Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	believe_v	prove_v	see_v	2,220	5	3.2053	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A29082	A confutation of the Dutch-Arminian tenent of universal redemption with relation in special unto certain sectaries in England : by name, the Morians or Revelators, with others tracing them, who hold that Christ died for all men, good and bad / by Theoph. Brabourne.	Brabourne, Theophilus, b. 1590.	1651 (1651)	Wing B4089; ESTC R37451	38,222	107

it had been wo to all godly persons for as Paul saith of the godly and believing Corinthians that there was a time when they were ungodly and unjust as idolaters adulterers drunkards and extortioners c. 1. Cor. 6.9 10 11. so may I say there was a time before our conversion when we were ungodly and unjust if therefore Christ had not died for ungodly and unjust persons no godly man now living could possibly be saved Wherefore we must distinguish of ungodly persons thus There are some ungodly persons who are become believing and penitent godly persons and for these ungodly persons Christ died as the Text saith and of such the Text speaketh as is plain Rom. 5.6 8 10. but there are other ungodly persons who persist still even unto death in their ungodliness refusing to repent and believe now I denie that Christ died for these or that the Text is to be understood of these These are dogs and swine wherefore Christ the pearl is not to be given to these Matth. 7.6 Christ would not vouchsafe to pray for these John 17.9 and therefore he would not die for them and this is my Answer to this Text. Thus I have made answer to all the Texts of Scripture which seem to have any weight in them for the Arminian cause they have also some arguments as two or three but the one of them onely deserves an answer so passing by the other I shall here propound it and make answer to it you shall find it in their Acta Synodalia pag. 337. de Morte Christi ARGUMENT Whosoever are bound to believe in Christ Jesus for them Christ died But all men are bound to believe in Christ Jesus Therefore for all men Christ died As for the Major they prove it by this reason because if it be not true some men as those for whom Christ died not are bound to believe a lye or a falshood which is very absurd The Minor they prove by this Text John 3.19 36. Answer I denie their Major for it is not true that Christ died for all those men who are bound to believe in him that is to believe in him that he is the Son of God and Saviour of the world which is the right object of faith And as for the reason whereby they labour to prove their Major it is unsound for it leans upon an unsound though common description of justifying faith for they describe it thus Faith in Christ is a certain full or plerophorie perswation of the mind whereby we embrace Christ with this confidence that he died not onely for others but also for us or for me and my sins in particular This description however common yet is it unsound for it cannot be proved in Scripture for I no where find in the Scripture that the object of faith is to believe that Christ died for us or for thee and me in particular as they suppose in their Argument this I deny and they must prove it if they can and when they can The object of justifying and saving faith is to believe that Christ is the Son of God the Messias the Saviour of the world and the like and this is the current of the Scriptures every where in particular see John 20.31 These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is that Christ the Son of God and that in or so believing ye might have life c. All men may be bound to believe this and yet not bound to believe a lye or those for whom Christ died not may be bound to believe all this and yet not be bound to believe a lye or a falshood Now that the Scriptures do every where make this the object of faith that Christ is the Son of God the Messias the Saviour of the world and the like beside the Text alleadged John 20.31 See also these Texts Matth. 16.16 the object of S. Peters faith whereof he made confession unto and before Christ was this Thou art Christ the Son of the living God Acts 8.37 The object of the Eunuch's faith was the same I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God Acts 9.20 the sum of Pauls preaching to beget saving faith in men was this That Christ was that Son of God Acts 2.36 the sum of Peters sermon as touching Faith whereby he converted three thousand souls unto the faith was this That he whom they had crucified God had made him both Lord and Christ 1. John 5.5 who is he that overcometh the world but he who believeth that Jesus is that Son of God So you see the victorious faith is to believe that Christ is the Son of God Acts 17.3 4. Paul preached that Christ died and rose again and that this is Jesus Christ And by this sermon of Christ he won many to the faith as you may see in the fourth verse Acts 18.5 here you have another sermon of Pauls that Jesus was the Christ and this is the object of faith John 1.29 34. S. Johns sermon was this Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world c. and This is that Son of God John 1.49 50. Nathanaels confession of faith was this Thou art that Son of God John 4.7 25 29 39 42. The faith of the woman of Samaria and of other the Samaritanes was this that Jesus was the Messias and the Christ and that Jesus was that Christ the Saviour of the world John 11.27 the faith of Martha was that Christ was the Son of God Thus you see that according to the current of the Scriptures the object of faith is To believe that Christ is the Son of God the Saviour with the like now all men may be bound to believe these things of Christ and yet not be bound to believe a lye or those for whom Christ died not may be bound to believe these things of Christ and yet are not bound to believe a falshood nor hence will it follow that Christ died for them that are bound to believe this But I no where read that Christ required or that the Apostles preached for such a particular applicatorie faith as this That Christ is mine or that Christ died for our sins or that Christ died for thee or for me in particular I confess I read of Thomas his faith Iohn 20.28 saying Thou art my Lord and my God And of Pauls faith Gal. 2.20 saying Who hath loved me and given himself for me These indeed were acts of the two Apostles faith but I no where read that Christ required of every man this faith as necessary to salvation nor do I read that the Apostles or any one of them did preach this faith to the people when in their sermons they preached to beget men unto the faith wherefore I judge 1. That this kind of faith is proper unto Apostles and unto Christians of the highest form in the school of Christ and not common to every weak Christian for how then should they be saved since

many hundreds of weak Christians neither can nor dare say Christ is mine or Christ died for me in particular 2. I judge that this act or kind of faith is a consequent of justifying faith and may safely and comfortably be concluded and collected by strong Christians from it thus He that hath justifying faith Christ is his and Christ died for him But I in particular have justifying faith for I believe that Christ is the Son of God and the Saviour of the world and my faith is accompanied with good works as Sanctification and Mortification c. Therefore Christ is mine and Christ died for me in particular So much for clearing of my Answer and so much also for answer to their argument By this time we have finished these things propounded to be handled First we have by sundrie Arguments proved That Christ died not for all men Secondly we have answered all their Texts of Scripture and their Argument whereby they would prove the contrary Now in the third place we confute a common answer of Arminians which they give to a notable objection of ours The Confutation of a common Answer of Arminians which they give to a notable Objection of ours FIrst I shall propound our Objection Secondly I shall give you the Arminian answer And Thirdly I shall confute it in my Reply Objection If Christ died for Judas and all other wicked and ungodly men why are they not all saved how can any be damned for whom Christ died for if Christ died for them then have they suffered in this life in the person of Christ their suretie the torments of the next life which Christ upon the Cross bore for them and in their room and place now God having punished Judas and the rest in the person of Christ on the Cross in this life with the punishment due to the next life he cannot punish them again in the next life unless he be an unjust Judge punishing the same men for the same sins twice once in this life and once more in the next life and therefore Iudas and all other men must be saved if Christ died for all men Answer Hereunto Dutch and English Arminians both make this answer Iudas and the rest will not believe they refuse to believe in Christ and so to apply him and therefore God may justly damn them Joh. 3.18 Mark 16.16 see their Acta Synodalia de Morte Christi pag. 320. and this they endeavour to clear by some similitudes If a Physician tenders a potion to a patient he is not to be blamed if the patient will not receive it and apply it but the fault and blame is onely in the patient So if God offers Christ to Iudas and all other wicked men but they will not believe in him and apply him then the blame is theirs and so God is free of injustice though he damn them An other simily is this A King having many subjects in captivity under a forreign King payes a full and sufficient ransom for every one of them now many of those captives despise their liberty and chuse to live in captivity and bondage In this case there is no blame in the King but in the captives onely So God and Christ have ransomed all men but many men despise this ransom by refusing to believe and so choose to live in captivity and thraldom still wherefore if God keep them under everlasting thraldom he is not unjust or blameable but these despisers onely are blameable Reply I shall first deal with their answer and then with their similitudes I begin with their answer 1 Be it so that Judas doth not and will not believe but obstinately refuseth to believe yet this freeth not God of injustice if he damn Judas supposing that Christ died for Judas for clearing of this I ask Arminians whether Christ died for men considered as believers or as sinners and unbelievers Hereunto they will not say as believers for so they should justifie our Doctrine which is that Christ died for believers and for them onely wherefore they must answer that Christ died for men considered as sinners and without belief and so faith is no condition of impetration or of Christs death and ransom paid for men now if Christ impetrating and paying a ransom for men did it absolutely and without any condition or consideration of faith in them then for application God the Father cannot require faith in men before application or before he will apply Christ his death unto them in justification unless they will absurdly think that Christ and God were not of one and the same mind but were at odds and