Chapter 4

Further reasons confirming the preceding discourse will be deferred until we come to oppose the arguments for the general ransom. For now it will suffice to remove that general answer which is usually given to the scripture passages we have produced — an answer that our adversaries use as a catchall defense for all the weight brought against them. They say that in the offering of Christ, and regarding the good things procured by him, two things are to be considered: first, the obtaining or obtaining of them; and second, the application of them to particular persons. The first, they say, is general in respect of all — Christ obtained and procured all good things by his death from his Father: reconciliation, redemption, forgiveness of sins, for all and every person in the world, if they will believe and lay hold upon him. But in respect of application, these are actually bestowed and conferred on only a few, because only a few believe, which is the condition on which they are bestowed. In this latter sense, they say, all the scripture texts we have argued from are to be understood — so that they do not at all challenge the universality of merit they assert, but only the universality of application, which they also deny. Now this answer is commonly set forth by them in various terms and diverse expressions, according to what seems best to those who use it and most suited to their several positions.

First, some of them say that Christ by his death and passion did absolutely — according to the intention of God — purchase for all and every person: remission of sins and reconciliation with God, or a restoration into a state of grace and favor, all of which shall actually benefit them provided that they believe. So the Arminians.

Second, others say that Christ died for all indeed, but conditionally for some — if they do believe, or will do so (which he knows they cannot of themselves) — and absolutely for his own, even those on whom he purposes to bestow faith and grace, so that they actually become possessors of the good things purchased by him. So Cameron and the divines of France who follow the new method he devised.

Third, some distinguish between a twofold reconciliation and redemption: one wrought by Christ with God for man, which they say is general for all and every person; and a second, a reconciliation wrought by Christ in man toward God, bringing them actually into peace with him.

And there are various other ways in which people express their conceptions in this matter. The sum of it all comes to this, and the weight of it all rests on that distinction just recounted — namely, that in respect of obtaining, Christ secured redemption and reconciliation for all; but in respect of application, it is bestowed only on those who believe and continue therein. Their arguments for the generality of the ransom and universality of the reconciliation will be considered afterward; for now we address only the distinction itself, the meaning and misapplication of which will be briefly declared.

First, the true nature and meaning of this distinction and its true use: we acknowledge that it may be used in a sound sense and right meaning, however it is expressed — whether by obtaining and application, or by procuring reconciliation with God and working reconciliation in us. By obtaining, we mean the meritorious purchase of all good things made by Christ for us, with and of his Father; by application, we mean the actual enjoyment of those good things upon our believing. As an illustration: if a man pays a price for redeeming captives, the paying of the price fills the role of the obtaining we speak of, and the freeing of the captives is as the application of it. Yet here we must observe the following things.

First, that this distinction has no place in the intention and purpose of Christ, but only in respect of the things procured by him; for in his purpose, both are united, his full end and aim being to deliver us from all evil and procure all good to be actually bestowed on us; but in respect of the things themselves, they may be considered either as procured by Christ or as bestowed on us.

Second, that the will of God is not at all conditional in this matter, as though he gave Christ to obtain peace, reconciliation, and forgiveness of sins on condition that we believe. There is a condition in the things, but none in the will of God — that is absolute, that such things should both be procured and bestowed.

Third, that not all the things Christ obtained for us are bestowed on condition — some are bestowed absolutely. And as for those that are bestowed on condition, the condition on which they are bestowed is actually purchased and procured for us not on any condition, but solely by virtue of the purchase. For instance: Christ has purchased remission of sins and eternal life for us, to be enjoyed on our believing — upon the condition of faith. But faith itself, which is the condition on whose performance they are bestowed, he has procured for us absolutely, on no condition at all; for whatever condition might be proposed on which the Lord would bestow faith, I will afterward show it to be vain and circular.

Fourth, that both obtaining and application have for their objects the same individual persons — that is, for whomever Christ obtained any good thing by his death, to them it shall certainly be applied and actually bestowed; so that it cannot be said that he obtained anything for any one person that that person shall not or does not in due time enjoy. For whomever he worked reconciliation with God, in them does he work reconciliation toward God; the one is not extended to some to whom the other does not reach. Now because once this is established the opposing interpretation and misapplication of the distinction vanishes, it will be briefly confirmed with reasons.

First, if the application of the good things procured is the end for which they are procured — the very reason Christ obtains them — then they must be applied to all for whom they are obtained. Otherwise Christ fails in his end and aim, which must not be granted. That this application was the end of the obtaining of all good things for us appears, first, because if it were otherwise, and Christ did not aim at applying them but only at obtaining them, then the death of Christ might have had its full effect and issue without the application of redemption and salvation to any soul at all — that not being aimed at. And so, notwithstanding all he did for us, every soul in the world might have perished eternally. Whether this can stand with the dignity and sufficiency of his offering, with the purpose of his Father, and his own intention — who came into the world to save sinners, to seek that which was lost, and to bring many sons to glory — let all judge. Second, God in the act of sending his Son, laying the weight of iniquity upon him, and giving him up to an accursed death, must be said to have been altogether uncertain what outcome all this would have in respect of us. For did he intend that we should be saved by it? Then the application of it is what he aimed at, as we assert. Did he not? Then certainly he was uncertain what end it would have — which is blasphemy, utterly contrary to scripture and right reason. Did he appoint a Savior without thought of those to be saved? A Redeemer without determining who would be redeemed? Did he resolve on a means without determining the end? This is an assertion opposed to all the glorious perfections of God.

