CHAPTER III – Scriptures Asserting the Immediate End of Christ’s Death
CHAPTER III – Scriptures Asserting the Immediate End of Christ's Death The immediate end of the death of Christ, with the several ways it is designed.
The introduction to this whole discourse laid down what the Scripture affirms to be the immediate end of Christ's death. Now, having clarified our sense and meaning in that regard more fully, the end must be more specifically asserted by applying particular passages to our thesis. This is the sum of our thesis: "Jesus Christ, according to the counsel and will of his
Father, offered himself on the cross, to procure those things recounted before. He makes continual intercession with the intent and purpose that all the good things procured by his death would be actually and infallibly bestowed on and applied to everyone for whom he died, according to the will and counsel of God." Let us now see what the Scripture says about this.
We will arrange the various passages under these groupings:
First, Those which show the intention and counsel of God, with our Savior's own mind, which was one with his Father's in this business.
Secondly, Those which lay down the actual effect of his oblation, what it really procured, effected, and produced.
Thirdly, Those which point out the persons for whom Christ died, the special objects of this work of redemption, as the end and purpose of God.
I. Those which show the intent of God In the first group, showing the counsel, purpose, mind, intention, and will of God and our Savior in this work, we have Matt. 18:11, "The Son of man is come to save what was lost." He repeats these words again in Luke 19:10.
First, the parable of the lost sheep In the first passage, they are in the front of the parable about seeking the lost sheep. In the other passage, they are in the close of the recovery of lost Zaccheus. And both passages present the purpose of Christ's coming, which was to do the will of his Father by recovering lost sinners.
Zaccheus was recovered by conversion, by bringing him into the free
covenant, and making him a son of Abraham. The lost sheep he lays upon his shoulder and brings it home. So, unless he finds what he seeks, unless he recovers what he comes to save, he fails in his purpose.
Secondly, the angel's declaration of Christ's purpose Matt. 1:21 is the same. The angel declares the purpose of Christ's coming in the flesh, and consequently of all his sufferings in the flesh. He was to "save his people from their sins." Whatever is required to completely and perfectly save his special people from their sins was what he intended by his coming. To say that he only effected the work of salvation in part or in some aspect, is an unfavorable report to Christian ears.
Thirdly, Paul's declaration of his purpose Paul gives a similar expression in 1Tim. 1:15. He clearly declares the purpose of our Savior's coming, according to the will and counsel of his
Father. It is to "save sinners." It is not to open a door for them to come in if they choose to. It is not to make a way possible, so that they may be saved. It is not to purchase reconciliation and pardon from his Father, which perhaps they will never enjoy. It is to actually save them from all the guilt and power of sin, and from the wrath of God for sin. If he does not accomplish this, then he fails in the purpose for which he came. But if that alarm is false and he has not failed, then surely he came only for those who are actually saved. The Father made a compact with his son. He made a promise to him of "seeing his seed, and carrying along the pleasure of the LORD prosperously," Isa. 53:10-12. From this, it is apparent that the decree and the purpose of actually giving a believing generation to Christ, whom he calls "The children that God gave him," Heb. 2:13, is inseparably attached to the decree of Christ's "making his soul an offering for sin." And therefore, saving those who the Father gave him is the end and the aim of that decree.
Fourthly, the declaration in Hebrews As the apostle further declares in Heb. 2:14,15, "Just as the children are flesh and blood, he likewise became flesh and blood; that through death he might destroy the one who had the power of death, that is, the devil; and
deliver those who through fear of death," etc. Nothing can more clearly state the purpose of that whole dispensation of the incarnation and offering of Jesus Christ than those words. It is to deliver the children whom God gave him from the power of death, hell, and the devil, thus bringing them near to God. There is nothing at all mentioned of purchasing a possible deliverance for everyone. No, all are not those children which God gave him. All are not delivered from death and the one with the power of death. And therefore it was not all for whom he took on flesh and blood.
