Chapter 5
I come in the next place to the third and last Argument drawn from the Scripture, wherewith the Arminians strive to maintain their figment of universal Redemption; and it is taken from such Texts of Scripture as seem to hold out the perishing of some of them for whom Christ died. Who can but believe that this persuasion tends to the consolation of poor souls, whose strongest defense lies in making vile the precious blood of the Lamb? I am persuaded it was not so unvaluable in the eyes of his Father, as to cause it to be poured out in vain in respect of any one soul.
If Christ died for Reprobates and those that perish, then he died for all and every one; for confessedly he died for the elect and those that are saved; but he died for Reprobates and them that perish; therefore Christ died for all.
Answer: We positively deny that Christ, by the command of his Father and with intention to make satisfaction for sins, did lay down his life for Reprobates and them that perish.
This they prove from Romans 14:15, 1 Corinthians 8:11, 2 Peter 2:1, Hebrews 10:29. The first is Romans 14:15: 'But if your brother be grieved with your meat, then you walk not charitably, destroy not him with your meat for whom Christ died.'
Answer: The Apostle exhorts strong and sound believers to such a moderate use of Christian liberty that they do not grieve the spirit of the weak ones — who were also believers, professors, called Saints, elect believers, redeemed and so in charity esteemed — and so give them occasion of stumbling and falling off from the Gospel. In this place there is no mention at all of anyone perishing for whom Christ died; only others are commanded not to do that which goes in a direct way to destroy him, by grieving him with their uncharitable walking. May not a man be exhorted from attempting that which yet, if he should attempt, he could not effect?
A second place is 1 Corinthians 8:10-11: 'And through your knowledge shall your weak brother perish for whom Christ died.' A brother is said to perish for whom Christ died: that by perishing here is understood eternal destruction and damnation, I cannot apprehend. Every time we sin, for anything that lies in us, we perish, we are destroyed; so did the eater of things offered to idols. But that God always revenges sin with damnation, on all in whom it is, we deny. He that is said to be a brother is a believer; we are brethren only by faith, whereby we come to have one Father. That a true believer cannot finally perish may easily be proved, therefore he who does perish is manifestly declared never to have been any. As he is said to be a brother, so Christ is said to die for him — even in that judgment which the Scripture allows to us of men. We cannot count a man a brother, and not esteem that Christ died for him.
The next place much insisted on is 2 Peter 2:1: 'There shall be false teachers denying the Lord that bought them and bringing on themselves swift destruction.' All things here as to any proof of the business in hand are exceedingly dark, uncertain and doubtful. Uncertain: whether by 'the Lord' is meant the Lord Christ, the word in the original being rarely if ever ascribed to him. Uncertain: whether the purchase or buying of these false teachers refers to the eternal Redemption by the blood of Christ, or a deliverance by God's goodness from the defilement of the world in idolatry or the like, by the knowledge of the truth — which the text expressly affirms. Most certain: that there are no spiritual distinguishing fruits of Redemption ascribed to those false teachers, but only common gifts of light and knowledge, which Christ has purchased for many for whom he did not make his soul a ransom.
For the first uncertainty — whether Christ as Mediator is here intended by 'Lord' or not — there is not anything in the text to enforce us so to conceive. The name 'despotes' properly denotes 'sovereign' and is not usually, if at all, given to our Savior in the New Testament; he is everywhere called 'kyrios,' nowhere clearly 'despotes' as is the Father (Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24).
But suppose he should be so understood; it is most uncertain that by the buying of these false teachers is meant his purchasing of them with the ransom of his blood. The word translated 'buying' in the Old Testament signifies any deliverance, as Deuteronomy 7:8, 15:15, Jeremiah 15:21. The Apostle sets forth at large the deliverance they had and the means thereof (verse 20): it consisted in the escaping of the pollution of the world, as idolatry, false worship, and the like, by the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Of washing in the blood of the Lamb he is wholly silent. So our Adversaries' argument from this place is this: God the Lord, by imparting the knowledge of the Gospel and working them to a professed acknowledgment of it, separated and delivered from the world divers who were saints in show, really wolves and hypocrites, of old ordained to condemnation; therefore Jesus Christ shed his blood for the redemption and salvation of all Reprobates and damned persons in the whole world. Who would not admire our Adversaries' strange chemistry?
