__________________________________________________________________

           Title: The Death of Death in the Death of Christ
      Creator(s): Owen, John (1616-1683)
     Print Basis: The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1967.
   CCEL Subjects: All; Theology; Classic;
      LC Call no: BT775.09
   LC Subjects:

   Doctrinal theology

   Salvation
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   Salus electorum, sanguis Jesu;

   or,

   the death of death in the death of Christ:

   a treatise of the redemption and reconciliation that is in the blood of
   Christ;

   with

   the merit thereof, and the satisfaction wrought thereby:

   wherein

   the proper end of the death of Christ is asserted; the immediate
   effects and fruits thereof assigned, with their extent in respect of
   its object;

   and the

   whole controversy about universal redemption fully discussed.

   In four parts.

   1. Declaring the eternal counsel and distinct actual concurrence of the
   holy Trinity unto the work of redemption in the blood of Christ; with
   the covenanted intendment and accomplished end of God therein.

   2. Removing false and supposed ends of the death of Christ, with the
   distinctions invented to solve the manifold contradictions of the
   pretended universal atonement; rightly stating the controversy.

   3. Containing arguments against universal redemption from the word of
   God; with an assertion of the satisfaction and merit of Christ.

   4. Answering all considerable objections as yet brought to light,
   either by the Arminians or others (their late followers as to this
   point), in the behalf of universal redemption; with a large unfolding
   of all the texts of scripture by any produced and wrested to that
   purpose.
     __________________________________________________________________

   The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to
   give his life a ransom for many. — Matt. xx. 28.

   In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,
   according to the riches of his grace. — Eph. i. 7.

   Imprimatur, John Cranford.

   Jan. 22, 1647.
     __________________________________________________________________

Prefatory note.

   In the testimonies from the ancient fathers, which Owen appends to the
   following treatise, he quotes Augustine and Prosper as authorities in
   support of his own view of a definite and effectual atonement. Though
   these fathers, in opposition to the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians of
   their day, held this view, the point did not emerge into commanding
   prominence in the controversy with which their names are chiefly and
   honourably associated. It was by no means a subject of special
   controversy, or the key of their position in the field on which their
   polemical laurels were won. It was otherwise in the dispute which
   prevailed between Hincmar and Gottschalc, exactly four centuries later.
   The discussion on the extent of the atonement then assumed a distinct
   and positive shape. The decisions of the different councils which sat
   in judgment upon their conflicting principles will be found in the
   appendix to this treatise. The same controversy was renewed in Holland
   between the Gomarists and the Arminians, when the Synod of Dort, in one
   of its articles, condemned the Remonstrant doctrine of a universal
   atonement. Cameron, the accomplished professor of divinity at Saumur,
   originated the last important discussion on this point before Owen
   wrote his treatise on it. The views of Cameron were adopted and urged
   with great ability by two of his scholars, Amyraut and Testard; and in
   the year 1634 a controversy arose, which agitated the French Church for
   many years. Amyraut had the support of Daillé and Blondell. He was ably
   opposed by Rivet, Spanheim, and Des Marets.

   In the last two instances in which discussion on the extent of the
   atonement revived in the Reformed Churches, there was an essential
   distinction, very commonly overlooked, between the special points upon
   which the controversies respectively turned. The object of the article
   on the death of Christ, emitted by the Synod of Dort, was to counteract
   the tenet that Christ by the atonement only acquired for the Father a
   plenary right and freedom to institute a new procedure with all men, by
   which, on condition of their own obedience, they might be saved. The
   divines of Saumur would not have accepted this tenet as a correct
   representation of their sentiments. Admitting that, by the purpose of
   God, and through the death of Christ, the elect are infallibly secured
   in the enjoyment of salvation, they contended for an antecedent decree,
   by which God is free to give salvation to all men through Christ, on
   the condition that they believe on him. Hence their system was termed
   hypothetic universalism. The vital difference between it and the strict
   Arminian theory lies in the absolute security asserted in the former
   for the spiritual recovery of the elect. They agree, however, in
   attributing some kind of universality to the atonement, and in
   maintaining that, on a certain condition, within the reach of
   fulfilment by all men, — obedience generally, according to the
   Arminians, and faith, according to the divines of Saumur, — all men
   have access to the benefits of Christ’s death. To impart consistency to
   the theory of Amyraut, faith must, in some sense, be competent to all
   men; and he held, accordingly, the doctrine of universal grace: in
   which respect his theory differs essentially from the doctrine of
   universal atonement, as embraced by eminent Calvinistic divines, who
   held the necessity of the special operation of grace in order to the
   exercise of faith. The readers of Owen will understand, from this
   cursory explanation, why he dwells with peculiar keenness and
   reiteration of statement upon a refutation of the conditional system,
   or the system of universal grace, according to the name it bore in
   subsequent discussions. It was plausible; it had many learned men for
   its advocates; it had obtained currency in the foreign churches; and it
   seems to have been embraced by More, or Moore, to whose work on “The
   Universality of God’s Free Grace,” our author replies at great length.

   Thomas Moore is described by Edwards, in his “Gangræna,” part ii. p.
   86, as “a great sectary, that did much hurt in Lincolnshire, Norfolk,
   and Cambridgeshire; who was famous also in Boston, Lynn, and even in
   Holland, and was followed from place to place by many.” His work, in a
   quarto volume, was published in 1643; and in the same year a reply to
   it appeared from the pen of Thomas Whitefield, “Minister of the Gospel
   at Great Yarmouth.” Mr Orme remarks, “He takes care to inform us on the
   title-page that ‘Thomas Moore was late a weaver at Wills, near
   Wisbitch.’ ” And he adds, in regard to Moore’s production, “Without
   approving of the argument of the work, I have no hesitation in saying
   that it is creditable to the talents of the weaver, and not
   discreditable to his piety.” The weaver, it should be added, was the
   author of some other works: “Discovery of Seducers that Creep into
   Houses,” “On Baptism,” “A Discourse about the Precious Blood and
   Sacrifice of Christ,” etc.

   In 1650, Mr Horne, minister at Lynn in Norfolk, a man, according to
   Palmer (Nonconf. Mem., iii. pp. 6, 7), “of exemplary and primitive
   piety,” and author of several works, published a reply to Owen’s work,
   under the title, “The Open Door for Man’s Approach to God; or, a
   vindication of the record of God concerning the extent of the death of
   Christ, in answer to a treatise on that subject by Mr John Owen.” Horne
   had considerable reputation for skill in the oriental languages, and
   “some of his remarks and interpretations of Scripture,” in the judgment
   of Mr Orme, “were not unworthy of Owen’s attention.” Owen, however, in
   his epistle prefixed to his “Vindiciæ Evangelicæ,” expresses his
   opinion that the work of Horne did not deserve a reply.

   Two years after the following work had been published, its author had
   to defend some of the views he had maintained in it against a more
   formidable and celebrated adversary. Richard Baxter, in an appendix to
   his “Aphorisms on Justification,” took exception to some of the views
   of Owen on redemption. Owen answered him in a treatise which may be
   regarded as an appendix to his “Death of Death.” In the discussions
   between them, so much of scholastic subtilty appears on both sides that
   little interest is likely to be felt in that department of the general
   question on which they were at variance.

   It may be necessary to state precisely what opinion Owen really held on
   the subject of the extent of the atonement. All opinions on this point
   may, in general terms, be reduced to four. There are a few who hold
   that Christ died so as ultimately to secure the salvation of all men.
   There are others who maintain the view condemned by the Synod of Dort,
   that by the death of Christ God is enabled to save all or any, on
   condition of their obedience. There is a third party, who, while they
   believe that Christ died so as infallibly to secure the salvation of
   the elect, hold that inasmuch as Christ, in his obedience and
   sufferings, did what all men were under obligation to do, and suffered
   what all men deserved to suffer, his atonement has a general as well as
   a special aspect and reference, in virtue of which the offer of the
   gospel may be freely tendered to them. Lastly, there are those, and
   Owen amongst the number, who advocate a limited or definite atonement,
   such an atonement as implies a necessary connection between the death
   of Christ and the salvation of those for whom he died, while the actual
   bearing of the atonement on the lost is left among the things
   unrevealed, save only that their guilt and punishment are enhanced by
   the rejection of that mercy offered in the gospel. Hagenbach, in his
   “History of Doctrines,” vol. ii. p. 255, strangely asserts, that “as
   regards the extent of the atonement, all denominations, with the
   exception of the Calvinists, hold that salvation was offered to all.”
   It would be difficult to specify any Calvinists worthy of the name who
   hold that salvation should not be offered to all; and it seems needful
   to state that Owen at least, a very Calvinist of Calvinists, held no
   such view. On the contrary, among Calvinists that adhere to the
   doctrine of a definite atonement, it has been matter of debate, not
   whether the gospel should be universally offered, but on what basis, —
   the simple command and warrant of the Word, or the intrinsic and
   infinite sufficiency of the atonement, — the universal offer of the
   gospel proceeds. Perhaps this point was never formally before the mind
   of our author, but he intimates that the “innate sufficiency of the
   death of Christ is the foundation of its promiscuous proposal to the
   elect and reprobate.”

   Among the editions of this valuable work, that printed in Edinburgh,
   1755, under the superintendence of the Rev. Adam Gib, deserves
   honourable mention. It is printed with some care; considerable
   attention is paid to the numeration; and a valuable analysis of the
   whole work is prefixed to it. We have not felt at liberty to adopt the
   numeration in all respects, as rather more of freedom is used with the
   original than is consistent with the principles on which this edition
   of Owen’s works has been issued. We acknowledge our obligations to it
   in the preparation of the subjoined analysis, which is mostly taken
   from it.
     __________________________________________________________________

  Analysis.

   BOOK I. declares the eternal counsel and distinct actual concurrence of
   the holy Trinity unto the work of redemption in the blood of Christ;
   with the covenanted intendment and accomplished end of God therein.

   Chapter I. treats in general of the end of the death of Christ, as it
   is in the Scripture proposed:— I. What his Father and himself intended
   in it. II. What was effectually fulfilled and accomplished by it:— 1.
   Reconciliation; 2. Justification; 3. Sanctification; 4. Adoption; 5.
   Glorification. III. A general view of the opposite doctrine.

   Chapter II. Of the nature of an end in general, and some distinctions
   about it:— I. The general distinction of end and means. II. Their
   mutual relation:— 1. In a moral sense; 2. In a natural sense. III. A
   twofold end noticed, viz.:— 1. Of the work; 2. Of the worker. IV. The
   end of every free agent is either that which he effects, or that for
   the sake of which it is effected. V. The means of two sorts, viz.:— 1.
   Such as have a goodness in themselves; 2. Such as have no goodness, but
   as conducing to the end. VI. An application of these distinctions to
   the business in hand.

   Chapter III. considers, — I. The Father as the chief author of the work
   of our redemption; II. The acts ascribed to the person of the Father:—
   1. The Father sending his Son into the world for the work of
   redemption:— (1.) By an authoritative imposition of the office of
   mediator upon him:— [1.] The purposed imposition of his counsel. [2.]
   The actual inauguration of Christ as mediator. (2.) By furnishing him
   with a fulness of all gifts and graces:— [1.] Christ had a natural
   all-sufficient perfection of his deity; [2.] He had a communicated
   fulness. (3.) By entering into covenant with him about his work:— [1.]
   With a promise of assistance; [2.] With a promise of success. 2. The
   Father laying upon him the punishment of sin.

   Chapter IV. Of those things which, in the work of redemption, are
   peculiarly ascribed to the person of the Son:— I. His incarnation; II.
   His oblation; III. His intercession.

   Chapter V. The peculiar actings of the Holy Spirit in this business:—
   I. As to the incarnation of Christ; II. As to the oblation or passion
   of Christ; III. As to the resurrection of Christ.

   Chapter VI. The means used by the fore-recounted agents in this work:—
   I. The means used is that whole dispensation from whence Christ is
   called a Mediator:— 1. His oblation; 2. His intercession. II. His
   oblation not a mean good in itself, but only as conducing to its end,
   and inseparable from his intercession; as, — 1. Both intended for the
   same end; 2. Both of the same extent, as respecting the same objects;
   3. His oblation the foundation of his intercession.

   Chapter VII. contains reasons to prove the oblation and intercession of
   Christ to be one entire mean respecting the accomplishment of the same
   proposed end, and to have the same personal object:— I. From their
   conjunction in Scripture; II. From their being both acts of the same
   priestly office; III. From the nature of his intercession; IV. From the
   identity of what he procured in his oblation with what results from his
   intercession; V. From their being conjoined by himself, John xvii.; VI.
   From the sad consequence of separating them, as cutting off all
   consolation by his death.

   Chapter VIII. Objections are answered, being a consideration of Thomas
   More’s reply to the former arguments for the inseparable conjunction of
   Christ’s oblation and intercession, viz.:— I. As to Christ being a
   double mediator, both general and special, alleged from 1 Tim. ii. 5,
   iv. 10; Heb. ix. 15. II. As to the tenor of Christ’s intercession,
   according to Isa. liii. 12; Luke xxiii. 34; John xvii. 21–23; Matt. v.
   14–16; John i. 9. III. As to Christ being a priest for all in respect
   of one end, and for some only in respect of all ends, alleged from Heb.
   ii. 9, ix. 14, 15, 26; John i. 29; 1 John ii. 2; Matt. xxvi. 28.

   BOOK II. removes false and supposed ends of the death of Christ, with
   the distinctions invented to salve the manifold contradictions of the
   pretended universal atonement, rightly stating the controversy.

   Chapter I. Some previous considerations to a more particular inquiry
   after the proper end and effect of the death of Christ:— I. The supreme
   end of Christ’s death in respect of God; II. The subordinate end of his
   death in respect of us.

   Chapter II. removes some mistaken ends assigned to the death of
   Christ:— I. It was not his own good. II. It was not his Father’s good,
   to secure for him a right to save sinners.

   Chapter III. More particularly of the immediate end of the death of
   Christ, with the several ways whereby it is designed. The immediate end
   of the death of Christ particularly asserted from the Scriptures,
   viz.:— I. From those scriptures which hold out the intention and
   counsel of God with our Saviour’s own mind in this work, Matt. xviii.
   11, etc. II. From those scriptures which state the actual
   accomplishment or effect of his oblation, Heb. ix. 12, 14, 26, etc.
   III. From those scriptures that point out the persons for whom Christ
   died, viz., Matt. xxvi. 28; Isa. liii. 11, etc. The force of the word
   “many” in several of these texts, and the argument taken from them, in
   comparison with other texts, vindicated from the exceptions of Thomas
   More. Who are meant by Christ’s sheep, and who not, John x. 15; and his
   objections answered.

   Chapter IV. Of the distinction between impetration and application:— I.
   The sense wherein this distinction is used by the adversaries, and
   their various expressions about it. II. The distinction itself
   handled:— 1. The true nature, meaning, and use thereof:— (1.) It has no
   place in the intention of Christ; (2.) The will of God in this business
   is not at all conditional; (3.) All the things obtained by Christ are
   not bestowed upon condition, and the condition on which some things are
   bestowed is absolutely purchased; (4.) Impetration and application have
   the same persons for their objects. 2. The meaning of those who seek to
   maintain universal redemption by that distinction; with a discovery of
   their various opinions on this head. III. The main question rightly
   stated.

   Chapter V. Farther of application and impetration:— I. That these,
   though they may admit of a distinction, cannot admit of a separation,
   as to the objects thereof, is proved by sundry arguments. II. The
   defence made by the Arminians on this head (alleging that Christ
   purchased all good things for all, to be bestowed upon condition; which
   condition not being performed, these good things are not bestowed),
   overthrown by sundry arguments.

   BOOK III. contains arguments against universal redemption from the word
   of God; with an assertion of the satisfaction and merit of Christ.

   Chapter I. Arguments against the universality of redemption. The first
   two from the nature of the new covenant, and the dispensation thereof:—
   Arg. i. From the nature of the covenant of grace, as being made in
   Christ, not with all, but only some. Arg. ii. From the dispensation of
   the covenant of grace, as not extended to all, but only some.

   Chapter II. Three other arguments:— Arg. iii. From the absolute nature
   of Christ’s purchase for all the objects thereof. Arg. iv. From the
   distinction of men into two sorts by God’s eternal purpose. Arg. v.
   From the Scripture nowhere saying that Christ died for all men.

   Chapter III. Two other arguments, from the person which Christ
   sustained in this business:— Arg. vi. From Christ having died as a
   sponsor. Arg. vii. From Christ being a mediator.

   Chapter IV. Of sanctification, and of the cause of faith, and the
   procurement thereof by the death of Christ:— Arg. viii. From the
   efficacy of Christ’s death for sanctification. Arg. ix. From the
   procurement of faith by the death of Christ. Arg. x. From the antitype
   of the people of Israel.

   Chapter V. Continuance of arguments from the nature and description of
   the thing in hand; and, first, of redemption:— I. Arg. xi. From
   redemption by the death of Christ.

   Chapter VI. Of the nature of reconciliation, and the argument taken
   from thence:— II. Arg. xii. From reconciliation by the death of Christ.

   Chapter VII. Of the nature of the satisfaction of Christ, with
   arguments from thence:— III. Arg. xiii. From satisfaction by the death
   of Christ:— 1. What satisfaction is:— (1.) Christ made satisfaction,
   and how; against Grotius. (2.) Acts exercised by God in this business:—
   [1.] Of severe justice, as a creditor; against Grotius. [2.] Of supreme
   sovereignty and dominion. Consequences of these acts as to those for
   whom Christ satisfied. 2. Inconsistency of all this with universal
   redemption.

   Chapter VIII. A digression, containing the substance of an occasional
   conference concerning the satisfaction of Christ:— I. Its consistency
   with God’s eternal love to his elect. II. Necessity of it for executing
   the purposes of that love.

   Chapter IX. Being a second part of the former digression, containing
   arguments to prove the satisfaction of Christ:— Arg. i. From Christ
   bearing sin, and the punishment thereof. Arg. ii. From his paying a
   ransom for sinners. Arg. iii. From his making atonement and
   reconciliation. Arg. iv. From the nature of his priestly office as
   exercised on earth. Arg. v. From the necessity thereof unto faith and
   consolation. Arg. vi. From 2 Cor. v. 21, and Isa. liii. 5.

   Chapter X. Of the merit of Christ, with arguments from thence:— IV.
   Arg. xiv. From the merit ascribed to the death of Christ. V. Arg. xv.
   From the phrases “dying for us,” “bearing our sins,” being our
   “surety,” etc.

   Chapter XI. The last general argument:— VI. Arg. xvi. From some
   particular places of Scripture, viz.:— 1. Gen. iii. 15; 2. Matt. vii.
   23, etc.

   BOOK IV. — All considerable objections are answered as yet brought to
   light, either by the Arminians or others, in the behalf of universal
   redemption, with a large unfolding of all the texts of Scripture by any
   produced and wrested to that purpose.

   Chapter I. Things to be considered previously to the solution of
   objections:— I. The infinite value of the blood of Christ. II. The
   administration of the new covenant under the gospel. III. The
   distinction between man’s duty and God’s purpose. IV. The error of the
   Jews about the extent of redemption. V. The nature and signification of
   general terms used:— 1. The word “world” of various significations. 2.
   The word “all” of various extent. VI. Persons and things often spoken
   of according to their appearance. VII. Difference between the judgment
   of charity and verity. VIII. The infallible connection of faith and
   salvation. IX. The mixture of elect and reprobates in the world. X. The
   different acts and degrees of faith.

   Chapter II. An entrance to the answer unto particular objections.
   Answer to objections from Scripture, viz.:— I. From the word “world” in
   several scriptures:— 1. John iii. 16 largely opened and vindicated.

   Chapter III. An unfolding of the remaining texts of Scripture produced
   for the confirmation of the first general objection or argument for
   universal redemption. 2. 1 John ii. 1, 2, largely opened and
   vindicated. 3. John vi. 51 explained. 4. A vindication of other texts
   produced by Thomas More, viz.:— (1.) 2 Cor. v. 19. (2.) John i. 9. (3.)
   John i. 29. (4.) John iii. 17. (5.) John iv. 42; 1 John iv. 14; John
   vi. 51.

   Chapter IV. Answer to the second general objection or argument for the
   universality of redemption. II. From the word “all” in several
   scriptures, viz.:— 1. 1 Tim. ii. 4, 6. 2. 2 Pet. iii. 9. 3. Heb. ii. 9.
   4. 2 Cor. v. 14, 15. 5. 1 Cor. xv. 22. 6. Rom. v. 18.

   Chapter V. The last objection or argument from Scripture answered. III.
   From texts which seem to hold out a perishing of some for whom Christ
   died, viz.:— 1. Rom. xiv. 15. 2. 1 Cor. viii. 11. 3. 2 Pet. ii. 1. 4.
   Heb. x. 29.

   Chapter VI. An answer to the twentieth chapter of the book entitled
   “The Universality of God’s Free Grace,” etc., being a collection of all
   the arguments used by the author (Thomas More) throughout the whole
   book, to prove the universality of redemption:— Answers to Arg. i. From
   the absolute literal sense of Scripture. Arg. ii. From an alleged
   unlimitedness of Scripture phrases. Arg. iii. From Christ’s exaltation
   to be Lord and Judge of all, Rom. xiv. 9, 11, 12. Arg. iv. From the
   proposal of Christ’s death to all by the gospel. Arg. v. From the
   confession to be made of Christ by all. Arg. vi. From Scripture
   assertions and consequences. Answers to the proofs of this sixth
   argument:— 1. From 1 John iv. 14; John i. 4, 7; 1 Tim. ii. 4. 2. From
   some texts before vindicated. 3. From Ps. xix. 4; Rom. x. 18; Acts xiv.
   17, etc. 4. From John xvi. 7–11, etc. 5. From Ezek. xviii. 23, 32,
   xxxiii. 11, etc. 6. From Matt. xxviii. 19, 20; Mark xvi. 15; Isa. xlv.
   22, etc. 7. From Acts ii. 38, 39, etc. 8. From 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22,
   45–47; Rom. iii. 22–25, etc. 9. From Matt. xxviii. 19, 20; 2 Cor. v.
   19, etc. 10. From Matt. v. 44, 48; 1 Tim. ii. 1–4, etc. 11. From 1 Tim.
   ii. 3, 8, etc. 12. From 1 Cor. vi. 10, 11, etc. 13. From Tit. ii. 11,
   13, iii. 4, 5, etc. 14. From John iii. 19, etc. 15. From Scripture
   expostulations with men. 16. From Jude 4, 12, 13, etc. 17. From Rom.
   xiv. 9–12, etc. 18. From Jude 3–5.

   Chapter VII. Other objections from reason are removed:— Answers to
   Objection i. From men being bound to believe that Christ died for them.
   Obj. ii. Alleging that the doctrine of particular redemption fills the
   minds of sinners with doubts and scruples whether they ought to believe
   or not; the objection retorted. Obj. iii. That this doctrine disparages
   the freedom of grace; the objection retorted. Obj. iv. That this
   doctrine disparages the merit of Christ; the objection retorted. Obj.
   v. That this doctrine mars gospel consolation; in answer whereto it is
   proved that, — 1. The doctrine of universal redemption affords no
   ground of consolation; 2. That it quite overthrows the true ground of
   consolation; 3. That the doctrine of particular redemption is not
   liable to any just exception as to this matter; 4. That this doctrine
   is the true, solid foundation of all durable consolation. — Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

To the Right Honourable Robert, Earl of Warwick, [1] etc.

   My Lord,

   It is not for the benefit of any protection to the ensuing treatise, —
   let it stand or fall as it shall be found in the judgments of men; nor
   that I might take advantage to set forth any of that worth and honour
   which, being personal, have truly ennobled your lordship, and made a
   way for the delivering over of your family unto posterity with an
   eminent lustre added to the roll of your worthy progenitors, — which,
   if by myself desired, my unfitness to perform must needs render
   unacceptable in the performance; neither yet have I the least desire to
   attempt a farther advancement of myself into your lordship’s favour,
   being much beneath what I have already received, and fully resolved to
   own no other esteem among the sons of men but what shall be accounted
   due (be it more or less) to the discharge of my duty to my master,
   Jesus Christ, whose wholly I would be; — it is not all, nor one of
   these, nor any such as these, the usual subjects and ends of
   dedications, real or pretended, that prevailed upon me unto this
   boldness of prefixing your honoured name to this ensuing treatise
   (which yet, for the matter’s sake contained in it, I cannot judge
   unworthy of any Christian eye); but only that I might take the
   advantage to testify (as I do) to all the world the answering of my
   heart unto that obligation which your lordship was pleased to put upon
   me, in the undeserved, undesired favour of opening that door wherewith
   you are intrusted, to give me an entrance to that place for the
   preaching of the gospel whither I was directed by the providence of the
   Most High, and where I was sought by his people. In which place this I
   dare say, by the grace of God, that such a stock of prayers and
   thankfulness as your heart, which hath learned to value the least of
   Christ, in whomsoever it be, will not despise, is tendered to and for
   your lordship, even on his behalf who is less than the least of all the
   saints of God, and unworthy the name which yet he is bold to subscribe
   himself by, — Your honour’s most obliged servant in the service of
   Jesus Christ,

   John Owen.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1] This nobleman is represented by Neal as having been “the greatest
   patron of the Puritans.” He was admiral of the parliamentary fleet. He
   seized on the ships belonging to the king, and during the whole course
   of the war made use of them against the royal interest. Owen had
   received the presentation to Coggeshall from this nobleman, whose
   upright and amiable character was celebrated long after his death under
   the designation of The Good Earl of Warwick. — Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

Two attestations touching the ensuing treatise.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Reader,

   There are two rotten pillars on which the fabric of late Arminianism
   (an egg of the old Pelagianism, which we had well hoped had been long
   since chilled, but is sit upon and brooded by the wanton wits of our
   degenerate and apostate spirits) doth principally stand.

   The one is, That God loveth all alike, Cain as well as Abel, Judas as
   the rest of the apostles.

   The other is, That God giveth (nay is bound, “ex debito,” so to do)
   both Christ, the great gift of his eternal love, for all alike to work
   out their redemption, and “vires credendi,” power to believe in Christ
   to all alike to whom he gives the gospel; whereby that redemption may
   effectually be applied for their salvation, if they please to make
   right use of that which is so put into their power.

   The former destroys the free and special grace of God, by making it
   universal; the latter gives cause to man of glorying in himself rather
   than in God, — God concurring no farther to the salvation of a believer
   than a reprobate. Christ died for both alike; — God giving power of
   accepting Christ to both alike, men themselves determining the whole
   matter by their free-will; Christ making both savable, themselves make
   them to be saved.

   This cursed doctrine of theirs crosseth the main drift of the holy
   Scripture; which is to abase and pull down the pride of man, to make
   him even to despair of himself, and to advance and set up the glory of
   God’s free grace from the beginning to the end of man’s salvation. His
   hand hath laid the foundation of his spiritual house; his hand shall
   also finish it.

   The reverend and learned author of this book hath received strength
   from God (like another Samson) to pull down this rotten house upon the
   head of those Philistines who would uphold it. Read it diligently, and
   I doubt not but you will say with me, there is such variety of choice
   matter running through every vein of each discourse here handled, and
   carried along with such strength of sound and deep judgment, and with
   such life and power of a heavenly spirit, and all expressed in such
   pithy and pregnant words of wisdom, that you will both delight in the
   reading and praise God for the writer. That both he and it may be more
   and more profitable shall be my hearty prayers. — The unworthiest of
   the ministers of the gospel,

   Stanley Gower. [2]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [2] A Puritan divine of considerable eminence, and a member of the
   Westminster Assembly. He was at first minister of Brampton Bryan,
   Herefordshire. Latterly he was a minister at Dorchester, where he seems
   to have been alive about 1660. — Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Christian Reader,

   Unto such alone are these directed. If all and every one in the world
   in this gospel-day did bear this precious name of Christian, or if the
   name of Christ were known to all, then were this compellation very
   improper, because it is distinguishing. But if God distinguish men and
   men, choose we or refuse we, so it is, and so it will be; there is a
   difference, — a difference which God and Christ doth make of mere good
   pleasure.

   This book contends earnestly for this truth against the error of
   universal redemption. With thy leave I cannot but call it an error;
   unless it had been, it were, and while the world continueth it should
   be, found indeed that Adam and all that come of him, in a natural way
   of generation, are first set by Christ, the second Adam, in an estate
   of redeemed ones and made Christians, and then they fall, whole nations
   of them, and forfeit that estate also, and lose their Christendom, and
   thereby it is come to pass that they are become atheists, without God
   in the world, and heathen, Jews, and Turks, as we see they are at this
   day.

   The author of this book I know not so much as by name; it is of the
   book itself that I take upon me the boldness to write these few lines.
   It being delivered unto me to peruse, I did read it with delight and
   profit:— with delight, in the keenness of argument, clearness and
   fulness of answers, and candour in language; — with profit, in the
   vindication of abused Scriptures, the opening of obscure places, and
   chiefly in disclosing the hid mystery of God and the Father and of
   Christ, in the glorious and gracious work of redemption. The like
   pleasure and profit this tractate promiseth to all diligent readers
   thereof, for the present controversy is so managed that the doctrine of
   faith, which we ought to believe, is with dexterity plentifully taught;
   yea, the glory of each person in the unity of the Godhead about the
   work of redemption is distinctly held forth with shining splendour, and
   the error of the Arminians smitten in the jaw-bone, and the broachers
   of it bridled with bit and curb.

   When, on earth, the blood can be without the water and the Spirit, —
   can witness alone, or can witness there where the water and the Spirit
   agree not to the record; when, in heaven, the Word shall witness
   without the Father and the Holy Ghost, — when the Father, the Word, and
   the Holy Ghost shall not be one, as in essence, so in willing, working,
   witnessing the redemption of sinners; — then shall universal redemption
   of all and every sinner by Christ be found a truth, though the Father
   elect them not, nor the Spirit of grace neither sanctify nor seal them.
   The glory of God’s free and severing grace, and the salvation of the
   elect through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ (which is
   external, or none at all), are the unfeigned desires and utmost aims of
   all that are truly Christian. In pursuit of which desire and aims, I
   profess myself to be for ever to serve thee. — Thine in Christ Jesus,

   Richard Byfield. [3]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [3] Richard Byfield was ejected by the Act of Uniformity from Long
   Ditton, in the county of Surrey. Besides some sermons and tracts, he
   was the author of a quarto volume, “The Doctrine of the Sabbath
   Vindicated,” etc. He suffered suspension and sequestration for four
   years for not reading the Book of Sports. He was a member of the
   Westminster Assembly. During the time of Cromwell, a difference
   occurred between him and the patron of the parish, Sir John Evelyn,
   about the repairs of the church. Cromwell brought them together,
   succeeded in reconciling them, and, to cement the reconciliation,
   generously advanced £100, one-half of the sum needed for the repairs.
   Byfield did not know Owen, even by name, when he gave his
   recommendation to this work. It was then of some importance to our
   author that he should have the sanction of Byfield’s name; and the
   favour is requited when the latter owes most of his own reputation with
   posterity to the countenance which he gave to the young and rising
   theological author of his day. — Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

To the reader.

   Reader,

   If thou intendest to go any farther, I would entreat thee to stay here
   a little. If thou art, as many in this pretending age, a sign or title
   gazer, and comest into books as Cato into the theatre, to go out again,
   — thou hast had thy entertainment; farewell! With him that resolves a
   serious view of the following discourse, and really desireth
   satisfaction from the word and Christian reason, about the great things
   contained therein, I desire a few words in the portal. Divers things
   there are of no small consideration to the business we have in hand,
   which I am persuaded thou canst not be unacquainted with; and therefore
   I will not trouble thee with a needless repetition of them.

   I shall only crave thy leave to preface a little to the point in hand,
   and my present undertaking therein, with the result of some of my
   thoughts concerning the whole, after a more than seven-years’ serious
   inquiry (bottomed, I hope, upon the strength of Christ, and guided by
   his Spirit) into the mind of God about these things, with a serious
   perusal of all which I could attain that the wit of man, in former or
   latter days, hath published in opposition to the truth; which I desire,
   according to the measure of the gift received, here to assert. Some
   things, then, as to the chief point in hand I would desire the reader
   to observe; as, —

   First, That the assertion of universal redemption, or the general
   ransom, so as to make it in the least measure beneficial for the end
   intended, goes not alone. Election of free grace, as the fountain of
   all following dispensations, all discriminating purposes of the
   Almighty, depending on his own good pleasure and will, must be removed
   out of the way. Hence, those who would for the present (“populo ut
   placerent, quas fecere fabulas,”) desirously retain some show of
   asserting the liberty of eternally distinguishing free grace, do
   themselves utterly raze, in respect of any fruit or profitable issue,
   the whole imaginary fabric of general redemption, which they had before
   erected. Some of these make the decree of election to be “antecedaneous
   to the death of Christ” (as themselves absurdly speak), or the decree
   of the death of Christ: then frame a twofold election; [4] — one, of
   some to be the sons; the other, of the rest to be servants. But this
   election of some to be servants the Scripture calls reprobation, and
   speaks of it as the issue of hatred, or a purpose of rejection, Rom.
   ix. 11–13. To be a servant, in opposition to children and their
   liberty, is as high a curse as can be expressed, Gen. ix. 25. Is this
   Scripture election? Besides, if Christ died to bring those he died for
   unto the adoption and inheritance of children, what good could possibly
   redound to them thereby who were predestinated before to be only
   servants? Others [5] make a general conditionate decree of redemption
   to be antecedaneous to election; which they assert to be the first
   discriminating purpose concerning the sons of men, and to depend on the
   alone good pleasure of God. That any others shall partake of the death
   of Christ or the fruits thereof, either unto grace or glory, but only
   those persons so elected, that they deny. “Cui bono” now? To what
   purpose serves the general ransom, but only to assert that Almighty God
   would have the precious blood of his dear Son poured out for
   innumerable souls whom he will not have to share in any drop thereof,
   and so, in respect of them, to be spilt in vain, or else to be shed for
   them only that they might be the deeper damned? This fountain, then, of
   free grace, this foundation of the new covenant, this bottom of all
   gospel dispensations, this fruitful womb of all eternally
   distinguishing mercies, the purpose of God according to election, must
   be opposed, slighted, blasphemed, that the figment of the sons of men
   may not appear to be “truncus ficulnus, inutile lignum,” — an
   unprofitable stock; and all the thoughts of the Most High, differencing
   between man and man, must be made to take “occasion,” say some, to be
   “caused,” say others, by their holy, self-spiritual endeavours. “Gratum
   opus agricolis,” — a savoury sacrifice to the Roman Belus, a sacred
   orgie to the long-bewailed manes of St Pelagius.

   And here, secondly, free-will, “amor et deliciæ humani generis,”
   corrupted nature’s deformed darling, the Pallas or beloved
   self-conception of darkened minds, finds open hearts and arms for its
   adulterous embraces; yea, the die being cast, and Rubicon passed over,
   “eo devenere fata ecclesiæ,” that having opposed the free
   distinguishing grace of God as the sole sworn enemy thereof, it
   advanceth itself, or an inbred native ability in every one to embrace a
   portion of generally exposed mercy, under the name of free grace.
   “Tantane nos tenuit generis fiducia vestri?” This, this is
   Universalists’ free grace, which in the Scripture phrase is cursed,
   corrupted nature. Neither can it otherwise be. A general ransom without
   free-will is but “phantasiæ inutile pondus,” — “a burdensome fancy;”
   the merit of the death of Christ being to them as an ointment in a box,
   that hath neither virtue nor power to act or reach out its own
   application unto particulars, being only set out in the gospel to the
   view of all, that those who will, by their own strength, lay hold on it
   and apply it to themselves may be healed. Hence the dear esteem and
   high valuation which this old idol free-will hath attained in these
   days, being so useful to the general ransom that it cannot live a day
   without it. Should it pass for true what the Scripture affirms, namely,
   that we are by nature “dead in trespasses and sins,” etc., there would
   not be left of the general ransom a shred to take fire from the hearth.
   Like the wood of the vine, it would not yield a pin to hang a garment
   upon: all which you shall find fully declared in the ensuing treatise.
   But here, as though all the undertakings and Babylonish attempts of the
   old Pelagians, with their varnished offspring, the late Arminians, were
   slight and easy, I shall show you greater abominations than these, and
   farther discoveries of the imagery of the hearts of the sons of men. In
   pursuance of this persuasion of universal redemption, not a few have
   arrived (whither it naturally leads them) to deny the satisfaction and
   merit of Christ. Witness P― H―, who, not being able to untie, ventured
   boldly to cut this Gordian knot, but so as to make both ends of the
   chain useless. To the question, Whether Christ died for all men or no?
   he answers, “That he died neither for all nor any, so as to purchase
   life and salvation for them.” Ō tan poion se epos phugen herkos
   odontōn? Shall cursed Socinianism be worded into a glorious discovery
   of free grace? Ask now for proofs of this assertion, as you might
   justly expect Achillean arguments from those who delight akinēta
   kinein, and throw down such foundations (as shall put all the righteous
   in the world to a loss thereby), “Projicit ampullas et sesquipedalia
   verba,” huperonka mataiotētos, great swelling words of vanity, drummy
   expressions, a noise from emptiness, the usual language of men who know
   not what they speak, nor whereof they do affirm, is all that is
   produced. Such contemptible products have our tympanous mountains! Poor
   creatures, whose souls are merchandised by the painted faces of novelty
   and vanity, whilst these Joabs salute you with the kisses of free
   grace, you see not the sword that is in their hands, whereby they smite
   you under the fifth rib, in the very heart-blood of faith and all
   Christian consolation. It seems our blessed Redeemer’s deep
   humiliation, in bearing the chastisement of our peace and the
   punishment of our transgressions, being made a curse and sin, deserted
   under wrath and the power of death, procuring redemption and the
   remission of sins through the effusion of his blood, offering himself
   up a sacrifice to God, to make reconciliation and purchase an
   atonement, his pursuing this undertaking with continued intercession in
   the holy of holies, with all the benefits of his mediatorship, do no
   way procure either life and salvation or remission of sins, but only
   serve to declare that we are not indeed what his word affirms we are, —
   namely, cursed, guilty, defiled, and only not actually cast into hell.
   “Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?” See this at large
   confuted, lib. iii. Now, this last assertion, thoroughly fancied, hath
   opened a door and given an inlet to all those pretended heights and
   new-named glorious attainments which have metamorphosed the person and
   mediation of Christ into an imaginary diffused goodness and love,
   communicated from the Creator unto the new creation; than which
   familistical fables Cerdon’s two principles were not more absurd; the
   Platonic numbers nor the Valentinian Æones, [6] flowing from the
   teeming wombs of Plērōma, Aiōn, Teleios, Buthos, Sigē, and the rest,
   vented for high glorious attainments in Christian religion, near
   fifteen hundred years ago, were not less intelligible. Neither did the
   corroding of Scriptures by that Pontic vermin Marcion equalize the
   contempt and scorn cast upon them by these impotent impostors,
   exempting their whispered discoveries from their trial, and exalting
   their revelations above their authority. Neither do some stay here; but
   “his gradibus itur in cœlum,” heaven itself is broke open for all. From
   universal redemption, through universal justification, in a general
   covenant, they have arrived (“haud ignota loquor”) at universal
   salvation; neither can any forfeiture be made of the purchased
   inheritance.


   “Quare agite, ô juvenes, tantarum in munere laudum,

   Cingite fronde comas, et pocula porgite dextris,

   Communemque vocate Deum, et date vina volentes.” [7]


   “March on, brave youths, i’ th’ praise of such free grace,

   Surround your locks with bays; and full cups place

   In your right hands: drink freely on, then call

   O’ th’ common hope, the ransom general.”

   These and the like persuasions I no way dislike, because wholly new to
   the men of this generation; that I may add this by the way:— Every age
   hath its employment in the discovery of truth. We are not come to the
   bottom of vice or virtue. The whole world hath been employed in the
   practice of iniquity five thousand years and upwards, and yet “aspice
   hoc novum” may be set on many villainies. Behold daily new inventions!
   No wonder, then, if all truth be not yet discovered. Something may be
   revealed to them who as yet sit by. Admire not if Saul also be among
   the prophets, for who is their father? Is he not free in his
   dispensations? Are all the depths of Scripture, where the elephants may
   swim, just fathomed to the bottom? Let any man observe the progress of
   the last century in unfolding the truths of God, and he will scarce be
   obstinate that no more is left as yet undiscovered. Only the itching of
   corrupted fancies, the boldness of darkened minds and lascivious wanton
   wits, in venting new-created nothings, insignificant vanities, with an
   intermixed dash of blasphemy, is that which I desire to oppose; and
   that especially considering the genius (if I may so speak) of the days
   wherein we live; in which, what by one means, what by another, there is
   almost a general deflection after novelty grown amongst us. [8] “Some
   are credulous, some negligent, some fall into errors, some seek them.”
   A great suspicion also every day grows upon me, which I would thank any
   one upon solid grounds to free me from, that pride of spirit, with an
   Herostratus-like design to grow big in the mouths of men, hath acted
   many in the conception and publication of some easily-invented false
   opinions. Is it not to be thought, also, that it is from the same
   humour possessing many, that every one of them almost strives to put on
   beyond his companions in framing some singular artifice? To be a
   follower of others, though in desperate engagements, is too mean an
   undertaking.


   “Aude [9] aliquod brevibus Gyaris, et carcere dignum,

   Si vis esse aliquis: probitas laudatur et alget.” [10]

   And let it be no small peccadillo, no underling opinion, friends, if in
   these busy times you would have it taken notice of. Of ordinary errors
   you may cry, —


   “Quis leget hæc? ― nemo hercule nemo,

   Vel duo, vel nemo.” [11]

   They must be glorious attainments, beyond the understanding of men, and
   above the wisdom of the word, which attract the eyes of poor deluded
   souls. The great shepherd of the sheep, our Lord Jesus Christ, recover
   his poor wanderers to his own fold! But to return thither from whence
   we have digressed:—

   This is that fatal Helena, a useless, barren, fruitless fancy, for
   whose enthroning such irksome, tedious contentions have been caused to
   the churches of God; a mere Rome, a desolate, dirty place of cottages,
   until all the world be robbed and spoiled to adorn it. Suppose Christ
   died for all, yet if God in his free purpose hath chosen some to obtain
   life and salvation, passing by others, will it be profitable only to
   the former, or unto all? Surely the purpose of God must stand, and he
   will do all his pleasure. Wherefore, election either, with Huberus, by
   a wild contradiction, must be made universal, or the thoughts of the
   Most High suspended on the free-will of man. Add this borrowed feather
   to the general ransom, that at least it may have some colour of pompous
   ostentation. Yet if the free grace of God work effectually in some, not
   in others, can those others, passed by in its powerful operation, have
   any benefit by universal redemption? No more than the Egyptians had in
   the angel’s passing over those houses whose doors were not sprinkled
   with blood, leaving some dead behind him. Almighty, powerful, free
   grace, then, must strike its sail, that free-will, like the Alexandrian
   ships to the Roman havens, may come in with top and top-gallant; for
   without it the whole territory of universal redemption will certainly
   be famished. But let these doctrines of God’s eternal election, the
   free grace of conversion, perseverance, and their necessary
   consequents, be asserted, “movet cornicula risum, furtivis nudata
   colouribus;” it hath not the least appearance of profit or consolation
   but what it robs from the sovereignty and grace of God. But of these
   things more afterward.

