CHAPTER VIII – Objections to a Single Means
CHAPTER VIII – Objections to a Single Means
Objections to the former proposal are answered.
By what was said in the last chapter, it clearly appears that the oblation and intercession of Christ have equal compass and extent with regard to their objects. And their shared objects are the persons for whom he offered himself once, and continually intercedes for. And so, his oblation and intercession are to be looked on as one joint means to attain a certain proposed end. What that end is will be considered next. But because I find there are some who object to the former truth, I must remove their objections before I proceed. I will do that "as a man removes dung until it is all gone," 1 Kgs. 14:10.
The sum of one of our former arguments was this: sacrifice and intercession both belong to the same person, as high priest. Our Savior is the most absolute, and indeed, the only true high priest. In him are found all those perfections which others received only as a weak and typical representation.
And he performs both sacrifice and intercession on behalf of those for whom he is high priest.
General Arguments in favor of Universal Redemption.
I. He died for all, but only intercedes for the church.
I find that some propose an objection to universalism not unlike this: "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 ones.
Therefore his ransom only pertains to them."
The intent and meaning of this argument is the same as what we proposed:
Christ offered nothing for those for whom he is not a priest, and he is a priest only for those for whom he also intercedes. If I have occasion to use this argument later, then I will give more weight and strength to it than it seems to have as stated. The interest of those who make this argument is to present their case as inoffensively as possible, so they may seem to have dispensed with it fairly. But let us look at the evasion, such as it is.
26, said "This is a sober objection." At first I imagined this friendly reply was because he found the argument kind, and easy to be satisfied. But in reading the answer, I found that, far from what was pretended, it only served to vent some new, weak, and false conceptions. Usually what I hear from him in response to other arguments is, "This is horrid, that is blasphemy, detestable, abominable, and false," phrases which can neither be endured nor avoided from those of his persuasion. After awhile, I realized that the reason for his friendly reply was intimated in its first words. What he meant was that "this objection does not deny the death of Christ for all men, but only his ransom and mediation for all men."
One who answered this argument Now, truly, if this is so, then I disagree with his judgment. It is not a "sober objection," and I cannot be persuaded that any man in his right wits would propose it. That Christ would die for all, and yet not be a ransom for all, despite affirming that he came to "give his life a ransom for many," Matt.
20:28, is to me a plain contradiction. The first and most widespread understanding of the death of Christ is that it is a ransom. Indeed, do not this man and those of the same persuasion make the ransom as extensive as the death of Christ? Or do they further distinguish and divide the ends of the death of Christ? As we have already heard from them: "He does not intercede for all for whom he paid a ransom." Would they also say that he did not pay a ransom for all for whom he died? Who, then, were those others for whom he died, if the very purpose of his death was to pay a ransom? Those others must be beyond all and every man, for they indeed contend that Christ paid a ransom for all.
27 But let us see what he says further. In so easy a cause as this, it is a shame to take advantage.
"The answer to this objection," he says, "is easy and plain in the Scripture, for the mediation of Christ is both more general and more special. It is more general, because he is the 'one mediator between God and men,'
1Tim. 2:5; and it is more special, because he is 'the mediator of the New Testament, so that those who are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance' Heb. 9:15. According to that, it is said, 'He is the Savior of all men, specially of those who believe,' 1Tim 4:10.
28 So in all the offices of Christ, the priest, prophet, and king, there is something that is more general, and more special, and unique."
And this is what he calls a clear and plain answer from the Scripture. He leaves how it applies to the argument to our conjecture. As far as I can conceive, this must be its application: it is true that Christ paid a ransom only for those for whom he is a mediator and priest; but Christ should be considered in two ways: first, as a general mediator and priest for all; and secondly, as a special mediator and priest for some. He pays the ransom as a general mediator, and intercedes as a special mediator.
I assume this is some part of his meaning. In itself, the explanation is so barbarous and remote from common sense, and its substance is such a wild, unChristian madness, that contempt would far better suit it than a reply. The truth is, why should we expect sense and clear expression from those who leap from their manual trades to the office of preaching and writing?