Thirdly, neither is it more certain that the Apostle speaks of the purchase of the wolves and hypocrites in respect of the reality of the purchase, and not rather in respect of that estimation which others had of them. It is the perpetual course of the Scripture to ascribe all those things to every one that is in the fellowship of the Church which are proper only to them who are true spiritual members of the same — as to be Saints, Elect, Redeemed, etc. Now after all this, if our adversaries can prove universal Redemption from this text, let them never despair of success in anything they undertake, be it never so absurd.
The last place produced for the confirmation of the argument in hand is Hebrews 10:29: 'Of how much sorer punishment, suppose you, shall he be thought worthy, who has trodden under foot the Son of God, and counted the blood of the Covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and has done despite to the Spirit of grace?' Nothing (say our Adversaries) could be affirmed of all this concerning Apostates — namely that they trod under foot, etc. — unless the blood of Christ was in some sense shed for them.
Answer: The intention of the Apostle in this place is the same with the general aim and scope of the whole Epistle: to persuade and urge the Jews who had embraced the doctrine of the Gospel to perseverance and continuance therein. He urges a strong argument from the miserable dangerous effects and consequences of the sin of backsliding and willful renunciation of the truth known and professed, upon any motives and inducements whatsoever. He assures them this sin is no less than a total casting off and depriving themselves of all hopes and means of recovery, with dreadful horror of Conscience in expectation of judgment to come (verses 26-27).
First, he speaks here only of those that were professors of the faith of the Gospel, separated from the world, brought into a Church state and fellowship, professing themselves to be sanctified by the blood of Christ, receiving and owning Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and endued with the gifts of the holy Spirit. Now it is most certain that these things are peculiar only to some, yes to a very few in comparison of the universality of the sons of men. From the condition of a very few, with such qualifications as the multitude have not, nothing can be concluded concerning all.
Secondly, the Apostle does neither declare what has been, nor assert what may be; but only adds a threatening upon a supposition of a thing. His main aim is to deter from the thing, rather than to signify that it may be. When Paul told the soldiers (Acts 27) that if the mariners fled away in the boat they could not be saved, he did not intend to signify to them that in respect of the event they should be drowned; for God had declared the contrary unto him the night before. A commination of the judgment due to apostasy, being an appointed means for the preserving of the Saints from that sin, may be held out to them, though it is impossible for the Elect to be seduced.
Thirdly, it is most certain that those of whom he speaks did make profession of all these things whereof mention is made: namely that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, that they were sanctified by the blood of the Covenant, and enlightened by the Spirit of grace. A renunciation of all these, with open detestation of them, was a sin of so deep an abomination, attended with so many aggravations, as might well have annexed to it this remarkable commination, though the Apostates never had themselves any true effectual interest in the blood of Jesus.
Fourthly, it was the manner of the Saints and the Apostles themselves to esteem all baptized, initiated persons ingrafted into the Church as sanctified persons; so that speaking of backsliders, he could not mention them any otherwise than as they were commonly esteemed to be.
Fifth, if the text be interpreted positively and according to the truth of the thing itself, in both parts — that these of whom the Apostle speaks were truly sanctified, and that such may totally perish — then these two things will inevitably follow: first, that faith and sanctification is not the fruit of Election; second, that Believers may fall finally from Christ; neither of which are owned by our new Universalists.
Sixth, there is nothing in the Text of force to persuade that the persons here spoken of must needs be truly justified and regenerated believers, much less that Christ died for them. The expression 'sanctified by the blood of the Covenant' is to be understood in view of: first, the manner and custom of the Apostles writing to the Churches, calling them all Saints; second, that these persons were baptized, wherein by a solemn aspersion of the symbol of the blood of Christ, they were externally sanctified, separated and set apart; third, the various signification of the word 'sanctified' in the Scripture, one most frequent meaning being to consecrate and set apart to any holy use.
If we shall consider these things, it will be most apparent that here is indeed no true, real, internal, effectual sanctification proper to God's elect at all intimated, but only a common external setting apart from the ways of the world and customs of the old Synagogue, to an enjoyment of the Ordinance of Christ representing the blood of the Covenant. To those that were truly sanctified, the commination declared the certain connection between apostasy and condemnation, thereby warning them to avoid it; in respect of those who were only apparently so, it held out the odiousness of the sin, with their own certain inevitable destruction if they fell into it.
