Quest. XLIV. How doth Christ execute the office of a Priest?

Answ. Christ executeth the office of a Priest, in his once offering himself a sacrifice, without spot, to God, to be a reconciliation for the sins of his people, and in making continual intercession for them.

In considering Christ’s Priestly office, as described in this answer, we may observe the two great branches thereof, namely, the offering himself a sacrifice; and making intercession. There are several scriptures which expressly mention both of them: thus he is said, through the eternal Spirit, to have offered himself without spot, to God, Heb. ix. 14. and then described as having entered into heaven, now to appear in the presence of God for us, ver. 24. and elsewhere the apostle speaks of him, as having an unchangeable priesthood, and being able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, and that this is founded on his offering up himself, and making intercession for them, chap. vii. 24, 25, 27. In considering this, we may observe,

I. The reason of his being styled a Priest, which denomination was taken from those who exercised the priestly office under the ceremonial law, who were types of him, as such: accordingly we may consider; that the office of the priesthood was executed by sundry persons, appointed to this service. A priest was a public minister, who was to serve at the altar, to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins, Heb. v. 1. That these were offered in all the ages of the church, after the fall of man, appears, from the sacrifice that Abel offered, which the apostle calls an excellent one, and, upon this occasion, says, that he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts, Heb. xi. 4. and therefore it follows, that it was instituted by him: yet it does not appear that there was, in that early age of the church, a set of men solemnly and publickly invested in this office: but the heads of families are generally supposed to have been the public ministers in holy things, and particularly priests, though they do not appear to have been then so styled; and thus it continued till about the time that God brought Israel out of Egypt, when, by his appointment, all the first-born of the children of Israel were consecrated to him; and these officiated as priests, during that small interval of time, till the priesthood was settled in the tribe of Levi, upon which occasion God says, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel, instead of all the first-born, because all the first-born are mine; for on the day that I smote all the first-born, in the land of Egypt, I hallowed unto me all the first-born in Israel, Numb. iii. 12, 13. And, when God gave the ceremonial law from mount Sinai, he appointed that tribe to minister as priests in holy things. Of these some had one part of the ministry of the sanctuary committed to them, and others another; particularly the priesthood, or the charge of offering gifts and sacrifices, was more, especially committed to the family of Aaron, of which the eldest son, in their respective generations, was generally advanced to the high priesthood, and other descendants from him were common priests, who acted under, or were assistants to him in all the parts of his ministry, excepting that which respected his entering into the holy of holies. These were invested in their respective offices by unction, though the high priest’s office and unction had some things peculiar in it, in which it exceeded theirs; and they were all types of Christ’s priesthood, though the high priest was so in an eminent degree; which leads us to consider,

II. The Priesthood of Christ, as typified under the ceremonial law, and that either by the service which was commonly performed by the high priest, and other priests under him, or as it was typified by Melchizedec, who is occasionally mentioned in scripture, as shadowing forth Christ’s Priesthood in some particular instances, which were not contained in other types thereof.

1. We shall speak concerning the priests under the law, as types of Christ’s Priesthood, and particularly shew wherein their priesthood agrees with, or differs from his.

(1.) Wherein they agree.

1st, Every high priest was taken from among men, as the apostle observes, Heb. v. 1. and was ordained for men in things pertaining to God. And, to this we may add, that he was taken from among his brethren, and so must be a member of that church, in whose name he administered, and of which he was the head, by the dignity of his office. In this, he was a lively type of Christ, who, in order to his being an High Priest, became man, that he might perform this ministry for men in things pertaining to God. It is true, the validity of his office, or the efficacy thereof to answer its designed end, arose from the dignity of his Person, as God; yet the matter thereof, or the ministry he performed, required that he should be taken from among men, and have all the essential properties of the human nature; so that, as the high priest was taken out of the church, or from among his brethren, and, by office, was the head thereof, Christ was a member of the church, and, as such, complied with those ordinances which God had instituted therein, and from the dignity of his Person and office, was the Head thereof: as a Member of it, he was exposed to the same temptations and miseries as they are, and so is able to sympathize with, and succour them under all their temptations, Heb. iv. 15. compared with chap. v. 2. and as the Head thereof, he manages all affairs relating to it, and expects that all his people should be entirely subjected to him.

2dly, The matter of the priest’s office, or the things that were offered by him, were, as was before observed, gifts and sacrifices offered for the remission of sins; which blessing could not be attained without shedding of blood, as the apostle observes, without shedding of blood there is no remission, chap. ix. 22. Thus Christ was to redeem his people, and procure forgiveness of sins, and make atonement for them by sacrifice, or by the shedding of blood.

3dly, After the high priest had offered sacrifices, there was another part of that ministry, which was peculiar to himself, in which he was an eminent type of Christ, which he performed but once a year, to wit, on the great day of expiation, when he went into the holiest of all within the vail, with blood and incense; the blood he sprinkled on the mercy-seat over the ark, and caused the smoke of the incense to ascend and cover the mercy-seat, and from thence he received an intimation from God, that the sacrifices, which he had offered for the people, were accepted, after which he went out, and blessed them, in the name of the Lord; in all which, he was a lively type of Christ’s executing his Priestly office, chap. ix. 3, 7. compared with Lev. xvi. 14. who first offered an acceptable sacrifice for us on earth, and then entered into heaven, (which was typified by the priest’s entering into the holy of holies) to present his sacrifice before God, and to make intercession for us; and, as the consequence hereof, he blesses his people, in turning them from all their iniquities, and in conferring all the other fruits and effects of his sacrifice upon them. Thus Christ’s Priesthood was shadowed forth by that ministry, which was performed by the priests under the ceremonial law; nevertheless,

(2.) There were many things in which they differed; as,

1st, The priests under the law were mere men; but Christ, though truly man, was more than a man. Though he was made, in all the essential properties of the human nature, like unto us; yet he had a divine nature, in which he was equal with God; and therefore his ministry could not but be infinitely more valuable, than that of any others, who were types of him.

2dly, The priests under the law were of the tribe of Levi, and therefore theirs is called, by the apostle, The Levitical priesthood, Heb. vii. 11. But our Saviour, as Man, was of the tribe of Judah, and therefore did not derive his priesthood from them by descent, as they did from one another, chap. vii. 13, 14.

3dly, The sacrifices which were offered by the priests under the law, were no other than the blood of beasts, appointed for that purpose; but Christ offered his own blood, chap. ix. 12,14.

4thly, The priests under the law were sinners; accordingly Aaron was obliged first to offer up sacrifice for his own sins, and then for the peoples’, chap. vii. 27. but Christ needed not to do this, for he was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, ver. 26.

5thly, The sacrifices offered by the priests under the law, could not expiate, or take away sins, chap. x. 4. but Christ, by the offering that he has made, has for ever perfected them that are sanctified, or made a full atonement for all sin. Now since it is said, that it was impossible for sin to be expiated by the sacrifices under the law, we are to enquire in what sense atonement was, or could not be made thereby: if the sin was of such a nature, or that it was punishable by human judicature, the making atonement by sacrifice, in many instances, put a stop to the prosecution, and took away the guilt, which the person had contracted, as to any farther proceedings of men against him; for this was an ordinance appointed by God, in which the offender had an external and visible recourse to the blood of Jesus, signified by the blood which he offered; and this is supposed to have been accompanied with repentance for the sin committed, which gave satisfaction to the church, as to what concerned this matter, as offensive to them; and they could demand no more of the offender, in order to their declaring, that, so far as they were judges, his guilt was expiated, by that which was signified by the sacrifice which he brought, which was offered for him, and therefore the crime that he committed was pardoned.

It is true, there were some crimes that were to be punished with death; and, in this case, the church was not to receive satisfaction by sacrifice, nor were proceedings against the guilty person to be stopped by this means: and, among other crimes, that of wilful murder was one which admitted of no sacrifice; so, I think, the meaning of what the Psalmist says, is to be understood, Thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it, Psal. li. 16. as implying, that the guilt of blood was such, that he had hereby forfeited his life, which, though no subject had power enough to take away, yet God might, for this, have set his face against him, and have cut him off, in a visible manner, from among his people, as he often did, when crimes were not punished in a legal way. This punishment God graciously remitted, when he told him, by Nathan, that he had put away his sin, he should not die, 2 Sam. xii. 13. and David, when he testifies his repentance, in this Psalm, would have offered sacrifice, but he finds that none was ordained for the sin he had committed. In other cases, indeed, the church was satisfied, excommunication, or some other punishment, prevented, and the offender taken into favour, by his offering sacrifice, in which respect, this service is called making atonement for him: but, in other respects, it was impossible to expiate sin thereby, so as to procure justification in the sight of God; for they could not expiate it, as to what concerns the conscience, as it is said, that the sacrifices could not make him, that did the service, perfect, as pertaining to the conscience, Heb. ix. 9. so that, that guilt of sin, which burdens the consciences of men, as having more immediately to do with God, was taken away only by Christ’s sacrifice; in which respect, the efficacy hereof far exceeds all the ends and designs of the sacrifices, which were offered under the law. And this farther appears, inasmuch as these sacrifices were to be repeated, there being a continual remembrance of sin; for this supposes, that sin was not hereby wholly expiated in the sight of God: and, in this, they also differ from the sacrifice Christ offered, inasmuch as that, being effectual to take away sin, was offered but once, chap. x. 10, 14.

6thly, The priests under the law were mortal, and therefore the priesthood was successive; but Christ, as he was not from them by a lineal descent so he had no successor in his priesthood. In this, the apostle opposes him to them, when he says, They truly were many, because they were not suffered to continue, by reason of death; but this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood, chap. vii. 23.

Again, as the priesthood ceased, in particular persons, by death, so the high priesthood was sometimes taken away from those that were advanced unto it, for some instances of maladministration: thus the high priesthood, for some time, descended in the line of Eleazar, the elder branch of Aaron’s family; and afterwards, during the reign of the judges, it was transferred to the younger branch of his family, namely, the descendants from Ithamar, in which line it was when Eli was high priest; and afterwards, when his sons, by their vile behaviour, forfeited their right to the high priesthood, and God threatened that he would take it away from his family, 1 Sam. ii. 30. compared with ver. 35. and 1 Kings ii. 35. (which was accomplished when Abiathar, in the beginning of Solomon’s reign, was thrust from the priesthood) it again descended in Zadock, to the elder branch of Aaron’s family.

Again the priesthood itself was not designed to continue for ever, but only during that dispensation; after which, there was to be no altar, priests, nor sacrifice: But Christ’s priesthood, as it was unalienable, so it could never be forfeited by male-administration, or descend to any other; therefore he is said to be a Priest for ever, which seems to be the meaning of that scripture, in which his priesthood is considered, as different from the Levitical priesthood, as those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath, by him that said unto him, The Lord sware, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever, chap. vii. 21. which oath not only signifies the establishing of him in his priesthood, but it secured to him that he should never fall from it.

There are other things in which Christ’s priesthood differs from that of the priests under the law, in that they entered into the holy places made with hands, but Christ into heaven it self, chap. ix. 7. compared with ver. 24. and then it was only the high priest that was to enter into the holy of holies: But, as the apostle observes, that under the gospel, in the virtue of Christ’s sacrifice, all believer’s are admitted into the holiest of all, that is, they have access through faith, into the presence of God, by the blood of Jesus.