Fifthly, the declaration in Ephesians We have the same purpose and intent in Eph. 5:25-27: "Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it, so that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, and that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having a spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." And again in Tit. 2:14,
"He gave himself for us, so that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify a special people for himself, zealous of good works." I think nothing can be clearer than these two passages. Nor is it possible for the wit of man to as fully and lively express our argument, as it is expressed in both these passages by the Holy Ghost. What did Christ do? "He gave himself," say both these passages alike: "For his church," says one; "For us," says the other. Both words have equal extent and force, as all men know. For what purpose did he do this? "To sanctify and cleanse it, to present it to himself a glorious church, not having a spot or wrinkle," he says to the Ephesians. "To redeem us from all iniquity, and to purify a special people for himself, zealous of good works," he says to Titus. I ask now, do all men belong to this church? Do all belong to that group of men among whom Paul places himself and Titus? Are all purged, purified, sanctified, made glorious, and brought near to Christ? Or does Christ fail in his aim towards a great part of mankind? I dare not embrace any of these.
Sixthly, Christ's own declaration recorded in John
Our Savior Christ himself expresses this more evidently. He restricts the object of his sacrifice, declaring his whole design and purpose, and affirming the purpose of his death. In John 17:19 we read, "For their sakes
I sanctify myself, so that they also might be sanctified through the truth."
"For their sakes," he says. For whose sake, I ask? "The men whom you have given me out of the world," John 17:6. It is not the whole world; for he did not pray for the whole world, verse 9. "I sanctify myself." For what? "For the work I am now engaged in, to be an oblation." And to what end? "That they also may be truly sanctified." The phrase signifies the intent and purpose of Christ. It describes the end he aimed at, and which we hope he has accomplished for it is the hope of the gospel as well. "For the Deliverer that comes out of Zion turns away ungodliness from Jacob," Rom. 11:26. And in this he concurred with the will of his
Father, for his purpose was to do and to fulfill the will of his Father.
Seventhly, the declaration in Galatians It is apparent from Gal. 1:4 that this was his Father's counsel, 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." His will and purpose is further declared in Gal. 4:4-6, "God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive the adoption of sons." Because we are sons, we are delivered from the law, and thereby freed from the guilt of sin. Being adopted as sons, receiving the Spirit, and drawing near to God, are all part of the Father's purpose in giving his only Son for us.
Eighthly, the declaration in 2Corinthians I will add only one more passage of the many that might be cited, and that is 2Cor. 5:21, "He has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, so that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." The purpose of God, in making his Son to be sin, is so that those for whom he was made sin might become his righteousness. That was God's purpose for sending
Christ to be made sin, and the reason Christ was willing to become so.
Now, if it was the Lord's purpose that universal salvation not be fulfilled, and he knew it would never be fulfilled, and he would not work to fulfill it, then he must have made Christ to be sin only for those who would actually become righteousness in him as an effect of his death. So it is
apparent from these passages that Christ's purpose and intention was to fulfill the counsel and will of God, by his own oblation and bloodshedding.
From all of this we draw this conclusion: What the Father and the Son intended to accomplish for all those for whom Christ died, was most certainly effected by his death. And what was effected was this: they are all redeemed, purged, sanctified, purified, delivered from death, from Satan, from the curse of the law, released from the guilt of sin, made righteousness in Christ, and brought near to God. Therefore, Christ died for all those, but only those, in whom all these things are effected. Whether they are all effected in everyone for whom he died, I leave for others to judge who know of these things.
II. Those which lay down the actual effect of his oblation The second group contains those passages which lay down the actual accomplishment and effect of this oblation, what it really produces and effects in those for whom it is made. It includes Heb. 9:12, 14: "By his own blood he entered once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us...., The blood of Christ, who offered himself without spot to God through the eternal Spirit, shall purge your consciences from dead works to serve the living God." Two things are ascribed to the blood of Christ here. One refers to God: "It obtains eternal redemption." The other refers to us: "It purges our consciences from dead works." So justification with God is the immediate product of that blood by which he entered the holy place, and of that oblation which he presented to God. He procured for us an eternal redemption from the guilt of our sins and his Father's wrath caused by our sins. It includes sanctification in ourselves ("purging our sins," Heb. 1:3). Indeed, this meritorious purging of our sins is specifically ascribed to his offering, performed before his ascension: Heb. 1:3, "When he had purged our sins, he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." And it is expressly mentioned again in Heb. 9:26: "He has appeared to put away sin by sacrificing himself." This expiation (putting away sin by a sacrifice) necessarily and actually sanctifies those for whom Christ was a sacrifice. It does so just as "the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for purifying the flesh," Heb. 9:13.