And thus by the Lord's assistance I have given you a clear solution to all the arguments which the Arminians pretended to draw from the Scripture in the defense of their cause. Because of late we have had a multiplication of arguments on this subject, I shall in the next place remove all those Objections which T. M. in his Book of the universality of free grace has gathered together against our main Thesis of Christ's dying only for the Elect.
I come next to the third and last argument drawn from Scripture by which the Arminians strive to maintain their idea of universal redemption; it is taken from passages that seem to speak of some perishing for whom Christ died. Who could believe that this view serves to comfort poor souls, when its strongest defense rests on treating the precious blood of the Lamb as worthless? I am persuaded that His blood was not so valueless in the eyes of His Father as to be poured out in vain for any single soul.
If Christ died for the reprobate and those who perish, then He died for all and every person; for He confessedly died for the elect and those who are saved; but He also died for the reprobate and those who perish; therefore Christ died for all.
Reply: We flatly deny that Christ, by the command of His Father and with the intention of making satisfaction for sins, laid down His life for the reprobate and those who perish.
This they attempt to prove from Romans 14:15, 1 Corinthians 8:11, 2 Peter 2:1, Hebrews 10:29. The first is Romans 14:15: 'For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.'
Reply: The apostle exhorts mature and sound believers to use their Christian freedom with such moderation that they do not trouble the conscience of weaker believers — who were also believers, professing Christians, called saints, elect believers, redeemed and thus regarded charitably as such — and thereby give them occasion to stumble and fall away from the Gospel. This passage makes no mention at all of anyone perishing for whom Christ died; others are simply commanded not to do that which directly moves toward destroying a weak brother by troubling him with their unloving behavior. May a person not be urged to avoid attempting something that, even if he did attempt it, he could not actually accomplish?
A second passage is 1 Corinthians 8:10-11: 'For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died.' A brother is said to be ruined for whom Christ died — I cannot understand this to mean eternal destruction and condemnation. Every time we sin, as far as it goes, we are ruined and destroyed; so it was for the one eating things offered to idols. But we deny that God always punishes sin with damnation in every person who sins. The person described as a brother is a believer; we are brothers and sisters only through faith, by which we come to have one Father. That a true believer cannot finally and permanently perish can easily be proved — and therefore the one who does finally perish was plainly never truly one of them. As he is called a brother, so Christ is said to have died for him — according to the charitable judgment Scripture allows us to extend to others. We cannot regard a person as a brother and not esteem that Christ died for him.
The next passage much relied upon is 2 Peter 2:1: 'But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.' Everything in this passage, as regards any proof of the matter at hand, is extremely obscure, uncertain, and doubtful. Uncertain: whether by 'the Master' is meant the Lord Christ — the word in the original is rarely if ever applied to Him. Uncertain: whether the purchase or buying of these false teachers refers to the eternal redemption through Christ's blood, or to a deliverance by God's goodness from the corruption of the world through idolatry and the like, by the knowledge of the truth — which the text expressly states. Most certain: that no spiritually distinguishing fruits of redemption are attributed to these false teachers, but only common gifts of light and knowledge, which Christ has obtained for many for whom He did not give His life as a ransom.
On the first uncertainty — whether Christ as Mediator is here meant by 'Master' or not — nothing in the text forces us to think so. The Greek word 'despotes' properly means 'sovereign' and is not usually, if ever, applied to our Savior in the New Testament; He is everywhere called 'kyrios,' nowhere clearly 'despotes' as the Father is (Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24).
But suppose He is so intended; it is still highly uncertain that the buying of these false teachers means His purchasing them with the ransom of His blood. The word translated 'buying' in the Old Testament means any kind of deliverance, as in Deuteronomy 7:8, 15:15, Jeremiah 15:21. The apostle describes at length the deliverance they had and the means of it (verse 20): it consisted in escaping the corruption of the world — such as idolatry, false worship, and the like — through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Of washing in the blood of the Lamb he says nothing at all. So our opponents' argument from this passage amounts to: God the Lord, by granting the knowledge of the Gospel and leading certain people to an outward acknowledgment of it, separated and delivered from the world various people who appeared to be saints but were actually wolves and hypocrites, long since ordained to condemnation; therefore Jesus Christ shed His blood for the redemption and salvation of all the reprobate and condemned persons in the whole world. Who would not be astonished at our opponents' strange reasoning?