29 It is impossible to lament too much that madness in such tattered rags is entertained, while sober truth is shut out of doors. What, I pray you, is the meaning of this distinction that, "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 a mediator of something other than the new testament? A mediator does not mediate for one. All mediation concerns an agreement between several parties. Every mediator is the mediator of a covenant. Now, if Christ is a mediator of some covenant beyond the new covenant, then, I ask you, what covenant was that? The covenant of works? Would not such an assertion defeat the whole gospel?
Would it not be derogatory to the honor of Jesus Christ to be the mediator of a canceled covenant? Is it not contrary to Scripture to affirm "him a surety" of the first, instead "of a better testament?" Heb. 7:22.
Those who make such bold assertions are better fitted to be catechized than to preach. But we must not let it pass. The man harps upon something that he has heard from some Arminian doctor, though he has laid out his conceptions poorly. Therefore, being somewhat acquainted with how they color those texts of Scripture that are used here, I will briefly remove the poor shift, so that our former argument may stand unshaken.
I have already declared the poverty of the answer. Some have distinguished the fruits of Christ's mediation into those which are more general, and those which are more specific. In some sense, this may be tolerable. But saying the same of the offices of Christ, and Christ himself in relation to them, is a gross misrepresentation. We deny that there is any such general mediation,
or general function of Christ's office, that would extend beyond his church or chosen ones.
It was his "church" which he "redeemed with his own blood," Acts 20:28. It was his "church" that "he loved and gave himself for, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, so that he might present it to himself a glorious church," Eph. 5:25-27. They were his
"sheep" that he "laid down his life for," John 10:15, and that he "appears in heaven for," Heb. 9:24. There is not one word in the Scripture about mediating for anyone else.
Look at his incarnation. It was "because the children were partakers of flesh and blood," Heb. 2:14, not because everyone in the world was a partaker.
Look at his oblation: "For their sakes," he says, ("those whom you have given me,") "l sanctify myself," John 17:19; that is, he sanctifies himself to be an oblation for them. That was the work he then had in hand.
Look at his resurrection: "He was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification," Rom. 4:25.
Look at his ascension: "I go," says he, "to my Father and your Father, and that to prepare a place for you," John 14:2.
Look at his perpetual intercession. Is it not to "completely save those who come to God by him?" Heb. 7:25.
There is not one word of this general mediation for all. If you will hear him, Christ denies in plain terms that he mediates for all: "I do not pray for the world, but for those whom you have given me," John 17:9.
Let us see what is presented to confirm such a general mediation. 1Tim. 2:5 is quoted: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." What conclusion is this supposed to lead us to? Is it impossible for Christ to be a mediator between God and men, without being a mediator for all men? Are not the elect men? Do not the children partake of flesh and blood? Does not his church consist of men? Why should some vague proposition lead us to this universal conclusion? Christ was a mediator for men. This would have been true even if he been a mediator only for his apostles. Will we conclude therefore that he was a mediator for all men? "Apage nugas!"
Let us look at another proof. Perhaps it will strengthen the uncouth distinction we oppose. It is 1Tim. 4:10, "Who is the Savior of all men, specially of those who believe." Had it been, "Who is the Mediator of all men, specially of those who believe," it would have been more likely. What are these men thinking? Is there any word here spoken of Christ as mediator? The words preceding this phrase indicate that it is the "living
God" in whom we trust. He is the Savior mentioned here. And is Christ ever called our Savior with regard to his mediation? I showed before that God the Father is often called Savior. And it is the Father who is intended here, as all sound interpreters agree. That is clear from the context, which speaks of the protecting providence of God. It is general towards all, and special, or specific, towards his church. Thus he is said to "save man and beast," Ps. 36:6. The Hebrew for save, Yasha [OT:3467], is rendered Soter in the Greek [NT:4990, from 4982 sozo], "You shall save or preserve." It is
God, then, who is called the "Savior of all" here. He is the Savior by his deliverance and protection in danger, which is his providence. This providence is specific towards believers. What proof this offers for universal mediation I do not know.
The context of this passage will not allow any other interpretation. The words offer a reason why believers should cheerfully go forward, running the race that is set before them with joy, despite all the injury and reproaches with which the people of God are continually assaulted. It is because God preserves all (for "in him we live, and move, and have our being," Acts 17:28; Ps. 145:14-16). He will not allow any of them to be injured or unrevenged, Gen. 9:5. And so he is especially the preserver of those who believe. For they are the apple of his eye, Zech. 2:8; Deut. 32:10.