   Some flourishing pretences are usually held out by the abettors of the
   general ransom; which by thy patience, courteous reader, we will a
   little view in the entrance, to remove some prejudice that may lie in
   the way of truth:—

   First, The glory of God, they say, is exceedingly exalted by it; his
   good-will and kindness towards men abundantly manifested in this
   enlargement of its extent; and his free grace, by others restrained,
   set out with a powerful endearment. This they say; which is, in effect,
   “All things will be well when God is contented with that portion of
   glory which is of our assigning.” The princes of the earth account it
   their greatest wisdom to varnish over their favours, and to set out
   with a full mouth what they have done with half a hand; but will it be
   acceptable to lie for God, by extending his bounty beyond the marks and
   eternal bounds fixed to it in his word? Change first a hair of your own
   heads, or add a cubit to your own statures, before you come in with an
   addition of glory, not owned by him, to the Almighty. But so, for the
   most part, is it with corrupted nature in all such mysterious things;
   discovering the baseness and vileness thereof. If God be apprehended to
   be as large in grace as that is in offence (I mean in respect of
   particular offenders, for in respect of his he is larger), though it be
   free, and he hath proclaimed to all that he may do what he will with
   his own, giving no account of his matters, all shall be well, — he is
   gracious, merciful, etc; but if once the Scripture is conceived to hold
   out his sovereignty and free distinguishing grace, suited in its
   dispensation to his own purpose according to election, he is “immanis,
   truculentus, diabolo, Tiberio tetrior (horresco referens).” The learned
   know well where to find this language, and I will not be instrumental
   to propagate their blasphemies to others. “Si deus homini non
   placuerit, deus non erit,” said Tertullian of the heathen deities; and
   shall it be so with us? God forbid! This pride is inbred; [12] it is a
   part of our corruption to defend it. If we maintain, then, the glory of
   God, let us speak in his own language, or be for ever silent. That is
   glorious in him which he ascribes unto himself. Our inventions, though
   never so splendid in our own eyes, are unto him an abomination, a
   striving to pull him down from his eternal excellency, to make him
   altogether like unto us. God would never allow that the will of the
   creature should be the measure of his honour. The obedience of paradise
   was to have been regulated. God’s prescription hath been the bottom of
   his acceptation of any duty ever since he had a creature to worship
   him. The very heathen knew that that service alone was welcome to God
   which himself required, and that glory owned which himself had revealed
   that he would appear glorious in it. Hence, as Epimenides [13] advised
   the Athenians in a time of danger to sacrifice Theō prosēkonti, “to him
   to whom it was meet and due,” — which gave occasion to the altar which
   Paul saw bearing the superscription of Agnōstō Theō, “To the unknown
   God,” — so Socrates tells us in Plato, [14] that every god will be
   worshipped tō malista autō areskonti tropō, “in that way which pleaseth
   best his own mind;” and in Christianity, Hierome sets it down for a
   rule, that “honos præter mandatum est dedecus,” God is dishonoured by
   that honour which is ascribed to him beyond his own prescription: and
   one wittily on the second commandment, “Non imago, non simulachrum
   damnatur, sed non facies tibi.” Assigning to God any thing by him not
   assumed is a making to ourselves, a deifying of our own imaginations.
   Let all men, then, cease squaring the glory of God by their own
   corrupted principles and more corrupted persuasions. The word alone is
   to be arbitrator in the things of God; which also I hope will appear,
   by the following treatise, to hold out nothing in the matter in hand
   contrary to those natural notions of God and his goodness which in the
   sad ruins of innocency have been retained. On these grounds we affirm,
   that all that glory of God which is pretended to be asserted by the
   general ransom, however it may seem glorious to purblind nature, is
   indeed a sinful flourish, for the obscuring of that glory wherein God
   is delighted.

   Secondly, It is strongly pretended that the worth and value of the
   satisfaction of Christ, by the opposite opinion limited to a few, are
   exceedingly magnified in this extending of them to all; when, besides
   what was said before unto human extending of the things of God beyond
   the bounds by himself fixed unto them, the merit of the death of
   Christ, consisting in its own internal worth and sufficiency, with that
   obligation which, by his obedience unto death, was put upon the justice
   of God for its application unto them for whom he died, is quite
   enervated and overthrown by it, made of no account, and such as never
   produced of itself absolutely the least good to any particular soul:
   which is so fully manifested in the following treatise, as I cannot but
   desire the reader’s sincere consideration of it, it being a matter of
   no small importance.

   Thirdly, A seeming smile cast upon the opinion of universal redemption
   by many texts of Scripture, with the ambiguity of some words, which
   though in themselves either figurative or indefinite, yet seem to be of
   a universal extent, maketh the abettors of it exceedingly rejoice. Now,
   concerning this I shall only desire the reader not to be startled at
   the multitude of places of Scripture which he may find heaped up by
   some of late about this business (especially by Thomas More, in his
   “Universality of Free Grace”), as though they proved and confirmed that
   for which they are produced, but rather prepare himself to admire at
   the confidence of men, particularly of him now named, to make such a
   flourish with colours and drums, having indeed no soldiers at all; for,
   notwithstanding all their pretences, it will appear that they hang the
   whole weight of their building on three or four texts of Scripture, —
   namely, 1 Tim. ii. 5, 6; John iii. 16, 17; Heb. ii. 9; 1 John ii. 2,
   with some few others, — and the ambiguity of two or three words, which
   themselves cannot deny to be of exceeding various acceptations. All
   which are at large discussed in the ensuing treatise, no one place that
   hath with the least show or colour been brought forth by any of our
   adversaries, in their own defence, or for the opposing of the effectual
   redemption of the elect only, being omitted, the book of Thomas More
   being in all the strength thereof fully met withal and enervated.

   Fourthly, Some men have, by I know not what misprision, [15]
   entertained a persuasion that the opinion of the Universalists serves
   exceedingly to set forth the love and free grace of God; yea, they make
   free grace, that glorious expression, to be that alone which is couched
   in their persuasion, — namely, that “God loves all alike, gave Christ
   to die for all, and is ready to save all if they will lay hold on him;”
   — under which notion how greedily the hook as well as the bait is
   swallowed by many we have daily experience, when the truth is, it is
   utterly destructive to the free distinguishing grace of God in all the
   dispensations and workings thereof. It evidently opposeth God’s free
   grace of election, as hath been declared, and therein that very love
   from which God sent his Son. His free distinguishing grace, also, of
   effectual calling must be made by it to give place to nature’s darling,
   free-will; yea, and the whole covenant of grace made void, by holding
   it out no otherwise but as a general removing of the wrath which was
   due to the breach of the covenant of works: for what else can be
   imagined (though this certainly they have not, John iii. 36) to be
   granted to the most of those “all” with whom they affirm this covenant
   to be made? Yea, notwithstanding their flourish of free grace, as
   themselves are forced to grant, that after all that was effected by the
   death of Christ, it was possible that none should be saved, so I hope I
   have clearly proved that if he accomplished by his death no more than
   they ascribe unto it, it is utterly impossible that any one should be
   saved. “Quid dignum tanto?”

   Fifthly, The opinion of universal redemption is not a little advantaged
   by presenting to convinced men a seeming ready way to extricate
   themselves out of all their doubts and perplexities, and to give them
   all the comfort the death of Christ can afford before they feel any
   power of that death working within them, or find any efficacy of free
   grace drawing their hearts to the embracing of Christ in the promise,
   or obtaining a particular interest in him; which are tedious things to
   flesh and blood to attend unto and wait upon. Some boast that, by this
   persuasion, that hath been effected in an hour which they waited for
   before seven years without success. To dispel this poor empty flourish,
   I shall show, in the progress, that it is very ready and apt to deceive
   multitudes with a plausible delusion, but really undermines the very
   foundations of that strong unfailing consolation which God hath showed
   himself abundantly willing that the heirs of promise should receive.

   These and the like are the general pretences wherewith the abettors of
   a general ransom do seek to commend themselves and opinion to the
   affections of credulous souls; through them making an open and easy
   passage into their belief, for the swallowing and digesting of that
   bitter potion which lurks in the bottom of their cup. Of these I
   thought meet to give the reader a brief view in the entrance, to take
   off his mind from empty generals, that he might be the better prepared
   to weigh all things carefully in an equal balance, when he shall come
   to consider those particulars afterward insisted on, wherein the great
   strength of our adversaries lies. It remaineth only that I give the
   Christian reader a brief account of my call unto, and undertaking in,
   this work, and so close this preface. First, then, I will assure thee
   it is not the least thirst in my affections to be drinking of the
   waters of Meribah, nor the least desire to have a share in Ishmael’s
   portion, to have my hand against others, and theirs against me, that
   put me upon this task. I never like myself worse than when faced with a
   vizard of disputing in controversies. The complexion of my soul is much
   more pleasant unto me in the waters of Shiloah:—


   “― Nuper me in littore vidi,

   Cum placidum ventis staret mare.” [16]

   What invitation there can be in itself for any one to lodge, much less
   abide, in this quarrelsome, scrambling territory, where, as Tertullian
   [17] says of Pontus, “omne quod flat Aquilo est,” no wind blows but
   what is sharp and keen, I know not. Small pleasure in those walks which
   are attended with dangerous precipices and unpleasing difficulties on
   every side:—


   “Utque viam teneas, nulloque errore traharis;

   Per tamen adversi gradieris cornua Tauri,

   Hæmoniosque arcus, violentique ora Leonis.” [18]

   No quiet nor peace in these things and ways, but continual brawls and
   dissensions:—


   “― Non hospes ab hospite tutus,

   Non socer a genero: fratrum quoque gratia rara est.” [19]

   The strongest bonds of nearest relations are too commonly broken by
   them. Were it not for that precept, Jude 3, and the like, of
   “contending earnestly for the faith once delivered unto the saints,”
   with the sounding of my bowels for the loss of poor seduced souls, I
   could willingly engage myself into an unchangeable resolution to fly
   all wordy battles and paper combats for the residue of my few and evil
   days.

   It is not, then (that I may return), any salamandrian complexion that
   was the motive to this undertaking. Neither, secondly, was it any
   conceit of my own abilities for this work, as though I were the fittest
   among many to undertake it. I know that as in all things I am “less
   than the least of all saints,” so in these I am


   ― oute tritos oute tetartos

   Oute duōdekatos oud’ en logō oud’ en arithmō

   Abler [20] pens have had, within these few years, the discussing and
   ventilating of some of these questions in our own language. Some have
   come to my hands, but none of weight, before I had well-nigh finished
   this heap of mine own, which was some twelve months since and upwards.
   In some of these, at least, in all of them, I had rested fully
   satisfied, but that I observed they had all tied up themselves to some
   certain parts of the controversy, especially the removing of
   objections, neither compassing nor methodizing the whole; whereby I
   discerned that the nature of the things under debate, — namely,
   satisfaction, reconciliation, redemption, and the like, — was left
   exceedingly in the dark, and the strong foundation of the whole
   building not so much as once discovered. It was always upon my desires
   that someone would undertake the main, and unfold out of the word, from
   the bottom, the whole dispensation of the love of God to his elect in
   Jesus Christ, with the conveyance of it through the promises of the
   gospel, being in all the fruits thereof purchased and procured by the
   oblation and intercession of Jesus Christ; by which it could not but be
   made apparent what was the great design of the blessed Trinity in this
   great work of redemption, with how vain an attempt and fruitless
   endeavour it must needs be to extend it beyond the bounds and limits
   assigned unto it by the principal agents therein. That arguments also
   might be produced for the confirmation of the truth we assert, in
   opposition to the error opposed, and so the weak established and
   dissenters convinced, was much in my wishes. The doctrine of the
   satisfaction of Christ, his merit, and the reconciliation wrought
   thereby, understood aright by few, and of late oppugned by some, being
   so nearly related to the point of redemption, I desired also to have
   seen cleared, unfolded, vindicated, by some able pen. But now, after
   long waiting, finding none to answer my expectation, although of myself
   I can truly say, with him in the Comedian, “Ego me neque tam astutum
   esse, neque ita perspicacem id scio,” that I should be fit for such an
   undertaking, the counsel of the poet also running much in my mind, —


   “Sumite materiam vestris, qui scribitis, æquam

   Viribus; et versate diu, quid ferre recusent,

   Quid valeant humeri.” [21]

   Yet, at the last, laying aside all such thoughts, by looking up to Him
   who supplieth seed to the sower, and doth all our works for us, I
   suffered myself to be overcome unto the work with that of another, “Ab
   alio quovis hoc fieri mallem quam a me; sed a me tamen potius quam a
   nemine;” — “I had rather it should have been done by any than myself,
   of myself only rather than of none;” especially considering the
   industrious diligence of the opposers of truth in these days:—


   “Scribimus indocti doctique, ―

   Ut jugulent homines, surgunt de nocte latrones;

   Ut teipsum serves non expergisceris?” [22]

   Add unto the former desire a consideration of the frequent conferences
   I had been invited unto about these things, the daily spreading of the
   opinions here opposed about the parts where I live, and a greater noise
   concerning their prevailing in other places, with the advantage they
   had obtained by some military abettors, with the stirring up of divers
   eminent and learned friends, and you have the sum of what I desire to
   hold forth as the cause of my undertaking this task. What the Lord hath
   enabled me to perform therein must be left to the judgment of others.
   Altogether hopeless of success I am not; but fully resolved that I
   shall not live to see a solid answer given unto it. If any shall
   undertake to vellicate and pluck some of the branches, rent from the
   roots and principles of the whole discourse, I shall freely give them
   leave to enjoy their own wisdom and imaginary conquest. If any shall
   seriously undertake to debate the whole cause, if I live to see it
   effected, I shall engage myself, by the Lord’s assistance, to be their
   humble convert or fair antagonist. In that which is already
   accomplished by the good hand of the Lord, I hope the learned may find
   something for their contentment, and the weak for their strengthening
   and satisfaction; that in all some glory may redound to Him whose it
   is, and whose truth is here unfolded by the unworthiest labourer in his
   vineyard,

   J. O.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [4] T. M., Universality of Free Grace. [He refers to an author of the
   name of Thomas More. See page 153 of this preface. — Ed.]

   [5] Camero, Amirald, etc.

   [6] Iren. lib. ii., cap. 6, 7, 14, 15, etc.; Clem. Strom. iii.; Epiph.
   Hæres. xxxi.; Tertul. ad Valen.

   [7] Virg. Æn. viii. 273, et seq.

   [8] “Quidam creduli, quidam negligentes sunt, quibusdam mendacium
   obrepit, quibusdam placet.”

   [9] “In tam occupata civitate fabulas vulgaris nequitia non invenit.” —
   Sen. Ep. 120.

   [10] Juv. Sat. i. 74.

   [11] Pers. Sat. i. 2.

   [12] “Natura sic apparet vitiata ut hoc majoris vitii sit non videre.”
   — Aug.

   [13] Laert. in Vit. Epimen.

   [14] Plato de Legib., lib. vii.

   [15] The word is here used in the obsolete sense of “mistake,” and has
   no reference so the legal offence of evasion or concealment now
   understood by the term. — Ed.

   [16] Virg. Buc. Ecl. ii. 25.

   [17] Ad. Mar.

   [18] Ovid. Met. ii. 79.

   [19] Ovid. Met. i. 144.

   [20] Vindic. Redempt., by my reverend and learned brother, Mr John
   Stalham; Mr Rutherford, Christ Drawing Sinners.

   [21] Hor. De Art. Poet., ver. 38.

   [22] Hor. Epist. lib. ii. Epist. i. 117; lib. i. Epist. ii. 32.
     __________________________________________________________________

   The

   Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

   A treatise of the redemption and reconciliation that is in the blood of
   Christ, with the merit thereof, and satisfaction wrought thereby.
     __________________________________________________________________

                                    Book I.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter I.

   In general of the end of the death of Christ, as it is in the Scripture
   proposed.

   By the end of the death of Christ, we mean in general, both, — first,
   that which his Father and himself intended in it; and, secondly, that
   which was effectually fulfilled and accomplished by it. Concerning
   either we may take a brief view of the expressions used by the Holy
   Ghost:—

   I. For the first. Will you know the end wherefore, and the intention
   wherewith, Christ came into the world? Let us ask himself (who knew his
   own mind, as also all the secrets of his Father’s bosom), and he will
   tell us that the “Son of man came to save that which was lost,” Matt.
   xviii. 11, — to recover and save poor lost sinners; that was his intent
   and design, as is again asserted, Luke xix. 10. Ask also his apostles,
   who know his mind, and they will tell you the same. So Paul, 1 Tim. i.
   15, “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that
   Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” Now, if you will ask
   who these sinners are towards whom he hath this gracious intent and
   purpose, himself tells you, Matt. xx. 28, that he came to “give his
   life a ransom for many;” in other places called us, believers,
   distinguished from the world: for be “gave himself for our sins, that
   he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will
   of God and our Father,” Gal. i. 4. That was the will and intention of
   God, that he should give himself for us, that we might be saved, being
   separated from the world. They are his church: Eph. v. 25–27, “He 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:” which last
   words express also the very aim and end of Christ in giving himself for
   any, even that they may be made fit for God, and brought nigh unto him;
   — the like whereof is also asserted, 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.” Thus clear, then, and
   apparent, is the intention and design of Christ and his Father in this
   great work, even what it was, and towards whom, — namely, to save us,
   to deliver us from the evil world, to purge and wash us, to make us
   holy, zealous, fruitful in good works, to render us acceptable, and to
   bring us unto God; for through him “we have access into the grace
   wherein we stand” Rom. v. 2.

   II. The effect, also, and actual product of the work itself, or what is
   accomplished and fulfilled by the death, blood-shedding, or oblation of
   Jesus Christ, is no less clearly manifested, but is as fully, and very
   often more distinctly, expressed; — as, first, Reconciliation with God,
   by removing and slaying the enmity that was between him and us; for
   “when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his
   Son,” Rom. v. 10. “God was in him reconciling the world unto himself,
   not imputing their trespasses unto them,” 2 Cor. v. 19; yea, he hath
   “reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ,” verse 18. And if you would
   know how this reconciliation was effected, the apostle will tell you
   that “he abolished in his flesh the enmity, the law of commandments
   consisting in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man,
   so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body
   by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby,” Eph. ii. 15, 16: so
   that “he is our peace,” verse 14. Secondly, Justification, by taking
   away the guilt of sins, procuring remission and pardon of them,
   redeeming us from their power, with the curse and wrath due unto us for
   them; for “by his own blood he entered into the holy place, having
   obtained eternal redemption for us” Heb. ix. 12. “He redeemed us from
   the curse, being made a curse for us,” Gal. iii. 13; “his own self
   bearing our sins in his own body on the tree,” 1 Pet. ii. 24. We have
   “all sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” but are “justified
   freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
   whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his
   blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins” Rom.
   iii. 23–25: for “in him we have redemption through his blood, even the
   forgiveness of sins,” Col. i. 14. Thirdly, Sanctification, by the
   purging away of the uncleanness and pollution of our sins, renewing in
   us the image of God, and supplying us with the graces of the Spirit of
   holiness: for “the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit
   offered himself to God, purgeth our consciences from dead works that we
   may serve the living God,” Heb. ix. 14; yea, “the blood of Jesus Christ
   cleanseth us from all sin,” 1 John i. 7. “By himself he purged our
   sins,” Heb. i. 3. To “sanctify the people with his own blood, he
   suffered without the gate,” chap. xiii. 12. “He gave himself for the
   church to sanctify and cleanse it, that it should be holy and without
   blemish,” Eph. v. 25–27. Peculiarly amongst the graces of the Spirit,
   “it is given to us,” huper Christou, “for Christ’s sake, to believe on
   him,” Phil. i. 29; God “blessing us in him with all spiritual blessings
   in heavenly places,” Eph. i. 3. Fourthly, Adoption, with that
   evangelical liberty and all those glorious privileges which appertain
   to the sons of God; for “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,” Gal. iv. 4, 5. Fifthly, Neither do the
   effects of the death of Christ rest here; they leave us not until we
   are settled in heaven, in glory and immortality for ever. Our
   inheritance is a “purchased possession,” Eph. i. 14: “And for this
   cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death,
   for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first
   testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal
   inheritance,” Heb. ix. 15. The sum of all is, — The death and
   blood-shedding of Jesus Christ hath wrought, and doth effectually
   procure, for all those that are concerned in it, eternal redemption,
   consisting in grace here and glory hereafter.

   III. Thus full, clear, and evident are the expressions in the Scripture
   concerning the ends and effects of the death of Christ, that a man
   would think every one might run and read. But we must stay: among all
   things in Christian religion, there is scarce any thing more questioned
   than this, which seems to be a most fundamental principle. A spreading
   persuasion there is of a general ransom to be paid by Christ for all;
   that he died to redeem all and every one, — not only for many, his
   church, the elect of God, but for every one also of the posterity of
   Adam. Now, the masters of this opinion do see full well and easily,
   that if that be the end of the death of Christ which we have from the
   Scripture asserted, if those before recounted be the immediate fruits
   and products thereof, then one of these two things will necessarily
   follow:— that either, first, God and Christ failed of their end
   proposed, and did not accomplish that which they intended, the death of
   Christ being not a fitly-proportioned means for the attaining of that
   end (for any cause of failing cannot be assigned); which to assert
   seems to us blasphemously injurious to the wisdom, power, and
   perfection of God, as likewise derogatory to the worth and value of the
   death of Christ; — or else, that all men, all the posterity of Adam,
   must be saved, purged, sanctified, and glorified; which surely they
   will not maintain, at least the Scripture and the woeful experience of
   millions will not allow. Wherefore, to cast a tolerable colour upon
   their persuasion, they must and do deny that God or his Son had any
   such absolute aim or end in the death or blood-shedding of Jesus
   Christ, or that any such thing was immediately procured and purchased
   by it, as we before recounted; but that God intended nothing, neither
   was any thing effected by Christ, — that no benefit ariseth to any
   immediately by his death but what is common to all and every soul,
   though never so cursedly unbelieving here and eternally damned
   hereafter, until an act of some, not procured for them by Christ, (for
   if it were, why have they it not all alike?) to wit, faith, do
   distinguish them from others. Now, this seeming to me to enervate the
   virtue, value, fruits and effects of the satisfaction and death of
   Christ, — serving, besides, for a basis and foundation to a dangerous,
   uncomfortable, erroneous persuasion — I shall, by the Lord’s
   assistance, declare what the Scripture holds out in both these things,
   both that assertion which is intended to be proved, and that which is
   brought for the proof thereof; desiring the Lord by his Spirit to lead
   us into all truth, to give us understanding in all things, and if any
   one be otherwise minded, to reveal that also unto him.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter II.

   Of the nature of an end in general, and some distinctions about it.

   I. The end of any thing is that which the agent intendeth to accomplish
   in and by the operation which is proper unto its nature, and which it
   applieth itself unto, — that which any one aimeth at, and designeth in
   himself to attain, as a thing good and desirable unto him in the state
   and condition wherein he is. So the end which Noah proposed unto
   himself in the building of the ark was the preservation of himself and
   others. According to the will of God, he made an ark to preserve
   himself and his family from the flood: “According to all that God
   commanded him, so did he,” Gen. vi. 22. That which the agent doth, or
   whereto he applieth himself, for the compassing his proposed end, is
   called the means; which two do complete the whole reason of working in
   free intellectual agents, for I speak only of such as work according to
   choice or election. So Absalom intending a revolt from his father, to
   procure the crown and kingdom for himself, “he prepared him horses and
   chariots, and fifty men to run before him,” 2 Sam. xv. 1; and farther,
   by fair words, and glossing compliances, “he stole the hearts of the
   men of Israel” verse 6; then pretends a sacrifice at Hebron, where he
   makes a strong conspiracy, verse 12; — all which were the means he used
   for the attaining of his fore-proposed end.

   II. Between both these, end and means, there is this relation, that
   (though in sundry kinds) they are mutually causes one of another. The
   end is the first, principal, moving cause of the whole. It is that for
   whose sake the whole work is. No agent applies itself to action but for
   an end; and were it not by that determined to some certain effect,
   thing, way, or manner of working, it would no more do one thing than
   another. The inhabitants of the old world desiring and intending unity
   and cohabitation, with perhaps some reserves to provide for their
   safety against a second storm, they cry, “Go to, let us build us a
   city, and a tower whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a
   name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth,”
   Gen. xi. 4. First, They lay down their aim and design, and then let out
   the means in their apprehension conducing thereunto. And manifest,
   then, it is, that the whole reason and method of affairs that a wise
   worker or agent, according to the counsel, proposeth to himself is
   taken from the end which he aims at; that is, in intention and
   contrivance, the beginning of all that order which is in working. Now,
   the means are all those things which are used for the attaining of the
   end proposed, — as meat for the preservation of life, sailing in a ship
   for him that would pass the sea, laws for the quiet continuance of
   human society; and they are the procuring cause of the end, in one kind
   or another. Their existence is for the ends sake, and the end hath its
   rise out of them, following them either morally as their desert, or
   naturally as their fruit and product. First, In a moral sense. When the
   action and the end are to be measured or considered in reference to a
   moral rule, or law prescribed to the agent, then the means are the
   deserving or meritorious cause of the end; as, if Adam had continued in
   his innocency, and done all things according to the law given unto him,
   the end procured thereby had been a blessed life to eternity; as now
   the end of any sinful act is death, the curse of the law. Secondly,
   When the means are considered only in their natural relation, then they
   are the instrumentally efficient cause of the end. So Joab intending
   the death of Abner, “he smote him with his spear under the fifth rib,
   that he died,” 2 Sam. iii. 27. And when Benaiah, by the command of
   Solomon, fell upon Shimei the wounds he gave him were the efficient of
   his death, 1 Kings ii. 46. In which regard there is no difference
   between the murdering of an innocent man and the executing of an
   offender; but as they are under a moral consideration, their ends
   follow their deservings, in respect of conformity to the rule, and so
   there is chasma mega between them.

   III. The former consideration, by reason of the defect and perverseness
   of some agents (for otherwise these things are coincident), holds out a
   twofold end of things, — first, of the work, and, secondly, of the
   workman; of the act and the agent: for when the means assigned for the
   attaining of any end are not proportioned unto it, nor, fitted for it,
   according to that rule which the agent is to work by, then it cannot be
   but that he must aim at one thing and another follow, in respect of the
   morality of the work. So Adam is enticed into a desire to be like God;
   this now he makes his aim, which to effect he eats the forbidden fruit,
   and that contracts a guilt which he aimed not at. But when the agent
   acts aright, and as it should do, — when it aims at an end that is
   proper to it, belonging to its proper perfection and condition, and
   worketh by such means as are fit and suitable to the end proposed, —
   the end of the work and the workman are one and the same; as when Abel
   intended the worship of the Lord, he offered a sacrifice through faith,
   acceptable unto him; or as a man, desiring salvation through Christ,
   applieth himself to get an interest in him. Now, the sole reason of
   this diversity is, that secondary agents, such as men are, have an end
   set and appointed to their actions by Him which giveth them an external
   rule or law to work by, which shall always attend them in their
   working, whether they will or no. God only, whose will and good
   pleasure is the sole rule of all those works which outwardly are of
   him, can never deviate in his actions, nor have any end attend or
   follow his acts not precisely by him intended.

   IV. Again; the end of every free agent is either that which he
   effecteth, or that for whose sake he doth effect it. When a man builds
   a house to let to hire, that which he effecteth is the building of a
   house; that which moveth him to do it is love of gain. The physician
   cures the patient, and is moved to it by his reward. The end which
   Judas aimed at in his going to the priests, bargaining with them,
   conducting the soldiers to the garden, kissing Christ, was the
   betraying of his Master; but the end for whose sake the whole
   undertaking was set on foot was the obtaining of the thirty pieces of
   silver: “What will ye give me, and I will do it?” The end which God
   effected by the death of Christ was the satisfaction of his justice:
   the end for whose sake he did it was either supreme, or his own glory;
   or subordinate, ours with him.

   V. Moreover, the means are of two sorts:— First, Such as have a true
   goodness in themselves without reference to any farther kind; though
   not so considered as we use them for means. No means, as a means is
   considered as good in itself, but only as conducible to a farther end;
   it is repugnant to the nature of means, as such, to be considered as
   good in themselves. Study is in itself the most noble employment of the
   soul; but, aiming at wisdom or knowledge, we consider it as good only
   inasmuch as it conducteth to that end, otherwise as “a weariness of the
   flesh,” Eccl. xii. 12. Secondly, Such as have no good at all in any
   kind, as in themselves considered, but merely as conducing to that end
   which they are fit to attain. They receive all their goodness (which is
   but relative) from that whereunto they are appointed, in themselves no
   way desirable; as the cutting off a leg or an arm for the preservation
   of life, taking a bitter potion for health’s sake, throwing corn and
   lading into the sea to prevent shipwreck. Of which nature is the death
   of Christ, as we shall afterward declare.

   VI. These things being thus proposed in general, our next task must be
   to accommodate them to the present business in hand; which we shall do
   in order, by laying down the agent working, the means wrought and the
   end effected, in the great work of our redemption; for these three must
   be orderly considered and distinctly, that we may have a right
   apprehension of the whole: into the first whereof, sun Theō, we make an
   entrance in [chapter third.]
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter III.

   Of the agent or chief author of the work of our redemption, and of the
   first thing distinctly ascribed to the person of the Father.

   I. The agent in, and chief author of, this great work of our redemption
   is the whole blessed Trinity; for all the works which outwardly are of
   the Deity are undivided and belong equally to each person, their
   distinct manner of subsistence and order being observed. It is true,
   there were sundry other instrumental causes in the oblation, or rather
   passion of Christ but the work cannot in any sense be ascribed unto
   them; — for in respect of God the Father, the issue of their endeavours
   was exceeding contrary to their own intentions, and in the close they
   did nothing but what the “hand and counsel of God had before determined
   should be done,” Acts iv. 28; and in respect of Christ they were no way
   able to accomplish what they aimed at, for he himself laid down his
   life, and none was able to take it from him, John x. 17, 18: so that
   they are to be excluded from this consideration. In the several persons
   of the holy Trinity, the joint author of the whole work, the Scripture
   proposeth distinct and sundry acts or operations peculiarly assigned
   unto them; which, according to our weak manner of apprehension, we are
   to consider severally and apart; which also we shall do, beginning with
   them that are ascribed to the Father.

   II. Two peculiar acts there are in this work of our redemption by the
   blood of Jesus, which may be and are properly assigned to the person of
   the Father:— First, The sending of his Son into the world for this
   employment. Secondly, A laying the punishment due to our sin upon him.

   1. The Father loves the world, and sends his Son to die: He “sent his
   Son into the world that the world through him might be saved,” John
   iii. 16, 17. He “sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and
   for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law
   might be fulfilled in us,” Rom. viii. 3, 4. He “set him forth to be a
   propitiation through faith in his blood,” chap. iii. 25. For “when the
   fulness of the time was come, 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,” Gal. iv. 4, 5. So more than twenty
   times in the Gospel of John there is mention of this sending; and our
   Saviour describes himself by this periphrasis, “Him whom the Father
   hath sent,” John x. 36; and the Father by this, “He who sent me,” chap.
   v. 37. So that this action of sending is appropriate to the Father,
   according to his promise that he would “send us a Saviour, a great one,
   to deliver us,” Isa. xix. 20; and to the profession of our Saviour, “I
   have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it
   was, there am I: and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me,”
   Isa. xlviii. 16. Hence the Father himself is sometimes called our
   Saviour: 1 Tim. i. 1, “According to the commandment Theou sōtēros
   hēmōn,” — “of God our Saviour.” Some copies, indeed, read it, Theou kai
   sōtēros hēmōn, — “of God and our Saviour;” but the interposition of
   that particle kai arose, doubtless, from a misprision that Christ alone
   is called Saviour. But directly this is the same with that parallel
   place of Tit. i. 3, Kat’ epitagēn tou sōtēros hēmōn Theou, — “According
   to the commandment of God our Saviour,” where no interposition of that
   conjunctive particle can have place; the same title being also in other
   places ascribed to him, as Luke i. 47, “My spirit hath rejoiced in God
   my Saviour.” As also 1 Tim. iv. 10, “We trust in the living God, who is
   the Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe;” though in this
   last place it be not ascribed unto him with reference to his redeeming
   us by Christ, but his saving and preserving all by his providence. So
   also Tit. ii. 10, iii. 4; Deut. xxxii. 15; 1 Sam. x. 19; Ps. xxiv. 5,
   xxv. 5; Isa. xii. 2, xl. 10, xlv. 15; Jer. xiv. 8; Micah vii. 7; Hab.
   iii. 18; most of which places have reference to his sending of Christ,
   which is also distinguished into three several acts, which in order we
   must lay down:—

   (1.) An authoritative imposition of the office of Mediator, which
   Christ closed withal by his voluntary susception of it, willingly
   undergoing the office, wherein by dispensation the Father had and
   exercised a kind of superiority, which the Son, though “in the form of
   God,” humbled himself unto, Phil. ii. 6–8. And of this there may
   conceived two parts:—

   [1.] The purposed imposition of his counsel, or his eternal counsel for
   the setting apart of his Son incarnate to this office, saying unto him,
   “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall
   give thee the nations for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of
   the earth for thy possession,” Ps. ii. 7, 8. He said unto him, “Sit
   thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool;” for
   “the Lord swore, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after
   the order of Melchizedek,” Ps. cx. 1, 4. He appointed him to be “heir
   of all things,” Heb. i. 2, having “ordained him to be Judge of quick
   and dead,” Acts x. 42; for unto this he was “ordained before the
   foundation of the world,” 1 Pet. i. 20., and “determined, horistheis,
   to be the Son of God with power,” Rom. i. 4, “that he might be the
   first-born among many brethren,” chap. viii. 29. I know that this is an
   act eternally established in the mind and will of God, and so not to be
   ranged in order with the others, which are all temporary, and had their
   beginning in the fulness of time, of all which this first is the spring
   and fountain, according to that of James, Acts xv. 18, “Known unto God
   are all his works from the beginning of the world;” but yet, it being
   no unusual form of speaking that the purpose should also be
   comprehended in that which holds out the accomplishment of it, aiming
   at truth and not exactness, we pass it thus.

   [2.] The actual inauguration or solemn admission of Christ into his
   office; “committing all judgment unto the Son,” John v. 22; “making him
   to be both Lord and Christ,” Acts ii. 36; “appointing him over his
   whole house,” Heb. iii. 1–6; — which is that “anointing of the most
   Holy,” Dan. ix. 24; God “anointing him with the oil of gladness above
   his fellows,” Ps. xlv. 7: for the actual setting apart of Christ to his
   office is said to be by unction, because all those holy things which
   were types of him, as the ark, the altar, etc., were set apart and
   consecrated by anointing, Exod. xxx. 25–28, etc. To this also belongs
   that public testification by innumerable angels from heaven of his
   nativity, declared by one of them to the shepherds. “Behold,” saith he,
   “I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be unto all people;
   for unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is
   Christ the Lord,” Luke ii. 10, 11; — which message was attended by and
   closed with that triumphant exultation of the host of heaven, “Glory be
   to God on high, on earth peace, towards men good-will,” verse 14: with
   that redoubled voice which afterward came from the excellent glory,
   “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased,” Matt. iii. 17,
   xvii. 5; 2 Pet. i. 17. If these things ought to be distinguished and
   placed in their own order, they may be considered in these three
   several acts:— First, The glorious proclamation which he made of his
   nativity, when he “prepared him a body,” Heb. x. 5, bringing his
   First-begotten into the world, and saying, “Let all the angels of God
   worship him” chap. i. 6, sending them to proclaim the message which we
   before recounted. Secondly, Sending the Spirit visibly, in the form of
   a dove, to light upon him at the time of his baptism, Matt. iii. 16,
   when he was endued with a fulness thereof, for the accomplishment of
   the work and discharge of the office whereunto he was designed,
   attended with that voice whereby he owned him from heaven as his
   only-beloved. Thirdly, The “crowning of him with glory and honour,” in
   his resurrection, ascension, and sitting down “on the right hand of the
   Majesty on high,” Heb. i. 3; setting “him as his king upon his holy
   hill of Zion,” Ps. ii. 6; when “all power was given unto him in heaven
   and in earth,” Matt. xxviii. 18, “all things being put under his feet”
   Heb. ii. 7, 8; himself highly exalted, and “a name given him above
   every name, that at,” etc., Phil. ii. 9–11. Of which it pleased him to
   appoint witnesses of all sorts; — angels from heaven, Luke xxiv. 4,
   Acts i. 10; the dead out of the graves, Matt. xxvii. 52; the apostles
   among and unto the living, Acts ii. 32; with those more than five
   hundred brethren, to whom he appeared at once, 1 Cor. xv. 6. Thus
   gloriously was he inaugurated into his office, in the several sets and
   degrees thereof, God saying unto him, “It is a light thing that thou
   shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore
   the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the
   Gentiles that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth,”
   Isa. xlix. 6.

   Between these two acts I confess there intercedes a twofold promise of
   God; — one, of giving a Saviour to his people, a Mediator, according to
   his former purpose, as Gen. iii. 15, “The seed of the woman shall break
   the serpent’s head;” and, “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor
   a lawgiver from between his feet, till Shiloh come; and unto him shall
   the gathering of the people be,” chap. xlix. 10. Which he also
   foresignified by many sacrifices and other types, with prophetical
   predictions: “Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and
   searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto
   you; searching what or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which
   was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of
   Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed,
   that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things
   which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel
   unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the
   angels desire to look into,” 1 Pet. i. 10–12. The other is a promise of
   applying the benefits purchased by this Saviour so designed to them
   that should believe on him, to be given in fulness of time, according
   to the former promises; telling Abraham, that “in his seed all the
   families of the earth should be blessed,” and justifying himself by the
   same faith, Gen. xii. 3, xv. 6. But these things belong rather to the
   application wholly, which was equal both before and after his actual
   mission.

   (2.) The second act of the Father’s sending the Son is the furnishing
   of him in his sending with a fulness of all gifts and graces that might
   any way be requisite for the office he was to undertake, the work he
   was to undergo, and the charge he had over the house of God. There was,
   indeed, in Christ a twofold fulness and perfection of all spiritual
   excellencies:—

   First, the natural all-sufficient perfection of his Deity, as one with
   his Father in respect of his divine nature: for his glory was “the
   glory of the only-begotten of the Father,” John i. 14. He was “in the
   form of God, and thought it not robbery to be equal with God,” Phil.
   ii. 6; being the “fellow of the Lord of hosts,” Zech. xiii. 7. Whence
   that glorious appearance, Isa. vi. 3, 4, when the seraphims cried one
   to another, and said, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the
   whole earth is full of his glory. And the posts of the door moved at
   the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.” And
   the prophet cried, “Mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts,”
   verse 5. Even concerning this vision the apostle saith, “Isaiah saw
   him, and spake of his glory,” John xii. 41. Of which glory ekenōse, he
   as it were emptied himself for a season, when he was “found in the
   form” or condition “of a servant, humbling himself unto death,” Phil.
   ii. 7, 8; laying aside that glory which attended his Deity, outwardly
   appearing to have “neither form, nor beauty, nor comeliness, that he
   should be desired,” Isa. liii. 2. But this fulness we do not treat of,
   it being not communicated to him, but essentially belonging to his
   person, which is eternally begotten of the person of his Father.

   The second fulness that was in Christ was a communicated fulness, which
   was in him by dispensation from his Father, bestowed upon him to fit
   him for his work and office as he was and is the “Mediator between God
   and men, the man Christ Jesus,” 1 Tim. ii. 5; not as he is the “Lord of
   hosts,” but as he is “Emmanuel, God with us,” Matt. i. 23; as he was a
   “son given to us, called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The
   everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace, upon whose shoulder the
   government was to be,” Isa. ix. 6. It is a fulness of grace; not that
   essential which is of the nature of the Deity, but that which is
   habitual and infused into the humanity as personally united to the
   other; which, though it be not absolutely infinite, as the other is,
   yet it extends itself to all perfections of grace, both in respect of
   parts and degrees. There is no grace that is not in Christ, and every
   grace is in him in the highest degree: so that whatsoever the
   perfection of grace, either for the several kinds or respective
   advancements thereof, requireth, is in him habitually, by the collation
   of his Father for this very purpose, and for the accomplishment of the
   work designed; which, though (as before) it cannot properly be said to
   be infinite, yet it is boundless and endless. It is in him as the light
   in the beams of the sun, and as water in a living fountain which can
   never fail. He is the “candlestick” from whence the “golden pipes do
   empty the golden oil out of themselves,” Zech. iv. 12, into all that
   are his; for he is “the beginning, the first-born from the dead, in all
   things having the pre-eminence; for it pleased the Father that in him
   should all fulness dwell;” Col. i. 18, 19. In him he caused to be “hid
   all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,” chap. ii. 3; and “in him
   dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead sōmatikōs,” substantially or
   personally, verse 9; that “of his fulness we might all receive grace
   for grace,” John i. 16, in a continual supply. So that, setting upon
   the work of redemption, he looks upon this in the first place. “The
   Spirit of the Lord God,” saith he, “is upon me; because the Lord hath
   anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to
   bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and
   the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the
   acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to
   comfort all that mourn,” Isa. lxi. 1, 2. And this was the “anointing
   with the oil of gladness” which he had “above his fellows,” Ps. xlv. 7;
   “it was upon his head, and ran down to his beard, yea, down to the
   skirts of his garments,” Ps. cxxxiii. 2, that every one covered with
   the garment of his righteousness might be made partaker of it. “The
   Spirit of the Lord did rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and
   understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge
   and of the fear of the Lord,” Isa. xi. 2; and that not in parcels and
   beginnings as in us, proportioned to our measure and degrees of
   sanctification, but in a fulness, for “he received not the Spirit by
   measure,” John iii. 34; — that is, it was not so with him when he come
   to the full measure of the stature of his age, as Eph. iv. 13; for
   otherwise it was manifested in him and collated on him by degrees, for
   he “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man,”
   Luke ii. 52. Hereunto was added “all power in heaven and earth, which
   was given unto him,” Matt. xxviii. 18; “power over all flesh, to give
   eternal life to as many as he would,” John xvii. 2. Which we might
   branch into many particulars, but so much shall suffice to set forth
   the second act of God in sending his Son.