And lastly, under the law, there was a certain order of men that were priests, and yet all the people were not so; but, under the gospel-dispensation, believers are styled, an holy and a royal priesthood, and the sacrifices they offer up, are spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God, by Jesus Christ, 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9. And this leads us,

2. To consider Christ’s priesthood, as typified by Melchizedek, concerning whom it is said, in Gen. xiv. 18, 19, 20. that Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine to Abraham, returning from the slaughter of the kings; and he was priest of the most high God, and he blessed him, &c. And this is referred to, as tending to set forth Christ’s priesthood, in Psal. cx. 4. The Lord hath sworn and will not repent; thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek; and the apostle, in Heb. vii. refers to these scriptures, which are the only places of the Old Testament where this is mentioned, and applies them to Christ’s priesthood as containing many things which were not typified by the Aaronical priesthood. And it may be observed, that when the apostle enters on this subject, he premises this concerning it, that it contained a very great difficulty, as he says, Of whom [i. e. Melchizedek] we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, Heb. v. 11. that is, hard to be explained, so as to be fully understood; it will be no strange thing therefore if we cannot fully explain it, or assert some things concerning it, which are only probable; and certainly this observation of the apostle should induce us to treat on this subject with the greatest humility and modesty. As to what we have to say concerning it, I hope we shall advance nothing contrary to the analogy of faith, how difficult soever some phrases, used in scripture, relating thereunto, may seem to be: And the method in which we shall proceed, shall be; first, to enquire who this Melchizedek was; and, secondly, how we have herein an eminent type of Christ’s priesthood in some things, in which it was not shadowed forth by the Aaronical priesthood.

We shall now enquire who this Melchizedek probably was; and here we pass by the conjecture of some who lived in an early age of Christianity, whom Epiphanius mentions^[143], who supposed that he was the Holy Ghost; which appears to be a very absurd notion, inasmuch as we never read in scripture, of the Holy Ghost’s appearing in the form of a man, nor of his performing any of those offices which belong to the Mediator; and therefore it is equally contrary, to the tenor of scripture, to call him the priest of the most high God, as it is to call the Father so; and thus Melchizedek is styled, in the scripture we are explaining. I shall add no more, as to this ungrounded opinion; but proceed to consider that which is more commonly acquiesced in, namely,

First, That he was a man: But when it is farther enquired, what man? there are three different opinions relating hereunto.

(1.) The Jews generally conclude that he was Shem, the son of Noah, as also do many other ancient and modern writers, who pay a deference to their authority and reasoning^[144]. The principal thing that induces them to be of this opinion, is, because it appears, from scripture-chronology, that Shem was living at that time, when Abraham returned from the slaughter of the kings^[145]. And they farther add, that Shem, having received the patriarchal benediction from his father, might truly be reckoned the greatest man in the church, and that both as a priest and a king, as Melchizedek is described to be. But there are two very considerable objections against this opinion, which have weight enough in them, if not to overthrow it, at least to make it very doubtful: namely,

1st, That Shem’s father, mother, and descent, together with the beginning of his life, and afterwards the end thereof, were well known, the year when he was born, and the time that he lived, being particularly mentioned in scripture; and therefore the apostle could not say concerning him, as he does concerning Melchizedek, that he was without father, without mother, without descent having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; meaning, as most expositors suppose, that he was so, because these were not known, or mentioned in scripture.

2dly, It is very plain from scripture, that Shem’s place of abode was not in the land of Canaan, and therefore he could not be said to be king of Salem, that is as it is understood by the greatest number of expositors, of Jerusalem; since this was the seat of the posterity of Ham, one of Shem’s brethren; accordingly from Canaan, his son, that land took its name. This evidently appears from what is said in Gen. x. 6-20. where the Jebusite, Emorite, Hivite, and other inhabitants of the land of Canaan, are said to be the descendants of Ham. For these reasons, Melchizedek does not appear to have been Shem.

(2.) There is one learned writer, who conjectures that this Melchizedek was Ham^[146], which, indeed, agrees very well with the place of his residence: But there are other things which render this opinion not in the least probable; not only because the same thing may be observed of Ham, as was before of Shem, that he could not be said to be without father, without mother, without beginning of years, and end of life: But it may farther be said concerning him, that he had not received the patriarchal benediction from Noah, his posterity having had a curse entailed upon them, as it is said, in Gen. ix. 25. Cursed be Canaan. Therefore some question, whether Ham might be reckoned a member of the church,^[147] much more whether he deserved to be called a priest of the most high God, and king of righteousness; though it is true, this author^[148] supposes, that Ham was not cursed by Noah, but only Canaan his son, and his posterity; therefore he might have been an excellent person, and deserved the character given of Melchizedek. But there are very few who will be convinced by this method of reasoning; and therefore we pass it over, and proceed to consider,

(3.) That the greatest part of divines suppose, that it is not only the safest, but most probable way of solving this difficulty, to confess, that it is impossible to determine who he was, and that the Holy Ghost has purposely concealed this matter, from us, that he might be a more eminent type of Christ; and therefore they suppose him to have been a certain unknown king and priest residing at Jerusalem, at that time when Abraham was met by him, and that this ought to put a full stop to all farther enquiries about him: upon which account, it may well be said, concerning him, that he was without father, without mother, &c. that is, these were not known; and what does not appear to be, is sometimes said, in scripture, not to be. Thus concerning their opinion, who suppose that he was a man.

Secondly, There is another opinion concerning him, which though not so commonly received as the first and third above mentioned, which though probably it may not be without some difficulties attending it, yet it very much deserves our consideration, namely, that Melchizedek was our Lord Jesus Christ himself, assuming, at that time, the form of a man, and personating a priest and a king, as he did on several occasions, designing thereby to prefigure his future incarnation^[149][150] And it is argued in defence of this opinion,

1st, That when the apostle describes him as king of Salem, he does not hereby intend Jerusalem, or that at that time, he resided there: But, as he explains it, in the words immediately following, it implies, that he was king of peace, as this word Salem signifies; and accordingly he is set forth by two of those glorious titles, which are given him elsewhere in scripture, namely, king of righteousness, as it is said concerning him, that a king shall rise and prosper, who is called, The Lord our righteousness, Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. and likewise, The Prince of Peace, Isa. ix. 6. And that which makes this opinion more probable, is, that it doth not appear that Jerusalem was called Salem, which is supposed to be a contraction of the word Jerusalem, till some ages after this; for, till David conquered it, it was commonly known by the name of Jebus, 1 Chron. xi. 4.

2dly, The apostle’s description of him, as being without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, is rather applicable to a divine Person than a mere man. And as for the sense, which is generally given of these words, namely, that he was without father, &c. because no mention is made thereof in scripture, viz. in those two scriptures in the Old Testament, in which he is spoken of; this seems more strained and forced, than to understand them according to the proper sense of the words; and, if, indeed, this imports nothing else, but the silence of scripture, with relation thereunto, there are many other persons who have as great a right to this character as Melchizedek; as Job, Elijah, &c. whereas Melchizedek is thus described, as distinguished from all others.

To this we may add, (which will farther strengthen this argument) what the apostle says, that in this respect, he was made like the Son of God, that is, as is generally supposed, a type of him. Now, if his being without father, mother, descent, &c. in the common acceptation of the words, be inconsistent with his being a type of Christ to the church, in Abraham’s time, then certainly that cannot be the sense thereof; for he was, without doubt, a type of his priestly, and kingly office to him, and the church, in his days, as well as to those who lived in following ages. Now, that he could not be a type thereof to many, who lived in that age, is evident; for they, who lived in the place where he was born and died, knew his father, mother, descent, beginning, or end of life; therefore he was no type of Christ’s eternal priesthood to them. And as for Abraham, though he might not know his father, mother, or descent, or the exact time when he was born, and so, in that respect he might, in part, he made like to the Son of God, to him, as signifying, that his priestly office was not derived by descent, as the Aaronical priesthood descended from parents to children: yet he could not be a type of the everlasting duration of Christ’s priestly office since he was then no more without end of days, in the common sense in which that expression was taken, than Abraham, or any other who lived with him, who could not be supposed to know the time, or place, of their death. And, if, according to the common opinion, Melchizedek is said to be without father, mother, descent, &c. because there is no mention thereof in scripture, this could not be a type to Abraham, or any other, before the word of God was committed to writing.

3dly, There is another thing, which may be observed in the apostle’s description of him, Heb. viii. 8. when he says, that he liveth,^[151] and accordingly is opposed to those priests that die, by which he seems to be described as immortal, and so opposed to mortal men. It is not said, that he once lived, and that we have no mention made of the time of his death, but he liveth, which some conclude to be an ascription of that divine perfection to him, whereby he is styled the living God, or, as it is said in one of the following verses, He ever liveth, ver. 25. to denote his eternal priesthood; or, as he says concerning himself elsewhere, I am he that liveth, and was dead, and behold I am alive for evermore, Rev. i. 8.

4thly, That which still makes this opinion more probable, is the consideration of the place, where they, who defend the other side of the question, suppose he lived, and the people to whom he ministered as a priest, which seems not agreeable to the character given him, as the greatest priest on earth. The inhabitants of Jerusalem, at that time, were idolaters, or at least, they had no relation to the church of God, which was then seated in Abraham’s family; for, when Abraham sojourned in Gerar, not many miles distant from it, in the south-west border of the land of Canaan, he gives this description of it, that he thought surely the fear of God was not in this place; and it can hardly be supposed that Jebus, or Jerusalem, was much better. If the Canaanites had been members of the true church, Abraham would not have lived as a stranger and sojourner amongst them, not desirous to converse with them. Since therefore Jerusalem, or Salem, was inhabited by those who were not worshippers of the true God, how could Melchizedek be said to be their priest, or a minister in holy things to them? for, though an holy man may be a king over a wicked people, such an one cannot well be said to be a priest to those, who desire not to be found in the exercise of God’s true worship.

5thly, It seems farther probable, that Melchisedek was not a priest, or king, whose usual place of residence was Jerusalem, where he administered and reigned, inasmuch as we do not read that Abraham, at any other time, conversed, or joined with him in worship, though the place where he sojourned was but a few miles distant from it, which we can hardly suppose that he would have neglected to do, or that we should have had no account of any intercourse between these two men, (who must be reckoned the greatest and best that lived on earth) besides that mentioned in the scripture we are now considering.

6thly, This may be farther argued, from what the apostle says, that Melchisedek blessed Abraham, and infers, from thence, that he was superior to him, inasmuch as the less is blessed of the better, Heb. vii. 7. There are but two senses in which a person is said to bless another; the one is, by praying for a blessing on him, or as God’s messenger, signifying, that he would bless him; and the other is, by conferring blessedness upon him, or making him blessed. Now, if Melchisedek had only blessed Abraham, in the former of these senses, which he might have done, had he been a mere man, the apostle could not have inferred from hence, his superiority to Abraham; for the lowest of men may in this sense, bless the greatest, that is, pray for a blessing on them, and God might employ such to declare to others that they are blessed; yet it would not follow, from hence, that they are, in this respect, greater than them. Melchisedek blessed Abraham, and therefore, as the apostle infers, was greater than him, and consequently he blessed him, by making him blessed, or conferring some of those blessings, which he has to bestow, as a divine Person, the Fountain of blessedness.

These are the most material arguments which are brought in defence of this opinion; from whence it seems probable, that our Saviour on this occasion assumed the form of a Man, as he often did, and appeared to Abraham with the mien and likeness of a King and Priest; as he is said elsewhere to appear to Joshua, in the form of a warrior, with his sword drawn in his hand, and soon discovered to him who he was; so we may suppose, that at this time, he appeared to Abraham as a King, and a Priest, and discovered to him who he was, and the right he had to the spoils he had gained, of which he accepted the tithes, partly, to signify that this was to be the way in which the priesthood was to be supported in future ages; but principally to give herein a type of that divine homage, which we owe to him, as the Priest and King of his people. I will not be too tenacious of this side of the question, but, to me, it seems the more probable, especially if what is objected against it does not weaken the force of the arguments brought to support it; which is now to be considered.

Object. 1. The place of Melchisedek’s residence is said to be Salem, or Jerusalem, in the land of Canaan, where he was a king and priest. Now this could not be said of our Lord Jesus Christ; for, as his kingdom was not of this world, so he never resided, or fixed his abode in any part of it before his incarnation. It is true, he sometimes appeared then in the form of a Man, or an Angel, that he might occasionally converse with his people; yet he never continued long, or dwelt amongst them, till he was made flesh; whereas, Melchizedek seems to be described as an inhabitant of the land of Canaan, dwelling in Salem, therefore it cannot he meant of him.

