Chapter 7

The removal of certain common sophisms and captious arguments of the Arminians will close our treatise and wind up the whole controversy. I will labor to be as brief as possible, partly because others have handled these things at length, and partly because, all scriptural support for the opposing view having been removed, all other objections will naturally collapse of themselves. Yet because great boasting and swelling words of vanity have accompanied some of what follows, something must be said to expose the emptiness of such rhetoric so that weaker readers will not be ensnared.

We begin with an argument of as great fame and as little merit as any used in this controversy: What everyone is bound to believe is true; but everyone is bound to believe that Jesus Christ died for him; therefore it is true that Jesus Christ died for everyone.

This argument is one which the Arminians and their friends never produce without adding some notable commendation of it and some terms of affront and threat toward their adversaries — so much so that by common consent it has obtained the name 'the Remonstrants' Achilles.' For my part I heartily wish that the many labored and lengthy answers drawn forth by the boasting of our adversaries had not given this poor nothing far more reputation than its own strength could have secured. Suppose: first, the term 'believe' is used in the same sense in both propositions; second, 'believing' means a saving application of Christ to the soul as offered in the promise; third, believing Christ died for any person must be with reference to the purpose of the Father and the intention of Christ himself; fourth, 'everyone' must refer to all people in the one condition common to all — the state of wrath and death (Ephesians 2:3). So the minor proposition reads: all people in the world, as standing in a state of wrath and unregeneracy, are bound to believe that it was the intention of God that Christ should die for every one of them in particular. This minor premise is absolutely false and has not the least support from reason or Scripture. First, some would then be bound to believe what is false — which cannot be, since every obligation to believe comes from the God of truth; and it is false that Christ died for every individual. Second, people would be bound to believe what has not been revealed — though divine revelation is the object of all faith; Scripture nowhere declares that Christ died for this or that particular person as such, but only for sinners indefinitely. Third, the purpose and intention of God is not proposed in Scripture as an object of faith, but is left to be gathered and assured to the soul through the experience of its effects in the heart. Fourth, no command in Scripture to believe can be interpreted as meaning 'God intended that Christ should die for you in particular.' Fifth — which alone is enough to break the neck of this argument — not all people have any object of faith as Christ's death proposed to them: how can they believe unless they hear? How many millions in remote nations have gone to their place without hearing the least report of Jesus Christ? Is not unbelief the great damning sin where faith is required (John 3:30)? And yet does not Paul prove that many shall be condemned for sinning against the light of nature (Romans 2)? — a clear demonstration that faith is not required of all.

Perhaps our adversaries will reply — as they must, if they intend to preserve any appearance of strength for this argument — that they mean it only with respect to those who are called by the Word. Let it then be proposed as follows:

That which every one called by the Word — to whom the Gospel is preached — is bound to believe, is true.

But that Christ died for him in particular, every one so called is bound to believe; therefore it is so.

In answer: first, this reformed version of the argument removes only the last objection raised; all the rest remain in full force and are sufficient to overturn it. Second, does anyone not see that this very reforming of the argument has made it altogether useless to the cause it was produced to defend? If even one person is excepted — much more the greatest part of humanity, which is now excluded from the scope of this argument — the general ransom falls to the ground; from the innumerable multitudes of all, we have come to the many who are called, and no doubt we will soon descend to the few who are chosen. In answer to the exception that what is true for those to whom it is proposed would also be true for all others if it were proposed to them: first, the argument must be taken from the scriptural obligation to believe and can extend no further than it actually extends; second, it is not safe to dispute about what would or should be if things were otherwise than God has appointed and ordained. If the Gospel were preached to all the world, all that the mind and will of God could in general convey through it would be this: 'He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who does not believe shall be damned' — that is, God has linked faith and salvation together, so that whoever would enjoy the latter must perform the former. What unbelieving Turks and Indians would be condemned for upon hearing and rejecting the Gospel is not for failing to believe that Christ died for them in particular, but for rejecting the counsel and wisdom of God to save sinners by the blood of Jesus — for not believing the necessity of a Redeemer and that Jesus of Nazareth is that Redeemer.

The minor proposition of the reduced syllogism is still denied, partly for the reasons already given and partly for these additional ones. First, those to whom the Gospel is preached are bound to believe only with that faith which is required for justification — and this is not a full persuasion that Christ died for any one person in particular by the intention and purpose of God. Second, there is a natural order, established by God's appointment, in the things that must be believed, so that until some are believed, others are not yet required — as a man cannot be reasonably commanded to leap to the top of a ladder by skipping all the lower rungs. The order is: (1) repent and believe the Gospel to be the word of God, containing his will, and that Jesus Christ revealed therein is the power and wisdom of God unto salvation; (2) believe the inseparable connection by God's appointment between faith and salvation; (3) receive a particular conviction by the Spirit of the need for a Redeemer in one's own soul, becoming weary, heavy laden, and burdened; (4) with a full and serious resting and rolling of the soul upon Christ in the Gospel promise, as an all-sufficient Savior able to save to the uttermost all who come to God through him. In doing all this, no one called by the Gospel is once required to inquire into the purpose and intention of God concerning the particular object of Christ's death; everyone is fully assured that his death is profitable to those who believe in him and obey him. Only after all this — and not before — does it lie upon a believer to assure his soul, according to the fruit of Christ's death experienced in him, of the eternal love of God in sending his Son to die for him in particular. What a preposterous and Gospel-opposing course it would be to call on a person to believe and be assured that it was the purpose of God that Christ died for him individually, before he is convicted of the truth of the Gospel in general, or that faith is the only way of salvation, or that he himself stands in need of a Savior, or that there is enough in Christ to save and recover him if he gives himself to Christ.

The argument when properly formed is this: what every person who is convinced of the need for a Savior, who knows the right way of salvation, and who hungers, thirsts, and pants after Jesus Christ as the only one who can refresh him — what such a person is bound to believe is true; but every such person is bound to believe that Christ died for him in particular; therefore it is true. And some grant this whole argument without any prejudice to the cause we are defending. It is now apparent, first, that not all who are called by the Word are bound, in whatever state they remain, to believe that Christ died for them by name — only those who are qualified as described. Second, the duty of believing with fiduciary confidence that Christ died for any person in particular is not proposed to all who are called, nor is the failure to perform it a sin in any other sense than as it is rooted in unbelief or in not turning to God in Christ for mercy. Third, no one for whom Christ did not die shall be condemned for not believing that Christ died for him in particular, which would not be true — but for not believing those things to which he was called, all of which are true and applicable to him. Fourth, the command to believe on Christ, so often urged as given to all, is not, as to this particular point, obligatory on anyone except upon fulfilling the conditions required. Fifth, to believe on the name of Jesus Christ — which is the command of 1 John 3:23 — is not to believe that it was the intention of God that Christ should die for us in particular, but to rest on him for salvation (Isaiah 50:11). Sixth, the testimony of God to which we ought to set our seal is no other than this: he who has the Son has life, but he who does not have the Son of God does not have life (1 John 5:12); and those who deny this do what in them lies to make God a liar and are justly condemned for it. For further reading on this argument, the reader may consult Piscator, Perkins, Twisse, the Synod of Dort, Moulin, Baronius, Rutherford, Sparhemius, Ames, and others.