   (3.) The third act of this sending is his entering into covenant and
   compact with his Son concerning the work to be undertaken, and the
   issue or event thereof; of which there be two parts:—

   First, His promise to protect and assist him in the accomplishment and
   perfect fulfilling of the whole business and dispensation about which
   he was employed, or which he was to undertake. The Father engaged
   himself, that for his part, upon his Son’s undertaking this great work
   of redemption, he would not be wanting in any assistance in trials,
   strength against oppositions, encouragement against temptations, and
   strong consolation in the midst of terrors, which might be any way
   necessary or requisite to carry him on through all difficulties to the
   end of so great an employment; — upon which he undertakes this heavy
   burden, so full of misery and trouble: for the Father before this
   engagement requires no less of him than that he should “become a
   Saviour, and be afflicted in all the affliction of his people,” Isa.
   lxiii. 8, 9: yea, that although he were “the fellow of the Lord of
   hosts,” yet he should endure the “sword” that was drawn against him as
   the “shepherd” of the sheep, Zech. xiii. 7; “treading the winepress
   alone, until he became red in his apparel,” Isa. lxiii. 2, 3: yea, to
   be “stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted; wounded for our
   transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities; to be bruised and put
   to grief; to make his soul an offering for sin, and to bear the
   iniquity of many,” Isa. liii.; to be destitute of comfort so far as to
   cry, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Ps. xxii. 1. No
   wonder, then, if upon this undertaking the Lord promised to make “his
   mouth like a sharp sword, to hide him in the shadow of his hand, to
   make him a polished shaft, and to hide him in his quiver, to make him
   his servant in whom he would be glorified,” Isa. xlix. 2, 3; that
   though “the kings of the earth should set themselves, and the rulers
   take counsel together, against him, yet he would laugh them to scorn,
   and set him as king upon his holy hill of Zion,” Ps. ii. 2, 4, 6;
   though the “builders did reject him,” yet he should “become the head of
   the corner,” to the amazement and astonishment of all the world, Ps.
   cxviii. 22, 23; Matt. xxi. 42, Mark xii. 10, Luke xx. 17, Acts iv. 11,
   12, 1 Pet. ii. 4; yea, he would “lay him for a foundation, a stone, a
   tried stone, a precious corner-stone, a sure foundation,” Isa. xxviii.
   16, that “whosoever should fall upon him should be broken, but upon
   whomsoever he should fall he should grind him to powder,” Matt. xxi.
   44. Hence arose that confidence of our Saviour in his greatest and
   utmost trials, being assured, by virtue of his Father’s engagement in
   this covenant, upon a treaty with him about the redemption of man, that
   he would never leave him nor forsake him. “I gave,” saith he, “my back
   to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid
   not my face from shame and spitting,” Isa. l. 6. But with what
   confidence, blessed Saviour, didst thou undergo all this shame and
   sorrow! Why, “The Lord God will help me; therefore shall I not be
   confounded: therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know; that
   I shall not be ashamed. He is near that justifieth me; who will contend
   with me? let us stand together: who is mine adversary? let him come
   near to me. Behold, the Lord God will help me; who is he that condemn
   me? Lo! they shall all wax old as a garment; the moth shall eat them
   up,” verses 7–9. With this assurance he was brought as a “lamb to the
   slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not
   his mouth,” Isa. liii. 7: for “when he was reviled, he reviled not
   again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to
   him that judgeth righteously,” 1 Pet. ii. 23. So that the ground of our
   Saviour’s confidence and assurance in this great undertaking, and a
   strong motive to exercise his graces received in the utmost endurings,
   was this engagement of his Father upon this compact of assistance and
   protection.

   Secondly, [His promise] of success, or a good issue out of all his
   sufferings, and a happy accomplishment and attainment of the end of his
   great undertaking. Now, of all the rest this chiefly is to be
   considered, as directly conducing to the business proposed, which yet
   would not have been so clear without the former considerations; for
   whatsoever it was that God promised his Son should be fulfilled and
   attained by him, that certainly was it at which the Son aimed in the
   whole undertaking, and designed it as the end of the work that was
   committed to him, and which alone he could and did claim upon the
   accomplishment of his Father’s will. What this was, and the promises
   whereby it is at large set forth, ye have Isa. xlix.: “Thou shalt be my
   servant,” saith the Lord, “to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to
   restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to
   the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation to the end of the earth.
   Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the
   Lord that is faithful.” And he will certainly accomplish this
   engagement: “I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the
   people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate
   heritages; that thou mayest say to the prisoners, Go forth; to them
   that are in darkness, Show yourselves. They shall feed in the ways, and
   their pastures shall be in all high places. They shall not hunger nor
   thirst; neither shall the heat nor sun smite them: for he that hath
   mercy on them shall lead them, even by the springs of water shall he
   guide them. And I will make all my mountains a way, and my highways
   shall be exalted. Behold, these shall come from far: and, lo, these
   from the north and from the west; and these from the land of Sinim,”
   verses 6–12. By all which expressions the Lord evidently and clearly
   engageth himself to his Son, that he should gather to himself a
   glorious church of believers from among Jews and Gentiles, through all
   the world, that should be brought unto him, and certainly fed in full
   pasture, and refreshed by the springs of water, all the spiritual
   springs of living water which flow from God in Christ for their
   everlasting salvation. This, then, our Saviour certainly aimed at, as
   being the promise upon which he undertook the work, — the gathering of
   the sons of God together, their bringing unto God, and passing to
   eternal salvation; which being well considered, it will utterly
   overthrow the general ransom or universal redemption, as afterward will
   appear. In the 53d chapter of the same prophecy, the Lord is more
   express and punctual in these promises to his Son, assuring him that
   when he “made his soul an offering for sin, he should see his seed, and
   prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord should prosper in his
   hand; that he should see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied;
   by his knowledge he should justify many; that, he should divide a
   portion with the great, and the spoil with the strong,” verses 10–12.
   He was, you see, to see his seed by covenant, and to raise up a
   spiritual seed unto God, a faithful people, to be prolonged and
   preserved throughout all generations; which, how well it consists with
   their persuasion who in terms have affirmed “that the death of Christ
   might have had its full and utmost effect and yet none be saved,” I
   cannot see, though some have boldly affirmed it, and all the assertors
   of universal redemption do tacitly grant, when they come to the
   assigning of the proper ends and effects of the death of Christ. “The
   pleasure of the Lord,” also, was to “prosper in his hand;” which what
   it was he declares, Heb. ii. 10, even “bringing of many sons unto
   glory;” for “God sent his only-begotten Son into the world that we live
   through him,” 1 John iv. 9; as we shall afterward more abundantly
   declare. But the promises of God made unto him in their agreement, and
   so, consequently, his own aim and intention, may be seen in nothing
   more manifestly than in the request that our Saviour makes upon the
   accomplishment of the work about which he was sent; which certainly was
   neither for more nor less than God had engaged himself to him for. “I
   have,” saith he, “glorified thee on earth, I have finished the work
   which thou gavest me to do,” John xvii. 4. And now, what doth he
   require after the manifestation of his eternal glory, of which for a
   season he had emptied himself, verse 5? Clearly a full confluence of
   the love of God and fruits of that love upon all his elect, in faith,
   sanctification, and glory. God gave them unto him, and he sanctified
   himself to be a sacrifice for their sake, praying for their
   sanctification, verses 17–19; their preservation in peace, or communion
   one with another, and union with God, verses 20, 21, “I pray not for
   these alone” (that is, his apostles), “but for them also which shall
   believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou,
   Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us;” and
   lastly, their glory, verse 24, “Father, I will that they also, whom
   thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my
   glory, which thou hast given me.” All which several postulata are no
   doubt grounded upon the fore-cited promises which by his Father were
   made unto him. And in this, not one word concerning all and every one,
   but expressly the contrary, verse 9. Let this, then, be diligently
   observed, that the promise of God unto his Son, and the request of the
   Son unto his Father, are directed to this peculiar end of bringing sons
   unto God. And this is the first act, consisting of these three
   particulars.

   2. The second is of laying upon him the punishment of sins, everywhere
   ascribed unto the Father: “Awake; O sword, against my shepherd, against
   the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts: smite the shepherd,
   and the sheep shall be scattered,” Zech. xiii. 7. What here is set down
   imperatively, by way of command, is in the gospel indicatively
   expounded. “I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall
   be scattered abroad,” Matt. xxvi. 31. “He was stricken, smitten of God,
   and afflicted;” yea, “the Lord laid upon him the iniquity of us all;”
   yea, “it pleased the Lord to bruise him, and to put him to grief,” Isa.
   liii. 4, 6, 10. “He made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we
   might be made the righteousness of God in him,” 2 Cor. v. 21. The
   adjunct in both places is put for the subject, as the opposition
   between his being made sin and our being made righteousness declareth.
   “Him who knew no sin,” — that is, who deserved no punishment, — “him
   hath he made to be sin,” or laid the punishment due to sin upon him. Or
   perhaps, in the latter place, sin may be taken for an offering or
   sacrifice for the expiation of sin, hamartia answering in this place to
   the word חַטָּאת in the Old Testament, which signifieth both sin and
   the sacrifice for it. And this the Lord did; for as for Herod, Pontius
   Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, when they were
   gathered together, they did nothing but “what his hand and counsel had
   determined before to be done,” Acts iv. 27, 28. Whence the great
   shakings of our Saviour were in his close conflict with his Father’s
   wrath, and that burden which by himself he immediately imposed on him.
   When there was no hand or instrument outwardly appearing to put him to
   any suffering or cruciating torment, then he “began to be sorrowful,
   even unto death” Matt. xxvi. 37, 38; to wit, when he was in the garden
   with his three choice apostles, before the traitor or any of his
   accomplices appeared, then was he “sore amazed, and very heavy,” Mark
   xiv. 33. That was the time, “in the days of his flesh, when he offered
   up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that
   was able to save him from death,” Heb. v. 7; which how he performed the
   evangelist describeth, Luke xxii. 43, 44: “There appeared an angel unto
   him from heaven, strengthening him. But being in an agony he prayed
   more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood
   falling down to the ground.” Surely it was a close and strong trial,
   and that immediately from his Father, he now underwent; for how meekly
   and cheerfully doth he submit, without any regret or trouble of spirit,
   to all the cruelty of men and violence offered to his body, until this
   conflict being renewed again, he cries, “My God, my God, why hast thou
   forsaken me?” And this, by the way, will be worth our observation that
   we may know with whom our Saviour chiefly had to do, and what was that
   which he underwent for sinners; which also will give some light to the
   grand query concerning the persons of them for whom he undertook all
   this. His sufferings were far from consisting in mere corporal
   perpessions and afflictions, with such impressions upon his soul and
   spirit as were the effects and issues only of them. It was no more nor
   less than the curse of the law of God which he underwent for us: for he
   freed us from the curse “by being made a curse,” Gal. iii. 13; which
   contained all the punishment that was due to sin, either in the
   severity of God’s justice, or according to the exigence of that law
   which required obedience. That the execration of the law should be only
   temporal death, as the law was considered to be the instrument of the
   Jewish polity, and serving that economy or dispensation, is true; but
   that it should be no more, as it is the universal rule of obedience,
   and the bond of the covenant between God and man, is a foolish dream.
   Nay, but in dying for us Christ did not only aim at our good, but also
   directly died in our stead. The punishment due to our sin and the
   chastisement of our peace was upon him; which that it was the pains of
   hell, in their nature and being, in their weight and pressure, though
   not in tendence and continuance (it being impossible that he should be
   detained by death), who can deny and not be injurious to the justice of
   God, which will inevitably inflict those pains to eternity upon
   sinners? It is true, indeed, there is a relaxation of the law in
   respect of the persons suffering, God admitting of commutation; as in
   the old law, when in their sacrifices the life of the beast was
   accepted (in respect to the carnal part of the ordinances) for the life
   of the man. This is fully revealed, and we believe it; but for any
   change of the punishment, in respect of the nature of it, where is the
   least intimation of any alteration? We conclude, then, this second act
   of God, in laying the punishment on him for us, with that of the
   prophet, “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one
   to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all,”
   Isa. liii. 6: and add thereunto this observation, that it seems strange
   to me that Christ should undergo the pains of hell in their stead who
   lay in the pains of hell before he underwent those pains, and shall
   continue in them to eternity; for “their worm dieth not, neither is
   their fire quenched.” To which I may add this dilemma to our
   Universalists:— God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent
   the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins
   of some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all
   men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be
   saved; for if God enter into judgment with us, though it were with all
   mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: “If the
   Lord should mark iniquities, who should stand?” Ps. cxxx. 3. We might
   all go to cast all that we have “to the moles and to the bats, to go
   into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks,
   for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty,” Isa. ii. 20,
   21. If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their
   stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world.
   If the first, why, then, are not all freed from the punishment of all
   their sins? You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not
   believe.” But this unbelief, is it a sin or not? If not, why should
   they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment
   due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than
   their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his
   death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins. Let them
   choose which part they will.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter IV.

   Of those things which in the work of redemption are peculiarly ascribed
   to the person of the Son.

   Secondly, The Son was an agent in this great work, concurring by a
   voluntary susception, or willing undertaking of the office imposed on
   him; for when the Lord said, “Sacrifice and offering he would not: in
   burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin he had no pleasure,” then said
   Christ, “Lo, I come, (in the volume of the book it is written of me,)
   to do thy will, O God,” Heb. x. 6, 7. All other ways being rejected as
   insufficient, Christ undertaketh the task, “in whom alone the Father
   was well pleased,” Matt. iii. 17. Hence he professeth that “he came not
   to do his own will, but the will of him that sent him,” John vi. 38;
   yea, that it was his meat and drink to do his Father’s will, and to
   finish his work, chap. iv. 34. The first words that we find recorded of
   him in the Scripture are to the same purpose, “Wist ye not that I must
   be about my Father’s business?” Luke ii. 49. And at the close of all he
   saith, “I have glorified thee on the earth; I have finished the work
   which thou gavest me to do,” John xvii. 4; calling it everywhere his
   Father’s work that he did, or his Father’s will which he came to
   accomplish, with reference to the imposition which we before treated
   of. Now, this undertaking of the Son may be referred to three heads.
   The first being a common foundation for both the others, being as it
   were the means in respect of them as the end, and yet in some sort
   partaking of the nature of a distinct action, with a goodness in itself
   in reference to the main end proposed to all three, we shall consider
   it apart; and that is, —

   First, His incarnation, as usually it is called, or his taking of
   flesh, and pitching his tent amongst us, John i. 14. His “being made of
   a woman,” Gal. iv. 4, is usually called his ensarkōsis, incarnation;
   for this was “the mystery of godliness, that God should be manifested
   in the flesh,” 1 Tim. iii. 16, thereby assuming not any singular
   person, but our human nature, into personal union with himself. For,
   “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,” Heb. ii.
   14. It was the children that he considered, the “children whom the Lord
   gave him,” verse 13. Their participation in flesh and blood moved him
   to partake of the same, — not because all the world, all the posterity
   of Adam, but because the children were in that condition; for their
   sakes he sanctified himself. Now, this emptying of the Deity, this
   humbling of himself, this dwelling amongst us, was the sole act of the
   second person, or the divine nature in the second person, the Father
   and the Spirit having no concurrence in it but by liking, approbation,
   and eternal counsel.

   Secondly, His oblation, or “offering himself up to God for us without
   spot, to purge our consciences from dead works,” Heb. ix. 14; “for he
   loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,” Rev. i. 5. “He
   loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and
   cleanse it,” Eph. v. 25, 26; taking the cup of wrath at his Father’s
   hands due to us, and drinking it off, “but not for himself,” Dan. ix.
   26: for, “for our sakes he sanctified himself,” John xvii. 19, that is,
   to be an offering, an oblation for sin; for “when we were yet without
   strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly,” Rom. v. 6; — this
   being that which was typified out by all the institutions, ordinances,
   and sacrifices of old; which when they were to have an end, then said
   Christ, “Lo, I come to do thy will.” Now, though the perfecting or
   consummating of this oblation be set out in the Scripture chiefly in
   respect of what Christ suffered, and not so much in respect of what he
   did, because it is chiefly considered as the means used by these three
   blessed agents for the attaining of a farther end, yet in respect of
   his own voluntary giving up himself to be so an oblation and a
   sacrifice, without which it would not have been of any value (for if
   the will of Christ had not been in it, it could never have purged our
   sins), therefore, in that regard, I refer it to his actions. He was the
   “Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world,” John i. 29; the
   Lamb of God, which himself had provided for a sacrifice. And how did
   this Lamb behave himself in it? with unwillingness and struggling? No;
   he opened not his mouth: “He was brought as a lamb to the slaughter,
   and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his
   mouth,” Isa. liii. 7. Whence he saith, “I lay down my life. No man
   taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it
   down, and I have power to take it again,” John x. 17, 18. He might have
   been cruciated on the part of God; but his death could not have been an
   oblation and offering had not his will concurred. “But he loved me,”
   saith the apostle, “and gave himself for me,” Gal. ii. 20. Now, that
   alone deserves the name of a gift which is from a free and a willing
   mind, as Christ’s was when “he loved us, and gave himself for us an
   offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour,” Eph. v.
   2. He does it cheerfully: “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God,” Heb. x.
   9; and so “his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree,” 1
   Pet. ii. 24. Now, this oblation or offering of Christ I would not tie
   up to any one thing, action, or passion, performance, or suffering; but
   it compriseth the whole economy and dispensation of God manifested in
   the flesh and conversing among us, with all those things which he
   performed in the days of his flesh, when he offered up prayers and
   supplications, with strong cries and tears, until he had fully “by
   himself purged our sins, and sat down on the right hand of the Majesty
   on high,” Heb. i. 3, “expecting till his enemies be made his
   footstool,” chap. x. 13, — all the whole dispensation of his coming and
   ministering, until he had given his soul a price of redemption for
   many, Matt. xxvi. 28. But for his entering into the holy of holies,
   sprinkled with his own blood, and appearing so for us before the
   majesty of God, by some accounted as the continuation of his oblation,
   we may refer unto, —

   Thirdly, His intercession for all and every one of those for whom he
   gave himself for an oblation. He did not suffer for them, and then
   refuse to intercede for them; he did not do the greater, and omit the
   less. The price of our redemption is more precious in the eyes of God
   and his Son than that it should, as it were, be cast away on perishing
   souls, without any care taken of what becomes of them afterward. Nay,
   this also is imposed on Christ, with a promise annexed: “Ask of me,”
   saith the Lord, “and I will give thee the nations for thine
   inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession,”
   Ps. ii. 8; who accordingly tells his disciples that he had more work to
   do for them in heaven. “I go,” saith he, “to prepare a place for you,
   that I may come again and receive you unto myself,” John xiv. 2, 3. For
   as “the high priest went into the second [tabernacle] alone once every
   year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and the errors of
   the people,” Heb. ix. 7; so “Christ being come an high priest of good
   things to come, by his own blood entered once into the holy place,
   having obtained eternal redemption for us,” verses 11, 12. Now, what
   was this holy place whereinto he entered thus sprinkled with the blood
   of the covenant? and to what end did he enter into it? Why, “he is not
   entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of
   the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God
   for us,” verse 24. And what doth he there appear for? Why, to be our
   advocate, to plead our cause with God, for the application of the good
   things procured by his oblation unto all them for whom he was an
   offering; as the apostle tells us, “If any man sin, we have an advocate
   with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous,” 1 John ii. 1. Why, how
   comes that to pass? “He is the propitiation for our sins,” verse 2. His
   being hilasmos, a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins, is the
   foundation of his interceding, the ground of it; and, therefore, they
   both belong to the same persons. Now, by the way, we know that Christ
   refused to pray for the world, in opposition to his elect. “I pray for
   them,” saith he: “I pray not for the world, but for them thou hast
   given me,” John xvii. 9. And therefore there was no foundation for such
   an interceding for them, because he was not hilasmos a propitiation for
   them. Again; we know the Father always heareth the Son (“I knew,” saith
   he, “that thou hearest me always,” chap. xi. 42), that is, so to grant
   his request, according to the fore-mentioned engagement, Ps. ii. 8;
   and, therefore, if he should intercede for all, all should undoubtedly
   be saved, for “he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto
   God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them,” Heb.
   vii. 25. Hence is that confidence of the apostle, upon that
   intercession of Christ, “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s
   elect? 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,
   34. Where, also, we cannot but observe that those for whom he died may
   assuredly conclude he maketh intercession for them, and that none shall
   lay any thing to their charge, — which breaks the neck of the general
   ransom; for according to that, he died for millions that have no
   interest in his intercession, who shall have their sins laid to their
   charge, and perish under them: which might be farther cleared up from
   the very nature of this intercession, which is not a humble, dejected
   supplication, which beseems not that glorious state of advancement
   which he is possessed of that sits at the right hand of the Majesty on
   high, but an authoritative presenting himself before the throne of his
   Father, sprinkled with his own blood, for the making out to his people
   all spiritual things that are procured by his oblation, saying,
   “Father, I will that those whom thou hast given me be with me where I
   am” John xvii. 24. So that for whomsoever he suffered, he appears for
   them in heaven with his satisfaction and merit. Here, also, we must
   call to mind what the Father promised his Son upon his undertaking of
   this employment; for there is no doubt but that for that, and that
   alone, doth Christ, upon the accomplishment of the whole, intercede
   with him about: which was in sum that he might be the captain of
   salvation to all that believe on him, and effectually bring many sons
   to glory. And hence it is, having such an high priest over the house of
   God, we may draw near with the full assurance of faith, for by one
   offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified, Heb. x.
   14. But of this more must be said afterward.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter V.

   The peculiar actions of the Holy Spirit in this business.

   Thirdly, In few words we may consider the actions of that agent, who in
   order is the third in that blessed One, whose all is the whole, the
   Holy Spirit, who is evidently concurring, in his own distinct
   operation, to all the several chief or grand parts of this work. We may
   refer them to three heads:—

   First, The incarnation of the Son, with his plenary assistance in the
   course of his conversation whilst he dwelt amongst us; for his mother
   was found en gastri echousa, with child, “to have conceived in her womb
   of the Holy Ghost,” Matt. i. 18. If you ask, with Mary, how that could
   be? the angel resolves both her and us, as far as it is lawful for us
   to be acquainted with these mysterious things: Luke i. 35, “The Holy
   Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall
   overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of
   thee shall be called the Son of God.” It was an overshadowing power in
   the Spirit: so called by an allusion taken from fowls that cover their
   eggs, that so by their warmth young may be hatched; for by the sole
   power of the Spirit was this conception, who did “incubare fœtui,” as
   in the beginning of the world. Now, in process, as this child was
   conceived by the power, so he was filled with the Spirit, and “waxed
   strong” in it, Luke i. 80; until, having received a fulness thereof,
   and not by any limited measure, in the gifts and graces of it, he was
   thoroughly furnished and fitted for his great undertaking.

   Secondly, In his oblation, or passion (for they are both the same, with
   several respects, — one to what he suffered, the other to what he did
   with, by, and under those sufferings), how “by the Eternal Spirit he
   offered himself without spot to God,” Heb. ix. 14: whether it be meant
   of the offering himself a bloody sacrifice on the cross, or his
   presentation of himself continually before his Father, — it is by the
   Eternal Spirit. The willing offering himself through that Spirit was
   the eternal fire under this sacrifice, which made it acceptable unto
   God. That which some contend, that by the eternal Spirit is here meant
   our Saviour’s own Deity, I see no great ground for. Some Greek and
   Latin copies read, not, as we commonly, Pneumatos aiōniou, but
   Pneumatos hagiou, and so the doubt is quite removed: and I see no
   reason why he may not as well be said to offer himself through the Holy
   Spirit, as to be “declared to be the Son of God, according to the
   Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead,” as Rom. i. 4;
   as also to be “quickened by the Spirit,” 1 Pet. iii. 18. The working of
   the Spirit was required as well in his oblation as resurrection, in his
   dying, as quickening.

   Thirdly, In his resurrection; of which the apostle, Rom. viii. 11, “But
   if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you,
   he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal
   bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.”

   And thus have we discovered the blessed agents and undertakers in this
   work their several actions and orderly concurrence unto the whole;
   which, though they may be thus distinguished, yet they are not so
   divided but that every one must be ascribed to the whole nature,
   whereof each person is “in solidum” partaker. And as they begin it, so
   they will jointly carry along the application of it unto its ultimate
   issue and accomplishment; for we must “give thanks to the Father, which
   hath made us meet” (that is, by his Spirit) “to be partakers of the
   inheritance of the saints in light: who hath delivered us from the
   power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear
   Son: in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness
   of sins,” Col. i. 12, 13.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter VI.

   The means used by the fore-recounted agents in this work.

   Our next employment, following the order of execution, not intention,
   will be the discovery or laying down of the means in this work; which
   are, indeed, no other but the several actions before recounted, but now
   to be considered under another respect, — as they are a means ordained
   for the obtaining of a proposed end; of which afterward. Now, because
   the several actions of Father and Spirit were all exercised towards
   Christ, and terminated in him, as God and man, he only and his
   performances are to be considered as the means in this work, the
   several concurrences of both the other persons before mentioned being
   presupposed as necessarily antecedent or concomitant.

   The means, then, used or ordained by these agents for the end proposed
   is that whole economy or dispensation carried along to the end, from
   whence our Saviour Jesus Christ is called a Mediator; which may be, and
   are usually, as I mentioned before, distinguished into two parts:—
   First, his oblation; secondly, his intercession.

   By his oblation we do not design only the particular offering of
   himself upon the cross an offering to his Father, as the Lamb of God
   without spot or blemish, when he bare our sins or carried them up with
   him in his own body on the tree, which was the sum and complement of
   his oblation and that wherein it did chiefly consist; but also his
   whole humiliation, or state of emptying himself, whether by yielding
   voluntary obedience unto the law, as being made under it, that he might
   be the end thereof to them that believe, Rom. x. 4, or by his
   subjection to the curse of the law, in the antecedent misery and
   suffering of life, as well as by submitting to death, the death of the
   cross: for no action of his as mediator is to be excluded from a
   concurrence to make up the whole means in this work. Neither by his
   intercession do I understand only that heavenly appearance of his in
   the most holy place for the applying unto us all good things purchased
   and procured by his oblation; but also every act of his exaltation
   conducing thereunto, from his resurrection to his “sitting down at the
   right hand of the Majesty on high, angels, and principalities, and
   powers, being made subject unto him.” Of all which his resurrection,
   being the basis, as it were, and the foundation of the rest (“for if he
   is not risen, then is our faith in vain,” 1 Cor. xv. 13, 14; and then
   are we “yet in our sins,” verse 17; “of all men most miserable,” verse
   19), is especially to be considered, as that to which a great part of
   the effect is often ascribed; for “he was delivered for our offences,
   and was raised again for our justification,” Rom. iv. 25; — where, and
   in such other places, by his resurrection the whole following
   dispensation and the perpetual intercession of Christ for us in heaven
   is intended; for “God raised up his son Jesus to bless us, in turning
   every one of us from our iniquities,” Acts iii. 26.

   Now, this whole dispensation, with especial regard to the death and
   blood-shedding of Christ, is the means we speak of, agreeably to what
   was said before of such in general; for it is not a thing in itself
   desirable for its own sake. The death of Christ had nothing in it (we
   speak of his sufferings distinguished from his obedience) that was
   good, but only as it conduced to a farther end, even the end proposed
   for the manifestation of God’s glorious grace. What good was it, that
   Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and people of Israel,
   should, with such horrid villainy and cruelty, gather themselves
   together against God’s holy child, whom he had anointed? Acts iv. 27:
   or what good was it, that the Son of God should be made sin and a
   curse, to be bruised, afflicted, and to undergo such wrath as the whole
   frame of nature, as it were, trembled to behold? What good, what beauty
   and form is in all this, that it should be desired in itself and for
   itself? Doubtless none at all. It must, then, be looked upon as a means
   conducing to such an end; the glory and lustre thereof must quite take
   away all the darkness and confusion that was about the thing itself.
   And even so it was intended by the blessed agents in it, by “whose
   determinate counsel and foreknowledge he was delivered and slain,” Acts
   ii. 23; there being done unto him “whatsoever his hand and counsel had
   determined,” chap. iv. 28: which what it was must be afterward
   declared. Now, concerning the whole some things are to be observed:—

   That though the oblation and intercession of Jesus Christ are distinct
   acts in themselves and have distinct immediate products and issues
   assigned ofttimes unto them (which I should now have laid down, but
   that I must take up this in another place), yet they are not in any
   respect or regard to be divided or separated, as that the one should
   have any respect to any persons or any thing which the other also doth
   not in its kind equally respect. But there is this manifold union
   between them:—

   First, In that they are both alike intended for the obtaining and
   accomplishing the same entire and complete end proposed, — to wit, the
   effectual bringing of many sons to glory, for the praise of God’s
   grace; of which afterward.

   Secondly, That what persons soever the one respecteth, in the good
   things it obtaineth, the same, all, and none else, doth the other
   respect, in applying the good things so obtained; for “he was delivered
   for our offences, and was raised again for our justification,” Rom. iv.
   25. That is, in brief, the object of the one is of no larger extent
   than the object of the other; or, for whom Christ offered himself, for
   all those, and only those, doth he intercede, according to his own
   word, “For their sake I sanctify myself” (to be an oblation), “that
   they also might be sanctified through the truth,” John xvii. 19.

   Thirdly, That the oblation of Christ is, as it were, the foundation of
   his intercession, inasmuch as by the oblation was procured every thing
   that, by virtue of his intercession, is bestowed; and that because the
   sole end why Christ procured any thing by his death was that it might
   be applied to them for whom it was so procured. The sum is, that the
   oblation and intercession of Jesus Christ are one entire means for the
   producing of the same effect, the very end of the oblation being that
   all those things which are bestowed by the intercession of Christ, and
   without whose application it should certainly fail of the end proposed
   in it, be effected accordingly; so that it cannot be affirmed that the
   death or offering of Christ concerned any one person or thing more, in
   respect of procuring any good, than his intercession doth for the
   collating of it: for, interceding there for all good purchased, and
   prevailing in all his intercessions (for the Father always hears his
   Son), it is evident that every one for whom Christ died must actually
   have applied unto him all the good things purchased by his death;
   which, because it is evidently destructive to the adverse cause, we
   must a little stay to confirm it, only telling you the main proof of it
   lies in our following proposal of assigning the proper end intended and
   effected by the death of Christ, so that the chief proof must be
   deferred until then. I shall now only propose those reasons which may
   be handled apart, not merely depending upon that.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter VII.

   Containing reasons to prove the oblation and intercession of Christ to
   be one entire means respecting the accomplishment of the same proposed
   end, and to have the same personal object.

   I. Our first reason is taken from that perpetual union which the
   Scripture maketh of both these, almost always joining them together,
   and so manifesting those things to be most inseparable which are looked
   upon as the distinct fruits and effects of them: “By his knowledge
   shall my righteous servant justify many, for he shall bear their
   iniquities,” Isa. liii. 11. The actual justification of sinners, the
   immediate fruit of his intercession, certainly follows his bearing of
   their iniquities. And in the next verse they are of God so put together
   that surely none ought to presume to put them asunder: “He bare the sin
   of many” (behold his oblation!), “and made intercession for the
   transgressors;” even for those many transgressors whose sin he bears.
   And there is one expression in that chapter, verse 5, which makes it
   evident that the utmost application of all good things for which he
   intercedes is the immediate effect of his passion: “With his stripes we
   are healed.” Our total hearing is the fruit and procurement of his
   stripes, or the oblation consummated thereby. So also, Rom. iv. 25, “He
   was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our
   justification.” For whose offences he died, for their justification he
   rose; — and therefore, if he died for all, all must also be justified,
   or the Lord failed in his aim and design, both in the death and
   resurrection of his Son; which though some have boldly affirmed, yet
   for my part I cannot but abhor the owning of so blasphemous a fancy.
   Rather let us close with that of the apostle, grounding the assurance
   of our eternal glory and freedom from all accusations upon the death of
   Christ, and that because his intercession also for us doth inseparably
   and necessarily follow it. “Who,” saith he, “shall lay any thing to the
   charge of God’s elect?” (It seems, also, that it is only they for whom
   Christ died.) “It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It
   is Christ that died,” (shall none, then, be condemned for whom Christ
   died? what, then, becomes of the general ransom?) “yea rather, who is
   risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh
   intercession for us,” Rom. viii. 33, 34. Here is an equal extent of the
   one and the other; those persons who are concerned in the one are all
   of them concerned in the other. That he died for all and intercedes
   only for some will scarcely be squared to this text, especially
   considering the foundation of all this, which is (verse 32) that love
   of God which moved him to give up Christ to death for us all; upon
   which the apostle infers a kind of impossibility in not giving us all
   good things in him; which how it can be reconciled with their opinion
   who affirm that he gave his Son for millions to whom he will give
   neither grace nor glory, I cannot see. But we rest in that of the same
   apostle: “When we were yet without strength, in due time. Christ died
   for the ungodly;” so that, “being now justified by his blood, we shall
   be saved from wrath through him,” Rom. v. 6, 9; — the same between the
   oblation and intercession of Christ, with their fruits and effects,
   being intimated in very many other places.

   II. To offer and to intercede, to sacrifice and to pray, are both acts
   of the same sacerdotal office, and both required in him who is a
   priest; so that if he omit either of these, he cannot be a faithful
   priest for them: if either he doth not offer for them, or not intercede
   for the success of his oblation on their behalf, he is wanting in the
   discharge of his office by him undertaken. Both these we find conjoined
   (as before) in Jesus Christ: 1 John ii. 1, 2, “If any man sin, we have
   an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the
   propitiation for our sins.” He must be an advocate to intercede, as
   well as offer a propitiatory sacrifice, if he will be such a merciful
   high priest over the house of God as that the children should be
   encouraged to go to God by him. This the apostle exceedingly clears and
   evidently proves in the Epistle to the Hebrews, describing the
   priesthood of Christ, in the execution thereof, to consist in these two
   acts, of offering up himself in and by the shedding of his blood, and
   interceding for us to the utmost; upon the performance of both which he
   presseth an exhortation to draw near with confidence to the throne of
   grace, for he is “come an high priest of good things to come, not by
   the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered into the
   holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us,” chap. ix. 11,
   12. His bloody oblation gave him entrance into the holy place not made
   with hands, there to accomplish the remaining part of his office, the
   apostle comparing his entrance into heaven for us with the entrance of
   the high priest into the holy place, with the blood of bulls and goats
   upon him, verses 12, 13 (which, doubtless, was to pray for them in
   whose behalf he had offered, verse 7); so presenting himself before his
   Father that his former oblation might have its efficacy. And hence he
   is said to have aparabaton hierōsunēn, because he continueth for ever,
   chap. vii. 24; so being “able to save to the uttermost them that come
   unto God by him,” verse 25: wherefore we have “boldness to enter into
   the holiest by the blood of Jesus,” chap. x. 19–22. So, then, it is
   evident that both these are acts of the same priestly office in Christ:
   and if he perform either of them for any, he must of necessity perform
   the other for them also; for be will not exercise any act or duty of
   his priestly function in their behalf for whom he is not a priest: and
   for whom he is a priest he must perform both, seeing he is faithful in
   the discharge of his function to the utmost in the behalf of the
   sinners for whom he undertakes. These two, then, oblation and
   intercession, must in respect of their objects be of equal extent, and
   can by, no means be separated. And here, by the way (the thing being by
   this argument, in my apprehension, made so clear), I cannot but demand
   of those who oppose us about the death of Christ, whether they will
   sustain that he intercedeth for all or no; — if not, then they make him
   but half a priest; if they will, they must be necessitated either to
   defend this error, that all shall be saved, or own this blasphemy, that
   Christ is not heard of his Father, nor can prevail in his intercession,
   which yet the saints on earth are sure to do when they make their
   supplications according to the will of God, Rom. viii. 27; 1 John v.
   14. Besides that, of our Saviour it is expressly said that the Father
   always heareth him, John xi. 42; and if that were true when he was yet
   in the way, in the days of his flesh, and had not finished the great
   work be was sent about, how much more then now, when, having done the
   will and finished the work of God, he is set down on the right hand of
   the Majesty on high, desiring and requesting the accomplishing of the
   promises that were made unto him upon his undertaking this work! of
   which before.

   III. The nature of the intercession of Christ will also prove no less
   than what we assert, requiring an inseparable conjunction between it
   and its oblation: for as it is now perfected in heaven, it is not a
   humble dejection of himself, with cries, tears, and supplications; nay,
   it cannot be conceived to be vocal, by the way of entreaty, but merely
   real, by the presentation of himself, sprinkled with the blood of the
   covenant, before the throne of grace in our behalf. “For Christ,” saith
   the apostle, “is not entered into the holy places made with hands, but
   into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us,” Heb.
   ix. 24. His intercession there is an appearing for us in heaven in the
   presence of God, a demonstration of his sacred body, wherein for us he
   suffered: for (as we said before) the apostle, in the ninth to the
   Hebrews, compares his entrance into heaven for us unto the entrance of
   the high priest into the holy place, which was with the blood of bulls
   and goats upon him, verses 12, 13; our Saviour’s being with his own
   blood, so presenting himself that his former oblation might have its
   perpetual efficacy, until the many sons given unto him are brought to
   glory. And herein his intercession consisteth, being nothing, as it
   were, but his oblation continued. He was a “Lamb slain from the
   foundation of the world,” Rev. xiii. 8. Now, his intercession before
   his actual oblation in the fulness of time being nothing but a
   presenting of the engagement that was upon him for the work in due time
   to be accomplished, certainly that which follows it is nothing but a
   presenting of what according to that engagement is fulfilled; so that
   it is nothing but a continuation of his oblation in postulating, by
   remembrance and declaration of it, those things which by it were
   procured. How, then, is it possible that the one of these should be of
   larger compass and extent than the other? Can he be said to offer for
   them for whom he doth not intercede, when his intercession is nothing
   but a presenting of his oblation in the behalf of them for whom he
   suffered, and for the bestowing of those good things which by that were
   purchased.

   IV. Again: if the oblation and death of Christ procured and obtained
   that every good thing should be bestowed which is actually conferred by
   the intervening of his intercession, then they have both of them the
   same aim, and are both means tending to one and the same end. Now, for
   the proof of this supposal, we must remember that which we delivered
   before concerning the compact and agreement that was between the Father
   and the Son, upon his voluntary engaging of himself unto this great
   work of redemption; for upon that engagement, the Lord proposed unto
   him as the end of his sufferings, and promised unto him as the reward
   of his labours, the fruit of his deservings, every thing which be
   afterward intercedeth for. Many particulars I before instanced in, and
   therefore now, to avoid repetition, will wholly omit them, referring
   the reader to chapter iii. for satisfaction: only, I shall demand what
   is the ground and foundation of our Saviour’s intercession,
   understanding it to be by the way of entreaty, either virtual or
   formal, as it may be conceived to be either real or oral, for the
   obtaining of any thing. Must it not rest upon some promise made unto
   him? or is there any good bestowed that is not promised? Is it not
   apparent that the intercession of Christ doth rest on such a promise as
   Ps. ii. 8, “Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine
   inheritance,” etc? Now, upon what consideration was this promise and
   engagement made unto our Saviour? Was it not for his undergoing of that
   about which “the kings set themselves, and the rulers took counsel
   together against him,” verse 2? which the apostles interpret of Herod
   and Pontius Pilate, with the people of the Jews, persecuting him to
   death, and doing to him “whatsoever the hand and counsel of God had
   before determined to be done,” Acts iv. 27, 28. The intercession of
   Christ, then, being founded on promises made unto him, and these
   promises being nothing but an engagement to bestow and actually collate
   upon them for whom he suffered all those good things which his death
   and oblation did merit and purchase, it cannot be but that he
   intercedeth for all for whom he died, that his death procured all and
   every thing which upon his intercession is bestowed; and until they are
   bestowed, it hath not its full fruits and effects. For that which some
   say, namely, that the death of Christ doth procure that which is never
   granted, we shall see afterward whether it do not contradict Scripture,
   yea, and common sense.

   V. Farther: what Christ hath put together let no man presume to put
   asunder; distinguish between them they may, but separate them they may
   not. Now, these things concerning which we treat (the oblation and
   intercession of Christ) are by himself conjoined, yea united, John
   xvii.; for there and then he did both offer and intercede. He did then
   as perfectly offer himself, in respect of his own will and intention,
   verse 4, as on the cross; and as perfectly intercede as now in heaven:
   who, then, can divide these things, or put them asunder? especially
   considering that the Scripture affirmeth that the one of them without
   the other would have been unprofitable, 1 Cor. xv. 17; for complete
   remission and redemption could not be obtained for us without the
   entering of our high priest into the most holy place, Heb. ix. 12.

   VI. Lastly, A separating and dividing of the death and intercession of
   Christ, in respect to the objects of them, cuts off all that
   consolation which any soul might hope to attain by an assurance that
   Christ died for him. That the doctrine of the general ransom is an
   uncomfortable doctrine, cutting all the nerves and sinews of that
   strong consolation which God is so abundantly willing that we should
   receive, shall be afterward declared. For the present, I will only show
   how it trencheth upon our comfort in this particular. The main
   foundation of all the confidence and assurance whereof in this life we
   may be made partakers (which amounts to “joy unspeakable, and full of
   glory”) ariseth from this strict connection of the oblation and
   intercession of Jesus Christ; — that by the one he hath procured all
   good things for us, and by the other he will procure them to be
   actually bestowed, whereby he doth never leave our sins, but follows
   them into every court, until they be fully pardoned and clearly
   expiated, Heb. ix. 26. He will never leave us until he hath saved to
   the uttermost them that come unto God by him. His death without his
   resurrection would have profited us nothing; all our faith in him had
   been in vain, 1 Cor. xv. 17. So that separated from it, with the
   intercession following, either in his own intention or in the several
   procurements of the one or the other, it will yield us but little
   consolation; but in this connection it is a sure bottom for a soul to
   build upon, Heb. vii. 25. “What good will it do me to be persuaded that
   Christ died for my sins, if, notwithstanding that, my sins may appear
   against me for my condemnation, where and when Christ will not appear
   for my justification?” If you will ask, with the apostle, “Who is he
   that condemneth?” “It is Christ that died,” it may easily be answered,
   Rom. viii. 34. “Why, God by his law may condemn me, notwithstanding
   Christ died for me!” Yea, but saith the apostle, “He is risen again,
   and sitteth at the right hand of God, making intercession for us.” He
   rests not in his death, but he will certainly make intercession for
   them for whom he died: and this alone gives firm consolation. Our sins
   dare not appear, nor any of our accusers against us, where he appeareth
   for us. Cavilling objections against this text shall be afterward
   considered; and so I hope I have sufficiently confirmed and proved what
   in the beginning of this chapter I did propose about the identity of
   the object of the oblation and intercession of Jesus Christ.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter VIII.

   Objections against the former proposal answered.

   By what was said in the last chapter, it clearly appeareth that the
   oblation and intercession of Christ are of equal compass and extent in
   respect of their objects, or the persons for whom he once offered
   himself and doth continually intercede, and so are to be looked on as
   one joint means for the attaining of a certain proposed end; which what
   it is comes next to be considered. But because I find some objections
   laid by some against the former truth, I must remove them before I
   proceed; which I shall do “as a man removeth dung until it be all
   gone.”

   The sum of one of our former arguments was, — That to sacrifice and
   intercede belong both to the same person, as high priest; which name
   none can answer, neither hath any performed that office, until both by
   him be accomplished. Wherefore, our Saviour being the most absolute,
   and, indeed, the only true high priest, in whom were really all those
   perfections which in others received a weak typical representation,
   doth perform both these in the behalf of them for whose sakes he was
   such.

   I. An argument not unlike to this I find by some to be undertaken to be
   answered, being in these words proposed, “The ransom and mediation of
   Christ is no larger than his office of priest, prophet, and king; but
   these offices pertain to his church and chosen: therefore his ransom
   pertains to them only.”