Answ. This objection takes some things for granted, that will not readily be allowed, by those who entertain the contrary way of thinking, viz. that Salem is the name of a place, and that there he resided; whereas it may be replied to this, that it is rather a character of his person; for, if Tzedek be a character of his person, as signifying righteousness, why should it be denied that Salem, from the Hebrew word Shalom, is also a glorious character, belonging to his person? especially considering the apostle explains both of them in this sense, when he says, that these words, by interpretation, are, King of righteousness, and King of peace, Heb. vii. 2. and, if this be true, there is no force in the other part of the objection, taken from his residing in any particular place before his incarnation.

Object. 2. It is farther objected, that our Saviour is said to be a Priest, after the order of Melchisedek, chap. vii. 17. and it is also added, that after the similitude of Melchisedek there ariseth another Priest, ver. 15. meaning our Saviour; therefore he cannot be the same person with Melchisedek.

Answ. This objection is much more material than any other, which is brought against this opinion, which, I am apt to think, determines the sentiments of many, who give into the commonly received opinion concerning him: But, as it ought to be considered, whether the arguments, in defence of the other side of the question, be conclusive; so it may be replied to it; that Christ might be called a Priest, after the order of Melchisedek, though he were the person intended by him, if we take the words in this sense; viz. that, by his appearing in the form of a Priest and a King to Abraham, he afforded a type, or figure, of what he would really be, and do, after his incarnation, and herein gave a specimen of his Priestly and Kingly office, which he would afterwards execute. And this might as well be said to be a type hereof, as any of his appearances, in the form of a man, were typical of his incarnation, which divines generally call a prelibation thereof, which differs very little from the sense of the word type.

As to what is said concerning another Priest, arising after the similitude of Melchisedek, though it may be reckoned a strong objection against our argument; yet let it be considered, that after the similitude of Melchisedek, imports the same thing as after the order of Melchisedek; and so it signifies, that there is a similitude, or likeness, between what he then appeared to be, and what he really was, after his incarnation. And as for his being called another Priest, that does not imply that he was a Priest different from Melchisedek, but from the priests under the law; for the apostle, as appears by the context, is comparing Christ’s Priesthood with the Aaronical; and therefore, when he executed his Priestly office, after his incarnation, he might well be styled another Priest, that is, a Priest not descending from Aaron, but the anti-type of Melchisedek, as prefigured by this remarkable occurrence.

Thus concerning that difficult question, who Melchisedek was? All that I shall add is, whether it were Christ himself, or some other person, yet it is evident that there was herein a very eminent type of Christ’s Kingly and Priestly office; and more especially of his Priestly, as containing in it several things that were not shadowed forth by the Aaronical priesthood; particularly, though the Aaronical priesthood contained a type of Christ’s making atonement, by shedding his blood; yet there was nothing in it that typified the glory of his Person, his immortality and sinless perfection, the eternal duration of his Priesthood, or his being immediately raised up by God, for that end; nor was there herein a type of the Kingly and Priestly office of Christ, as belonging to the same Person, since the priests under the law were not kings, nor the kings priests.

Moreover, Melchisedek’s being represented as without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, plainly signifies, that the execution of his priestly office depended immediately on God, who raised him up, as an extraordinary Person, for this end, as well as that he remains a Priest for ever; so that, if we take both these types together, we have a very plain and clear representation of Christ’s Priestly office. And this leads us to consider,

III. The necessity of Christ’s executing this part of his Priestly office, which consists in his making satisfaction to divine justice. This is generally denied by those who oppose his divinity; and particularly the Socinians, who maintain, that God pardons sin without satisfaction.^[152] And others, who do not altogether deny the satisfaction of Christ, suppose, that God might have pardoned sin without it; but that it was more expedient to make a demand of it, than not, inasmuch as his honour, as the Governor of the world, is secured thereby, and therefore that his demanding satisfaction, is the result of his will; and accordingly, that he might have required and accepted of a satisfaction, less valuable than what was given him by our Saviour: This opinion is equally to be opposed with the former, as derogatory to the glory of the divine perfections.

Now, when we assert the necessity of satisfaction, we mean, that God could not, in consistency with his holiness and justice, pardon sin without it; and that no satisfaction, short of that which Christ gave, is sufficient to answer the end designed thereby, or worthy to be accepted by God, as a price of redemption.

And, when we assert that satisfaction was necessary, we would be understood as intending it in the same sense, as forgiveness of sin, or salvation is so; the necessity hereof being conditional, or founded on this supposition, that God designed to save sinners. This, indeed, he might have refused to have done, and then there would have been no room for satisfaction to be given to his justice: But, since God designed to be reconciled to his people, and to bring them to glory, we cannot but assert the necessity of satisfaction in order thereunto; and, to prove this, let it be considered,

1. That the necessity hereof appears from the holiness of God; and accordingly,

(1.) Inasmuch as he is infinitely perfect, he cannot but will and love that which is most agreeable to his nature, and which contains the brightest display of his image, which consists in righteousness and true holiness, as it is said, The righteous Lord loveth righteousness, Psal. xi. 7. And it follows, from hence,

(2.) That he cannot but hate, and have an infinite aversion to, whatever is contrary hereunto; for, if his love of holiness be founded in the perfection of his nature, then his hatred of sin, which is opposite to it, must be founded therein: Thus it is said, Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity, Hab. i. 13. and elsewhere, Thou hatest all workers of iniquity, Psal. v. 5. Now God’s hating sin, consists in his infinite opposition to it, and so it is natural to him, or in his will, to punish it; and consequent thereunto, in his actual punishing of it. If the first of these be necessary, the others must be so likewise; or, if he be an holy God, he cannot but determine to punish sin, and afterwards put his determination in execution.

(3.) It is fit he should manifest his hatred of sin, otherwise he could not be glorified by his creatures, as an holy God; for he cannot have the glory of any attribute ascribed to him, unless there be a visible display thereof; therefore it is necessary to demonstrate his hatred of sin, by punishing it; and, hence an obligation arises from a necessity of nature, and not barely from an act of his will, to bring to condign punishment all sin, even that which he designs to pardon: But this could not have been done without a demand of satisfaction to be given, by a surety, in the sinner’s behalf, which plainly evinces the necessity of satisfaction, which was the thing to be proved.

2. This farther appears, from the punishment threatened by the law of God, which is also necessary. For the understanding of which, let it be considered,

(1.) That God cannot but give a law to intelligent creatures, who, as such, are the subjects of moral government, and therefore under a natural obligation to yield obedience to him: But this they could not do, if the law were not given and promulgated.

(2.) It was necessary for God to annex a threatning to his law, in which respect punishment would be due to those who violate it, whereby obedience might be enforced, and that fear, which is excited by it, would be an additional motive hereunto; otherwise the sinner would be ready to conclude, that he might go on in his rebellion against God with impunity.

(3.) If this law be violated, as it is by sin, the truth of God, as the result of the threatning annexed to it, obliges him to punish it, either in our own persons, or in the person of our Surety, that so the honour of his law might be secured, which he is obliged to vindicate, as it contains a bright display of the glory of his perfections.

3. If God could, consistently with his own perfections, pardon sin without satisfaction, he would not have sent his well-beloved Son to suffer for it. This plainly appears from his wisdom and goodness. It is not consistent with the glory of his wisdom, for him to bring about a thing with so much difficulty, and with such displays of his vindictive justice, in punishing one who never offended him, if he could have answered the great end hereof on easier terms or have brought about the work of our salvation without it; neither does it consist with his goodness to inflict punishment, where it is not absolutely necessary, since, agreeably to this perfection, he delights rather to extend compassion, than to display his vindictive justice, if it might be avoided. Accordingly he is described, in scripture, (speaking after the manner of men) as punishing sin with a kind of regret, or reluctancy, Hosea. xi. 8. Thus it is said to be his strange work, Isa. xxviii. 21. and that he doth not afflict wilingly, nor grieve the children of men, Lam. iii. 33. but on the other hand, delighteth in mercy, Micah vii. 18. Therefore if he could, consistently with his perfections, have pardoned sin without satisfaction, he could not have commanded the sword of his vindictive justice to awake against the man that is his fellow, Zech. xiii. 7. as an expedient to bring about an end, that might have been attained without it.

Moreover, if God could have pardoned sin without satisfaction, then his giving his own Son to perform it for us, would not have been such a wonderful instance of divine grace, as it is represented to be in scripture; for it could not have been the only expedient to bring about our salvation, if satisfaction were not absolutely necessary thereunto.^[153]

IV. We are now to consider what kind of satisfaction God demanded, for the expiating of sin. There are many who do not pretend, in all respects, to deny the necessity of satisfaction; but, when they explain what they mean by it, it amounts to little more than a denial thereof: Thus the heathen, who had learned, by tradition that sacrifices were to be offered, to make atonement for sin, concluded that these were sufficient to satisfy for it, and thereby to deliver from the guilt thereof. And some of the Jews, in a degenerate age of the church, seemed to have nothing else in view, and to have no regard to the spiritual meaning thereof, or their reference to Christ’s satisfaction, as types of it, when they rested in them, as supposing, that the multitude of their sacrifices were sufficient to satisfy for those vile abominations, which they were guilty of; upon which occasion, God expresses the greatest dislike thereof, when he says, To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts, and I delight not in the blood of bullocks or of lambs or of he-goats, Isa. i. 11. And elsewhere he tells them, I spake not to your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices, Jer. vii. 22. He does not mean that these were not instituted by him; but it is as though he had said, I did not hereby intend that they should be reckoned a sufficient price to satisfy my justice for sin. And, to fence against this supposition, the apostle says, that it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins, Heb. x. 4. for they were far from being a sufficient price to satisfy God.

Moreover, the Papists speak much of human satisfactions, consisting in various penances, fastings, leading a mortified life, parting with their estates, and submitting to voluntary poverty, with a design to make atonement for sin. The main foundation of this opinion, is their supposing, that, whatever satisfaction God demands for sin, it is the result of his will, and therefore he might accept of the smallest instance of obedience and suffering, as sufficient to compensate for it, because he has deemed it so; and therefore they distinguish between giving satisfaction to God and to his justice. God, say they, may accept of, or be satisfied with the smallest price, instead of that which is most valuable; whereas nothing can, properly speaking, be said to satisfy justice, but that which has in it a value in proportion to what is purchased thereby. As to the former branch of this distinction, we deny that God can accept of any thing as a price of redemption, but what has a tendency to secure the glory of his perfections, and that, nothing less than an infinite price, can do, and therefore the distinction is vain, and nothing to their purpose; or, if they suppose that God can be satisfied with what justice does not conclude sufficient, then it is blasphemous, and derogatory to the divine perfections. Therefore we can allow of no satisfaction, but what tends to set forth the glory, and fulfil the demands of divine justice;^[154] accordingly, we are to consider, that the satisfaction which was demanded by the justice of God, for the expiation of sin, must contain in it two things; namely,

1. It must be of infinite value, otherwise it would not be sufficient to compensate for the injuries offered to the divine name by sin, which is objectively infinite, and therefore deserves a punishment proportioned to it, and consequently the price demanded to satisfy for it, must be of equal value. The justice of God would cast the utmost contempt on any thing that falls short hereof: thus the prophet represents one, as making a very large overture, which one would think sufficient, if a finite price were so, when he speaks, in a beautiful climax, or gradation, of coming before the Lord with burnt-offerings, and these well chosen, calves of a year old, and a multitude of them; Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, a price which very few were able to give, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? in which he offers more than it was possible to give; then he ascends yet higher, and, if it were sufficient, would part with his first-born for his transgression, the fruit of his body, for the sin of his soul; all which is reckoned an inconsiderable price, not sufficient to procure the thing designed thereby; and therefore he that offers it, is advised instead of pretending to satisfy divine justice by a finite price, to walk humbly with his God, Micah vi. 7, 8. and, whatever obedience he is obliged to perform, not to have the vanity to think that this is a sufficient price to answer that end.