If he allows them to be pressed for a season, the apostle encourages them not to let go of their hope and confidence, nor be weary of well-doing, but still rest on and trust in him. What motive would he have to tell believers that God would save those who will never believe? To say nothing of how strange it would seem to have Christ be the Savior of those who are never saved, to whom he never gives grace to believe, and for whom he refuses to intercede, John 17:9. Yet this intercession is no small part of his mediation by which he saves sinners. Neither the subject nor the context of the phrase
"He is the Savior of all men," is rightly apprehended by those who twist it in support of universal redemption. For the subject, "He," is God the Father, not Christ the mediator; and the context is a providential preservation, not a
purchased salvation. That is, the providence of God protects and governs all. But God is watching in a special way for the good of those who are his, so that they will not always be unjustly and cruelly slandered and reviled, among other pressures. The apostle also shows that it was God's course to do so, 2Cor. 1:9, 10. "But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, so that we would not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead: who delivered us from so great a death, and does deliver us: in whom we trust that he will yet deliver us;" for "he is the Savior of all men, specially of those who believe." Paul reveals the basis for his confidence in going through his labors and afflictions in these words: "Because we hope in the living God," 1Tim. 4:10. If anyone thinks instead that these words express the sum of the doctrine for which he was so turmoiled and afflicted, I will not oppose it. For then it would only be an assertion of the true God and Paul's dependence on him. And this dependence is in opposition to all the idols of the Gentiles, and any other vain conceits by which they exalted themselves into the throne of the Most High. But instead, they are saying,
1. that Christ would be a Savior of those who will never be saved from their sins, in the same way that he saves his people, Matt. 1:21; or 2. that he is a Savior of those who never heard one word about saving, or about a Savior; or, 3. that he would be a Savior in a two senses – first for all, and then secondly for believers; or, 4. that believing is the condition by which Christ becomes a Savior in a special way to someone – and that condition was not procured or purchased by Christ.
If that is the sense of this passage, then I say, "credat Judaeus Apella:"
To me, nothing is more certain than that Christ completely saves those to whom he is in any sense a Savior in the work of redemption. He saves them from all their sins of infidelity and disobedience, with saving grace here, and glory after.
II. Christ died for all, that some Sinners may be Persuaded
There are also further attempts to give strength to this evasion, and invalidate our former argument. I must also remove them.
32 "in some sort intercedes for transgressors, the sons of men who are still in and of the world. He does this so that the Spirit will unite and bless those who believe on Christ, and so invest himself in their confessions, lives, and ministrations of the gospel, that those among whom his servants dwell might be convinced by these things, and brought to believe the report of the gospel,
Isa. 53:12; Luke 23:34. This is the pattern that Christ himself left for us, John 27:21-23. Christ intercedes so that the men of the world might be convinced, and the convinced allured to him, and to God in him, Matt. 5:1416. In this way, he enlightens every man that comes into the world to some degree, John 1:9. But in a more special way, he intercedes for believers," etc.
"Christ," they say, (Sir Thomas Moore's Universality of Grace) Here we find a twofold intercession of Christ as mediator:
1. He intercedes for all sinners, so that they may believe (that is what is intended by these vague expressions).
2. He intercedes for all believers, so that they may be saved.
It is the first distinction that we oppose; and therefore we must address it.
First, the proposed universal intercession is unclear.
Our author says, "Christ in some sort intercedes." 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 that he interceded for, or with the purpose that they will 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 of them, or is it something else? Is that requirement desired absolutely, or is it conditional? All of these questions must be clearly answered before this general intercession can be made intelligible.
First, is this intercession accidental or intentional?
Whether this intercession is direct or indirect, it is not represented as the immediate result or aim of the prayer of Christ. It is represented as a response to a blessing obtained by others. The prayer set down is that God would so bless believers, that those among whom they dwell may believe
the report of the gospel. Believers are the direct object of this intercession; others are only glanced at through them. The good desired for those others is either dependent on the flourishing of believers, or else it is an end that Christ's intercession intends to accomplish.
33 If it is the latter, then why is it not effected? Why is the intent of our Savior not accomplished? Is it for lack of wisdom in choosing suitable and proportionate means to the proposed end? Or is it for lack of power to effect what he intends?