   The intention and meaning of the argument is the same with what we
   proposed, — namely, that Christ offered nothing for them for whom he is
   no priest, and he is a priest only for them for whom he doth also
   intercede. If afterward I shall have occasion to make use of this
   argument, I shall, by the Lord’s assistance, give more weight and
   strength to it than it seems to have in their proposal, whose interest
   it is to present it as slightly as possible, that they may seem fairly
   to have waived it. But the evasion, such as it is, let us look upon.

   “This,” saith the answerer, “is a sober objection;” which friendly term
   I imagined at first he had given for this reason, because he found it
   kind and easy to be satisfied. But reading the answer and finding that,
   so wide from yielding any colour or appearance of what was pretended,
   it only served him to vent some new, weak, false conceptions, I
   imagined that it must be some other kindness that caused him to give
   this “objection,” as he calls it, so much milder an entertainment than
   those others, which equally gall him, which hear nothing but, “This is
   horrid, that blasphemy, that detestable, abominable, and false,” as
   being, indeed, by those of his persuasion neither to be endured nor
   avoided. And at length I conceived that the reason of it was intimated
   in the first words of his pretended answer; which are, that “this
   objection doth not deny the death of Christ for all men, but only his
   ransom and mediation for all men.” Now, truly, if it be so, I am not of
   his judgment, but so far from thinking it a “sober objection,” that I
   cannot be persuaded that any man in his right wits would once propose
   it. That Christ should die for all, and yet not be a ransom for all,
   himself affirming that he came to “give his life a ransom for many,”
   Matt. xx. 28, is to me a plain contradiction. The death of Christ, in
   the first most general notion and apprehension thereof, is a ransom.
   Nay, do not this answerer and those who are of the same persuasion with
   him make the ransom of as large extent as any thing in, or about, or
   following the death of Christ? Or have they yet some farther
   distinction to make, or rather division about the ends of the death of
   Christ? as we have had already: “For some he not only paid a ransom,
   but also intercedeth for them; which be doth not for all for whom he
   paid a ransom.” Will they now go a step backward, and say that for some
   he not only died, but also paid a ransom for them; which he did not for
   all for whom he died? Who, then, were those that he thus died for? They
   must be some beyond all and every man; for, as they contend, for them
   he paid a ransom. But let us see what he says farther; in so easy a
   cause as this it is a shame to take advantages.

   “The answer to this objection,” saith be, “is easy and plain in the
   Scripture, for the mediation of Christ is both more general and more
   special; — more general, as he is the ‘one mediator between God and
   men,’ 1 Tim. ii. 5; and more special, as he is ‘the mediator of the new
   testament, that they which are called might receive the promise of
   eternal inheritance,’ Heb. ix. 15. According to that it is said, ‘He is
   the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe,’ 1 Tim. iv.
   10. So in all the offices of Christ, the priest, the prophet, the king,
   there is that which is more general, and that which is more special and
   peculiar.”

   And this is that which he calls a clear and plain answer from the
   Scripture, leaving the application of it unto the argument to other
   men’s conjecture; which, as far as I can conceive, must be thus:— It is
   true Christ paid a ransom for none but those for whom he is a mediator
   and priest; but Christ is to be considered two ways: First, As a
   general mediator and priest for all; secondly, As a special mediator
   and priest for some. Now, he pays the ransom as a general mediator.
   This I conceive may be some part of his meaning; for in itself the
   whole is in expression so barbarous and remote from common sense, — in
   substance such a wild, unchristian madness, as contempt would far
   better suit it than a reply. The truth is, for sense and expression in
   men who, from their manual trades, leap into the office of preaching
   and employment of writing, I know no reason why we should expect. Only,
   it can never enough be lamented that wildness, in such tattered rags,
   should find entertainment, whilst sober truth is shut out of doors; for
   what, I pray you, is the meaning of this distinction, “Christ is either
   a general mediator between God and man, or a special mediator of the
   new testament?” Was it ever heard before that Christ was any way a
   mediator but as he is so of the new testament? A mediator is not of
   one; all mediation respects an agreement of several parties; and every
   mediator is the mediator of a covenant. Now, if Christ be a mediator
   more generally than as he is so of the new covenant, of what covenant,
   I beseech you, was that? Of the covenant of works? Would not such an
   assertion overthrow the whole gospel? Would it not be derogatory to the
   honour of Jesus Christ that he should be the mediator of a cancelled
   covenant? Is it not contrary to Scripture, affirming him a “surety”
   (not of the first, but) “of a better testament?” Heb. vii. 22. Are not
   such bold assertors fitter to be catechised than to preach? But we must
   not let it pass thus. The man harps upon something that he hath heard
   from some Arminian doctor, though he hath had the ill-hap so poorly to
   make out his conceptions. Wherefore, being in some measure acquainted
   with their occasions, which they colour with those texts of Scripture
   which are here produced, I shall briefly remove the poor shift, that so
   our former argument may stand unshaken.

   The poverty of the answer, as before expressed, hath been sufficiently
   already declared. The fruits of Christ’s mediation have been
   distinguished by some into those that are more general and those which
   are more peculiar, which, in some sense, may be tolerable; but that the
   offices of Christ should be said to be either general or peculiar, and
   himself in relation to them so considered, is a gross, unshaped fancy.
   I answer, then, to the thing intended, that we deny any such general
   mediation, or function of office in general, in Christ, as should
   extend itself beyond his church or chosen. It was his “church” which he
   “redeemed with his own blood,” Acts xx. 28; his “church” that “he loved
   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,” Eph. v. 25–27. They were his “sheep” he “laid down
   his life for,” John x. 15; and “appeareth in heaven for us,” Heb. ix.
   24. Not one word of mediating for any other in the Scripture. Look upon
   his incarnation. It was “because the children were partakers of flesh
   and blood,” chap. ii. 14; not because all the world were so. Look upon
   his oblation: “For their sakes,” saith he, (“those whom thou hast given
   me,”) “do I sanctify myself,” John xvii. 19; that is, to be an
   oblation, which was the work he had then in hand. Look upon his
   resurrection: “He was delivered for our offences, and was raised again
   for our justification,” Rom. iv. 25. Look upon his ascension: “I go,”
   saith he, “to my Father and your Father, and that to prepare a place
   for you,” John xiv. 2. Look upon his perpetuated intercession. Is it
   not to “save to the uttermost them that come unto God by him?” Heb.
   vii. 25. Not one word of this general mediation for all. Nay, if you
   will hear himself, he denies in plain terms to mediate for all: “I pray
   not,” saith he, “for the world, but for them which then hast given me,”
   John xvii. 9.

   But let us see what is brought to confirm this distinction. 1 Tim. ii.
   5 is quoted for the maintenance thereof: “For there is one God, and one
   mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” What then, I pray?
   what will be concluded hence? Cannot Christ be a mediator between God
   and men, but he must be a mediator for all men? Are not the elect men?
   do not the children partake of flesh and blood? doth not his church
   consist of men? What reason is there to assert, out of an indefinite
   proposition, a universal conclusion? Because Christ was a mediator for
   men (which were true had he been so only for his apostles), shall we
   conclude therefore he was so for all men? “Apage nugas!”

   But let us see another proof, which haply may give more strength to the
   uncouth distinction we oppose, and that is 1 Tim. iv. 10, “Who is the
   Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.” Had it been, “Who
   is the Mediator of all men, specially of them that believe,” it had
   been more likely. But the consciences, or at least the foreheads of
   these men! Is there any word here spoken of Christ as mediator? Is it
   not the “living God” in whom we trust that is the Saviour here
   mentioned, as the words going before in the same verse are? And is
   Christ called so in respect of his mediation? That God the Father is
   often called Saviour I showed before, and that he is here intended, as
   is agreed upon by all sound interpreters, so also it is clear from the
   matter in hand, which is the protecting providence of God, general
   towards all, special and peculiar towards his church. Thus he is said
   to “save man and beast,” Ps. xxxvi. 6, Anthrōpous kai ktēnē sōseis
   kurie, rendering the Hebrew, תּוֹשִׁיעַ by sōseis, “Thou shalt save or
   preserve.” It is God, then, that is here called the “Saviour of all,”
   by deliverance and protection in danger, of which the apostle treats,
   and that by his providence, which is peculiar towards believers; and
   what this makes for a universal mediation I know not.

   Now, the very context in this place will not admit of any other
   interpretation; for the words render a reason why, notwithstanding all
   the injury and reproaches wherewith the people of God are continually
   assaulted, yet they should cheerfully go forward to run with joy the
   race that is set before them; even because as God preserveth all (for
   “in him we live, and move, and have our being,” Acts xvii. 28; Ps.
   cxlv. 14–16), so that he will not suffer any to be injured and
   unrevenged, Gen. ix. 5, so is he especially the preserver of them that
   do believe; for they are as the apple of his eye, Zech. ii. 8; Deut.
   xxxii. 10. So that if he should suffer them to be pressed for a season,
   yet let them not let go their hope and confidence, nor be weary of
   well-doing, but still rest on and trust in him. This encouragement
   being that which the apostle was to lay down, what motive would it be
   hereunto to tell believers that God would have those saved who neither
   do nor ever will or shall believe? — that I say nothing how strange it
   seems that Christ should be the Saviour of them who are never saved, to
   whom he never gives grace to believe, for whom be denies to intercede,
   John xvii. 9; which yet is no small part of his mediation whereby he
   saves sinners. Neither the subject, then, nor the predicate
   proposition, “He is the Saviour of all men,” is rightly apprehended by
   them who would wrest it to the maintenance of universal redemption. For
   the subject, “He,” it is God the Father, and not Christ the mediator;
   and for the predicate, it is a providential preservation, and not a
   purchased salvation that is intimated; — that is, the providence of God
   protecting and governing all, but watching in an especial manner for
   the good of them that are his, that they be not always unjustly and
   cruelly traduced and reviled, with other pressures, that the apostle
   here rests upon; as also he shows that it was his course to do, 2 Cor.
   i. 9, 10: “But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we
   should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead: who
   delivered us from so great a death, and doth deliver us: in whom we
   trust that he will yet deliver us;” for “he is the Saviour of all men,
   specially of those that believe.” If any shall conceive that these
   words (“Because we hope in the living God, who is,” etc.) do not render
   an account of the ground of Paul’s confidence in going through with his
   labours and afflictions, but rather are an expression of the head and
   sum of that doctrine for which he was so turmoiled and afflicted, I
   will not much oppose it; for then, also, it includes nothing but an
   assertion of the true God and dependence on him, in opposition to all
   the idols of the Gentiles, and other vain conceits whereby they exalted
   themselves into the throne of the Most High. But that Christ should be
   said to be a Saviour of, — 1. Those who are never saved from their
   sins, as he saves his people, Matt. i. 21; 2. Of those who never hear
   one word of saving or a Saviour; 3. That he should be a Saviour in a
   twofold sense, — (1.) For all, (2.) For believers; 4. That to believe
   is the condition whereby Christ becomes a Saviour in an especial manner
   unto any, and that condition not procured nor purchased by him; — that
   this, I say, is the sense of this place, “credat Judæus Apella.” To me
   nothing is more certain than that to whom Christ is in any sense a
   Saviour in the work of redemption, he saves them to the uttermost from
   all their sins of infidelity and disobedience, with the saving of grace
   here and glory hereafter.

   II. Farther attempts, also, there are to give strength to this evasion,
   and so to invalidate our former argument, which I must also remove.

   “Christ,” say they, [23] “in some sort intercedeth and putteth in for
   transgressors, even the sons of men, yet in and of the world, that the
   Spirit may so still unite and bless those that believe on him, and so
   go forth in their confessions and conversations, and in the
   ministration of the gospel by his servants, that those among whom they
   dwell and converse might be convinced and brought to believe the report
   of the gospel, Isa. liii. 12; as once, Luke xxiii. 34; as himself left
   a pattern to us, John xxi. 21–23; that so the men of the world might be
   convinced, and the convinced allured to Christ and to God in him, Matt.
   v. 14–16; yea, so as that he doth in some measure enlighten every man
   that cometh into the world, John i. 9. But in a more special manner
   doth he intercede,” etc.

   Here is a twofold intercession of Christ as mediator:— 1. For all
   sinners, that they may believe (for that is it which is intended by the
   many cloudy expressions wherein it is involved). 2. For believers, that
   they may be saved. It is the first member of the distinction which we
   oppose; and therefore must insist a little upon it.

   First, Our author saith, “It is an interceding in some sort.” I ask, in
   what sort? Is it directly, or indirectly? Is it by virtue of his blood
   shed for them, or otherwise? Is it with an intention and desire to
   obtain for them the good things interceded for, or with purpose that
   they shall go without them? Is it for all and every man, or only for
   those who live in the outward pale of the church? Is faith the thing
   required for them, or something else? Is that desired absolutely, or
   upon some condition? All which queries must be clearly answered before
   this general intercession can be made intelligible.

   First, Whether it be directly or indirectly, and by consequence only,
   that this intercession after a sort is used, for that thing interceded
   for is represented not as the immediate issue or aim of the prayer of
   Christ, but as a reflex arising from a blessing obtained by others; for
   the prayer set down is that God would so bless believers, that those
   amongst whom they dwell may believe the report of the gospel. It is
   believers that are the direct object of this intercession, and others
   are only glanced at through them. The good also so desired for them is
   considered either as an accident that may come to pass, or follow the
   flourishing of believers, kata sumbebēkos, or as an end intended to be
   accomplished by it. If the first, then their good is no more intended
   than their evil. If the latter, why is it not effected? why is not the
   intention of our Saviour accomplished? Is it for want of wisdom to
   choose suitable and proportionable means to the end proposed? or is it
   for want of power to effect what he intendeth?

   Secondly, Is it by virtue of his blood shed for them, or otherwise? —
   If it be, then Christ intercedeth for them that they may enjoy those
   things which for them by his oblation he did procure; for this it is to
   make his death and blood-shedding to be the foundation of his
   intercession; then it follows that Christ by his death procured faith
   for all, because he intercedeth that all may believe, grounding that
   intercession upon the merit of his death. But, first, this is more than
   the assertors of universal redemption will sustain; among all the ends
   of the death of Christ by them assigned, the effectual and infallible
   bestowing of faith on those for whom he died is none: secondly, if by
   his death he hath purchased it for all, and by intercession entreateth
   for it, why is it not actually bestowed on them? is not a concurrence
   of both these sufficient for the making out of that one spiritual
   blessing? — But, secondly, If it be not founded on his death and
   blood-shedding, then we desire that they would describe unto us this
   intercession of Christ, differing from his appearing for us in heaven
   sprinkled with his own blood.

   Thirdly, Doth he intercede for them that they should believe, with an
   intention or desire that they should do so, or no? If not, it is but a
   mock intercession, and an entreaty for that which he would not have
   granted. If so, why is it not accomplished? why do not all believe?
   Yea, if he died for all, and prayed for all, that they might believe,
   why are not all saved? for Christ is always heard of his Father, John
   xi. 42.

   Fourthly, Is it for all and every one in the world that Christ makes
   this intercession, or only for those who live within the pale of the
   church? If only for these latter, then this doth not prove a general
   intercession for all, but only one more large than that for believers;
   for if he leaves out any one in the world, the present hypothesis falls
   to the ground. If for all, how can it consist in that petition, “that
   the Spirit would so lead, guide, and bless believers, and so go forth
   in the ministration of the gospel by his servants, that others (that
   is, all and every one in the world) may be convinced and brought to
   believe?” How, I say, can this be spoken with any reference to those
   millions of souls that never see a believer, that hear no report of the
   gospel?

   Fifthly, If his intercession be for faith, then either Christ
   intercedeth for it absolutely, that they may certainly have it, or upon
   condition, and that either on the part of God or man. — If absolutely,
   then all do actually believe; or that is not true, the Father always
   hears him, John xi. 42. If upon condition on the part of God, it can be
   nothing but this, if he will or please. Now, the adding of this
   condition may denote in our Saviour two things:— 1. A nescience of what
   is his Father’s will in the thing interceded for: which, first, cannot
   stand with the unity of his person as now in glory; and, secondly,
   cannot be, because he hath the assurance of a promise to be heard in
   whatever he asketh, Ps. ii. 8. Or, 2. An advancement of his Father’s
   will, by submission to that as the prime cause of the good to be
   bestowed; which may well stand with absolute intercession, by virtue
   whereof all must believe. — Secondly, Is it a condition on the part of
   those for whom he doth intercede? Now, I beseech you, what condition is
   that? where in the Scripture assigned? where is it said that Christ
   doth intercede for men that they may have faith if they do such and
   such things? Nay, what condition can rationally be assigned of this
   desire? “Some often intimate that it is, if they suffer the Spirit to
   have his work upon their hearts, and obey the grace of God.” Now, what
   is it to obey the grace of God? Is it not to believe? Therefore, it
   seems that Christ intercedeth for them that they may believe, upon
   condition that they do believe. Others, more cautiously, assert the
   good using of the means of grace that they do enjoy to be the condition
   upon which the benefit of this intercession doth depend. But again, —
   1. What is the good using of the means of grace but submitting to them,
   that is, believing? and so we are as before. 2. All have not the means
   of grace, to use well or ill. 3. Christ prays that they may use the
   means of grace well, or he doth not. If not, then how can he pray that
   they may believe, seeing to use well the means of grace, by yielding
   obedience unto them, is indeed to believe? If he do, then he doth it
   absolutely, or upon condition, and so the argument is renewed again as
   in the entrance. Many more reasons might be easily produced to show the
   madness of this assertion, but those may suffice. Only we must look
   upon the proof and confirmations of it.

   First, then, the words of the prophet Isaiah, chap. liii. 12, “He made
   intercession for the transgressors,” are insisted on. — Ans. The
   transgressors here, for whom our Saviour is said to make intercession,
   are either all the transgressors for whom he suffered, as is most
   likely from the description we have of them, verse 6, or the
   transgressors only by whom he suffered, that acted in his sufferings,
   as some suppose. If the first, then this place proves that Christ
   intercedes for all those for whom be suffered; which differs not from
   that which we contend for. If the latter, then we may consider it as
   accomplished. How he then did it, so it is here foretold that he
   should, which is the next place urged, namely, —

   Luke xxiii. 34, “Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know
   not what they do.” — Ans. The conclusion which from these words is
   inferred being, “Therefore there is a general intercession for all,
   that they may believe,” I might well leave the whole argument to the
   silent judgment of men, without any farther opening and discovery of
   its invalidity and weakness; but because the ablest of that side have
   usually insisted much on this place for a general successless
   intercession, I will a little consider the inference its dependence on
   these words of the gospel, and search whether it have any appearance of
   strength in it. To which end we must observe, —

   Secondly, That this prayer is not for all men, but only for that
   handful of the Jews by whom be was crucified. Now, from a prayer for
   them to infer a prayer for all and every man that ever were, are, or
   shall be, is a wild deduction.

   It doth not appear that he prayed for all his crucifers neither, but
   only for those who did it out of ignorance, as appears by the reason
   annexed to his supplication: “For they know not what they do.” And
   though, Acts iii. 17, it is said that the rulers also did it
   ignorantly, yet that all of them did so is not apparent; that some did
   is certain from that place; and so it is that some of them were
   converted, as afterward. Indefinite propositions must not in such
   things be made universal. Now, doth it follow that because Christ
   prayed for the pardon of their sins who crucified him out of ignorance,
   as some of them did, that therefore he intercedeth for all that they
   may believe; crucifers who never once heard of his crucifying?

   Thirdly, Christ in those words doth not so much as pray for those men
   that they might believe, but only that that sin of them in crucifying
   of him might be forgiven, not laid to their charge. Hence to conclude,
   therefore he intercedeth for all men that they may believe, even
   because he prayed that the sin of crucifying himself might be forgiven
   them that did it, is a strange inference.

   Fourthly, There is another evident limitation in the business; for
   among his crucifiers he prays only for them that were present at his
   death, amongst whom, doubtless, many came more out of curiosity, to see
   and observe, as is usual in such cases, than out of malice and despite.
   So that whereas some urge that notwithstanding this prayer, yet the
   chief of the priests continued in their unbelief, it is not to the
   purpose, for it cannot be proved that they were present at his
   crucifying.

   Fifthly, It cannot be affirmed with any probability that our Saviour
   should pray for all and every one of them, supposing some of them to be
   finally impenitent: for he himself knew full well “what was in man,”
   John ii. 25; yea, he “knew from the beginning who they were that
   believed not,” chap. vi. 64. Now, it is contrary to the rule which we
   have, 1 John v. 16, “There is a sin unto death,” etc., to pray for them
   whom we know to be finally impenitent, and to sin unto death.

   Sixthly, It seems to me that this supplication was effectual and
   successful, that the Son was heard in this request also, faith and
   forgiveness being granted to them for whom he prayed; so that this
   makes nothing for a general, ineffectual intercession, it being both
   special and effectual: for, Acts iii., of them whom Peter tells, that
   they “denied the Holy One, and desired a murderer,” verse 14, “and
   killed the Prince of Life,” verse 15, — of these, I say, five thousand
   believed: chap. iv. 4, “Many of them which heard the word believed, and
   the number of them was about five thousand.” And if any others were
   among them whom our Saviour prayed for, they might be converted
   afterward. Neither were the rulers without the compass of the fruits of
   this prayer; for “a great company of the priests were obedient to the
   faith,” chap. vi. 7. So that nothing can possibly be hence inferred for
   the purpose intended.

   Seventhly, We may, nay we must, grant a twofold praying in our Saviour;
   — one, by virtue of his office as he was mediator; the other, in answer
   of his duty, as he was subject to the law. It is true, he who was
   mediator was made subject to the law; but yet those things which be did
   in obedience to the law as a private person were not acts of mediation,
   nor works of him as mediator, though of him who was mediator. Now, as
   he, was subject to the law, our Saviour was bound to forgive offences
   and wrongs done unto him, and to pray for his enemies; as also he had
   taught us to do, whereof in this he gave us an example: Matt. v. 44, “I
   say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to
   them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and
   persecute you;” which doubtless he inferreth from that law, Lev. xix.
   18, “Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of
   thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” — quite
   contrary to the wicked gloss put upon it by the Pharisees. And in this
   sense our Saviour here, as a private person, to whom revenge was
   forbidden, pardon enjoined, prayer commanded, prays for his very
   enemies and crucifers; which doth not at all concern his interceding
   for us as mediator, wherein he was always heard, and so is nothing to
   the purpose in hand.

   Again, John xvii. 21–23 is urged to confirm this general intercession,
   which we have exploded; our Saviour praying that, by the unity,
   concord, and flourishing of his servants, the world might believe and
   know that God had sent him. From which words, though some make a
   seeming flourish, yet the thing pretended is no way confirmed; for, —

   First, If Christ really intended and desired that the whole world, or
   all men in the world, should believe, he would also, no doubt, have
   prayed for more effectual means of grace to be granted unto them than
   only a beholding of the blessed condition of his (which yet is granted
   only to a small part of the world); at least for the preaching of the
   word to them all, that by it, as the only ordinary way, they might come
   to the knowledge of him. But this we do not find that ever he prayed
   for, or that God hath granted it; nay, he blessed his Father that so it
   was not, because so it seemed good in his sight, Matt. xi. 25, 26.

   Secondly, Such a gloss or interpretation must not be put upon the place
   as should run cross to the express words of our Saviour, verse 9, “I
   pray not for the world;” for if he here prayed that the world should
   have true, holy, saving faith, he prayed for as great a blessing and
   privilege for the world as any he procured or interceded for his own.
   Wherefore, —

   Thirdly, Say some, the world is here taken for the world of the elect,
   the world to be saved, — God’s people throughout the world. Certain it
   is that the world is not here taken properly pro mundo continente, for
   the world containing, but figuratively pro mundo contento, for the
   world contained, or men in the world. Neither can it be made appear
   that it must be taken universally, for all the men in the world, as
   seldom it is in the Scripture, which afterward we shall make appear;
   but it may be understood indefinitely, for men in the world, few or
   more, as the elect are in their several generations. But this
   exposition, though it hath great authors, I cannot absolutely adhere
   unto, because through this whole chapter the world is taken either for
   the world of reprobates, opposed to them that are given to Christ by
   his Father, or for the world of unbelievers (the same men under another
   notion), opposed to them who are committed to his Father by Christ.
   Wherefore I answer, —

   Fourthly, That by believing, verse 21, and knowing, verse 23, is not
   meant believing in a strict sense, or a saving comprehension and
   receiving of Jesus Christ, and so becoming the sons of God, — which
   neither ever was, nor ever will be, fulfilled in every man in the
   world, nor was ever prayed for, — but a conviction and acknowledgment
   that the Lord Christ is not, what before they had taken him to be, a
   seducer and a false prophet, but indeed what he said, one that came out
   from God, able to protect and do good for and to his own: which kind of
   conviction and acknowledgment that it is often termed believing in the
   Scripture is more evident than that it should need to be proved; and
   that this is here meant the evidence of the thing is such as that it is
   consented unto by expositors of all sorts. Now, this is not for any
   good of the world, but for the vindication of his people and the
   exaltation of his own glory; and so proves not at all the thing in
   question. But of this word “world” afterward.

   The following place of Matthew, chap. v. 15, 16 (containing some
   instructions given by our Saviour to his apostles, so to improve the
   knowledge and light which of him they had, and were farther to receive,
   in the preaching of the word and holiness of life, that they might be a
   means to draw men to glorify God) is certainly brought in to make up a
   show of a number, as very many other places are, the author not once
   considering what is to be proved by them, nor to what end they are
   used; and therefore without farther inquiry may well be laid aside, as
   not it all belonging to the business in hand, nor to be dragged within
   many leagues of the conclusion, by all the strength and skill of Mr
   More.

   Neither is that other place of John, chap. i. 9, any thing more
   advisedly or seasonably urged, though wretchedly glossed, and rendered,
   “In some measure enlightening every one that comes into the world.” The
   Scripture says that “Christ is the true Light, that lighteth every man
   that cometh into the world;” “In some measure,” says Mr More. Now, I
   beseech you, in what measure is this? How far, unto what degree, in
   what measure, is illumination from Christ? by whom or by what means,
   separated from him, independent of him, is the rest made up? who
   supplies the defect of Christ? I know your aim is to hug in your
   illumination by the light of nature, and I know not what common helps
   that you dream of, towards them who are utterly deprived of all gospel
   means of grace, and that not only for the knowledge of God as Creator,
   but also of him as in Christ the Redeemer: but whether the calves of
   your own setting up should be thus sacrificed unto, with wresting and
   perverting the word of God, and undervaluing of the grace of Christ,
   you will one day, I hope, be convinced. It sufficeth us that Christ is
   said to enlighten every one, because he is the only true light, and
   every one that is enlightened receiveth his light from him, who is the
   sum, the fountain thereof. And so the general defence of this general,
   ineffectual intercession is vanished. But yet farther, it is
   particularly replied, concerning the priesthood of Christ, that, —

   III. “As a priest in respect of one end, he offered sacrifice, — that
   is, propitiation for all men, Heb. ii. 9, ix. 26; John i. 29; 1 John
   ii. 2; — in respect of all the ends, propitiation, and sealing the new
   testament, and testification to the truth; — and of the uttermost end
   in all, for his called and chosen ones, Heb. ix. 14, 15; Matt. xxvi.
   28.” (What follows after, being repeated out of another place, hath
   been already answered.)

   Ans. First, These words, as here placed, have no tolerable sense in
   them, neither is it an easy thing to gather the mind of the author out
   of them, so far are they from being a clear answer to the argument, as
   was pretended. Words of Scripture, indeed, are used, but wrested and
   corrupted, not only to the countenance of error, but to bear a part in
   unreasonable expressions. For what, I pray, is the meaning of these
   words: “He offered sacrifice in respect of one end, then of all ends,
   then of the uttermost end in all?” To inquire backwards:— 1. What is
   this “uttermost end in all?” Is that “in all,” in or among all the ends
   proposed and accomplished? or in all those for whom he offered
   sacrifice? or is it the uttermost end and proposal of God and Christ in
   his oblation? If this latter, that is the glory of God; now there is no
   such thing once intimated in the places of Scripture quoted, Heb. ix.
   14, 15; Matt. xxvi. 28. 2. Do those places hold out the uttermost end
   of the death of Christ (subordinate to God’s glory)? Why, in one of
   them it is the obtaining of redemption, and in the other the shedding
   of his blood for the remission of sins is expressed! Now, all this you
   affirm to be the first end of the death of Christ, in the first words
   used in this place calling it “propitiation,” — that is, an atonement
   for the remission of sins; which remission of sins and redemption are
   for the substance one and the same, both of them the immediate fruits
   and first end of the death of Christ, as is apparent, Eph. i. 7; Col.
   i. 14. So here you have confounded the first and last end of the death
   of Christ, spoiling, indeed, and casting down (as you may lawfully do,
   for it is your own), the whole frame and building, whose foundation is
   this, that there be several and diverse ends of the death of Christ
   towards several persons, so that some of them belong unto all, and all
   of them only to some; which is the prōton pseudos of the whole book. 3.
   Christ’s offering himself to put away sin, out of Heb. ix. 26, [you
   make to be] the place for the first end of the death of Christ, and his
   shedding of his blood for the remission of sins, from Matt. xxvi. 8, to
   be the last! Pray, when you write next, give us the difference between
   these two. 4. You say, “He offered sacrifice in respect of one end, —
   that is, propitiation for all men.” Now, truly, if ye know the meaning
   of sacrifice and propitiation, this will scarce appear sense unto you
   upon a second view.

   But, [secondly,] to leave your words and take your meaning, it seems to
   be this, in respect of one end that Christ proposed to himself in his
   sacrifice, he is a priest for all, be aimed to attain and accomplish it
   for them; but in respect of other ends, he is so only for his chosen
   and called. Now, truly, this is an easy kind of answering, which, if it
   will pass for good and warrantable, you may easily disappoint all your
   adversaries, even first by laying down their arguments, then saying
   your own opinion is otherwise; for the very thing that is here imposed
   on us for an answer is the to krinomenon, the chief matter in debate.
   We absolutely deny that the several ends of the death of Christ, or the
   good things procured by his death, are thus distributed as is here
   pretended. To prove our assertion, and to give a reason of our denial
   of this dividing of these things in respect of their objects, we
   produce the argument above proposed concerning the priesthood of
   Christ; to which the answer given is a bare repetition of the thing in
   question.

   But you will say divers places of Scripture are quoted for the
   confirmation of this answer. But these, as I told you before, are
   brought forth for pomp and show, nothing at all being to be found in
   them to the business in hand; such are Heb. ix. 26; John i. 29. For
   what consequence is there from an affirmation indefinite, that Christ
   bare or took away sin, to this, that he is a priest for all and every
   one in respect of propitiation? Besides, in that of John i. 9 there is
   a manifest allusion to the paschal lamb, by which there was a typical,
   ceremonial purification and cleansing of sin; which was proper only to
   the people of Israel, the type of the elect of God, and not of all in
   the world, of all sorts, reprobates and unbelievers also. Those other
   two places of Heb. ii. 9, 1 John ii. 2, shall be considered apart,
   because they seem to have some strength for the main of the cause;
   though apparently there is no word in them that can be wrested to give
   the least colour to such an uncouth distinction as that which we
   oppose. And thus our argument from the equal objective extent of the
   oblation and intercession of Jesus Christ is confirmed and vindicated,
   and, withal, the means used by the blessed Trinity for the
   accomplishment of the proposed end unfolded; which end, what it was, is
   next to be considered.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [23] More’s Universality of Grace.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

                                    Book II.
     __________________________________________________________________

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 them, 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. But this is anamphisbētēton.

   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
   effects 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 bonum et 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, 1 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 procure 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 save 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.” [24]

   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 from
   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 Christ; 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.
   33, 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 should, 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.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [24] The reader may be referred to the treatise by the author at the
   end of this volume, “De Divinâ Justitiâ,” for the full and mature
   expression of his views on the necessity of the atonement. In the
   statements above, it is implied that salvation might have been
   accomplished without the absolute necessity of such a satisfaction to
   the claims of justice as the death of Christ afforded. Dr Owen, it will
   be found in the treatise referred to, latterly changed his views on
   this point, and held the necessity for the satisfaction of divine
   justice by an atonement, in order to salvation, to be absolute. — Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

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 Christ’s 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 affirmed, 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.
   13, 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? Hina kai autoi
   ōsin hēgiasmenoi en alētheia; — “That they also may be truly
   sanctified.” That hina there, “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 came 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” (anēnenke, 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, 34. 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. Besides, 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. 1. 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. 5, 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. ^a [25] 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, ^bor such as
   he died for so and so, and not so and so; ^cbut 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. ^dNor
   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 3, 4, 9, 27. ^eNor 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. ^fNor 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, ^aThat 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, ^bFor 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, ^cWe 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, ^dFirst, 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? 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 died, and those
   that come in to him, may receive different qualifications, but they are
   not several persons.

   Fifthly, ^eFirst, 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, ^fFirst, “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, 5,
   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, 11, 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.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [25] These figures are designed by the author to connect each argument
   which he is refuting with the answer he supplies to it in the
   succeeding paragraphs. — Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

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 pharmakon 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 impetration, 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, [26] 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 he 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 [27] 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 in right.
   But it is most certain that whatsoever is obtained for any is theirs by
   right for whom it is obtained. The very sense of the word, whether you
   call it merit, impetration, purchase, acquisition, or obtaining, doth
   bespeak a right in them for whose good the merit is effected and the
   purchase made. Can that be said to be obtained for me which is no wise
   mine? When I obtain any thing by prayer or entreaty of any one, it
   being obtained, it is mine own. That which is obtained by one is
   granted by him of whom it is obtained; and if granted, it is granted by
   him to them for whom it is obtained. But they will say, “It is obtained
   upon condition; and until the condition be fulfilled no right doth
   accrue.” I answer, If this condition be equally purchased and obtained,
   with other things that are to be bestowed on that condition, then this
   hinders not but that every thing is to be applied that is procured. But
   if it be uncertain whether this condition will be fulfilled or not,
   then, — first, This makes God uncertain what end the death of his Son
   will have; secondly, This doth not answer but deny the thing we are in
   proving, which is confirmed.

   Thirdly, Because the Scripture, perpetually conjoining these two things
   together, will not suffer us so to sever them as that the one should
   belong to some and not to others, as though they could have several
   persons for their objects: as Isa. liii. 11, “By his knowledge shall my
   righteous servant justify many,” — there is the application of all good
   things; “for he shall bear their iniquities,” — there is the
   impetration. He justifieth all whose iniquities he bore. As also verse
   5 of that chapter, “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was
   bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him;
   and by his stripes we are healed.” His wounding and our healing,
   impetration and application, his chastisement and our peace, are
   inseparably associated. So Rom. iv. 25, “He was delivered for our
   offences, and was raised again for our justification.” So chap. v. 18,
   “By the righteousness of one” (that is, his impetration), “the free
   gift came upon all men unto justification of life,” in the application.
   See there who are called “All men,” most clearly. Chap. viii. 32–34,
   “He spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall
   he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing
   to the charge of God’s elect? 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.” From which words we have these several reasons of our assertion:—
   First, That for whom God gives his Son, to them, in him, he freely
   gives all things; therefore, all things obtained by his death must be
   bestowed, and are, on them for whom he died, verse 32. Secondly, They
   for whom Christ died are justified, are God’s elect, cannot be
   condemned, nor can any thing be laid to their 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.
   19, “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
   [28] 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 Boræus, 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.

   Again, some say that Christ by this satisfaction removed original sin
   in all, and, by consequent, that only; so that all infants, though of
   Turks and Pagans, out of the covenant, dying before they come to the
   use of reason, must undoubtedly be saved, that being removed in all,
   even the calamity, guilt, and alienation contracted by our first fall,
   whereby God may save all upon a new condition. But others of them, more
   warily, observing that the blood of Christ is said to “cleanse from all
   sin,” (1 John i. 7; 1 Pet. i. 18, 19; Isa. liii. 6), say he died for
   all sinners alike; absolutely for none, but conditionally for all.
   Farther, some of them affirm that after the satisfaction of Christ, or
   the consideration of it in God’s prescience, it was absolutely
   undetermined what condition should be prescribed, so that the Lord
   might have reduced all again to the law and covenant of works; so
   Corvinus: others, that a procuring of a new way of salvation by faith
   was a part of the fruit of the death of Christ; so More, p. 35.

   Again, some of them, that the condition prescribed is by our own
   strength, with the help of such means as God at all times, and in all
   places, and unto all, is ready to afford, to be performed; others deny
   this, and affirm that effectual grace flowing peculiarly from election
   is necessary to believing: the first establishing the idol of free-will
   to maintain their own assertion; others overthrowing their own
   assertion for the establishment of grace. So Amyraldus, Camero, etc.

   Moreover, some say that the love of God in the sending of Christ is
   equal to all: others go a strain higher, and maintain an inequality in
   the love of God, although he send his Son to die for all, and though
   greater love there cannot be than that whereby the Lord sent his Son to
   die for us, as Rom. viii. 32; and so they say that Christ purchased a
   greater good for some, and less for others. And here they put
   themselves upon innumerable uncouth distinctions, or rather (as one
   calleth them), extinctions, blotting out all sense, and reason, and
   true meaning of the Scripture. Witness Testardus, Amyraldus, and, as
   every one may see that can but read English, in T. M[ore.] Hence that
   multiplicity of the several ends of the death of Christ, — some that
   are the fruits of his ransom and satisfaction, and some that are I know
   not what; besides his dying for some so and so, for others so and so,
   this way and that way; — hiding themselves in innumerable
   unintelligible expressions, that it is a most difficult thing to know
   what they mean, and harder to find out their mind than to answer their
   reasons.

   In one particular they agree well enough, — namely, in denying that
   faith is procured or merited for us by the death of Christ. So far they
   are all of them constant to their own principles, for once to grant it
   would overturn the whole fabric of universal redemption; but, in
   assigning the cause of faith they go asunder again.

   Some say that God sent Christ to die for all men, but only
   conditionally, if they did and would believe; — as though, if they
   believed, Christ died for them; if not, he died not; and so make the
   act the cause of its own object: other some, that he died absolutely
   for all, to procure all good things for them, which yet they should not
   enjoy until they fulfil the condition that was to be prescribed unto
   them. Yet all conclude that in his death Christ had no more respect
   unto the elect than others, to sustain their persons, or to be in their
   room, but that he was a public person in the room of all mankind.

   III. Concerning the close of all this, in respect of the event and
   immediate product of the death of Christ, divers have diversely
   expressed themselves; some placing it in the power, some in the will,
   of God; some in the opening of a door of grace; some in a right
   purchased to himself of saving whom he pleased; some that in respect of
   us he had no end at all, but that all mankind might have perished after
   he had done all. Others make divers and distinct ends, not almost to be
   reckoned, of this one act of Christ, according to the diversity of the
   persons for whom he died, whom they grant to be distinguished and
   differenced by a foregoing decree; but to what purpose the Lord should
   send his Son to die for them whom he himself had determined not to
   save, but at least to pass by and leave to remediless ruin for their
   sins, I cannot see, nor the meaning of the twofold destination by some
   invented. Such is the powerful force and evidence of truth that it
   scatters all its opposers, and makes them fly to several
   hiding-corners; who, if they are not willing to yield and submit
   themselves, they shall surely lie down in darkness and error. None of
   these, or the like intricate and involved impedite distinctions, hath
   [truth] itself need of; into none of such poor shifts and devices doth
   it compel its abettors; it needeth not any windings and turnings to
   bring itself into a defensible posture; it is not liable to
   contradictions in its own fundamentals: for, without any farther
   circumstances, the whole of it in this business may be thus summed up:—

   “God, out of his infinite love to his elect, sent his dear Son in the
   fulness of time, whom he had promised in the beginning of the world,
   and made effectual by that promise, to die, pay a ransom of infinite
   value and dignity, for the purchasing of eternal redemption, and
   bringing unto himself all and every one of those whom he had before
   ordained to eternal life, for the praise of his own glory.” So that
   freedom from all the evil from which we are delivered, and an enjoyment
   of all the good things that are bestowed on us, in our traduction from
   death to life, from hell and wrath to heaven and glory, are the proper
   issues and effects of the death of Christ, as the meritorious cause of
   them all; which may, in all the parts of it, be cleared by these few
   assertions:—

   First, The fountain and cause of God’s sending Christ is his eternal
   love to his elect, and to them alone; which I shall not now farther
   confirm, reserving it for the second general head of this whole
   controversy.

   Secondly, The value, worth, and dignity of the ransom which Christ gave
   himself to be, and of the price which he paid, was infinite and
   immeasurable; fit for the accomplishing of any end and the procuring of
   any good, for all and every one for whom it was intended, had they been
   millions of men more than ever were created. Of this also afterward.
   See Acts xx. 28, “God purchased his church with his own blood.” 1 Pet.
   i. 18, 19, “Redeemed not with silver and gold, but with the precious
   blood of Christ;” and that answering the mind and intention of Almighty
   God, John xiv. 31, “As the Father gave me commandment, even so I do;”
   who would have such a price paid as might be the foundation of that
   economy and dispensation of his love and grace which he intended, and
   of the way whereby he would have it dispensed. Acts xiii. 38, 39,
   “Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by
   him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could
   not be justified by the law of Moses.” 2 Cor. v. 20, 21, “We are
   ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray
   you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to
   be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness
   of God in him.”

   Thirdly, The intention and aim of the Father in this great work was, a
   bringing of those many sons to glory, — namely, his elect, whom by his
   free grace he had chosen from amongst all men, of all sorts, nations,
   and conditions, to take them into a new covenant of grace with himself,
   the former being as to them, in respect of the event, null and
   abolished; of which covenant Jesus Christ is the first and chief
   promise, as he that was to procure for them all other good things
   promised therein, as shall be proved.

   Fourthly, The things purchased or procured for those persons, — which
   are the proper effects of the death and ransom of Christ, in due time
   certainly to become theirs in possession and enjoyment, — are,
   remission of sin, freedom from wrath and the curse of the law,
   justification, sanctification, and reconciliation with God, and eternal
   life; for the will of his Father sending him for these, his own
   intention in laying down his life for them, and the truth of the
   purchase made by him, is the foundation of his intercession, begun on
   earth and continued in heaven; whereby he, whom his Father always
   hears, desires and demands that the good things procured by him may be
   actually bestowed on them, all and every one, for whom they were
   procured. So that the whole of what we assert in this great business is
   exceedingly clear and apparent, without any intricacy or the least
   difficulty at all; not clouded with strange expressions and unnecessary
   divulsions and tearings of one thing from another, as is the opposite
   opinion: which in the next place shall be dealt withal by arguments
   confirming the one and everting the other. But because the whole
   strength thereof lieth in, and the weight of all lieth on, that one
   distinction we before spoke of, by our adversaries diversely expressed
   and held out, we will a little farther consider that, and then come to
   our arguments, and so to the answering of the opposed objections.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [26] Camero, Testardus, Amyraldus.

   [27] More, with some others of late.

   [28] See book iv., chap. ii. and chap. iv., where John iii. 16, and
   Rom. v. 8, are very fully considered. These must be the two passages to
   which he refers. — Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter V.

   Of application and impetration.

   The allowable use of this distinction, how it may be taken in a sound
   sense, the several ways whereby men have expressed the thing which in
   these words is intimated, and some arguments for the overthrowing of
   the false use of it, however expressed, we have before intimated and
   declared. Now, seeing that this is the prōton pseudos of the opposite
   opinion, understood in the sense and according to the use they make of
   it, I shall give it one blow more, and leave it, I hope, a-dying.