2. Satisfaction must bear some similitude, or resemblance, as to the matter of it, to that debt which was due from those for whom it was to be given. Here we must consider what was the debt due from us, for which a demand of satisfaction was made; this was twofold.

1st, A debt of perfect and sinless obedience, whereby the glory of God’s sovereignty might be secured, and the honour of his law maintained. This debt it was morally impossible for man to pay, after his fall; for it implies a contradiction to say that a fallen creature can yield sinless obedience; nevertheless, it was demanded of us, though fallen; for the obligation could not be disannulled by our disability to perform it.

2dly, There was a debt of punishment, which we were liable to, in proportion to the demerit of sin, as the result of the condemning sentence of the law, which threatened death for every transgression and disobedience. Now, to be satisfaction to the justice of God, it must have these ingredients in it.

As to the infinite value of the price that was given, this is contested by none, but those who deny the divinity of Christ; and these arguments that have been brought in defence of that doctrine; and others, by which we have proved the necessity that our Mediator should be God, render it less needful for us, at present, to enlarge on this subject.^[160] But there are many, who do not deny the necessity of an infinite satisfaction, who will not allow that it is necessary that there should be a resemblance between the debt contracted, and satisfaction given; and, by these, it is objected,

Object. 1. That the least instance of obedience, or one drop of Christ’s blood, was a sufficient price to satisfy divine justice; in defence of which they argue, that these must be supposed to have had in them an infinite value; but nothing can be greater than what is infinite, and therefore that one single act of obedience was sufficient to redeem the whole world of fallen men, or the whole number of fallen angels, if God had pleased to order it so.

Answ. Though we do not deny that the least instance of obedience, or sufferings performed by our Saviour, would have been of infinite value, inasmuch as we do not conclude the infinity of obedience to consist in a multitude of acts, or in its being perfectly sinless; nor do we deem his sufferings infinite, merely because they were exquisite, or greater than what mankind are generally liable to in this world, but because they were the obedience and sufferings of a divine Person; neither do we deny, that, according to the same method of reasoning, the least act of obedience and suffering, performed by him, would have been infinite. Nevertheless, it does not follow from hence, that this would have been a sufficient price of redemption; for the sufficiency of the price does not only rise from the infinite value thereof, but from God’s will to accept of it; and he could not be willing to accept of any price, but what had a tendency to illustrate and set forth the glory of his holiness, as a sin-hating God, and of his sovereignty in the government of the world, in such a way, that the most fit means might be used to prevent the commission of it, and of his truth, in fulfilling the threatnings denounced, which man was exposed to, by his violating the law. Now these ends could not be answered by one single instance of obedience, or suffering, and therefore God could not deem them sufficient; and it is plain that he did not, for, if he had, he would not have delivered our Saviour to suffer all that he did; concerning whom it is said, He spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, Rom. viii. 32.

Moreover, it was necessary that redemption should be brought about in such a way, as would lay the sinner under the highest obligation to admire the love, both of the Father and the Son. Now, if Christ had performed only one act of obedience, or suffered in the least degree, this instance of condescension, though infinite, would not have had so great a tendency to answer this end; nor could it have been said, as it is, with a great emphasis of expression, that God commendeth his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, Rom. v. 8.

Object. 2. It is objected, by others, that Christ’s active obedience was no part of the satisfaction which he gave for us, inasmuch as this was a debt due from him for himself, his human nature (in which alone he could yield obedience) being under a natural obligation to perform it; therefore he could not be said to pay that debt for us, which was due for himself. As for his passive obedience, that, indeed, might be performed for us, because, being an innocent person, he was not under any obligation to suffer, but by his own consent; but this cannot be said of his active obedience. And it is farther objected, that if he had performed active obedience for us, this would have exempted us from an obligation to yield obedience ourselves, and consequently this doctrine leads to licentiousness.

Answ. We allow that Christ as Man, was obliged to perform obedience, as a debt due from him, as a creature, and consequently, now he is in heaven, he is under the same obligation; though this has no reference to the work of our redemption, which was finished before he went thither: nevertheless, the obedience he performed before his death, might be deemed a part of that satisfaction which he gave to the justice of God for us; for,

(1.) His being under the law, was the result of his own voluntary consent, inasmuch as his incarnation, which was necessary, to his becoming a subject, was the result of the consent of his divine will. Now, if he came into the world, and thereby put himself into a capacity of yielding obedience by his own consent, which no other person ever did, then his obedience, which was the consequence hereof, might be said to be voluntary, and so deemed a part of the satisfaction which he gave to the justice of God in our behalf.

(2.) Though we do not deny that Christ’s active obedience was a debt due to God for himself, yet it does not follow, from hence, that it may not be imputed to us, nor accepted for us; even as that perfect obedience which was to have been performed by Adam, according to the tenor of the first covenant, though it were to have been imputed to all his posterity, was, nevertheless, primarily due from him for himself.

(3.) As to that part of the objection, in which it is supposed, that Christ’s obedience for us, would exempt us from an obligation to yield obedience, this is generally brought, by those who desire to render this doctrine odious, and take no notice of what we say in explaining our sense thereof. Therefore, in answer to it, let it be considered, that, when we say Christ obeyed for us, we do not suppose, that he designed hereby to exempt us from any obligation to yield obedience to God’s commanding will, but only to exempt us from performing it with the same view that he did. We are not hereby excused from yielding obedience to God, as a Sovereign, but from doing it with a view of meriting hereby, or making atonement for our defect of obedience, which was the result of our fallen state; and therefore we are to say, When we have done all, we are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to do, Luke xvii. 10. without considering it as that righteousness, by which we are to be justified in the sight of God. We understand our obligation to yield active obedience, in the same sense, as we are obliged patiently to suffer whatever afflictions God is pleased to lay on us, from which we are not exempted by Christ’s sufferings: the only difference between them is, that his sufferings were penal and satisfactory; he suffered for us, that hereby he might purchase for us eternal life, which is not the end of a believer’s suffering; therefore, why may it not be allowed, that Christ might perform obedience for us, and we, at the same time, not be excused from it?

Object. 3. As to what concerns the sufferings of Christ, it is objected, by others, that the whole of his passive obedience was not demanded as a price of redemption for us but only what he endured upon the cross, which was the greatest and most formidable part of his sufferings; and particularly those which he endured from the sixth to the ninth hour, while there was darkness over all the land, in which his soul was afflicted in an extraordinary manner, which occasioned him to cry, (Matt. xxvii. 45, 46.) My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?^[161] As for his other sufferings, endured in the whole course of his life, these are allowed to have been a convincing evidence of his love to us, and designed, as an example, to induce us to bear afflictions with patience; but that it was only his sufferings upon the cross that were satisfactory, and that was the altar on which he offered himself for us; which appears from those scriptures which speak of our redemption and justification, as the effect of his crucifixion and death, rather than of his sufferings in life.

Answ. To this it may be replied, that, though redemption and salvation be often attributed, in scripture, to Christ’s death, or to his shedding his blood upon the cross for us, yet there is, in all of them, a figurative way of speaking, in which, by a Synecdoche, a part is taken for the whole; therefore his sufferings in his life, though not particularly mentioned therein, are not excluded. There is one scripture, in which, by the same figurative way of speaking, our justification is ascribed to Christ’s active obedience, when it is said, By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous, Rom. v. 19. in which, though his passive obedience be not mentioned, it is not excluded; therefore, when we read of Christ’s sufferings on the cross, as being a part of his satisfaction, we are not to suppose that his sufferings in life are excluded. The apostle plainly intimates as much, when he says, He humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, Phil. ii. 8. he humbled himself not only in his death, but in all the sufferings he endured unto it, in the whole course of his life; therefore we must conclude, that what he endured in his infancy, and that poverty, temptation, reproach, and contradiction of sinners against himself, and all the other miseries which he underwent, during the whole course of his life, which were a part of that curse which was due to us for sin, were submitted to by him to expiate it, and consequently were a part of that satisfaction.

As for the cross’s being styled, as it is by some ancient and modern writers, the altar, on which Christ offered himself, we think that little more than a strain of rhetoric; or, if it be designed to illustrate the opinion we are now opposing, we deny that it ought to be called the altar; for it is no where so styled in scripture, neither have we ground to conclude, that the altar, upon which the sacrifices under the law were offered, was a type of Christ’s cross in particular; and, indeed, we have a better explication of the spiritual meaning thereof, given by Christ himself, when he speaks of the altar, as sanctifying the gift, Matt. xxiii. 19. alluding to what is said concerning its being most holy, and whatsoever touched it, shall be holy, Exod. xxix. 37. from whence it is inferred, that the altar was more holy than the gift, which was laid upon it, and it signifies, that the altar, on which Christ was offered, added an excellency to his offering; whereas nothing could be said to do so, but his divine nature’s being personally united to his human, which rendered it infinitely valuable. This is therefore, the altar on which Christ was offered; or, at least this is that which sanctified the offering, and not the cross on which he suffered^[162].

V. We shall now prove, that what Christ did and suffered, was with a design to give satisfaction to the justice of God; and, that what he offered, was a true and proper sacrifice for sin. All allow, that Christ obeyed and suffered; and even the Socinians themselves will not deny that Christ suffered for us, since this is so plainly contained in scripture: But the main stress of the controversy lies in this; whether Christ died merely for our good, namely, that we might be hereby induced to believe the truth of the doctrines he delivered, as he confirmed them, by shedding his blood, or that he might give us an example of patience and holy fortitude under the various evils we are exposed to, either in life or death? This is the sense in which they understand Christ’s dying for us: But there is a great deal more intended hereby, to wit, that he died in our room and stead, or that he bore that for us, which the justice of God demanded as a debt first due from us, as an expedient for his taking away the guilt of sin, and delivering us from his wrath, which we were liable to. This will appear, if we consider,

1. That he is, for this reason, styled our Redeemer, as having purchased us hereby, or delivered, us, in a judicial way, out of the hand of vindictive justice, which is the most proper, if not the only sense of the word redemption. The Socinians, indeed, speak of Christ as a redeemer; but they understand the word in a metaphorical sense, as importing his delivering us from some evils, that we were exposed to; not by paying a price of redemption for us, but by revealing those laws, or doctrines, which had a tendency to reform the world, or laying down some rules to direct the conversation of mankind, and remove some prejudices they had entertained; whereas we assert, that herein he dealt with the justice of God, as offering himself a sacrifice for sin.

This appears from those scriptures that speak of his soul, as made an offering for sin, Isa. liii. 10. or his being set forth to be a propitiation, to declare the righteousness of God for the remission of sins, Rom. iii. 25. in which respect, he answered the types thereof under the law, in which atonement is said to be made by sacrifice, which, being an act of worship, was performed to God alone, whereby sin was typically expiated, and the sinner discharged from the guilt, which he was liable to; and, in this respect Christ is said, as the Anti-type thereof, to have offered himself without spot to God, when he shed his blood for us, or to have put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, Heb. ix. 26. and to have given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God, for a sweet smelling savour.

Moreover, what he did and suffered, is styled a ransom, or price of redemption; and accordingly they, who were concerned therein, are said to be bought with a price, 1 Cor. vi. 20. and he saith, concerning himself, that he came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many, Matt. xx. 28. We read, in scripture, of a person’s paying a sum of money, as a ransom for his life, when it was forfeited, by his having been the culpable occasion of the death of another, Exod. xxi. 29, 30. and if such a consideration, when exacted as a price of redemption, be styled a ransom, a person’s laying down his life for another, may, with equal propriety, be so called. And this Christ is said, in many scriptures, to have done for us; upon which account he is styled our Redeemer.