A second objection: that doctrine which fills the minds and souls of poor, miserable sinners with doubts and scruples about whether they ought to believe when God calls them cannot be agreeable to the Gospel; but the doctrine of particular redemption does this — it fills the minds of sinners with fears about whether they may believe, since they are uncertain whether it was the intention of God that Christ died for them in particular, not knowing whether they are among the elect for whom he died.

In answer: first, that doubts, fears, and scruples — the proper offspring of unconquered unbelief — will often arise in the hearts of sinners, sometimes against and sometimes taking occasion from the truth of the Gospel, is only too evident from experience. The question is whether the doctrine itself, when rightly received, gives cause for such fears to those who properly perform their duty, or whether all those fears and scruples are the natural product of corruption and unbelief setting itself against the truth as it is in Jesus. The first we deny concerning the doctrine of particular effectual redemption; the latter God alone can remedy. Second, this objection supposes that a person is bound to know and be persuaded — that is, to believe — that Jesus Christ died by God's appointment for him in particular, before he believes in Jesus Christ. In fact, they make this the very foundation of their argument: that people according to our persuasion may scruple whether they ought to believe, because they are not first assured that Christ died for them by God's designation. Now if this is not a plain self-contradiction I do not know what is — for what is it, according to Scripture, for a person to be assured that Christ died for him in particular? Is it not the highest attainment of faith? Does it not include a sense of the spiritual love of God shed abroad in our hearts? Is it not the crown of the Apostle's consolation (Romans 8:34) and the foundation of all his joyful assurance (Galatians 2:20)? So they evidently require that a person must believe before he believes — that he cannot believe and will greatly fear whether he ought to do so unless he believes before he believes. Such a removal of scruples would be the readiest way to entangle doubting consciences in further inextricable perplexities. Third, we deny that a persuasion that it was the will of God that Christ died for a sinner in particular is necessary to draw that sinner to believe. The call of Christ (Matthew 11:28; Isaiah 55:1), the command of God (John 3:23), the promise of life upon believing (John 3:36), the all-sufficiency of the blood of Christ to save all believers (Acts 20:21; Ephesians 5:2), and the assured salvation of all believers without exception (Mark 16:16) are all that Scripture holds out to remove doubts and fears and draw sinners to faith. Fourth, the doctrine that asserts the certainty of salvation by the death of Christ to all believers whatsoever; affirms the command of God and the call of Christ to be infallibly declarative of one's duty; holds out purchased free grace to all distressed, burdened consciences; and discloses a fountain of blood all-sufficient to purge the sin of everyone who uses the appointed means to come to it — that doctrine cannot possibly cause any doubt or scruple in convinced and burdened sinners about whether they ought to believe. All this is held forth by the doctrine of particular effectual redemption in its proper Gospel dispensation. One final question for the advocates of universal redemption: what is it that, according to them, people are bound to believe when they already know beforehand that Christ died for them in particular? It cannot be a persuasion of the love of God and the goodwill of Christ, since they already have that. Nor can it be a coming to God through Christ for the enjoyment of the fruits of his death — for what are those fruits according to them but things common to all, which may end in damnation as well as salvation, in unbelief as well as faith? In the end their position will resolve itself into Socinian obedience.

There are two remaining matters about which there is no small contention: both are excellent and valuable things, and both are claimed by each side in this debate. These are first, the exaltation of God's free grace and the merit of Christ, and second, the consolation of our souls; let us consider them in order and let each position receive its due.

Concerning the first — the exaltation of God's free grace — men have come to believe that the opinion of universal redemption exceedingly magnifies the love and free grace of God: they say God loves all, gave Christ to die for all, and is ready to save all who come to him — that this is free grace magnified indeed. But consider: what precisely is this so-called free grace that is universal? Is it the grace of election? Certainly not — God has not chosen all to salvation (Romans 9:11-12; Ephesians 1:4; Romans 8:28). Is it the grace of effectual calling? No — for whom God calls he also justifies (Romans 8:30) and glorifies, and not all have received even an outward call (Psalm 147:19-20; Romans 10:14). Is it the grace of cleansing and sanctification? Are all purged and washed in the blood of Jesus? Surely only the church (Ephesians 5:24-26), for some are still defiled (Titus 1:15), and faith is the principle by which the heart is purified, and all people do not have faith. Is it the grace of justification — the free love and mercy of God in pardoning and accepting sinners? But is this universal? Are all pardoned and accepted? See Romans 1:17; 3:22; 5:1. Is it the grace of redemption in the blood of Christ? See Revelation 5:9. What then is this universal free grace? Is it not universally a figment of the imagination, or a new name for the old idol of free will? Is it not destructive to free grace in every branch of it? Does it not tend to overturn the whole covenant of distinguishing grace, denying that its conditions are effectually worked in any of its members by virtue of the covenant's own promises? What are the two great aims of their free grace, but to mock God and exalt themselves? They propose God as making a pretense of love, goodwill, free grace, and pardon to all, yet never acquainting — incomparably — the greatest number of them with any such love at all, though he knows that without his working in them they can never come to any such knowledge. For those who are outwardly called, they feign the Lord as pretending to love them all, sending his Son to die for them all, desiring that they all be saved — yet on such a condition as, without his enabling grace, they can no more fulfill than climb to heaven by a ladder, which grace he will not provide. They would have God say, in effect: 'Such is my love, my universal grace, that by it I will freely love you and gladly embrace you in all things, except in the one thing that would do you good.' Would they not call a man a gross counterfeiting hypocrite who went to a blind man and said, 'Poor man, I pity your case, I see your need, I love you exceedingly — open your eyes and I will give you a hundred pounds'? And yet they dare assign such conduct to the most holy God of truth. Is their universal grace anything but a mockery? Did it ever do any soul good, as to salvation, that is, anything common to all? Are not the two properties of God's grace in Scripture that it is discriminating and effectual? And is their grace either of these? Granting all they say about the extent of grace to be true: is it such grace as any soul was ever saved by? If so, why are not all saved? Because, they will say, people do not believe — so then, the bestowing of faith is no part of this free grace. Here is their second aim exposed: to exalt themselves and their free will in the place of grace, or at least to leave room for free will to come in and claim the decisive share in salvation — namely believing itself, which makes all the rest profitable. In a word: to bring reprobates within the scope of free grace, they deny free grace to the elect; to make it universal, they deny it to be effectual; so that all may have a share of it, they deny that any are saved by it — for saving grace must be restricted.

