THE DEATH OF DEATH IN THE DEATH OF CHRIST
A TREATISE OF
THE REDEMPTION AND RECONCILIATION THAT IS IN THE BLOOD 0F CHRIST, WITH THE
MERIT THEREOF, AND SATISFACTION WROUGHT THEREBY.
CHAPTER I.
Some previous considerations to a more
particular inquiry after the proper end and effect of the death of Christ.
The main thing upon which the whole
controversy about the death of Christ turneth, and upon which the greatest
weight of the business dependeth, comes next to our consideration, being that
which we have prepared the way unto by all that hath been already said. It is
about the proper end of the death of Christ; which whoso can rightly constitute
and make manifest may well be admitted for a day's-man and umpire in the whole
contestation: for if it be the end of Christ's death which most of our
adversaries assign, we will not deny but that Christ died for all and every
one; and if that be the end of it which we maintain so to be, they will not extend
it beyond the elect, beyond believers. This, then, must be fully cleared and
solidly confirmed by them who hope for any success in their undertakings. The
end of the death of Christ we asserted, in the beginning of our discourse, to
be our approximation or drawing nigh unto God; that being a general expression
for the whole reduction and recovery of sinners from the state of alienation,
misery, and wrath, into grace, peace, and eternal communion with him. Now,
there being a twofold end in things, one of the worker, the other of the work
wrought, we have manifested how that, unless it be either for want of wisdom
and certitude of mind in the agent, in choosing and using unsuitable means for
the attaining of the end proposed, or for want of skill and power to make use
of and rightly to improve well proportioned means to the best advantage, these
things are always coincident; the work effecteth what the workman intendeth. In
the business in hand, the agent is the blessed Three in One, as was before
declared; and the means whereby they collimed and aimed at the end proposed
were the oblation and intercession of Jesus Christ, which are united, intending
the same object, as was also cleared. Now, unless we will blasphemously ascribe
want of wisdom, power, perfection, and sufficiency in working unto the agent,
or affirm that the death and intercession of Christ were not suitable and
proportioned for the attaining the end proposed by it to be effected, we must
grant that the end of these is one and the same. Whatsoever the blessed Trinity
intended by them, that was effected; and whatsoever we find in the issue
ascribed unto thein, that by them the blessed Trinity intended. So that we
shall have no cause to consider these apart, unless it be sometimes to argue
from the one to the other; -- as, where we find any thing ascribed to the death
of Christ, as the fruit thereof, we may conclude that that God intended to
effect by it; and so also on the contrary.
Now, the end of the death of Christ is
either supreme and ultimate, or intermediate and subservient to that last end.
1. The first is the glory of God, or
the manifestation of his glorious attributes, especially of his justice, and
mercy tempered with justice, unto us. The Lord doth necessarily aim at himself
in the first place, as the chiefest good, yea, indeed, that alone which is
good; that is, absolutely and simply so, and not by virtue of communication
from another: and therefore in all his works, especially in this which we have
in hand, the chiefest of all, he first intends the manifestation of his own
glory; which also he fully accomplisheth in the close, to every point and
degree by him intended. He "maketh all things for himself," Prov.
xvi. 4; and every thing in the end must "redound to the glory of
God," 2 Cor. iv. 15; wherein Christ himself is said to be
"God's," 1 Cor. iii. 23, serving to his glory in that whole
administration that was committed to him. So, Eph. i. 6, the whole end of all
this dispensation, both of choosing us from eternity, redeeming us by Christ,
blessing us with all spiritual blessings in him, is affirmed to be "the
praise of the glory of his grace;" and, verse 12, "That we should be
to the praise of his glory." This is the end of all the benefits we
receive by the death of Christ; for "we are filled with the fruits of
righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of
God," Phil. i. 11; -- which also is fully asserted, chap. ii. 11,
"That every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory
of God the Father." This the apostle fully clears in the ninth to the
Romans, where he so asserts the supreme dominion and independency of God in all
his actions, his absolute freedom from taking rise, cause, or occasion to his
purposes, from any thing among us sons of men, doing all things for his own
sake, and aiming only at his own glory. And this is that which in' the close of
all shall be accomplished, when every creature shall say, "Blessing, and
honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and
unto the Lamb for ever and ever," Rev. v. 13.
2. There is an end of the death of
Christ which is intermediate and subservient to that other, which is the last
and most supreme, even the sects which it hath in respect of us, and that is it
of which we now treat; which, as we before affirmed, is the bringing of us unto
God. Now, this, though in reference to the oblation and intercession of Christ
it be one entire end, yet in itself, and in respect of the relation which the
several acts therein have one to another, may be considered distinctly in two
parts, whereof one is the end and the other the means for the attaining of that
end; both the complete end of the mediation of Christ in respect of us. The
ground and cause of this is the appointment of the Lord that there should be
such a connection and coherence between the things purchased for us by Jesus
Christ, that the one should be a means and way of attaining the other,-- the
one the condition, and the other the thing promised upon that condition, but
hath equally and alike procured for us by Jesus Christ; for if either be
omitted in his purchase, the other would be vain and fruitless, as we shall
afterward declare. Now, both these consist in a communication of God and his
goodness unto us (and our participation of him by virtue thereof); and that
either to grace or glory, holiness or blessedness, faith or salvation. In this
last way they are usually called, faith being the means of which we speak, and
salvation the end; faith the condition, salvation the promised inheritance.
Under the name of faith we comprise all saving grace that accompanies it; and
under the name of salvation, the whole " glory to be revealed," the
liberty of the glory of the children of God, Rom. viii., 18, 21,-- all that
blessedness which consisteth in an eternal fruition of the blessed God. With
faith go all the effectual means thereof, both external and internal; -- the
word and almighty sanctifying Spirit; all advancement of state and condition
attending it, as justification, reconciliation, and adoption into the family of
God; all fruits flowing from it in sanctification and universal holiness; with
all other privileges and enjoyments of believers here, which follow the
redemption and reconciliation purchased for them by the oblation of Christ. A
real, effectual, and infallible bestowing and applying of all these things,--
as well those that are the means as those that are the end, the condition as
the thing conditioned about, faith and grace as salvation and glory,-- unto all
and every one for whom he died, do we maintain to be the end proposed and
effected by the blood-shedding of Jesus Christ, with those other acts of his
mediatorship which we before declared to be therewith inseparably conjoined: so
that every one for whom he died and offered up himself hath, by virtue of his
death or oblation, a right purchased for him unto all these things, which in
due time he shall certainly and infallibly enjoy; or (which is all one), the
end of Christ's obtaining grace and glory with his Father was, that they might
be certainly bestowed upon all those for whom he died, some of them upon
condition that they do believe, but faith itself absolutely upon no condition
at all. All which we shall farther illustrate and confirm, after we have
removed some false ends assigned.
CHAPTER II.
Containing a removal of some mistakes and
false assignations of the end of the death of Christ.
THAT the death, oblation, and
blood-shedding of Jesus Christ is to be considered as the means for the compassing
of an appointed end was before abundantly declared; and that such a means as is
not in itself any way desirable but for the attaining of that end. Now, because
that which is the end of any thing must also be good, for unless it be so it
cannot be an end (for bonumet finis convertuntur), it must be either his
Father's good, or his own good, or our good, which was the end proposed.
I. That it was not merely his own is
exceedingly apparent. For in his divine nature he was eternally and essentially
partaker of all that glory which is proper to the Deity; which though in
respect of us it be capable of more or less manifestation, yet in itself it is
always alike eternally and absolutely perfect. And in this regard, at the close
of all, he desires and requests no other glory but that which he had with his
Father "before the world was," John xvii. 5. And in respect of his
human nature, as he was eternally predestinated, without any foresight of doing
or suffering, to be personally united, from the instant of his conception, with
the second person of the Trinity, so neither while he was in the way did he
merit any thing for himself by his death and oblation. He needed not to suffer
for himself, being perfectly and legally righteous; and the glory that he aimed
at, by "enduring the cross, and despising the shame," was not so much
his own, in respect of possession, by the exaltation of his own nature, as the
bringing of many children to glory, even as it was in the promise set before
him, as we before at large declared. His own exaltation, indeed, and power over
all flesh, and his appointment to be Judge of the quick and the dead, was a
consequent of his deep humiliation and suffering; but that it was the effect
and product of it, procured meritoriously by it, that it was the end aimed at
by him in his making satisfaction for sin, that we deny. Christ hath a power
and dominion over all, but the foundation of this dominion is not in his death
for all; for he hath dominion over all things, being appointed " heir of
them, and upholding them all by the word of his power," Heb. i. 2, 3.