54 It is certain that whoever was either polluted or guilty because of sin, and for whom an expiation and sacrifice was allowed by such physical ordinances, truly acquired the following:
Such earthly sacrifices were a "shadow of good things to come."
First, sanctification This is a legal cleansing and sanctifying; a purifying of the flesh.
Secondly, freedom from punishment They had freedom from the punishment that was due for breaching the law. This is because the law was the rule of life for God's people. The sacrifice physically accomplished this freedom from punishment for the one who was permitted such an expiation.
Now, because they were only "shadows of good things to come," Christ's sacrifice certainly effected spiritually what these earthly sacrifices typified; and it did so for all those for whom the sacrifice was made. It effected spiritual cleansing by sanctification, and it effected freedom from the guilt of sin. These passages evidently prove it. Whether this is accomplished in all, and for all, let those who are able judge.
Again, by his death, Christ is said to "bear our sins," 1Pet. 2:24. In this passage we have both what he did, "bore our sins" (he carried them up with him upon the cross); and what he intended, "That we being dead to sins, should live to righteousness." And what was the effect? "By his stripes we are healed." This effect of healing is taken from the same passage where our Savior is affirmed to "bear our iniquities, and to have them laid upon him" (Isa. 53:5, 6, 10-12). So it is expository of 1Pet.2:24, and will tell us what Christ did by "bearing our sins." This phrase is used more than once in the Scripture for this purpose. Christ bore our iniquities by his death in such a way that, by virtue of the stripes and afflictions he underwent in offering himself for us, he certainly procured and effected our freedom so that we would not suffer any of those things that he underwent for us. You may also refer to all those passages which evidently show a commutation of suffering between Christ and us. For example,
Gal. 3:13: "He delivered us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us."
Thirdly, peace and reconciliation with God That is, actual peace, achieved by the removal of all enmity on both sides, along with all its causes, is fully ascribed to this oblation: Col. 1:21, 22,
"And you, who were sometimes alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, he has now reconciled in his fleshly body through death, to present you holy, unblamable, and unaccused in his sight." Also Eph.
2:13-16, "You who sometimes were far off are made near by the blood of Christ: for he is our peace; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, caused by the law of commandments, so that he might reconcile both to God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby."
Add to these all those passages which likewise assert, as the fruit of his death, complete deliverance from anger, wrath, death, and the one who had the power of death. In Rom. 5:8-10, we see that the immediate effect of Christ's death is peace and reconciliation, deliverance from wrath, enmity, and whatever lies against us to keep us from enjoying the love and favor of God. Christ effected a redemption from all these things for his church "with his own blood," Acts 20:28. And thus, everyone for whom he died may truly say, "Who shall lay anything to our charge? It is God that justifies. Who is the one who condemns? It is Christ that died, rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, and who also makes intercession for us," Rom. 8:33, 84. It cannot be shown that these things are procured for every one of the sons of Adam, nor that they all may rejoice in full assurance of it. And yet it is evident that they were procured for all those for whom he died, and that they are the effects of his death for them. For by being slain "he redeemed them to God by his blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and made them kings and priests to our God," Rev. 5:9, 10. "He made an end of their sins, he made reconciliation for their iniquity, and he brought in everlasting righteousness," Dan. 9:24.
Fourthly, life and eternal glory for his sheep We may also include those other passages where our life is ascribed to the death of Christ, such as John 6:33: He "came down from heaven to give life to the world." Sure enough, he gives life to that world for which he gave his life. It is the world of "his sheep, for which he lays down his life," John 10:15, so that he might "give eternal life to them, that they
might never perish," 10:28. He appeared "to abolish death, and to bring life and immortality to light," 2Tim. 1:10. See also Rom. 5:6-10.
Now, none of these passages in itself is sufficient against the assertion of a general ransom, or the universality of the merit of Christ. But I will take from the whole of them this general argument: The death and oblation of Jesus Christ (as a sacrifice to his Father) sanctifies all those for whom it was intended as a sacrifice. It purges their sin. It redeems them from wrath, curse, and guilt. It produces peace and reconciliation with God for them. It procures life and immortality for them. It bears their iniquities, and heals all their diseases. If all of these are the actual effects upon those for whom he died, then Christ died only for those who are actually sanctified by his death, who are in fact purged, redeemed, justified, freed from wrath and death, quickened, saved, etc. But it is obvious that all are not sanctified, freed, etc. Therefore, all cannot be the proper object of the death of Christ.