Second, if what is obtained for any person becomes theirs by right, by virtue of the action by which it is obtained, then for whomever anything is obtained by Christ, it is to them applied. For what is theirs in right must be made theirs in fact. But it is most certain that whatever is obtained for any person belongs to them by right for whom it is obtained. The very sense of the word — whether you call it merit, obtaining, purchase, acquisition, or procuring — speaks of a right in those for whose good the merit was effected and the purchase made. Can something be said to be obtained for me that is in no way mine? When I obtain anything by prayer or entreaty from another, once obtained it is my own. What is obtained by one person is granted by the one from whom it is obtained, and if granted, it is granted to those for whom it was obtained. But, it will be objected, it is obtained conditionally, and until the condition is fulfilled no right accrues. I answer: if this condition is equally purchased and obtained along with the other things that are to be bestowed upon that condition, then this does not prevent everything procured from being applied. But if it is uncertain whether this condition will be fulfilled or not, then first, this makes God uncertain what end the death of his Son will have; and second, this does not answer but rather denies the very thing we are in the process of proving, which is thereby confirmed.

Third, because scripture perpetually conjoins these two things together and will not permit us to separate them so that the one belongs to some and not to others, as though they could have different persons as their objects. Isaiah 53:11: 'By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many' — there is the application of all good things — 'for he shall bear their iniquities' — there is the obtaining. He justifies all whose iniquities he bore. Also verse 5 of that chapter: 'But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are healed.' His wounding and our healing, obtaining and application, his chastisement and our peace are inseparably joined. So Romans 4:25: 'He was delivered for our offenses and was raised again for our justification.' So Romans 5:18: 'By the righteousness of one' — that is, his obtaining — 'the free gift comes upon all men to justification of life' — there is the application. See there who are called 'all men.' Most clearly, Romans 8:32-34: 'He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifies; who is he that condemns? It is Christ that died, yes rather that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.' From these words we have several reasons for our position. First, that for whom God gives his Son, to them in him he freely gives all things — therefore all things obtained by his death must be bestowed, and are, on those for whom he died (verse 32). Second, those for whom Christ died are justified, are God's elect, cannot be condemned, nor can anything be laid to their charge — all he has purchased for them must be applied to them, for it is by virtue thereof that they are so saved (verses 33-34). Third, for whom Christ died, for them he makes intercession. Now his intercession is for the application of those things, as is conceded, and in this he is always heard. Those to whom the one belongs, theirs also is the other. So John 10:10: the coming of Christ is that his sheep might have life and have it abundantly; also 1 John 4:9; and Hebrews 10:10: 'by which will we are sanctified' — that is the application — 'through the offering of the body of Jesus' — that is the means of obtaining — 'for by one offering he has perfected them that are sanctified' (Hebrews 10:14). In brief, it is proved by all those passages which we produced to properly identify the end of the death of Christ. So this may be rested on as firm and immovable: the obtaining of good things by Christ and the application of them concern the same individual persons.

Second, we may consider the meaning of those who seek to maintain universal redemption by this distinction, and to what use they apply it. Christ, they say, died for all people, and by his death purchased reconciliation with God for them, and forgiveness of sins — which is applied to some, who thereby actually become reconciled to God and have their sins forgiven, but not to others, who therefore perish in a state of unreconciliation and enmity under the guilt of their sins. This application, they say, is not procured or purchased by Christ — for then, he dying for all, all must be actually reconciled and have their sins forgiven and be saved. Rather, it depends on the fulfillment of the condition God has been pleased to prescribe for them — that is, believing. Some say this condition can be performed by our own strength, at least by direct consequence if not in express terms; others deny this and hold that God must give it. So when scripture says that Christ has reconciled us to God, redeemed us, saved us by his blood, undergone the punishment of our sins, and thereby made satisfaction for us, they assert that no more is meant than that Christ did what, upon the fulfillment of the required condition, will result in these things. To the death of Christ they indeed assign many glorious things, but what they give with one hand they take away with the other — by suspending the enjoyment of these things on a condition to be fulfilled by us and not procured by him. They expressly assert that the proper and full end of the death of Christ was the doing of what would enable God — his justice being satisfied — to save sinners if he would, and on whatever condition pleased him. Thus a door of grace might be opened to all who would enter, but not that actual justification, remission of sins, life, and immortality were procured by him — only a possibility of those things. Now, so that all the error lying under this exposition may be more fully apparent, the whole mind of those who use it will be set down in a few assertions.

First, God, they say, considering all humanity as fallen in Adam and utterly excluded from attaining salvation by the covenant of works, yet by his infinite goodness was inclined to desire the happiness of them all — that they might be delivered from misery and brought to himself. This inclination they call his universal love and antecedent will, by which he would earnestly desire them all to be saved, and out of this love he sends Christ.