"He is set over the works of God's hands, and all things are put in
subjection under him," chap. ii. 7, 8. And what are those "all
things," or what are amongst them, you may see in the place of the
psalmist from whence the apostle citeth these words, Ps. viii. 5 -- 8. And did
he die for all these things? Nay, hath he not power over the angels? are not
principalities and powers made subject to him? Shall he not at the last day
judge the angels? for with him the saints shall do it, by giving attestation to
his righteous judgments, l. Cor. vi. 2, 3; -- and yet, is it not expressly said
that the angels have no share in the whole dispensation of God manifested in
the flesh, so as to die for them to redeem them from their sins? of which some
had no need, and the others are eternally excluded: Heb. ii. 16, "He took
not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham,"
God setting him "king upon his holy hill of Zion," in despite of his
enemies, to bruise them and to rule them "with a rod of iron," Ps.
ii. 6, 9, is not the immediate effect of his death for them, but rather all
things are given into his hand out of the immediate love of the Father to his
Son, John iii. 35; Matt. xi. 27. That is the foundation of all this sovereignty
and dominion over all creatures, with this power of judging that is put into
his hand.
Besides, be it granted (which cannot
be proved) that Christ by his death did precure this power of judging, would any
thing hence follow that might be beneficial to the proving of the general
ransom for all? No, doubtless; this dominion and power of judging is a power of
condemning as well as saving; it is "all judgment" that is committed
to him, John v. 22. "He hath authority given unto him to execute judgment,
because he is the Son of man;" that is, at that hour " when all that
are in their graves shall hear his voice and come forth; they that have done
good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, to the
resurrection of condemnation," verses 27 -- 29; 2 Cor. v. 10. Now, can it
be reasonably asserted that Christ died for men to redeem them, that he might
have power to condemn? Nay, do not these two overthrow one another? If he
redeemed thee by his death, then he did not aim at the obtaining of any power
to condemn thee; if he did the latter, then that former was not in his
intention.
II. Nor, secondly, was it his Father's
good. I speak now of the proximate and immediate end and product of the death
of Christ, not of the ultimate and remote, knowing that the supreme end of
Christ's oblation, and all the benefits purchased and procured by it, was
"the praise of his glorious grace;" but for this other, it doth not
directly tend to the obtaining of any thing unto God, but of all good things
from God to us. Arminius, with his followers, with the other Universalists of
our days, affirm this to be the end proposed, that God might, his justice being
satisfied, save sinners, the hinderance being removed by the satisfaction of
Christ. He had by his death obtained a right and liberty of pardoning sin upon
what condition he pleased: so that, after the satisfaction of Christ yielded
and considered, "integrum Deo fuit" (as his words are), it was wholly
in God's free disposal whether he would eave any or no; and upon what condition
he would, whether of faith or of works "God," say they, "had a
good mind and will to do good to human kind, but could not by reason of sin,
his justice lying in the way; whereupon he sent Christ to remove that obstacle,
that so he might, upon the prescribing of what condition he pleased, and its
being by them fulfilled, have mercy on them," Now, because in this they
place the chief, if not the sole, end of the oblation of Christ, I must a little
show the falseness and folly of it; which may be done plainly by these
following reasons: --
First, The foundation of this whole
assertion seems to me to be false and erroneous,-- namely, that God could not
have mercy on mankind unless satisfaction were made by his Son. It is true,
indeed, supposing the decree, purpose, and constitution of God that so it
should be, that so he would manifest his glory, by the way of vindicative
justice, it was impossible that it should otherwise be; for with the Lord there
is "no variableness, neither shadow of turning," James i. 17; 1 Sam.
xv. 29: but to assert positively, that absolutely and antecedently to his
constitution he could not have done it, is to me an unwritten tradition, the
Scripture affirming no such thing, neither can it be gathered from thence in
any good consequence. If any one shall deny this, we will try what the Lord
will enable us to say unto it, and in the meantime rest contented in that of
Augustine: "Though other ways of saving us were not wanting to his
infinite wisdom, yet certainly the way which he did proceed in was the most
convenient, because we find he proceeded therein."
Secondly, This would make the cause of
sending his Son to die to be a common love, or rather wishing that, he might do
good or show mercy to all, and not an entire act of his will or purpose, of
knowing, redeeming, and saving his elect; which we shall afterward disprove.
Thirdly, If the end of the death of
Christ were to acquire a right to his Father, that notwithstanding his justice
he might save sinners, then did he rather die to redeem a liberty unto God than
a liberty from evil unto us,-- that his Father might be enlarged from that
estate wherein it was impossible for him to do that which he desired, and which
his nature inclined him to, and not that we might be freed frown that condition
wherein, without this freedom purchased, it could not be but we must perish. If
this be so, I see no reason why Christ should be said to come and redeem his
people from their sins; but rather, plainly, to purchase this right and liberty
for his Father. Now, where is there any such assertion, wherein is any thing of
this nature in the Scripture? Doth the Lord say that he sent his Son out of
love to himself, or unto us? Is God or are men made the immediate subject of
good attained unto by this oblation? Rep. But it is said, that although
immediately, and in the first place, this right did arise unto God by the death
of Christ, yet that that also was to tend to our good, Christ obtaining that
right, that the Lord might now bestow mercy on us, if we fulfilled the
condition that he would propose. But I answer, that this utterly overthrows all
the merit of the death of Christ towards us, and leaves not so much as the
nature of merit unto it; for that which is truly meritorious indeed deserves
that the thing merited, or procured and obtained by it, shall be done, or ought
to be bestowed, and not only that it may be done. There is such a habitude and
relation between merit and the thing obtained by it, whether it be absolute or
arising on contract, that there ariseth a real right to the thing procured by
it in them by whom or for whom it is procured. When the labourer hath wrought
all day, do we say, "Now his wages may be paid,"or rather, "Now
they ought to be paid"? Hath he not a right unto it? Was ever such a merit
heard of before, whose nature should consist in this, that the thing procured
by it might be bestowed, and not that it ought to be? And shall Christ be said
now to purchase by his meritorious oblation this only at his Father's hand,
that he might bestow upon and apply the fulness of his death to some or all,
and not that he should so do "To him that worketh," saith the
apostle, " is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt," Rom.
iv. 4. Are not the fruits of the death of Christ by his death as truly procured
for us as if they had been obtained by our own working? And if so, though in
respect of the persons on whom they are bestowed they are of free grace, yet in
respect of the purchase, the bestowing of them is of debt.
Fourthly, That cannot be assigned as
the complete end of the death of Christ, which being accomplished, it had not
only been possible that not one soul might be saved, but also impossible that
by virtue of it any sinful soul should be saved; for sure the Scripture is
exceedingly full in declaring that through Christ we have remission of sins,
grace, and glory (as afterward). But now, notwithstanding this, that Christ is
said to have procured and purchased by his death such a right and liberty to
his Father, that he might bestow eternal life upon all upon what conditions he
would, it might very well stand that not one of those should enjoy eternal
life: for suppose the Father would not bestow it, as he is by no engagement,
according to this persuasion, bound to do (he had a right to do it, it is true,
but that which is any one's right he may use or not use at his pleasure);
again, suppose he had prescribed a condition of works which it had been
impossible for them to fulfil; -- the death of Christ might have had its full
end, and yet not one been saved. Was this his coming to save sinners, to
"save that which was lost?" or could he, upon such an accomplishment
as this, pray as he did, "Father, I will that those whom thou hast given
me be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory?" John xvii. 24.
