ARGUM. I.

If Christ forbade his ministers, to give, or deliver his Word and Sacrament concerning his death, unto all men, as unto unbelieving, impenitent, scanda­lous, and wicked men; Then Christ did not give or deliver himself to death for all men: or, then Christ died not for all men. The reason hereof is this; If Christ had given himself to death for all men, good and bad, then would he have his ministers to do so too, in delivering the Word and Sacrament; and it is against reason to think, that Christ should give himself for all men, and forbid his ministers to give him to all men, or to some men: so there is the same reason of both: Now if he forbade his ministers, to deliver his Word and Sacrament unto all men, unto wicked and impenitent men, then surely, he did not deliver himself to death for all men.

For 1. It is absurd to think, that a ministers Commission, in delivering the Word and Sacrament concerning Christs death, should be of less extent than Christ his death is of; as, that his Cōmission should extend but to some men onely, when Christ his death ex­tends [Page 3] to all men: wherefore if his Commission be but unto some men onely, then Christ his death is not to, or for all men, but to and for some men onely. 2. The Word and Sa­crament concerning Christ his death, are signs representing Christs death unto us; now the sign and the thing signified by it, must be of equal ex­tent; as, if the sign belong but unto some men onely, then Christ his death, the thing signified by it, be­longs not unto all men, but unto some men onely. 3. If Christ would not permit his ministers, to give the bread and wine in the Sacrament (which is the lesser) unto all men, then much less would he give himself which is the greater) unto all men: If he forbade his ministers, to give his bread and wine unto all men, much­less would he give his life, his own bodie and bloud for all men: if he denied the Sign unto wicked and im­penitent persons, then much more would he denie there the thing signi­fied, which is, his pretious bodie and bloud: so much for my proposi­tion.

But Christ forbade his ministers, to [Page 4] give, or deliver his Word and Sacrament concerning his death unto all men, as unto unbelieving, impenitent, scanda­lous and wicked men. This my assum­ption I thus prove, first concerning the Sacrament.

1. It is the doctrine, both of our own and other reformed Churches, that Christ would not have the Sacra­ment of the Lords supper, given by the minister unto unbelievers, impeni­tent, scandalous, and wicked men. 2. Philip would not give the Sacra­ment of Baptism unto the Eunuch, but upon the condition of his faith first, Acts 8.37. S. Paul would not have the Lords supper given unto the incestuous person, 1. Corinth. 5.1, 5, 13. nor unto impenitent wicked men, as not unto fornicatours, idolaters, drunkards, railers, nor extortioners, 1. Cor. 5.11. and see Matth. 18.17. So much for the Sacrament, next for the Word.

2. Concerning the Word: Christ would not have the word concerning his death, given or delivered by his ministers unto unbelievers, impeni­tent, scandalous, and wicked men; which I thus prove:

In the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, the Minister delivers the bread, with these words of Christ, This is my bodie, which is broken for thee: the which words, are according to Christs institution, 1. Cor. 11.24. Luke 22.19. now forasmuch as Christ would not have impenitent wicked persons admitted to the Lords Sup­per, he would not have his ministers deliver unto them, this his word con­cerning his death, This is my bodie: which is broken for thee: so Christs mi­nister may not say to a wicked man, Christ died for thee. Yet if Armini­ans doctrine be true, that Christ died for all men, then a minister may say to the vilest impenitent person, were he a Judas or worse, Christ died for thee. And by the way, I wonder that Independents can hold forth Christ to all men in a Sermon, saying, Come whore-master, drunkard, &c. Christ died for thee; and yet refuse to give the Lords supper to scandalous per­sons, saying to them; Christ died for thee. 2. Our Saviour would not have holy things given to dogs, nor pearls to swine, Matth. 7.6. now wicked and impenitent persons, appearing incor­rigible, [Page 6] are dogs and swine; & Christ, whether given in the word or in the sacrament, is an holy thing, and a pearl: wherefore a minister may not give Christ to an incorrigible wicked man, saying, Christ died for thee. 3. S. Paul preached the word con­cerning Christs death at Antioch, Acts 13.14, 16, 27, 38. where being a mixt multitude, of sheep and goats, of wheat and tares, he directs his speech unto the sheep and wheat, not unto the goats and tares; for he spake as he said, To those that fear God, Acts 13.16, 26. and so soon as some of his Auditours appeared to be goats and tares, and such as feared not God, he turned away from them, and carried away the Gospel unto the Gentiles, refusing to preach the word of Christ unto them, Acts 13.45, 46. and see Acts 19.9. whereby you see, S. Paul a minister of Christ, would not de­liver the word concerning Christs death, unto wicked men, and such as feared not God.