If it is the first, then their good is no more intended than their evil.
Secondly, is it by his oblation or not?
Does this intercession come by virtue of his blood that was shed for them, or otherwise? If it is by his blood, then Christ intercedes for them so that they may enjoy those things which he procured for them by his oblation.
For that would make his death and blood-shedding the foundation of his intercession. If so, then it follows that Christ procured faith for all by his death, because he intercedes so that all may believe; thus his intercession is grounded on the merit of his death. First, this is more than the asserters of universal redemption will sustain. According to them, effectually and infallibly bestowing faith on those for whom he died is not one of the ends of the death of Christ. Secondly, if he has purchased faith for all by his death, and he entreats for it by his intercession, then why is it not actually bestowed on them? Are his oblation and intercession insufficient to yield that one spiritual blessing? If his intercession is not founded on his death and blood-shedding, then we desire the universalists to describe to us their version of the intercession of Christ. It must differ from his appearing for us in heaven sprinkled with his own blood.
Thirdly, is it to instill belief?
Does he intercede for them intending or desiring that they believe, or not?
If not, it is only a mock intercession; he entreats for what he would not grant. If it is his intent, then why is it not accomplished? Why do not all believe? Indeed, if he died for all, and prayed for all, so that they might believe, then why are they all not saved? For Christ is always heard by his
Father, John 11:42.
Fourthly, is his intercession for the world, or only the church?
Does Christ intercede for everyone in the world, or only for those who live within the pale of the church? If he intercedes only for the church, then if he leaves out anyone in the world, the present hypothesis falls to the ground.
34 If he intercedes for all, then how will all be persuaded? He intercedes "that the Spirit would so lead, guide, and bless believers, and so invest himself in the ministration of the gospel by his servants, that others
(that is, everyone in the world) may be convinced and brought to believe?" How can this be said of those millions of souls who will never see a believer, nor hear a report of the gospel?
Fifthly, is it absolute or conditional?
If his intercession is for faith, then either Christ intercedes for it absolutely, ensuring they certainly have it, or conditionally on the part of God or man. If absolutely, then all will actually believe or else it is not true that the Father always hears him, John 11:42. If conditionally on the part of God, it depends on whether he wills or is pleased to bestow it.
Now, adding this condition may denote two things in our Savior:
1. Ignorance of his Father's will in what he intercedes for. That would be inconsistent with the unity of his person as now in glory. And it cannot be, because he is promised to be heard in whatever he asks, Ps. 2:8.
2. Or else he advances his Father's will by submitting to it as the prime cause of the good to be bestowed. This may well be consistent with absolute intercession, in which case all must believe.
Secondly, His Intercession is Limited and Conditional Is it a condition on the part of those for whom he intercedes? Now, tell me, what condition is that? Where is it found in the Scripture? Where is it said that Christ intercedes for men so that they may have faith, if they do such and such? What condition can rationally be assigned to this desire? "Some intimate the condition is that they allow the Spirit to work on 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 intercedes for them so that they may believe, on condition that they believe. Others, more cautiously, assert the condition of receiving the benefit of this intercession is the good use of the means of grace that they enjoy. But again,
1. What does "good use of the means of grace" mean but submitting to them, which is believing? And so we have the same tautology as before.
2. All do not have the means of grace to use, whether well or badly.
3. Christ either prays that they may use the means of grace well, or he does not. If not, then how can he pray that they may believe, since using them well, by yielding obedience to them, is indeed what it means to believe? If he does, then he either does it absolutely, or conditionally, and so the argument is repeated.
Many more reasons might be produced to show the madness of this assertion, but these may suffice. Still, we must refute its proof and confirmations offered by the universalists.
First, he intercedes only for some transgressors The words of the prophet Isaiah 53:12 are used to support their assertion of universal intercession. "He made intercession for the transgressors," which they take to mean all transgressors.
ANSWER: The transgressors here, for whom our Savior is said to make intercession, are all the transgressors for whom he suffered. This is the most likely conclusion from the description we have of them in verse 6.