On the other side: in what single respect does the doctrine of the effectual redemption of God's elect alone by the blood of Jesus impair the free grace of God? Is it in its freedom? We say it is so free that if it is not altogether free it is no grace at all. Is it in its efficacy? We say that by grace we are saved, ascribing the whole work of our recovery and return to God entirely to it. Is it in its extent? We affirm it to be extended to every one who ever was, is, or shall be delivered from the pit. We do not call grace that goes to hell 'free grace' in the Gospel sense, for we deem the free grace of God so powerful that wherever it has designed and chosen a subject for itself, it brings God and Christ and salvation along with it to eternity. You say we do not extend it to all, that we tie it up to a few — but is the extending of God's love and favor in our power? Does he not have mercy on whom he will have mercy and harden whom he will (Romans 9:18)? And do we not affirm that it is extended to the universality of those who are saved? Should we throw the children's bread to dogs? We believe that the grace of God in Christ works faith in every one to whom it is extended; that all the conditions of the covenant ratified in his blood are effectually worked in the heart of every covenant member; that there is no love of God that is not effectual; that the blood of Christ was not shed in vain; that of ourselves we are dead in trespasses and sins and can do nothing except what the free grace of God works in us. Therefore we cannot conceive that it can be extended to all — for those who affirm that millions taken into a new covenant of grace perish eternally, that it is left to men to believe, that the will of God may be frustrated and his love ineffectual, that we distinguish ourselves one from another — you may extend it wherever you please, since it is indifferent to you whether its objects go to heaven or to hell. But in the meantime, I beg you: is what you speak of God's free grace, or your fond imagination? His love, or your will? Our prayers shall be that God give you infinitely more of his love than is contained in that ineffectual universal grace with which you so flourish. Only we shall labor that poor souls not be seduced by the specious pretenses of free grace for all — not knowing that this so-called free grace is a mere painted cloth that will give them no help at all to deliver them from their condition, but only give them leave to be saved if they can, while they suppose, from the name you have given to the offspring of your own imagination, that you mean an effectual, almighty, saving grace that will certainly bring all to God to whom it is extended — which is what they have heard of in Scripture. While you in effect say to such souls: go on your way, be saved if you can, in the revealed way — God will not hinder you.

Both parties also contest about the exaltation of the merit of Christ; something has been said on this already, so I will be brief. Take only a short view of the difference between them on this point and the plea will soon be decided.

There is only one thing concerning the death of Christ in which the advocates of a general ransom take the affirmative and by which they claim to set forth the excellence of his death — namely, that its benefits extend to all and every person, whereas their adversaries restrict it to a few, the elect alone, which they say is derogatory to the honor of Christ. In answer: first, the measure of Christ's honor is not for us poor creatures to assign — he takes as honor what he himself gives and ascribes to himself, and he has no need of our lies for his glory. Even if this seemed in our eyes to exalt Christ's glory, arising from a lie of our own hearts it would be an abomination to him. Second, we deny that extending the efficacy of Christ's death to all serves to set out the nature and dignity of that death, because such extent of efficacy would not arise from the death's own innate sufficiency but from the free pleasure and determination of God — which is enervated by a pretended universality, as was declared before. Third, the value of a thing arises from its own native sufficiency and worth for any purpose to which it is employed; and the maintainers of effectual redemption assert this of the death of Christ to be far greater than anything their adversaries ascribe to it.

Should I now declare in how many ways the honor of Christ and the excellence of his death and passion — with all its fruits — is held forth in the doctrine we have opened from Scripture, above all that can be assigned to it consistent with the principles of those who maintain universal redemption, I would be forced to repeat much already said. It will suffice to present the reader with the following antithesis.

Universalists hold: (1) Christ died for all and every person, elect and reprobate alike. (2) Most of those for whom Christ died are damned. (3) Christ by his death purchased no saving grace for those for whom he died. (4) Christ took no care that the greatest part of those for whom he died should ever hear one word of his death. (5) Christ in his death did not ratify or confirm a covenant of grace with any covenant members, but only procured by his death that God might, if he willed, enter into a new covenant with whomever he pleased and on whatever conditions he chose. (6) Christ might have died and yet no one be saved. (7) Christ had no more intention to redeem his church than the wicked seed of the serpent. (8) Christ did not die for the unbelief of any. Scriptural redemption holds: (1) Christ died for the elect only. (2) All those for whom Christ died are certainly saved. (3) Christ by his death purchased all saving grace for those for whom he died. (4) Christ sends the means and reveals the ways of life to all those for whom he died. (5) The new covenant of grace was confirmed to all the elect in the blood of Jesus. (6) Christ by his death purchased, on covenant and compact, an assured peculiar people — the pleasure of the Lord prospering to the end in his hand. (7) Christ loved his church and gave himself for it. (8) Christ died for the unbelief of the elect.

Many other instances of the same nature could easily be collected; upon the first view of these the matter in dispute would quickly be determined. These few are sufficient in the eyes of all experienced Christians to demonstrate how little the general ransom contributes to the honor and glory of Jesus Christ or to setting forth the worth and dignity of his death and passion.

The next and last matter under debate in this contest is Gospel consolation — that which God in Christ is abundantly willing we should receive. A brief inquiry into which of the two opinions gives the firmest basis and soundest foundation for such consolation will, by the Lord's assistance, bring us to an end of this long debate. The God of truth and comfort grant that all our undertakings may end in peace and consolation. To clear this, certain things must first be premised.

First, all true evangelical consolation belongs only to believers (Hebrews 6:17-18); God's people (Isaiah 40:1-2); upon unbelievers the wrath of God remains (John 3:36).

Second, to make consolation out to those to whom it does not belong is no less a crime than to hide it from those to whom it does belong (Isaiah 5:20; Jeremiah 23:14; Ezekiel 13:10).

Third, the attempt to present the death of Christ in such a way that all — meaning every individual in the world — might be comforted by it is a proud attempt to make straight what God has made crooked, and is most contrary to the Gospel.

Fourth, that doctrine which holds out consolation from the death of Christ to unbelievers cries 'peace, peace' when God says there is no peace.

These things being premised, I will briefly demonstrate four following positions.

First, that extending the death of Christ to all people universally in its object cannot give the least ground of consolation to those whom God would have comforted by the Gospel.

Second, that denying the efficacy of the death of Christ toward those for whom he died cuts the very sinews of all strong consolation — such as is proper for believers to receive and peculiar to the Gospel to give.

Third, that there is nothing in the doctrine of the redemption of the elect only that can in the least deprive those to whom comfort is due of any portion of their consolation.

Fourth, that the doctrine of the effectual redemption of the sheep of Christ by the blood of the covenant is the true and solid foundation of all durable consolation.

Beginning with the first: that extending the death of Christ to an unlimited universality in respect of its object has nothing in it, as such, that can give the least ground of consolation to those whom God would have comforted. Gospel consolation, properly so called, being a fruit of actual reconciliation with God, belongs only to believers. That no consolation can be made out to them as such from anything peculiar to the persuasion of a general ransom is easily proved.

First, no consolation can arise to believers from what is nowhere in Scripture proposed as a ground or cause of consolation — and the general ransom is not so proposed; for what has no being can have no operation, and all the foundations and materials of consolation are things particular and peculiar to some.

Second, no consolation can accrue to believers from what is common to them with those whom God would not have comforted, who shall assuredly perish eternally, who stand in open rebellion against Christ, and who never hear one word of the Gospel. Yet to all such people the alleged foundation of consolation arising from the general ransom equally belongs as it does to the choicest of believers.