Object. We oftentimes read, in scripture, of redemption, where there is no price paid: Thus Israel is said to be redeemed out of Egypt, Deut. vii. 8. and Babylon, Micah iv. 10. And elsewhere, speaking of their deliverance out of captivity, God saith, I will redeem thee out of the hand of the terrible, Jer. xv. 21. whereas there was no price of redemption paid for their deliverance, either out of Egypt or Babylon, but it was by the immediate power of God. So Jacob, when he speaks of his deliverance from evil by the angel, styles this, his redemption from all evil, Gen. xlviii. 16. Now, though we allow that the angel he there speaks of, was our Lord Jesus Christ; yet the deliverance he wrought for Jacob was not by paying a price for him, but by exerting his divine power in order thereto.

Moreover, others are called redeemers, who have been God’s ministers in delivering his people: Thus Moses is called a ruler and deliverer by the hands of the angel, which appeared to him in the bush, Acts vii. 35. so our translators rendered it^[163]: but it ought to be rendered a Redeemer; therefore there may be redemption without satisfaction.

Answ. This objection, how plausible soever it may seem to be, is not unanswerable; and the reply which may be given to it, is, that though deliverance from evil may be styled redemption, as it is oftentimes in scripture: the reason of its being so called, is, because of the reference which it has to that ransom that Christ was, after his incarnation, to pay for his people. This was the foundation of all that discriminating grace that God, in former ages, extended to his people, it was on the account hereof that he did not suffer them to perish in Egypt, or Babylon, and accordingly their deliverance is called a redemption, from thence; whereas, we never find that any deliverance, which God wrought for his enemies, who have no concern in Christ’s redemption, is so called.

And whereas Moses is styled, in that scripture but now referred to, a Redeemer, the deliverance he wrought for them, as an instrument made use of by the angel that appeared to him, may, without any impropriety of expression, be called a redemption, and he a redeemer, inasmuch as that deliverance that Christ wrought by him, was founded on the purchase which he designed to pay, otherwise Moses, would not have been so styled.

2. There are many scriptures that speak of Christ’s obedience and sufferings, as being in our room and stead, whereby he performed what was due from us to the justice of God which is the proper notion of satisfaction. Thus we are to understand those expressions, in which he is said to die for us, as the apostle says; In due time Christ died for the ungodly, and while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, Rom. v. 6, 8. by which we are to understand, that he endured those sufferings in life and death which we are liable to, with a design to procure for us justification, reconciliation to God, and eternal salvation, and herein he was substituted in our room and stead, as well as died for our good.^[164]

That Christ died, in this sense, for his people, farther appears, from his being therein said to bear their sins, as the apostle expresses it, Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, 1 Pet. ii. 24. and elsewhere it is said, He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all; He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, he was cut off out of the land of the living; for the transgressions of my people was he stricken, Isa. liii. 5-8. all which expressions plainly denote that he suffered that which was due to them, or that he died in their room and stead.

And this he is farther said to do, in a sense, in which none but he ever died for any other, and therefore much more must be understood by it, than his dying for the good of mankind. The apostle speaking of this matter, opposes Christ’s sufferings to his own, with respect to the end and design thereof, when he saith; Was Paul crucified for you, 1 Cor. i. 13. which is as though he should say, it is true, I have suffered many things for the church’s advantage: yet it would be a vile thing for you to entertain the least surmise, as though my suffering were endured with the same view that Christ suffered; for he died as a sacrifice for sin, that he might give a price of redemption to the justice of God, which no one else ever did.

Object. 1. It is objected, to what hath been said in defence of Christ’s dying in our room and stead, inasmuch as he bare our iniquities, that these expressions denote nothing else but his taking them away, which he might do, if he had not died in our room and stead. Thus we have an explication of that scripture before mentioned, which speaks of Christ’s bearing our iniquities, wherein it appears that nothing is intended thereby but his taking away some afflictions we were liable to; as it is said, upon the occasion of his casting out devils, and healing all that were sick, that this was done that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses, Mat. viii. 16, 17. which he might be said to do, without his dying to satisfy the justice of God for us in our room and stead.

Answ. There are two things to be considered in the death of Christ, which, though distinct, are not to be separated; one is, his bearing those griefs, sorrows, or punishments, that were due to us for sin; the other is, his taking them away, as the effect and consequence of his having born or answered for them; and the design of the prophet Isaiah, in his liii. chapter, is to shew that Christ did both these, as appears by several expressions therein; accordingly when he is said, in ver. 4. To have borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows, both these senses are to be applied to it; one of which is explained by the apostle, in 1 Pet. ii. 24. Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree; and the evangelist, in the text under our present consideration explains these words of the prophet in both senses, when he saith, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses, that is, he submitted to give satisfaction for them, and, as the consequence thereof, healed those diseases which we were liable to, as the fruit of sin. The objection therefore taken from this scripture, against the doctrine we are maintaining, is of no force; for though Christ took away those miseries, which were the effects and consequences of sin, it doth not follow that he did not do this, by making satisfaction for it.

Object. 2. There are other ends of Christ’s dying for us, mentioned in scripture, where though the same mode of speaking be used, different ends are said to be attained thereby, from that of his giving satisfaction to the justice of God: Thus it is said, that he gave himself for our sins that he might deliver us from this present evil world, Gal. i. 4. that he might purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works, Tit. ii. 14. and that he might hereby leave us an example that we should follow his steps, 1. Pet ii. 21. and that he might acquire to himself some additional circumstances of glory, thus it is said, He died, and rose and revived, that he might be Lord, both of the dead and living, Rom. xiv. 9. These, and such-like ends, are said to be attained by Christ’s death, which do not argue that he died in our stead, but only for our advantage.

And to this it may be added, that others are represented as suffering for the church, as well as Christ, namely, for their good, where there is no difference, in the mode of speaking, from that other scripture, in which Christ is said to die for us. Thus the apostle saith, I rejoice in my sufferings for you, Col. i. 24. and this he explains elsewhere, when he speaks of his being afflicted for the church’s consolation and salvation, 2 Cor. i. 6.

Answ. We do not deny but that there are other ends designed by Christ’s sufferings and death, besides his giving satisfaction to divine justice, which are the result and consequence thereof; therefore we must consider him as dying in our stead, and then the fruits and effects, which redound to our advantage; one is so far from being inconsistent with the other, that it is necessary to it; and, in some of the scriptures but now mentioned, both these ends are expressed, the former being the ground and reason of the latter; as when it is said, He gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world: the meaning is, he first made satisfaction for sin, and then, as the consequence thereof, in the application of redemption, he designed to deliver us from the evils we are exposed to in this world; and when, in another scripture before-mentioned, the apostle speaks of Christ’s purifying unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works, he mentions this not as the chief, much less as the only design of his giving himself for his people; but it is said, he did this first, that he might redeem them from all iniquity, namely, by giving a satisfaction to justice for them, and then, that having redeemed, he might purify them to himself; and when it is said, that he died, that he might be Lord, both of the dead and living, the meaning is, that he might purchase that dominion which he hath over them as Mediator; or that having satisfied divine justice for them, as a Priest, he might, have dominion over them as a King; so that these two ends are not inconsistent with each other, and therefore the latter doth not destroy the former.

And as for that scripture, in which the apostle speaks of his sufferings for the church, or for their consolation and salvation, we may observe, that he doth not say that he suffered for them, much less, in their room and stead, or as a propitiation to make reconciliation, that hereby he might promote their consolation and salvation, as Christ did; much less is it said of any besides him, that he gave his life a ransom for them, which is an expression peculiar to himself, wherein his death is represented as a price of redemption for them^[165].

3. That Christ died in our room and stead, and consequently designed hereby to give satisfaction to the justice of God for our sin, appears from his death’s being typified by the sacrifices under the ceremonial law, which, it is plain, were substituted in the room of the offender, for whom they were offered. We read of the priest’s laying his hand on the head of the sacrifice, and confessing over it the iniquities of those for whom it was offered, upon which occasion it is said to have born them, Lev. xvi. 21, 22. And the consequence thereof was their being discharged from the guilt which they had contracted, which is called, making atonement for sin. Now that this was a type of Christ’s making satisfaction for our sins, by his death, is evident, inasmuch as the apostle having spoken concerning this ceremonial ordinance, applies it to him, when he saith, that Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many, Heb. ix. 28. And elsewhere, when referring to the sacrifice of the Lord’s passover, as the paschal lamb was styled, Exod. xii. 27. He says that Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us, 1 Cor. v. 7. And, as such, he is said to be made sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. v. 21. And as they who were ordained to perform this service, are called priests, Christ, as typified thereby, is so styled.

I am sensible it will be objected, that the sacrifices under the ceremonial law were not instituted with a design to typify Christ’s death; which would hardly have been asserted by any, as being so contrary to the sense of many scriptures, had it not been thought necessary to support the cause they maintain. But, having said something concerning this before, in considering the origin of the ceremonial law^[166], I shall only add, that it is very absurd to suppose that God appointed sacrifices not as types of Christ, but to prevent their following the custom of the Heathen, in sacrificing to their gods, and that they did not take their rites of sacrificing from the Jews, but the Jews from them; and God, foreseeing that they would be inclined to follow their example herein, indulged them as to the matter, and only made a change with respect to the object thereof, in ordaining, that, instead of offering sacrifice to idols, they should offer it to him. But this runs counter to all the methods of providence in the government of the church, which have been so far from giving occasion to it to symbolize with the religion of the Heathen, in their external rites of worship, that God strictly forbade all commerce with them. Thus Abraham was called out of Ur of the Chaldees, an idolatrous country, to live in the land of Canaan, and there he was to be no other than a stranger, or sojourner, that he might not, by too great familiarity with the inhabitants thereof learn their ways. And afterwards the Jews were prohibited from having any dealings with the Egyptians; not because civil commerce was unlawful, but lest this should give occasion to them to imitate them in their rites of worship; to prevent which, the multiplying horses was forbidden, Deut. xvii. 16. upon which occasion the church saith, in Hos. xiv. 3. We will not ride upon horses, neither will we say any more to the work of our hands, Ye are our gods, that is, we will not do any thing that may be a temptation to us to join with the Egyptians, or other Heathen nations, in their idolatry; therefore certainly God did not ordain sacrifices in compliance with the Heathen, but to typify Christ’s death.

Thus we have endeavoured to prove that Christ gave satisfaction to the justice of God for sin, as he was a true and proper sacrifice for it. I might, for the farther strengthening of this argument, have proved, that the end of Christ’s death, assigned by the Socinians, namely, that he might make atonement for sin, can hardly be reckoned an expedient to confirm any doctrine; for there are many instances of persons having laid down their lives to confirm doctrines that have been false, and nothing more is proved hereby, but that the person believes the doctrine himself, or else is under the power of delusion or distraction; whereas a person’s believing the doctrine he advances is no evidence of the truth thereof: and as for our Saviour’s confirming his doctrines, that was sufficiently done by the miracles which he wrought for that end. And indeed, were this the only end of Christ’s dying, I cannot see how it differs from the death of the apostles, and other martyrs, for the sake of the gospel; whereas Christ laid down his life with other views, and for higher ends, than any other person ever suffered.

And to this we may add, that if Christ died only to confirm his doctrine, or, as it is farther alleged, by those whom we oppose, that herein he might give us an example of submission to the divine will and patience in suffering, this would have been no manner of advantage to the Old Testament saints; for Christ could not be an example to them, nor were the doctrines, which they pretend he suffered to confirm, such as took place in their time. Therefore Christ was no Saviour to them, neither could they reap any advantage by what he was to do and suffer; nor could they have been represented as desiring and hoping for his coming, or, as it is said of Abraham, rejoicing to see his day, John viii. 56. and if we suppose that they were saved, it must have been without faith in him. According to this method of reasoning, they not only militate against Christ’s being a proper sacrifice; but render his cross of none effect, at least to them that lived before his incarnation; and his death, which was the greatest instance of love that could be expressed to the children of men, not absolutely necessary to their salvation.^[167]

Object. Before we close this head, we shall consider an objection generally brought against the doctrine of Christ’s satisfaction, namely, that he did not undergo the punishment due for our sins, because he did not suffer eternally; nor were his sufferings attended with that despair, and some other circumstances of punishment, which sinners are liable to in the other world.