This supposition was confirmed before. The inference is plain from Scripture and experience. And (if I am not mistaken) the whole argument is solid.
III. Those which show for whom Christ died: the elect There are many passages that point out the persons for whom Christ died, who are specifically designed to be the object of this work of redemption, according to the aim and purpose of God. In some passages these persons are called "many." "The blood of the new testament is shed for many, for the remission of sins," Matt. 26:28. "By his knowledge my righteous servant shall justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities," Isa. 53:11.
"The Son of man came not to be ministered to, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many," Mark 10:45; Matt. 20:28. He was to "bring many sons into glory;" and so he was to be the "captain of their salvation, through sufferings," Heb. 2:10. The mere use of the word many is not sufficient to restrict the object of Christ's death to some rather than all, because sometimes it does mean all, as Rom. 5:19.
56 Yet the word many is used in other passages in a way that certainly does not mean all. These many are the "sheep" of Christ, John 10:15; the "children of God that were scattered abroad," John 11:52; those whom our Savior calls "brethren,"
Heb. 2:11; "the children that God gave him," which were "partakers of flesh and blood," verses 13, 14. And frequently, the many are "those who were given unto him of his Father," John 17:2, 6, 9, 11, who will certainly be preserved. They are the "sheep" of which he was the "Shepherd, through the blood of the everlasting covenant," Heb. 13:20; his "elect," Rom. 8:33; and his "people," Matt. 1:21, who are further explained to be his "visited and redeemed people," Luke 1:68. They are the people which he
"foreknew," Rom. 11:2; those who he is said to have had at Corinth before their conversion; his people by election, Acts 18:10; the people that he
"suffered for outside the gate, that he might sanctify them," Heb. 13:12.
They are his "church, which he redeemed by his own blood," Acts 20:28, which "he loved and gave himself for," Eph. 5:25; the "many" whose sins he took away, Heb. 9:28, and with whom he made a covenant, Dan. 9:27.
The many being thus described, are qualified in a way that cannot be common to all. The word can only refer properly to the elect in these passages. It most clearly appears to refer to all and only those who are chosen of God to obtain eternal life through the offering and bloodshedding of Jesus Christ. Many claim with confidence and clamor to have objections. They are easily removed. And so you see the end of the death of Christ, as presented in Scripture.
To gain a clearer understanding, we must remove the objections that are used to escape the force of the argument drawn from the Scripture. Some reply that our "reason," as it is called, is "weak and of no force, equivocal, subtle, fraudulent, false, ungodly, deceitful, and erroneous." These epithets are used as an adornment in "Universality of Free Grace," by Thomas
Moore, page 16. Now, this weaving of such a variety of terms (as I see it) only serves to reveal the unlearned eloquence of the author. The use of such terrible names is a strong indicator of a weak cause. When the Pharisees were not able to resist the spirit by which our Savior spoke, they called him
"devil and Samaritan." Waters that make noise are usually shallow. It is a proverb among the Scythians, that the "dogs which bark most bite least."
But let us hear him speak in his own language.
Moore's Objections:
The word "many" means all men.
He says, "First, this reason [that many does not mean all] is weak and of no force; for the word 'many' is often used to signify all and every man. It also amplifies or indicates the greatness of that number; as in Dan. 12:2, Rom.
5:19, and other passages, where many cannot be understood by any Christian to mean less than all men."
Reply:
1. If the proof were taken merely from the word many, and not from the context in which it is used, and assuming that all men are distinguished into several sorts by God's purpose, then this exception would bear some color.
If some person were to divide the inhabitants of a place like London into poor and rich, those who want and those who abound, and that person said he would bestow his bounty on many in London who are poor, he will easily be understood to bestow it only on the poor.
2. Neither of the quoted passages proves that many must necessarily mean all. In Dan. 12:2, 57 the word applies to several parts of the affirmation. It is not to be applied to the whole. And so the sense is that the dead will arise, many to life, and many to shame, as it would have been expressed in another language. Such Hebraisms are not unusual. Besides, it is not improbable that many are said to awake to life, because, as the apostle, says, "All shall not die." The same may be said of Rom. 5:19.