That God has any natural or necessary inclination, by his goodness or any other attribute, to do good to us or to any of his creatures, we deny. Everything that concerns us is an act of his free will and good pleasure, not a natural or necessary act of his deity, as will be declared.

Second, ascribing an antecedent conditional will to God — whose fulfillment and accomplishment would depend on any free contingent act or work of ours — is injurious to his wisdom, power, and sovereignty, and cannot easily be excused from blasphemy. It is contrary to Romans 9:19: 'Who has resisted his will?'

Third, a common affection and inclination to do good to all does not seem to express the freedom, fullness, and dimensions of that most intense love of God which scripture asserts to be the cause of sending his Son. John 3:16: 'God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.' Ephesians 1:6: 'Having made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he has purposed in himself.' Colossians 1:19: 'It pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell.' Romans 5:8: 'God commended his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.' These two points will, the Lord willing, be fully clarified if the Lord gives life and strength, and his people encouragement, to continue through the second part of this controversy.

Fourth, we deny that all humanity is the object of that love of God which moved him to send his Son to die. God has made some for the day of evil (Proverbs 16:4), hated them before they were born (Romans 9:12), long before ordained them to condemnation (Jude 4), fitted them for destruction (Romans 9:22), made them to be taken and destroyed (2 Peter 2:12), appointed them to condemnation (1 Thessalonians 5:9), and to go to their own place (Acts 1:25).

Second, the justice of God being injured by sin, unless something were done to satisfy it, that love of God by which he wills good to all sinners could in no way be brought into act, but must have its eternal residence in the bosom of God without producing any effect.

That neither scripture nor right reason will compel or prove an utter and absolute lack of power in God to save sinners by his own absolute will without satisfaction to his justice — supposing his purpose that it should be so — is granted. Indeed, without such a purpose it could not be otherwise, but certainly he could have effected it; it does not imply any violation of his holy nature.

An actual and necessary inclination toward doing something that cannot possibly be accomplished without some work fulfilled outwardly by him is opposed to his eternal blessedness and all-sufficiency.

Third, God therefore, to fulfill that general love and goodwill of his toward all, and so that it might put itself forth in such a way as seemed good to him, sent his Son into the world to die — thereby satisfying his justice, which stood in the way and was the only hindrance.

The failure of this assertion will be laid out when we come to declare that love of which the sending of Christ was the proper issue and effect.

Fourth, therefore the proper and immediate end and aim of God's purpose in sending his Son to die for all people was — in Arminius's view — that he might in whatever way he pleased save sinners, his justice which had been the hindrance now being satisfied; or — in Corvinus's view — that he might will to save sinners. And the intention of Christ was to make such satisfaction to the justice of God that he might obtain for himself a power of saving, upon whatever conditions seemed good to his Father to prescribe.

Whether this was the intention of the Father in sending his Son, let it be judged. Something was said earlier upon examining those passages of scripture which describe his purpose; let it be determined from them whether God in sending his Son intended to procure for himself a liberty to save us if he would, or to obtain certain salvation for his elect.

That such a possibility of salvation — or at most a velleity, a willing of it upon an uncertain condition to be fulfilled by us — should be the full, proper, and only immediate end of the death of Christ will scarcely sit well with tender spirits.

The expression of procuring for himself ability to save upon a condition to be prescribed does not seem to answer that certain purpose of our Savior in laying down his life, which scripture says was to save his sheep and to bring many sons to glory, as shown before; nor has it any ground in scripture.

Fifth, Christ therefore obtained for all and every one reconciliation with God, remission of sins, life and salvation — not that they should actually be partakers of these things, but so that God (his justice now no longer hindering) might and would prescribe a condition to be fulfilled by them, whereupon he would actually apply it and make them partakers of all the good things purchased by Christ. And here enters their distinction of obtaining and application, which was intimated earlier, and on the explication of this assertion they are wonderfully divided.

Some say that this proceeds so far that all people are thereby received into a new covenant — in which Adam was a common person as well as in his fall from the old — and that all are again restored in him, so that none shall be damned who do not actually sin against the condition in which they are born and fall from the state into which all are assumed through the death of Christ. So Borrius, Corvinus, and one of late who in plain terms says that all are reconciled, redeemed, saved, and justified in Christ. But others, more cautiously, deny this and assert that by nature we are all children of wrath, and that until we come to Christ the wrath of God abides on all, so that it is not actually removed from any.

Again, some say that Christ by this satisfaction removed original sin in all, and consequently only that — so that all infants, even of Turks and pagans outside the covenant, dying before the use of reason, must undoubtedly be saved. But others, more cautiously observing that the blood of Christ is said to purge all our sins (1 John 1:8; 1 Peter 1:18; Isaiah 53:6), say he died for all sins alike — absolutely for none, but conditionally for all. Further, some affirm that after the satisfaction of Christ it was absolutely undetermined what condition should be prescribed, so that the Lord might have reduced all again to the law and covenant of works. Others say that procuring a new way of salvation by faith was part of the fruit of the death of Christ.

Again, some of them hold that the prescribed condition is to be performed by our own strength, with the help of such means as God is at all times and in all places ready to afford to all. Others deny this and affirm that effectual grace flowing peculiarly from election is necessary for believing — the first establishing the idol of free will to maintain their own assertion, the others overthrowing their own assertion for the establishment of grace. So Amyraut, Cameron, etc.

