The first part of this controversy may be handled under these two questions: — First, Whether God giving his Son, and Christ making his soul a ransom for- sin, intended thereby to redeem all and every one from their sing, that all and every one alike, from the be- ginning of the world to the last day, should all equally be partakers of the fruits of his death and passion; which purpose of theirs is in the most frustrate? Secondly, Whether God had not a certain infallible intention of gathering unto himself a "chosen people," of collecting a " church of first-born," of saving his " little flock," of bringing some certainly to happiness, by the death of his only Son ; which in the event he doth accomplish ?
The second part also may be reduced to these two heads: — First, Whether Christ did not make full satisfaction for all their sins for whom he died, and merited glory, or everlasting happiness, to be bestowed on them upon the performance of those conditions God should require? Secondly (which is the proper controversy I shall chiefly insist upon), Whether Christ did not procure for his own people a power to become the sons of God, merit and deserve at the hands of God for them, grace, faith, righteousness, and sanctification,
OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 89
whereby they may be enabled infallibly to perform the conditions of the new covenant, upon the which they shall be admitted to glory ?
To the first question of the first part of the controversy, the Ar- minians answer affirmatively, — to wit, that Christ died for all alike; the benefit of his passion belongs equally to all the posterity of Adam. And to the second negatively, — that God had no such inten- tion of bringing many chosen sons unto salvation by the death of Christ, but determined of grace and glory no more precisely to one than to another, to John than Judas, Abraham than Pharaoh ? Both which, as the learned Moulin observed,^ seemed to be invented to make Christianity ridiculous, and expose our religion to the derision of all knowing men : for who can possibly conceive that one by the appointment of God should die for another, and yet that other, by the same justice, be allotted unto death himself, when one's death only was due; that Christ hath made a full satisfaction for their sins who shall everlastingly feel the weight of them themselves; that he should merit and obtain reconciliation with God for them who live and die his enemies, grace and glory for them who are graceless in this life and damned in that which is to come ; that he should get remission of sins for them whose sins were never par- doned? In brief, if this sentence be true, either Christ by his death did not reconcile us unto God, make satisfaction to his justice for our iniquities, redeem us from our sins, purchase a kingdom, an ever- lasting inheritance for us, — which I hope no Christian will say; or else all the former absurdities must necessarily follow, — which no rational man will ever admit.
Neither may we be charged as straiteners of the merit of Christ ; for we advance the true value and worth thereof (as hereafter will appear) far beyond all the Arminians ascribe unto it. We confess that that " blood of God," Acts xx. 28, of the " Lamb without blemish and without spot," 1 Pet. L 19, was so exceedingly precious, of that infinite worth and value, that it might have saved a thousand believing worlds, John iii. 16; Rom. iil 22. His death was of sufficient dig- nity to have been made a ransom for all the sins of every one in the world. And on this internal sufficiency of his death and passion is grounded the universality of evangelical promises; which have no Buch I'estriction in their own nature as that they should not be made to all and every one, though the promulgation and knowledge of them are tied only to the good pleasure of God's special providence, Matt. xvi. 17; as also that economy and dispensation of the new cove- nant whereby, the partition-wall being broken down, there remains no more difference between Jew and Gentile, the utmost borders of the earth being given in for Christ's inheritance. So that, in some ' Molin. Suffrag. ad Synod. Dordra,
'90 A DISPLAY OF ARMINIANISM.
sense, Christ may be said to die for "all," and "the whole worid ;" — first, Inasmuch as the worth and value of his death was very sufficient to have been made a price for all their sins; secondly, Inasmuch as this word " all" is taken for some of all sorts (not for every one of every sort), as it is frequently used in the holy Scripture : so Christ being lifted up, " drew all unto him," John xii. 32; that is, believers out of all sorts of men. The apostles cured all diseases, or some of all sorts: they did not cure every particular disease, but there Avas no kind of disease that was exempted from their power of healing. So that where it is said that Christ " died for all," it is meant either, — first, All the faithful; or, secondly, Some of all sorts; thirdly, Not only Jews, but Gentiles. For, —