Divers other reasons might be used to evert this fancy, that would make the
purchase of Christ, in respect of us, not to be the remission of sins, but a
possibility of it; not salvation, but a salvability; not reconciliation and
peace with God, but the opening of a door towards it; -- but I shall use them
in assigning the right end of the death of Christ.
Ask now of these, what it is that the
Father can do, and will do, upon the death of Chris", by which means his
justice, that before hindered the execution of his good-will towards them, is
satisfied? and they tell you it is the entering into a new covenant of grace
with them, upon the performance of whose condition they shall have all the
benefits of the death of Christ applied to them. But to us it seemeth that
Christ himself, with his death and passion, is the chief promise of the new
covenant itself, as Gen. iii. 15; and so the covenant cannot be said to be
procured by his death. Besides, the nature of the covenant overthrows this
proposal, that they that are covenanted withal shall have such and such good
things if they fulfil the condition, as though that all depended on this
obedience, when that obedience itself, and the whole condition of it, is a
promise of the covenant, Jer. xxxi. 83, which is confirmed and sealed by the
blood of Christ. We deny not but that the death of Christ hath a proper end in
respect of God,-- to wit, the manifestation of his glory; whence he calls him
"his servant, in whom he will be glorified," Isa. xlix.3. And the
bringing of many sons to glory, wherewith he was betrusted, was to the
manifestation and praise of his glorious grace; that so his love to his elect
might gloriously appear, his salvation being borne out by Christ to the utmost
parts of the earth. And this full declaration of his glory, by the way of mercy
tempered with justice (for "he set forth Christ to be a propitiation
through faith in his blood, that he might be just, and the justifier of him
that believeth in Jesus," Rom. iii. 25, 26), is all that which accrued to
the Lord by the death of his Son, and not any right and liberty of doing that
which before he would have done, but could not for his justice. In respect of
us, the end of the oblation and blood-shedding of Jesus Christ was, not that
God might if he would, but that he shouldst, by virtue of that compact and
covenant which was the foundation of the merit of Christ, bestow upon us all
the good things which Christ aimed at and intended to purchase and procure by
his offering of himself for us unto God; which is in the next place to be
declared.
CHAPTER III.
More particularly of the immediate end of
the death of Christ, with the several ways whereby it is designed.
WHAT the Scripture affirms in this
particular we laid down in the entrance of the whole discourse; which now,
having enlarged in explication of our sense and meaning therein, must be more
particularly asserted, by an application of the particular places (which are
very many) to our thesis as before declared, whereof this is the sum: --
"Jesus Christ., according to the counsel and will of his Father, did offer
himself upon the cross, to the procurement of those things before recounted;
and maketh continual intercession with this intent and purpose, that all the
good things so procured by his death might be actually and infallibly bestowed
on and applied to all and every one for whom he died, according to the will and
counsel of God." Let us now see what the Scripture saith hereunto, the
sundry places whereof we shall range under these heads: -- First, Those that
hold out the intention and counsel of God, with our Saviour's own mind; whose
will was one with his Father's in this business. Secondly, Those that lay down
the actual accomplishment or effect of his oblation, what it did really
procure, effect, and produce. Thirdly, Those that point out the persons for
whom Christ died, as designed peculiarly to be the object of this work of
redemption in the end and purpose of God.
I. For the first, or those which hold
out the counsel, purpose, mind, intention, and will of God and our Saviour in
this work: Matt. xviii. 11, "The Son of man is come to save that which was
lost;" which words he repeateth again upon another occasion, Luke xix. 10.
In the first place, they are in the front of the parable of seeking the lost
sheep; in the other, they are in the close of the recovery of lost Zaccheus;
and in both places set forth the end of Christs-coming, which was to do the
will of his Father by the recovery of lost sinners: and that as Zaccheus was
recovered by conversion, by bringing into the free covenant, making him a son
of Abraham, or as the lost sheep which he lays upon his shoulder and bringeth
home; so unless he findeth that which he seeketh for, unless he recover that
which he cometh to save, he faileth of his purpose.
Secondly, Matt. i. 21, where the angel
declareth the end of Christ's coming in the flesh, and consequently of all his
sufferings therein, is to the same purpose. He was to "save his people
from their sins." Whatsoever is required for a complete and perfect saving
of his peculiar people from their sins was intended by his coming' To say that
he did but in part or in some regard effect the work of salvation, is of ill
report to Christian ears.
Thirdly, The like expression is that
also of Paul, 1 Tim. i. 15, evidently declaring the end of our Saviour's
coming, according to the will and counsel of his Father, namely, to "save
sinners;" -- not to open a door for them to come in if they will or can;
not to make a way passable, that they may be saved; not to purchase
reconciliation and pardon of his Father, which perhaps they shall never enjoy;
but actually to save them from all the guilt and power of sin, and from the
wrath of God for sin: which, if he doth not accomplish, he fails of the end of
his coming; and if that ought not to be alarmed, surely he came for no more
than towards whom that effect is procured. The compact of his Father with him,
and his promise made unto him, of "seeing his seed, and carrying along the
pleasure of the LORD prosperously," Isa. liii 10 -- 12, I before declared;
from which it is apparent that the decree and purpose of giving actually unto
Christ a believing generation, whom he calleth " The children that God
gave him," Heb. ii 18, is inseparably annexed to the decree of Christ's
"making his soul an offering for sin," and is the end and aim
thereof.
Fourthly, As the apostle farther
declareth, Heb. ii 14, 15, "Forasmuch as the children are partakers of
flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through
death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and
deliver them who through fear of death," etc. Than which words nothing can
more clearly set forth the entire end of that whole dispensation of the
incarnation and offering of Jesus Christ,-- even a deliverance of the children
whom God gave him from the power of death, hell, and the devil, so bringing
them nigh unto God. Nothing at all of the purchasing of a possible deliverance
for all and every one; nay, all are not those children which God gave him, all
are not delivered from death and him that had the power of it: and therefore it
was not all for whom he then took flesh and blood.
Fifthly, The same purpose and
intention we have, Eph. v. 25 -- 27, "Christ loved the church, and gave
himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water
by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having
spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without
blemish:" as also, Tit. ii. 14, "He gave himself for us, that he
might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people,
zealous of good works." I think nothing can be clearer than these two
places; nor is it possible for the wit of man to invent expressions so fully
and livelily to set out the thing we intend, as it is in both these places by
the Holy Ghost. What did Christ do? "He gave himself," say both these
places alike: "For his church," saith one; "For us," saith
the other; both words of equal extent and force, as all men know. To what end
did he this? "To sanctify and cleanse it, to present it to himself a
glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle," saith he to the Ephesians;
"To redeem us from all iniquity, and to purify unto himself a peculiar
people, zealous of good works," saith he to Titus. I ask now, Are all men
of this church? Are all in that rank of men among whom Paul placeth himself and
Titus? Are all purged, purified, sanctified, made glorious, brought nigh unto
Christ? or doth Christ fail in his aim towards the greatest part of men? I dare
not close with any of these.
Sixthly, Will you hear our Saviour
Christ himself expressing this more evidently, restraining the object,
declaring his whole design and purpose, and affirming the end of his death?
John xvii. 19, "For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be
sanctified through the truth." "For their sakes." Whose, I pray?
"The men whom thou hast given me out of the world," verse 6. Not the
whole world, whom he prayed not for, verse 9. "I sanctify myself."
Whereunto? "To the work I am now going about, even to be an
oblation." And to what end? --" That they also may be truly
sanctified." "That they," signifies the intent and purpose of
Christ,-- it designs out the end he aimed at,-- which our hope is (and that is
the hope of the gospel), that he hath accomplished ("for the Deliverer
that cometh out of Sion turneth away ungodliness from Jacob," Rom. xi.
26); -- and that herein there was a concurrence of the will of his Father, yea,
that this his purpose was to fulfil the will of his Father, which he come to
do.
Seventhly, And that this also was his
counsel is apparent, Gal. i. 4; for our Lord Jesus "gave himself for our
sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the
will of God and our Father;" which will and purpose of his the apostle
farther declares, chap. iv. 4 -- 6, "God sent forth his Son, made of a
woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we
might receive the adoption of sons;" and, because sons, our deliverance
from the law, and thereby our freedom from the guilt of sin. Our adoption to
sons, receiving the Spirit, and drawing nigh unto God, are all of them in the
purpose of the Father giving his only Son for us.