Moreover, some say that God's love in sending Christ is equal to all. Others go a degree higher and maintain an inequality in the love of God, although he sent his Son to die for all — and though no greater love can there be than that whereby the Lord sent his Son to die for us (Romans 8:32) — yet they say Christ purchased a greater good for some and less for others. And here they involve themselves in innumerable strange distinctions, or rather as one calls them, 'extinctions' — blotting out all sense, reason, and true meaning of scripture. Hence that multiplicity of several ends of the death of Christ, with Christ dying for some in one way and others in another, hiding themselves in innumerable unintelligible expressions, making it most difficult to know what they mean and harder to find their mind than to answer their reasons.

In one particular they agree well enough — namely, in denying that faith is procured or merited for us by the death of Christ. So far they are all consistent with their own principles, for once to grant it would overturn the whole structure of universal redemption. But in assigning the cause of faith they go in different directions again.

Some say God sent Christ to die for all, but only conditionally — if they did and would believe — as though if they believed, Christ died for them, and if not, he did not, thereby making the act the cause of its own object. Others say he died absolutely for all, to procure all good things for them, which yet they should not enjoy until they fulfill the prescribed condition. Yet all conclude that in his death Christ had no more respect to the elect than to others — not to sustain their persons or to stand in their place — but that he was a public person standing in the place of all humanity.

Concerning the final outcome and immediate product of the death of Christ, various writers have expressed themselves differently. Some locate it in the power of God, some in his will, some in the opening of a door of grace, some in a right Christ purchased for himself to save whom he pleased. Some say that in respect of us he had no end at all, so that all humanity might have perished after he had done everything. Others devise several distinct ends of this one act of Christ, corresponding to the diversity of the persons for whom he died — whom they grant to be distinguished and differentiated by a prior decree. But to what purpose the Lord should send his Son to die for those whom he himself had determined not to save, but at least to pass by and leave to irremedial ruin for their sins, is not apparent — nor is the meaning of the twofold destination invented by some. Such is the powerful force and evidence of truth that it scatters all its opponents and makes them flee to various hiding places. Those who are not willing to yield and submit themselves shall surely lie down in darkness and error. Truth has no need of intricate and involved distinctions; it does not compel its defenders to such poor shifts and devices; it needs no windings and turnings to bring itself into a defensible posture. It is not liable to self-contradiction in its own fundamentals. Without any further qualifications, the whole of it in this matter may be summed up as follows.

God, out of his infinite love to his elect, sent his dear Son in the fullness of time — whom he had promised at the beginning of the world, and made effectual through that promise — to die and pay a ransom of infinite value and dignity, for the purchasing of eternal redemption and the bringing to himself of all and every one of those whom he had before ordained to eternal life, for the praise of his own glory. So that freedom from all the evil from which we are delivered, and enjoyment of all the good things bestowed on us in our passage from death to life, from wrath and hell to heaven and glory, are the proper issues and effects of the death of Christ as the meritorious cause of them all. This may be clarified in all its parts by the following assertions.

First, the fountain and cause of God's sending Christ is his eternal love to his elect and to them alone — which will not be further confirmed here, being reserved for the second general heading of this whole controversy.

Second, the value, worth, and dignity of the ransom which Christ gave himself to be, and of the price which he paid, was infinite and immeasurable — fit for the accomplishing of any end and the procuring of any good for all and every one for whom it was intended, had there been millions more than were ever created. Of this also more will be said later. See Acts 20:28: 'God purchased his church with his own blood'; 1 Peter 1:18: 'redeemed not with silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ' — answering the mind and intention of Almighty God. John 14:31: 'As the Father gave me commandment, so I do' — he who would have such a price paid as might be the foundation of that economy and dispensation of his love and grace which he intended, and of the way by which he would have it dispensed. Acts 13:38-39: 'Through this man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins, and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.' 2 Corinthians 5:20-21: 'We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, be reconciled to God — for he has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.'

Third, the intention and aim of the Father in this great work was the bringing of those many sons to glory — namely, his elect, whom by his free grace he had chosen from among all people, of all sorts, nations, and conditions — to take them into a new covenant of grace with himself, the former being as to them in respect of the outcome null and abolished. Of this covenant Jesus Christ is the first and chief promise, as the one who was to procure for them all other good things promised in it, as shall be proved.

Fourth, the things purchased or procured for those persons — which are the proper effects of the death and ransom of Christ, certainly to become theirs in possession and enjoyment in due time — are remission of sin, freedom from wrath and the curse of the law, justification, sanctification, reconciliation with God, and eternal life. For the will of his Father in sending him for these things, his own intention in laying down his life for them, and the truth of the purchase made by him, is the foundation of his intercession — begun on earth and continued in heaven — whereby he whom his Father always hears desires and demands that the good things procured by him may actually be bestowed on all and every one for whom they were procured. So the whole of what we assert in this great matter is exceedingly clear and apparent, without any intricacy or the least difficulty at all — not clouded with strange expressions and unnecessary divisions and tearings of one thing from another, as is the opposing opinion. That opposing opinion will in the next part be dealt with by arguments confirming the one and overturning the other. But because its whole strength lies in, and the weight of it all rests on, that one distinction of which we spoke earlier — variously expressed and maintained by our adversaries — it will be considered a little further, and then we will come to our arguments and afterward to the answering of the objections raised against them.