It may be objected, that S. Paul saith, It was necessarie, that this word should first be preached unto them, that is, unto those goats and tares, the ob­stinate [Page 7] Jews Acts 13.46. and so Paul preached of Christs death, as well to wicked men as to the godly. Here­unto I answer, 1. As the Husband-man bestoweth the same pains, upon the tares as upon the wheat, before the tares appear to him to be tares; so the Apostle might preach Christ to the wicked, as well as to the god­ly, they being together in a mixt as­sembly, before the wicked appeared to him to be wicked: but yet as the husband-man takes pains for the wheats sake, and not for the tares sake; so Paul might preach Christ, for the godly's sake, and not for the wic­ked's sake: and it is evident in the Text to be so: for Paul directs his speech unto the godly in the Assem­bly, to those that feared God, Acts 13.16.26. excluding the wicked: for when in an Assembly, there are both godly and wicked, if the minister di­rects his speech to the godly, he ex­cludes the wicked; or if he directs an use to the wicked, he excludes the godly. 2. So soon as these tares, the obstinate Jews, appeared to Paul to be tares, as you see, he refused to preach Christ unto them, Acts 13.45, [Page 8] 46. and for the same cause, had he known them at the first to be tares, and if he could have separated them from the assembly of the godly, he would not have preached Christ unto them at the first. True it is, Paul saith, It was necessarie that the Word should be preached vnto them: for it could not be avoided, being they were mixed with the godly, and did not at first appear to be tares: it was there­fore necessarie for Paul to preach un­to them, with the godly at the first, though he intended not his doctrine to be for them. Thus I have proved my Assumption: and so the conclusi­on follows thus,

Therefore Christ did not give or deli­ver himself to death for all men: or, Christ died not for all men. So much for my first Argument.

ARGUM. II.

If Christ would not pray for all men, then Christ would not die for all men. The reason thereof is this; If Christ would not do the lesser for all men, then he would not do the greater for all men: If Christ would not offer to God, the calves of his lips for all men, [Page 9] then he would not offer to God the sacrifice of his pretious bodie and bloud for all men: If Christ would not bestow so much love upon all men as to pray for them, then would he not bestow so much love upon all men as to die, and to shed his heart bloud for them: In a word, If Christ would exclude some men from his prayers, surely he meant to exclude them from his bitter death and passi­on. So much for my proposition.

But Christ would not pray for all men. For proof hereof see John 17.8, 9. where believers are distinguished from the world, that is, from the world of unbelievers; and for these men who then did believe, Christ prayed, saying, I pray for them, vers. 9. and Christ prayed also for those men, who should afterwards to the worlds end believe in him vers. 20. but for the world, that is, for the world of unbelievers, Christ would not vouchsafe so much as to pray to God for them, saying, I pray not for the world, vers. 9. So much for proof of my Assumption, and so my Conclusion follows.

Therefore Christ would not die for all [Page 10] men. And by consequence, Christ did not die for all men: for look what Christ would not do, that he did not do: un­less we should imagine, that Christ his will, and his actions, were contra­ry one to the other: or, that he did do that, which he did not first will to do.

Arminians in their Acta Synodalia, de Morte Christi, pag. 319. do answer to my Assumption, and to my Text brought to prove it, thus; Christ saith not, that he would not pray for the world, that is, that he would never af­terwards pray for them; but thus he saith, that he doth not pray for the world, that is, that he doth not for that present time pray for them; or that he doth not in this particular prayer, John 17.9. pray for them. Hereunto I thus reply.

1. Though I shall prove by and by, that there is more in Christs words, than Arminians do grant, yet this which they do grant, is sufficient to make good my argument: for this is in the Text, and they grant it, that Christ said, He did not pray for the world, that is, at that time and in that particular prayer, he did not pray [Page 11] for them: from which it doth unde­niably follow, that as he did not then pray for them, so he would not then pray for them; or it was his will, at that time and in that prayer, not to pray for them, but to exclude them from his prayer, and from the be­nefit thereof. This I thus make good.