58 Although many seems to mean all there, it cannot be intended to "amplify" the number, as Moore puts it. That is, the number of those who died by Adam's disobedience are not compared to the number of those who were made alive by Christ's righteousness. The comparison is between the effects of Adam's sin and the effects of Christ's righteousness. It compares the way death is communicated by the one, and life is communicated by the other. The number of participants in these effects is not considered.
3. I am confident that our author cannot produce the other passages he claims to have in abundance to confirm his case. These are the ones that are commonly urged by Arminians in support of their argument. But if he could produce them, they would not be material to our argument, as was said before.
Christ's death is for more ends than propitiation "Secondly, this reason," Moore adds, "is equivocal, subtle, and fraudulent.
It affirms that the death of Christ, which is for all men and every man, is
assumed only as the ransom and propitiation for them, along with their fruits. But where the word many is used in any passage on this subject, there are more ends of the death of Christ intended than this one."
Reply:
1. It is denied that any passage of Scripture says the death of Christ is for "all men" or "every man," despite his confident supposition that it is an acknowledged thing.
2. It is utterly false that there is any other end of the death of Christ besides the fruit of his ransom and propitiation, whether it is directly or indirectly intended. Indeed, what other end can the ransom paid by Christ and the atonement made by him have besides their fruits? The end or outcome of any work is the same as its fruit, effect, or product.
59 So the wild distinction Moore makes by asserting that the ransom and propitiation of Christ, along with their fruits, are for all, while the other ends of his death are only for many, is neither equivocal, subtle, nor fraudulent? But I speak to what I think Moore means, for his words themselves make no sense.
3. He observes that where the word "many" is used, many ends are intended; but it would seem that where the word "all" is used, only the ransom is intimated.
(1.) This is disadvantageous to the author's whole argument. He is saying that where many are mentioned, all cannot be understood as the meaning, because more ends of the death of Christ are intimated than belong to all.
And so he must confess that all the other answers he gives to prove that the word many means all, are contrary to this particular one.
(2.) It is frivolous. It cannot be proved that there are more ends of the death of Christ than the fruit of his ransom.
(3.) It is false. Where the death of Christ is spoken of as being for many, he is said to "give his life a ransom" for them, Matt. 20:28. These are the very words used where he is said to die for all, 1Tim. 2:6. What difference is there between these two phrases? What ground does Moore have for his observation? This is similar to his other observations. His whole tenth chapter is spent proving that, wherever the redemption purchased by Christ's oblation is mentioned, the ones for whom it is purchased are always spoken of in the third person, using words like "all the world." Yet
in chapter 1 of his book, he produces many passages to prove general redemption, where the persons for whom Christ suffers are spoken of in the first or second person, 1Pet. 2:24, 3:18; Isa. 53:6, 6; 1Cor. 15:3; Gal.
3:13, etc.
Scripture does not say the ransom is paid only for his sheep Thirdly, Moore proceeds, "This reason is false and ungodly. Nowhere in Scripture is it said that Christ died or gave himself a ransom only for many, or only for his sheep; and it is ungodliness to add to or diminish from the word of God in Scripture."
Reply: Ignoring the loving terms of the author, and allowing a grain of what he says to make sense, I say, 60 He is said to die for his "church."
First, Christ affirms that he gave his life for "many," for his "sheep."
61 And countless passages of Scripture witness that all men are not his sheep, nor of his church.
62 And by just and undeniable consequence of these facts, we argue and conclude that he did not die for those who are not his sheep or of his church. This is only an exposition and unfolding of God's mind in his word. If this is adding to his word, then who can speak from the word of God and be guiltless?
Secondly, observe that in the very place where our Savior says he "gave his life for his sheep," he presently adds that some are not his sheep, John
10:26. If that is not equivalent to giving his life for his sheep only, I do not know what is.
Thirdly, it is an easy thing to recriminate.
Fourthly, he says, "The reason is deceitful and erroneous, for the Scripture nowhere says, 'The many he died for are his sheep' (much less his elect, as the reason intends it). As for John 10:15, the place usually cited to support this assertion, it is abused. Our Savior, in John 10, did not present the difference between those he did and those he did not die for, or for so and so, but between those who do and those who do not believe on him, verses
4, 5, 14, 26, 27. One hears his voice and follows him, the other does not.