Or as some suppose, they are only the transgressors by whom he suffered, that is, who acted in his sufferings. If the first, then this passage proves that Christ intercedes for all those for whom be suffered. This is what we argue for. If the second, then we may consider it accomplished. How he interceded for them only is found in the next passage. They urge it in support of their assertion, namely, Luke 23:34, "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."
ANSWER: The conclusion being inferred from these words is that, "Therefore there is a general intercession for all, so that they may believe," I might well leave this to the silent judgment of men. But because the ablest of that side have usually insisted on this passage as proof for a general successless intercession, I will briefly consider their inference, and see whether it has any strength. To that end, we must observe, Secondly, he prays only for his crucifiers
This prayer is not for all men, but only for that handful of Jews by whom he was crucified. Now, it is a wild deduction to infer from a prayer for them, that he prayed for all men that ever were, are, or will be.
It does not appear that he prayed for all his crucifers either, but only for those who did it out of ignorance. This is apparent from the reason annexed to his supplication: "For they know not what they do." And though it is said that the rulers also acted ignorantly (Acts 3:17), it is not apparent that all of them did. It is certain from the passage in Acts that some did; and it is just as certain that some of them were converted, as indicated there. Indefinite propositions must not be made universal in such things. Does it follow that because Christ prayed to pardon the sins of those who crucified him out of ignorance, as some did, that he therefore intercedes for all so that they may believe? Can it refer to those who were not his crucifiers and never heard of his crucifixion?
Thirdly, his prayer is only for forgiveness, not belief Christ does not pray for those men that they might believe, but only that their sin in crucifying him might be forgiven, and not laid to their charge.
Hence, it is strange to conclude that he intercedes for all men, just because he prayed that the sin of those who crucified him might be forgiven.
Fourthly, he prays only for those at his death There is another evident limitation in this business, for among his crucifiers he prays only for those who were present at his death. Many of these doubtless came out of curiosity more than malice and despite, to see and observe, as is usual in such cases. Some urge that notwithstanding this prayer, the chief priests continued in their unbelief. That does not apply here, for it cannot be proved that they were present at his crucifying.
Fifthly, it is unlikely he prayed for the impenitent It cannot be affirmed with any probability that our Savior would pray for every one of them, assuming some of them would be finally impenitent.
He knew full well "what was in man," John 2:25; Indeed, he "knew from the beginning who they were that would not believe," John 6:64. We have a rule in 1Jn. 5:16, "There is a sin unto death," etc. It would be contrary to that rule to pray for those whom we know to be finally impenitent, and who sin unto death.
Sixthly, his prayer was effectual – but not all believed
It seems to me that this supplication was effectual and successful, and that the Son was heard in this request. Faith and forgiveness were granted to those for whom he prayed. Yet this proves nothing for a general, ineffectual intercession, for it is both special and effectual. In Acts 3:1415, Peter tells the crowd that they "denied the Holy One, and desired a murderer," "and killed the Prince of Life." Of those to whom he spoke, five thousand believed, Acts 4:4. "Many of those who heard the word believed, and their number was about five thousand." And similarly, if any others were among those whom our Savior prayed for, they might have been converted afterward. Even the rulers were not outside the compass of the fruits of this prayer, for "a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith," Acts 6:7. So nothing can be inferred from this concerning the purpose intended.
Seventhly, he prays for his enemies as a duty, not as a Mediator We may, no we must, grant a twofold basis for our Savior's prayers. One is by virtue of his office as Mediator; the other is in answer to his duty, as he was subject to the law. It is true that the one who was Mediator was made subject to the law, but those things he did in obedience to the law as a private person were not acts of mediation, nor works of the Mediator.
Now, because he was subject to the law, our Savior was bound to forgive offenses and wrongs done to him, and to pray for his enemies. This is what he taught us to do, and which he gave us an example of in Matt.
5:44. "I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you." He doubtless infers this from the law given in Lev.
19:18, "You shall not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself." This is quite contrary to the wicked gloss put on it by the Pharisees. And in this sense, as a private person to whom revenge was forbidden, our Savior here enjoined pardon, commanded prayer, and prays for his enemies and crucifers. This does not concern his interceding for us as mediator at all.
In mediation, he was always heard, and so this says nothing concerning the purpose in hand.