Let a person try, not in the moment of disputation but in desertion and temptation, what consolation or peace of soul he can obtain from such a collection as this: Christ died for all people; I am a person; therefore Christ died for me. Will not his own heart tell him that, notwithstanding all he is assured of by that conclusion, the wrath of God may abide on him forevermore? Does he not see that notwithstanding this, the Lord shows so little love to millions of people — of whom this same conclusion is equally true — that he does not once reveal himself or his Son to them? What good will it do me to know that Christ died for me, if I may still perish forever? If you intend to comfort me with what is common to all, you must tell me what all enjoy that will satisfy my desire — which is carried out after assurance of the love of God in Christ. If you give me no more consolation than what you might have given Judas, can you expect settlement and peace from it? Truly, you are miserable comforters, physicians of no value, skilled only to add affliction to the afflicted. 'Be of good comfort,' the Arminians will say, 'Christ is a propitiation for all sinners, and now you know yourself to be one.' True — but is Christ a propitiation for all the sins of those sinners? If so, how can any of them perish? If not, what good does this do me, whose sins (such as unbelief) may be among those for which Christ was not a propitiation? 'Do not exclude yourself — God excludes none; the love that moved him to send his Son was universal toward all.' Tell me nothing of God's excluding — I have sufficiently excluded myself; will he powerfully take me in? Has Christ not only purchased that I shall be admitted, but procured me the ability to enter into his Father's arms? 'He has opened a door of salvation to all.' Alas, is it not a vain endeavor to open a grave for a dead man to come out? Who lights a candle for a blind man to see by? To open a prison door for one who is blind and lame and bound — indeed dead — is to mock his misery, not to procure his liberty. Never tell me that what millions enjoy together with those who perish eternally will yield me strong consolation.

Second, the opinion of a general ransom is so far from yielding firm consolation to believers from the death of Christ that it quite overthrows all the choicest ingredients of strong consolation that flow from it: first, by strange divisions of what ought to be joined together to make one certain foundation of confidence; and second, by denying the efficacy of his death toward those for whom he died — both of which are necessary attendants of that persuasion.

First, they so divide the obtaining of redemption from the application of it — the former being in their view the only proper immediate fruit of Christ's death — that the one may belong to millions who have no share in the other; that redemption may be obtained for all and yet not one have it applied so as to be saved by it. Now, an ineffectual and merely possible redemption — notwithstanding which all humanity might perish eternally — being the whole object of Christ's death as they assert, separated from all such application of redemption to any as might make it in the least profitable: what comfort this can in any degree afford to any poor soul does not enter my understanding. 'What shall I do?' says the sinner; 'the iniquity of my steps surrounds me, I have no rest in my bones because of my sin — where shall I send my sorrow?' 'Be of good cheer — Christ died for sinners.' 'Yes, but shall the fruits of his death certainly be applied to all for whom he died? If not, I may perish forever.' Let those who can answer him according to universalist principles, without sending him to his own strength in believing — which in the end resolves into the same thing — and I will acknowledge their great help; but if they send him there, they admit that the consolation they boast of properly proceeds from ourselves and not from the death of Christ.

Second, their separating between the oblation and the intercession of Jesus Christ does little for the consolation of believers — indeed it quite overthrows it.

There are two eminent passages of Scripture in which the Holy Spirit holds forth consolation to believers against those two general causes of all their troubles — afflictions and sins: Romans 8:32-34 and 1 John 2:1-2. In both places the Apostles ground the consolation they hold out to believers upon the tight and inseparable connection between the oblation and intercession of Jesus Christ, and the identity of their objects. Let the reader examine both texts and he will find that on this inseparable union lies the whole stress and strength of the several proposals for consolation — which is the principal intention in both places. Now the advocates of universal redemption sever and separate these two: they allow no connection between them nor any dependence of one on the other beyond what is effected by the will of man; they stretch the oblation to all but restrict the intercession to a few. The death of Christ separated from his resurrection and intercession is nowhere proposed as a ground of consolation — indeed it is positively declared to be unsuitable for any such purpose (1 Corinthians 15:14) — and those who hold it out in that separated form are no friends to Christian consolation.

Third, the denial that faith, grace, holiness, the whole intention of the new covenant, and perseverance therein were purchased by the death and blood of Christ for those for whom he died does not appear to be a suitable basis for raising consolation from his cross. What solid consolation can be drawn from such dry breasts as these, from which none of these things flow? That these things have no immediate dependence on the death of Christ, according to the view of the assertors of universal grace, has been declared before and is not only confessed but undertaken to be proved by them. But where should a soul look for these things if not in the purchase of Christ? Is this a way to comfort a soul from the death of Christ — to let him know that Christ did not procure those things for him without which he cannot be comforted? It is then most apparent that the general ransom, so called, is so far from being the foundation of any solid consolation that it is directly destructive of and diametrically opposed to all the ways by which the Lord has declared himself willing that we should receive comfort from the death of his Son.

Third, we must demonstrate that the doctrine of the effectual redemption of the elect only by the blood of Jesus is not liable to any just objection on this point and does not in any way deprive believers of any portion of the consolation God is willing they should receive. The only objection raised by its opponents with any color of reason — for we are not at all moved by the exclamation that innumerable souls are shut out from any share in the blood of Christ, seeing that these are confessedly reprobates, unbelievers, and persons finally impenitent — comes to this:

That there is nothing in Scripture by which any person can assure himself that Christ died for him in particular, unless we grant that he died for all.

That this is notoriously false, the experience of all believers who by God's grace have assured their hearts of their share and interest in Christ as held out in the promise — without the least thought of universal redemption — is sufficient testimony. Second, that the assurance arising from a practical syllogism, of which one proposition is true in the Word and the second is established by the witness of the Spirit in the heart, is infallible, has been acknowledged by all. All believers may have such assurance that Christ died for them with an intention and purpose to save their souls. For example: Christ died for all believers — that is, for all who choose him and rest upon him as an all-sufficient Savior; not that he died for them as believers, but that all such are among those for whom he died. He did not die for believers as believers, but for all the elect as elect, who by the benefit of his death become believers and so obtain assurance that he died for them. This first proposition is true in the Word in innumerable places; and second, the heart of a believer witnesses: 'But I believe in Christ — I choose him as my Savior, cast and roll myself on him alone for salvation.' From these the conclusion follows: therefore the Lord Jesus Christ died for me in particular, with an intention and purpose to save me. This is a collection that all believers, and only believers, can justly make. The all-sufficiency of the death of Christ to save every person without exception who comes to him is enough to fill all the Gospel's invitations to sinners to believe; and when they do believe, this infallible assurance of Christ's intention and purpose to redeem them by his death (Matthew 1:21) is made known. Whether this is not a better foundation than the universalist reasoning — 'Christ died for all people; I am a person; therefore Christ died for me' — let any person judge, especially considering that the first proposition is absolutely false. All this is said not as though either opinion of itself can give consolation — which God alone by the sovereignty of his free grace creates — but only to show what principles are suitable to the means by which he works on and toward his elect.

Fourth, the drawing of Gospel consolation from the death of Christ as held out to be effectual toward the elect only, for whom alone he died, should close our discourse. But considering first how abundantly this has already been done by divers eminent and faithful laborers in the Lord's vineyard; second, how it is the daily task of Gospel preachers to make it out to the people of God; third, how it would carry me beyond my purpose to speak of things in so practical a way, this discourse having been designed to be purely polemical; and fourth, that such practical things are no more expected or welcome in learned controversies than knotty scholastic objections in popular sermons intended merely for edification — I shall not proceed further therein. Only, for a close, I desire the reader to peruse that one passage, Romans 8:32-34, and I make no doubt that he will — if not infected with the leaven of the error we have opposed — conclude with me that if there is any comfort, any consolation, any assurance, any rest, any peace, any joy, any refreshment, any exaltation of spirit to be obtained here below, it is all to be had in the blood of Jesus, long since shed, and his intercession still continuing — both united and applied to the elect of God by their precious effects and fruits, drawing them to believe and preserving them in believing, to the obtaining of an immortal crown of glory that shall not fade away.