Answ. To this it may be answered, that the infinite value of Christ’s sufferings did compensate for their not being eternal. And, indeed, the eternity of sufferings is the result of their not being satisfactory, which cannot be applicable to those that Christ endured; and as for that despair, attended with impatience, and other sins committed by those that suffer eternal punishments, that arises from the eternal duration of them, as well as from the corruption of nature, which refuses to subscribe to the justice of God therein, while complaining of the severity of his dispensations.

Thus we have considered Christ’s death, as a true and proper sacrifice for sin. We might now take notice of an expression that is used in this answer, which is taken from the words of the apostle, that once offered himself, Heb. ix. 28. and that without spot to God, ver. 14. This offering being sufficient to answer the end designed, there was no need of repeating it, or of his doing any thing else with the same view; the justice of God having declared itself fully satisfied when he was raised from the dead. But having before considered the infinite value of what he did and suffered, and its efficacy to bring about the work of our redemption, whereby it appears to be more excellent than all the sacrifices that were offered under the ceremonial law, I need not say any more on that subject; and as we have also considered Christ as being sinless, and therefore offering himself as a Lamb, without spot and blemish, and how this was the necessary result of the extraordinary formation and union of the human nature with his divine Person, and the unction which he received from the Holy Ghost; I shall only observe, at present, what is said concerning his offering himself to God. This he is said to have done, in the scripture but now referred to, through the eternal Spirit; which words are commonly understood of his eternal Godhead, which added an infinite value to his sacrifice, or, like the altar, sanctified the gift, which is certainly a great truth: But it seems more agreeable, to the most known sense of the word Spirit, to understand it concerning his presenting, or making a tender of the service he performed by the hand of the eternal Spirit unto God, as an acceptable sacrifice.

But the main difficulty to be accounted for, in this scripture, is, what is objected by the Socinians, and others, who deny his deity, namely, how he could be said to offer himself to God, since that is the same as to say, that he offered himself to himself, he being, as we have before proved, God equal with the Father. But there is no absurdity in this assertion, if it be understood concerning the service performed by him in his human nature, which, though it was rendered worthy to be offered, by virtue of its union with his divine Person, this act of worship terminated on the Godhead, or tended to the securing the glory of the perfections of that divine nature, which is common to all the divine Persons; and it is in this sense that some ancient writers are to be understood, when they say, that Christ may be said to offer up himself to himself, that is, the service performed in the human nature was the thing offered, and the object hereof, to which all acts of worship are referred, was the divine nature, which belongs to himself as well as the Father.^[168]

VI. We shall now consider the persons for whom, as a Priest, Christ offered himself, and so enter on that subject, that is so much controverted in this present age, namely, whether Christ died for all men, or only for the elect, whom he designed hereby to redeem, and bring to salvation; and here let it be premised.

I. That it is generally taken for granted, by those who maintain either side of the question, that the saving effects of Christ’s death do not redound to all men, or that Christ did not die, in this respect, for all the world, since to assert this would be to argue that all men shall be saved, which every one supposes contrary to the whole tenor of scripture.

2. It is allowed, by those who deny the extent of Christ’s death to all men, as to what concerns their salvation, that it may truly be said, that there are some blessings redounding to the whole world, and more especially to those who sit under the sound of the gospel, as the consequence of Christ’s death; inasmuch as it is owing hereunto, that the day of God’s patience is lengthened out, and the preaching of the gospel continued to those who are favoured with it; and that this is attended, in many, with restraining grace, and some instances of external reformation, which (though it may not issue in their salvation) has a tendency to prevent a multitude of sins, and a greater degree condemnation, that would otherwise ensue. These may be called the remote, or secondary ends of Christ’s death, which was principally and immediately designed to redeem the elect, and to purchase all saving blessings for them, which shall be applied in his own time and way: Nevertheless others, as a consequence hereof, are made partakers of some blessings of common providence, so far as they are subservient to the salvation of those, for whom he gave himself a ransom.

3. It is allowed on both sides, and especially by all that own the divinity and satisfaction of Christ, that his death was sufficient to redeem the whole world, had God designed that it should be a price for them, which is the result of the infinite value of it; therefore,

4. The main question before us is, whether God designed the salvation of all mankind by the death of Christ, or whether he accepted it as a price of redemption for all, so that it might be said that he redeemed some who shall not be saved by him? This is affirmed by many, who maintain universal redemption, which we must take leave to deny. And they farther add, as an explication hereof, that Christ died that he might put all men into a salvable state, or procure a possibility of salvation for them; so that many might obtain it, by a right improvement of his death, who shall fall short of it; and also that it is in their power to frustrate the ends thereof, and so render it ineffectual. This we judge not only to be an error, but such as is highly derogatory to the glory of God; which we shall endeavour to make appear, and to establish the contrary doctrine, namely, that Christ died to purchase salvation for none but those who shall obtain it. This may be proved,

I. From those distinguishing characters that accompany salvation, which are given to those for whom he died.

1. They are called his sheep, in John x. 11. I am the good Shepherd, the good Shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. This metaphor must certainly imply, that they, for whom Christ died, are distinguished from the world, as the objects of his immediate care, and special gracious providence: But, besides this, there are several things in the context, which contain a farther description of these sheep, for whom he laid down his life, which cannot be applied to the whole world: Thus it is said, in ver. 14. I know my sheep, and am known of them, that is, with a knowledge of affection, as the word knowledge is often used in scripture, when applied to Christ, or his people. Again, these sheep are farther described, as those who shall certainly obtain salvation; as our Saviour says concerning them, in ver. 27, 28. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall any pluck them out of my hand: but this privilege, without doubt, belongs not to the whole world.

They are also considered as believers, inasmuch as faith is the necessary consequence of Christ’s redemption, and accordingly are distinguished from the world, or that part thereof, which is left in unbelief and impenitency: Thus Christ says, concerning those who rejected his Person and gospel, in ver. 26. Ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep.

2. They for whom Christ died are called his friends, and, as such, the objects of his highest love, in John xv. 13. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends, and they are farther described, in the following words, as expressing their love to him, by doing whatsoever he commandeth them; and, he calls them friends, so they are distinguished from servants, or slaves, who, though they may be made partakers of common favours, yet he imparts not his secrets to them; but, with respect to these, he says, in ver. 15, 16. All things that I have heard of my Father, I have made known unto you; And they are farther distinguished from the world, inasmuch as they are chosen by Christ, and ordained that they should go and bring forth fruit; and there are several other privileges which accompany salvation, that are said to belong to these friends of Christ, for whom he died.

Object. It is objected, that what Christ here says, concerning his friends, is particularly directed to his disciples, with whom at that time he conversed and these he considers as persons who had made a right improvement of his redeeming love; and therefore, that redemption which the whole world might be made partakers of, if they would, these were like to reap the happy fruits and effects of.

Answ. To this it may be replied, that whatever promises, or privileges, Christ’s disciples were made partakers of, if these do not immediately respect their character as ministers, but as Christians, they are equally to be applied to all believers. Now, that what Christ says to them, whom he calls his friends, is applicable to all believers, appears from their being described as abiding in him, and bringing forth much fruit, under the powerful influence of his grace, without whom they can do nothing; and, when he speaks, in ver. 19, 26. of the world’s hating them, because they are not of the world, and of the Comforter’s being sent to testify of him, in order to the confirmation of their faith, this belongs to all believers, as such; therefore they are as much described as Christ’s friends, for whom he laid down his life, as his disciples, to whom he more immediately directed his discourse.

And as for the other part of the objection, namely, that these had made a right improvement of Christ’s redemption: the reply that may be given to it, is, that none but Christ’s friends can be said to have made a right improvement of redemption, and therefore none but such have any ground to conclude that Christ died for them: but this is not the temper and character of the greater part of mankind, therefore Christ did not die for the whole world: and it is very evident, from this character which Christ gives of them, for whom he died, that either they are, or shall be, of enemies, made friends to him.

3. They are called, The Children of God that were scattered abroad, who should be gathered together in one, as the consequence of his death, in John xi. 52. This gathering together in one, seems to import the same thing, with what the apostle speaks of, as a display of the grace of the gospel, and calls it, their being gathered together in Christ their Head, in Eph. i. 10. and one part of them he considers, as being already in heaven, and the other part of them on earth, in their way to it; and he speaks such things concerning them, in the foregoing and following verses, as cannot be said of any but those that shall be saved. Now, if Christ designed, by his death, to purchase this special privilege for his children, certainly it cannot be supposed that he died for the whole world; and elsewhere the apostle speaking, in Heb. ii. 10. concerning the Captain of our salvation’s being made perfect through sufferings considers this as a means for bringing many sons to glory, which is a peculiar privilege belonging to the heirs of salvation, and not to the whole world.

Object. 1. It will be objected to this, that nothing can be proved from the words of so vile a person as Caiaphas, who relates this matter; and therefore, though it be contained in scripture, it does not prove the truth of the doctrine, which is pretended to be established thereby.

Answ. Though Caiaphas was one of the vilest men on earth, and he either did not believe this prophecy himself, or, if he did, he made a very bad use of it, yet this does not invalidate the prediction: for though wicked men may occasionally have some prophetic intimation concerning future events, as Balaam had, the instrument, which the Spirit of God makes use of in discovering them to mankind, does not render them less certain, for the worst of men may be employed to impart the greatest truths: therefore it is sufficient to our purpose, that it is said, in the words immediately foregoing, that being high priest that year, he prophesied, as it was no uncommon thing for the high priest to have prophetic intimations from God, to deliver to his people, whatever his personal character might be; so that we must consider this as a divine oracle, and therefore infallibly true.

Object. 2. If it be allowed, that what is here predicted was true, yet the subject-matter thereof respects the nation of the Jews, concerning whom it cannot be said, that every individual was in a state of salvation, and therefore it rather militates against, than proves the doctrine of particular redemption.

Answ. It is evident, that when it is said that Christ should die for that nation, the meaning is, the children of God in that nation; for the children of God, that dwelt there, are opposed to his children that were scattered abroad; and so the meaning is, Christ died that they should not perish, who have the temper, and disposition of his children, wherever the place of their residence be.

4. They for whom Christ died are called his church, whereof he is the Head; and the Body, of whom he is the Saviour, in Eph. v. 23. and these he is said to have loved, and given himself for, in ver. 25. Now the church is distinguished from the world, as it is gathered out of it; and the word church, in this place, is taken in a very different sense, from that in which it is understood in many other scriptures. The apostle does not mean barely a number of professing people, of which some are sincere, and others may be hypocrites, or of which some shall be saved, and others not; nor does he speak of those who are apparently in the way of salvation, as making a visible profession of the Christian religion: But it is taken for that church, which is elsewhere called the spouse of Christ, and is united to him by faith, and that shall, in the end, be eternally saved by him; this is very evident, for he speaks of them, as sanctified and cleansed with the washing of water by the word, in ver. 26. And, as to what concerns their future state, they are such as shall be presented to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, in ver. 27. Now, since it was for these that Christ died, it cannot be reasonably concluded that he died equally and alike for all mankind.

And to this we may add, that they are called his people, whom he designed to save from their sins, in Matt. i. 21. and also a peculiar people, who are described by this character, by which they are known, as being zealous of good works, in Tit. ii. 14. and, by his death, they are said not only to be redeemed, so as to be put into the possession of the external privileges of the gospel, but redeemed from all iniquity, and purified unto himself; all which expressions certainly denote those distinguishing blessings which Christ, by his death, designed to purchase for those who are the objects thereof.