Eighthly, I shall add but one place
more, of the very many more that might be cited to this purpose, and that is 2
Cor. v. 21, "He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we
might be made the righteousness of God in him." The purpose of God in
making his Son to be sin is, that those for whom he was made sin might become
righteousness; that was the end of God's sending Christ to be so, and Christ's
willingness to become so. Now, if the Lord did not purpose what is not
fulfilled, yea, what he knew should never be fulfilled, and what he would not
work at all that it might be fulfilled (either of which are most atheistical
expressions), then he made Christ sin for no more than do in the effect become
actually righteousness in him: so that the counsel and will of God, with the
purpose and intention of Christ, by his oblation and blood-shedding, was to
fulfil that will and counsel, is from these places made apparent.
From all which we draw this argument:
-- That which the Father and the Son intended to accomplish in and towards all
those for whom Christ died, by his death that is most certainly effected (if
any shall deny this proposition, I will at any time, by the Lord's assistance,
take up the assertion of it;) but the Father and his Son intended by the death
of Christ to redeem, purge, sanctify, purify, deliver from death, Satan, the
curse of the law, to quit of all sin, to make righteousness in Christ, to bring
nigh unto God, all those for whom he died, as was above proved: therefore,
Christ died for all and only those in and towards whom all these things
recounted are effected; -- which, whether they are all and. every one, I leave
to all and every one to judge that hath any knowledge in these things.
II. The second rank contains those
places which lay down the actual accomplishment and effect of this oblation, or
what it doth really produce and effect in and towards them for whom it is an
oblation. Such are Heb. ix. 12, 14, "By his own blood he entered in once
into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us...., The blood
of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God,
purge your consciences from dead works to serve the living God." Two
things are here ascribed to the blood of Christ; -- one referring to God,
" It obtains eternal redemption;" the other respecting us, "It
purgeth our consciences from dead works:" so that justification with God,
by procuring for us an eternal redemption from the guilt of our sins and his
wrath due unto them, with sanctification in ourselves (or, as it is called,
Heb. i. 3, a "purging our sins"), is the immediate product of that
blood by which he entered into the holy place, of that oblation which, through
the eternal Spirit, he presented unto God. Yea, this meritorious purging of our
sins is peculiarly ascribed to his offering, as performed before his ascension:
Heb. i. 3, "When he had by himself purged our sins, he sat down on the
right hand of the Majesty on high;" and again, most expressly, chap. ix.
26, "He hath appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself:"
which expiation, or putting away of sin by the way of sacrifice, must needs be
the actual sanctification of them for whom he was a sacrifice, even as
"the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the
unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh," verse 13. Certain it
is, that whosoever was either polluted or guilty, for whom there was an
expiation and sacrifice allowed in those carnal ordinances, "which had a
shadow of good things to come," had truly; -- first, A legal cleansing and
sanctifying, to the purifying of the flesh; and, secondly, Freedom from the
punishment which was due to the breach of the law, as it was the rule of
conversation to God's people: so much his sacrifice carnally accomplished for
him that was admitted thereunto. Now, these things being but "shadows of
good things to come," certainly the sacrifice of Christ did effect
spiritually, for all them for whom it was a sacrifice, whatever the other could
typify out; that is, spiritual cleansing by sanctification, and freedom from
the guilt of sin: which the places produced do evidently prove. Now, whether
this be accomplished in all and for them all, let all that are able judge.
Again; Christ, by his death, and in
it, is said to "bear our sins:" so 1 Pet. ii. 24, "His own self
bare our sins;" -- where you have both what he did, " Bare our
sins" (he carried them up with him upon the cross); and what he intended,
"That we being dead unto sins, should live unto righteousness." And
what was the effect? "By his stripes we are healed:" which latter, as
it is taken from the same place of the prophet where our Saviour is affirmed to
"bear our iniquities, and to have them laid upon him" (Isa. liii, 5,
6, 10 -- 12), so it is expository of the former, and will tell us what Christ
did by "bearing our sins;" which phrase is more than once used in the
Scripture to this purpose. 1. Christ, then, so bare our iniquities by his
death, that, by virtue of the stripes and afflictions which he underwent in his
offering himself for us, this is certainly procured and effected, that we
should go free, and not suffer any of those things which he underwent for us.
To which, also, you may refer all those places which evidently hold out a
commutation in this point of suffering between Christ and us: Gal. iii. 13,
"He delivered us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us;"
with divers others which we shall have occasion afterward to mention.
Peace, also, and reconciliation with
God,-- that is, actual peace by the removal of all enmity on both sides, with
all the causes of it,-- is fully ascribed to this oblation: Col. i 21, 22,
"And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked
works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to
present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in his sight;" as also
Eph. ii. 13 -- 16, "Ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the
blood of Christ: for he is our peace; having abolished in his flesh the enmity,
even the law of commandments, that he might reconcile both unto God in one body
by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby." To which add all those
places wherein plenary deliverances from anger, wrath, death, and him that had
the power of it, is likewise asserted as the fruit thereof, as Rom. v. 8 -- 10,
and ye have a farther discovery made of the immediate effect of the death of
Christ. Peace and reconciliation, deliverance from wrath, enmity, and whatever
lay against us to keep us from enjoying the love and favour of God,-- a
redemption from all these he effected for his church "with his own
blood," Acts xx. 28. Whence all and every one for whom he died may truly
say, "Who shall lay any thing to our charge? It is God that justifieth.
Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen
again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for
us," Rom. viii. 33, 84. Which that they are procured for all and every one
of the sons of Adam, that they all may use that rejoicing in full assurance,
cannot be made appear. And yet evident it is that so it is with all for whom he
died,-- that these are the effects of his death in and towards them for whom he
underwent it: for by his being slain "he redeemed them to God by his
blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and made them
unto our God kings and priests," Rev. v. 9, 10; for "he made an end
of their sins, he made reconciliation for their iniquity, and brought in
everlasting righteousness," Dan. ix. 24.
Add also those other places where our
life is ascribed to the death of Christ, and then this enumeration will be perfect:
John vi. 33, He "came down from heaven to give life to the world."
Sure enough he giveth life to that world for which he gave his life. It is the
world of " his sheep, for which he layeth down his life," chap. x.
15, even that he might " give unto them eternal life, that they might
never perish," verse 28. So he appeared "to abolish death, and to
bring life and immortality to light," 2 Tim. i. 10; as also Rom. v. 6 --
10.
Now, there is none of all these places
but will afford a sufficient strength against the general ransom, or the
universality of the merit of Christ. My leisure will not serve for so large a
prosecution of the subject as that would require, and, therefore, I shall take
from the whole this general argument: -- If the death and oblation of Jesus
Christ (as a sacrifice to his Father) doth sanctify all them for whom it was a
sacrifice; doth purge away their sin; redeem them from wrath, curse, and guilt;
work for them peace and reconciliation with God; procure for them life and
immortality; bearing their iniquities and healing all their diseases; -- then
died he only for those that are in the event sanctified, purged, redeemed,
justified, freed from wrath and death, quickened, saved, etc.; but that all are
not thus sanctified, freed, etc., is most apparent: and, therefore, they cannot
be said to be the proper object of the death of Christ. The supposal was
confirmed before; the inference is plain from Scripture and experience, and the
whole argument (if I mistake not) solid.
III. Many places there are that point
out the persons for whom Christ died, as designed peculiarly to be the object
of this work of redemption, according to the aim and purpose of God; some of
which we will briefly recount. In some places they are called many: Matt. xxvi.
28, "The blood of the new testament is shed for many, for the remission of
sins." "By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, for
he shall bear their iniquities," Isa. liii. 11. "The Son of man came
not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and give his life a ransom for
many," Mark x. 45; Matt. xx. 28. He was to "bring many sons unto
glory;" and so was to be the "captain of their salvation, through
sufferings," Heb. ii. 10. And though perhaps the word many itself be not sufficient
to restrain the object of Christ's death unto some, in opposition to all,
because many is sometimes placed absolutely for all, as Rom. v. 19, yet these
many being described in other places to be such as it is most certain all are
not, so it is a full and evident restriction of it: for these many are the
"sheep" of Christ, John x. 15; the "children of God that were
scattered abroad," chap. xi. 52; those whom our Saviour calleth
"brethren," Heb. ii. 11; "the children that God gave him,"
which were "partakers of flesh and blood," verses 13, 14; and
frequently, "those who were given unto him of his Father," John xvii.
