|
|
CHAPTER
8
By
what was said in the last chapter, it clearly appears 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 does 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 Savior
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 does 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 color 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,”
Matthew 20:28, 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 Timothy 2:5; and
more special, as he is ‘the mediator of the new testament,
that they which are called might receive the promise of eternal
inheritance’ Hebrews 9:15. According to that it is said,
‘He is the Savior of all men, specially of those that
believe,’ 1 Timothy 4:10. 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 honor of Jesus Christ that he should be
the mediator of a canceled covenant? Is it not contrary to
Scripture, affirming ‘him a “surety” (not of the
first, but) “of a better testament?” Hebrews 7:22. Are
not such bold assertors fitter to be catechized 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 dad
the ill-hap so poorly to make out his conceptions. Wherefore,
being in some measure acquainted with their occasions, which they
color 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 20:28; 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,” Ephesians 5:25-27.
They
were his “sheep” he “laid down his life for,”
John 10:15; and “appeareth in heaven for us,” Hebrews
9:24. 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,” Hebrews 2:14; not because all
the world were so. Look upon his oblation: “For their
sakes,” saith he, (“those whom thou hast given
me,”) “dolsanctify myself,” John 17:19; that is,
to be an oblation, which was the work he had then in hand. Look
upon his resurrection:
“He
was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our
justification,” Romans 4:25.
Look
upon his ascension: “I go,” saith he, “to my
Father and your Father, and that to prepare a place for
you,” John 14:2. Look upon his perpetuated intercession. Is
it not to “save to the uttermost them that come unto God by
him?” Hebrews 7:25. 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
17:9.
But
let us see what is brought to confirm this distinction. 1 Timothy
2:5 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
Timothy 4:10, “Who is the Savior 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
Savior 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 Savior 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,” sw>seiv ku>rie, rendering the Hebrew, [1vi/T
by sw>seiv, “Thou shalt save or preserve.” It is
God, then, that is here called the “Savior 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 17:28; Psalm
145:14-16), so that he will not suffer any to be injured and
unrevenged, Genesis 9:5, so is he especially the preserver of
them that do believe; for they are as the apple of his eye,
Zechariah 2:8; Deuteronomy 32:10. 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 Savior of them who are never
saved, to whom he never gives grace to believe, for whom be
denies to intercede, John 17:9; which yet is no small part of his
mediation whereby he saves sinners. Neither the subject, then,
nor the predicate proposition, “He is the Savior 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
Corinthians 1:9,10:
“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
Savior 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 labors
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 Savior of, —
1.
Those who are never saved from their sins, as he saves his
people, Matthew 1:21; —
2.
Of those who never hear one word of saving or a Savior; —
3.
That he should be a Savior in a twofold sense, —
(1.)
For all,
(2.)
For believers; —
4.
That to believe is the condition whereby Christ becomes a Savior
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 Judaeus Apella:” To me nothing is
more certain than that to whom Christ is in any sense a Savior 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, “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, Isaiah 53:12; as once, Luke 23:34; as himself left a
pattern to us, John 21:21-23; that so the men of the world might
be convinced, and the convinced allured to Christ and to God in
him, Matthew 5:14-16; yea, so as that he doth in some measure
enlighten every man that cometh into the world, John 1:9. 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 sumbebhko>n, 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 Savior 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 11:42.
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 bears him, John 11:42. 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 Savior 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,
Psalm 2:8. 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, Isaiah 53:12, “He made
intercession for the transgressors,” are insisted on. —
Ans. The transgressors here, for whom our Savior 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,
Isaiah 53:6, 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 23:34, “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 3:17, 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 Savior 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 2:25; yea, he “knew from the beginning
who they were that believed not,” John 6:64. Now, it is
contrary to the rule which we have, 1 John 5:16, “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 3, of them whom Peter
tells, that they “denied the Holy One, and desired a
murderer,” Acts 3:14, “and killed the Prince of
Life,” Acts 3:15, — of these, I say, five thousand
believed: chap. :44, “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 Savior 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,”
Acts 6:7. So that nothing can possibly be hence inferred for the
purpose intended.
Seventhly,
We may, nay we must, grant a twofold praying in our Savior-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 Savior was
bound to forgive offenses 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: Matthew 5:44,
“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, Leviticus 19:18,
“Thou
shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy
people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,”
—
quite contrary to the wicked gloss put upon it by the Pharisees.
And in this sense our Savior 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 17:21-23 is urged to confirm this general intercession,
which we have exploded; our Savior 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, Matthew 11:25, 26.
Secondly,
Such a gloss or interpretation must not be put upon the place as
should run cross to the express words of our Savior, John 17:9,
“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, John 17:21, and knowing, John 17:23, 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, Matthew 5:15, 16
(containing some instructions given by our Savior 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, John 1:9, 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 defense 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, Hebrews 2:9, 9:26; John
1:29; 1 John 2:2; — 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, Hebrews 9:14, 15; Matthew 26:28.”
(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, Hebrews 9:14,
15; Matthew 26:28.
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, Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14.
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 prw~ton
yeu~dov of the whole book.
3.
Christ’s offering himself to put away sin, out of Hebrews
9:26, [you make to be] the place for the first end of the death
of Christ, and his sledding of his blood for the remission of
sins, from Matthew 26:8, 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 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 Hebrews 9:26; John 1:29. 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 1:9 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 Hebrews 2:9, 1 John
2:2, 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 color 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.