Nor did our Savior list here the privileges of all he died for, but only of those who believe on him through the ministration of the gospel. Through the gospel and believing on him, they know him, and approach God, and enter the kingdom by him, verses 8, 4, 9, 27. Nor was our Savior presenting
the excellence of those for whom he died, as being preferred above others.
He was presenting the excellence of his own love, with the fruits of that love for those not only that he died for, but also that are brought in by his ministration to believe on him, verses 11, 27. Nor was our Savior speaking so much about his ransom-giving and propitiation-making, as he was about his love and faithfullness through the ministration of the gospel. For this reason, he laid down his life for those who are ministered to. In doing so, he gave us an example of testifying to love in suffering, not making a propitiation for sin."
Reply: It can only the need of our times that keeps the reader from censuring me for considering and transcribing such canting lines as these.
But because they are all we have, we must be content, despite their incongruous expressions, incoherent structure, and cloudy phrasing. They tend to raise such a fog that the business in hand may not be perceived, becoming lost in smoke and vapor.
The argument Moore has undertaken to answer is that Christ died for "many," and those many are described as his "sheep," John 10. What answer, I pray, can be plucked from this confused heap of words that we recited? So that I might safely bypass his whole evasion without letting any of his points stick, I will give a few annotations to answer his remarks.
First, John 10 is not at all abused. It is evident that our Savior differentiates between those for whom he died and those for whom he did not. He calls the first his "sheep," 10:15. They are those to whom he would "give eternal life," verse 28. They are the ones "given him by his Father," 17:9. Evidently he distinguishes them from others who were not his sheep, who would not receive eternal life, and who were not given to him by his Father. It is immaterial what his primary intention was in this passage, and we do not argue it. But from the intent and aim of the words that he uses, and the truth he reveals to advance it, his purpose was to console believers.
Secondly, as for the difference between those he did and those he did not die "for so and so," we confess there is none. This "so and so" does not express or intimate anything suitable to any purpose of God, nor to any intent of our Savior in this business. To those for whom he died, he died in the same manner, and for the same purpose.
Thirdly, we deny that the primary difference made by our Savior here is between believers and non-believers. It is between the elect and non-elect, those who are his sheep and those who are not. The difference is that the one is enabled to believe, called "hearing his voice and knowing him," and the other is not.
63 Believing and not believing is based on their different conditions with regard to God's purpose and Christ's love. This is apparent from the antithesis we are given in verses 26 and 27, "You do not believe, because you are not my sheep," and, "My sheep hear my voice." A distinction is made between believing and hearing. And the foundation of this distinction is their condition. The one condition is being his sheep, who hear and believe. They are the ones whom he loved, and gave his life for.
And the other condition is not being his sheep. Consequently, they do not hear or believe. They are the ones whom he did not love, and did not give his life for.
Fourthly, It is not relevant to the issue what privileges our Savior expresses here. The only question is for whom he says he would give his life. Second, the frequent repetition of that useless phrase "so and so" serves only to puzzle the reader. Third, we deny that Christ died for anyone except those who will certainly be brought to him by the ministration of the gospel.
There are not two groups of saved persons, those for whom he died, and those who are brought in to him. He died for his sheep, and his sheep hear his voice. Those for whom he died, and those who come in to him, may receive different qualifications, but they are not separate groups.
Fifthly, the question is not why our Savior makes mention of his death here, but for whom he died. He expressly says he died for his "sheep," which all are not.
64 Second, his intention is to declare giving his life for a ransom, and that is done according to the "commandment received of his Father," John
10:18.
Sixthly, Jesus Christ's "love and faithfullness in the ministration of the gospel," that is, performing the office of the mediator of the new covenant, are only seen in giving his life for a ransom, John 15:13.
66 Second, There is not one word here about giving us an "example." Although in laying down his life he also did that, the text is not a proof for that purpose. From these brief annotations, it should be apparent that Moore's discourse is nothing
but a miserable mistaking of the text and the question. As a result, he adds various other evasions, which follow.
"Besides," he says, "the opposition here appears to be not so much between elect and not elect, as between Jews called and Gentiles uncalled."
