficient to induce any person, whether he believes or does not believe this doctrine, to regenerate and convert himself; which does not lie in his own power, but is entirely owing to an unfrustrable operation of grace; yet many motives may be offered, sufficient, without an irresistible impulse of grace, to induce him to an external reformation and amendment of life, and a religious conversation. Though it must be owned, that a change of life, and a religious conversation, when genuine, are the fruits and effects of regeneration and conversion; nor do men truly and rightly enter upon them, nor are these established upon the best principles, until they are regenerated and converted by the Spirit and grace of God. III. It is further urged, that "if man be purely passive in the whole work of his conversion, and it can only be wrought in him by an irresistible act of God upon him, then can nothing be required as a preparation, or a pre-requisite to conversion." I answer: for my own part, I must confess, I know of no works preparatory to conversion. Works are either good or evil; evil works cannot be thought to be preparatory to it; and good works, which are strictly and properly so, spring from a principle of grace implanted in regeneration, and so follow upon it, and are not preparatory to it. And, indeed, what things preparatory to conversion can be thought to be in a natural man, that neither knows nor receives the things of the *1 Cor. i. 21. † 2 Cor. iv. 7. Whitby, p. 259; ed. 2. 252. § Ibid. |