Further reasons confirming the preceding discussion will be held until we come to oppose the arguments for the general ransom. For now it will be sufficient to remove the general answer our opponents typically offer against the Scripture passages we have cited — an answer they use as a catch-all defense against all the weight brought against them. They say that in the offering of Christ, and with respect to the good things He procured, two things must be distinguished: first, the obtaining of those good things, and second, their application to particular persons. The first, they say, is general with respect to all — Christ obtained and procured all good things by His death from His Father: reconciliation, redemption, and forgiveness of sins for every person in the world, available to anyone who will believe and lay hold of Him. But with respect to application, these things are actually bestowed and conferred on only a few, because only a few believe — which is the condition on which they are bestowed. In this latter sense, they say, all the scriptural texts we have argued from are to be understood, so that they do not challenge the universality of merit they assert, but only the universality of application, which they also deny. This answer is commonly set out in various forms and expressions, according to what seems best to those who use it and most suited to their several positions.

First, some of them say that Christ by His death and passion did absolutely — according to God's intention — purchase for every person: forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God, or a restoration to a state of grace and favor. All of this shall actually benefit those who believe. So the Arminians.

Second, others say that Christ died for all indeed, but conditionally for some — if they do believe or will believe (which He knows they cannot do of themselves) — and absolutely for His own, namely those on whom He purposes to bestow faith and grace, so that they actually come to possess the good things purchased for them. So Cameron and the French divines who follow his new method.

Third, some distinguish between a twofold reconciliation and redemption: one wrought by Christ with God for man, which they say is general for all; and a second, a reconciliation wrought by Christ in man toward God, actually bringing them into peace with Him.

Various other ways of expressing this view also exist. The sum of it all comes to this, and the weight of it all rests on the distinction just described — namely, that with respect to obtaining, Christ secured redemption and reconciliation for all; but with respect to application, it is bestowed only on those who believe and continue therein. The arguments for the generality of the ransom and the universality of reconciliation will be considered later. For now we address only the distinction itself, the meaning and misapplication of which will be briefly explained.

First, the true nature and meaning of this distinction and its proper use: we acknowledge that it may be used in a sound and correct sense, however expressed — whether as obtaining and application, or as procuring reconciliation with God versus working reconciliation in us. By obtaining we mean the meritorious purchase of all good things made by Christ for us with and from His Father. By application we mean the actual enjoyment of those good things upon our believing. As an illustration: if a man pays a ransom price to free captives, the paying of the price functions as the obtaining, and the freeing of the captives functions as the application. But here we must note the following.

First, this distinction has no place in the intention and purpose of Christ — only in the things He procured. In His purpose, both are united. His entire aim was to deliver us from all evil and secure all good things to be actually bestowed on us. But with respect to the things themselves, they may be considered either as procured by Christ or as bestowed on us.

Second, the will of God is not in any sense conditional in this matter — as if He gave Christ to obtain peace, reconciliation, and forgiveness of sins on condition that we believe. There is a condition in the things themselves, but none in the will of God. That will is absolute: that such things shall be both procured and bestowed.

Third, not all the things Christ obtained for us are bestowed conditionally — some are bestowed absolutely. And regarding those that are bestowed conditionally: the very condition on which they are bestowed has itself been actually purchased and procured for us, not conditionally but by the power of the purchase alone. For example: Christ purchased forgiveness of sins and eternal life for us, to be received upon our believing — that is, upon the condition of faith. But faith itself — the condition on whose fulfillment these blessings are bestowed — He secured for us absolutely, on no condition at all. For whatever condition might be proposed on which the Lord would bestow faith, I will show later to be empty and circular.

Fourth, both obtaining and application have for their objects the same individual persons. That is: for everyone for whom Christ obtained any good thing by His death, that good thing shall certainly be applied and actually bestowed. It therefore cannot be said that He obtained anything for any person that that person shall not in due time enjoy. For everyone with whom He worked reconciliation with God, in that person He also works reconciliation toward God. The one does not extend to persons the other does not reach. Once this is established, the opposing interpretation and misapplication of the distinction disappears. It will be briefly confirmed with the following reasons.

First, if the application of the good things procured is the very end for which they are procured — the reason Christ obtains them — then they must be applied to all for whom they are obtained. Otherwise Christ falls short of His end and aim, which must not be granted. That this application was the end of the obtaining of all good things for us appears, first, from this: if it were otherwise, and Christ did not aim at applying them but only at obtaining them, then the death of Christ could have had its full effect without the application of redemption and salvation to a single soul — since that would not have been His aim. And so, despite everything He did for us, every soul in the world might have perished forever. Whether this is consistent with the dignity and sufficiency of His offering, with the purpose of His Father, and with His own intention — He who came into the world to save sinners, to seek the lost, and to bring many sons to glory — let all judge. Second, God in the act of sending His Son, laying the weight of iniquity upon Him, and giving Him over to an accursed death, would have to be said to have been entirely uncertain what the outcome would be for us. For did He intend that we should be saved by it? Then the application of it was what He aimed at — which is exactly what we assert. Did He not? Then He was certainly uncertain about the outcome — which is blasphemy, utterly contrary to Scripture and sound reason. Did He appoint a Savior without thinking about those to be saved? A Redeemer without determining who would be redeemed? Did He settle on a means without settling the end? Such an assertion opposes all the glorious perfections of God.