   I shall, then, briefly declare, that although these two things may
   admit of a distinction, yet they cannot of a separation, but that for
   whomsoever Christ obtained good, to them it might be applied; and for
   whomsoever he wrought reconciliation with God, they must actually unto
   God be reconciled. So that the blood of Christ, and his death in the
   virtue of it, cannot be looked on, as some do, as a medicine in a box,
   laid up for all that shall come to have any of it, and so applied now
   to one, then to another, without any respect or difference, as though
   it should be intended no more for one than for another; so that
   although he hath obtained all the good that he hath purchased for us,
   yet it is left indifferent and uncertain whether it shall ever be ours
   or no: for it is well known, that notwithstanding those glorious things
   that are assigned by the Arminians to the death of Christ, which they
   say he purchased for all, as remission of sins, reconciliation with
   God, and the like, yet they for whom this purchase and procurement is
   made may be damned, as the greatest part are, and certainly shall be.
   Now, that there should be such a distance between these two, —

   First, It is contrary to common sense or our usual form of speaking,
   which must be wrested, and our understandings forced to apprehend it.
   When a man hath obtained an office, or any other obtained it for him,
   can it be said that it is uncertain whether he shall have it or no? If
   it be obtained for him, is it not his in right, thorough perhaps not in
   possession? That which is impetrated or obtained by petition is his by
   whom it is obtained. It is to offer violence to common sense to say a
   thing may be a man’s, or it may not be his, when it is obtained for
   him; for in so saying we say it is his. And so it is in the purchase
   made by Jesus Christ, and the good things obtained by him for all them
   for whom he died.

   Secondly, It is contrary to all reason in the world, that the death of
   Christ, in God’s intention, should be applied to any one that shall
   have no share in the merits of that death. God’s will that Christ
   should die for any, is his intention that he shall have a share in the
   death of Christ, that it should belong to him, — that is, be applied to
   him; for that is, in this case, said to be applied to any that is his
   in any respect, according to the will of God. But now the death of
   Christ, according to the opinion we oppose, is so applied to all, and
   yet the fruits of this death are never so much as once made known to
   far the greatest part of those all.

   Thirdly, [It is contrary to reason] that a ransom should be paid for
   captives, upon compact for their deliverance, and yet upon the payment
   those captives not be made free and set at liberty. The death of Christ
   is a ransom, Matt. xx. 28, paid by compact for the deliverance of
   captives for whom it was a ransom; and the promise wherein his Father
   stood engaged to him at his undertaking to be a Saviour, and undergoing
   the office imposed on him, was their deliverance, as was before
   declared, upon his performance of these things: on that [being done,
   that] the greatest number of these captives should never be released,
   seems strange and very improbable.

   Fourthly, It is contrary to Scripture, as was before at large declared.
   See [also book iii.] chap. x.

   But now, all this our adversaries suppose they shall wipe away with one
   slight distinction, that will make, as they say, all we affirm in this
   kind to vanish; and that is this: “It is true,” say they, “all things
   that are absolutely procured and obtained for any do presently become
   theirs in right for whom they are obtained; but things that are
   obtained upon condition become not theirs until the condition be
   fulfilled. Now, Christ hath purchased, by his death for all, all good
   things, not absolutely, but upon condition; and until that condition
   come to be fulfilled, unless they perform what is required, they have
   neither part nor portion, right unto nor possession of them.” Also,
   what this condition is they give in, in sundry terms; some call it a
   not resisting of this redemption offered to them; some, a yielding to
   the invitation of the gospel; some, in plain terms, faith. Now, be it
   so that Christ purchaseth all things for us, to be bestowed on this
   condition, that we do believe it, then I affirm that, —

   First, Certainly this condition ought to be revealed to all for whom
   this purchase is made, if it be intended for them in good earnest. All
   for whom he died must have means to know that his death will do them
   good if they believe; especially it being in his power alone to grant
   them these means who intends good to them by his death. If I should
   entreat a physician that could cure such a disease to cure all that
   came unto him, but should let many rest ignorant of the grant which I
   had procured of the physician, and none but myself could acquaint them
   with it, whereby they might go to him and be healed, could I be
   supposed to intend the healing of those people? Doubtless no. The
   application is easy.

   Secondly, This condition of them to be required is in their power to
   perform, or it is not. If it be, then have all men power to believe;
   which is false: if it be not, then the Lord will grant them grace to
   perform it, or he will not. If he will, why then do not all believe?
   why are not all saved? if he will not, then this impetration, or
   obtaining salvation and redemption for all by the blood of Jesus
   Christ, comes at length to this:— God intendeth that he shall die for
   all, to procure for them remission of sins, reconciliation with him,
   eternal redemption and glory; but yet so that they shall never have the
   least good by these glorious things, unless they perform that which he
   knows they are no way able to do, and which none but himself can enable
   them to perform, and which concerning far the greatest part of them he
   is resolved not to do. Is this to intend that Christ should die for
   them for their good? or rather, that he should die for them to expose
   them to shame and misery? Is it not all one as if a man should promise
   a blind man a thousand pounds upon condition that he will see.

   Thirdly, This condition of faith is procured for us by the death of
   Christ, or it is not. If they say it be not, then the chiefest grace,
   and without which redemption itself (express it how you please) is of
   no value, doth not depend on the grace of Christ as the meritorious
   procuring cause thereof; — which, first, is exceedingly injurious to
   our blessed Saviour, and serves only to diminish the honour and love
   due to him; secondly, is contrary to Scripture: Tit. iii. 5, 6; 2 Cor.
   v. 21, “He became sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness
   of God in him.” And how we can become the righteousness of God but by
   believing, I know not. Yea, expressly saith the apostle, “It is given
   to us for Christ’s sake, on the behalf of Christ, to believe in him,”
   Phil. i. 29; “God blessing us with all spiritual blessing in him,” Eph.
   i. 3, whereof surely faith is not the least. If it be a fruit of the
   death of Christ, why is it not bestowed on all, since he died for all,
   especially since the whole impetration of redemption is altogether
   unprofitable without it? If they do invent a condition upon which this
   is bestowed, the vanity of that shall be afterward discovered. For the
   present, if this condition be, So they do not refuse or resist the
   means of grace, then I ask, if the fruit of the death of Christ shall
   be applied to all that fulfil this condition of not refusing or not
   resisting the means of grace? If not, then why is that produced? If so,
   then all must be saved that have not, or do not resist, the means of
   grace; that is, all pagans, infidels, and those infants to whom the
   gospel was never preached.

   Fourthly, This whole assertion tends to make Christ but a half
   mediator, that should procure the end, but not the means conducing
   thereunto. So that, notwithstanding this exception and new distinction,
   our assertion stands firm, — That the fruits of the death of Christ, in
   respect of impetration of good and application to us, ought not to be
   divided; and our arguments to confirm it are unshaken.

   For a close of all; that which in this cause we affirm may be summed up
   in this: Christ did not die for any upon condition, if they do believe;
   but he died for all God’s elect, that they should believe, and
   believing have eternal life. Faith itself is among the principal
   effects and fruits of the death of Christ; as shall be declared. It is
   nowhere said in Scripture, nor can it reasonably be affirmed, that if
   we believe, Christ died for us, as though our believing should make
   that to be which otherwise was not, — the act create the object; but
   Christ died for us that we might believe. Salvation, indeed, is
   bestowed conditionally; but faith, which is the condition, is
   absolutely procured. The question being thus stated, the difference
   laid open, and the thing in controversy made known, we proceed, in the
   next place, to draw forth some of those arguments, demonstrations,
   testimonies, and proofs, whereby the truth we maintain is established,
   in which it is contained, and upon which it is firmly founded: only
   desiring the reader to retain some notions in his mind of those
   fundamentals which in general we laid down before; they standing in
   such relation to the arguments which we shall use, that I am confident
   not one of them can be thoroughly answered before they be everted.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

                                   Book III.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter I.

   Arguments against the universality of redemption — The two first; from
   the nature of the new covenant, and the dispensation thereof.

   Argument I. The first argument may be taken from the nature of the
   covenant of grace, which was established, ratified, and confirmed in
   and by the death of Christ; that was the testament whereof he was the
   testator, which was ratified in his death, and whence his blood is
   called “The blood of the new testament,” Matt. xxvi. 28. Neither can
   any effects thereof be extended beyond the compass of this covenant.
   But now this covenant was not made universally with all, but
   particularly only with some, and therefore those alone were intended in
   the benefits of the death of Christ.

   The assumption appears from the nature of the covenant itself,
   described clearly, Jer. xxxi. 31, 32, “I will make a new covenant with
   the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the
   covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by
   the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they
   brake, though I was an husband to them, saith the Lord;” — and Heb.
   viii. 9–11, “Not according to the covenant that I made with their
   fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the
   land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I
   regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will
   make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will
   put my laws in their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will
   be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not
   teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know
   the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.”
   Wherein, first, the condition of the covenant is not said to be
   required, but it is absolutely promised: “I will put my fear in their
   hearts.” And this is the main difference between the old covenant of
   works and the new one of grace, that in that the Lord did only require
   the fulfilling of the condition prescribed, but in this be promiseth to
   effect it in them himself with whom the covenant is made. And without
   this spiritual efficacy, the truth is, the new covenant would be as
   weak and unprofitable, for the end of a covenant (the bringing, of us
   and binding of us to God), as the old. For in what consisted the
   weakness and unprofitableness of the old covenant, for which God in his
   mercy abolished it? Was it not in this, because, by reason of sin, we
   were no way able to fulfil the condition thereof, “Do this, and live?”
   Otherwise the connection is still true, that “he that doeth these
   things shall live.” And are we of ourselves any way more able to fulfil
   the condition of the new covenant? Is it not as easy for a man by his
   own strength to fulfil the whole law, as to repent and savingly believe
   the promise of the gospel? This, then, is one main difference of these
   two covenants, — that the Lord did in the old only require the
   condition; now, in the new, he will also effect it in all the
   federates, to whom this covenant is extended. And if the Lord should
   only exact the obedience required in the covenant of us, and not work
   and effect it also in us, the new covenant would be a show to increase
   our misery, and not a serious imparting and communicating of grace and
   mercy. If, then, this be the nature of the new testament, — as appears
   from the very words of it, and might abundantly be proved, — that the
   condition of the covenant should certainly, by free grace, be wrought
   and accomplished in all that are taken into covenant, then no more are
   in this covenant than in whom those conditions of it are effected.

   But thus, as is apparent, it is not with all; for “all men have not
   faith,” — it is “of the elect of God:” therefore, it is not made with
   all, nor is the compass thereof to be extended beyond the remnant that
   are according to election. Yea, every blessing of the new covenant
   being certainly common, and to be communicated to all the covenantees,
   either faith is none of them, or all must have it, if the covenant
   itself be general. But some may say that it is true God promiseth to
   write his law in our hearts, and put his fear in our inward parts; but
   it is upon condition. Give me that condition, and I will yield the
   cause. Is it if they do believe? Nothing else can be imagined. That is,
   if they have the law written in their hearts (as every one that
   believes hath), then God promiseth to write his law in their hearts! Is
   this probable, friends? is it likely? I cannot, then, be persuaded that
   God hath made a covenant of grace with all, especially those who never
   heard a word of covenant, grace, or condition of it, much less received
   grace for the fulfilling of the condition; without which the whole
   would be altogether unprofitable and useless. The covenant is made with
   Adam, and he is acquainted with it, Gen. iii. 15, — renewed with Noah,
   and not hidden from him, — again established with Abraham, accompanied
   with a full and rich declaration of the chief promises of it, Gen.
   xii.; which is most certain not to be effected towards all, as
   afterwards will appear. Yea, that first distinction, between the seed
   of the woman and the seed of the serpent is enough to overthrow the
   pretended universality of the covenant of grace; for who dares affirm
   that God entered into a covenant of grace with the seed of the serpent?

   Most apparent, then, it is that the new covenant of grace, and the
   promises thereof, are all of them of distinguishing mercy, restrained
   to the people whom God did foreknow; and so not extended universally to
   all. Now, the blood of Jesus Christ being the blood of this covenant,
   and his oblation intended only for the procurement of the good things
   intended and promised thereby, — for he was the surety thereof, Heb.
   vii. 22, and of that only, — it cannot be conceived to have respect
   unto all, or any but only those that are intended in this covenant.

   Arg. II. If the Lord intended that he should, and [he] by his death
   did, procure pardon of sin and reconciliation with God for all and
   every one, to be actually enjoyed upon condition that they do believe,
   then ought this good-will and intention of God, with this purchase in
   their behalf by Jesus Christ, to be made known to them by the word,
   that they might believe; “for faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by
   the word of God,” Rom. x. 17: for if these things be not made known and
   revealed to all and every one that is concerned in them, namely, to
   whom the Lord intends, and for whom he hath procured so great a good,
   then one of these things will follow; — either, first, That they may be
   saved without faith in, and the knowledge of, Christ (which they cannot
   have unless he be revealed to them), which is false, and proved so; or
   else, secondly, That this good-will of God, and this purchase made by
   Jesus Christ, is plainly in vain, and frustrate in respect of them,
   yea, a plain mocking of them, that will neither do them any good to
   help them out of misery, nor serve the justice of God to leave them
   inexcusable, for what blame can redound to them for not embracing and
   well using a benefit which they never heard of in their lives? Doth it
   become the wisdom of God to send Christ to die for men that they might
   be saved, and never cause these men to hear of any such thing; and yet
   to purpose and declare that unless they do hear of it and believe it,
   they shall never be saved? What wise man would pay a ransom for the
   delivery of those captives which he is sure shall never come to the
   knowledge of any such payment made, and so never be the better for it?
   Is it answerable to the goodness of God, to deal thus with his poor
   creatures? to hold out towards them all in pretence the most intense
   love imaginable, beyond all compare and illustration, — as his love in
   sending his Son is set forth to be, — and yet never let them know of
   any such thing, but in the end to damn them for not believing it? Is it
   answerable to the love and kindness of Christ to us, to assign unto him
   at his death such a resolution as this:— “I will now, by the oblation
   of myself, obtain for all and every one peace and reconciliation with
   God, redemption and everlasting salvation, eternal glory in the high
   heavens, even for all those poor, miserable, wretched worms, condemned
   caitiffs, that every hour ought to expect the sentence of condemnation;
   and all these shall truly and really be communicated to them if they
   will believe. But yet, withal, I will so order things that innumerable
   souls shall never hear one word of all this that I have done for them,
   never be persuaded to believe, nor have the object of faith that is to
   be believed proposed to them, whereby they might indeed possibly
   partake of these things?” Was this the mind and will, this the design
   and purpose, of our merciful high priest? God forbid. It is all one as
   if a prince should say and proclaim, that whereas there be a number of
   captives held in sore bondage in such a place, and he hath a full
   treasure, he is resolved to redeem them every one, so that every one of
   them shall come out of prison that will thank him for his good-will,
   and in the meantime never take care to let these poor captives know his
   mind and pleasure; and yet be fully assured that unless he effect it
   himself it will never be done. Would not this be conceived a vain and
   ostentatious flourish, without any good intent indeed towards the poor
   captives? Or as if a physician should say that he hath a medicine that
   will cure all diseases, and he intends to cure the diseases of all, but
   lets but very few know his mind, or any thing of his medicine; and yet
   is assured that without his relation and particular information it will
   be known to very few. And shall he be supposed to desire, intend, or
   aim at the recovery of all?

   Now, it is most clear, from the Scripture and experience of all ages,
   both under the old dispensation of the covenant and the new, that
   innumerable men, whole nations, for a long season, are passed by in the
   declaration of this mystery. The Lord doth not procure that it shall,
   by any means, in the least measure be made out to all; they hear not so
   much as a rumour or report of any such thing. Under the Old Testament,
   “In Judah was God known, and his name was great in Israel; in Salem was
   his tabernacle, and his dwelling-place in Zion,” Ps. lxxvi. 1, 2. “He
   showed his word unto Jacob, and his statutes and his judgments unto
   Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments,
   they have not known them,” Ps. cxlvii. 19, 20. Whence those
   appellations of the heathen, and imprecations also: as Jer. x. 25,
   “Pour out thy fury upon the heathen that know thee not, and upon the
   families that call not upon thy name;” of whom you have a full
   description, Eph. ii. 12, “Without Christ, aliens from the commonwealth
   of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope,
   and without God in the world.” And under the New Testament, though the
   church have “lengthened her cords, and strengthened her stakes,” and
   “many nations are come up to the mountain of the Lord,” — so many as to
   be called “all people,” “all nations,” yea, the “world,” the “whole
   world,” in comparison of the small precinct of the church of the Jews,
   — yet now also Scripture and experience do make it clear that many are
   passed by, yea, millions of souls, that never hear a word of Christ,
   nor of reconciliation by him; of which we can give no other reason,
   but, “Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight,” Matt. xi.
   26. For the Scripture, ye have the Holy Ghost expressly forbidding the
   apostles to go to sundry places with the word, but sending them another
   way, Acts xvi. 6, 7, 9, 10; answerable to the former dispensation in
   some particulars, wherein “he suffered all nations to walk in their own
   ways,” chap. xiv. 16. And for experience, not to multiply particulars,
   do but ask any of our brethren who have been but any time in the
   Indies, and they will easily resolve you in the truth thereof.

   The exceptions against this argument are poor and frivolous, which we
   reserve for reply. In brief; how is it revealed to those thousands of
   the offspring of infidels, whom the Lord cuts off in their infancy,
   that they may not pester the world, persecute his church, nor disturb
   human society? how to their parents, of whom Paul affirms, that by the
   works of God they might be led to the knowledge of his eternal power
   and Godhead, but that they should know any thing of redemption or a
   Redeemer was utterly impossible?
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter II.

   Containing three other arguments.

   Arg. III. If Jesus Christ died for all men, — that is, purchased and
   procured for them, according to the mind and will of God, all those
   things which we recounted, and the Scripture setteth forth, to be the
   effects and fruits of his death, which may be summed up in this one
   phrase, “eternal redemption,” — then he did this, and that according to
   the purpose of God, either absolutely or upon some condition by them to
   be fulfilled. If absolutely, then ought all and every one, absolutely
   and infallibly, to be made actual partakers of that eternal redemption
   so purchased; for what, I pray, should hinder the enjoyment of that to
   any which God absolutely intended, and Christ absolutely purchased for
   them? If upon condition, then he did either procure this condition for
   them, or he did not? If he did procure this condition for them, — that
   is, that it should be bestowed on them and wrought within them, — then
   he did it either absolutely again, or upon a condition. If absolutely,
   then are we as we were before; for to procure any thing for another, to
   be conferred on him upon such a condition, and withal to procure that
   condition absolutely to be bestowed on him, is equivalent to the
   absolute procuring of the thing itself. For so we affirm, in this very
   business: Christ procured salvation for us, to be bestowed
   conditionally, if we do believe; but faith itself, that he hath
   absolutely procured, without prescribing of any condition. Whence we
   affirm, that the purchasing of salvation for us is equivalent to what
   it would have been if it had been so purchased as to have been
   absolutely bestowed, in respect of the event and issue. So that thus
   also must all be absolutely saved. But if this condition be procured
   upon condition, let that be assigned, and we will renew our quære
   concerning the procuring of that, whether it were absolute or
   conditional, and so never rest until they come to fix somewhere, or
   still run into a circle.

   But, on the other side, is not this condition procured by him on whose
   performance all the good things purchased by him are to be actually
   enjoyed? Then, first, This condition must be made known to all, as Arg.
   ii. Secondly, All men are able of themselves to perform this condition,
   or they are not. If they are, then, seeing that condition is faith in
   the promises, as is on all sides confessed, are all men of themselves,
   by the power of their own free-will, able to believe; which is contrary
   to the Scriptures, as, by the Lord’s assistance, shall be declared. If
   they cannot, but that this faith must be bestowed on them and wrought
   within them by the free grace of God, then when God gave his Son to die
   for them, to procure eternal redemption for them all, upon condition
   that they did believe, he either purposed to work faith in them all by
   his grace, that they might believe, or he did not? If he did, why doth
   not he actually perform it, seeing “he is of one mind, and who can turn
   him?” why do not all believe? why have not all men faith? Or doth he
   fail of his purpose? If he did not purpose to bestow faith on them all,
   or (which is all one) if he purposed not to bestow faith on all (for
   the will of God doth not consist in a pure negation of any thing, —
   what he doth not will that it should be, he wills that it should not
   be), then the sum of it comes to this:— That God gave Christ to die for
   all men, but upon this condition, that they perform that which of
   themselves without him they cannot perform, and purposed that, for his
   part, he would not accomplish it in them.

   Now, if this be not extreme madness, to assign a will unto God of doing
   that which himself knows and orders that it shall never be done, of
   granting a thing upon a condition which without his help cannot be
   fulfilled, and which help he purposed not to grant, let all judge. Is
   this any thing but to delude poor creatures? Is it possible that any
   good at all should arise to any by such a purpose as this, such a
   giving of a Redeemer? Is it agreeable to the goodness of God to intend
   so great a good as is the redemption purchased by Christ, and to
   pretend that he would have it profitable for them, when he knows that
   they can no more fulfil the condition which he requires, that it may be
   by them enjoyed, than Lazarus could of himself come out of the grave?
   Doth it beseem the wisdom of God, to purpose that which he knows shall
   never be fulfilled? If a man should promise to give a thousand pounds
   to a blind man upon condition that he will open his eyes and see, —
   which he knows well enough he cannot do, — were that promise to be
   supposed to come from a heart-pitying of his poverty, and not rather
   from a mind to illude and mock at his misery? If the king should
   promise to pay a ransom for the captives at Algiers, upon condition
   that they would conquer their tyrants and come away, — which he knows
   full well they cannot do, — were this a kingly act? Or, as if a man
   should pay a price to redeem captives, but not that their chains may be
   taken away, without which they cannot come out of prison; or promise
   dead men great rewards upon condition they live again of themselves; —
   are not these to as much end as the obtaining of salvation for men upon
   condition that they do believe, without obtaining that condition for
   them? Were not this the assigning such a will and purpose as this to
   Jesus Christ:— “I will obtain eternal life to be bestowed on men, and
   become theirs, by the application of the benefits of my death; but upon
   this condition, that they do believe. But as I will not reveal my mind
   and will in this business, nor this condition itself, to innumerable of
   them, so concerning the rest I know they are no ways able of
   themselves, — no more than Lazarus was to rise, or a blind man is to
   see, — to perform the condition that I do require, and without which
   none of the good things intended for them can ever become theirs;
   neither will I procure that condition ever to be fulfilled in them.
   That is, I do will that that shall be done which I do not only know
   shall never be done, but that it cannot be done, because I will not do
   that without which it can never be accomplished”? Now, whether such a
   will and purpose as this beseem the wisdom and goodness of our Saviour,
   let the reader judge. In brief; an intention of doing good unto any one
   upon the performance of such a condition as the intender knows is
   absolutely above the strength of him of whom it is required, —
   especially if he know that it can no way be done but by his
   concurrence, and he is resolved not to yield that assistance which is
   necessary to the actual accomplishment of it, — is a vain fruitless
   flourish. That Christ, then, should obtain of his Father eternal
   redemption, and the Lord should through his Son intend it for them who
   shall never be made partakers of it, because they cannot perform, and
   God and Christ have purposed not to bestow, the condition on which
   alone it is to be made actually theirs, is unworthy of Christ, and
   unprofitable to them for whom it is obtained; which that any thing that
   Christ obtained for the sons of men should be unto them, is a hard
   saying indeed. Again; if God through Christ purpose to save all if they
   do believe, because he died for all, and this faith be not purchased by
   Christ, nor are men able of themselves to believe, how comes it to pass
   that any are saved?

   [If it be answered], “God bestows faith on some, not on others,” I
   reply, Is this distinguishing grace purchased for those some
   comparatively, in respect of those that are passed by without it? If it
   be, then did not Christ die equally for all, for he died that some
   might have faith, not others; yea, in comparison, he cannot be said to
   die for those other some at all, not dying that they might have faith,
   without which he knew that all the rest would be unprofitable and
   fruitless. But is it not purchased for them by Christ? Then have those
   that be saved no more to thank Christ for than those that are damned;
   which were strange, and contrary to Rev. i. 5, 6, “Unto him that loved
   us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us
   kings and priests unto God and his Father,” etc. For my part, I do
   conceive that Christ hath obtained salvation for men, not upon
   condition if they would receive it, but so fully and perfectly that
   certainly they should receive it. He purchased salvation, to be
   bestowed on them that do believe; but withal faith, that they might
   believe. Neither can it be objected, that, according to our doctrine,
   God requires any thing of men that they cannot do, yea, faith to
   believe in Christ: for, — First, Commands do not signify what is God’s
   intention should be done, but what is our duty to do; which may be made
   known to us whether we be able to perform it or not: it signifieth no
   intention or purpose of God. Secondly, For the promises which are
   proposed together with the command to believe:— First, they do not hold
   out the intent and purpose of God, that Christ should die for us if we
   do believe; which is absurd, — that the act should be the constituter
   of its own object, which must be before it, and is presupposed to be
   before we are desired to believe it: nor, secondly, the purpose of God
   that the death of Christ should be profitable to us if we do believe;
   which we before confuted: but, thirdly, only that faith is the way to
   salvation which God hath appointed; so that all that do believe shall
   undoubtedly be saved, these two things, faith and salvation, being
   inseparably linked together, as shall be declared.

   Arg. IV. If all mankind be, in and by the eternal purpose of God,
   distinguished into two sorts and conditions, severally and distinctly
   described and set forth in the Scripture, and Christ be peculiarly
   affirmed to die for one of these sorts, and nowhere for them of the
   other, then did he not die for all; for of the one sort he dies for all
   and every one, and of the other for no one at all. But, —

   First, There is such a discriminating distinguishment among men, by the
   eternal purpose of God, as those whom he “loves” and those whom he
   “hates,” Rom. ix. 13; whom he “knoweth,” and whom he “knoweth not:”
   John x. 14, “I know my sheep;” 2 Tim. ii. 19, “The Lord knoweth them
   that are his;” Rom. viii. 29, “Whom he did foreknow;” chap. xi. 2, “His
   people which he foreknew;” “I know you not,” Matt. xxv. 12: so John
   xiii. 18, “I speak not of you all; I know whom I have chosen.” Those
   that are appointed to life and glory, and those that are appointed to
   and fitted for destruction, — “elect” and “reprobate;” those that were
   “ordained to eternal life,” and those who “before were of old ordained
   to condemnation:” as Eph. i. 4, “He hath chosen us in him;” Acts xiii.
   48, “Ordained to eternal life;” Rom. viii. 30, “Whom he did
   predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also
   justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” So, on the
   other side, 1 Thess. v. 9, “God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to
   obtain salvation;” Rom. ix. 18–21, “He hath mercy on whom he will have
   mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why
   doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man,
   who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to
   him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter
   power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel to honour, and
   another to dishonour?” Jude 4, “Ordained to this condemnation;” 2 Pet.
   ii. 12, “Made to be taken and destroyed;” “Sheep and goats,” Matt. xxv.
   32; John x. passim. Those on whom he hath “mercy,” and those whom he
   “hardeneth,” Rom. ix. 18. Those that are his “peculiar people” and “the
   children of promise,” that are “not of the world,” his “church;” and
   those that, in opposition to them, are “the world,” “not prayed for,”
   “not his people:” as Tit. ii. 14; Gal. iv. 28; John xv. 19, xvii. 9;
   Col. i. 24; John xi. 52; Heb. ii. 10, 12, 13. Which distinction of men
   is everywhere ascribed to the purpose, will, and good pleasure of God:
   Prov. xvi. 4, “The Lord hath made all things for himself, even the
   wicked for the day of evil.” Matt. xi. 25, 26, “I thank thee, O Father,
   because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast
   revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy
   sight.” Rom. ix. 11, 12, “The children being not yet born, neither
   having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to
   election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; it was
   said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.” Verses 16, 17, “So
   then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God
   that showeth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this
   same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee,
   and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.” Chap.
   viii. 28–30, “Who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he
   did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of
   his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren. Moreover,
   whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them
   he also justified: and whom he justified them he also glorified.” So
   that the first part of the proposition is clear from the Scripture.

   Now, Christ is said expressly and punctually to die for them on the one
   side: for his “people,” Matt. i. 21; his “sheep,” John x. 11, 14; his
   “church,” Acts xx. 28, Eph. v. 25, as distinguished from the world,
   Rom. v. 8, 9, John xi. 51, 52; his “elect,” Rom. viii. 32–34; his
   “children,” Heb. ii. 12, 13; — as before more at large. Whence we may
   surely conclude that Christ died not for all and every one, — to wit,
   not for those he “never knew,” whom he “hateth,” whom he “hardeneth,”
   on whom he “will not show mercy,” who “were before of old ordained to
   condemnation;” in a word, for a reprobate, for the world, for which he
   would not pray. That which some except, that though Christ be said to
   die for his “sheep,” for his “elect,” his “chosen,” yet he is not said
   to die for them only, — that term is nowhere expressed, is of no value;
   for is it not without any forced interpretation, in common sense, and
   according to the usual course of speaking, to distinguish men into two
   such opposite conditions as elect and reprobate, sheep and goats, and
   then affirm that he died for his elect, [is it not] equivalent to this,
   he died for his elect only? Is not the sense as clearly restrained as
   if that restrictive term had been added? Or is that term always added
   in the Scripture in every indefinite assertion, which yet must of
   necessity be limited and restrained as if it were expressly added? as
   where our Saviour saith, “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” John
   xiv. 6; — he doth not say that he only is so, and yet of necessity it
   must be so understood. As also in that, Col. i. 19, “It pleased the
   Father that in him should all fulness dwell;” — he doth not express the
   limitation “only,” and yet it were no less than blasphemy to suppose a
   possibility of extending the affirmation to any other. So that this
   exception, notwithstanding this argument, is, as far as I can see,
   unanswerable; which also might be farther urged by a more large
   explication of God’s purpose of election and reprobation, showing how
   the death of Christ was a means set apart and appointed for the saving
   of his elect, and not at all undergone and suffered for those which, in
   his eternal counsel, he did determine should perish for their sins, and
   so never be made partakers of the benefits thereof. But of this more
   must be spoken, if the Lord preserve us, and give assistance for the
   other part of this controversy, concerning the cause of sending Christ.

   Arg. V. That is not to be asserted and affirmed which the Scripture
   doth not anywhere go before us in; but the Scripture nowhere saith
   Christ died for all men, much less for all and every man (between which
   two there is a wide difference, as shall be declared): therefore, this
   is not to be asserted. It is true, Christ is said to give his life “a
   ransom for all,” but nowhere for all men. And because it is affirmed
   expressly in other places that he died for many, for his church, for
   them that believe, for the children that God gave him, for us, some of
   all sorts, though not expressly, yet clearly in terms equivalent, Rev.
   v. 9, 10, it must be clearly proved that where all is mentioned, it
   cannot be taken for all believers, all his elect, his whole church, all
   the children that God gave him, some of all sorts, before a universal
   affirmative can be thence concluded. And if men will but consider the
   particular places, and contain themselves until they have done what is
   required, we shall be at quiet, I am persuaded, in this business.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter III.

   Containing, two other arguments from the person Christ sustained in
   this business.

   Arg. VI. For whom Christ died, he died as a sponsor, in their stead, as
   is apparent, Rom. v. 6–8, “For when we were yet without strength, in
   due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man
   will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to
   die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet
   sinners, Christ died for us.” Gal. iii. 13, “He was made a curse for
   us.” 2 Cor. v. 21, “He hath made him to be sin for us.” All which
   places do plainly signify and hold out a change or commutation of
   persons, one being accepted in the room of the other. Now, if he died
   as the sponsor or surety of them for whom he died, in their stead, then
   these two things at least will follow:— First, That he freed them from
   that anger, and wrath, and guilt of death, which he underwent for them,
   that they should in and for him be all reconciled, and be freed from
   the bondage wherein they are by reason of death; for no other reason in
   the world can be assigned why Christ should undergo any thing in
   another’s stead, but that that other might be freed from undergoing
   that which he underwent for him. And all justice requires that so it
   should be; which also is expressly intimated, when our Saviour is said
   to be enguos, “a surety of a better testament,” Heb. vii. 22; that is,
   by being our priest, undergoing the “chastisement of our peace,” and
   the burden of our “iniquities,” Isa. liii. 5, 6. He was “made sin for
   us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” 2 Cor. v.
   21. But now all are not freed from wrath and the guilt of death, and
   actually reconciled to God, — which is to be justified through an
   imputation of righteousness, and a non-imputation of iniquities; — for
   until men come to Christ “the wrath of God abideth on them,” John iii.
   36; which argueth and intimateth a non-removal of wrath, by reason of
   not believing. He doth not say, it comes on them, as though by Christ’s
   death they were freed from being under a state and condition of wrath,
   which we are all in by nature, Eph. ii. 3; but menei, “it remaineth,”
   or abideth: it was never removed. And to them the gospel is a savour of
   death unto death, — bringing a new death and a sore condemnation, by
   its being despised, unto that death the guilt whereof they before lay
   under. Some have, indeed, affirmed that all and every one are redeemed,
   restored, justified, and made righteous in Christ, and by his death;
   but truly this is so wretched, I will not say perverting of the
   Scriptures, which give no colour to any such assertion, but so direct
   an opposition to them, as I judge it fruitless, and lost labour, to go
   about to remove such exceptions (More, p. 45). Secondly, It follows
   that Christ made satisfaction for the sins of all and every man, if he
   died for them; for the reason why he underwent death for us as a surety
   was, to make satisfaction to God’s justice for our sins, so to redeem
   us to himself, neither can any other be assigned. But Christ hath not
   satisfied the justice of God for all the sins of all and every man:
   which may be made evident by divers reasons; for, —

   First, For whose sins he made satisfaction to the justice of God, for
   their sins justice is satisfied, or else his satisfaction was rejected
   as insufficient, for no other reason can be assigned of such a
   fruitless attempt; which to aver is blasphemy in the highest degree.
   But now the justice of God is not satisfied for all the sins of all and
   every man; which also is no less apparent than the former: for they
   that must undergo eternal punishment themselves for their sins, that
   the justice of God may be satisfied for their sins, the justice of God
   was not satisfied without their own punishment, by the punishment of
   Christ; for they are not healed by his stripes. But that innumerable
   souls shall to eternity undergo the punishment due to their own sins, I
   hope needs, with Christians, no proving. Now, how can the justice of
   God require satisfaction of them for their sins, if it were before
   satisfied for them in Christ? To be satisfied, and to require
   satisfaction that it may be satisfied, are contradictory, and cannot be
   affirmed of the same in respect of the same; but that the Lord will
   require of some “the uttermost farthing” is most clear, Matt. v. 26.

   Secondly, Christ by undergoing death for us, as our surety, satisfied
   for no more than he intended so to do. So great a thing as satisfaction
   for the sins of men could not accidentally happen besides his
   intention, will, and purpose; especially considering that his intention
   and good-will, sanctifying himself to be an oblation, was of absolute
   necessity to make his death an acceptable offering. But now Christ did
   not intend to satisfy for the sins of all and every man for innumerable
   souls were in hell, under the punishment and weight of their own sins;
   from whence there is no redemption before, nor actually then when our
   Saviour made himself an oblation for sin. Now, shall we suppose that
   Christ would make himself an offering for their sins whom he knew to be
   past recovery, and that it was utterly impossible that ever they should
   have any fruit or benefit by his offering? Shall we think that the
   blood of the covenant was cast away upon them for whom our Saviour
   intended no good at all? To intend good to them he could not, without a
   direct opposition to the eternal decree of his Father, and therein of
   his own eternal Deity. Did God send his Son, did Christ come to die,
   for Cain and Pharaoh, damned so many ages before his suffering? “Credat
   Apella?” The exception, that Christ died for them, and his death would
   have been available to them if they had believed and fulfilled the
   condition required, is, in my judgment, of no force at all; for, —
   First, For the most part they never heard of any such condition.
   Secondly, Christ at his death knew full well that they had not
   fulfilled the condition, and were actually cut off from any possibility
   ever so to do, so that any intention to do them good by his death must
   needs be vain and frustrate; which must not be assigned to the Son of
   God. Thirdly, This redemption, conditionate, if they believe, we shall
   reject anon.

   Neither is that other exception, that Christ might as well satisfy for
   them that were eternally damned at the time of his suffering (for whom
   it could not be useful), as for them that were then actually saved (for
   whom it was not needful), of any more value. For, — First, Those that
   were saved were saved upon this ground, that Christ should certainly
   suffer for them in due time; which suffering of his was as effectual in
   the purpose and promise as in the execution and accomplishment. It was
   in the mind of God accounted for them as accomplished, the compact and
   covenant with Christ about it being surely ratified upon mutual,
   unchangeable promises, (according to our conception); and so our
   Saviour was to perform it, and so it was needful for them that were
   actually saved: but for those that were actually damned, there was no
   such inducement to it, or ground for it, or issue to be expected out of
   it. Secondly, A simile will clear the whole:— If a man should send word
   to a place where captives were in prison, that he would pay the price
   and ransom that was due for their delivery, and to desire the prisoners
   to come forth, for he that detains them accepts of his word and
   engagement; when he comes to make payment, according to his promise, if
   he find some to have gone forth according as was proposed, and others
   continued obstinate in their dungeon, some hearing of what he had done,
   others not, and that according to his own appointment, and were now
   long since dead; doth he, in the payment of his promised ransom, intend
   it for them that died stubbornly and obstinately in the prison, or only
   for them who went forth? Doubtless, only for these last. No more can
   the passion of Christ be supposed to be a price paid for them that died
   in the prison of sin and corruption before the payment of his ransom;
   though it might full well be for them that were delivered by virtue of
   his engagement for the payment of such a ransom. Thirdly, If Christ
   died in the stead of all men, and made satisfaction for their sins,
   then he did it for all their sins, or only for some of their sins. If
   for some only, who then can be saved? If for all, why then are all not
   saved? They say it is because of their unbelief; they will not believe,
   and therefore are not saved. That unbelief, is it a sin, or is it not?
   If it be not, how can it be a cause of damnation? If it be, Christ died
   for it, or he did not. If he did not, then he died not for all the sins
   of all men. If he did, why is this an obstacle to their salvation? Is
   there any new shift to be invented for this? or must we be contented
   with the old, namely, because they do not believe? that is, Christ did
   not die for their unbelief, or rather, did not by his death remove
   their unbelief, because they would not believe, or because they would
   not themselves remove their unbelief; or he died for their unbelief
   conditionally, that they were not unbelievers. These do not seem to me
   to be sober assertions.

   Arg. VII. For whom Christ died, for them he is a mediator: which is
   apparent; for the oblation or offering of Christ, which he made of
   himself unto God, in the shedding of his blood, was one of the chiefest
   acts of his mediation. But he is not a mediator for all and every one;
   which also is no less evident, because as mediator he is the priest for
   them for whom he is a mediator. Now, to a priest it belongs, as was
   declared before, to sacrifice and intercede, to procure good things,
   and to apply them to those for whom they are procured; as is evident,
   Heb. ix., and was proved before at large: which, confessedly, Christ
   doth not for all. Yea, that Christ is not a mediator for every one
   needs no proof. Experience sufficiently evinceth it, besides
   innumerable places of Scripture. It is, I confess, replied by some,
   that Christ is a mediator for some in respect of some acts, and not in
   respect of others; but truly, this, if I am able to judge, is a
   dishonest subterfuge, that hath no ground in Scripture, and would make
   our Saviour a half mediator in respect of some, which is an unsavoury
   expression. But this argument was vindicated before.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter IV.

   Of sanctification, and of the cause of faith, and the procurement
   thereof by the death of Christ.

   Arg. VIII. Another argument may be taken from the effect and fruit of
   the death of Christ unto sanctification, which we thus propose:— If the
   blood of Jesus Christ doth wash, purge, cleanse, and sanctify them for
   whom it was shed, or for whom he was a sacrifice, then certainly he
   died, shed his blood, or was a sacrifice, only for them that in the
   event are washed, purged, cleansed, and sanctified; — which that all or
   every one is not is most apparent, faith being the first principle of
   the heart’s purification, Acts xv. 9, and “all men have not faith,” 2
   Thess. iii. 2; it is “of the elect of God,” Tit. i. 1. The consequence,
   I conceive, is undeniable, and not to be avoided with any distinctions.
   But now we shall make it evident that the blood of Christ is effectual
   for all those ends of washing, purging, and sanctifying, which we
   before recounted. And this we shall do; — first, from the types of it;
   and, secondly, by plain expressions concerning the thing itself:—

   First, For the type, that which we shall now consider is the sacrifice
   of expiation, which the apostle so expressly compareth with the
   sacrifice and oblation of Christ. Of this he affirmeth, Heb. ix. 13,
   that it legally sanctified them for whom it was a sacrifice. “For,”
   saith he, “the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of an heifer
   sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh.”
   Now, that which was done carnally and legally in the type must be
   spiritually effected in the antitype, — the sacrifice of Christ,
   typified by that bloody sacrifice of beasts. This the apostle asserteth
   in the verse following. “How much more,” saith he, “shall the blood of
   Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to
   God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” If
   I know any thing, that answer of Arminius and some others to this, —
   namely, that the sacrifice did sanctify, not as offered but as
   sprinkled, and the blood of Christ, not in respect of the oblation, but
   of its application, answereth it, — is weak and unsatisfactory; for it
   only asserts a division between the oblation and application of the
   blood of Christ, which, though we allow to be distinguished, yet such a
   division we are now disproving. And to weaken our argument, the same
   division which we disprove is proposed; which, if any, is an easy,
   facile way of answering. We grant that the blood of Christ sanctifieth
   in respect of the application of the good things procured by it, but
   withal prove that it is so applied to all for whom it was an oblation;
   and that because it is said to sanctify and purge, and must answer the
   type, which did sanctify to the purifying of the flesh.

   Secondly, It is expressly, in divers places affirmed of the
   blood-shedding and death of our Saviour, that it doth effect these
   things, and that it was intended for that purpose. Many places for the
   clearing of this were before recounted. I shall now repeat so many of
   them as shall be sufficient to give strength to the argument in hand,
   omitting those which before were produced, only desiring that all those
   places which point out the end of the death of Christ may be considered
   as of force to establish the truth of this argument.

   Rom. vi. 5, 6, “For if we have been planted together in the likeness of
   his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
   knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of
   sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.” The
   words of the latter verse yield a reason of the former assertion in
   verse 5, — namely, that a participation in the death of Christ shall
   certainly be accompanied with conformity to him in his resurrection;
   that is, both to life spiritual, as also to eternal: “Because our old
   man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed.”
   That is, our sinful corruption and depravation of nature are, by his
   death and crucifying, effectually and meritoriously slain, and disabled
   from such a rule and dominion over us as that we should be servants any
   longer unto them; which is apparently the sense of the place, seeing it
   is laid as a foundation to press forward unto all decrees of
   sanctification and freedom from the power of sin.