A wise mans actions and words, do flow from his understanding and his will; and his words and deeds, are re­gulated and governed by his will; so as what he doth or speaketh, the same he first willed; and what he refuseth to do or to speak, the same he willeth, or willeth not to do or speak, I say, being a mans actions and words are regulated by his will, both in his speech, and in his silence refusing to speak, whensoever, he is so silent, as that he refuseth to speak, it is mani­fest that it is his will to be silent, and to refuse to speak: wherefore when Christ said, I pray not, or I do not now in this prayer pray for the world; hereby it is evident, that at that time his will, was not to pray for them; but that his will was against it, or his will was against praying for them at that [Page 12] time: because he willed silence at this time, and refused to pray for them in this prayer.

When a father having ten sons, saith, I give unto my nine elder sons, an hundred pounds apeece, but is si­lent saying nothing of his tenth or youngest son; suppose it will not hence follow, that the fathers mind and will was to denie him, and to re­fuse to give him an hundred pounds; yet it is otherwise in this case: for when the father saith, I give an hun­dred pounds apeece to my nine elder sons, but as for my tenth and young­est son, who is a wicked man, a riotous and prodigal son, I give him nothing; here it is manifest, that the fathers will was, to exclude the youngest son, and to be unwilling at that time that he should have an hundred pounds: so our Saviour, having ma­ny good and godly followers of him, who were believers, saith, I pray for them John 17.9. and for all them, John 17.20. but as for the world, that is, for impenitent and unbelieving men, I pray not for them, John 17.9. here it is clear, that as he did not then pray for them, so he would not [Page 13] at that time pray for them: for he vo­luntarily excluded them from his prayer, when he prayed for others.

Such negative speeches as this in John 17.9. are voluntary denials, re­fusals, or exclusions; not onely signi­fying a thing not done, but also a will not to do it, as you may see John 8.11, 50. and 13.18. Gal. 2.2.

Thus it is proved, that as Christ did not in that prayer pray for the world, so it was not his will but a­gainst his will, then to pray for them: now hence it followeth, That if at any time Christ did voluntarily refuse to pray for any men, then he would not die for them, or then he would refuse to die for them: and so you see, that from what Arminians do grant, my argument is made good: but I shall further prove, more to be in Christs words, than what they grant, and thus I prove it.

2. As Christ did not pray for the world, and also as is proved, Christ would not at that time and in that prayer pray for them; so it is gathera­ble from the Text and context, that Christ would never afterwards pray for them; the which Arminians deny, [Page 14] and this I here prove: Christ his pray­er, though uttered and made then, yet the virtue and extent of it lasted after, or unto the death of that pre­sent world of impenitent wicked men: for as Christs prayer, once made for the godly, extends it self for their good, unto their death, John 17.9, 11, 15, 21, 24. so Christs ex­clusion of that wicked world, from the benefit of his prayer once, must be an exclusion of them for ever af­ter: unless it could be shown, that after Christs prayer, that wicked world converted and believed, which cannot be shown. Now if this wicked world were ever after the same, why should Christ alter his mind towards them? why should he pray for them afterwards, more than he did before? and I can but marvel, that Arminians should grant, that once Christ did not pray for that world, and yet suppose that afterwards he did pray for them; and yet have no ground for this sup­posed thing.

2 The ground and reason of Christ his prayer, will clear it up, that as he did not for the present pray for the world, so he would not for the future [Page 15] pray for them; or so he would never after pray for them. The reason why Christ prayed for believers, was be­cause they believed in him, John 17.8, 9, 20. and because they were Gods people, for they are thine, John 17.9. and because God the Father had gi­ven them to Christ, John 17.9. On the contrary, the reason why Christ prayed not for the world, must needs be, because they were worldlings, wicked and impenitent persons, un­believers, and were none of Gods people, nor given to Christ: now this being the cause, why Christ refused to pray for them at that present time, John 17.9. for the same cause, Christ could never pray for them after­wards: for many of that wicked world, lived and died impenitently, and in unbelief, Luke 7.30. John 3.19. Acts 13.45, 46, 50. Luke 19.41, 42. Rom. 9.27, 31, 32. 2. Cor. 3.14, 15. Mark 4.11, 12. If their unbelief hindered Christs prayer at that time, John 17.9. it must for ever after hin­der his prayer: because many of them were ever after unbelievers, and the very same men as before, when Christ refused to pray for them. [Page 16] So much for my second Argu­ment.