2, 6, 9, 11, who should certainly be preserved; the "sheep" whereof
he was the "Shepherd, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,"
Heb. xiii. 20; his " elect," Rom. viii. 33; and his "
people," Matt. i. 21; farther explained to be his "visited and
redeemed people,"Luke i. 68; even the people which he
"foreknew," Rom. xi. 2; even such a people as he is said to have had
at Corinth before their conversion; his people by election, Acts xviii. 10; the
people that he " suffered for without the gate, that he might sanctify
them," Heb. xiii. 12; his "church, which he redeemed by his own
blood,"Acts xx. 28, which "he loved and gave himself for," Eph.
v. 25; the "many" whose sins he took away, Heb. ix. 28, with whom he
made a covenant, Dan. ix. 27. Those many being thus described, and set forth
with such qualifications as by no means are common to all, but proper only to
the elect, do most evidently appear to be all and only those that are chosen of
God to obtain eternal life through the offering and blood-shedding of Jesus
Christ. Many things are here excepted with much confidence and clamour, that
may easily be removed. And so you see the end of the death of Christ, as it is
set out in the Scripture.
That we may have the clearer passage,
we must remove the hindrances that are laid in the way by some pretended
answers and evasions used to escape the force of the argument drawn from the
Scripture, affirming Christ to have died for " many," his
"sheep," his "elect," and the like. Now, to this it is
replied, that this "reason," as it is called, is "weak and of no
force, equivocal, subtile, fraudulent, false, ungodly, deceitful, and
erroneous;" for all these several epithets are accumulated to adorn it
withal, ("Universality of Free Grace," page xvi.) Now, this variety
of terms (as I conceive) serves only to declare with what copia verborum the
unlearned eloquence of the author is woven withal; for such terrible names
imposed on that which we know not well how to gainsay is a strong argument of a
weak cause. When the Pharisees were not able to resist the spirit whereby our
Saviour spake, they call him "devil and Samaritan." Waters that make
a noise are usually but shallow. It is a proverb among the Scythians, that the
"dogs which bark most bite least." But let us see "quid dignum
tanto feret hic responsor hiatu," and hear him speak in his own language.
He says then,--
"First, This reason is weak and
of no force: for the word many is oft so used, that it both signifies all and
every man, and also amplifieth or setteth forth the greatness of that number;
as in Dan. xii. 2, Rom. v. 19, and in other places, where many cannot, nor is
by any Christian understood for less than all men."
Rep. 1. That if the proof and argument
were taken merely from the word many, and not from the annexed description of
those many, with the presupposed distinction of all men into several sorts by
the purpose of God, this exception would bear some colour; but for this see our
arguments following. Only by the way observe, that he that shall divide the
inhabitants of any place, as at London, into poor and rich, those that want and
those that abound, afterward affirming that he will bestow his bounty on many
at London, on the poor, on those that want, will easily be understood to give
it unto and bestow it upon them only. 2. Neither of the places quoted proves
directly that many must necessarily in them be taken for all. In Dan. xii. 2, a
distribution of the word to the several parts of the affirmation must be
allowed, and not an application of it to the whole, as such; and so the sense
is, the dead shall arise, many to life, and many to shame, as in another
language it would have been expressed. Neither are such Hebraisms unusual.
Resides, perhaps, it is not improbable that many are said to rise to life,
because, as the apostle, says, " All shall not die." The like, also,
may be said of Rom. v. 19. Though the many there seem to be all, yet certainly
they are not called so with any intent to denote all, "with an
amplification" (which that many should be to all is not likely): for there
is no comparison there instituted at all between number and number, of those
that died by Adam's disobedience and those that were made alive by the
righteousness of Christ, but only in the effects of the sin of Adam and the
righteousness of Christ, together with the way and manner of communicating
death and life from the one and the other; whereunto any consideration of the
number of the participators of those effects is not inserted. 3. The other
places whereby this should he confirmed, I am confident our author cannot
produce, notwithstanding his free inclination of such a reserve, these being
those which are in this case commonly urged by Arminians; but if he could, they
would be no way material to infringe our argument, as appeareth by what was
said before.
"Secondly, This reason," he
adds, "is equivocal, subtile, and fraudulent; seeing where all men and
every man is affirmed of, the death of Christ, as the ransom and propitiation,
and the fruits thereof, only is assumed for them; but where the word many is in
any place used in this business, there are more ends of the death of Christ
than this one affirmed of."
Rep. l. It is denied that the death of
Christ, in any place of Scripture, is said to be for "all men" or for
"every man;" which, with so much confidence, is supposed, and imposed
on us as a thing acknowledged. 2. That there is any other end of the death of
Christ, besides the fruit of his ransom and propitiation, directly intended,
and not by accident attending it, is utterly false. Yea, what other end the
ransom paid by Christ and the atonement made by him can have but the fruits of
them, is not imaginable. The end of any work is the same with the fruit,
effect, or product of it. So that this wild distinction of the ransom and
propitiation of Christ, with the fruits of them, to be for all, and the other
ends of his death to be only for many, is an assertion neither equivocal,
subtile, nor fraudulent! But I speak to what I conceive the meaning of the
place; for the words themselves bear no tolerable sense. 3. The observation,
that where the word many is used many ends are designed, but where all are
spoken of there only the ransom is intimated, is,-- (1.) Disadvantageous to the
author's persuasion, yielding the whole argument in hand, by acknowledging that
where many are mentioned, there all cannot be understood, because more ends of
the death of Christ than do belong to all are mentioned; and so confessedly all
the other answers to prove that by many, all are to be understood, are against
the author's own light. (2.) It is frivolous; for it cannot be proved that
there are more ends of the death of Christ besides the fruit of his ransom.
(3.) It is false; for where the death of Christ is spoken of as for many, he is
said to "give his life a ransom" for them, Matt. xx. 28, which are
the very words where he is said to die for all, 1 Tim. ii. 6. What difference
is there in these? what ground for this observation? Even such as these are
divers others of that author's observations, as his whole tenth chapter is
spent to prove that wherever there is mention of the redemption purchased by
the oblation of Christ, there they for whom it is purchased are always spoken
of in the third person, as by " all the world," or the like; when
yet, in chap. i. of his book, himself produceth many places to prove this
general redemption where the persons for whom Christ is said to suffer are
mentioned in the first or second person, 1 Pet. ii 24, iii. 18; Isa. liii. 6,
6; 1 Cor. xv. 3; Gal iii. 13, etc.
Thirdly, He proceeds, " This
reason is false and ungodly; for it is nowhere in Scripture said that Christ
died or gave himself a ransom but for many, or only for many, or only for his
sheep; and it is ungodliness to add to or diminish from the word of God in
Scripture."