Addressing certain common fallacies and captious arguments of the Arminians will close our treatise and bring the whole controversy to a conclusion. I will aim to be as brief as possible, partly because others have treated these matters at length, and partly because, now that all scriptural support for the opposing view has been dismantled, all other objections will naturally fall on their own. Yet because some of what follows has been accompanied by much boasting and inflated rhetoric, something must be said to expose the emptiness of such language so that less experienced readers will not be misled.

We begin with an argument that has enjoyed great fame in this controversy while possessing very little actual merit: What everyone is obligated to believe is true; but everyone is obligated to believe that Jesus Christ died for him; therefore it is true that Jesus Christ died for everyone.

The Arminians and their allies never present this argument without adding some lavish praise of it and some measure of contempt and threat toward their opponents — so much so that by general consensus it has earned the nickname 'the Remonstrants' Achilles.' For my part, I sincerely wish that the many lengthy and labored answers drawn out by our opponents' boasting had not given this hollow argument far more reputation than its own merit could ever have secured. Consider these four assumptions: first, that the word 'believe' is used in the same sense in both premises; second, that 'believing' means a saving application of Christ to the soul as He is offered in the promise; third, that believing Christ died for any person must relate to the purpose of the Father and the intention of Christ Himself; fourth, that 'everyone' must refer to all people in the one condition common to all — a state of wrath and death (Ephesians 2:3). On these assumptions, the minor premise reads: all people in the world, as they stand in a state of wrath and unregeneracy, are obligated to believe that it was God's intention for Christ to die for each one of them individually. This minor premise is absolutely false and has not the slightest support from reason or Scripture. First, some would then be obligated to believe what is false — which cannot be, since every obligation to believe comes from the God of truth; and it is false that Christ died for every individual. Second, people would be obligated to believe what has not been revealed — yet divine revelation is the object of all faith; Scripture nowhere declares that Christ died for this or that particular person as such, but only for sinners in general. Third, the purpose and intention of God is not presented in Scripture as an object of faith, but is left to be known and assured to the soul through experiencing its effects in the heart. Fourth, no scriptural command to believe can be rightly interpreted as meaning 'God intended that Christ should die for you in particular.' Fifth — and this alone is enough to break the back of this argument — not all people have the object of faith, Christ's death, set before them: how can they believe unless they hear? How many millions in distant nations have gone to their end without hearing the least report of Jesus Christ? Is not unbelief the great damning sin where faith is required (John 3:30)? And yet does not Paul prove that many will be condemned for sinning against the light of nature (Romans 2)? — a clear demonstration that faith is not required of all people.

Our opponents may reply — as they must, if they intend to preserve any appearance of strength for this argument — that they mean it only with respect to those who are called by the Word. Let the argument then be restated as follows:

What every person called by the Word — to whom the Gospel is preached — is obligated to believe, is true.

But every such person is obligated to believe that Christ died for him individually; therefore it is so.

First, this revised version of the argument removes only the last objection raised; all the rest remain in full force and are sufficient to overturn it. Second, does anyone not see that this very revision has rendered the argument completely useless for the cause it was meant to defend? If even one person is excluded — much more the great majority of humanity, who are now left outside the scope of this argument — the general ransom collapses. From the innumerable multitudes of 'all,' we have narrowed to the many who are called, and no doubt we will soon arrive at the few who are chosen. As for the objection that what holds true for those to whom the Gospel is proposed would also hold true for all others if it were proposed to them: first, the argument must be drawn from the actual scriptural obligation to believe and can extend no further than that obligation actually reaches; second, it is not safe reasoning to speculate about what would or should be if things were other than God has appointed and ordained. If the Gospel were preached throughout the whole world, all that God's mind and will could in general communicate through it would be this: 'He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned' — that is, God has linked faith and salvation together, so that whoever would enjoy the latter must perform the former. What unbelieving Turks and Indians would be condemned for upon hearing and rejecting the Gospel is not for failing to believe that Christ died for them individually, but for rejecting God's wisdom and plan to save sinners through the blood of Jesus — for refusing to believe in the necessity of a Redeemer and that Jesus of Nazareth is that Redeemer.

The minor premise of the revised syllogism is still denied, partly for the reasons already given and partly for these additional ones. First, those to whom the Gospel is preached are obligated to believe only with the faith required for justification — and this is not a firm conviction that Christ died for any one person in particular by God's intention and purpose. Second, there is a natural order, established by God's appointment, in the things that must be believed, so that until some are believed, others are not yet required — just as a man cannot reasonably be commanded to jump to the top of a ladder by skipping all the lower rungs. The order is this: first, repent and believe the Gospel to be God's Word containing His will, and that Jesus Christ revealed in it is the power and wisdom of God for salvation; second, believe in the inseparable connection God has ordained between faith and salvation; third, receive a particular conviction from the Spirit of one's own need for a Redeemer — becoming weary, heavy laden, and burdened; fourth, with a full and sincere resting and casting of the soul upon Christ in the Gospel promise, as an all-sufficient Savior able to save to the uttermost all who come to God through Him. In doing all this, no one called by the Gospel is ever required to inquire into God's purpose and intention concerning the particular objects of Christ's death; everyone is fully assured that His death benefits those who believe in Him and obey Him. Only after all this — and not before — does it become the believer's task to assure his soul, based on the fruit of Christ's death experienced within him, of God's eternal love in sending His Son to die for him individually. What a backward and Gospel-opposing approach it would be to call on a person to believe and be assured that it was God's purpose for Christ to die for him individually, before he is convinced of the truth of the Gospel in general — or that faith is the only way of salvation, or that he himself needs a Savior, or that Christ is sufficient to save and recover him if he comes to Christ.

When properly stated, the argument is this: what every person is obligated to believe who is convinced of his need for a Savior, who knows the right way of salvation, and who hungers, thirsts, and longs after Jesus Christ as the only one who can satisfy him — what such a person is bound to believe is true; but every such person is bound to believe that Christ died for him individually; therefore it is true. Some grant this entire argument without any harm to the cause we are defending. It is now clear, first, that not all who are called by the Word are obligated — in whatever condition they remain — to believe that Christ died for them by name. Only those who are qualified as described above bear this obligation. Second, the duty of believing with personal confidence that Christ died for any particular person is not proposed to all who are called; nor is the failure to perform it a sin in any other sense than as it is rooted in unbelief or in refusing to turn to God in Christ for mercy. Third, no one for whom Christ did not die will be condemned for not believing that Christ died for him individually — that would be requiring belief in something false — but for not believing the things to which he was called, all of which are true and applicable to him. Fourth, the command to believe in Christ, so often pressed as given to all, is not obligatory on anyone regarding this particular point except when the required conditions have been met. Fifth, to believe on the name of Jesus Christ — which is the command of 1 John 3:23 — is not to believe that it was God's intention for Christ to die for us individually, but to rest on Him for salvation (Isaiah 50:11). Sixth, the testimony of God to which we should set our seal is simply this: he who has the Son has life, but he who does not have the Son of God does not have life (1 John 5:12); and those who deny this do everything in their power to make God a liar, and are justly condemned for it. For further reading on this argument, the reader may consult Piscator, Perkins, Twisse, the Synod of Dort, Moulin, Baronius, Rutherford, Sparhemius, Ames, and others.