ARGUM. III.

If Christ so loved all men, as to give himself and die for all men; then would he have caused the Gospel to be preach­ed to all men; by means whereof, they should have knowledge of his death, and might believe in him, so as to be the bet­ter for his death. This I thus prove.

1 He that willeth the End, he wil­leth the means tending unto it, and whereby it must be obtained: the end and the proper or necessary means cannot be separated: Christs death for men, is the End, the preaching of Christs death in the Gospel, is the means for men to know it, and to be­lieve in him, so as to be the better for it: wherefore, if Christ so loved all men, as to die and give himself for them, he could not but out of the same his love, have given them know­ledge of it by preaching, which is the means of faith, that so they might partake of the benefit of his death.

2 If Christ out of his love John 3.16. and 15.13. died for all men, then if he would not give all men know­ledge [Page 17] of it, whereby they might ap­ply it to themselves, or believe in him, that so they might be the better for his death; then he is like a Phy­sician, pretending the greatest love possible to cure his friend, by prepa­ring and making a most soveraign po­tion for him; but sets it behind or un­der the bed, or in some secret corner of the chamber, where it is impossi­ble for the sick man to find it: all this is but a pretence of love: for if it were true love, he would have set it where the sick man should have had knowledge of it, or he would have given him knowledge of it, that so he might make use of it for his health: so if Christ had died for all men, all men should have known it, and must have had it preached unto them, that so they might make use of it for salva­tion.

3 They may as well say, God in­tendeth by ordinary means, to save a mans natural life, and yet denie him food, as to say, Christ intended to die for the salvation of all men, and yet denie them the knowledge of it by the Gospel preached. So much for my Major.

But Christ neither would nor hath caused the Gospel to be preached to all men; whereby they should be brought to faith, and be the better for his death. This I thus prove, 1. The Gospel is not in these days preached to ma­ny Indians, and barbarous nations. 2. In old time before us, the Gos­pel, or any thing of Christ, was not preached to millions of Gentiles, Psal. 147.19, 20. Acts 10.12, 28. and 16.6, 7. Ephes 2.11, 12, 13, 14. 3. Christ preached to some men in parables, and darkly, to this end, that they should not obtain remission of sins, and be the better for his death, Mark 4.11, 12. So much for my Mi­nor; and the conclusion follows.

Therefore Christ did not so love all men, as to give himself, and to die for all men.

Before I have done with this Ar­gument, I must answer an Objection, which my Reader may make; and confute an Answer, which the Armi­nians do make: the Objection is this you said in your first Argument, that Christ would not have the word con­cerning his death (which is Gospel) to be preached to wicked, impenitent, [Page 19] and unbelieving men: and here in this third Argument, you say, that the Gospel ought to be preached to all men; and among all men, are many wicked men, &c. Hereunto I an­swer, that this is no contradiction: for in my first Argument, I spake abso­lutely and as the truth is; but here in my third Argument, I speak not abso­lutely, but conditionally, with an if: as, If Christ died for all men, then the Gospel must be preached to all men, be they godly or wicked: so this I speak but upon a supposition of the truth of the Arminian tenent, which if it be true, then this follows, that Gospel must be preached to all men, good and bad. So much of this Ob­jection: and now I come to the an­swer of Arminians, which is this.

The Arminians in their Acta Syno­dalia, de Morte Christi, pag. 327, 328. do answer this my third Argument thus: that a limitation is to be added to my Major, and then my Minor will be false: thus therefore they frame it a new, and limit it: If Christ so lo­ved all men, as to die for all men; then would he have caused the Gospel to be actually preached to all men; or else [Page 20] be prepared and in a readinesse to have it preached, so soon as men be fitted to receive it.

