Chapter 5

The allowable use of this distinction — how it may be taken in a sound sense, the various ways people have expressed what the phrase intimates, and some arguments for overturning the false use of it however expressed — have already been stated and declared. Now since this is the main support of the opposing opinion, understood in the sense and according to the use they make of it, one further blow will be given to it, and it is hoped left dying. It will be briefly declared that although these two things may admit of a distinction, they cannot admit of a separation — so that for whomever Christ obtained good, to them it might be applied, and for whomever he worked reconciliation with God, they must actually be reconciled to God. Thus the blood of Christ and his death, in the virtue of it, cannot be viewed as a medicine in a box laid up for all who shall come to take some of it — applied now to one, then to another, without any respect or difference, as though it were intended no more for one than for another. That would mean that although he has obtained all the good he purchased for us, it remains uncertain whether it shall ever be ours. For it is well known that notwithstanding all those glorious things assigned by the Arminians to the death of Christ — which they say he purchased for all, such as remission of sins, reconciliation with God, and the like — yet those for whom this purchase and procurement was made may be damned, as the greatest part both are and certainly shall be. Now that there should be such a distance between these two things:

First, it is contrary to common sense and our ordinary way of speaking, which must be twisted and our understanding forced in order to comprehend it. When a person has obtained an office, or another has obtained it for him, can it be said that it is uncertain whether he shall have it or not? If it is obtained for him, is it not his by right, though perhaps not yet in possession? What is obtained by petition is his by whom it is obtained. It is to offer violence to common sense to say a thing may or may not belong to a man when it has been obtained for him — for in so saying we declare that it is his. And so it is with the purchase made by Jesus Christ and the good things obtained by him for all those for whom he died.

Second, it is contrary to all reason that the death of Christ, in God's intention, should be applied to anyone who shall have no share in the merits of that death. God's will that Christ should die for any person is his intention that that person shall have a share in the death of Christ — that it should belong to him, that is, be applied to him. For in this context, what is said to be applied to any is what is theirs in any respect according to the will of God. But according to the opinion we oppose, the death of Christ is said to be applied to all, and yet the fruits of this death are never once made known to by far the greatest part of that 'all.'

Second, that a ransom should be paid for captives by compact for their deliverance, and yet upon that payment those captives not be made free and set at liberty — this seems strange and very improbable. The death of Christ is a ransom (Matthew 20:28), paid by compact for the deliverance of captives for whom it was a ransom. The promise in which his Father stood engaged to him at his undertaking to be a Savior and undergoing the office imposed on him was their deliverance, as was before declared. Upon his performance of these things, that the greatest number of these captives should never be released seems very unlikely.

Third, it is contrary to scripture, as was at large declared before. See chapter 10.