Second, if what is obtained for any person becomes theirs by right through the act of obtaining, then whatever Christ obtained for any person is to be applied to that person. For what is theirs by right must be made theirs in fact. And it is certain that whatever is obtained for any person belongs by right to the person for whom it was obtained. The very meaning of the word — whether you call it merit, obtaining, purchase, acquisition, or procuring — carries with it the idea of a right in those for whose good the merit was earned and the purchase made. Can something be said to be obtained for me that is in no way mine? When I obtain something by prayer or entreaty from another, once it is obtained it is my own. What is obtained by one person is granted by the one from whom it was obtained. And if granted, it is granted to those for whom it was obtained. But someone will object: it is obtained conditionally, and until the condition is fulfilled no right accrues. I answer: if this condition is equally purchased and obtained along with the other things to be bestowed upon it, then this does not prevent everything procured from being applied. But if it is uncertain whether the condition will be fulfilled — first, this leaves God uncertain what the death of His Son will ultimately accomplish; and second, this does not answer but rather denies the very thing we are in the process of proving, which is thereby confirmed.

Third, Scripture perpetually joins these two things together and does not allow us to separate them so that one belongs to some while the other does not, as if they could have different persons as their objects. Isaiah 53:11: "By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many" — there is the application of all good things — "as He will bear their iniquities" — there is the obtaining. He justifies all whose iniquities He bore. Also verse 5 of that chapter: "He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed." His being pierced and our being healed, the obtaining and the application, His chastening and our peace, are inseparably bound together. So Romans 4:25: "He was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification." So Romans 5:18: "Through one act of righteousness" — that is, His obtaining — "there resulted justification of life to all men" — there is the application. Note who is called "all men" in this context. Most clearly, Romans 8:32-34: "He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us." From these words we draw several arguments for our position. First, to those for whom God gave His Son, He freely gives in Him all things as well — therefore everything obtained by Christ's death must be bestowed, and is bestowed, on those for whom He died (verse 32). Second, those for whom Christ died are justified, are God's elect, cannot be condemned, and can have nothing charged against them. Everything He purchased for them must be applied to them, for it is by virtue of it that they are saved in this way (verses 33-34). Third, for whom Christ died, for them He intercedes. And His intercession, as is conceded, is for the application of those things — and in this He is always heard. Those to whom the one belongs possess the other as well. So John 10:10: Christ came that His sheep might have life and have it abundantly. Also 1 John 4:9. And Hebrews 10:10: "by which will we have been sanctified" — there is the application — "through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ" — there is the means of obtaining — "for by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified" (Hebrews 10:14). In brief, this is proved by all the passages we cited when setting out the proper end of Christ's death. This may therefore stand as firm and immovable: the obtaining of good things by Christ and the application of them concern the same individual persons.

Second, we may consider the meaning of those who seek to maintain universal redemption by this distinction, and the use they make of it. Christ, they say, died for all people, and by His death purchased reconciliation with God and forgiveness of sins for them all. This is applied to some, who thereby actually become reconciled to God and have their sins forgiven. But it is not applied to others, who therefore perish in a state of unreconciliation and enmity, under the guilt of their sins. This application, they say, was not procured or purchased by Christ — for if it were, then since He died for all, all must actually be reconciled, have their sins forgiven, and be saved. Rather, it depends on the fulfillment of the condition God has been pleased to prescribe — that is, believing. Some say this condition can be fulfilled by our own strength, at least by direct consequence if not in so many words. Others deny this and hold that God must give it. So when Scripture says that Christ has reconciled us to God, redeemed us, saved us by His blood, borne the punishment of our sins, and thereby made satisfaction for us — they assert that no more is meant than that Christ did what, upon the fulfillment of the required condition, will result in these things. They ascribe many glorious things to the death of Christ, but what they give with one hand they take away with the other — by making the enjoyment of these things conditional on something we must fulfill, something He did not purchase. They explicitly state that the proper and complete end of the death of Christ was to do what would enable God — His justice now satisfied — to save sinners if He chose, and on whatever condition pleased Him. A door of grace might thus be opened to all who would enter, but actual justification, forgiveness of sins, life, and immortality were not procured by Him — only the possibility of these things. So that all the error lying within this view may be more fully apparent, the full content of the position of those who hold it will be set out in a few assertions.

First, they say: God, considering all humanity as fallen in Adam and completely cut off from attaining salvation by the covenant of works, was yet inclined by His infinite goodness to desire the happiness of them all — that they might be delivered from misery and brought to Himself. This inclination they call His universal love and antecedent will, by which He earnestly desires all to be saved, and out of this love He sends Christ.

That God has any natural or necessary inclination — by His goodness or any other attribute — to do good to us or to any of His creatures, we deny. Everything that concerns us is an act of His free will and good pleasure, not a natural or necessary act of His deity, as will be explained.