   The same apostle also tells us, 2 Cor. i. 20, that “all the promises of
   God are in him yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.”
   “Yea, and Amen,” — confirmed, ratified, unchangeably established, and
   irrevocably made over to us. Now, this was done “in him,” — that is, in
   his death and blood-shedding, for the confirmation of the testament,
   whereof these promises are the conveyance of the legacies to us, —
   confirmed by the “death of him, the testator,” Heb. ix. 16: for he was
   “the surety of this better testament,” chap. vii. 22; which testament
   or “covenant he confirmed with many,” by his being “cut off” for them,
   Dan. ix. 26, 27. Now, what are the promises that are thus confirmed
   unto us, and established by the blood of Christ? The sum of them you
   have, Jer. xxxi. 33, 34; whence they are repeated by the apostle, Heb.
   viii. 10–12, to set out the nature of that covenant which was ratified
   in the blood of Jesus, in which you have a summary description of all
   that free grace towards us, both in sanctification, verses 10, 11, and
   in justification, verse 12. Amongst these promises, also, is that most
   famous one of circumcising our hearts, and of giving new hearts and
   spirits unto us: as Deut. xxx. 6; Ezek. xxxvi. 26. So that our whole
   sanctification, holiness, with justification and reconciliation unto
   God, is procured by, and established unto us with, unchangeable
   promises in the death and blood-shedding of Christ, “the heavenly or
   spiritual things” being purified with that sacrifice of his, Heb. ix.
   23; “For we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of
   sins,” Col. i. 14; “By death he destroyed him that had the power of
   death, that is, the devil,” that he might “deliver them who, through
   fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage,” Heb. ii.
   14, 15.

   Do but take notice of those two most clear places, Tit. ii. 14, Eph. v.
   25, 26: in both which our cleansing and sanctification is assigned to
   be the end and intendment of Christ the worker; and therefore the
   certain effect of his death and oblation, which was the work, as was
   before proved. And I shall add but one place more to prove that which I
   am sorry that I need produce any one to do, — to wit, that the blood of
   Christ purgeth us from all our sin, and it is, 1 Cor. i. 30, “Who of
   God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and
   redemption.” Of which, because it is clear enough, I need not spend
   time to prove that he was thus made unto us of God, inasmuch as he set
   him forth to be “a propitiation through faith in his blood;” as Rom.
   iii. 25. So that our sanctification, with all other effects of free
   grace, are the immediate procurement of the death of Christ. And of the
   things that have been spoken this is the sum:— Sanctification and
   holiness is the certain fruit and effect of the death of Christ in all
   them for whom he died; but all and every one are not partakers of this
   sanctification, this purging, cleansing, and working of holiness:
   therefore, Christ died not for all and every one, “quod erat
   demonstrandum.”

   It is altogether in vain to except, as some do, that the death of
   Christ is not the sole cause of these things, for they are not actually
   wrought in any without the intervention of the Spirit’s working in
   them, and faith apprehending the death of Christ: for, — First, Though
   many total causes of the same kind cannot concur to the producing of
   the same effect, yet several causes of several kinds may concur to one
   effect, and be the sole causes in that kind wherein they are causes.
   The Spirit of God is the cause of sanctification and holiness; but what
   kind of cause, I pray? Even such an one as is immediately and really
   efficient of the effect. Faith is the cause of pardon of sin; but what
   cause? in what kind? Why merely as an instrument, apprehending the
   righteousness of Christ. Now, do these causes, whereof one is
   efficient, the other instrumental, both natural and real, hinder that
   the blood of Christ may not only concur, but also be the sole cause,
   moral and meritorious, of these things? Doubtless, they do not. Nay,
   they do suppose it so to be, or else they would in this work be neither
   instruments nor efficient, that being the sole foundation of the
   Spirit’s operation and efficience, and the sole cause of faith’s being
   and existence. A man is detained captive by his enemy, and one goes to
   him that detains him, and pays a ransom for his delivery; who thereupon
   grants a warrant to the keepers of the prison that they shall knock off
   his shackles, take away his rags, let him have new clothes, according
   to the agreement, saying, “Deliver him, for I have found a ransom.”
   Because the jailer knocks off his shackles, and the warrant of the
   judge is brought for his discharge, shall he or we say that the price
   and ransom which was paid was not the cause, yes, the sole cause of his
   delivery? Considering that none of these latter had been, had not the
   ransom been paid, they are no less the effect of that ransom than his
   own delivery. In our delivery from the bondage of sin, it is true,
   there are other things, in other kinds, which do concur besides the
   death of Christ, as the operation of the Spirit and the grace of God;
   but these being in one kind, and that in another, these also being no
   less the fruit and effect of the death of Christ than our deliverance
   wrought by them, it is most apparent that that is the only main cause
   of the whole. Secondly, To take off utterly this exception, with all of
   the like kind, we affirm that faith itself is a proper immediate fruit
   and procurement of the death of Christ in all them for whom he died;
   which (because, if it be true, it utterly overthrows the general
   ransom, or universal redemption; and if it be not true, I will very
   willingly lay down this whole controversy, and be very indifferent
   which way it be determined, for go it which way it will, free-will must
   be established), I will prove apart by itself in the next argument.

   Arg. IX. Before I come to press the argument intended, I must premise
   some few things; as, —

   1. Whatever is freely bestowed upon us, in and through Christ, that is
   all wholly the procurement and merit of the death of Christ. Nothing is
   bestowed through him on those that are his which he hath not purchased;
   the price whereby he made his purchase being his own blood, 1 Pet. i.
   18, 19; for the covenant between his Father and him, of making out all
   spiritual blessings to them that were given unto him, was expressly
   founded on this condition, “That he should make his soul an offering
   for sin,” Isa. liii. 10.

   2. That confessedly, on all sides, faith is, in men of understanding,
   of such absolute indispensable necessity unto salvation, — there being
   no sacrifice to be admitted for the want of it under the new covenant,
   — that, whatever God hath done in his love, sending his Son, and
   whatever Christ hath done or doth, in his oblation and intercession for
   all or some, without this in us, is, in regard of the event, of no
   value, worth, or profit unto us, but serveth only to increase and
   aggravate condemnation; for, whatsoever is accomplished besides, that
   is most certainly true, “He that believeth not shall be damned,” Mark
   xvi. 16. (So that if there is in ourselves a power of believing, and
   the act of it do proceed from that power, and is our own also, then
   certainly and undeniably it is in our power to make the love of God and
   death of Christ effectual towards us or not, and that by believing we
   actually do the one by an act of our own; which is so evident that the
   most ingenious and perspicacious of our adversaries have in terms
   confessed it, as I have declared elsewhere). [29] Such being, then, the
   absolute necessity of faith, it seems to me that the cause of that must
   needs be the prime and principal cause of salvation, as being the cause
   of that without which the whole would not be, and by which the whole
   is, and is effectual.

   3. I shall give those that to us in this are contrary-minded their
   choice and option, so that they will answer directly, categorically,
   and without uncouth, insignificant, cloudy distinctions, whether our
   Saviour, by his death and intercession (which we proved to be
   conjoined), did merit or procure faith for us, or no? or, which is all
   one, whether faith be a fruit and effect of the death of Christ, or no?
   And according to their answer I will proceed.

   First, If they answer affirmatively, that it is, or that Christ did
   procure it by his death (provided always that they do not wilfully
   equivocate, and when I speak of faith as it is a grace in a particular
   person, taking it subjectively, they understand faith as it is the
   doctrine of faith, or the way of salvation declared in the gospel,
   taking it objectively, which is another thing, and beside the present
   question; although, by the way, I must tell them that we deny the
   granting of that new way of salvation, in bringing life and immortality
   to light by the gospel in Christ, to be procured for us by Christ,
   himself being the chiefest part of this way, yea, the way itself: and
   that he should himself be procured by his own death and oblation is a
   very strange, contradictory assertion, beseeming them who have used it
   (More, p. 35.) It is true, indeed, a full and plenary carrying of his
   elect to life and glory by that way we ascribe to him, and maintain it
   against all; but the granting of that way was of the same free grace
   and unprocured love which was also the cause of granting himself unto
   us, Gen. iii. 15.); — if, I say, they answer thus affirmatively, then I
   demand whether Christ procured faith for all for whom he died
   absolutely, or upon some condition on their part to be fulfilled? If
   absolutely, then surely, if he died for all, they must all absolutely
   believe; for that which is absolutely procured for any is absolutely
   his, no doubt. He that hath absolutely procured an inheritance, by what
   means soever, who can hinder, that it should not be his? But this is
   contrary to that of the apostle, “All men have not faith,” 2 Thess.
   iii. 2; and, “Faith is of the elect of God,” Tit. i. 1. If they say
   that he procured it for them, that is, to be bestowed on them
   conditionally, I desire that they would answer bona fide, and roundly,
   in terms without equivocation or blind distinctions, assign that
   condition, that we may know what it is, seeing it is a thing of so
   infinite concernment to all our souls. Let me know this condition which
   ye will maintain, and en herbam amici! [30] the cause is yours. Is it,
   as some say, if they do not resist the grace of God? Now, what is it
   not to resist the grace of God? is it not to obey it? And what is it to
   obey the grace of God? is it not to believe? So the condition of faith
   is faith itself. Christ procured that they should believe, upon
   condition that they do believe! Are these things so? But they can
   assign a condition, on our part required, of faith, that is not faith
   itself. Can they do it? Let us hear it, then, and we will renew our
   inquiry concerning that condition, whether it be procured by Christ or
   no. If not, then is the cause of faith still resolved into ourselves;
   Christ is not the author and finisher of it. If it be then are we just
   where we were before, and must follow with our queries whether that
   condition was procured absolutely or upon condition. Depinge ubi
   sistam.

   But, secondly, if they will answer negatively, as, agreeably to their
   own principles, they ought to do, and deny that faith is procured by
   the death of Christ, then, —

   1. They must maintain that it is an act of our own wills, so our own as
   not to be wrought in us by grace; and that it is wholly situated in our
   power to perform that spiritual act, nothing being bestowed upon us by
   free grace, in and through Christ (as was before declared), but what by
   him, in his death and oblation, was procured: which is contrary, — (1.)
   To express Scripture in exceeding many places, which I shall not
   recount: (2.) To the very nature of the being of the new covenant,
   which doth not prescribe and require the condition of it, but
   effectually work it in all the covenantees, Jer. xxxi. 33, 34; Ezek.
   xxxvi. 26; Heb. viii. 10, 11: (3.) To the advancement of the free grace
   of God, in setting up the power of free-will, in the state of corrupted
   nature, to the slighting and undervaluing thereof. (4.) To the received
   doctrine of our natural depravedness and disability to any thing that
   is good; yea, by evident unstrained consequence, overthrowing that
   fundamental article of original sin: yea, (5.) To right reason, which
   will never grant that the natural faculty is able of itself, without
   some spiritual elevation, to produce an act purely spiritual; as 1 Cor.
   ii. 14.

   2. They must resolve almost the sole cause of our salvation into
   ourselves ultimately, it being in our own power to make all that God
   and Christ do unto that end effectual, or to frustrate their utmost
   endeavours for that purpose: for all that is done, whether in the
   Father’s loving us and sending his Son to die for us, or in the Son’s
   offering himself for an oblation in our stead, or for us (in our
   behalf), is confessedly, as before, of no value nor worth, in respect
   of any profitable issue, unless we believe; which that we shall do,
   Christ hath not effected nor procured by his death, neither can the
   Lord so work it in us but that the sole casting voice (if I may so
   say), whether we will believe or no, is left to ourselves. Now, whether
   this be not to assign unto ourselves the cause of our own happiness,
   and to make us the chief builders of our own glory, let all judge.

   These things being thus premised, I shall briefly prove that which is
   denied, namely, that faith is procured for us by the death of Christ;
   and so, consequently, he died not for all and every one, for “all men
   have not faith:” and this we may do by these following reasons:—

   1. The death of Jesus Christ purchased holiness and sanctification for
   us, as was at large proved, Arg. viii.; but faith, as it is a grace of
   the Spirit inherent in us, is formally a part of our sanctification and
   holiness: therefore he procured faith for us. The assumption is most
   certain, and not denied; the proposition was sufficiently confirmed in
   the foregoing argument; and I see not what may be excepted against the
   truth of the whole. If any shall except, and say that Christ might
   procure for us some part of holiness (for we speak of parts, and not of
   degrees and measure), but not all, as the sanctification of hope, love,
   meekness, and the like, I ask, — first, What warrant have we for any
   such distinction between the graces of the Spirit, that some of them
   should be of the purchasing of Christ, others of our own store?
   secondly, Whether we are more prone of ourselves to believe, and more
   able, than to love and hope? and where may we have a ground for that?

   2. All the fruits of election are purchased for us by Jesus Christ; for
   “we are chosen in him,” Eph. i. 4, as the only cause and fountain of
   all those good things which the Lord chooseth us to, for the praise of
   his glorious grace, that in all things be might have the pre-eminence.
   I hope I need not be solicitous about the proving of this, that the
   Lord Jesus is the only way and means by and for whom the Lord will
   certainly and actually collate upon his elect all the fruits and
   effects or intendments of that love whereby he chose them. But now
   faith is a fruit, a principal fruit, of our election; for saith the
   apostle, “We are chosen in him before the foundation of the world, that
   we should be holy,” Eph. i. 4, — of which holiness, faith, purifying
   the heart, is a principal share. “Moreover, whom he did predestinate,
   them he also called,” Rom. viii. 30; that is, with that calling which
   is according to his purpose, effectually working faith in them by the
   mighty operation of his Spirit, “according to the exceeding greatness
   of his power,” Eph. i. 19. And so they “believe” (God making them
   differ from others, 1 Cor. iv. 7, in the enjoyment of the means) “who
   are ordained to eternal life,” Acts xiii. 48. Their being ordained to
   eternal life was the fountain from whence their faith did flow; and so
   “the election hath obtained, and the rest were blinded,” Rom. xi. 7.

   3. All the blessings of the new covenant are procured and purchased by
   him in whom the promises thereof are ratified, and to whom they are
   made; for all the good things thereof are contained in and exhibited by
   those promises, through the working of the Spirit of God. Now,
   concerning the promises of the covenant, and their being confirmed in
   Christ, and made unto his, as Gal. iii. 16, with what is to be
   understood in those expressions, was before declared. Therefore, all
   the good things of the covenant are the effects, fruits, and purchase
   of the death of Christ, he and all things for him being the substance
   and whole of it. Farther; that faith is of the good things of the new
   covenant is apparent from the description thereof, Jer. xxxi. 33, 34;
   Heb. viii. 10–12; Ezek. xxxvi. 25–27, with divers other places, as
   might clearly be manifested if we affected copiousness in causa facili.

   4. That without which it is utterly impossible that we should be saved
   must of necessity be procured by him by whom we are fully and
   effectually saved. Let them that can, declare how he can be said to
   procure salvation fully and effectually for us, and not be the author
   and purchaser of that (for he is the author of our salvation by the way
   of purchase) without which it is utterly impossible we should attain
   salvation. Now, without faith it is utterly impossible that ever any
   should attain salvation, Heb. xi. 6, Mark xvi. 16; but Jesus Christ,
   according to his name, doth perfectly save us, Matt. i. 21, procuring
   for us “eternal redemption,” Heb. ix. 12, being, “able to save to the
   uttermost them that come unto God by him,” chap. vii. 25: and therefore
   must faith also be within the compass of those things that are procured
   by him.

   5. The Scripture is clear, in express terms, and such as are so
   equivalent that they are not liable to any evasion; as Phil. i. 29, “It
   is given unto us, huper Christou, on the behalf of Christ, for Christ’s
   sake, to believe on him.” Faith, or belief, is the gift, and Christ the
   procurer of it: “God hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in
   him in heavenly places,” Eph. i. 3. If faith be a spiritual blessing,
   it is bestowed on us “in him,” and so also for his sake; if it be not,
   it is not worth contending about in this sense and way: so that, let
   others look which way they will, I desire to look unto Jesus as the
   “author and finisher of our faith,” Heb. xii. 2. Divers other reasons,
   arguments, and places of Scripture might be added for the confirmation
   of this truth; but I hope I have said enough, and do not desire to say
   all. The sum of the whole reason may be reduced to this head, — namely,
   if the fruit and effect procured and wrought by the death of Christ
   absolutely, not depending on any condition in man to be fulfilled, be
   not common to all, then did not Christ die for all; but the supposal is
   true, as is evident in the grace of faith, which being procured by the
   death of Christ, to be absolutely bestowed on them for whom he died, is
   not common to all: therefore, our Saviour did not die for all.

   Arg. X. We argue from the type to the antitype, or the thing signified
   by it; which will evidently restrain the oblation of Christ to God’s
   elect. The people of Israel were certainly, in all remarkable things
   that happened unto them, typical of the church of God; as the apostle
   at large [declares], 1 Cor. x. 11. Especially, their institutions and
   ordinances were all representative of the spiritual things of the
   gospel; their priests, altar, sacrifices, were but all shadows of the
   good things to come in Jesus Christ; their Canaan was a type of heaven,
   Heb. iv. 3, 9; as also Jerusalem or Sion, Gal. iv. 26, Heb. xii. 22.
   The whole people itself was a type of God’s church, his elect, his
   chosen and called people: whence as they were called a “holy people, a
   royal priesthood;” so also, in allusion to them, are believers, 1 Pet.
   ii. 5, 9. Yea, God’s people are in innumerable places called his
   “Israel,” as it is farther expounded, Heb. viii. 8. A true Israelite is
   as much as a true believer, John i. 47; and he is a Jew who is so in
   the hidden man of the heart. I hope it need not be proved that that
   people, as delivered from bondage, preserved, taken nigh unto God,
   brought into Canaan, was typical of God’s spiritual church, of elect
   believers. Whence we thus argue:— Those only are really and spiritually
   redeemed by Jesus Christ who were designed, signified, typified by the
   people of Israel in their carnal, typical redemption (for no reason in
   the world can be rendered why some should be typed out in the same
   condition, partakers of the same good, and not others); but by the
   people of the Jews, in their deliverance from Egypt, bringing into
   Canaan, with all their ordinances and institutions, only the elect, the
   church of God, was typed out, as was before proved. And, in truth, it
   is the most senseless thing in the world, to imagine that the Jews were
   under a type to all the whole world, or indeed to any but God’s chosen
   ones, as is proved at large, Heb. ix., x. Were the Jews and their
   ordinances types to the seven nations whom they destroyed and
   supplanted in Canaan? were they so to Egyptians, infidels, and haters
   of God and his Christ? We conclude, then, assuredly, from that just
   proportion that ought to be observed between the types and the things
   typified, that only the elect of God, his church and chosen ones, are
   redeemed by Jesus Christ.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [29] Display of Arminanism.

   [30] “I own myself conquered,” Facciolati. — Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter V.

   Being a continuance of arguments from the nature and description of the
   thing in hand; and first, of redemption.

   Arg. XI. That doctrine which will not by any means suit with nor be
   made conformable to the thing signified by it, and the expression,
   literal and deductive, whereby in Scripture it is held out unto us, but
   implies evident contradictions unto them, cannot possibly be sound and
   sincere, as is the milk of the word. But now such is this persuasion of
   universal redemption; it can never be suited nor fitted to the thing
   itself, or redemption, nor to those expressions whereby in the
   Scripture it is held out unto us. Universal redemption, and yet many to
   die in captivity, is a contradiction irreconcilable in itself.

   To manifest this, let us consider some of the chiefest words and
   phrases whereby the matter concerning which we treat is delivered in
   the Scripture, such as are, redemption, reconciliation, satisfaction,
   merit, dying for us, bearing our sins, suretiship, — his being God, a
   common person, a Jesus, saving to the utmost, a sacrifice putting away
   sin, and the like; to which we may add the importance of some
   prepositions and other words used in the original about this business:
   and doubt not but we shall easily find that the general ransom, or
   rather universal redemption, will hardly suit to any of them; but it is
   too long for the bed, and must be cropped at the head or heels.

   Begin we with the word redemption itself, which we will consider, name
   and thing. Redemption, which in the Scripture is lutrōsis sometimes,
   but most frequently apolutrōsis, is the delivery of any one from
   captivity and misery by the intervention lutrou, of a price or ransom.
   That this ransom, or price of our deliverance, was the blood of Christ
   is evident; he calls it lutron, Matt. xx. 28; and [it is called]
   antilutron, 1 Tim. ii. 6, — that is, the price of such a redemption,
   that which was received as a valuable consideration for our dismission.
   Now, that which is aimed at in the payment of this price is, the
   deliverance of those from the evil wherewith they were oppressed for
   whom the price is paid; it being in this spiritual redemption as it is
   in corporal and civil, only with the alteration of some circumstances,
   as the nature of the thing enforceth. This the Holy Spirit manifesteth
   by comparing the “blood of Christ” in this work of redemption with
   “silver and gold,” and such other things as are the intervening ransom
   in civil redemption, 1 Pet. i. 18, 19. The evil wherewith we were
   oppressed was the punishment which we had deserved; — that is, the
   satisfaction required when the debt is sin; which also we are, by the
   payment of this price, delivered from; so Gal. iii. 13: for we are
   “justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in
   Christ Jesus,” Rom. iii. 24; “in whom we have redemption through his
   blood, the forgiveness of sins,” Eph. i. 7; Col. i. 14. Free
   justification from the guilt, and pardon of sin, in the deliverance
   from the punishment due unto it, is the effect of the redemption
   procured by the payment of the price we before mentioned: as if a man
   should have his friend in bondage, and he should go and lay out his
   estate to pay the price of his freedom that is set upon his head by him
   that detains him, and so set him at liberty. Only, as was before
   intimated, this spiritual redemption hath some supereminent things in
   it, that are not to be found in other deliverances; as, —

   First, He that receives the ransom doth also give it. Christ is a
   propitiation to appease and atone the Lord, but the Lord himself set
   him forth so to be, Rom. iii. 24, 25; whence he himself is often said
   to redeem us. His love is the cause of the price in respect of its
   procurement, and his justice accepts of the price in respect of its
   merit; for Christ “came down from heaven to do the will of him that
   sent him,” John vi. 38; Heb. x. 9, 10. It is otherwise in the
   redemption amongst men, where he that receives the ransom hath no hand
   in the providing of it.

   Secondly, The captive or prisoner is not so much freed from his power
   who detains him as brought into his favour. When a captive amongst men
   is redeemed, by the payment of a ransom, he is instantly to be set free
   from the power and authority of him that did detain him; but in this
   spiritual redemption, upon the payment of the ransom for us, which is
   the blood of Jesus, we are not removed from God, but are “brought nigh”
   unto him, Eph. ii. 13, — not delivered from his power, but restored to
   his favour, — our misery being a punishment by the way of banishment as
   well as thraldom.

   Thirdly, As the judge was to be satisfied, so the jailer was to be
   conquered; God, the judge, giving him leave to fight for his dominion,
   which was wrongfully usurped, though that whereby he had it was by the
   Lord justly inflicted, and his thraldom by us rightly deserved, Heb.
   ii. 14; Col. ii. 15. And he lost his power, as strong as he was, for
   striving to grasp more than he could hold; for the foundation of his
   kingdom being sin, assaulting Christ who did no sin, he lost his power
   over them that Christ came to redeem, having no part in him. So was the
   strong man bound, and his house spoiled.

   In these and some few other circumstances is our spiritual redemption
   diversified from civil; but for the main it answers the word in the
   propriety thereof, according to the use that it hath amongst men. Now,
   there is a twofold way whereby this is in the Scripture expressed: for
   sometimes our Saviour is said to die for our redemption, and sometimes
   for the redemption of our transgressions; both tending to the same
   purpose, — yea, both expressions, as I conceive, signify the same
   thing. Of the latter you have an example, Heb. ix. 15. He died eis
   apolutrōsin parabaseōn; which, say some, is a metonymy, transgressions
   being put for transgressors; others, that it is a proper expression for
   the paying of a price whereby we may be delivered from the evil of our
   transgressions. The other expression you have, Eph. i. 7, and in divers
   other places, where the words lutron and apolutrōsis do concur; as also
   Matt. xx. 28, and Mark x. 45. Now, these words, especially that of
   antilutron, 1 Tim. ii. 6, do always denote, by the not-to-be-wrested,
   genuine signification of them, the payment of a price, or an equal
   compensation, in lieu of something to be done or grant made by him to
   whom that price is paid. Having given these few notions concerning
   redemption in general, let us now see how applicable it is unto general
   redemption.

   Redemption is the freeing of a man from misery by the intervention of a
   ransom, as appeareth. Now, when a ransom is paid for the liberty of a
   prisoner, is it not all the justice in the world that he should have
   and enjoy the liberty so purchased for him by a valuable consideration?
   If I should pay a thousand pounds for a man’s deliverance from bondage
   to him that detains him, who hath power to set him free, and is
   contented with the price I give, were it not injurious to me and the
   poor prisoner that his deliverance be not accomplished? Can it possibly
   be conceived that there should be a redemption of men, and those men
   not redeemed? that a price should be paid, and the purchase not
   consummated? Yet all this must be made true, and innumerable other
   absurdities, if universal redemption be asserted. A price is paid for
   all, yet few delivered; the redemption of all consummated, yet few of
   them redeemed; the judge satisfied, the jailer conquered, and yet the
   prisoner inthralled! Doubtless, “universal” and “redemption,” where the
   greatest part of men perish, are as irreconcilable as “Roman” and
   “Catholic.” If there be a universal redemption of all, then all men are
   redeemed. If they are redeemed, then are they delivered from all
   misery, virtually or actually, whereunto they were inthralled, and that
   by the intervention of a ransom. Why, then, are not all saved? In a
   word, the redemption wrought by Christ being the full deliverance of
   the persons redeemed from all misery, wherein they were inwrapped, by
   the price of his blood, it cannot possibly be conceived to be universal
   unless all be saved: so that the opinion of the Universalists is
   unsuitable to redemption.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter VI.

   Of the nature of reconciliation, and the argument taken from thence.

   Arg. XII. Another thing ascribed to the death of Christ, and, by the
   consent of all, extending itself unto all for whom he died, is
   reconciliation. This in the Scripture is clearly proposed under a
   double notion; first, of God to us; secondly, of us to God; — both
   usually ascribed to the death and blood-shedding of Jesus Christ: for
   those who were “enemies he reconciled in the body of his flesh through
   death,” Col. i. 21, 22. And, doubtless these things do exactly answer
   one another. All those to whom he hath reconciled God, he doth also
   reconcile unto God: for unless both be effected, it cannot be said to
   be a perfect reconciliation; for how can it be, if peace be made only
   on the one side? Yea, it is utterly impossible that a division of these
   two can be rationally apprehended: for if God be reconciled, not man,
   why doth not he reconcile him, seeing it is confessedly in his power;
   and if man should be reconciled, not God, how can he be ready to
   receive all that come unto him? Now, that God and all and every one in
   the world are actually reconciled, and made at peace in Jesus Christ, I
   hope will not be affirmed. But to clear this, we must a little consider
   the nature of reconciliation as it is proposed to us in the gospel;
   unto which, also, some light may be given from the nature of the thing
   itself, and the use of the word in civil things.

   Reconciliation is the renewing of friendship between parties before at
   variance, both parties being properly said to be reconciled, even both
   he that offendeth and he that was offended. God and man were set at
   distance, at enmity and variance, by sin. Man was the party offending,
   God offended, and the alienation was mutual, on either side; — but yet
   with this difference, that man was alienated in respect of affections,
   the ground and cause of anger and enmity; God in respect of the effects
   and issue of anger and enmity. The word in the New Testament is
   katallagē, and the verb katallassō, reconciliation, to reconcile; both
   from allattō, to change, or to turn from one thing, one mind, to
   another: whence the first native signification of those words is
   permutatio and permutare, (so Arist. Eth. 3, Ton bion pros mikra kerdē
   — katallattontai, [31] ) because most commonly those that are
   reconciled are changed in respect of their affections, always in
   respect of the distance and variance, and in respect of the effects;
   thence it signifieth reconciliation, and to reconcile. And the word may
   not be affirmed of any business, or of any men, until both parties are
   actually reconciled, and all differences removed in respect of any
   former grudge and ill-will. If one be well pleased with the other, and
   that other continue akatallaktos, unappeased and implacable, there is
   no reconciliation. When our Saviour gives that command, that he that
   brought his gift to the altar, and there remembered that his brother
   had aught against him, — was offended with him for any cause, — he
   should go and be reconciled to him, [he] fully intendeth a mutual
   returning of minds one to another, especially respecting, the appeasing
   and atoning of him that was offended. Neither are these words used
   among men in any other sense, but always denote, even in common speech,
   a full redintegration of friendship between dissenting parties, with
   reference most times to some compensation made to the offended party.
   The reconciling of the one party and the other may be distinguished,
   but both are required to make up an entire reconciliation.

   As, then, the folly of Socinus and his sectaries is remarkable, who
   would have the reconciliation mentioned in the Scripture to be nothing
   but our conversion to God, without the appeasing of his anger and
   turning away his wrath from us, — which is a reconciliation hopping on
   one leg, — so that distinction of some between the reconciliation of
   God to man, making that to be universal towards all, and the
   reconciliation of man to God, making that to be only of a small number
   of those to whom God is reconciled, is a no less monstrous figment.
   Mutual alienation must have mutual reconciliation, seeing they are
   correlata. The state between God and man, before the reconciliation
   made by Christ, was a state of enmity. Man was at enmity with God; we
   were his “enemies,” Col. i. 21; Rom. v. 10; hating him and opposing
   ourselves to him, in the highest rebellion, to the utmost of our power.
   God also was thus far an enemy to us, that his “wrath” was on us, Eph.
   ii. 3; which remaineth on us until we do believe, John iii. 36. To make
   perfect reconciliation (which Christ is said in many places to do), it
   is required, first, That the wrath of God be turned away, his anger
   removed, and all the effects of enmity on his part towards us;
   secondly, That we be turned away from our opposition to him, and
   brought into voluntary obedience. Until both these be effected,
   reconciliation is not perfected. Now, both these are in the Scripture
   assigned to our Saviour, as the effects of his death and sacrifice.

   1. He turned away the wrath of God from us, and so appeased him towards
   us; that was the reconciling of God by his death: for “when we were
   enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son,” Rom. v.
   10. That here is meant the reconciling of God, as that part of
   reconciliation which consisteth in turning away his wrath from us, is
   most apparent, it being that whereby God chiefly commendeth his love to
   us, which certainly is in the forgiveness of sin, by the aversion of
   his anger due to it; as also being opposed to our being saved from the
   wrath to come, in the latter end of the verse, which compriseth our
   conversion and whole reconciliation to God. Besides, verse 11, we are
   said to receive tēn katallagēn, this “reconciliation” (which, I know
   not by what means, we have translated “atonement”); which cannot be
   meant of our reconciliation to God, or conversion, which we cannot
   properly be said to accept or receive, but of him to us, which we
   receive when it is apprehended by faith.

   2. He turneth us away from our enmity towards God, redeeming and
   reconciling us to God by “the blood of his cross,” Col. i. 20; — to
   wit, then meritoriously, satisfactorily, by the way of acquisition and
   purchase; accomplishing it in due time actually and efficiently by his
   Spirit. Both these ye have jointly mentioned, 2 Cor. v. 18–20; where we
   may see, first, God being reconciled to us in Christ, which consisteth
   in a non-imputation of iniquities, and is the subject-matter of the
   ministry, verses 18, 19; secondly, the reconciling of us to God, by
   accepting the pardon of our sins, which is the end of the ministry,
   verse 20; — as the same is also at large declared, Eph. ii. 13–15. The
   actual, then, and effectual accomplishment of both these, “simul et
   semel,” in respect of procurement, by continuance, and in process of
   time, in the ordinances of the gospel, in respect of final
   accomplishment on the part of men, do make up that reconciliation which
   is the effect of the death of Christ; for so it is in many places
   assigned to be: “We are reconciled to God by the death of his Son,”
   Rom. v. 10; “And you, that were sometime alienated, hath he reconciled
   in the body of his flesh through death,” Col. i. 21, 22: which is in
   sundry places so evident in the Scripture, that none can possibly deny
   reconciliation to be the immediate effect and product of the death of
   Christ.

   Now, how this reconciliation can possibly be reconciled with universal
   redemption, I am no way able to discern; for if reconciliation be the
   proper effect of the death of Christ, as is confessed by all, then if
   he died for all, I ask how cometh it to pass, — First, That God is not
   reconciled to all? as he is not, for his wrath abideth on some, John
   iii. 36, and reconciliation is the aversion of wrath. Secondly, That
   all are not reconciled to God? as they are not, for “by nature all are
   the children of wrath,” Eph. ii. 3; and some all their lives do nothing
   but “treasure up wrath against the day of wrath,” Rom. ii. 5. Thirdly,
   How, then, can it be that reconciliation should be wrought between God
   and all men, and yet neither God reconciled to all nor all reconciled
   to God? Fourthly, If God be reconciled to all, when doth he begin to be
   unreconciled towards them that perish? by what alteration is it? in his
   will or nature? Fifthly, If all be reconciled by the death of Christ,
   when do they begin to be unreconciled who perish, being born children
   of wrath? Sixthly, Seeing that reconciliation on the part of God
   consists in the turning away of his wrath and not imputing of iniquity,
   2 Cor. v. 18, 19, which is justification, rendering us blessed, Rom.
   iv. 6–8, why, if God be reconciled to all, are not all justified and
   made blessed through a non-imputation of their sin? They who have found
   out a redemption where none are redeemed, and a reconciliation where
   none are reconciled, can easily answer these and such other questions;
   which to do I leave them to their leisure, and in the meantime conclude
   this part of our argument. That reconciliation which is the renewing of
   lost friendship, the slaying of enmity, the making up of peace, the
   appeasing of God, and turning away of his wrath, attended with a
   non-imputation of iniquities; and, on our part, conversion to God by
   faith and repentance; — this, I say, being that reconciliation which is
   the effect of the death and blood of Christ, it cannot be asserted in
   reference to any, nor Christ said to die for any other, but only those
   concerning whom all the properties of it, and acts wherein it doth
   consist, may be truly affirmed; which, whether they may be of all men
   or not, let all men judge.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [31] Aristotle is speaking of soldiers who “barter their life for small
   gains.” The quotation is exceedingly apt and felicitous when the
   reference is understood. — Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter VII.

   Of the nature of the satisfaction of Christ, with arguments from
   thence.

   Arg. XIII. A third way whereby the death of Christ for sinners is
   expressed is satisfaction, — namely, that by his death he made
   satisfaction to the justice of God for their sins for whom he died,
   that so they might go free. It is true, the word satisfaction is not
   found in the Latin or English Bible applied to the death of Christ. In
   the New Testament it is not at all, and in the Old but twice, Numb.
   xxxv. 31, 32; but the thing itself intended by that word is everywhere
   ascribed to the death of our Saviour, there being also other words in
   the original languages equivalent to that whereby we express the thing
   in hand. Now, that Christ did thus make satisfaction for all them, or
   rather for their sins, for whom he died, is (as far as I know)
   confessed by all that are but outwardly called after his name, the
   wretched Socinians excepted, with whom at this time we have not to do.
   Let us, then, first see what this satisfaction is; then how
   inconsistent it is with universal redemption.

   Satisfaction is a term borrowed from the law, applied properly to
   things, thence translated and accommodated unto persons; and it is a
   full compensation of the creditor from the debtor. To whom any thing is
   due from any man, he is in that regard that man’s creditor; and the
   other is his debtor, upon whom there is an obligation to pay or restore
   what is so due from him, until he be freed by a lawful breaking of that
   obligation, by making it null and void; which must be done by yielding
   satisfaction to what his creditor can require by virtue of that
   obligation: as, if I owe a man a hundred pounds, I am his debtor, by
   virtue of the bond wherein I am bound, until some such thing be done as
   recompenseth him, and moveth him to cancel the bond; which is called
   satisfaction. Hence, from things real, it was and is translated to
   things personal. Personal debts are injuries and faults; which when a
   man hath committed, he is liable to punishment. He that is to inflict
   that punishment or upon whom it lieth to see that it be done, is, or
   may be, the creditor; which he must do, unless satisfaction be made.
   Now, there may be a twofold satisfaction:— First, By a solution, or
   paying the very thing that is in the obligation, either by the party
   himself that is bound, or by some other in his stead: as, if I owe a
   man twenty pounds, and my friend goeth and payeth it, my creditor is
   fully satisfied. Secondly, By a solution, or paying of so much,
   although in another kind, not the same that is in the obligation,
   which, by the creditor’s acceptation, stands in the lieu of it; upon
   which, also, freedom from the obligation followeth, not necessarily,
   but by virtue of an act of favour.

   In the business in hand, — First, the debtor is man; he oweth the ten
   thousand talents, Matt. xviii. 24. Secondly, The debt is sin: “Forgive
   us our debts,” Matt. vi. 12. Thirdly, That which is required in lieu
   thereof to make satisfaction for it, is death: “In the day that thou
   eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die,” Gen. ii. 17; “The wages of sin
   is death,” Rom. vi. 23. Fourthly, The obligation whereby the debtor is
   tied and bound is the law, “Cursed is every one,” etc., Gal. iii. 10;
   Deut. xxvii. 26; the justice of God, Rom. i. 32; and the truth of God,
   Gen. iii. 3. Fifthly, The creditor that requireth this of us is God,
   considered as the party offended, severe Judge, and supreme Lord of all
   things. Sixthly, That which interveneth to the destruction of the
   obligation is the ransom paid by Christ: Rom. iii. 25, “God set him
   forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.”

   I shall not enter upon any long discourse of the satisfaction made by
   Christ, but only so far clear it as is necessary to give light to the
   matter in hand. To this end two things must be cleared:— First, That
   Christ did make such satisfaction as whereof we treat; as also wherein
   it doth consist. Secondly, What is that act of God towards man, the
   debtor, which doth and ought to follow the satisfaction made. For the
   first, I told you the word itself doth not occur in this business in
   the Scripture, but the thing signified by it (being a compensation made
   to God by Christ for our debts) most frequently. For to make
   satisfaction to God for our sins, it is required only that he undergo
   the punishment due to them; for that is the satisfaction required where
   sin is the debt. Now, this Christ has certainly effected; for “his own
   self bare our sins in his own body on the tree,” 1 Pet. ii. 24; “By his
   knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, for he shall bear
   their iniquities,” Isa. liii. 11. The word נָשָׂא (nasa), also, verse
   12, arguing a taking of the punishment of sin from us and translating
   it to himself, signifieth as much, yea all that we do by the word
   satisfaction. So also doth that of anēnenken, used by Peter in the room
   thereof: for to bear iniquity, in the Scripture language, is to undergo
   the punishment due to it, Lev. v. 1; which we call to make satisfaction
   for it; — which is farther illustrated by a declaration how he bare our
   sins, even by being “wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for
   our iniquities,” Isa. liii. 5; whereunto is added, in the close, that
   “the chastisement of our peace was upon him.” Every chastisement is
   either nouthetikē, for instruction, or paradeigmatikē, for example,
   punishment and correction. The first can have no place in our Saviour;
   the Son of God had no need to be taught with such thorns and briers. It
   must, therefore, be for punishment and correction, and that for our
   sins then upon him; whereby our peace or freedom from punishment was
   procured.

   Moreover, in the New Testament there be divers words and expressions
   concerning the death of our Saviour, holding out that thing which by
   satisfaction we do intend; as when, first, it is termed prosphora; Eph.
   v. 2, Paredōken heauton prosphoran kai thusian, — an oblation or
   sacrifice of expiation; as appeareth by that type of it with which it
   is compared, Heb. ix. 13, 14. Of the same force also is the Hebrew word
   אָשָׁם (ascham), Isa. liii. 10; Lev. vii. 2. “He made his soul an
   offering for sin,” — a piacular sacrifice for the removing of it away;
   which the apostle abundantly cleareth, in saying that he was made
   hamartia, “sin” itself, 2 Cor. v. 21, sin being there put for the
   adjunct of it, or the punishment due unto it. So also is he termed
   hilasmos, 1 John ii. 2. Whereunto answers the Hebrew chitte, used Gen.
   xxxi. 39, אָנֹכִי אֲחַטֶּנָּה, “Ego illud expiabam,” which is to
   undergo the debt, and to make compensation for it; which was the office
   of him who was to be Job’s goël, chap. xix. 25. All which and divers
   other words, which in part shall be afterward considered, do declare
   the very same thing which we intend by satisfaction; even a taking upon
   him the whole punishment due to sin, and in the offering of himself
   doing that which God, who was offended, was more delighted and pleased
   withal, than he was displeased and offended with all the sins of all
   those that he suffered and offered himself for. And there can be no
   more complete satisfaction made to any than by doing that which he is
   more contented with, than discontented and troubled with that for which
   he must be satisfied. God was more pleased with the obedience, offering
   and sacrifice of his Son, than displeased with the sins and rebellions
   of all the elect. As if a good king should have a company of his
   subjects stand out in rebellion against him, and he were thereby moved
   to destroy them, because they would not have him reign over them, and
   the only son of that king should put in for their pardon, making a
   tender to his father of some excellent conquest by him lately achieved,
   beseeching him to accept of it, and be pleased with his poor subjects,
   so as to receive them into favour again; or, which is nearer, should
   offer himself to undergo that punishment which his justice had allotted
   for the rebels, and should accordingly do it; — he should properly make
   satisfaction for their offence, and in strict justice they ought to be
   pardoned. This was Christ, as that one hircus, apopompaios, sent-away
   goat, that bare and carried away all the sins of the people of God, to
   fall himself under them, though with assurance to break all the bonds
   of death, and to live for ever. Now, whereas I said that there is a
   twofold satisfaction, whereby the debtor is freed from the obligation
   that is upon him, — the one being solutio ejusdem, payment of the same
   thing that was in the obligation; the other, solutio tantidem, of that
   which is not the same, nor equivalent unto it, but only in the gracious
   acceptation of the creditor, — it is worth our inquiry which of these
   it was that our Saviour did perform.

   He [32] who is esteemed by many to have handled this argument with most
   exactness, denieth that the payment made by Christ for us (by the
   payment of the debt of sin understand, by analogy, the undergoing of
   the punishment due unto it) was solutio ejusdem, or of the same thing
   directly which was in the obligation: for which he giveth some reasons;
   as, — First, Because such a solution, satisfaction, or payment, is
   attended with actual freedom from the obligation. Secondly, Because,
   where such a solution is made, there is no room for remission or
   pardon. “It is true,” saith he, “deliverance followeth upon it; but
   this deliverance cannot be by way of gracious pardon, for there needeth
   not the interceding of any such act of grace. But now,” saith he, “that
   satisfaction whereby some other thing is offered than that which was in
   the obligation may be admitted or refused, according as the creditor
   pleaseth; and being admitted for any, it is by an act of grace; and
   such was the satisfaction made by Christ.” Now, truly, none of these
   reasons seem of so much weight to me as to draw me into that
   persuasion.

   For the first reason rests upon that, for the confirmation of it, which
   cannot be granted, — namely, that actual freedom from the obligation
   doth not follow the satisfaction made by Christ; for by death he did
   deliver us from death, and that actually, so far as that the elect are
   said to die and rise with him. He did actually, or ipso facto, deliver
   us from the curse, by being made a curse for us; and the hand-writing
   that was against us, even the whole obligation, was taken out of the
   way and nailed to his cross. It is true, all for whom he did this do
   not instantly actually apprehend and perceive it, which is impossible:
   but yet that hinders not but that they have all the fruits of his death
   in actual right, though not in actual possession, which last they
   cannot have until at least it be made known to them. As, if a man pay a
   ransom for a prisoner detained in a foreign country, the very day of
   the payment and acceptation of it the prisoner hath right to his
   liberty, although he cannot enjoy it until such time as tidings of it
   are brought unto him, and a warrant produced for his delivery. So that
   that reason is nothing but a begging tou en archē.