II. That Christ did not die equally, and alike for all mankind, appears from his death’s being an instance of the highest love, and they, who are concerned herein, are in a peculiar manner, obliged to bless him for it as such. Thus the apostle joins both these together, when he says in Gal. ii. 20. He loved me, and gave himself for me; and elsewhere it is said, in Rev. i. 5. He loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood; and herein it is said, that God commendeth his love towards us, in Rom. v. 8. as that which is without a parallel. And besides, when he speaks of this love of Christ expressed herein, he seems to distinguish it from that common love which is extended to all, when he says, Christ died for us; and, that we may understand what he means thereby, we must consider to whom it was that this epistle was directed, namely, to such as were beloved of God, called to be saints, in chap. i. 7. They are also described as such, who were justified by Christ’s blood, and who should be saved from wrath through him; reconciled to God by the death of his Son, and who should be saved by his life; and, as such, who joyed in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, and by him had received the atonement, in chap. 9-11. therefore surely they, who were thus beloved by Christ, to whom he expressed his love by dying for them, must be distinguished from the world. And our Saviour speaks of this, as far exceeding all that love, which is in the breasts of men, to one another, in John xv. 18. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man should lay down his life for his friends. Therefore we have no reason to suppose that he died equally and alike for all, for then there would be an equal instance of love herein to the best and worst of men; Judas would have been as much beloved as Peter; the Scribes and Pharisees, Christ’s avowed enemies and persecutors, as much beloved as his disciples and faithful followers, if there be nothing discriminating in his dying love. Therefore we must conclude that he died to procure some distinguishing blessings for a part of mankind, which all are not partakers of.

And, as this love is so great and discriminating, it is the subject-matter of the eternal praise of glorified saints: The new song that is sung to him, in Rev. v. 9. contains in it a celebrating of his glory, as having redeemed them to God by his blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation, who were admitted into his immediate presence, as the objects of his distinguishing love. And certainly all this implies more than his purchasing the gospel-dispensation, or the discovery of the way of salvation to mankind, of whom the greatest part neglect, despise, and reap no saving advantage thereby.

III. There are some circumstances attending the death of Christ, which argue, that it was not designed for all the world: particularly, he died as a Surety, or as one who undertook to pay that debt, which the justice of God might have exacted of men in their own persons. This has already been proved; and that which may be inferred from hence, is, that if Christ, by dying, paid this debt, and when he rose from the dead, receiving a discharge from the hand of justice, then God will not exact the debt twice, so as to bring them under the condemning sentence of the law, whom Christ, by his death, has delivered from it: this is certainly a privilege that does not belong to the whole world, but to the sanctified.

Moreover, some are not justified or discharged for the sake of a ransom paid, and never shall be; therefore it may be concluded, that it was not given for them.

IV. It farther appears, that Christ did not die equally and alike for all men, in that he designed to purchase that dominion over, or propriety in them, for whom he died, which would be the necessary result hereof. As they are his trust and charge, given into his hand, to be redeemed by his blood; (and, in that respect, he undertook to satisfy the justice of God for them, which he has done hereby) so, as the result hereof, he acquired a right to them, as Mediator, by redemption; pursuant to the eternal covenant between the Father and him, he obtained a right to bestow eternal life on all that were given to, and purchased by him. This tends to set forth the Father’s glory, as he designed hereby to recover and bring back fallen creatures to himself; and it redounds to Christ’s glory, as Mediator; as herein he not only discovers the infinite value of his obedience and sufferings, but all his redeemed ones are rendered the monuments of his love and grace, and shall for ever be employed in celebrating his praise: But certainly this is inconsistent with his death’s being ineffectual to answer this end, and consequently he died for none but those whom he will bring to glory, which he could not be said to have done, had he laid down his life for the whole world.

V. That Christ did not die, or pay a price of redemption for all the world, farther appears, in that, salvation, whether begun, carried on, or perfected, is represented, in scripture, as the application thereof; and all those graces, which are wrought by the Spirit in believers, are the necessary result and consequence thereof. This will appear, if we consider, that when Christ speaks of his Spirit, as sent to convince of sin, righteousness, and judgment, and to guide his people into all truth he says, He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you, John xvi. 14. the meaning of which is, that he should apply what he had purchased, whereby his glory, as our Redeemer, would be eminently illustrated; and elsewhere, when the apostle speaks of the Spirit’s work of regeneration and sanctification, he considers it as the result of Christ’s death, and accordingly it is said to be shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour, Tit. iii. 6. And when we read of his redeeming them that were under the law, their receiving the adoption of sons, Gal. iv. 5. and all the privileges contained in it, these are considered as the necessary consequences thereof; and Christ’s being not spared, but delivered up unto death for those who are described as chosen, called, justified, and such as shall be hereafter glorified, is assigned, as a convincing evidence, that God will with him freely give them all things, Rom. viii. 32. Now this cannot, with the least shadow of reason, be applied to the whole world; therefore Christ did not die for, or redeem, all mankind.

That the application of redemption may farther appear to be of equal extent with the purchase thereof, we shall endeavour to prove, that all those graces, which believers are made partakers of here, as well as complete salvation, which is the consummation thereof hereafter, are the purchase of Christ’s death. And herein we principally oppose those who defend the doctrine of universal redemption, in that open and self-consistent way, which the Pelagians generally take, who suppose, that faith and repentance, and all other graces, are entirely in our own power; otherwise the conditionality of the gospel-covenant, as they rightly observe, could never be defended, and they, for whom Christ died, namely, all mankind, must necessarily repent and believe. Thus a late writer^[170] argues, in consistency with his own scheme; whereas some others, who maintain the doctrine of universal redemption, and, at the same time, that of efficacious grace, pluck down with one hand, what they build up with the other. It is the former of these that we are now principally to consider, when we speak of the graces of the Spirit, as what are purchased by Christ’s blood; and, that this may appear, let it be observed,

1. That complete salvation is styled, The purchased possession, Eph. i. 14. and our deliverance from the wrath to come, is not only inseparably connected with, but contained in it, and both these are considered as purchased by the death of Christ, 1 Thess. i. 10. Rom. v. 9, 10. and the apostle elsewhere, speaking concerning the church, as arrived to its state of perfection in heaven, and its being without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, and without blemish, that is, when its sanctification is brought to perfection, considers this, as the accomplishment of that great end of Christ’s giving himself for it, or laying down his life to purchase it, Eph. v. 25, 27.

2. It follows, from hence, that all that grace, whereby believers are made meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light, which is the beginning of this salvation, is the purchase of Christ’s blood. Accordingly God is said to have blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places, (or, as it may be better rendered, in what concerns heavenly things) in Christ, Eph. i. 3. that is, for the sake of Christ’s death, which was the purchase thereof; therefore it follows, that faith and repentance, and all other graces, which are wrought in us in this world, are purchased thereby: Thus it is said, Unto you it is given in behalf of Christ to believe, as well as to exercise those graces, which are necessary in those who are called to suffer for his sake, Phil. i. 29. and elsewhere God is said to have exalted Christ to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance, as well as forgiveness of sins, Acts v. 31. And, since his exaltation includes in it his resurrection from the dead, it plainly argues, that he died to give repentance, and consequently that this grace was purchased by him; and when our Saviour speaks of sending the Spirit, the Comforter to convince the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment, which comprizes in it that internal work of grace that is wrought by him, he considers this as the consequence of his leaving the world, after he had finished the work of redemption by his death, and so purchased this privilege for them, John xvi. 7, 8.

VI. That Christ did not die for all mankind, appears from his not interceding for them, as he saith, I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me, for they are thine; and not for his disciples alone, but for them also which should believe on him through their word, John xvii. 9, 20. This farther appears from a believer’s freedom from condemnation being founded on Christ’s intercession, as well as his death and resurrection, Rom. viii. 34. and his being, at the same time, styled an Advocate with the Father, and a propitiation for our sins, 1 John ii. 1, 2.

And this may be farther argued from the nature of Christ’s intercession, which (as will be considered in its proper place^[171]) is his presenting himself, in the merit of his death, in the behalf of those for whom he suffered; as also from his being always heard in that which he pleads for, John xi. 42. which argues that they shall be saved, otherwise it could not be supposed that he intercedes for their salvation: but this he cannot be said to do for all mankind, as appears by the event, in that all shall not be saved.

Object. To this it is objected that Christ prayed for his enemies, as it was foretold concerning him, by the prophet, who saith, He made intercession for the transgressors, Isa. liii. 12. and this was accomplished at his crucifixion, when he saith, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do, Luke xxiii. 34. That which Christ here prayed for, was forgiveness, which is a privilege connected with salvation; and this he did in the behalf of the multitude that crucified him: but it cannot reasonably be supposed, that all these were saved: therefore if Christ’s death and intercession respects the same persons, and necessarily infers their salvation, then it would follow, that this rude and inhuman multitude were all saved, which they, who deny universal redemption do not suppose.

Answ. Some, in answer to this objection, suppose, that there is a foundation for a distinction between those supplications, which Christ, in his human nature, put up to God, as being bound, by the moral law, in common with all mankind, to pray for his enemies; and his Mediatorial prayer or intercession. In the former of these respects, he prayed for them; which prayer, though it argued the greatness of his affection for them, yet it did not necessarily infer their salvation; in like manner, as Stephen, when dying, is represented as praying for those who stoned him, when he saith, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge, Acts vii. 80. or, as our Saviour prays for himself in the garden, O, my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me, Matt. xxvi. 39. whereby he signifies the formidableness of the death he was to undergo, and that his human nature could not but dread such a degree of suffering: this they suppose to be different from his Mediatorial intercession for his people, in which he represents the merit of his death, as what would effectually procure the blessings purchased thereby; in this latter sense, he could not be said to pray for any of those who crucified him, who are excluded from salvation.

But, since this reply to the objection hath some difficulties attending it, which render it less satisfactory, especially because it supposes that he was not heard in that which he prayed for, when he desired that God would forgive them, I would rather chuse to take another method in answering it; namely, that when Christ prays that God would forgive them, he means that God would not immediately pour forth the vials of his wrath upon that wicked generation, as their crime deserved, but that they might still continue to be a people favoured with the means of grace; this he prays for, and herein was answered; and his intercession for them, though it had not an immediate respect to the salvation of all of them, had, notwithstanding, a subserviency to the gathering in of his elect amongst them, whose salvation was principally intended by this intercession, as it was for them that he shed his blood; and accordingly I apprehend, that this desire that God would forgive them, implies the same thing as Moses’s request, in the behalf of Israel, did, when he saith, Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people, as thou hast forgiven this people from Egypt, until now, Numb. xiv. 19. where to pardon intends nothing else but God’s not punishing them as their sin deserved, in an immediate, and exemplary way and manner.

VII. The doctrine of universal redemption hath some absurd consequences attending it, not consistent with the divine perfections; as,

1. It would give occasion for Christ to be called the Saviour of those who shall not be eventually saved by him, the Redeemer of many, who are held in chains by the justice of God, and receive no saving benefit by his redemption, or for him to be said to express the highest instance of love, in dying for those who shall for ever be the objects of his hatred, which implies a contradiction; and what is this but to say, that he delivers those from the wrath to come, 1 Thess. i. 10. who are, and shall be for ever, children of wrath? therefore we must either assert universal salvation, or deny universal redemption.

2. It will also follow from hence, that he satisfied the justice of God for all the sins of all men; for to lay down a price of redemption, is to discharge the whole debt, otherwise it would be to no purpose. Now, if he satisfied for all the sins of every man, he did this that no sin should be their ruin, and consequently he died to take away the guilt of final impenitency in those who shall perish; and therefore they have, by virtue hereof, a right to salvation, which they shall not obtain: it follows then, that since he did not die for all the sins of all men, he did not, by his death, redeem all men.

3. If Christ died for all men, he intended hereby their salvation, or that they should live: but it is certain he did not intend the salvation of all men; for then his design must be frustrated with respect to a part of them, for whom he died, which contains a reflection on his wisdom, as not adapting the means to the end. Moreover, this supposes that Christ’s attaining the end he designed by his death, depends on the will of man, and consequently it subjects him to disappointment, and renders God’s eternal purpose dependent on man’s conduct.