Second, to ascribe to God an antecedent conditional will — whose fulfillment would depend on any free and contingent act or work of ours — is an insult to His wisdom, power, and sovereignty, and can hardly be excused from blasphemy. It contradicts Romans 9:19: "Who has resisted His will?"

Third, a general affection and inclination to do good to all does not seem to express the freedom, fullness, and dimensions of that most intense love of God that Scripture declares to be the cause of sending His Son. John 3:16: "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son." Ephesians 1:9: "He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him." Colossians 1:19: "It was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him." Romans 5:8: "God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." These two points will, the Lord willing, be fully addressed if God grants life and strength and His people encouragement to continue through the second part of this controversy.

Fourth, we deny that all humanity is the object of the love of God that moved Him to send His Son to die. God has made some for the day of evil (Proverbs 16:4), hated them before they were born (Romans 9:13), long beforehand ordained them to condemnation (Jude 4), prepared them for destruction (Romans 9:22), appointed them to be captured and destroyed (2 Peter 2:12), assigned them to condemnation (1 Thessalonians 5:9), and destined them for their own place (Acts 1:25).

Second: God's justice having been injured by sin, unless something were done to satisfy it, that love of God by which He desires good for all sinners could in no way be put into action — it would remain forever in the bosom of God without producing any effect.

That neither Scripture nor sound reason compels or proves an absolute and total inability in God to save sinners by His own absolute will without satisfaction to His justice — supposing He purposed it to be so — is granted. Indeed, without such a purpose it could not have been otherwise. But He certainly could have effected it. It does not imply any violation of His holy nature.

An actual and necessary inclination toward doing something that cannot be accomplished without an act fulfilled externally by Him would be contrary to His eternal blessedness and all-sufficiency.

Third: therefore, God — to fulfill this supposed general love and goodwill toward all, and to put it into effect in such a way as seemed good to Him — sent His Son into the world to die. By doing so He satisfied His justice, which had stood in the way and was the only hindrance.

The failure of this claim will be laid out when we come to explain the love from which the sending of Christ was the proper fruit and result.

Fourth: therefore, the proper and immediate end and aim of God's purpose in sending His Son to die for all people was — in Arminius's view — that He might save sinners in whatever way He pleased, His justice that had been the hindrance now being satisfied. Or — in Corvinus's view — that He might will to save sinners. And Christ's intention was to make such satisfaction to the justice of God that He might obtain for Himself the power to save, on whatever conditions His Father was pleased to prescribe.

Whether this was the Father's intention in sending His Son, let it be judged. Something was said earlier in examining the scriptural passages that describe His purpose. Let the reader determine from those whether God in sending His Son intended to procure for Himself a liberty to save us if He chose — or to obtain certain salvation for His elect.

That such a mere possibility of salvation — or at most a velleity, a wishing for it on an uncertain condition to be fulfilled by us — should be the full, proper, and only immediate end of Christ's death will hardly sit well with tender Christian spirits.

The notion of Christ procuring for Himself the ability to save on a condition to be prescribed does not seem to answer to the certain purpose our Savior had in laying down His life — which Scripture says was to save His sheep and to bring many sons to glory, as shown earlier. Nor does it have any basis in Scripture.

Fifth: Christ therefore obtained for all and every person reconciliation with God, forgiveness of sins, life and salvation — not so that they should actually partake of these things, but so that God — His justice no longer standing in the way — might and would prescribe a condition to be fulfilled by them. Upon fulfilling it, He would apply and make them partakers of all the good things purchased by Christ. And here their distinction of obtaining and application comes in, which was hinted at earlier. On the explanation of this point they are remarkably divided.

Some say this goes so far that all people are thereby received into a new covenant — in which Adam functioned as a representative person just as in the fall from the old — so that all are restored in him. On this view no one will be condemned except those who actually sin against the condition into which they were born and fall from the state into which all are brought through Christ's death. So Borrius, Corvinus, and one writer of recent times who states plainly that all are reconciled, redeemed, saved, and justified in Christ. But others, more cautiously, deny this and assert that by nature we are all children of wrath, and that the wrath of God remains on all until they come to Christ — so that it is not actually removed from anyone until then.

Again, some say that Christ by His satisfaction removed original sin for all — and consequently only that — so that all infants, even those of Turks and pagans outside the covenant, dying before the age of reason, must without question be saved. But others, more carefully observing that the blood of Christ is said to cleanse us from all our sins (1 John 1:7; 1 Peter 1:18; Isaiah 53:6), say He died for all sins equally — absolutely for none, but conditionally for all. Furthermore, some affirm that after the satisfaction of Christ it was entirely undetermined what condition would be prescribed, so that God could have returned all to the law and covenant of works. Others say that procuring a new way of salvation by faith was itself part of the fruit of Christ's death.

Again, some hold that the prescribed condition is to be fulfilled by our own strength, with the aid of such means as God is at all times and in all places ready to provide to all. Others deny this and affirm that effectual grace flowing specifically from election is necessary for believing — the first group erecting the idol of free will to prop up their position, the second group undermining their own position in order to establish grace. So Amyraut, Cameron, and others.