But now all this our adversaries suppose they shall brush aside with one slight distinction that will, as they say, make all we affirm on this point vanish. And it is this: it is true, they say, that all things absolutely procured and obtained for any person at once become theirs by right for whom they are obtained. But things obtained upon condition do not become theirs until the condition is fulfilled. Now Christ has purchased by his death for all persons all good things — not absolutely, but upon condition — and until that condition is fulfilled, unless they perform what is required, they have neither part nor portion, right nor possession of them. What this condition is they state in various terms: some call it 'not resisting this redemption offered to them'; some, 'yielding to the invitation of the gospel'; some in plain terms, 'faith.' Now suppose Christ did purchase all things for us to be bestowed on this condition, that we believe. Then I affirm the following. First, certainly this condition ought to be revealed to all for whom this purchase was made, if it was seriously intended for them. All for whom he died must have means to know that his death will benefit them if they believe — especially since it is in his power alone to grant them those means, he who intends good to them by his death. If I were to obtain a physician's promise to cure all who came to him, but left many ignorant of this grant — when no one but I could inform them of it, so that they might go to him and be healed — could I be supposed to intend their healing? Doubtless not; the application is easy. Second, this condition required of them is either in their power to perform, or it is not. If it is, then all people have power to believe — which is false. If it is not, then the Lord will either grant them grace to perform it, or he will not. If he will, then why do not all believe? Why are not all saved? If he will not, then this obtaining of salvation and redemption for all by the blood of Jesus Christ comes at length to this: God intended that Christ should die for all, to procure for them remission of sins, reconciliation with him, eternal redemption and glory — but yet so that they shall never have the least benefit from these glorious things, unless they perform what he knows they are in no way able to do, and which none but he himself can enable them to perform, and which concerning the greatest part of them he is resolved not to do. Is this to intend that Christ should die for them, for their good? Or rather that he should die for them to expose them to shame and misery? Is it not the same as if a man were to promise a blind man a thousand pounds upon condition that he will see? Third, this condition of faith is either procured for us by the death of Christ, or it is not. If they say it is not, then the chief grace — without which redemption itself, however expressed, is of no value — does not depend on the grace of Christ as its meritorious and procuring cause. This is, first, exceedingly dishonoring to our blessed Savior and serves only to diminish the honor and love due to him. Second, it is contrary to scripture. Titus 3:5-6; 2 Corinthians 5:21: 'He became sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him' — and how we can become the righteousness of God except through believing, is not clear. Indeed the Apostle expressly says: 'It is given to us, for Christ's sake, to believe on him' (Philippians 1:29). God blessing us with all spiritual blessings in him (Ephesians 1:3) — of which faith is surely not the least. If faith is a fruit of the death of Christ, why is it not bestowed on all, since he died for all? Especially since the whole obtaining of redemption is altogether unprofitable without it? If they invent a condition upon which faith is bestowed, the vanity of that will be discovered later. For now, if the condition is that they do not refuse or resist the means of grace, then I ask: if the fruit of the death of Christ is to be applied to all who fulfill this condition of not resisting the means of grace, then either the answer is no — in which case why produce this condition at all? — or the answer is yes, in which case all must be saved who have not and do not resist the means of grace — that is, all pagans, unbelievers, and those infants to whom the gospel was never preached. Fourth, this whole assertion tends to make Christ only half a mediator — one who procures the end but not the means leading to it. So notwithstanding this exception and new distinction, our assertion stands firm: the fruits of the death of Christ in respect of obtaining good and applying it to us ought not to be divided, and our arguments confirming this are unshaken. For a conclusion of all: what we affirm in this matter may be summed up thus. Christ did not die for any upon condition if they believe, but he died for all God's elect that they should believe, and believing have eternal life. Faith itself is among the principal effects and fruits of the death of Christ, as shall be declared. It is nowhere said in scripture, nor can it reasonably be affirmed, that if we believe, Christ died for us — as though our believing should make to be what otherwise was not, the act creating its own object. Rather, Christ died for us that we might believe. Salvation indeed is bestowed conditionally, but faith which is the condition is absolutely procured. The question being thus stated, the difference laid open, and the matter in controversy made known, we proceed in the next place to draw forth some of those arguments, demonstrations, testimonies, and proofs by which the truth we maintain is established, in which it is contained, and upon which it is firmly founded. Only this request to the reader: retain in mind some notion of those fundamentals which in general were laid down before, for they stand in such relation to the arguments that follow, that not one of those arguments can be thoroughly answered before those fundamentals are overturned.

The legitimate use of this distinction — how it may be understood in a sound sense, the various ways people have expressed what the phrase implies, and some arguments for overthrowing the false use of it however expressed — have already been laid out. Since this is the main support of the opposing position, understood in the sense and manner they apply it, one further blow will be delivered to it, and it is hoped, left dying. It will be briefly shown that although these two things may be distinguished, they cannot be separated — so that for whomever Christ obtained good, to them it must be applied, and for whomever He worked reconciliation with God, they must actually be reconciled to God. So the blood of Christ and His death cannot be viewed as a medicine kept in a box for anyone who happens to come and take some — applied now to one, then to another, with no specific design for one person over another, as though He intended no more benefit for one than for another. That would mean that although He has obtained all the good He purchased for us, it remains uncertain whether any of it will ever be ours. For it is well known that despite all the glorious things the Arminians assign to the death of Christ — which they say He purchased for all, such as forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, and the like — those for whom this purchase was made may still be damned, as by far the greatest part both are and certainly shall be. Now that there should be such a gap between these two things:

First, it contradicts common sense and our ordinary way of speaking, which would have to be twisted and forced to accommodate it. When a person has obtained an office — or another has obtained it on his behalf — can it be said that it is uncertain whether he will actually hold it? If it has been obtained for him, is it not his by right, even if not yet in his possession? What is obtained by petition belongs to the one for whom it is obtained. It does violence to common sense to say that a thing may or may not belong to a man when it has already been obtained for him — for in obtaining it, we declare it to be his. And so it is with the purchase Christ made and the good things He obtained for all those for whom He died.

Second, it is against all reason that the death of Christ, in God's intention, should be applied to any person who will never share in the merits of that death. God's will that Christ should die for any person is His intention that that person shall share in Christ's death — that it should belong to him, that is, be applied to him. For in this context, what is applied to any person is what is theirs in any respect according to God's will. But on the view we are opposing, the death of Christ is said to be applied to all — and yet the fruits of that death are never once made known to the vast majority of that supposed "all."