Third, it is equally uncertain that the apostle is speaking of the purchase of the wolves and hypocrites as a real and effective purchase, rather than speaking of them in terms of the estimation others had of them. It is the constant practice of Scripture to attribute to everyone in the fellowship of the church everything that is truly proper only to those who are genuine spiritual members of it — such as being called saints, elect, redeemed, and so on. Now after all this, if our opponents can prove universal redemption from this text, let them never give up hope in anything they attempt, however absurd it may be.
The last passage produced in support of this argument is Hebrews 10:29: 'How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?' Our opponents say that none of this could be stated about apostates — that they trampled under foot, etc. — unless Christ's blood was in some sense shed for them.
Reply: The apostle's purpose in this passage is the same as the overall aim and scope of the whole epistle: to persuade and press the Jews who had embraced the gospel to persevere and continue in it. He urges a powerful argument from the terrible and dangerous effects and consequences of backsliding and willful rejection of truth that has been known and professed, whatever the motivation or circumstances. He assures them that this sin amounts to nothing less than completely cutting oneself off from all hope and means of recovery, along with dreadful horror of conscience in expectation of coming judgment (verses 26-27).
First, he speaks here only of those who were professors of the gospel faith, separated from the world, brought into a church community and fellowship, professing themselves to be sanctified by the blood of Christ, receiving and owning Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and endowed with the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Now it is absolutely certain that these things are true of only some people — indeed a very few compared to the whole of humanity. Nothing can be concluded about all people from the condition of a very few who possess qualifications the majority do not have.
Second, the apostle neither describes what has happened nor asserts what may happen; he only adds a warning on the basis of a hypothetical. His primary aim is to deter from the thing, not to suggest that it actually can happen. When Paul told the soldiers (Acts 27) that if the sailors escaped in the boat they could not be saved, he did not mean to indicate that in the event they would be drowned — for God had told him the night before that they would not. A warning about the judgment due for apostasy, being an appointed means for preserving the saints from that sin, may be set before them even though it is impossible for the elect to be deceived.
Third, it is absolutely certain that those he speaks of did profess all the things mentioned here: namely that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, that they were sanctified by the blood of the covenant, and that they had been enlightened by the Spirit of grace. A renunciation of all these things, with open contempt for them, was a sin of such deep wickedness, attended by so many aggravating factors, that this striking warning was entirely fitting to attach to it — even if the apostates never had any true and effective share in the blood of Jesus.
Fourth, it was the practice of the saints and the apostles themselves to regard all baptized and initiated members of the church as sanctified persons; so in speaking of those who fell away, the apostle could not describe them any other way than as they were commonly regarded.
Fifth, if the text is interpreted literally and according to the truth of the matter in both parts — that those the apostle speaks of were truly sanctified, and that such people may totally perish — then two things must inevitably follow: first, that faith and sanctification are not fruits of election; second, that believers can finally fall away from Christ. Neither of these is accepted by our new universalists.
Sixth, there is nothing in the text to compel us to think that those spoken of here must necessarily be truly justified and regenerated believers, much less that Christ died for them. The expression 'sanctified by the blood of the covenant' is to be understood in view of: first, the apostles' practice and custom of writing to churches and calling all their members saints; second, that these persons had been baptized, in which by a solemn use of the symbol of Christ's blood they were outwardly sanctified, separated, and set apart; third, the varied meanings of the word 'sanctified' in Scripture, one of the most common being to consecrate and set apart for any holy purpose.
When these things are considered, it becomes entirely clear that no true, genuine, inward, and effective sanctification proper to God's elect is implied here at all — only a common external setting apart from the ways of the world and practices of the old synagogue, to share in the ordinances of Christ representing the blood of the covenant. To those who were truly sanctified, the warning declared the certain connection between apostasy and condemnation, thereby urging them to avoid it; for those who were only outwardly so, it displayed the wickedness of the sin, along with their own certain and inevitable destruction if they fell into it.
And so with the Lord's help I have given a clear answer to all the arguments the Arminians claim to draw from Scripture in defense of their position. Since a multiplication of arguments on this subject has appeared recently, I will next address all the objections that T.M. in his book on the universality of free grace has gathered against our main thesis that Christ died only for the elect.