Rep. To pass by the loving terms of
the author, and allowing a grain to make the sense current, I say,-- First,
That Christ affirming that he gave his life for "many," for his
"sheep," being said to die for his " church," and
innumerable places of Scripture witnessing that all men are not of his sheep,
of his church, we argue and conclude, by just and undeniable consequence, that
he died not for those who are not so. If this be adding to the word of God
(being only an exposition and unfolding of his mind therein), who ever spake
from the word of God and was guiltless? Secondly, Let it be observed, that in the
very place where our Saviour says that he "gave his life for his
sheep," he presently adds, that some are not of his sheep, John x. 26;
which, if it be not equivalent to his sheep only, I know not what is Thirdly,
It were easy to recriminate; but,--
Fourthly, "But," says he,
"the reason is deceitful and erroneous, for the Scripture doth nowhere
say,-- 2. "Those many he died for are his sheep (much less his elect, as
the reason intends it). As for the place, John x. 15, usually instanced to this
end, it is therein much abused: for our Saviour, John x., did not set forth the
difference between such as he died for and such as he died not for, or such as
he died for so and so, and not so and so; but the difference between those that
believe on him and those who believe not on him, verses 4, 5, 14, 26, 27. One
hear his voice and follow him, the other not. Nor did our Saviour here set
forth the privileges of all he died for, or for whom he died so and so, but of
those that believe on him through the ministration of the gospel, and so do
know him, and approach to God, and enter the kingdom by him, verses 8, 4, 9,
27. Nor was our Saviour here setting forth the excellency of those for whom he
died, or died for so only, wherein they are preferred before others; but the
excellency of his own love, with the fruits thereof to those not only that he
died for, but also that are brought in by his ministration to believe on him,
verses 11, 27. Nor was our Saviour here treating so much of his ransom-giving
and propitiation-making as of his ministration of the gospel, and so of his
love and faithfulness therein; wherein he laid down his life for those
ministered to, and therein gave us example, not to make propitiation for sin,
but to testify love in suffering."
Rep. I am persuaded that nothing but
an acquaintedness with the condition of the times wherein we live can afford me
sanctuary from the censure of the reader to be lavish of precious hours, in
considering and transcribing such canting lines as these last repeated. But
yet, seeing better cannot be afforded, we must be content to view such evasions
as these, all whose strength is in incongruous expressions, in incoherent
structure, cloudy, windy phrases, all tending to raise such a mighty fog as
that the business in hand might not be perceived, being lost in this smoke and
vapour, cast out to darken the eyes and amuse the senses of poor seduced souls.
The argument undertaken to be answered being, that Christ is said to die for
" many," and those many are described and designed to be his
"sheep," as John x., what answer, I pray, or any thing like
thereunto, is there to be picked out of this confused heap of words which we
have recited? So that I might safely pass the whole evasion by without farther
observation on it, but only to desire the reader to observe how much this one
argument presseth, and what a nothing is that heap of confusion which is
opposed to it! But yet, lest any thing should adhere, I will give a few
annotations to the place, answering the marks wherewith we have noted it,
leaving the full vindication of the place until I come to the pressing of our
arguments.
I say then, first, That the many
Christ died for were his sheep, was before declared. Neither is the place of
John x. at all abused, our Saviour evidently setting forth a difference between
them for whom he died and those for whom he would not die, calling the first
his " sheep," verse 15,-- those to whom he would "give eternal
life," verse 28,-- those "given him by his Father," chap. xvii.
9; evidently distinguishing them from others who were not so. Neither is it
material what was the primary intention of our Saviour in this place, from
which we do not argue, but from the intention and aim of the words he uses, and
the truth he reveals for the end aimed at; which was the consolation of
believers.
Secondly, 'For the difference between
them he "died for so and so," and those he "died for so and
so," we confess he puts none; for we suppose that this "so and
so" doth neither express nor intimate any thing that may be suitable to
any purpose of God, or intent of our Saviour in this business. To us for whom
he died, he died in the same manner, and for the same end.
Thirdly, We deny that the primary
difference that here is made by our Saviour is between believers and not
believers, but between elect and not elect, sheep and not sheep; the thing
wherein they are thus differenced being the believing of the one, called
"hearing of his voice and knowing him," and the not believing of the
other; the foundation of these acts being their different conditions in respect
of God's purpose and Christ's love, as is apparent from the antithesis and
opposition which we have in verses 26 and 27, "Ye believe not, because ye
are not of my sheep," and, "My sheep hear my voice." First,
there is a distinction put,-- in the act of believing and hearing (that is,
therewithal to obey); and then is the foundation of this distinction asserted,
from their distinguished state and condition,-- the one being not his sheep,
the other being so, even them whom he loved and gave his life for.
Fourthly, 'first, It is nothing to the
business before us what privileges our Saviour here expresseth; our question
is, for whom he says he would give his life's and that only. Secondly, This
frequent repetition of that useless so and so serves for nothing but to puzzle
the poor ignorant reader. Thirdly, We deny that Christ died for any but those
who shall certainly be brought unto him by the ministration of the gospel. So
that there is not a "Not only those whom he died for, but also those that
are brought in unto him;" for he died for his sheep, and his sheep hear
his voice. They for whom he dried, and those that come in to him, may receive
different qualifications, but they are not several persons.
Fifthly, First, The question is not at
all, to what end our Saviour here makes mention of his death? but for whom he
died? who are expressly said to be his "sheep;" which all are not.
Secondly, His intention is, to declare the giving of his life for a ransom, and
that according to the "commandment received of his Father," verse 18.
Sixthly, First, "The love and
faithfulness of Jesus Christ in the ministration of the gospel," -- that
is, his performing the office of the mediator of the new covenant,-- are seen
in nothing more than in giving his life for a ransom, John xv. 13. Secondly,
Here is not one word of giving us an "example;" though in laying down
his life he did that also, yet here it is not improved to that purpose. From
these brief annotations, I doubt not but that it is apparent that that long
discourse before recited is nothing but a miserable mistaking of the text and
question; which the author perhaps perceiving, he adds divers other evasions,
which follow.
"Besides," saith he,
"the opposition appears here to be not so much between elect and not
elect, as between Jews called and Gentiles uncalled."
Rep. The opposition is between sheep
and not sheep, and that with reference to their election, and not to their
vocation. Now, whom would he have signified by the "not sheep"? those
that were not called,-- the Gentiles? That is against the text terming them
sheep, that is in designation, though not as yet called, verse 16. And who are
the called'! the Jews? True, they were then outwardly called; yet many of them
were not sheep, verse 26. Now, truly, such evasions from the force of truth as
this, by so foul corrupting of the word of God, is no small provocation of the
eye of his glory. But he adds,--
"Besides, there is in Scripture
great difference between sheep, and sheep of his flock and pasture, of which he
here speaketh, verses 4, 6, 11, 15, 16." Rep. 1. This unrighteous
distinction well explained must needs, no doubt (if any know how), give a great
deal of light to the business in hand. 2. If there be a distinction to be
allowed, it can be nothing but this, that the "sheep" who are simply
so called are those who are only so to Christ from the donation of his Father;
and the "sheep of his pasture," those who, by the effectual working
of the Spirit, are actually brought home to Christ. And then of both sorts we
have mention in this chapter, verses 16, 27, both making up the number of those
sheep for whom he gave his life, and to whom he giveth life. But he proceeds:
--
"Besides, sheep, verses 4, 5, ll,
15, are not mentioned as all those for whom he died, but as those who by his
ministration are brought in to believe and enjoy the benefit of his death, and
to whom he ministereth and communicateth spirit."
Rep. 1. The substance of this and
other exceptions is, that by sheep is meant believers; which is contrary to
verse 16, calling them sheep who are not as yet gathered into his fold. 2. That
his sheep are not mentioned as those for whom he died is in terms contradictory
to verse 15, "I lay down my life for my sheep." 3. Between those for
whom he died and those whom he brings in by the ministration of his Spirit,
there is no more difference than is between Peter, James, and John, and the
three apostles that were in the mount with our Saviour at his transfiguration.
This is childish sophistry, to beg the thing in question, and thrust in the
opinion controverted into the room of an answer. 4. That bringing in which is
here mentioned, to believe and enjoy the benefit of the death of Christ, is a
most special fruit and benefit of that death, certainly to be conferred on all
them for whom he died, or else most certainly his death will do them no good at
all. Once more, and we have done: -- " Besides, here are more ends of his
death mentioned than ransom or propitiation only, and yet it is not said, '
Only for his sheep," and when the ransom or propitiation only is
mentioned, it is said, 'For all men.' So that this reason appears weak,
fraudulent, ungodly, and erroneous."
Rep. 1. Here is no word mentioned nor
intimated of the death of Christ, but only that which was accomplished by his
being a propitiation, and making his death a ransom for us, with the fruits
which certainly and infallibly spring there from. 2. If more ends than one of
the death of Christ are here mentioned, and such as belong not unto all, why do
you deny that he speaks here of his sheep only? Take heed, or you will see the
truth. 3. Where it is said, "Of all men," I know not; but this I am
sure, that Christ is said to "give his life a ransom," and that is
only mentioned where it is not said for all; as Matt. xx. 28, Mark x. 45.