Second, that a ransom should be paid for captives by agreement for their release, and yet upon that payment the captives not be freed and set at liberty — this seems strange and highly unlikely. The death of Christ is a ransom (Matthew 20:28), paid by compact for the deliverance of the captives for whom it was given. The promise by which His Father stood committed to Him — when He undertook to be a Savior and took on the office appointed to Him — was their deliverance, as was shown earlier. That after His accomplishing all of this the greatest number of those captives should never be released seems entirely at odds with what was agreed.

Third, it is contrary to Scripture, as was shown at length earlier. See chapter 10.

But now our opponents suppose they can sweep all of this aside with one slight distinction that will, as they say, make everything we have argued vanish. And it is this: it is true, they say, that all things absolutely procured and obtained for any person at once become theirs by right for whom they are obtained. But things obtained on condition do not become theirs until the condition is fulfilled. Christ has purchased by His death all good things for every person — not absolutely, but conditionally. Until that condition is fulfilled, unless they perform what is required, they have neither part, right, nor possession of those things. What this condition is they state in various terms: some call it "not resisting the redemption offered to them"; some, "yielding to the invitation of the gospel"; some say plainly, "faith." Now suppose Christ did purchase all things for us to be bestowed upon this condition — that we believe. Then I assert the following. First, this condition ought certainly to be made known to all for whom this purchase was made, if it was sincerely intended for them. All for whom He died must have the means to know that His death will benefit them if they believe — especially since it is in His power alone to grant them those means, He who intends good to them by His death. If I were to secure a physician's promise to heal all who came to him, but left many ignorant of this arrangement — when no one but I could inform them, so that they might go to him and be healed — could I be said to intend their healing? Certainly not. The application to our subject is obvious. Second, this required condition is either within their power to perform or it is not. If it is, then all people have the power to believe — which is false. If it is not, then the Lord will either give them grace to perform it, or He will not. If He will, then why do not all believe? Why are not all saved? If He will not, then this whole business of Christ's obtaining salvation and redemption for all through His blood comes down to this: God intended that Christ should die for all, to procure for them forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with Him, eternal redemption, and glory — but on terms that they shall never enjoy the least benefit from these glorious things, unless they perform what He knows they are wholly unable to do, and which no one but He Himself can enable them to perform, and which regarding the greatest part of them He has resolved not to do. Is this to intend that Christ should die for them — for their good? Or rather that He should die for them to expose them to shame and misery? Is it not the same as promising a blind man a thousand pounds on condition that he can see? Third, this condition of faith is either purchased for us by the death of Christ, or it is not. If they say it is not, then the chief grace — without which redemption itself, however expressed, is of no value — does not depend on the grace of Christ as its meritorious and procuring cause. This is first exceedingly dishonoring to our blessed Savior and serves only to diminish the honor and love due to Him. Second, it is contrary to Scripture. Titus 3:5-6; 2 Corinthians 5:21: "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" — and it is not obvious how we become the righteousness of God except through believing. Indeed the apostle expressly says: "For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake to believe in Him" (Philippians 1:29). God has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in Him (Ephesians 1:3) — of which faith is surely not the least. If faith is a fruit of Christ's death, why is it not bestowed on all, since He died for all? Especially since the whole obtaining of redemption is entirely useless without it? If they invent a condition upon which faith is bestowed, the emptiness of that will be exposed later. For now: if the condition is that people do not refuse or resist the means of grace, then I ask — is the fruit of Christ's death applied to all who fulfill this condition? Either the answer is no — in which case why bring up this condition at all? — or the answer is yes — in which case all who have not and do not resist the means of grace must be saved — that is, all pagans, unbelievers, and infants to whom the gospel was never preached. Fourth, this whole view tends to make Christ only half a mediator — one who procures the end but not the means to reach it. So despite this exception and new distinction, our position stands firm: the fruits of Christ's death in terms of obtaining good and applying it to us should not be divided, and our arguments confirming this remain unshaken. To conclude all of this: what we assert in this matter may be summed up as follows. Christ did not die for any upon condition that they believe. He died for all of God's elect so that they should believe, and believing have eternal life. Faith itself is among the chief effects and fruits of Christ's death, as will be shown. Nowhere does Scripture say — nor can it reasonably be maintained — that if we believe, Christ died for us, as though our believing should create what otherwise did not exist, making the act the cause of its own object. Rather, Christ died for us so that we might believe. Salvation is indeed bestowed conditionally, but the faith that is the condition is procured absolutely. The question being thus stated, the difference laid open, and the matter in controversy made plain, we proceed in the next place to bring forward some of the arguments, demonstrations, testimonies, and proofs by which the truth we maintain is established and firmly grounded. One request to the reader: keep in mind some awareness of the foundational principles laid down earlier, for they stand in such relation to the arguments that follow that not one of those arguments can be fully answered until those foundations are overturned.