The better to colour this limitati­on, they make a twofold calling, a common or general calling, and a spe­cial calling: by the general calling, they understand the law and light of nature, as the natural knowledge that there is a God, and of the law of God, to which men ow obedience: now to him that useth this aright, God is pre­pared to communicate unto him his special calling, which is, the preaching of the Gospel: so the well using of that, is a fitting and preparing of men for this: and the reason why many men are denied the Gospel, is their own fault, because they do abuse the light of nature, or the general calling: so then Gods will is, to have the Go­spel preached actually to all men that are fitted for it; and is prepared to have it preached to others, so soon as they be fitted for it, and so be they do not put a bar in the way to hinder God, by their evil deserts, and unfit­edness.

Hereunto I thus reply, I will not contend about this order and method [Page 21] of God, that first he willeth all men, to make good use of the law and light of nature; and then and not before to vouchsafe the Gospel to them; be this true or false, I will not question it, but rather grant it for argument sake: but yet this I denie, (though it be never so true in it self) that this limitation shall be added to my Ma­jor, That God is prepared to have the Gospel preached to men, so soon as men be fitted for it and not before; for this is an absurd limitation: and it is to maintain one Errour by another, the which I make thus appear,

1 They say, as it is, implied in the antecedent part of my Major, That Christ died for all men: and then they would add to it this, That some of those men are not fit to know it, or not fitted to hear of it and receive it (for this is implied in their limitati­on:) now is not this an absurd thing to be added? as first to hold, that Christ died for all men, and then to add to this, that some of those men are not fit to hear of it, or to know it? This wer [...] [...]erable, if it were held, that though men be unfit to know it at some one time of their lives, [Page 22] yet they should be fit at some other time before death; but forasmuch as men abuse the light of nature all their lives long, and so die impeni­tently, therefore they must hold, that many men are never fit, to hear of or know, what Christ hath done for them: and is it not absurd to say, Christ died for many men, who nor are, nor ever shall be fit to know it? or Christ died for many, who shall ne­ver be fit to know what he hath done for them? are they fitted for Christ to die for them, and not fitted to know he died for them?

This conceit is like unto this; A man pays a ransom, to redeem one from captivitie or prison, but the pri­soner or captive is not fit to hear or know of it, so long as he liveth: or like unto this, A Physitian, makes an excellent and healthfull potion or cordial for his sick patient, but adds this, saying, He shall know of it so soon as he is fit to know of it and to receive it, when as he knows the pa­tient shall never be fit so long as he lives; is not this absurd: [...]refore, if they will hold, that Christ died for all men, they must hold also, that they [Page 23] are fit to know and hear of it: which being so, this is a frivolous and ab­surd limitation, to add saying, or else God and Christ be prepared, to cause the Gospel to be preached to men, so soon as they be fitted for it, or be fit to receive it.

2 Christ foresaw, that many men in the world, would never make a good use of the law and light of na­ture, whereby to be fitted to know of his death. If therefore this was no hinderance for Christ to die for them, then this is no hinderance for the Gospel to be preached to them: for there is as good reason for the one as the other: yea the reason is stronger, to think mens unfitness should rather hinder Christ to die for them, than to hinder a sermon of Christs death to be preached to them: for Christ his bloud is of more value, than a mini­sters words and breath: wherefore, if Christ died for all men, then are all men fit to hear of it: and so this limitation of fitness is frivolous.

Furthermore, those whom Christ died for, those he loved infinitely, and unspeakably, John 3.16. and 15.13. now if it be true, as Arminians [Page 24] say, that Christ died for all men, then he infinitely and unspeakably loved all men, even those who abused the general call, the light of nature, albeit he foresaw they would live and die in in the abuse of it: and was his love so hot and strong to those men, as to pass by this abuse, when he shed his hearts bloud for them; and was it be­come so cold and weak to them after­ward, as to stick at it and not pass it by, when he thought of causing a ser­mon of his death to be preached to them, whereby they might be the better for his death? was Christs love so hot, as to require no fitness in them, when he died for them, and was it become so cold afterward, as to stick at these mens unfitness to hear a sermon of his death? surely, if nothing in these men, could hinder Christ to die for them; then nothing in them, can hinder a sermon of Christ to be preached to them: if there needed no qualification in them, to render them fit for Christ to die for them; then there needs no qualifica­tion in them, to fit them to hear a sermon of Christ: unless you suppose more virtue or dignitie to be in a [Page 25] sermon of Christ, than is in the bloud of Christ: so you see, this limitation of fitness is vain.