Moreover, some say that God's love in sending Christ is equal toward all. Others go further and maintain an inequality in God's love, even though He sent His Son to die for all. Though no greater love can be shown than the love by which the Lord gave His Son for us (Romans 8:32), they say Christ purchased a greater good for some and less for others. In doing so they entangle themselves in countless strange distinctions — or as one writer calls them, "extinctions" — blotting out all sense, reason, and the true meaning of Scripture. From this comes the multiplication of various ends of Christ's death, with Christ dying for some in one way and for others in another — hiding themselves in innumerable unintelligible expressions, making it extremely difficult to know what they mean and harder to find their actual position than to answer their arguments.

On one point they all agree well enough: that faith was not procured or merited for us by the death of Christ. They are all consistent on this with their own principles, since granting it even once would bring down the whole structure of universal redemption. But in assigning the cause of faith they go separate ways again.

Some say God sent Christ to die for all, but only conditionally — if they did and would believe — as if, if they believe, Christ died for them, and if not, He did not. This makes the act its own cause, turning the object into the reason for itself. Others say He died absolutely for all, to secure all good things for them, which they would not enjoy however until they fulfilled the prescribed condition. Yet all agree that in His death Christ had no more regard for the elect than for others — He did not sustain their persons or stand in their place — but was a public representative standing in the place of all humanity.

As for the final outcome and immediate product of Christ's death, various writers have expressed themselves differently. Some locate it in the power of God, some in His will, some in the opening of a door of grace, some in a right Christ purchased for Himself to save whomever He pleased. Some say that in respect of us He had no end at all — so that all humanity might have perished after He had done everything. Others devise several distinct ends of this one act of Christ, corresponding to the different groups of persons for whom He died — persons they acknowledge to be distinguished by a prior decree. But what purpose it serves for the Lord to send His Son to die for those whom He Himself had determined not to save — but at least to pass over and leave to irremediable ruin for their sins — is not apparent. Nor is the meaning of the twofold destination invented by some. Such is the powerful force and evidence of truth that it scatters all its opponents and drives them to various hiding places. Those who are unwilling to yield and submit will surely lie down in darkness and error. Truth has no need of intricate and convoluted distinctions. It does not force its defenders into such poor contrivances. It requires no winding and turning to reach a defensible position. It is not self-contradictory in its own fundamentals. Without any further qualifications, the whole matter can be summarized as follows.

Out of His infinite love for His elect, God sent His dear Son in the fullness of time — promised from the beginning of the world and made effectual through that promise — to die and pay a ransom of infinite value and dignity. The purpose was to purchase eternal redemption and to bring to Himself all and every one of those whom He had before ordained to eternal life, for the praise of His own glory. So freedom from all the evil from which we are delivered, and the enjoyment of all the good things given to us in our passage from death to life, from wrath and hell to heaven and glory — these are the proper fruits and effects of Christ's death as their meritorious cause. This may be clarified in all its parts through the following assertions.

First, the fountain and cause of God's sending Christ is His eternal love for His elect and for them alone. This will not be further established here, being reserved for the second major heading of this whole controversy.

Second, the value, worth, and dignity of the ransom Christ gave Himself to be, and of the price He paid, was infinite and immeasurable — fully sufficient to accomplish any purpose and secure any good for all and every one for whom it was intended, even if millions more had been created than ever were. More will be said on this later. See Acts 20:28: "God purchased His church with His own blood"; 1 Peter 1:18: "redeemed not with silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ" — answering the mind and intention of Almighty God. John 14:31: "as the Father commanded Me, so I act" — He who would have such a price paid as could be the foundation of the economy and administration of His love and grace that He intended, and of the way by which He would dispense it. Acts 13:38-39: "through this Man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the law of Moses." 2 Corinthians 5:20-21: "We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

Third, the intention and aim of the Father in this great work was the bringing of those many sons to glory — namely, His elect, whom by His free grace He had chosen from all peoples, of all sorts, nations, and conditions — to bring them into a new covenant of grace with Himself, the former covenant being in relation to them nullified and abolished in its outcome. Of this covenant Jesus Christ is the first and chief promise, as the one who was to secure for them all the other good things promised in it, as will be proved.

Fourth, the things purchased and secured for those persons — which are the proper effects of Christ's death and ransom, to certainly become theirs in possession and enjoyment in due time — are forgiveness of sin, freedom from wrath and the curse of the law, justification, sanctification, reconciliation with God, and eternal life. For the will of His Father in sending Him for these things, His own intention in laying down His life for them, and the truth of the purchase He made, is the foundation of His intercession — begun on earth and continued in heaven — through which He, whom His Father always hears, desires and demands that the good things He procured might actually be bestowed on all and every one for whom they were procured. So the whole of what we maintain in this great matter is exceedingly clear and straightforward, without any complexity or difficulty — not clouded with strange expressions and unnecessary divisions, as is the opposing view. That opposing view will be addressed in the next part, through arguments that confirm the one and overthrow the other. But since the whole strength of that view rests on the one distinction we discussed earlier — variously expressed and maintained by our opponents — we will look at it a little further before coming to our arguments and then to answering the objections raised against them.