difference in the work of Redemption as if Christ should buy and purchase us absolutely without a condition but God should sell us upon a condition so absurdly they should think the buyer and seller should be at odds and not agreed both upon the same terms now since it must follow that if Christ died for Iudas without respect to faith in him then God cannot but justifie and save Iudas without regard to faith in him then though Judas doth not believe and wilfully refuseth to believe yet God cannot in justice damn him for his not believing because when Christ bought Iudas of God the Father and God the Father sold Iudas to Christ there was no condition of faith intended betwixt them and therefore Iudas must be saved If you say that Christ died for Iudas then God cannot require faith of him so as he should for his infidelity in justice damn punish him in the next life God cannot be so unjust as to punish one man twice for his sins as once in Christ his surety and once again in himself the principal one debt must not be twice payed wherefore to alleadge a reason from Iudas his unbelief why God may damn him in the next life is to alleadge a reason why God may deal unjustly in the next life Now what they should say to this I cannot devise unless they will distinguish of Iudas his sins and so make an hotchpotch of the work of Redemption saying that Christ died for some of Iudas his sins but not for all as not for his unbelief and then it will follow that Christ is made an half Saviour or a partial Saviour and Christ died for some of Iudas his sins and Iudas dieth for other some of his sins and Christ died for all Iudas his sins save that one of unbelief and Iudas is now in Hell for no sins committed but suffers onely for one sin namely his unbelief these are absurd and groundless fantasies never broched by any Christian man unless Arminians will be the first 2. So saying they contradict themselves For if Christ died not for unbelief then he died not for all men for many men are unbelievers 2. Thes 3.2 Christs death was for believers or for unbelievers we say it was for believers ergo they must hold that it was for unbelievers So much touching their answer and

is to punish twice over for the same sins which is an act of injustice in God now this must be so if you distinguish of impetration and application in such sort as they concurr not in the same persons but are divided so as impetration belongs unto unbelievers but application belongs not to them for if application and justification belongs not to them then they must suffer punishment for their sins in the next life and so God shall be unjust for after he hath punished unbelievers in Christ their suretie he shall punish them again in their own persons so you see impetration and application are not to be distinguished in respect of persons as if the one belonged to some persons but not the other unless you will make God to be an unjust Judge 3 I shall confute this distinction by a Text of Scripture understanding it in the Arminian sence see 2. Cor. 5.15 19. In verse 15. speaking of Christ and his death it saith one died for all c. Here I understand the word all in the Arminian sense and then in verse 19. it speaketh again of Christ and his death saying God was in Christ that is in Christ upon the Cross when he died for all and reconciled the world unto himself not imputing their sins unto them So here you have the impetration of Christs death and the application of it in reconciliation and not imputation of sins now here application is made as large as impetration and to belong unto the same persons without distinction or division for those all which Christ died for were all of them reconciled to God and justified their sins not being imputed unto them the same world which Christ died for John 3.16 the same was reconciled and had no sins imputed to them So S. Paul did not allow of this Arminian distinction and division of impetration and application in the Arminian sense so as impetration should be understood more largely for persons than application or as if impetration had been for all men and application but for some men 4 This distinction is guiltie yet of another absurditie for it makes the means of faith to be used altogether too late and so to become an unprofitable and frivolous means for Arminians make faith to be a means to avoid an evil after the evil is past They say Christ by his impetration suffered the evil of death for unbelievers now in as much as Christ suffered death and bore the evil of punishment of unbelievers for them and in their stead and room they themselves have suffered death and bore the evil of punishment in the person of Christ now after unbelievers have born the evil of punishment it is too late to use faith as a means to obtain application and justification and a freedom from the evil of punishment for thus they should use a means to avoid an evil after the evil is past and so the means of faith is made unprofitable and frivolous wherefore should I use any means to avoid imprisonment when my Suretie hath suffered imprisonment for me were not means in this case frivolous If Christ did impetrate and die for Iudas and in his stead then Iudas hath suffered death by his Suretie Christ what need then is there of faith in Judas as a means to obtain application and freedom from death after he hath suffered death as by his Suretie This is as if a Judge should hang a man for his offence and then require him to use means to free himself from death And so much for confutation of this distinction of Impetration and Application FINIS