   Secondly, The satisfaction of Christ, by the payment of the same thing
   that was required in the obligation, is no way prejudicial to that
   free, gracious condonation of sin so often mentioned. God’s gracious
   pardoning of sin compriseth the whole dispensation of grace towards us
   in Christ, whereof there are two parts:— First, The laying of our sin
   on Christ, or making him to be sin for us; which was merely and purely
   an act of free grace, which he did for his own sake. Secondly, The
   gracious imputation of the righteousness of Christ to us, or making us
   the righteousness of God in him; which is no less of grace and mercy,
   and that because the very merit of Christ himself hath its foundation
   in a free compact and covenant. However, that remission, grace, and
   pardon, which is in God for sinners, is not opposed to Christ’s merits,
   but ours. He pardoneth all to us; but he spared not his only Son, he
   bated him not one farthing. The freedom, then, of pardon hath not its
   foundation in any defect of the merit or satisfaction of Christ, but in
   three other things:— First, The will of God freely appointing this
   satisfaction of Christ, John iii. 16; Rom. v. 8; 1 John iv. 9.
   Secondly, In a gracious acceptation of that decreed satisfaction in our
   steads; for so many, no more. Thirdly, In a free application of the
   death of Christ unto us.

   Remission, then, excludes not a full satisfaction by the solution of
   the very thing in the obligation, but only the solution or satisfaction
   by him to whom pardon and remission are granted. So that,
   notwithstanding any thing said to the contrary, the death of Christ
   made satisfaction in the very thing, that was required in the
   obligation. He took away the curse, by “being made a curse,” Gal. iii.
   13, He delivered us from sin, being “made sin,” 2 Cor. v. 21. He
   underwent death, that we might be delivered from death. All our debt
   was in the curse of the law, which he wholly underwent. Neither do we
   read of any relaxation of the punishment in the Scripture, but only a
   commutation of the person; which being done, “God condemned sin in the
   flesh of his Son,” Rom. viii. 3, Christ standing in our stead: and so
   reparation was made unto God, and satisfaction given for all the
   detriment that might accrue to him by the sin and rebellion of them for
   whom this satisfaction was made. His justice was violated, and he “sets
   forth Christ to be a propitiation” for our sins, “that he might be
   just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus,” Rom. iii. 25,
   26. And never, indeed, was his justice more clearly demonstrated than
   in causing “the iniquity of us all to meet upon him.” His law was
   broken; therefore Christ comes to be “the end of the law for
   righteousness,” Rom. x. 4. Our offence and disobedience was to him
   distasteful; in the obedience of Christ he took full pleasure, Rom. v.
   17; Matt. iii. 16.

   Now from all this, thus much (to clear up the nature of the
   satisfaction made by Christ) appeareth, — namely, It was a full,
   valuable compensation, made to the justice of God, for all the sins of
   all those for whom he made satisfaction, by undergoing that same
   punishment which, by reason of the obligation that was upon them, they
   themselves were bound to undergo. When I say the same, I mean
   essentially the same in weight and pressure, though not in all
   accidents of duration and the like; for it was impossible that he
   should be detained by death. Now, whether this will stand in the
   justice of God, that any of these should perish eternally for whom
   Jesus Christ made so full, perfect, and complete satisfaction, we shall
   presently inquire; and this is the first thing that we are to consider
   in this business.

   Secondly, We must look what act of God it is that is exercised either
   towards us or our Saviour in this business. That God in the whole is
   the party offended by our sins is by all confessed. It is his law that
   is broken, his glory that is impaired, his honour that is abased by our
   sin: “If I be a father,” saith he, “where is mine honour?” Mal. i. 6.
   Now, the law of nature and universal right requireth that the party
   offended be recompensed in whatsoever he is injured by the fault of
   another. Being thus offended, the Lord is to be considered under a
   twofold notion:— First, In respect of us, he is as a creditor, and all
   we miserable debtors; to him we owe the “ten thousand talents,” Matt.
   xviii. 24. And our Saviour hath taught us to call our sins our “debts,”
   Matt. vi. 12; and the payment of this debt the Lord requireth and
   exacteth of us. Secondly, In respect of Christ, — on whom he was
   pleased to lay the punishment of us all, to make our iniquity to meet
   upon him, not sparing him, but requiring the debt at his hands to the
   utmost farthing, — God is considered as the supreme Lord and Governor
   of all, the only Lawgiver, who alone had power so far to relax his own
   law as to have the name of a surety put into the obligation, which
   before was not there, and then to require the whole debt of that
   surety; for he alone hath power of life and death, James iv. 12. Now,
   these two acts are eminent in God in this business:— First, An act of
   severe justice, as a creditor exacting the payment of the debt at the
   hands of the debtor; which, where sin is the debt, is punishment, as
   was before declared: the justice of God being repaired thereby in
   whatsoever it was before violated. Secondly, An act of sovereignty or
   supreme dominion, in translating the punishment from the principal
   debtor to the surety, which of his free grace he himself had given and
   bestowed on the debtor: “He spared not his own Son, but delivered him
   up to death for us all.” Hence, let these two things be observed:—

   1. That God accepteth of the punishment of Christ as a creditor
   accepteth of his due debt, when he spares not the debtor, but requires
   the uttermost farthing. It is true of punishment, as punishment, there
   is no creditor properly; for, “Delicta puniri publicè interest.” But
   this punishment being considered also as a price, as it is, 1 Cor. vi.
   20, it must be paid to the hands of some creditor, as this was into the
   hands of God; whence Christ is said to come to do God’s will, Heb. x.
   9, and to satisfy him, as John vi. 38. Neither, indeed, do the
   arguments that some have used to prove that God, as a creditor, cannot
   inflict punishment, nor yet by virtue of supreme dominion, seem to me
   of any great weight. Divers I find urged by him whose great skill in
   the law, and such terms as these, might well give him sanctuary from
   such weak examiners as myself; but he that hath so foully betrayed the
   truth of God in other things, and corrupted his word, deserves not our
   assent in any thing but what by evidence of reason is extorted. Let us,
   then, see what there is of that in this which we have now in hand:—

   First, then, he tells us that “The right of punishing in the rector or
   lawgiver can neither be a right of absolute dominion nor a right of a
   creditor; because these things belong to him, and are exercised for his
   own sake, who hath them, but the right of punishing is for the good of
   community.”

   Ans. Refer this reason unto God, which is the aim of it, and it will
   appear to be of no value; for we deny that there is any thing in him or
   done by him primarily for the good of any but himself. His autarkeia,
   or self-sufficiency, will not allow that he should do any thing with an
   ultimate respect to any thing but himself. And whereas he saith that
   the right of punishing is for the good of community, we answer, that
   “bonum universi,” the good of community, is the glory of God, and that
   only. So that these things in him cannot be distinguished.

   Secondly, He addeth, “Punishment is not in and for itself desirable,
   but only for community’s sake. Now, the right of dominion and the right
   of a creditor are things in themselves expetible and desirable, without
   the consideration of any public aim.”

   Ans. First, That the comparison ought not to be between punishment and
   the right of dominion, but between the right of punishment and the
   right of dominion; the fact of one is not to be compared with the right
   of the other.

   Secondly, God desireth nothing, neither is there any thing desirable to
   him, but only for himself. To suppose a good desirable to God for its
   own sake is intolerable.

   Thirdly, There be some acts of supreme dominion, in themselves and for
   their own sake, as little desirable as any act of punishment; as the
   annihilation of an innocent creature, which Grotius will not deny but
   that God may do.

   Thirdly, He proceedeth, “Any one may, without any wrong, go off from
   the right of supreme dominion or creditorship; but the Lord cannot omit
   the act of punishment to some sins, as of the impenitent.”

   Ans. God may, by virtue of his supreme dominion, omit punishment
   without any wrong or prejudice to his justice. It is as great a thing
   to impute sin where it is not, and to inflict punishment upon that
   imputation, as not to impute sin where it is, and to remove or not to
   inflict punishment upon that non-imputation. Now, the first of these
   God did towards Christ; and, therefore, he may do the latter.

   Secondly, The wrong or injustice of not punishing any sin or sins doth
   not arise from any natural obligation, but the consideration of an
   affirmative positive act of God’s will, whereby he hath purposed that
   he will do it.

   Fourthly, He adds, “None can be called just for using his own right or
   lordship; but God is called just for punishing or not remitting sin,”
   Rev. xvi. 5.

   Ans. First, However it be in other causes, yet in this God may
   certainly be said to be just in exacting his debt or using his
   dominion, because his own will is the only rule of justice.

   Secondly, We do not say punishing, is an act of dominion, but an act of
   exacting a due debt; the requiring this of Christ in our stead
   supposing the intervention of an act of supreme dominion.

   Fifthly, His last reason is, “Because that virtue whereby one goeth off
   from his dominion or remitteth his debt, is liberality; but that virtue
   whereby a man abstaineth from punishing is clemency: so that punishment
   can be no act of exacting a debt or acting a dominion.”

   Ans. The virtue whereby a man goeth off from the exacting, of that
   which is due, universally considered, is not always liberality; for, as
   Grotius himself confesseth, a debt may arise and accrue to any by the
   injury of his fame, credit, or name, by a lie, slander, or otherwise.
   Now, that virtue whereby a man is moved not to exact payment by way of
   reparation, is not in this case liberality, but either clemency, or
   that grace of the gospel for which moralists have no name; and so it is
   with every party offended, so often as he hath a right of requiring
   punishment from his offender, which yet he doth not. So that,
   notwithstanding these exceptions, this is eminently seen in this
   business of satisfaction, — that God, as a creditor, doth exactly
   require the payment of the debt by the way of punishment.

   2. The second thing eminent in it is, an act of supreme sovereignty and
   dominion, requiring the punishment of Christ, for the full, complete
   answering of the obligation and fulfilling of the law, Rom. viii. 3, x.
   4.

   Now, these things being thus at large unfolded, we may see, in brief,
   some natural consequences following and attending them as they are laid
   down; as, — First, That the full and due debt of all those for whom
   Jesus Christ was responsible was fully paid in to God, according to the
   utmost extent of the obligation. Secondly, That the Lord, who is a just
   creditor, ought in all equity to cancel the bond, to surcease all
   suits, actions, and molestations against the debtors, full payment
   being made unto him for the debt. Thirdly, That the debt thus paid was
   not this or that sin, but all the sins of all those for whom and in
   whose name this payment was made, 1 John i. 7, as was before
   demonstrated. Fourthly, That a second payment of a debt once paid, or a
   requiring of it, is not answerable to the justice which God
   demonstrated in setting forth Christ to be a propitiation for our sins,
   Rom. iii. 25. Fifthly, That whereas to receive a discharge from farther
   trouble is equitably due to a debtor who hath been in obligation, his
   debt being paid, the Lord, having accepted of the payment from Christ
   in the stead of all them for whom he died, ought in justice, according
   to that obligation which, in free grace, he hath put upon himself, to
   grant them a discharge. Sixthly, That considering that relaxation of
   the law which, by the supreme power of the lawgiver, was effected, as
   to the persons suffering the punishment required, such actual
   satisfaction is made thereto, that it can lay no more to their charge
   for whom Christ died than if they had really fulfilled, in the way of
   obedience, whatsoever it did require, Rom. viii. 32–34.

   Now, how consistent these things (in themselves evident, and clearly
   following the doctrine of Christ’s satisfaction, before declared) are
   with universal redemption is easily discernible; for, — First, If the
   full debt of all be paid to the utmost extent of the obligation, how
   comes it to pass that so many are shut up in prison to eternity, never
   freed from their debts? Secondly, If the Lord, as a just creditor,
   ought to cancel all obligations and surcease all suits against such as
   have their debts so paid, whence is it that his wrath smokes against
   some to all eternity? Let none tell me that it is because they walk not
   worthy of the benefit bestowed; for that not walking worthy is part of
   the debt which is fully paid, for (as it is in the third inference) the
   debt so paid is all our sins. Thirdly, Is it probable that God calls
   any to a second payment, and requires satisfaction of them for whom, by
   his own acknowledgment, Christ hath made that which is full and
   sufficient? Hath he an after-reckoning that he thought not of? for, for
   what was before him he spared him not, Rom. viii. 32. Fourthly, How
   comes it that God never gives a discharge to innumerable souls, though
   their debts be paid? Fifthly, Whence, is it that any one soul lives and
   dies under the condemning power of the law, never released, if that be
   fully satisfied in his behalf, so as it had been all one as if he had
   done whatsoever it could require? Let them that can, reconcile these
   things I am no Œdipus for them. The poor beggarly distinctions whereby
   it is attempted, I have already discussed. And so much for
   satisfaction.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [32] The allusion is to Grotius, among whose varied and elaborate
   theological works there is a treatise entitled, “Defensio Fidei
   Catholicæ de Satisfactione Christi, contra F. Socinum.” The
   distinguished reputation of Grotius in legal science explains some
   references which Owen makes in discussing his views. — Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter VIII.

   A digression, containing the substance of an occasional conference
   concerning the satisfaction of Christ.

   Much about the time that I was composing that part of the last argument
   which is taken from the satisfaction of Christ, there came one (whose
   name, and all things else concerning him, for the respect I bear to his
   parts and modesty, shall be concealed) to the place where I live, and,
   in a private exercise about the sufferings of Christ, seemed to those
   that heard him to enervate, yea overthrow, the satisfaction of Christ:
   which I apprehending to be of dangerous consequence, to prevent a
   farther inconvenience, set myself briefly and plainly to oppose; and
   also, a little after, willingly entertained a conference and debate
   (desired by the gentleman) about the point in question: which being
   carried along with that quietness and sobriety of spirit which beseemed
   lovers of and searchers after truth, I easily perceived not only what
   was his persuasion in the thing in hand, but also what was the ground
   and sole cause of his misapprehension; and it was briefly this:— That
   the eternal, unchangeable love of God to his elect did actually instate
   them in such a condition as wherein they were in an incapacity of
   having any satisfaction made for them: the end of that being to remove
   the wrath due unto them, and to make an atonement for their sins;
   which, by reason of the former love of God, they stood in no need of,
   but only wanted a clear manifestation of that love unto their souls,
   whereby they might be delivered from all that dread, darkness, guilt,
   and fear, which was in and upon their consciences, by reason of a
   not-understanding of this love, which came upon them through the fall
   of Adam. Now, to remove this, Jesus Christ was sent to manifest this
   love, and declare this eternal good-will of God towards them, so
   bearing, and taking, away their sins, by removing from their
   consciences that misapprehension of God and their own condition which,
   by reason of sin, they had before, and not to make any satisfaction to
   the justice of God for their sins, he being eternally well-pleased with
   them. The sum is, election is asserted to the overthrow of redemption.
   What followed in our conference, with what success by God’s blessing it
   did obtain, shall, for my part, rest in the minds and judgments of
   those that heard it, for whose sake alone it was intended. The things
   themselves being, first, of great weight and importance, of singular
   concernment to all Christians; secondly, containing in them a mixture
   of undoubted truth and no less undoubted errors, true propositions and
   false inferences, assertions of necessary verities to the exclusion of
   others no less necessary; and, thirdly, directly belonging to the
   business in hand, — I shall briefly declare and confirm the whole truth
   in this business, so far as occasion was given by the exercise and
   debate before mentioned, beginning with the first part of it,
   concerning, the eternal love of God to his elect, with the state and
   condition they are placed in thereby: concerning which you may observe,
   —

   First, That which is now by some made to be a new doctrine of free
   grace is indeed an old objection against it. That a non-necessity of
   satisfaction by Christ, as a consequent of eternal election, was more
   than once, for the substance of it, objected to Austin by the old
   Pelagian heretics, upon his clearing and vindicating, that doctrine, is
   most apparent. The same objection, renewed by others, is also answered
   by Calvin, Institut. lib. ii, cap. 16; as also divers schoolmen had
   before, in their way, proposed it to themselves, as Thom. iii. g. 49,
   a. 4. Yet, notwithstanding the apparent senselessness of the thing
   itself, together with the many solid answers whereby it was long before
   removed, the Arminians, at the Synod of Dort, greedily snatched it up
   again, and placed it in the very front of their arguments against the
   effectual redemption of the elect by Jesus Christ. Now, that which was
   in them only an objection is taken up by some amongst us as a truth,
   the absurd inconsequent consequence of it owned as just and good, and
   the conclusion deemed necessary, from the granting of election to the
   denial of satisfaction.

   Secondly, Observe that there is the same reason of election and
   reprobation (in things so opposed, so it must be): “Jacob have I loved,
   but Esau have I hated,” Rom. ix. 13. By the one, men are “ordained to
   eternal life,” Acts xiii. 48; by the other, “before of old ordained
   unto condemnation,” Jude 4. Now if the elect are justified, and
   sanctified, and saved, because of God’s decree that so they shall be,
   whereby they need nothing but the manifestation thereof, then likewise
   are the reprobates, as soon as they are finally impenitent, damned,
   burned, and want nothing but a manifestation thereof; which, whether it
   be true or no, consult the whole dispensation of God towards them.

   Thirdly, Consider what is the eternal love of God. Is it an affection
   in his eternal nature, as love is in ours? It were no less than
   blasphemy once so to conceive. His pure and holy nature, wherein there
   is neither change nor shadow of turning, is not subject to any such
   passion; it must be, then, an eternal act of his will, and that alone.
   In the Scripture it is called, his “good pleasure,” Matt. xi. 26; his
   “purpose according to election,” Rom. ix. 11; the “foundation of God,”
   2 Tim. ii. 19. Now, every eternal act of God’s will is immanent in
   himself, not really distinguished from himself; whatever is so in God
   is God. Hence, it puts nothing into the creature concerning whom it is,
   nor alteration of its condition at all; producing, indeed, no effect
   until some external act of God’s power do make it out. For instance:
   God decreed from eternity that he would make the world, yet we know the
   world was not made until about five thousand five hundred years ago.
   But ye will say, “It was made in God’s purpose.” That is, say I, he
   purposed to make it. So he purposeth there shall be a day of judgment;
   is there therefore actually a universal day of judgment already? God
   purposeth that he will, in and through Christ, justify and save such
   and such certain persons; are they therefore justified because God
   purposeth it? It is true, they shall be so, because he hath purposed
   it; but that they are so is denied. The consequence is good from the
   divine purpose to the futurition of any thing, and the certainty of its
   event, not to its actual existence. As when the Lord, in the beginning,
   went actually to make the world, there was no world; so when he comes
   to bestow faith and actually to justify a man, until he hath so done he
   is not justified. The sum is, —

   First, The eternal love of God towards his elect is nothing but his
   purpose, good pleasure, a pure act of his will, whereby he determines
   to do such and such things for them in his own time and way. Secondly,
   No purpose of God, no immanent eternal act of his will, doth produce
   any outward effect, or change any thing in nature and condition of that
   thing concerning which his purpose is; but only makes the event and
   success necessary in respect of that purpose. Thirdly, The wrath and
   anger of God that sinners lie under is not any passion in God, but only
   the outward effects of anger, as guilt, bondage, etc. Fourthly, An act
   of God’s eternal love, which is immanent in himself, doth not exempt
   the creature from the condition wherein he is under anger and wrath,
   until some temporal act of free grace do really change its state and
   condition. For example: God holding the lump of mankind in his own
   power, as the clay in the hand of the potter, determining to make some
   vessels unto honour, for the praise of his glorious grace, and others
   to dishonour, for the manifestation of his revenging justice, and to
   this end suffer them all to fall into sin and the guilt of
   condemnation, whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse;
   his purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them
   from the common condition of the rest, in respect of themselves and the
   truth of their estate, until some actual thing be accomplished for the
   bringing of them nigh unto himself: so that notwithstanding his eternal
   purpose, his wrath, in respect of the effects, abideth on them until
   that eternal purpose do make out itself in some distinguishing act of
   free grace; which may receive farther manifestation by these ensuing
   arguments:—

   1. If the sinner want nothing to acceptation and peace but a
   manifestation of God’s eternal love, then evangelical justification is
   nothing but an apprehension of God’s eternal decree and purpose. But
   this cannot be made out from the Scripture, — namely, that God’s
   justifying of a person is his making known unto him his decree of
   election; or [that] man’s justification [is] an apprehension of that
   decree, purpose, or love. Where is any such thing in the book of God?
   It is true, there is a discovery thereof made to justified believers,
   and therefore it is attainable by the saints, “God shedding abroad his
   love in their hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto them,” Rom.
   v. 5; but it is after they are “justified by faith,” and have “peace
   with God,” verse 1. Believers are to give “all diligence to make their
   calling and election sure;” but that justification should consist
   herein is a strange notion. Justification, in the Scripture, is an act
   of God, pronouncing an ungodly person, upon his believing, to be
   absolved from the guilt of sin, and interested in the all-sufficient
   righteousness of Christ: so God “justifieth the ungodly,” Rom. iv. 5,
   “by the righteousness of God which is by the faith of Jesus Christ unto
   them,” chap. iii. 22; making Christ to become righteousness to them who
   were in themselves sin. But of this manifestation of eternal love there
   is not the least foundation, as to be the form of justification; which
   yet is not without sense and perception of the love of God, in the
   improvement thereof.

   2. The Scripture is exceeding clear in making all men, before actual
   reconciliation, to be in the like state and condition, without any real
   difference at all, the Lord reserving to himself his distinguishing
   purpose of the alteration he will afterward by his free grace effect:
   “There is none that doeth good, no, not one,” Rom. iii. 12; for “we
   have proved both Jews and Gentiles that they are all under sin,” verse
   9. All mankind are in the same condition, in respect of themselves and
   their own real state: which truth is not at all prejudiced by the
   relation they are in to the eternal decrees; for “every mouth is
   stopped, and all the world is become guilty before God,” Rom. iii. 19,
   — hupodikos, obnoxious to his judgment. “Who maketh thee to differ from
   another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?” 1 Cor. iv. 7.
   All distinguishment, in respect of state and condition, is by God’s
   actual grace; for even believers are “by nature children of wrath, even
   as others,” Eph. ii. 3. The condition, then, of all men, during their
   unregeneracy, is one and the same, the purpose of God concerning the
   difference that shall be being referred to himself. Now, I ask whether
   reprobates in that condition lie under the effects of God’s wrath, or
   no? If ye say “No,” who will believe you? If so, why not the elect
   also? The same condition hath the same qualifications; an actual
   distinguishment we have proved there is not. Produce some difference
   that hath a real existence, or the cause is lost.

   3. Consider what it is to lie under the effects of God’s wrath,
   according to the declaration of the Scripture, and then see how the
   elect are delivered therefrom, before their actual calling. Now, this
   consists in divers things; as, — (1.) To be in such a state of
   alienation from God as that none of their services are acceptable to
   him: “The prayer of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord,” Prov.
   xxviii. 9. (2.) To have no outward enjoyment sanctified, but to have
   all things unclean unto them, Tit. i. 15. (3.) To be under the power of
   Satan, who rules at his pleasure in the children of disobedience, Eph.
   ii. 2. (4.) To be in bondage unto death, Heb. ii. 15. (5.) To be under
   the curse and condemning power of the law, Gal. iii. 13. (6.) To be
   obnoxious to the judgment of God, and to be guilty of eternal death and
   damnation, Rom. iii. 19. (7.) To be under the power and dominion of
   sin, reigning in them, Rom. vi. 19. These and such like are those which
   we call the effects of God’s anger.

   Let now any one tell me what the reprobates, in this life, lie under
   more? And do not all the elect, until their actual reconciliation, in
   and by Christ, lie under the very same? for, — (1.) Are not their
   prayers an abomination to the Lord? can they without faith please God?
   Heb. xi. 6. And faith we suppose them not to have; for if they have,
   they are actually reconciled. (2.) Are their enjoyments sanctified unto
   them? hath any thing a sanctified relation without faith? See 1 Cor.
   vii. 14. (3.) Are they not under the power of Satan? If not, how comes
   Christ, in and for them, to destroy the works of the devil? Did not he
   not come to deliver his from him that had the power of death, that is,
   the devil? Heb. ii. 14; Eph. ii. 2. (4.) Are they not under bondage
   unto death? The apostle affirms plainly that they are so all their
   lives, until they are actually freed by Jesus Christ, Heb. ii. 14, 15.
   (5.) Are they not under the curse of the law? How are they freed from
   it? By Christ being made a curse for them, Gal. iii. 13. (6.) Are they
   not obnoxious unto judgment, and guilty of eternal death? How is it,
   then, that Paul says that there is no difference, but that all are
   subject to the judgment of God, and are guilty before him? Rom. iii. 9;
   and that Christ saves them from this wrath, which, in respect of merit,
   was to come upon them? Rom. v. 9; 1 Thess. i. 10. (7.) Are they not
   under the dominion of sin? “God be thanked,” says Paul, “that ye were
   the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed,” etc., Rom. vi. 17. In brief,
   the Scripture is in nothing more plentiful than in laying and charging
   all the misery and wrath of and due to an unreconciled condition upon
   the elect of God, until they actually partake in the deliverance by
   Christ.

   But now some men think to wipe away all that hath been said in a word,
   and tell us that all this is so but only in their own apprehension; not
   that those things are so indeed and in themselves. But if these things
   be so to them only in their apprehension, why are they otherwise to the
   rest of the whole world? The Scripture gives its no difference nor
   distinction between them. And if it be so with all, then let all get
   this apprehension as fast as they can, and all shall be well with the
   whole world, now miserably captived under a misapprehension of their
   own condition; that is, let them say the Scripture is a fable, and the
   terror of the Almighty a scarecrow to fright children; that sin is only
   in conceit; and so square their conversation to their blasphemous
   fancies. Some men’s words eat as a canker.

   4. Of particular places of Scripture, which might abundantly be
   produced to our purpose, I shall content myself to name only one: John
   iii. 36, “He that believeth not the Son, the wrath of God abideth on
   him.” It abideth: there it was, and there it shall remain, if unbelief
   be continued; but upon believing it is removed. “But is not God’s love
   unchangeable, by which we shall be freed from his wrath?” Who denies
   it? But is an apprentice free because he shall be so at the end of
   seven years? Because God hath purposed to free his in his own time, and
   will do it, are they therefore free before he doth it? “But are we not
   in Christ from all eternity?” Yes, chosen in him we are; therefore, in
   some sense, in him. But how? Even as we are. Actually, a man cannot be
   in Christ until he be. Now, how are we from eternity? are we eternal?
   No; only God from eternity hath purposed that we shall be. Doth this
   give us an eternal being? Alas! we are of yesterday; our being in
   Christ respecteth only the like purpose, and therefore from thence can
   be made only the like inference.

   This, then, being cleared, it is, I hope, apparent to all how miserable
   a strained consequence it is, to argue from God’s decree of election to
   the overthrow of Christ’s merit and satisfaction; the redemption
   wrought by Jesus Christ being, indeed, the chief means of carrying
   along that purpose unto execution, the pleasure of the Lord prospering
   in his hand. Yea, the argument may be retorted, kata to biaion, and
   will hold undeniable on the other side, the consequence being evident,
   from the purpose of God to save sinners, to the satisfaction of Christ
   for those sinners. The same act of God’s will which sets us apart from
   eternity for the enjoyment of all spiritual blessings in heavenly
   places, sets also apart Jesus Christ to be the purchaser and procurer
   of all those spiritual blessings, as also to make satisfaction for all
   their sins; which that he did (being the main thing opposed) we prove
   by these ensuing arguments.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter IX.

   Being a second part of the former digression — Arguments to prove the
   satisfaction of Christ.

   I. If Christ so took our sins, and had them by God so laid and imposed
   on him, as that he underwent the punishment due unto them in our stead,
   then he made satisfaction to the justice of God for them, that the
   sinners might go free; but Christ so took and bare our sins, and had
   them so laid upon him, as that he underwent the punishment due unto
   them, and that in our stead: therefore, he made satisfaction to the
   justice of God for them. The consequent of the proposition is apparent,
   and was before proved. Of the assumption there be three parts,
   severally to be confirmed:— First, That Christ took and bare our sins,
   God laying them on him. Secondly, That he so took them as to undergo
   the punishment due unto them. Thirdly, That he did this in our stead.

   For the first, that he took and bare our sins, ye have it, John i. 29,
   Ho airōn, [33] etc., — “Who taketh away the sin of the world;” 1 Pet.
   ii. 24, Hos anēnenken, — “Who his own self bare our sins in his own
   body;” Isa. liii. 11, הוּא יִסְבֹּל, — “He shall bear their
   iniquities;” and verse 12, נָשָׂא, — “He bare the sin of many.” That
   God also laid or imposed our sins on him is no less apparent: Isa.
   liii. 6, “The Lord, הִפְגִּיעַ, made to meet on him the iniquity of us
   all;” 2 Cor. v. 21, Hamartian epoiēse, — “He hath made him to be sin
   for us.”

   The second branch is, that in thus doing our Saviour underwent the
   punishment due to the sins which he bare, which were laid upon him;
   which may be thus made manifest:— Death and the curse of the law
   contain the whole of the punishment due to sin, Gen. ii. 17, מוֹת
   תָּמוּת, “Dying thou shalt die,” is that which was threatened. Death
   was that which entered by sin, Rom. v. 12: which word in these places
   is comprehensive of all misery due to our transgressions; which also is
   held out in the curse of the law, Deut. xxvii. 26, “Cursed be he that
   confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them.” That all evils of
   punishment whatsoever are comprised in these is unquestionably evident.
   Now, Jesus Christ in bearing our sins underwent both these: for “by the
   grace of God he tasted death,” Heb. ii. 9; by death delivering from
   death, verse 14. He was not “spared, but given up to death for us all,”
   Rom. viii. 32. So also the curse of the law: Gal. iii. 13, Genomenos
   katara, — he “was made a curse for us;” and epikataratos, “cursed.” And
   this by the way of undergoing the punishment that was in death and
   curse: for by these “it pleased the Lord to bruise him, and put him to
   grief,” Isa. liii. 10; yea, ouk epheisato, “he spared him not,” Rom.
   viii. 32, but “condemned sin in his flesh,” verse 3. It remaineth only
   to show that he did this in our stead, and the whole argument is
   confirmed.

   Now, this also our Saviour himself maketh apparent, Matt. xx. 28. He
   came dounai tēn psuchēn hautou lutron anti pollōn, — “to give himself a
   ransom for many.” The word anti always supposeth a commutation, and
   change of one person or thing instead of another, as shall be afterward
   declared: so Matt. ii. 22; so 1 Tim. ii. 6; 1 Pet. iii. 18, “He
   suffered for us, the just for the unjust;” and Ps. lxix. 4, “I
   restored” (or paid) “that which I took not away,” — namely, our debt,
   so far as that thereby we are discharged, as Rom. viii. 34, where it is
   asserted, upon this very ground, that he died in our stead. And so the
   several parts of this first argument are confirmed.

   II. If Jesus Christ paid into his Father’s hands a valuable price and
   ransom for our sins, as our surety, so discharging the debt that we lay
   under, that we might go free, then did he bear the punishment due to
   our sins, and make satisfaction to the justice of God for them (for to
   pay such a ransom is to make such satisfaction); but Jesus Christ paid
   such a price and ransom, as our surety, into his Father’s hands, etc.:
   ergo, —

   There be four things to be proved in the assumption, or second
   proposition:— First, That Christ paid such a price and ransom.
   Secondly, That he paid it into the hands of his Father. Thirdly, That
   he did it as our surety. Fourthly, That we might go free. All which we
   shall prove in order:—

   First, For the first, our Saviour himself affirms it, Matt. xx. 28. He
   “came to give his life lutron,” a ransom or price of redemption “for
   many,” Mark x. 45; which the apostle terms antilutron, 1 Tim. ii. 6, a
   ransom to be accepted in the stead of others: whence we are said to
   have deliverance dia tēs apolutrōseōs, “by the ransom-paying of Christ
   Jesus,” Rom. iii. 24. “He bought us with a price,” 1 Cor. vi. 20; which
   price was his own blood, Acts xx. 28; compared to and exalted above
   silver and gold in this work of redemption, 1 Pet. i. 18. So that this
   first part is most clear and evident.

   Secondly, He paid this price into the hands of his Father. A price must
   be paid to somebody in the case of deliverance from captivity by it; it
   must be paid to the judge or jailer, — that is, to God or the devil. To
   say the latter were the highest blasphemy; Satan was to be conquered,
   not satisfied. For the former, the Scripture is clear: It was his
   “wrath” that was on us, John iii. 36. It was he that had “shut us all
   up under sin,” Gal. iii. 22. He is the great king to whom the debt is
   owing, Matt. xviii. 23–34. He is the only “law-giver, who is able to
   save and to destroy,” James iv. 12. Nay, the ways whereby this
   ransom-paying is in the Scripture expressed abundantly enforce the
   payment of it into the hands of his Father; for his death and
   blood-shedding is said to be prosphora and thusia, “an oblation and
   sacrifice,” Eph. v. 2; and his soul to be אָשָׁם, a sacrifice or
   “offering for sin,” Isa. liii. 10. Now, certainly offerings and
   sacrifices are to be directed unto God alone.

   Thirdly, That he did this as surety, we are assured, Heb. vii. 22. He
   was made enguos, a “surety of a better testament;” and, in performance
   of the duty which lay upon him as such, “he paid that which he took not
   away,” Ps. lxix. 4. All which could not possibly have any other end but
   that we might go free.

   III. To make an atonement for sin, and to reconcile God unto the
   sinners, is in effect to make satisfaction unto the justice of God for
   sin, and all that we understand thereby; but Jesus Christ, by his death
   and oblation, did make an atonement for sin, and reconcile God unto
   sinners: ergo, —

   The first proposition is in itself evident; the assumption is
   confirmed, Rom. iii. 24, 25. We are justified freely by the
   ransom-paying, that is in Christ, whom God hath set forth to be
   hilastērion, a propitiation, an atonement, a mercy-seat, a covering of
   iniquity; and that, eis endeixin tēs dikaiosunēs, for the manifestation
   of his justice, declared in the going forth and accomplishment thereof.
   So likewise Heb. ii. 17, he is said to be a “merciful high priest, eis
   to hilaskesthai tas hamartias tou laou,” — “to make reconciliation for
   the sins of the people,” to reconcile God unto the people: the meaning
   of the words being, ilaskesthai ton Theon peri tōn hamartiōn tou laou,
   — to reconcile God, who was offended with the sins of the people; which
   reconciliation we are said to “receive,” Rom. v. 11 (the word katallagē
   there, in our common translation rendered “atonement,” is in other
   places in the same rendered “reconciliation,” being, indeed, the only
   word used for it in the New Testament.) And all this is said to be
   accomplished, di’ henos dikaiōmatos, — by one righteousness or
   satisfaction; that is of Christ, (the words will not bear that sense
   wherein they are usually rendered, “By the righteousness of one,” for
   then must it have been dia dikaiōmatos tou henos.) And hereby were we
   delivered from that from which it was impossible we should be otherwise
   delivered, Rom. viii. 3.

   IV. That wherein the exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ
   whilst he was on earth doth consist, cannot be rejected nor denied
   without damnable error; but the exercise of the priestly office of
   Jesus Christ whilst he was upon the earth consisted in this, to bear
   the punishment due to our sins, to make atonement with God, by
   undergoing his wrath, and reconciling him to sinners upon the
   satisfaction made to his justice: therefore cannot these things be
   denied without damnable error.

   That in the things before recounted the exercise of Christ’s priestly
   office did consist is most apparent, — first, From all the types and
   sacrifices whereby it was prefigured, their chief end being
   propitiation and atonement; secondly, From the very nature of the
   sacerdotal office, appointed for sacrificing, Christ having nothing to
   offer but his own blood, through the eternal Spirit; and, thirdly, From
   divers, yea, innumerable texts of Scripture affirming the same. It
   would be too long a work to prosecute these things severally and at
   large, and therefore I will content myself with one or two places
   wherein all those testimonies are comprised; as Heb. ix. 13, 14, “If
   the blood of bulls and of goats,” etc., “how much more shall the blood
   of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot
   to God?” etc. Here the death of Christ is compared to, exalted above,
   and in the antitype answereth, the sacrifices of expiation which were
   made by the blood of bulls and goats; and so must, at least
   spiritually, effect what they did carnally accomplish and typically
   prefigure, — namely, deliverance from the guilt of sin by expiation and
   atonement: for as in them the life and blood of the sacrifice was
   accepted in the stead of the offerer, who was to die for the breach of
   the law, according to the rigour of it, so in this of Christ was his
   blood accepted as an atonement and propitiation for us, himself being
   priest, altar, and sacrifice. So, Heb. x. 10–12, he is said expressly,
   in the room of all the old, insufficient, carnal sacrifices, which
   could not make the comers thereunto perfect, to offer up his own body a
   sacrifice for sins, for the remission and pardon of sins through that
   offering of himself; as it is verse 19. And in the performance also do
   we affirm that our Saviour underwent the wrath of God which was due
   unto us. This, because it is by some questioned, I shall briefly
   confirm, and that with these following reasons:—

   First, The punishment due to sin is the wrath of God: Rom. i. 18, “The
   wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness;” chap. ii. 5, “The
   day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;” Eph. ii.
   3, “Children of wrath;” John iii. 36. But Jesus Christ underwent the
   punishment due to sin: 2 Cor. v. 21, “Made sin for us;” Isa. liii. 6,
   “Iniquity was laid upon him;” 1 Pet. ii. 24, “He bare our sins in his
   own body on the tree.” Therefore he underwent the wrath of God.

   Secondly, The curse of the law is the wrath of God taken passively,
   Deut. xxix. 20, 21. But Jesus Christ underwent the curse of the law:
   Gal. iii. 13, “Made a curse for us,” the curse that they lie under who
   are out of Christ, who are “of the works of the law,” verse 10.
   Therefore he underwent the wrath of God.

   Thirdly, The death that sinners are to undergo is the wrath of God.
   Jesus Christ did taste of that death which sinners for themselves were
   to undergo; for he died as “our surety,” Heb. vii. 22, and in our
   stead, Matt. xx. 28. Hence his fear, Heb. v. 7; agony, Luke xxii. 44;
   astonishment and amazement, Mark xiv. 33; dereliction, Matt. xxvii. 46;
   sorrow, heaviness, and inexpressible pressures, chap. xxvi. 37–39.

   V. That doctrine cannot be true nor agreeable to the gospel which
   strikes at the root of gospel faith, and plucks away the foundation of
   all that strong consolation which God is so abundantly willing we
   should receive; but such is that of denying the satisfaction made by
   Christ, his answering the justice and undergoing the wrath of his
   Father. It makes the poor soul to be like Noah’s dove in its distress,
   not knowing where to rest the soles of her feet. When a soul is turned
   out of its self-righteousness, and begins to look abroad, and view the
   heaven and earth for a resting-place, and perceives an ocean, a flood,
   an inundation of wrath, to cover all the world, the wrath of God
   revealing itself from heaven against all ungodliness, so that it can
   obtain no rest nor abiding, — heaven it cannot reach by its own flight,
   and to hell it is unwilling to fall; — if now the Lord Jesus Christ do
   not appear as an ark in the midst of the waters, upon whom the floods
   have fallen, and yet has got above them all for a refuge, alas! what
   shall it do? When the flood fell there were many mountains glorious in
   the eye, far higher than the ark; but yet those mountains were all
   drowned, whilst the ark still kept on the top of the waters. Many
   appearing hills and mountains of self-righteousness and general mercy,
   at the first view, seem to the soul much higher than Jesus Christ, but
   when the flood of wrath once comes and spreads itself, all those
   mountains are quickly covered; only the ark, the Lord Jesus Christ
   though the flood fall on him also, yet he gets above it quite, and
   gives safety to them that rest upon him.

   Let me now ask any of those poor souls who ever have been wandering and
   tossed with the fear of the wrath to come, whether ever they found a
   resting-place until they came to this:— God spared not his only Son,
   but gave him up to death for us all; that he made him to be sin for us;
   that he put all the sins of all the elect into that cup which he was to
   drink of; that the wrath and flood which they feared did fall upon
   Jesus Christ (though now, as the ark, he be above it, so that if they
   could get into him they should be safe). The storm hath been his, and
   the safety shall be theirs. As all the waters which would have fallen
   upon them that were in the ark fell upon the ark, they being dry and
   safe, so all the wrath that should have fallen upon them fell on
   Christ; which alone causeth their souls to dwell in safety? Hath not, I
   say, this been your bottom, your foundation, your resting-place? If not
   (for the substance of it), I fear you have but rotten bottoms. Now,
   what would you say if a man should come and pull this ark from under
   you, and give you an old rotten post to swim upon in the flood of
   wrath? It is too late to tell you no wrath is due unto you; the word of
   truth and your own consciences have given you other information. You
   know the “wages of sin is death,” in whomsoever it be; he must die in
   whomsoever it is found. So that truly the soul may well say, “Bereave
   me of the satisfaction of Christ, and I am bereaved. If he fulfilled
   not justice, I must; if he underwent not wrath, I must to eternity. O
   rob me not of my only pearl!” Denying the satisfaction of Christ
   destroys the foundation of faith and comfort.

   VI. Another argument we may take from some few particular places of
   Scripture, which, instead of many, I shall produce:—

   As, first, 2 Cor. v. 21, “He made him to be sin for us, who knew no
   sin.” “He made him to be sin for us;” how could that be? are not the
   next words, “He knew no sin?” was he not a Lamb without blemish, and
   without spot? Doubtless; “he did no sin, neither was guile found in his
   mouth.” What then is this, “God made him to be sin?” It cannot be that
   God made him sinful, or a sinner by any inherent sin; that will not
   stand with the justice of God nor with the holiness of the person of
   our Redeemer. What is it, then? “He made him to be sin who knew no
   sin?” Why, clearly, by dispensation and consent, he laid that to his
   charge whereof he was not guilty. He charged upon him and imputed unto
   him all the sins of all the elect, and proceeded against him
   accordingly. He stood as our surety, really charged with the whole
   debt, and was to pay the utmost farthing, as a surety is to do if it be
   required of him; though he borrow not the money, nor have one penny of
   that which is in the obligation, yet if he be sued to an execution, he
   must pay all. The Lord Christ (if I may so say) was sued by his
   Father’s justice unto an execution, in answer whereunto he underwent
   all that was due to sin; which we proved before to be death, wrath, and
   curse.

   If it be excepted (as it is) “That God was always well pleased with his
   Son, — he testified it again and again from heaven, — how, then, could
   he lay his wrath upon him?” Ans. It is true he was always well pleased
   with him; yet it “pleased him to bruise him and put him to grief.” He
   was always well pleased with the holiness of his person, the excellency
   and perfectness of his righteousness, and the sweetness of his
   obedience, but he was displeased with the sins that were charged on
   him: and therefore it pleased him to bruise and put him to grief with
   whom he was always well pleased.