3 To say, Christ died for all men; and then to add this unto it, That they shall not have the Gospel (which is a necessary means of obtaining the end of Christs death) preached unto them, unless they be fit for it, or untill they be fitted to receive it, is a very absurd addition and limitation as you have seen: so it is also as ab­surd, to say, God or Christ is prepared and in a readiness, to have the Gospel preached so soon as men be fitted for it: for there be thousands of Indians and others, who live and die in the abuse of the law and light of nature, and so are never fit for the Gospel, and who never heard the Gospel: now can it be truly said, that God or Christ hath prepared himself, to use and apply means unto such, as never will be capable of the means? and unto such, as he well knows and fore-sees will never be capable of it? did ever any wise man prepare himself, to do any thing, the which he fore-sees shall never be done? and yet such a preparation Arminians do ascribe un­to [Page 26] the wise God. Will a Physitian pre­pare himself, to give phisick to a dead man, or to one whom he knows will never be fit to take it?

Moreover, If this fitness be pre-required, then thus I reason: God not onely fore-sees that many will never be fit for the Gospel, but also is re­solved in himself, that the Gospel shall never be preached to them; be­cause he fore-sees, they shall and will live and die unfitted; now can it be said, that God is prepared to do that thing, which he is resolved in himself shall never be done? you may as well say, God is prepared to save the repro­bate angels and devils. Thus you see, there is cause enough for me to reject this limitation and addition to my Major: wherefore my Argument must stand as I framed it; without this their addition: and then it is strong and good to prove, that Christ died not for all men: and it is unan­swerable, their answer being con­futed. So far of my third Argu­ment.

ARGUM. IV.

If God the Son, died for the sins of [Page 27] all men; then God the Father, will justi­fie the persons, and pardon the sins of all men.

But God the Father, will not justifie the persons, and pardon the sins of all men: for if he should, then all men should be saved, Mark 16.16. Luke 13.3. Revel. 21.8.

Therefore God the Son, did not die for the sins of all men.

As for my Major, thus I prove it. 1 Arminians say, that by the word world, John 3.16. we are to under­stand, all men in the world: now if God the Father so exceedingly loved all men, as to give his onely begotten Son to die for them, John 3.16. then he can do no less than justifie the persons, and pardon the sins of all men: because, 1. He loved all men: and he gave his Son for none other end, but for all men to obtain justifi­cation, and pardon of sin: now sure­ly, God will not loose his love, nor fail of his end, nor waste and spill in vain, the bloud of his onely Son: all which he should do, if he should not justifie all men, after he had given his Son for them, and to justifie them. If it be in his power, will any wise [Page 28] man loose his love, be frustrated of his end, and spend all his labour and cost in vain?

2 Christ is the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, John 1.29. now if Christ hath taken away by his death, the sins of the world, that is, (as Arminians say) of all men; then God the Father, cannot retain their sins: those mens sins, which are removed or taken away, can­not be unpardoned or remain upon them: wherefore if Christ died for all men, and hath taken away the sins of all men, then surely God the Fa­ther, hath or will justifie and pardon the sins of all men, or else, Christ that Lamb hath not taken away their sins.

3 If God the Father, gave Christ his Son, to die and pacifie his wrath for the sins of all men, John 3.16. then God the Father, cannot but ac­cept of his sons death; it being ac­cording to his own will, and being his own gift: and if he accepts of it, then his wrath must needs be pacified for the sins of all men, and so he can­not denie to justifie all men, and par­don their sins.

[Page 29]4 God the Father, in giving his Son; and God the Son, in giving him­self, both aimed at one and the same end, namely justification and pardon of sin; and both aimed at the same persons for obtaining this end: or else, God the Father, and God the Son, were not both of one mind, but of diverse or contrary minds: where­fore, if God the Son died to obtain pardon of sins for all men, then God the Father, will vouchsafe pardon of sins to all men.