John 17 confirms his intercession is limited, not universal 38 is urged to confirm this general intercession, which we already disproved. Our Savior prays that, by the unity, concord, and the Again, John 17:21-23
flourishing of his servants, the world might believe and know that God has sent him. Though some embellish this passage, the universalism they contend for is not confirmed by these words in any way.
First, he did not grant means of grace to all If Christ really intended and desired that the whole world would believe, then no doubt he would also have prayed that more effectual means of grace would be granted to them than just beholding his blessed condition.
Even that is granted to only a small part of the world. He would at least have asked for the preaching of the word to them all, as the only ordinary means by which they might come to know him. But we do not find that he ever prayed for this, or that God granted it. No, he blessed his Father that it was not so, because it seemed good in his sight, Matt. 11:25, 26.
Secondly, John 17:9 precludes a larger object No gloss or interpretation should be put on the passage that would run contrary to the express words of our Savior in verse 9, "I do not pray for the world." For if he prayed here that the world would have true, holy, saving faith, then he prayed for as great a blessing and privilege for the world as what he procured or interceded for his own. Therefore,
Thirdly, "world" does not mean all men Some say the world here refers to the world of the elect, the world to be saved, God's people throughout the world. Certainly the world is not properly pro mundo continente, the world containing, but figuratively pro mundo contento, the world contained, or men in the world. Nor must it be taken universally, as referring to all the men in the world. It is seldom taken that way in the Scripture, which we will make apparent later.
Instead, it may be understood indefinitely, as men in the world, whether few or many, as the elect are found in their several generations. But, though this interpretation is held by great authors, I cannot absolutely adhere to it. That is because, throughout this chapter of John, the word
"world" either refers to the world of reprobates, as opposed to those who are given to Christ by his Father; or it refers to the world of unbelievers, as opposed to those who are committed by Christ to his Father. Both are the same group taken from different vantage points.
Fourthly, believing here only means acknowledgement
Believing, verse 21, and knowing, verse 23, do not mean believing in a strict sense of having faith in him, nor having a saving comprehension of Jesus Christ that leads to receiving him.
39 If those he prayed for did, they would become the sons of God. This never was, nor ever will be, fulfilled in every man in the world. Nor was it ever prayed for. The only thing prayed for was a conviction and acknowledgment that the Lord Christ is not a seducer and false prophet, which is what they took him to be.
Instead, he prayed that they might believe and know that he was one who came from God, able to protect and do good for and to his own, as he said.
This is the kind of conviction and acknowledgment that is often termed "believing" in the Scripture. It is too evident to need proving. Expositors of all sorts agree that this is what is meant here. Now, this is not for the good of the world. It is for the vindication of his people, and the exaltation of his own glory. And so it does not prove the thing in question at all. But more about this word "world" will be discussed later.
Matthew 5:15-16 addresses witnessing, not intercession "Nor do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your
Father in heaven."
This passage contains some instructions given by our Savior to his apostles to improve their knowledge and light of him. They were to receive further instruction in the preaching of the word and in holiness of life, so that they might be a means to draw men to glorify God. This passage is included by the author simply to make a show of numbers, as many other passages are.
He does not once consider what they prove, nor what their purposes are.
Therefore, without further inquiry, it may well be laid aside. It does not belong to the business in hand at all, nor by all the strength and skill of Mr.
Moore can it be dragged within many leagues of his conclusion.
John 1:9 only speaks of illumination, not intercession This Scripture says that "Christ is the true Light, that lights every man who comes into the world." This does not apply to the query either. It is wretchedly glossed and rendered as, "In some measure enlightening everyone who comes into the world." "In some measure," says Mr. Moore.
Now, I ask you, in what measure is this? How far, to what degree, in what
measure, does this illumination come from Christ? By whom or by what means, apart from him, independent of him, is the rest of men's illumination comprised? Who supplies what is missing from Christ? I know your aim is to cherish your illumination by the light of nature. I do not know what common helps you dream of for those who are utterly deprived of all gospel means of grace. Such means not only bring the knowledge of God as Creator, but also knowledge of God as the Redeemer in Christ. I hope one day you will be convinced that you are making sacrifices to your own golden calves, with your twisting and perverting the word of God, and undervaluing the grace of Christ.