A second objection: any doctrine that fills the minds and souls of poor, miserable sinners with doubts about whether they are permitted to believe when God calls them cannot be in agreement with the Gospel. But the doctrine of particular redemption does exactly this — it fills sinners' minds with fears about whether they may believe, since they are uncertain whether it was God's intention for Christ to die for them individually, not knowing whether they are among the elect for whom He died.

First, it is all too clear from experience that doubts, fears, and misgivings — the natural offspring of unconquered unbelief — will often rise in sinners' hearts, sometimes in opposition to and sometimes taking occasion from the truth of the Gospel. The question is whether the doctrine itself, when rightly received, gives rise to such fears in those who properly do their duty, or whether all those fears are simply the natural product of corruption and unbelief setting itself against the truth as it is in Jesus. The first we deny concerning the doctrine of particular effectual redemption; the second God alone can remedy. Second, this objection assumes that a person must know and be persuaded — that is, must believe — that Jesus Christ died by God's appointment for him individually, before he believes in Jesus Christ. In fact, they make this the very foundation of their argument: that people, according to our view, may hesitate over whether they ought to believe, because they are not first assured that Christ died for them by God's design. Now if this is not a plain self-contradiction I do not know what is — for what is it, according to Scripture, for a person to be assured that Christ died for him individually? Is it not the highest attainment of faith? Does it not include a sense of God's love poured out in our hearts? Is it not the crown of the apostle's comfort (Romans 8:34) and the foundation of all his joyful assurance (Galatians 2:20)? So they evidently require that a person must believe before he believes — that he cannot believe and will greatly fear whether he should, unless he already believes before he believes. Such a removal of doubts would be the surest way to entangle troubled consciences in further inescapable confusion. Third, we deny that a persuasion that it was God's will for Christ to die for a particular sinner is necessary to bring that sinner to faith. The call of Christ (Matthew 11:28; Isaiah 55:1), the command of God (John 3:23), the promise of life upon believing (John 3:36), the all-sufficiency of Christ's blood to save all believers (Acts 20:21; Ephesians 5:2), and the assured salvation of all believers without exception (Mark 16:16) — these are what Scripture sets out to remove doubts and fears and draw sinners to faith. Fourth, the doctrine that affirms the certainty of salvation through Christ's death for all believers; confirms that God's command and Christ's call infallibly declare one's duty; holds out purchased free grace to all distressed and burdened consciences; and presents a fountain of blood all-sufficient to cleanse the sin of everyone who uses the appointed means to come to it — such a doctrine cannot possibly create any doubt or hesitation in convicted and burdened sinners about whether they ought to believe. All of this is presented by the doctrine of particular effectual redemption in its proper Gospel form. One final question for the advocates of universal redemption: what exactly, according to them, are people required to believe when they already know beforehand that Christ died for them individually? It cannot be a persuasion of God's love and Christ's goodwill, since they already have that. Nor can it be a coming to God through Christ to enjoy the fruits of His death — for what are those fruits according to them but things common to all, which may end in condemnation as well as salvation, in unbelief as well as faith? In the end, their position will resolve itself into Socinian obedience.

Two remaining matters are hotly contested: both are excellent and valuable things, and both are claimed by each side in this debate. These are, first, the exaltation of God's free grace and the merit of Christ, and second, the consolation of our souls. Let us consider each in turn and let each position receive its due.

Concerning the first matter — the exaltation of God's free grace — many have come to believe that universal redemption greatly magnifies God's love and free grace: they say God loves all, gave Christ to die for all, and is ready to save all who come to Him — and that this is free grace magnified indeed. But consider carefully: what precisely is this so-called free grace that is universal? Is it the grace of election? Certainly not — God has not chosen all to salvation (Romans 9:11-12; Ephesians 1:4; Romans 8:28). Is it the grace of effectual calling? No — for those God calls He also justifies (Romans 8:30) and glorifies, and not all have even received an outward call (Psalm 147:19-20; Romans 10:14). Is it the grace of cleansing and sanctification? Are all washed in the blood of Jesus? Surely only the church (Ephesians 5:24-26), for some remain defiled (Titus 1:15), faith is the means by which the heart is purified, and not all people have faith. Is it the grace of justification — God's free love and mercy in pardoning and accepting sinners? But is this universal? Are all pardoned and accepted? See Romans 1:17; 3:22; 5:1. Is it the grace of redemption in the blood of Christ? See Revelation 5:9. What then is this universal free grace? Is it not entirely a figment of the imagination, or simply a new name for the old idol of free will? Is it not destructive to free grace in every one of its dimensions? Does it not tend to overthrow the entire covenant of distinguishing grace, denying that its conditions are effectively worked in any of its members by the power of the covenant's own promises? What are the two real aims of their free grace but to mock God and to exalt themselves? They present God as making a display of love, goodwill, free grace, and pardon to all, yet never communicating — by an incomparably wide margin — any such love to the greatest portion of them, even though God knows that without His working in them they can never come to any such knowledge. For those who are outwardly called, they portray God as pretending to love them all, sending His Son to die for them all, desiring that they all be saved — yet on a condition that, without His enabling grace, they can no more fulfill than climb to heaven on a ladder, and which grace He will not supply. They would have God say, in effect: 'Such is My love, My universal grace — by it I freely love you and gladly embrace you in everything, except the one thing that would do you good.' Would they not call a man a rank hypocrite who went to a blind man and said, 'Poor man, I pity your condition, I see your need, I love you dearly — open your eyes and I will give you a hundred pounds'? And yet they dare assign such conduct to the most holy God of truth. Is their universal grace anything but mockery? Has it ever done any soul good — that is, in anything common to all — as far as salvation goes? Are not the two distinguishing marks of God's grace in Scripture that it is discriminating and effective? Is their grace either of these? Granting everything they claim about the extent of grace to be true: is it the kind of grace any soul was ever saved by? If so, why are not all saved? Because, they will say, people do not believe — meaning, then, that the giving of faith is no part of this free grace. Here their second aim stands exposed: to exalt themselves and their free will in the place of grace, or at least to leave room for free will to step in and claim the decisive share in salvation — namely believing itself, which makes all the rest profitable. In a word: to bring the reprobate within the scope of free grace, they deny free grace to the elect; to make it universal, they deny it to be effectual; so that all may have a portion of it, they deny that any are saved by it — for saving grace, they insist, must be limited.