And so, from these brief annotations,
I hope any indifferent reader will be able to judge whether the reason opposed,
or the exceptions against it devised, be to be accounted "weak,
fraudulent, ungodly, and erroneous."
Although I fear that in this
particular I have already intrenched upon the reader's patience, yet I cannot
let pass the discourse immediately following in the same author to those
exceptions which we last removed, laid by him against the arguments we had in
hand, without an obelisk; as also an observation of his great abilities to cast
down a man of clouds, which himself had set up to manifest his skill in its
direction. To the preceding discourse he adds another exception, which he
imposeth on those that oppose universal redemption, as though it were laid by
them against the understanding of the general expressions in the Scripture, in
that way and sense wherein he conceives them; and it is, "That those words
were fitted for the time of Christ and his apostles, having another meaning in
them than they seem to import." Now, having thus gaily trimmed and set up
this man of straw,-- to whose framing I dare boldly say not one of his adversaries
did ever contribute a penful of ink,-- to show his rare skill, he chargeth it
with I know not how many errors, blasphemies, lies, set on-with exclamations
and vehement outcries, until it tumble to the ground. Had he not sometimes
answered an argument, he would have been thought a most unhappy disputant. Now,
to make sure that for once he would do it, I believe he was very careful that
the objection of his own framing should not be too strong for his own defacing.
In the meantime, how blind are they who admire him for a combatant who is
skilful only at fencing with his own shadow! and yet with such empty janglings
as these, proving what none denies, answering what none objects, is the
greatest part of Mr More's book stuffed.
CHAPTER IV.
Of the distinction of impetration and
application -- The use and abuse thereof; with the opinion of the adversaries
upon the whole matter in controversy unfolded; and the question on both sides
stated.
THE farther reasons whereby the
precedent discourse may be confirmed, I defer until I come to oppose some
argument to the general ransom. For the present, I shall only take away that
general answer which is usually given to the places of Scripture produced, to
waive the sense of them; which is pharmanon pansophon to our
adversaries, and serves them, as they suppose, to bear up all the weight
wherewith in this case they are urged: --
I. They say, then, that in the
oblation of Christ, and concerning the good things by him procured, two things
are to be considered: -- First, The impetrution, or obtaining of them; and,
secondly, The application of them to particular persons. "The first,"
say they, "is general, in respect to all. Christ obtained and procured all
good things by his death of his Father,-- reconciliation, redemption,
forgiveness of sins,-- for all and every man in the world, if they will believe
and lay hold upon him: but in respect of application, they are actually
bestowed and conferred but on a few; because but a few believe, which is the
condition on which they are bestowed. And in this latter sense are the texts of
Scripture which we have argued, all of them, to be understood. So that they do
no whit impeach the universality of merit, which they assert; but only the
universality of application, which they also deny." Now, this answer is
commonly set forth by them in various terms and divers dresses, according as it
seems best to them that use it, and most subservient to their several opinions;
for,--
First, Some of them say that Christ,
by his death and passion, did absolutely, according to the intention of God,
purchase for all and every man, dying for them, remission of sins and
reconciliation with God, or a restitution into a state of grace and favour; all
which shall be actually beneficial to them. provided that they do believe So
the Arminians.
Secondly, Some, again, that Christ
died for all indeed, but conditionally for some, if they do believe, or will so
do (which he knows they cannot of themselves); and absolutely for his own, even
them on whom lie purposeth to bestow faith and grace, so as actually to be made
possessors of the good things by him purchased. So Camero, and the divines of
France, which follow a new method by him devised.
Thirdly, Some distinguish of a twofold
reconciliation and redemption; -- one wrought by Christ with God for man,
which, say they, is general for all and every man; secondly, a reconciliation
wrought by Christ in man unto God, bringing them actually into peace with him.
And sundry other ways there are
whereby men express their conceptions in this business. The sum of all comes to
this, and the weight of all lies upon that distinction which we before
recounted; -- namely, that in respect of impetration, Christ obtained
redemption and reconciliation for all; in respect of application, it is
bestowed only on them who do believe and continue therein.
II. Their arguments whereby they prove
the generality of the ransom and universality of the reconciliation must
afterward be considered: for the present, we handle only the distinction
itself, the meaning and misapplication whereof I shall briefly declare; which
will appear if we consider,--
FIRST, The true nature and meaning of
this distinction, and the true use thereof; for we do acknowledge that it may
be used in a sound sense and right meaning, which way soever you express it,
either by impetration and application, or by procuring reconciliation with God
and a working of reconciliation in us For by impetration we mean the
meritorious purchase of all good things made by Christ for us with and of his
Father; and by application, the actual enjoyment of those good things upon our
believing; -- as, if a man pay a price for the redeeming of captives, the
paying of the price supplieth the room of the impetration of which we speak;
and the freeing of the captives is as the application of it. Yet, then, we must
observe,--
First, That this distinction hath no
place in the intention and purpose of Christ, but only in respect of the things
procured by him; for in his purpose they are both united, his full end and aim
being to deliver us from all evil, and procure all good actually to be bestowed
upon us. But in respect of the things themselves, they may be considered either
as procured by Christ, or as bestowed on us.
Secondly, That the will of God is not
at all conditional in this business, as though he gave Christ to obtain peace,
reconciliation, and forgiveness of sins, upon condition that we do believe.
There is a condition in the things, but none in the will of God; that is
absolute that such things should be procured and bestowed.
Thirdly, That all the things which
Christ obtained for us are not bestowed upon condition, but some of them
absolutely. And as for those that are bestowed upon condition, the condition on
which they are bestowed is actually purchased and procured for us, upon no
condition but only by virtue of the purchase. For instance: Christ hath
purchased remission of sins and eternal life for us, to be enjoyed on our
believing, upon the condition of faith. But faith itself, which is the
condition of them, on whose performance they are bestowed, that he hath
procured for us absolutely, on no condition at all; for what condition soever
can be proposed, on which the Lord should bestow faith, I shall afterward show
it vain, and to run into a circle.
Fourthly, That both these,
impetration, and application, have for their objects the same individual
persons; that, look, for whomsoever Christ obtained any good thing by his
death, unto them it shall certainly be applied, upon them it shall actually be
bestowed: so that it cannot be said that he obtained any thing for any one,
which that one shall not or doth not in due time enjoy. For whomsoever he
wrought reconciliation with, God, in them doth he work reconciliation unto God.
The one is not extended to some to whom the other doth not reach. Now, because
this being established, the opposite interpretation and misapplication of this
distinction vanisheth, I shall briefly confirm it with reasons: --
First, If the application of the good
things procured be the end why they are procured, for whose sake alone Christ
doth obtain them, then they must be applied to all for whom they are obtained;
for otherwise Christ faileth of his end and aim, which must not be granted. But
that this application was the end of the obtaining of all good things for us
appeareth,-- first, Because if it were otherwise, and Christ did not aim at the
applying of them, but only at their obtaining, then might the death of Christ
have had its full effect and issue without the application of redemption and
salvation to any one soul, that being not aimed at, and so, notwithstanding all
that he did for us, every soul in the world might have perished eternally;
which, whether it can stand with the dignity and sufficiency of his oblation,
with the purpose of his Father, and his own intention, who "came into the
world to save sinners,-- that which was lost," and to "bring many
sons unto glory," let all judge. Secondly, God, in that action of sending
his Son, laying the weight of iniquity upon him, and giving him up to an
accursed death, must be affirmed to be altogether uncertain what event all this
should have in respect of us. For, did he intend that we should be saved by it?
-- then the application of it is that which he aimed at, as we assert: did he
not? -- certainty, he was uncertain what end it should have; which is
blasphemy, and exceeding contrary to Scripture and right reason. Did he appoint
a Saviour without thought of them that were to be saved? a Redeemer, not
determining who should be redeemed? Did he resolve of a means, not determining
the end? It is an assertion opposite to all the glorious properties of God.