It is sufficient that Christ is said to enlighten everyone, because he is the only true light. Everyone who is enlightened receives his light from him, who is the sum and the source of that light. And so the general defense of this ineffectual intercession ends. But there is a further, particular reply to be made concerning the priesthood of Christ.
III. As Priest, his sacrifice is for one end, and all men "As a priest, he offered sacrifice with regard to one end, which is propitiation for all men, Heb. 2:9, 9:26; John 1:29; 1Jn. 2:2. With regard to all the ends, he offered it for propitiation, for sealing the new testament, and as a testimony to the truth. And with regard to the ultimate end in all, he offered it for his called and chosen ones, Heb. 9:14-15; Matt. 26:28." (What follows from another passage has already been answered.)
ANSWER:
First, the language of the proposition is unclear These words, as placed here, make no tolerable sense, nor is it easy to gather the mind of the author from them. They do little to provide the clear answer to the argument that they pretended to have. Words of Scripture are used, but they are twisted and corrupted. Not only do they countenance error, but they are made part of expressions that defy reason. What, I pray, is the meaning of these words: "He offered sacrifice with regard to one end, then to all ends, and then to the ultimate end in all?" To take them in reverse order:
1. What is this "ultimate end in all?" Does "in all" refer to one out of all the proposed and accomplished ends? Does it mean in all those persons for whom he offered sacrifice? Is it the ultimate end proposed by God and Christ in his oblation? If it is the last, then it is the glory of God. No such thing is intimated in the passages of Scripture cited (Heb. 9:14, 15;
40 Matt.
26:28
41).
2. Do those passages demonstrate an ultimate end of the death of Christ that is subordinate to God's glory? Why is the end in one to obtain redemption, and in the other it is for the remission of sins? You say that all this is the first end of the death of Christ, calling it "propitiation," an atonement for the remission of sins. And yet remission of sins and redemption are one and the same in substance. Both of them are the immediate fruits and the first end of the death of Christ, as is apparent from Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14.
42 So here you have confused the first and the final end of the death of Christ. Indeed, you have spoiled and torn down the whole frame and building of your argument erected on this foundation (as you may lawfully do, for it is your own). You offer several purposes for the death of Christ, directed towards several persons, so that some of them belong to all, and all of them belong only to some. This is the "protos pseudos" [primary falseness] of the whole book.
3. Christ offering himself to put away sin, from Heb. 9:26, 43 is said to be the passage showing the first end of the death of Christ, and shedding his blood for the remission of sins, from Matt. 26:28, is said to be the last! Pray, when you write next time, give us the difference between these two.
4. You say, "He offered sacrifice with regard to one end, propitiation for all men." Now, truly, if you know the meaning of sacrifice and propitiation, this will hardly make sense to you on review.
Secondly, if Christ is Priest for all, it can only be for some ends Let me leave your words and try to surmise your meaning. You seem to say that, with regard to one end of Christ's sacrifice, he is a priest for all, and he aimed to attain and accomplish that end for them. But with regard to other ends, he is a priest only for his chosen and called. Now, truly, this is an easy way to answer. You disappoint your adversaries by setting aside their arguments, and then saying your own opinion is different. The very thing
given for an answer here is what we are debating. We absolutely deny that the good things procured by Christ's death are variously distributed with regard to their objects. To give a reason for our denial that these things are divided, we point to the argument above concerning the priesthood of Christ.
You will say that various passages of Scripture are quoted to confirm your answer. But, as I told you before, these are presented only for pomp and show. Nothing at all is found in them that applies to the business in hand, for example, Heb. 9:26 and John 1:29. How can we conclude from an indefinite affirmation that Christ bore or took away sin, that he is a priest for everyone with regard to propitiation? Besides, in John 1:9 there is a manifest allusion to the paschal lamb, by which there was a typical, ceremonial purification and cleansing of sin. This applied only to the people of Israel, the type of the elect of God, and not to all the world. Those other two passages, Heb. 2:9 and 1Jn. 2:2, will be considered separately, because they seem to have some strength concerning the main part of the argument.
But there is obviously no word in them that can be twisted to give the least support to the rude distinction that we oppose. And so our argument is confirmed and vindicated. The objects of Christ's oblation and intercession are of equal extent. With that, the means used by the blessed Trinity to accomplish the proposed end have been unfolded. The end of those means will be considered next.
BOOK II