   Nor is that other exception of any more value, “That Christ underwent
   no more than the elect lay under; but they lay not under wrath and the
   punishment due to sin.” Ans. The proposition is most false, neither is
   there any more truth in the assumption; for — First, Christ underwent
   not only that wrath (taking it passively) which the elect were under,
   but that also which they should have undergone had not he borne it for
   them: he “delivered them from the wrath to come.” Secondly, The elect
   do, in their several generations, lie under all the wrath of God in
   respect of merit and procurement, though not in respect of actual
   endurance, — in respect of guilt, not present punishment, So that,
   notwithstanding these exceptions, it stands firm that “he was made sin
   for us, who knew no sin.”

   Isa. liii. 5, “He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised
   for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and
   with his stripes we are healed.” Of this place something was said
   before; I shall add some small enlargements that conduce to discover
   the meaning of the words. “The chastisement of our peace was upon him;”
   that is, he was chastised or punished that we might have peace, that we
   might go free, our sins being the cause of his wounding, and our
   iniquities of his being bruised, all our sins meeting upon him, as
   verse 6; that is, he “bare our sins,” in Peter’s interpretation. He
   bare our sins (not, as some think, by declaring that we were never
   truly sinful, but) by being wounded for them, bruised for them,
   undergoing the chastisement due unto them, consisting in death, wrath,
   and curse, so making his soul an offering for sin. “He bare our sins;”
   that is, say some, he declared that we have an eternal righteousness in
   God, because of his eternal purpose to do us good. But is this to
   interpret Scripture, or to corrupt the word of God? Ask the word what
   it means by Christ’s bearing of sin; it will tell you, his being
   “stricken” for our transgressions, Isa. liii. 8, — his being “cut off”
   for our sins, Dan. ix. 26. Neither hath the expression of bearing sins
   any other signification in the word: Lev. v. 1, “If a soul hear the
   voice of swearing, if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his
   iniquity.” What is that? he shall declare himself or others to be free
   from sin? No, doubtless; but, he shall undergo the punishment due to
   sin, as our Saviour did in bearing our iniquities. He must be a cunning
   gamester indeed that shall cheat a believer of this foundation.

   More arguments or texts on this subject I shall not urge or produce,
   though the cause itself will enforce the most unskilful to abound. I
   have proceeded as far as the nature of a digression will well bear.
   Neither shall I undertake, at this time, the answering of objections to
   the contrary; a full discussion of the whole business of the
   satisfaction of Christ, which should cause me to search for, draw
   forth, and confute all objections to the contrary, being not by me
   intended. And for those which were made at that debate which gave
   occasion to this discourse, I dare not produce them, lest haply I
   should not be able to restrain the conjectures of men that I purposely
   framed such weak objections, that I might obtain an easy conquest over
   a man of straw of mine own erection, so weak were they, and of so
   little force to the shaking of so fundamental a truth as that is which
   we do maintain. So of this argument hitherto.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [33] Aufert, sustulit, tulit.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter X.

   Of the merit of Christ, with arguments from thence.

   Arg. XIV. A fourth thing ascribed to the death of Christ is merit, or
   that worth and value of his death whereby he purchased and procured
   unto us, and for us, all those good things which we find in the
   Scripture for his death to be bestowed upon us. Of this, much I shall
   not speak, having considered the thing itself under the notion of
   impetration already; only, I shall add some few observations proper to
   that particular of the controversy which we have in hand. The word
   merit is not at all to be found in the New Testament, in no translation
   out of the original that I have seen. The vulgar Latin once reads
   promeretur, Heb. xiii. 16; and the Rheimists, to preserve the sound,
   have rendered it promerited. But these words in both languages are
   uncouth and barbarous, besides that they no way answer euaresteitai,
   the word in the original, which gives no colour to merit, name or
   thing. Nay, I suppose it will prove a difficult thing to find out any
   one word, in either of the languages wherein the holy Scripture was
   written, that doth properly and immediately, in its first native
   importance, signify merit. So that about the name we shall not trouble
   ourselves, if the thing itself intended thereby be made apparent, which
   it is both in the Old and New Testament; as Isa. liii. 5, “The
   chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are
   healed.” The procurement of our peace and healing, was the merit of his
   chastisement and stripes. So Heb. ix. 12, Dia tou idiou haimatos
   aiōnian lutrōsin heuramenos, “Obtaining by his blood eternal
   redemption,” is as much as we intend to signify by the merit of Christ.
   The word which comes nearest it in signification we have, Acts xx. 28,
   Periepoiēsato, “Purchased with his own blood;” purchase and
   impetration, merit and acquisition, being in this business terms
   equivalent; which latter word is used in divers other places, as 1
   Thess. v. 9; Eph. i. 14; 1 Pet. ii. 9. Now, that which by this name we
   understand is, the performance of such an action as whereby the thing
   aimed at by the agent is due unto him, according to the equity and
   equality required in justice; as, “To him that worketh, is the reward
   not reckoned of grace, but of debt,” Rom. iv. 4. That there is such a
   merit attending the death of Christ is apparent from what was said
   before; neither is the weight of any operose proving [of] it imposed on
   us, by our adversaries seeming to acknowledge it no less themselves; so
   that we may take it for granted (until our adversaries close with the
   Socinians in this also).

   Christ then, by his death, did merit and purchase, for all those for
   whom he died, all those things which in the Scripture are assigned to
   be the fruits and effects of his death. These are the things purchased
   and merited by his blood-shedding, and death; which may be referred
   unto two heads:— First, Such as are privative; as, — 1. Deliverance
   from the hand of our enemies, Luke i. 74; from the wrath to come, 1
   Thess. i. 10. 2. The destruction and abolition of death in his power,
   Heb. ii. 14; 3. Of the works of the devil, 1 John iii. 8. 4.
   Deliverance from the curse of the law, Gal. iii. 13; 5. From our vain
   conversation, 1 Pet. i. 18; 6. From the present evil world, Gal. i. 4;
   7. From the earth, and from among men, Rev. xiv. 3, 4. 8. Purging of
   our sins, Heb. i. 3, Secondly, Positive; as, — 1. Reconciliation with
   God, Rom. v. 10; Eph. ii. 16; Col. i. 20. 2. Appeasing or atoning of
   God by propitiation, Rom. iii. 25; 1 John ii. 2. 3. Peacemaking, Eph.
   ii. 14. 4. Salvation, Matt. i. 21. All these hath our Saviour by his
   death merited and purchased for all them for whom he died; that is, so
   procured them of his Father that they ought, in respect of that merit,
   according to the equity of justice, to be bestowed on them for whom
   they were so purchased and procured. It was absolutely of free grace in
   God that he would send Jesus Christ to die for any; it was of free
   grace for whom he would send him to die; it is of free grace that the
   good things procured by his death be bestowed on any person, in respect
   of those persons on whom they are bestowed: but considering his own
   appointment and constitution, that Jesus Christ by his death should
   merit and procure grace and glory for those for whom he died, it is of
   debt in respect of Christ that they be communicated to them. Now, that
   which is thus merited, which is of debt to be bestowed, we do not say
   that it may be bestowed, but it ought so to be, and it is injustice if
   it be not.

   Having said this little of the nature of merit, and of the merit of
   Christ, the procurement of his death for them in whose stead he died,
   it will quickly be apparent how irreconcilable the general ransom is
   therewith; for the demonstration whereof we need no more but the
   proposing of this one question, — namely, If Christ hath merited grace
   and glory for all those for whom he died, if he died for all, how comes
   it to pass that these things are not communicated to and bestowed upon
   all? Is the defect in the merit of Christ, or in the justice of God?
   How vain it is to except, that these things are not bestowed absolutely
   upon us, but upon condition, and therefore were so procured; seeing,
   that the very condition itself is also merited and procured, as Eph. i.
   3, 4, Phil. i. 29, — hath been already declared.

   Arg. XV. Fifthly, The very phrases of “dying for us,” “bearing our
   sins,” being our “surety,” and the like, whereby the death of Christ
   for us is expressed, will not stand with the payment of a ransom for
   all. To die for another is, in Scripture, to die in that other’s stead,
   that he might go free; as Judah besought his brother Joseph to accept
   of him for a bondman instead of Benjamin, that he might be set at
   liberty, Gen. xliv. 33, and that to make good the engagement wherein he
   stood bound to his father to be a surety for him. He that is surety for
   another (as Christ was for us, Heb. vii. 22), is to undergo the danger,
   that the other may be delivered. So David, wishing that he had died for
   his son Absalom, 2 Sam. xviii. 33, intended, doubtless, a commutation
   with him, and a substitution of his life for his, so that he might have
   lived. Paul also, Rom. v. 7, intimates the same, supposing that such a
   thing might be found among men that one should die for another; no
   doubt alluding to the Decii, Menœceus, Euryalus, and such others, whom
   we find mentioned in the stories of the heathen, who voluntarily cast
   themselves into death for the deliverance of their country or friends,
   continuing their liberty and freedom from death who were to undergo it,
   by taking it upon themselves, to whom it was not directly due. And this
   plainly is the meaning of that phrase, “Christ died for us;” that is,
   in the undergoing of death there was a subrogation of his person in the
   room and stead of ours. Some, indeed, except that where the word huper
   is used in this phrase, as Heb. ii. 9, “That he by the grace of God
   should taste death for every man,” there only the good and profit of
   them for whom he died is intended, not enforcing the necessity of any
   commutation. But why this exception should prevail I see no reason, for
   the same preposition being used in the like kind in other cases doth
   confessedly intimate a commutation; as Rom. ix. 3, where Paul affirms
   that he “could wish himself accursed from Christ huper tōn adelphōn,” —
   “for his brethren,” — that is, in their stead, that they might be
   united to him. So also, 2 Cor. v. 20, Huper Christou presbeuomen, “We
   are ambassadors in Christ’s stead.” So the same apostle, 1 Cor. i. 13,
   asking, and strongly denying by way of interrogation, Mē Paulos
   estaurōthē huper humōn; “Was Paul crucified for you?” plainly showeth
   that the word huper, used about the crucifying of Christ for his
   church, doth argue a commutation or change, and not only designs the
   good of them for whom he died; for, plainly, he might himself have been
   crucified for the good of the church; but in the stead thereof, he
   abhorreth the least thought of it. But concerning the word anti, which
   also is used, there is no doubt, nor can any exception be made; it
   always signifieth a commutation and change, whether it be applied to
   things or persons: so Luke xi. 11, Ophis anti ichthuos, “A serpent
   instead of a fish;” so Matt. v. 38, Ophthalmos anti ophthalmou “An eye
   for an eye;” so Heb. xii. 16; — and for persons, Archelaus is said to
   reign anti Hērōdou tou patros, “instead of his father,” Matt. ii. 22.
   Now, this word is used of the death of our Saviour, Matt. xx. 28, “The
   Son of man came dounai tēn psuchēn hautou lutron anti pollōn,” — which
   words are repeated again, Mark x. 45, — that is, to give his life a
   ransom in the stead of the lives of many. So that, plainly, Christ
   dying for us, as a surety, Heb. vii. 22, and thereby and therein
   “bearing our sins in his own body,” 1 Pet. ii. 24, being made a curse
   for us, was an undergoing of death, punishment, curse, wrath, not only
   for our good, but directly in our stead; a commutation and subrogation
   of his person in the room and place of ours being allowed, and of God
   accepted. This being cleared, I demand, — First, Whether Christ died
   thus for all? that is, whether he died in the room and stead of all, so
   that his person was substituted in the room of theirs? as, whether he
   died in the stead of Cain and Pharaoh, and the rest, who long before
   his death were under the power of the second death, never to be
   delivered? Secondly, Whether it be justice that those, or any of them,
   in whose stead Christ died, bearing their iniquities, should themselves
   also die and bear their own sins to eternity? Thirdly, What rule of
   equity is there, or example for it, that when the surety hath answered
   and made satisfaction to the utmost of what was required in the
   obligation wherein he was a surety, they for whom he was a surety
   should afterwards be proceeded against? Fourthly, Whether Christ hung
   upon the cross in the room or stead of reprobates? Fifthly, Whether he
   underwent all that which was due unto them for whom he died? If not,
   how could he be said to die in their stead? If so, why are they not all
   delivered? I shall add no more but this, that to affirm Christ to die
   for all men is the readiest way to prove that he died for no man, in
   the sense Christians have hitherto believed, and to hurry poor souls
   into the bottom of Socinian blasphemies.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter XI.

   The last general argument.

   Arg. XVI. Our next argument is taken from some particular places of
   Scripture, clearly and distinctly in themselves holding out the truth
   of what we do affirm. Out of the great number of them I shall take a
   few to insist upon, and therewith to close our arguments.

   1. The first that I shall begin withal is the first mentioning of Jesus
   Christ, and the first revelation of the mind of God concerning a
   discrimination between the people of Christ and his enemies: Gen. iii.
   15, “I will put enmity between thee” (the serpent) “and the woman, and
   between thy seed and her seed.” By the seed of the woman is meant the
   whole body of the elect, Christ in the first place as the head, and all
   the rest as his members; by the seed of the serpent, the devil, with
   all the whole multitude of reprobates, making up the malignant state,
   in opposition to the kingdom and body of Jesus Christ.

   That by the first part, or the seed of the woman, is meant Christ with
   all the elect, is most apparent; for they in whom all the things that
   are here foretold of the seed of the woman do concur, are the seed of
   the woman (for the properties of any thing do prove the thing itself.)
   But now in the elect, believers in and through Christ, are to be found
   all the properties of the seed of the woman; for, for them, in them,
   and by them, is the head of the serpent broken, and Satan trodden down
   under their feet, and the devil disappointed in his temptations, and
   the devil’s agents frustrated in their undertakings. Principally and
   especially, this is spoken of Christ himself, collectively of his whole
   body, which beareth a continual hatred to the serpent and his seed.

   Secondly, By the seed of the serpent is meant all the reprobate, men of
   the world, impenitent, unbelievers. For,

   First, The enmity of the serpent lives and exerciseth itself in them.
   They hate and oppose the seed of the woman; they have a perpetual
   enmity with it; and every thing that is said of the seed of the serpent
   belongs properly to them.

   Secondly, They are often so called in the Scripture: Matt. iii. 7, “O
   generation of vipers,” or seed of the serpent; so also chap. xxiii. 33.
   So Christ telleth the reprobate Pharisees, “Ye are of your father the
   devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do,” John viii. 44. So
   again, “Child of the devil,” Acts xiii. 10, — that is, the seed of the
   serpent; for “he that committeth sin is of the devil,” 1 John iii. 8.

   These things being undeniable, we thus proceed:— Christ died for no
   more than God promised unto him that be should die for. But God did not
   promise him to all, as that he should die for them; for he did not
   promise the seed of the woman to the seed of the serpent, Christ to
   reprobates, but in the first word of him he promiseth an enmity against
   them. In sum, the seed of the woman died not for the seed of the
   serpent.

   2. Matt. vii. 23, “I will profess unto them, I never knew you.” Christ
   at the last day professeth to some he never knew them. Christ saith
   directly that he knoweth his own, whom he layeth down his life for,
   John x. 14–17. And surely he knows whom and what he hath bought. Were
   it not strange that Christ should die for them, and buy them that he
   will not own, but profess he never knew them? If they are “bought with
   a price,” surely they are his own? 1 Cor. vi. 20. If Christ did so buy
   them, and lay out the price of his precious blood for them, and then at
   last deny that he ever knew them, might they not well reply, “Ah, Lord!
   was not thy soul heavy unto death for our sakes? Didst thou not for us
   undergo that wrath that made thee sweat drops of blood? Didst thou not
   bathe thyself in thine own blood, that our blood might be spared? Didst
   thou not sanctify thyself to be an offering for us as well as for any
   of thy apostles? Was not thy precious blood, by stripes, by sweat, by
   nails, by thorns, by spear, poured out for us? Didst thou not remember
   us when thou hungest upon the cross? And now dost thou say, thou never
   knewest us? Good Lord, though we be unworthy sinners, yet thine own
   blood hath not deserved to be despised. Why is it that none can lay any
   thing to the charge of God’s elect? Is it not because thou diedst for
   them? And didst thou not do the same for us? Why, then, are we thus
   charged, thus rejected? Could not thy blood satisfy thy Father, but we
   ourselves must be punished? Could not justice content itself with that
   sacrifice, but we must now hear, ‘Depart, I never knew you?’ ” What can
   be answered to this plea, upon the granting of the general ransom, I
   know not.

   3. Matt. xi. 25, 26, “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth,
   because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast
   revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy
   sight.” Those men from whom God in his sovereignty, as Lord of heaven
   and earth, of his own good pleasure, hideth the gospel, either in
   respect of the outward preaching of it, or the inward revelation of the
   power of it in their hearts, those certainly Christ died not for; for
   to what end should the Father send his only Son to die for the
   redemption of those whom he, for his own good pleasure, had determined
   should be everlasting strangers from it, and never so much as hear of
   it in the power thereof revealed to them? Now, that such there are our
   Saviour here affirms; and he thanks his Father for that dispensation at
   which so many do at this day repine.

   4. John x. 11, 15, 16, 27, 28. This clear place, which of itself is
   sufficient to evert the general ransom, hath been a little considered
   before, and, therefore, I shall pass it over the more briefly. First,
   That all men are not the sheep of Christ is most apparent; for, —
   First, He himself saith so, verse 26, “Ye are not of my sheep.”
   Secondly, The distinction at the last day will make it evident, when
   the sheep and the goats shall be separated. Thirdly, The properties of
   the sheep are, that they hear the voice of Christ, that they know him;
   and the like are not in all. Secondly, That the sheep here mentioned
   are all his elect, as well those that were to be called as those that
   were then already called. Verse 16, Some were not as yet of his fold of
   called ones; so that they are sheep by election, and not believing.
   Thirdly, That Christ so says that he laid down his life for his sheep,
   that plainly he excludes all others; for, — First, He lays down his
   life for them as sheep. Now, that which belongs to them as such belongs
   only to such. If he lays down his life for sheep, as sheep, certainly
   be doth it not for goats, and wolves, and dogs. Secondly, He lays down
   his life as a shepherd, verse 11; therefore, for them as the sheep.
   What hath the shepherd to do with the wolves, unless it be to destroy
   them? Thirdly, Dividing all into sheep and others, verse 26, he saith
   he lays down his life for his sheep; which is all one as if he had said
   he did it for them only. Fourthly, He describes them for whom he died
   by this, “My Father gave them me,” verse 29; as also chap. xvii. 6,
   “Thine they were, and thou gavest them me:” which are not all; for “all
   that the Father giveth him shall come to him,” chap. vi. 37, and he
   “giveth unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish,” chap. x.
   28. Let but the sheep of Christ keep close to this evidence, and all
   the world shall never deprive them of their inheritance. Farther to
   confirm this place, add Matt. xx. 28; John xi. 52.

   5. Rom. viii. 32–34. The intention of the apostle in this place is, to
   hold out consolation to believers in affliction or under any distress;
   which he doth, verse 31, in general, from the assurance of the presence
   of God with them, and his assistance at all times, enough to conquer
   all oppositions, and to make all difficulty indeed contemptible, by the
   assurance of his loving-kindness, which is better than life itself. “If
   God be for us, who can be against us?” To manifest this his presence
   and kindness, the apostle minds them of that most excellent,
   transcendent, and singular act of love towards them, in sending his Son
   to die for them, not sparing him, but requiring their debt at his hand;
   whereupon he argues from the greater to the less, — that if he have
   done that for us, surely he will do every thing else that shall be
   requisite. If he did the greater, will he not do the less? If he give
   his Son to death, will he not also freely give us all things? Whence we
   may observe, — First, That the greatest and most eximious expression of
   the love of God towards believers is in sending his Son to die for
   them, not sparing him for their sake; this is made the chief of all.
   Now, if God sent his Son to die for all, he had [done] as great an act
   of love, and hath made as great a manifestation of it, to them that
   perish as to those that are saved. Secondly, That for whomsoever he
   hath given and not spared his Son, unto them he will assuredly freely
   give all things; but now he doth not give all things that are good for
   them unto all, as faith, grace, and glory: from whence we conclude that
   Christ died not for all. Again, verse 33, he gives us a description of
   those that have a share in the consolation here intended, for whom God
   gave his Son, to whom he freely gives all things; and that is, that
   they are his “elect,” — not all, but only those whom he hath chosen
   before the foundation of the world, that they should be holy; which
   gives another confirmation of the restraint of the death of Christ to
   them alone: which he yet farther confirms, verse 34, by declaring that
   those of whom he speaks shall be freely justified and freed from
   condemnation; whereof he gives two reasons, — first, Because Christ
   died for them; secondly, Because he is risen, and makes intercession
   for them for whom he died: affording us two invincible arguments to the
   business in hand. The first, taken from the infallible effects of the
   death of Christ: Who shall lay any thing to their charge? who shall
   condemn them? Why, what reason is given? “It is Christ that died.” So
   that his death doth infallibly free all them from condemnation for whom
   he died. The second, from the connection that the apostle here makes
   between the death and intercession of Jesus Christ: For whom he died,
   for them he makes intercession; but he saveth to the utmost them for
   whom he intercedeth, Heb. vii. 25. From all which it is undeniably
   apparent that the death of Christ, with the fruits and benefits
   thereof, belongeth only to the elect of God.

   6. Eph. i. 7, “In whom we have redemption.” If his blood was shed for
   all, then all must have a share in those things that are to be had in
   his blood. Now, amongst these is that redemption that consists in the
   forgiveness of sins; which certainly all have not, for they that have
   are “blessed,” Rom. iv. 7, and shall be blessed for evermore: which
   blessing comes not upon all, but upon the seed of righteous Abraham,
   verse 16.

   7. 2 Cor. v. 21, “He hath made him to be sin for us, that we might be
   made the righteousness of God in him.” It was in his death that Christ
   was made sin, or an offering for it. Now, for whomsoever he was made
   sin, they are made the righteousness of God in him: “By his stripes we
   are healed,” Isa. liii. 5; John xv. 13, “Greater love hath no man than
   this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” Then, to intercede
   is not of greater love than to die, nor any thing else that he doth for
   his elect. If, then, he laid down his life for all, which is the
   greatest, why doth he not also the rest for them, and save them to the
   uttermost?

   8. John xvii. 9, “I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for
   them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.” And verse 19, “For
   their sakes I sanctify myself.”

   9. Eph. v. 25, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved
   the church, and gave himself for it;” as [also] Acts xx. 28. The object
   of Christ’s love and his death is here asserted to be his bride, his
   church; and that as properly as a man’s own wife is the only allowed
   object of his conjugal affections. And if Christ had a love to others
   so as to die for them, then is there in the exhortation a latitude left
   unto men, in conjugal affections, for other women besides their wives.

   I thought to have added other arguments, as intending a clear
   discussing of the whole controversy; but, upon a review of what hath
   been said, I do with confidence take up and conclude that those which
   have been already urged will be enough to satisfy them who will be
   satisfied with any thing, and those that are obstinate will not be
   satisfied with more. So of our arguments here shall be an end.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

                                    Book IV.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter I.

   Things previously to be considered, to the solution of objections.

   There being sundry places in holy Scripture wherein the ransom and
   propitiation made by the blood of Christ is set forth in general and
   indefinite expressions; as also a fruitlessness or want of success in
   respect of some, through their own default, for whom he died, seemingly
   intimated; with general proffers, promises, and exhortations, made for
   the embracing of the fruits of the death of Christ, even to them who do
   never actually perform it, — whence some have taken occasion to
   maintain a universality of redemption, equally respecting all and every
   one, and that with great confidence, affirming that the contrary
   opinion cannot possibly be reconciled with those places of Scripture
   wherein the former things are proposed; — these three heads being the
   only fountains from whence are drawn (but with violence) all the
   arguments that are opposed to the peculiar effectual redemption of the
   elect only, I shall, before I come to the answering of objections
   arising from a wrested interpretation of particular places, lay down
   some such fundamental principles as are agreeable to the word, and
   largely held forth in it, and no way disagreeable to our judgment in
   this particular, which do and have given occasion to those general and
   indefinite affirmations as they are laid down in the word, and upon
   which they are founded, having their truth in them, and not in a
   universal ransom for all and every one; with some distinctions
   conducing to the farther clearing of the thing in question, and waiving
   of many false imputations of things and consequences, erroneously or
   maliciously imposed on us.

   1. The first thing that we shall lay down is concerning the dignity,
   worth, preciousness, and infinite value of the blood and death of Jesus
   Christ. The maintaining and declaring of this is doubtless especially
   to be considered; and every opinion that doth but seemingly clash
   against it is exceedingly prejudiced, at least deservedly suspected,
   yea, presently to be rejected by Christians, if upon search it be found
   to do so really and indeed, as that which is injurious and derogatory
   to the merit and honour of Jesus Christ. The Scripture, also, to this
   purpose is exceeding full and frequent in setting forth the excellency
   and dignity of his death and sacrifice, calling his blood, by reason of
   the unity of his person, “God’s own blood,” Acts xx. 28; exalting it
   infinitely above all other sacrifices, as having for its principle “the
   eternal Spirit,” and being itself “without spot,” Heb. ix. 14;
   transcendently more precious than silver, or gold, or corruptible
   things, 1 Pet. i. 18; able to give justification from all things, from
   which by the law men could not be justified, Acts xiii. 28. Now, such
   as was the sacrifice and offering of Christ in itself, such was it
   intended by his Father it should be. It was, then, the purpose and
   intention of God that his Son should offer a sacrifice of infinite
   worth, value, and dignity, sufficient in itself for the redeeming of
   all and every man, if it had pleased the Lord to employ it to that
   purpose; yea, and of other worlds also, if the Lord should freely make
   them, and would redeem them. Sufficient we say, then, was the sacrifice
   of Christ for the redemption of the whole world, and for the expiation
   of all the sins of all and every man in the world. This sufficiency of
   his sacrifice hath a twofold rise:— First, The dignity of the person
   that did offer and was offered. Secondly, The greatness of the pain he
   endured, by which he was able to bear, and did undergo, the whole curse
   of the law and wrath of God due to sin. And this sets out the innate,
   real, true worth and value of the blood-shedding of Jesus Christ. This
   is its own true internal perfection and sufficiency. That it should be
   applied unto any, made a price for them, and become beneficial to them,
   according to the worth that is in it, is external to it, doth not arise
   from it, but merely depends upon the intention and will of God. It was
   in itself of infinite value and sufficiency to have been made a price
   to have bought and purchased all and every man in the world. That it
   did formally become a price for any is solely to be ascribed to the
   purpose of God, intending their purchase and redemption by it. The
   intention of the offerer and accepter that it should be for such, some,
   or any, is that which gives the formality of a price unto it; this is
   external. But the value and fitness of it to be made a price ariseth
   from its own internal sufficiency. Hence may appear what is to be
   thought of that old distinction of the schoolmen, embraced and used by
   divers protestant divines, though by others again rejected, — namely,
   “That Christ died for all in respect of the sufficiency of the ransom
   he paid, but not in respect of the efficacy of its application;” or,
   “The blood of Christ was a sufficient price for the sins of all the
   world;” — which last expression is corrected by some, and thus
   asserted, “That the blood of Christ was sufficient to have been made a
   price for all;” which is most true, as was before declared: for its
   being a price for all or some doth not arise from its own sufficiency,
   worth, or dignity, but from the intention of God and Christ using it to
   that purpose, as was declared; and, therefore, it is denied that the
   blood of Christ was a sufficient price and ransom for all and every
   one, not because it was not sufficient, but because it was not a
   ransom. And so it easily appears what is to be owned in the distinction
   itself before expressed. If it intend no more but that the blood of our
   Saviour was of sufficient value for the redemption of all and every
   one, and that Christ intended to lay down a price which should be
   sufficient for their redemption, it is acknowledged as most true. But
   the truth is, that expression, “To die for them,” holds out the
   intention of our Saviour, in the laying down of the price, to have been
   their redemption; which we deny, and affirm that then it could not be
   but that they must be made actual partakers of the eternal redemption
   purchased for them, unless God failed in his design, through the defect
   of the ransom paid by Christ, his justice refusing to give a dismission
   upon the delivery of the ransom.

   Now, the infinite value and worth which we assert to be in the death of
   Christ we conceive to be exceedingly undervalued by the assertors of
   universal redemption; for that it should be extended to this or that
   object, fewer or more, we showed before to be extrinsical to it. But
   its true worth consists in the immediate effects, products, and issues
   of it, with what in its own nature it is fit and able to do; which they
   openly and apparently undervalue, yea, almost annihilate. Hence those
   expressions concerning it:— First, That by it a door of grace was
   opened for sinners: where, I suppose, they know not; but that any were
   [ever] effectually carried in at the door by it, that they deny.
   Secondly, That God might, if he would, and upon what condition he
   pleased, save those for whom Christ died. That a right of salvation was
   by him purchased for any, they deny. Hence they grant, that after the
   death of Christ, — first, God might have dealt with man upon a legal
   condition again; secondly, That all and every man might have been
   damned, and yet the death of Christ have had its full effect; as also,
   moreover, That faith and sanctification are not purchased by his death,
   yea, no more for any (as before) than what he may go to hell withal.
   And divers other ways do they express their low thoughts and slight
   imaginations concerning the innate value and sufficiency of the death
   and blood-shedding of Jesus Christ. To the honour, then, of Jesus
   Christ our Mediator, God and man, our all-sufficient Redeemer, we
   affirm, such and so great was the dignity and worth of his death and
   blood-shedding, of so precious a value, of such an infinite fulness and
   sufficiency was this oblation of himself, that it was every way able
   and perfectly sufficient to redeem, justify, and reconcile and save all
   the sinners in the world, and to satisfy the justice of God for all the
   sins of all mankind, and to bring them every one to everlasting glory.
   Now, this fulness and sufficiency of the merit of the death of Christ
   is a foundation unto two things:—

   First, The general publishing of the gospel unto “all nations,” with
   the right that it hath to be preached to “every creature,” Matt.
   xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 15; because the way of salvation which it
   declares is wide enough for all to walk in. There is enough in the
   remedy it brings to light to heal all their diseases, to deliver them
   from all their evils. If there were a thousand worlds, the gospel of
   Christ might, upon this ground, be preached to them all, there being
   enough in Christ for the salvation of them all, if so be they will
   derive virtue from him by touching him in faith; the only way to draw
   refreshment from this fountain of salvation. It is, then, altogether in
   vain which some object, that the preaching of the gospel to all is
   altogether needless and useless, if Christ died not for all; yea, that
   it is to make God call upon men to believe that which is not true, —
   namely, that Christ died for them: for, first, besides that amongst
   those nations whither the gospel is sent there are some to be saved (“I
   have much people,”) which they cannot be, in the way that God hath
   appointed to do it, unless the gospel be preached to others as well as
   themselves; and besides, secondly, that in the economy and dispensation
   of the new covenant, by which all external differences and privileges
   of people, tongues, and nations being abolished and taken away, the
   word of grace was to be preached without distinction, and all men
   called everywhere to repent; and, thirdly, that when God calleth upon
   men to believe, he doth not, in the first place, call upon them to
   believe that Christ died for them, but that there is no name under
   heaven given unto men whereby they might be saved, but only of Jesus
   Christ, through whom salvation is preached; — I say, besides these
   certain truths, fully taking off that objection, this one thing of
   which we speak is a sufficient basis and ground for all those general
   precepts of preaching the gospel unto all men, even that sufficiency
   which we have described.

   Secondly, That the preachers of the gospel, in their particular
   congregations, being utterly unacquainted with the purpose and secret
   counsel of God, being also forbidden to pry or search into it, Deut.
   xxix. 29, may from hence justifiably call upon every man to believe,
   with assurance of salvation to every one in particular upon his so
   doing, knowing, and being fully persuaded of this, that there is enough
   in the death of Christ to save every one that shall so do; leaving the
   purpose and counsel of God, on whom he will bestow faith, and for whom
   in particular Christ died (even as they are commanded), to himself.

   And this is one principal thing, which, being well observed, will crush
   many of the vain flourishes of our adversaries; as will in particular
   hereafter appear.

   2. A second thing to be considered is, the economy or administration of
   the new covenant in the times of the gospel, with the amplitude and
   enlargement of the kingdom and dominion of Christ after his appearance
   in the flesh; whereby, all external differences being taken away, the
   name of Gentiles removed, the partition-wall broken down, the promise
   to Abraham that he should be heir of the world, as he was father of the
   faithful, was now fully to be accomplished. Now, this administration is
   so opposite to that dispensation which was restrained to one people and
   family, who were God’s peculiar, and all the rest of the world
   excluded, that it gives occasion to many general expressions in the
   Scripture; which are far enough from comprehending a universality of
   all individuals, but denote only a removal of all such restraining
   exceptions as were before in force. So that a consideration of the end
   whereunto these general expressions are used, and of what is aimed at
   by them, will clearly manifest their nature, and how they are to be
   understood, with whom they are that are intended by them and
   comprehended in them. For it being only this enlargement of the visible
   kingdom of Christ to all nations in respect of right, and to many in
   respect of fact (God having elect in all those nations to be brought
   forth, in the several generations wherein the means of grace are in
   those places employed), that is intended, it is evident that they
   import only a distribution of men through all differences whatsoever,
   and not a universal collection of all and every one; the thing intended
   by them requiring the one and not the other. Hence, those objections
   which are made against the particularity of the ransom of Christ, and
   the restraining of it only to the elect, from the terms of all, all
   men, all nations, the world, the whole world, and the like, are all of
   them exceeding weak and invalid, as wresting the general expressions of
   the Scripture beyond their aim and intent, they being used by the Holy
   Ghost only to evidence the removal of all personal and national
   distinctions, — the breaking up of all the narrow bounds of the Old
   Testament, the enlarging the kingdom of Christ beyond the bounds of
   Jewry and Salem, abolishing all old restrictions, and opening a way for
   the elect amongst all people (called “The fulness of the Gentiles,”) to
   come in; there being now “neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor
   uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, but Christ is all,
   and in all,” Col. iii. 11. Hence the Lord promiseth to “pour out his
   Spirit upon all flesh,” Joel ii. 28; which Peter interpreteth to be
   accomplished by the filling of the apostles with the gifts of the
   Spirit, that they might be enabled to preach to several nations, Acts
   ii. 17, “having received grace and apostleship for obedience to the
   faith among all nations” Rom. i. 5; — not the Jews only, but some among
   all nations, “the gospel being the power of God unto salvation to every
   one that believeth, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek,” verse 16;
   intending only, as to salvation, the peculiar bought by Christ, which
   he “redeemed out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation,”
   Rev. v. 9, where ye have an evident distribution of that which in other
   places is generally set down; the gospel being commanded to be preached
   to all these nations, Matt. xxviii. 19, that those bought and redeemed
   ones amongst them all might be brought home to God, John xi. 52. And
   this is that which the apostle so largely sets forth, Eph. ii. 14–17.
   Now, in this sense, which we have explained, and no other, are those
   many places to be taken which are usually urged for universal grace and
   redemption, as shall afterward be declared in particular.

   3. We must exactly distinguish between man’s duty and God’s purpose,
   there being no connection between them. The purpose and decree of God
   is not the rule of our duty; neither is the performance of our duty in
   doing what we are commanded any declaration of what is God’s purpose to
   do, or his decree that it should be done. Especially is this to be seen
   and considered in the duty of the ministers of the gospel, in the
   dispensing of the word, in exhortations, invitations, precepts, and
   threatenings, committed unto them; all which are perpetual declaratives
   of our duty, and do manifest the approbation of the thing exhorted and
   invited to, with the truth of the connection between one thing and
   another, but not of the counsel and purpose of God, in respect of
   individual persons, in the ministry of the word. A minister is not to
   make inquiry after, nor to trouble himself about, those secrets of the
   eternal mind of God, namely, — whom he purposeth to save, and whom he
   hath sent Christ to die for in particular. It is enough for them to
   search his revealed will, and thence take their directions, from whence
   they have their commissions. Wherefore, there is no sequel between the
   universal precepts from the word concerning the things, unto God’s
   purpose in himself concerning persons. They command and invite all to
   repent and believe; but they know not in particular on whom God will
   bestow repentance unto salvation, nor in whom he will effect the work
   of faith with power. And when they make proffers and tenders in the
   name of God to all, they do not say to all, “It is the purpose and
   intention of God that ye should believe,” (who gave them any such
   power?) but, that it is his command, which makes it their duty to do
   what is required of them; and they do not declare his mind, what
   himself in particular will do. The external offer is such as from which
   every man may conclude his own duty; none, God’s purpose, which yet may
   be known upon performance of his duty. Their objection, then, is vain,
   who affirm that God hath given Christ for all to whom he offers Christ
   in the preaching of the gospel; for his offer in the preaching of the
   gospel is not declarative to any in particular, neither of what God
   hath done nor of what he will do in reference to him, but of what he
   ought to do, if he would be approved of God and obtain the good things
   promised. Whence it will follow, —

   First, That God always intends to save some among them to whom he sends
   the gospel in its power. And the ministers of it being, first,
   unacquainted with his particular purpose; secondly, bound to seek the
   good of all and every one, as much as in them lies; thirdly, to hope
   and judge well of all, even as it is meet for them, — they may make a
   proffer of Jesus Christ, with life and salvation in him,
   notwithstanding that the Lord hath given his Son only to his elect.

   Secondly, That this offer is neither vain nor fruitless, being
   declarative of their duty, and of what is acceptable to God if it be
   performed as it ought to be, even as it is required. And if any ask,
   What it is of the mind and will of God that is declared and made known
   when men are commanded to believe for whom Christ did not die? I
   answer, first, What they ought to do, if they will do that which is
   acceptable to God; secondly, The sufficiency of salvation that is in
   Jesus Christ to all that believe on him; thirdly, The certain,
   infallible, inviolable connection that is between faith and salvation,
   so that whosoever performs the one shall surely enjoy the other, for
   whoever comes to Christ he will in no wise cast out. Of which more
   afterward.

   4. The ingrafted erroneous persuasion of the Jews, which for a while
   had a strong influence upon the apostles themselves, restraining
   salvation and deliverance by the Messiah, or promised seed, to
   themselves alone, who were the offspring of Abraham according to the
   flesh, must be considered as the ground of many general expressions and
   enlargements of the objects of redemption; which yet, being so
   occasioned, give no colour of any unlimited universality. That the Jews
   were generally infected with this proud opinion, that all the promises
   belonged only to them and theirs, towards whom they had a universality,
   exclusive of all others, whom they called “dogs, uncircumcised,” and
   poured out curses on them, is most apparent. Hence, when they saw the
   multitudes of the Gentiles coming to the preaching of Paul, they were
   “filled with envy, contradicting, blaspheming, and raising up
   persecution against them,” Acts xiii. 45–50; which the apostle again
   relates of them, 1 Thess. ii. 15, 16. “They please not God,” saith he,
   “and are contrary to all men; forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles
   that they might be saved;” being not with any thing more enraged in the
   preaching of our Saviour than his prediction of letting out his
   vineyard to others.

   That the apostles themselves, also, had deeply drunk in this opinion,
   learned by tradition from their fathers, appeareth, not only in their
   questioning about the restoration of the kingdom unto Israel, Acts i.
   6, but also most evidently in this, that after they had received
   commission to teach and baptize all nations, Matt. xxviii. 19, or every
   creature, Mark xvi. 15, and were endued with power from above so to do,
   according to promise, Acts i. 8; yet they seem to have understood their
   commission to have extended only to the lost sheep of the house of
   Israel, for they went about and preached only to the Jews, chap. xi.
   19: and when the contrary was evidenced and demonstrated to them, they
   glorified God, saying, “Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted
   repentance unto life,” verse 18; admiring at it, as a thing which
   before they were not acquainted with. And no wonder that men were not
   easily nor soon persuaded to this, it being the great mystery that was
   not made known in former ages, as it was then revealed to God’s holy
   apostles and prophets by the Spirit — namely, “That the Gentiles should
   be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in
   Christ by the gospel,” Eph. iii. 5, 6.

   But now, this being so made known unto them by the Spirit, and that the
   time was come wherein the little sister was to be considered, the
   prodigal brought home, and Japheth persuaded to dwell in the tents of
   Shem, they laboured by all means to root it out of the minds of their
   brethren according to the flesh, of whom they had a special care; — as
   also, to leave no scruple in the mind of the eunuch, that he was a dry
   tree; or of the Gentile, that he was cut off from the people of God. To
   which end they use divers general expressions, carrying a direct
   opposition to that former error, which was absolutely destructive to
   the kingdom of Jesus Christ. Hence are those terms of the world, all
   men, all nations, every creature, and the like, used in the business of
   redemption and preaching of the gospel; these things being not
   restrained, according as they supposed, to one certain nation and
   family, but extended to the universality of God’s people scattered
   abroad in every region under heaven. Especially are these expressions
   used by John, who, living to see the first coming of the Lord, in that
   fearful judgment and vengeance which he executed upon the Jewish nation
   some forty years after his death, is very frequent in the asserting of
   the benefit of the world by Christ, in opposition, as I said before, to
   the Jewish nation, — giving us a rule how to understand such phrases
   and locutions: John xi. 51, 52, “He signified that Jesus should die for
   that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also he should
   gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad;”
   conformably whereunto he tells the believing Jews that Christ is not a
   propitiation for them only, “but for the sins of the whole world,” 1
   John ii. 2, or the people of God scattered throughout the whole world,
   not tied to any one nation, as they sometime vainly imagined. And this
   may and doth give much light into the sense and meaning of those places
   where the words world and all are used in the business of redemption.
   They do not hold out a collective universality, but a general
   distribution into men of all sorts, in opposition to the
   before-recounted erroneous persuasion.

   5. The extent, nature, and signification of those general terms which
   we have frequently used indefinitely in the Scripture, to set out the
   object of the redemption by Christ, must seriously be weighed. Upon
   these expressions hangs the whole weight of the opposite cause, the
   chief if not the only argument for the universality of redemption being
   taken from words which seem to be of a latitude in their signification
   equal to such an assertion, as the world, the whole world, all, and the
   like; which terms, when they have once fastened upon, they run with,
   “Io triumphe,” as though the victory were surely theirs. The world, the
   whole world, all, all men! — who can oppose it? Call them to the
   context in the several places where the words are; appeal to rules of
   interpretation; mind them of the circumstances and scope of the place,
   the sense of the same words in other places; with other fore-named
   helps and assistances which the Lord hath acquainted us with for the
   discovery of his mind and will in his word, — they presently cry out,
   the bare word, the letter is theirs: “Away with the gloss and
   interpretation; give us leave to believe what the word expressly
   saith;” — little (as I hope) imagining, being deluded with the love of
   their own darling, that if this assertion be general, and they will not
   allow us the gift of interpretation agreeable to the proportion of
   faith, that, at one clap, they confirm the cursed madness of the
   Anthropomorphites, — assigning a human body, form and shape, unto God,
   who hath none; and the alike cursed figment of transubstantiation,
   overthrowing the body of Christ, who hath one; with divers other most
   pernicious errors. Let them, then, as long as they please, continue
   such empty clamours, fit to terrify and shake weak and unstable men;
   for the truth’s sake we will not be silent: and I hope we shall very
   easily make it appear that the general terms that are used in this
   business will indeed give no colour to any argument for universal
   redemption, whether absolute or conditionate.

   Two words there are that are mightily stuck upon or stumbled at; —
   first, The w