5 If God should not justifie all those men, for whom Christ died, he should be unjust: for Christ gave himself to death, as [...] a ransom for all men, as Arminians say, 1. Tim. 2.6. a ransom, is the full price for the redemption of a prisoner or captive: now when a king takes a ransom for a thousand captives, if he deliver not them all and every one, he is unjust: so God the Father, having taken and received at the hands of Christ, a full price and ransom, for the sins of all men, as Arminians say, he should be unjust, if he should not set free from sin, all and every man in the world. Furthermore, if God shall not justifie [Page 30] and set free all men, there will be fraud and folly imputed to God and Christ: for where there is fair and honest dealing, the buyer and the sel­ler are agreed upon the same terms, as if the buyer intendeth to have so many in number, be it ten, twentie, an hundred, or a thousand, the seller intendeth the same number also, and the same persons: or else there is fraud in the one, and folly in the o­ther: now Christ is the purchaser, and if he intended by his death to ransom all men, then God the Father, must intend the same, and must justifie and deliver from wrath even all men: He must in justice deliver as many as Christ bought, and the same persons, that is, all men in the world: or else, you impute fraud and folly to God and to Christ.

I shall inlarge my self upon this last Argument, by descending to some particulars, as thus; If God shall not justifie and save eternally Judas, Pharaoh, Cain, Corah and his wicked company, for whom Christ died, as say Arminians; then he shall be very un­just: this I thus prove: If Christ di­ed for Judas, Pharaoh, and other a­bominable [Page 31] wicked men; then have they suffered in this life, the full wrath of God for all their sins, and have made a sufficient and perfect satisfa­ction to Gods justice already here: for though they suffered not in this life in their own persons; yet if it be true, that Christ died for them, then they suffered in the person of Christ, when in this life he died on the Cross for them, which is to be reckoned as their own death and suffering. This I thus prove; Look what a mans surety per­forms for him, that is reckoned as done by himself: as, in case my surety payeth my debt, it is reckoned as my payment: for thereby I am dischar­ged. So if Christ paid the debt of Ju­das, Pharaoh and the rest, it is as if they had paid it in their own persons: and so they must be discharged. Hence it follows,

That since Judas and others, have suffered in the person of Christ, which is to be reckoned as their own suffer­ing, 1. That Judas and Pharaoh, have made a full and perfect satisfaction to Gods justice for all their sins, having suffered in this life the second death, and hell with the pains thereof, or [Page 32] what is equivalent thereunto. 2. That God must in justice, justifie and save this wicked crue eternally: or else he will be an unjust Judge: for he shall punish one sin twice, once in Christ the suretie, and once again in Judas the principal. So much for proof of my Major: as for my Minor, it needs no proof, it being so clear.

ARGUM. V.

If Christ died for all men, then God the Father loved all men, and that with a special and incomparable love. My reason here is; Because God the Fa­ther gave his Son, yea his onely Son to death for them: now for a Father to deliver up to death his Son, yea his onely Son, for a man; this bewrays love to that man, yea matches love. See a text for it, John 3.16. God so loved the world, that he gave his onely [Page 38] begotten Son, &c. What greater love than this did ever God shew to the world, than when he gave his onely begotten Son to die for them?

But God the Father did not love all men, with a special and incomparable love. This I thus prove: Because there are, and ever were many unbe­lieving wicked and impenitent men in the world, who lived and died in Gods hatred: I have loved Jacob, and have hated Esau, Rom. 9.13. and see Rom. 9.22. The wicked, and him that loveth iniquitie, doth his soul hate, Psal. 11.5. Thou hatest them that work ini­quitie, Psal. 5.5, 6.

Therefore Christ did not die for all men.

To avoid the strength of this Ar­gument, Arminians, perhaps, will an­swer thus, That God loved all men as sinners, but hateth them as impeni­tent sinners, &c. Hereunto I reply, That this is a distinction unheard of, and no where grounded in the Scri­ptures that I know of, and therefore it is to be rejected. That God loveth all men, as his creatures, may pass as a sound position; but that God loveth all men, as sinners, and that with an [Page 39] incomparable and matchles love, is to me most unsound: for a thing consi­dered as evil, is no object of love, but of hatred: and so much for my fifth Argument.

Thus I have by five Arguments proved, That Christ died not for all men: and so I have finished the first thing propounded at the beginning: and now I come to the second, which is to make answer unto the Texts of Scripture, brought by Arminians to prove, That Christ died for all men.