Reply: The comparison is between sheep and not-sheep, and that refers to their election, not to their vocation.
67 Whom would Moore signify by "not sheep"? He says it is the Gentiles who were not called. That is against the text that says it is the sheep, though not yet called, John 10:16.
68 And who are called? He says it is the Jews. It is true that they were outwardly called at that point; yet many of them were not sheep, 10:26.
69 This argument is an evasion from the force of truth, supported by a foul corrupting of the word of God. As such, it is no small provocation to the eye of God's glory. But Moore adds, "Besides, in Scripture there is a great difference between sheep, and the sheep of his flock and pasture, which he speaks of here, verses 4, 5, 11,
15, 16."
Reply:
1. This false distinction would no doubt shed a great deal of light on the business in hand, if anyone knew how to explain it well enough.
2. If there is a distinction, it can only be that the "sheep" are those who are only sheep to Christ by his Father's donation; and the "sheep of his pasture" are those who are actually brought home to Christ by the effectual working of the Spirit.
If that is the distinction, then we would find both sorts of sheep mentioned in this chapter: verse 16 ("I have other sheep" given to me) and verse 27
("My sheep hear my voice, and … follow me" in response to the Spirit).
Together, they comprise those sheep for whom he gave his life, and those to whom he gives life. But Moore proceeds:
"The sheep in 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 ministers and communicates the Spirit."
Reply:
1. The substance of this and other exceptions is that "sheep" means believers. This is contrary to verse 16 which calls those who are not yet gathered into his fold "sheep" ("I have other sheep…").
2. Saying that his sheep are not mentioned as those for whom he died is a contradiction of verse 15 which says, "I lay down my life for my sheep."
3. There is no more difference between those for whom he died, and those whom he brings in by the ministration of his Spirit, than there is between Peter, James, and John, and the three apostles who attended our Savior's transfiguration. This is childish sophistry.
71 It begs the question, substituting an opposing opinion for an actual answer.
4. If we accept what is mentioned here, then "to believe and enjoy the benefit of Christ's death" is a special fruit of that death.
72 Either it will most certainly be conferred on all those for whom he died, or his death will do them no good at all.
Once more from Mr. Moore, and we are done:
"Besides, there are more purposes for his death mentioned here than just ransom or propitiation, and yet it does not say, 'only for his sheep.' But when ransom or propitiation only is mentioned, it does say, 'for all men.'
So this reason that it is only for his sheep appears weak, fraudulent, ungodly, and erroneous."
Reply:
1. There are no more purposes intimated for the death of Christ here, than what was accomplished by his being a propitiation, and being made a ransom for us, with the fruits which certainly and infallibly spring from that.
2. If more ends than that one are mentioned here, and they do not belong to all, then why does Mr. Moore deny that Christ speaks here only of his sheep?
3. I do not know where it says his ransom is "for all men." But I am sure it says that Christ did "give his life a ransom," and that is only mentioned where it is not said to be for all, but for "many," as in Matt. 20:28 and Mark
10:45.
And so, from these brief annotations, I hope any unbiased reader will be able to judge whether the reason that Mr. Moore opposes should be considered "weak, fraudulent, ungodly, and erroneous" based on the exceptions devised against it.
Although I fear that I have already encroached on the reader's patience, I cannot let pass another of Mr. Moore's discourses without marking it and making an observation. It immediately follows the exceptions we just removed. He has a great ability to set up a straw man by which to manifest his skill in directing it. In addition to the preceding discourse he adds another exception to universal redemption. It is made against the general understanding of the Scriptural text, in the way and sense in which he conceives them instead. And his exception is this,
"Those words were fit for the time of Christ and his apostles, and had another meaning than they now seem to have."
Having set up and gaily trimmed this man of straw, an effigy of something that I dare say no one ever argued, he charges it with numerous errors, blasphemies, and lies, exclaimed in vehement outcries, until his straw man tumbles to the ground. If he had not sometimes answered an argument, he would have been thought a most unhappy disputant. Now, to make sure he could do it, I believe he was very careful to frame the objections in a way that would not be too strong for him to obliterate. How blind are those who admire him as a combatant, when he is skillful only at fencing with his own shadow! A great part of Mr. Moore's book is stuffed with such empty janglings as these, proving what no one denies, and answering what no one objects.