Secondly, If that which is obtained by
any do, by virtue of that action whereby it is obtained, become his in right
for whom it is obtained, then for whomsoever any thing is by Christ obtained,
it is to them applied; for that must be made theirs in fact which is theirs
charge; all that he hath purchased for them must be applied to them, for by
virtue thereof it is that they are so saved, verses 33, 34.
Thirdly, For whom Christ died, for
them he maketh intercession. Now, his intercession is for the application of
those things, as is confessed, and therein he is always heard. Those to whom
the one belongs, theirs also is the other. So, John x. 10, the coming of Christ
is, that "his might have life, and have it abundantly;" as also 1
John iv. 9. Heb. x. 10, " By the which will we are sanctified," --
that is the application; "through the offering of the body of Jesus
Christ," -- that is the means of impetration: " for by one offering
he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified," verse 14. In brief,
it is proved by all those places which we produced rightly to assign the end of
the death of Christ. So that this may be rested on, as I conceive, as firm and
immovable, that the impetration of good things by Christ, and the application
of them, respect the same individual persons.
SECONDLY, We may consider the meaning
of those who seek to maintain universal redemption by this distinction in it,
and to what use they do apply it. "Christ," say they, "died for
all men, and by his death purchased reconciliation with God for them and
forgiveness of sins: which to some is applied, and they become actually
reconciled to God, and have their sins forgiven them; but to others not, who,
therefore, perish in the state of irreconciliation and enmity, under the guilt
of their sins. This application," say they, "is not procured nor purchased
by Christ,-- for then, he dying for all, all must be actually reconciled and
have their sins forgiven them and be saved,-- but it attends the fulfilling of
the condition which God is pleased to prescribe unto them, that is,
believing:" which, say some, they can do by their own strength, though not
in terms, yet by direct consequence; others not, but God must give it. So that
when it is said in the Scripture, Christ hath reconciled us to God, redeemed
us, saved us by his blood, underwent the punishment of our sins, and so made
satisfaction for us, they assert that no more is meant but that Christ did that
which upon the fulfilling of the condition that is of us required, these things
will follow. To the death of Christ, indeed, they assign many glorious things;
but what they give on the one hand they take away with the other, by suspending
the enjoyment of them on a condition by us to be fulfilled, not by him
procured; and in terms assert that the proper and full end of the death of
Christ was the doing of that whereby God, his justice being satisfied, might
save sinners if he would, and on what condition it pleased him,-- that a door
of grace might be opened to all that would come in, and not that actual
justification and remission of sins, life, and immortality were procured by
him, but only a possibility of those things, that so it might be. Now, that all
the venom that lies under this exposition and abuse of this distinction may the
better appear, I shall set down the whole mind of them that use it in a few assertions,
that it may be clearly seen what we do oppose.
First, " God," say they,
"considering all mankind as fallen from that grace and favour in Adam
wherein they were created, and excluded utterly from the attainment of
salvation by virtue of the covenant of works which was at the first made with
him, yet by his infinite goodness was inclined to desire the happiness of them,
all and every one, that they might be delivered from misery, and be brought
unto himself;" which inclination of his they call his universal love and
antecedent will, whereby he would desirously have them all to be saved; out of
which love he sendeth Christ.
Obs. 1. That God hath any natural or
necessary inclination, by his goodness, or any other property, to do good to
us, or any of his creatures, we do deny. Every thing that concerns us is an act
of his free will and good pleasure, and not a natural, necessary act of his
Deity, as shall be declared.
Obs 2. The ascribing an antecedent
conditional will unto God, whose fulfilling and accomplishment should depend on
any free, contingent act or work of ours, is injurious to his wisdom, power,
and sovereignty, and cannot well be excused from blasphemy; and is contrary to
Rom. ix. 10, "Who hath resisted his will?" I say,--
Obs. 3. A common affection and
inclination to do good to all doth not seem to set out the freedom, fulness,
and dimensions of that most intense love of God which is asserted in the
Scripture to be the cause of sending his Son; as John iii. 16, "God so
loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son." Eph. i. 9,
"Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good
pleasure which he hath purposed in himself." Col.'i. 19, "It pleased
the Father that in him should all fulness dwell." Rom. v. 8, "God
commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died
for us." These two I shall, by the Lord's assistance, fully clear, if the
Lord give life and strength, and his people encouragement, to go through with
the second part of this controversy.
Obs. 4. We deny that all mankind are
the object of that love of God which moved him to send his Son to die; God
having "made some for the day of evil," Prov. xvi 4; "hated them
before they were born," Rom. ix. 11, 13; "before of old ordained them
to condemnation," Jude 4; being "fitted to destruction," Rom.
ix. 22; "made to be taken and destroyed," 2 Pet. ii. 12;
"appointed to wrath," 1 Thess. v. 9; to "go to their own
place," Acts i. 25.
Secondly, "The justice of God
being injured by sin, unless something might be done for the satisfaction
thereof, that love of God whereby he wouldeth good to all sinners could no way
be brought forth into act, but must have its eternal residence in the bosom of
God without any effect produced."
Obs. 1. That neither Scripture nor
right reason will enforce nor prove an utter and absolute want of power in God
to save sinners by his own absolute will, without satisfaction to his justice,
supposing his purpose that so it should be; indeed, it could not be otherwise.
But, without the consideration of that, certainly he could have effected it. It
doth not imply any violating of his holy nature.
Obs. 2. An actual and necessary velleity,
for the doing of any thing which cannot possibly be accomplished without some
work fulfilled outwardly of him, is opposite to his eternal blessedness and
all-sufficiency.
Thirdly, "God, therefore, to
fulfil that general love and good-will of his towards all, and that it might
put forth itself in such a way as should seem good to him, to satisfy his
justice, which stood in the way, and was the only hinderance, he sent his Son
into the world to die."
The failing of this assertion we shall
lay forth, when we come to declare that love whereof the sending of Christ was
the proper issue and effect.
Fourthly, " Wherefore, the proper
and immediate end and aim of the purpose of God in sending his Son to die for
all men was, that he might, what way it pleased him, save sinners, his justice
which hindered being satisfied," -- as Arminius; or, "That he might
will to save sinners," -- as Corvinus. "And the intention of Christ
was, to make such satisfaction to the justice of God as that be might obtain to
himself a power of saving, upon what conditions it seemed good to his Father to
prescribe."
Obs. 1. Whether this was the intention
of the Father in sending his Son or no, let it be judged. Something was said
before, upon the examination of those places of Scripture which describe his
purpose; let it be known from them whether God, in sending of his Son, intended
to procure to himself a liberty to save us if he would, or to obtain certain
salvation for his elect.
Obs. 2. That such a possibility of
salvation, or, at the utmost, a velleity or willing of it, upon an uncertain
condition, to be by us fulfilled, should be the full, proper, and only
immediate end of the death of Christ, will yet scarcely down with tender
spirits.
Obs. 3. The expression, of procuring
to himself ability to save, upon a condition to be prescribed, seems not to
answer that certain purpose of our Saviour in laying down his life, which the
Scripture saith was to "save his sheep," and to "bring many sons
to glory," as before; nor hath it any ground in Scripture.
Fifthly, "Christ, therefore,
obtained for all and every one reconciliation with God, remission of sins, life
and salvation; not that they should actually be partakers of these things, but
that God (his justice now not hindering) might and would prescribe a condition
to be by them fulfilled, whereupon he would actually apply it, and make them
partake of all those good things purchased by Christ." And here comes
their distinction of impetration and application, which we before intimated;
and thereabout, in the explication of this assertion, they are wondrously
divided.
Some say that this proceeds so far,
that all men are thereby received into a new covenant, in which redemption Adam
was a common person as well as in his fall from the old, and all we again
restored in him; so that none shall be damned that do not sin actually against
the condition where they are born, and fall from the state where into all men
are assumed through the death of Christ. So Bormus, Corvinus; and one of late,
in plain terms, that all are reconciled, redeemed,'saved, and justified in
Christ; though how he could not understand (More, p. 10). But others, more
warily, deny this, and assert that by nature we are all children of wrath, and
that until we come to Christ the wrath of God abideth on all, so that it is not
actually removed from any: so the assertors of the efficacy of grace in France.