On the other side: in what single way does the doctrine of the effectual redemption of God's elect alone by the blood of Jesus diminish the free grace of God? Is it in its freedom? We say it is so free that if it is not entirely free it is no grace at all. Is it in its effectiveness? We say that by grace we are saved, ascribing the whole work of our recovery and return to God entirely to grace. Is it in its extent? We affirm that it extends to every person who ever was, is, or shall be delivered from the pit. We do not call grace that leads to hell 'free grace' in the Gospel sense, for we hold that God's free grace is so powerful that wherever it has chosen and destined a person as its object, it brings God and Christ and salvation along with it into eternity. You say we do not extend it to all, that we restrict it to a few — but is the extent of God's love and favor within our power to determine? Does He not have mercy on whom He will have mercy and harden whom He will (Romans 9:18)? And do we not affirm that grace is extended to the entire company of those who are saved? Should we throw the children's bread to dogs? We believe that God's grace in Christ works faith in everyone to whom it is extended; that all the conditions of the covenant ratified in Christ's blood are effectively worked in the heart of every covenant member; that there is no love of God that fails to accomplish its purpose; that the blood of Christ was not shed in vain; that of ourselves we are dead in trespasses and sins and can do nothing except what God's free grace works in us. Therefore we cannot conceive of it being extended to all — for those who claim that millions brought into a new covenant of grace perish eternally, that it is left to people to believe, that God's will may be frustrated and His love made ineffective, that we distinguish ourselves one from another — you may extend it wherever you please, since it matters nothing to you whether its objects go to heaven or to hell. But in the meantime, I must ask: is what you speak of God's free grace, or your own imagination? His love, or your will? Our prayer will be that God grants you infinitely more of His love than is contained in that ineffectual universal grace with which you make such a display. We will only labor to keep poor souls from being deceived by the appealing pretense of free grace for all — not knowing that this so-called free grace is a painted facade that will give them no real help to change their condition, but only grant them permission to be saved if they can, while they suppose, from the name you have given your own invention, that you mean an effectual, almighty, saving grace that will certainly bring all to God on whom it rests — which is what they have actually heard of in Scripture. While in effect what you say to such souls is: go on your way, be saved if you can by the revealed means — God will not stop you.

Both sides also contend over the exaltation of Christ's merit; something has already been said on this, so I will be brief. A quick look at the difference between the two positions on this point will settle the matter.

There is only one thing regarding the death of Christ on which the advocates of a general ransom take the affirmative and by which they claim to magnify His death — namely, that its benefits extend to every person, whereas their opponents restrict it to a few, the elect alone, which they say dishonors Christ. In answer: first, it is not for us poor creatures to set the measure of Christ's honor — He receives as honor what He Himself gives and ascribes to Himself, and He has no need of our fabrications for His glory. Even if this seemed in our eyes to exalt Christ's glory, arising as it does from a lie of our own hearts, it would be an abomination to Him. Second, we deny that extending the effectiveness of Christ's death to all actually magnifies the nature and worth of that death, because such extent of effectiveness would not arise from the death's own innate sufficiency but from the free pleasure and determination of God — which is weakened by a pretended universality, as was shown before. Third, the value of anything comes from its own inherent sufficiency and worth for the purpose to which it is put; and those who maintain effectual redemption assert that this value in Christ's death is far greater than anything their opponents attribute to it.

If I were to fully declare the many ways in which the honor of Christ and the excellence of His death and passion — with all its fruits — are upheld in the doctrine we have drawn from Scripture, far above anything that can be attributed to it consistent with universal redemption's principles, I would be forced to repeat much already said. It will be enough to set before the reader the following contrast.

Universalists hold: (1) Christ died for every person, elect and reprobate alike. (2) Most of those for whom Christ died are condemned. (3) Christ's death purchased no saving grace for those for whom He died. (4) Christ took no care that the majority of those for whom He died should ever hear a word about His death. (5) Christ in His death did not ratify or confirm a covenant of grace with any covenant members, but only made it possible for God to enter into a new covenant with whomever He chose and on whatever conditions He saw fit. (6) Christ could have died and yet no one be saved. (7) Christ had no more intention to redeem His church than the wicked seed of the serpent. (8) Christ did not die for the unbelief of anyone. Scriptural redemption holds: (1) Christ died for the elect only. (2) All those for whom Christ died are certainly saved. (3) Christ's death purchased all saving grace for those for whom He died. (4) Christ sends the means and reveals the way of life to all those for whom He died. (5) The new covenant of grace was confirmed to all the elect in the blood of Jesus. (6) Christ by His death purchased, by covenant and agreement, a definite people of His own — the Lord's purpose prospering in His hand to the end. (7) Christ loved His church and gave Himself for it. (8) Christ died for the unbelief of the elect.

Many other examples of the same kind could easily be gathered; on first examination they would quickly settle the dispute. These few are sufficient in the eyes of all experienced Christians to show how little the general ransom contributes to the honor and glory of Jesus Christ or to demonstrating the worth and dignity of His death and passion.

The next and final matter under debate in this controversy is Gospel consolation — that which God in Christ is abundantly willing for us to receive. A brief examination of which view provides the firmest and soundest foundation for such consolation will, with the Lord's help, bring this long debate to its conclusion. May the God of truth and comfort grant that all our labor ends in peace and consolation. To make this clear, certain things must first be established.

First, all true evangelical consolation belongs only to believers (Hebrews 6:17-18); God's people (Isaiah 40:1-2); on unbelievers the wrath of God remains (John 3:36).

Second, to extend consolation to those to whom it does not belong is no less a crime than to withhold it from those to whom it does (Isaiah 5:20; Jeremiah 23:14; Ezekiel 13:10).

Third, the attempt to present the death of Christ in such a way that everyone — meaning every individual in the world — might be comforted by it is an arrogant attempt to make straight what God has made crooked, and is deeply contrary to the Gospel.

Fourth, any doctrine that holds out consolation from the death of Christ to unbelievers cries 'peace, peace' when God says there is no peace.

With these points established, I will briefly demonstrate the four following positions.

First, extending the death of Christ universally to all people in its scope cannot give the slightest ground of consolation to those whom God would have comforted by the Gospel.

Second, denying the effectiveness of Christ's death toward those for whom He died cuts the very root of all strong consolation — the kind that is proper for believers to receive and that the Gospel alone can give.

Third, there is nothing in the doctrine of the redemption of the elect only that can in any way deprive those to whom comfort is due of any portion of their consolation.

Fourth, the doctrine of the effectual redemption of Christ's sheep by the blood of the covenant is the true and solid foundation of all lasting consolation.

Beginning with the first: extending the death of Christ to an unlimited universality in terms of its scope contains nothing, as such, that can give the slightest ground of consolation to those whom God would have comforted. Gospel consolation, properly speaking, being a fruit of actual reconciliation with God, belongs only to believers. That no consolation can be drawn for believers from anything distinctive to the persuasion of a general ransom is easily proved.

First, no consolation can arise to believers from what is nowhere in Scripture proposed as a basis or cause of consolation — and the general ransom is nowhere so proposed. What has no existence can have no effect, and all the foundations and materials of consolation are things particular and personal.

Second, no consolation can come to believers from what they share in common with those whom God would not have comforted, who will certainly perish eternally, who stand in open rebellion against Christ, and who never hear a single word of the Gospel. Yet to all such people the supposed basis of consolation arising from the general ransom belongs equally as much as it does to the most devoted believers.

Let a person try — not in the moment of debate but in times of spiritual darkness and temptation — what consolation or peace of soul he can find in this reasoning: Christ died for all people; I am a person; therefore Christ died for me. Will not his own heart tell him that, despite everything that conclusion assures him of, the wrath of God may still rest on him forever? Does he not see that despite this, God shows so little favor to millions of people — for whom this same conclusion is equally true — that He never once reveals Himself or His Son to them? What good does it do me to know that Christ died for me, if I may still perish forever? If you intend to comfort me with what is common to all, you must tell me what all people enjoy that will satisfy my longing — which reaches after assurance of God's love in Christ. If you give me no more comfort than you could have given Judas, can you expect it to bring me peace? Truly, you are miserable comforters, physicians of no value, skilled only in adding grief to the grieving. 'Take comfort,' the Arminians will say, 'Christ is a propitiation for all sinners, and now you know yourself to be one.' True — but is Christ a propitiation for all the sins of those sinners? If so, how can any of them perish? If not, what good does this do me, whose sins — such as unbelief — may be among those for which Christ was not a propitiation? 'Do not exclude yourself — God excludes no one; the love that moved Him to send His Son was universal toward all.' Say nothing to me of God's excluding — I have already sufficiently excluded myself. Will He powerfully take me in? Has Christ not only purchased my admission but also obtained for me the ability to enter into His Father's arms? 'He has opened a door of salvation to all.' But is it not futile to open a tomb for a dead man to walk out? Who lights a candle for a blind man to see by? To open a prison door for one who is blind, lame, and bound — indeed dead — is to mock his misery, not to secure his release. Never tell me that what millions share in common with those who perish eternally will produce strong consolation for my soul.

Second, the opinion of a general ransom is so far from yielding firm consolation to believers from the death of Christ that it actually destroys all the richest elements of strong consolation that flow from it: first, by making strange divisions between things that must be joined together to form one certain foundation of confidence; and second, by denying the effectiveness of His death toward those for whom He died — both of which are unavoidable consequences of that persuasion.

First, they so sharply separate the obtaining of redemption from the application of it — the former being in their view the only proper direct fruit of Christ's death — that the one may belong to millions who have no share in the other: redemption may be obtained for all, and yet not one person have it applied so as to be saved by it. Now an ineffectual and merely possible redemption — notwithstanding which all humanity could perish eternally — being the whole object of Christ's death as they assert, and this being completely cut off from any application to any particular person: what comfort this can offer any poor soul I cannot understand. 'What shall I do?' says the sinner. 'My iniquities surround me; I have no rest in my bones because of my sin — where shall I turn with my grief?' 'Take heart — Christ died for sinners.' 'Yes, but will the fruits of His death certainly be applied to all for whom He died? If not, I may still perish forever.' Let those who can answer him on universalist grounds, without sending him back to his own strength in believing — which in the end amounts to the same thing — and I will acknowledge their great help. But if they send him there, they admit that the consolation they boast of flows properly from ourselves and not from the death of Christ.

Second, their separation between the oblation and the intercession of Jesus Christ contributes little to the consolation of believers — indeed it completely undermines it.

There are two prominent Scripture passages in which the Holy Spirit holds out consolation to believers against the two general sources of all their troubles — afflictions and sins: Romans 8:32-34 and 1 John 2:1-2. In both places the apostles ground the consolation they offer to believers on the tight and inseparable connection between the oblation and intercession of Jesus Christ, and the identity of the people these cover. Let the reader examine both texts and he will find that on this inseparable union rests the entire weight and force of the consolation offered — which is the main point in both passages. Now the advocates of universal redemption sever these two completely: they allow no connection between them, nor any dependence of one on the other beyond what the will of man effects. They extend the oblation to all but restrict the intercession to a few. The death of Christ separated from His resurrection and intercession is nowhere in Scripture proposed as a ground of consolation — in fact it is expressly declared to be unsuitable for any such purpose (1 Corinthians 15:14) — and those who present it in that separated form are no friends to Christian consolation.

Third, the denial that faith, grace, holiness, the whole intention of the new covenant, and perseverance within it were purchased by Christ's death and blood for those for whom He died does not appear to offer any suitable basis for drawing consolation from His cross. What solid comfort can be drawn from such barren sources, from which none of these things flow? That these things have no direct dependence on the death of Christ, according to the view of those who assert universal grace, has been stated before and is not only conceded but actively argued by them. But where should a soul look for these things if not in the purchase of Christ? Is this a way to comfort a soul from the death of Christ — to tell him that Christ did not procure for him the very things without which he cannot be comforted? It is then entirely clear that the general ransom, so called, is so far from being the foundation of any solid consolation that it directly destroys and stands in open opposition to all the ways in which the Lord has declared He is willing for us to receive comfort from the death of His Son.

Third, we must show that the doctrine of the effectual redemption of the elect only by the blood of Jesus is not open to any fair objection on this point and does not in any way deprive believers of any portion of the consolation God is willing for them to receive. The only objection raised by its opponents with any appearance of reason — for we are not at all troubled by the outcry that innumerable souls are shut out from any share in Christ's blood, since these are admittedly reprobates, unbelievers, and those who are finally unrepentant — comes down to this:

There is nothing in Scripture by which any person can assure himself that Christ died for him in particular, unless we grant that He died for all.

That this objection is plainly false, the experience of all believers who by God's grace have assured their hearts of their share and interest in Christ as offered in the promise — without the slightest thought of universal redemption — is ample testimony. Second, that the assurance arising from a practical syllogism, in which one premise is true in Scripture and the second is established by the Spirit's witness in the heart, is certain — this has been acknowledged by all. All believers may have such assurance that Christ died for them with the intention and purpose of saving their souls. For example: Christ died for all believers — that is, for all who trust in Him and rest on Him as an all-sufficient Savior; not that He died for them as believers, but that all such people are among those for whom He died. He did not die for believers as believers, but for all the elect as elect, who through the benefit of His death become believers and so receive assurance that He died for them. This first premise is true in Scripture in countless places; and second, the heart of a believer testifies: 'But I believe in Christ — I choose Him as my Savior, cast and roll myself on Him alone for salvation.' From these the conclusion follows: therefore the Lord Jesus Christ died for me individually, with the intention and purpose of saving me. This is a conclusion all believers — and only believers — can rightly draw. The all-sufficiency of Christ's death to save every person without exception who comes to Him is more than enough to sustain all the Gospel's invitations to sinners to believe; and when they do believe, this certain assurance of Christ's intention and purpose to redeem them through His death (Matthew 1:21) is made known. Whether this is not a better foundation than the universalist reasoning — 'Christ died for all people; I am a person; therefore Christ died for me' — let anyone judge, especially considering that the first premise of that syllogism is absolutely false. All of this is said not as though either view can of itself produce consolation — which God alone creates by the sovereignty of His free grace — but only to show what principles are suited to the means by which He works in and toward His elect.

Fourth, drawing Gospel consolation from the death of Christ as presented in its effective power toward the elect only, for whom alone He died, should bring our discussion to a close. Considering first how abundantly this has already been accomplished by various eminent and faithful workers in the Lord's vineyard; second, how it is the daily work of Gospel preachers to make it out to God's people; third, how pursuing it would carry me beyond my purpose, this work having been designed to be strictly polemical in nature; and fourth, that such practical matters are no more expected or appropriate in learned controversies than dense scholastic arguments in sermons intended simply for the edification of the people — I will not pursue it further. Only, as a close, I urge the reader to read that one passage, Romans 8:32-34, and I have no doubt that he will — if not corrupted by the error we have opposed — agree with me that if there is any comfort, any consolation, any assurance, any rest, any peace, any joy, any refreshment, any elevation of spirit to be had in this life, it is all found in the blood of Jesus, shed long ago, and His intercession still continuing — both united and applied to the elect of God through their precious effects and fruits, drawing them to believe and keeping them in believing, unto the obtaining of an immortal crown of glory that will never fade.