4. Since God designed, by the death of Christ, to bring to himself a revenue of glory, in proportion to the infinite value thereof, and Christ, our great Mediator, was, as the prophet saith, to have a portion with the great, and to divide the spoil with the strong, as the consequence of his pouring out his soul unto death, Isa. liii. 12. it follows from thence, that if all are not saved, for whom Christ died, then the Father and the Son would lose that glory which they designed to attain hereby, as the work would be left incomplete; and a great part of mankind cannot take occasion from Christ’s redeeming them, to adore and magnify that grace, which is displayed therein, since it is not eventually conducive to their salvation.

Having endeavoured to prove the doctrine of particular redemption; we shall now consider the arguments generally brought by those who defend the contrary scheme, who suppose, that God designed, as the consequence of Christ’s death, to save all mankind, upon condition of their repenting and believing, according to the tenor of the gospel-covenant, which is substituted in the room of that which was violated by man’s apostacy from God, whereby sincere obedience comes in the room of that perfect obedience, which was the condition of the first covenant. This they call man’s being brought into a salvable state by Christ’s death; so that Christ rendered salvation possible; whereas faith, repentance, and sincere obedience, render it certain. And, so far as this concerns the design of God, in sending Christ to redeem the world, they suppose that God determined hereby to put man into such a state, that all may be saved, if they will.

And, as to what concerns the event, to wit, man’s complying with the condition, they that defend universal redemption are divided in their sentiments about it; some supposing that Christ purchased faith and repentance for a certain number of mankind, namely, those who shall repent and believe, and pursuant thereunto, will work those graces in them; whereas others, who had not these graces purchased for them, shall perish, though Christ has redeemed them. These suppose, that redemption is both universal and particular, in different respects; universal, in that all who sit under the sound of the gospel, have a conditional grant of grace contained therein, whereby they are put into a salvable state, or possibility of attaining salvation; and particular, with respect to those who shall repent and believe, and so attain salvation; in which sense they apply that scripture, in which God is said to be the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe, 1 Tim. iv. 10. This some call a middle way, between the Pelagian and Calvinistic methods of reasoning about this subject; but it appears to be inconsistent with itself, inasmuch as they, who give into this hypothesis, are forced sometimes to decline what they have been contending for on one side, when pressed with some arguments brought in defence of the other; therefore we shall pass this over, and consider the self-consistent scheme, in which universal redemption is maintained,

The sum of all their arguments, who defend it in the Pelagian way, amounts to this, viz. that Christ died not to purchase salvation absolutely for any, but to make way for God’s entering into a new or gospel covenant with men, in which salvation is promised, on condition of faith, repentance, and sincere obedience, which they suppose to be in the power of those who have the gospel. And, that the heathen may not be excluded, though it cannot be styled a gospel-covenant to them, there are abatements made, as to what concerns faith, founded on divine revelation, and the only condition that entitles them to salvation is their yielding sincere obedience to the law of nature, in proportion to their light.

They farther add, that this gospel-covenant must be conditional, otherwise it could not be called a covenant, as wanting an essential ingredient contained in every covenant; and these conditions must be in our own power, otherwise the overture of salvation, depending on the performance thereof, would be illusory; and it could not be called a covenant of grace, inasmuch as there can be no grace, or favour, in promising a blessing upon impossible conditions; neither could this gospel-covenant be styled a better covenant than that which God entered into with our first parents, in which the conditions were in their own power; nor could it be an expedient to repair the ruins of the fall, or bring man, in any sense, into a salvable state. So that, according to this representation of the doctrine of particular redemption, there are not only many absurd consequences attending it, which detract from the glory of the gospel, but it is contrary to the holiness, wisdom, justice, and goodness of God, and so derogates as much from the divine perfections, as any thing that is argued in defence of universal redemption can be pretended to do. And, to sum up the whole argument, there is an appeal to scripture, as that which gives countenance to it in a multitude of instances. This is the substance of all that is said in defence of this doctrine; and, in opposition to it, We shall take leave to observe,

(1.) That it is taken for granted, but not sufficiently proved, that Christ died to purchase the covenant of grace; whereas, if the difference between the covenant of redemption, and the covenant of grace, be only circumstantial, as has been before observed,^[172] then the death of Christ is included among the conditions of this covenant; and if so, the covenant itself could not be the purchase thereof: but, if by Christ’s purchasing the covenant of grace, they only meant his purchasing the graces given in the covenant, we are far from denying it, though they generally do. That therefore which we are principally to oppose, is their sense of the conditionality of the covenant of grace, and its being essential to a covenant to be conditional, namely, to depend on uncertain conditions, in our power to perform, it being as they suppose, left to the freedom of our own will to comply with or reject them, and thereby to establish or disannul this covenant: but having elsewhere proved that the word covenant is often used in scripture, without the idea of a condition annexed to it,^[173] and also considered in what respects those ideas, contained in a conditional covenant between man and man, are to be excluded, when we speak of a covenant between God and man;^[174] and having also, in maintaining the doctrine of election, endeavoured to defend the absoluteness of God’s will, and shewed in what sense we are to understand those scriptures that are laid down in a conditional form,^[175] which may, with a little variation, be applied to our present argument; we shall, to avoid the repetition of things before insisted on, add nothing farther in answer to this part of the argument, we are now considering, but only that it implies God to be, in many respects, like ourselves, and supposes that it is in our power to frustrate, and render the death of Christ, which was the highest display of divine grace, ineffectual, and so prevent his having that glory, which he designed to bring to his own name thereby.

(2.) As to what is farther argued, concerning the covenant of grace being a better covenant than that which God made with man in innocency, and therefore that the conditions thereof must be in our own power, otherwise God, by insisting on the performance of what is impossible, subverts the design of the gospel, and the covenant hereupon ceases to be a covenant of grace; it may be replied that though we freely own that the covenant of grace is, in many respects, better than that which God entered into with man in innocency, and that it would not be so were it impossible for those, who are concerned therein, to attain the blessings promised to the heirs of salvation; yet we cannot allow that it must necessarily be conditional, in the sense in which some understand the word, much less that the conditions thereof are in our own power, or else the design of the gospel must be concluded to be subverted.

Therefore we may take leave to observe, that when God is said to require faith, and all other graces in this covenant-dispensation, and has connected them with salvation, this does not overthrow the grace of the covenant, but rather establish it; for grace and salvation are not only purchased for, but promised and secured to all who are redeemed, by the faithfulness of God, and the intercession of Christ and shall certainly be applied to them; and whereas, the graces of the Spirit are not in our own power, this is so far from overthrowing the design of the gospel, that it tends to advance the glory thereof, as God hereby takes occasion to set forth the exceeding riches of his grace, in making his people meet for, and bringing them, at last, to glory. And, though it be not possible for all to attain salvation, this should he no discouragement to any one to attend on those means of grace, under which we are to hope for the saving effects of Christ’s death, whereby we may conclude that eternal life is purchased for us, and we shall at last be brought to it.

(3.) As to what is farther alleged, concerning the covenant of grace, as designed to repair the ruins of the fall, or God’s intending hereby to bring man into a salvable state; we are never told, in scripture, that what was lost by our first apostasy from God, is to be compensated by the extent of grace and salvation to all mankind; and it is not the design of the gospel to discover this to the world, but that the exceeding riches of divine grace should be made known to the vessels of mercy, before prepared unto glory, Rom. ix. 23. This is, as some express it, the plank that remains after the ship-wreck,^[176] or the great foundation of our hope, and possibility of escaping everlasting destruction; and it is a much better ground of security, than to lay the whole stress of our salvation on the best improvements of corrupt nature, or those endeavours which we are to use, to improve the liberty of our will, in order to our escaping ruin, without dependance on the divine assistance; which is the method that they take to attain salvation, who thus defend the doctrine of universal redemption.

(4.) As for our being brought into a salvable state by the death of Christ; the gospel no where gives all mankind ground to expect salvation, but only those who have the marks and characters of Christ’s redeemed ones; and these are not brought by his death unto a mere possibility of attaining it, but the scripture represents them as having the earnest, or first fruits thereof, and speaks of Christ in them, as the hope of glory, Eph. i. 14. Rom. viii. 23. They are also said to be reconciled to God by the death of his Son, chap. v. 10. which is more than their having a bare possibility of salvation, as the result and consequence thereof.

(5.) That which is next to be considered, is, what concerns the doctrine of particular redemption, as being derogatory to the divine perfections, together with many absurd consequences, which are supposed to attend it. It is very common, in all methods of reasoning, and particularly in defending or opposing the doctrine of universal redemption, for persons to endeavour to make it appear, that the contrary scheme of doctrine is chargeable with absurdities; and, as we have taken the same method in opposing universal redemption, it may reasonably be expected, that the doctrine of particular redemption should have many absurd consequences charged upon it; to which we shall endeavour to reply, that thereby it may be discerned whether the charge be just or no. And,

1. The doctrine of particular redemption is supposed to be inconsistent with the goodness of God, as it renders salvation impossible to the greatest part of mankind, and their state irretrievable by any means that can be used, and so has a tendency to lead them to despair. But to this it may be replied,

1st, That it must be owned, that they, for whom Christ did not die, cannot be saved; and therefore, had God described any persons by name, or given some visible character, by which it might be certainly concluded that they were not redeemed, it would follow from thence, that their state would be desperate. But this is not his usual method of dealing with mankind: he might, indeed, have done it, and then such would have been thereby excluded from, and not encouraged to attend on the means of grace; but he has, in wisdom and sovereignty, concealed the event of things, with respect hereunto, from the world; and therefore there is a vast difference between men’s concluding that a part of the world are excluded from this privilege; and that they themselves are included in that number: the latter of which we have no warrant to say, concerning ourselves, or any others, especially so long as we are under the means of grace. There is, indeed, one character of persons in the gospel, which gives ground to conclude that Christ did not die for them, and that is what respects those who had committed the unpardonable sin. I shall not, at present, enter into the dispute, whether that sin can now be committed or no, since we may be occasionally led to insist on that subject under another head; but there seems to be sufficient ground to determine, either that this cannot be certainly known, since the extraordinary gift of discerning of spirits is now ceased; or, at least, that this cannot be applied to any who attend on the means of grace with a desire of receiving spiritual advantage thereby.

2dly, If Christ’s not dying for the whole world be a means to lead men to despair, as salvation is hereby rendered impossible, this consequence may, with equal evidence, be deduced from the supposition, that all mankind shall not be saved, which they, who defend universal redemption, pretend not to deny: but will any one say, that this supposition leads men to despair? or ought it to be reckoned a reflection on the divine goodness, that so many are left to perish in their fallen state, by the judicial hand of God, which might have applied salvation unto all, as well as purchased it for all mankind?

2. The doctrine of particular redemption is farther supposed to be inconsistent with the preaching the gospel, which is generally styled a door of hope; and then the dispensation we are under cannot be called a day of grace; which renders all the overtures of salvation made to sinners illusory, and contains in it a reflection, not only on the grace of God, but his holiness.

In order to our replying to this, something must be premised to explain what we mean by a day of grace, and the hope of the gospel, which accompanies it. And here, let it be considered,

(1.) That we hereby intend such a dispensation in which sinners are called to repent and believe, and so obtain salvation; not that we are to suppose that it is to be attained by their own power, without the special influences of the Holy Ghost, for this would be to ascribe that to man, which is peculiar to God; nor that God would give his special grace to all that sit under the sound of the gospel; for this is contrary to common observation and experience, since many make a profession of religion who are destitute of saving grace.

As for the hope of the gospel, or that door of hope that is opened therein to sinners, we cannot understand any thing else thereby, but that all, without distinction, are commanded and encouraged to wait on God in his instituted means of grace, and the event hereof must be left to him who gives and withholds success to them, as he pleases. All have this encouragement, that, peradventure they may obtain grace, under the means of grace; and this is not inconsistent with their being styled a door of hope, and God is not obliged to grant sinners a greater degree of hope than this, to encourage them to wait on him in his ordinances, notwithstanding there is a farther motive inducing us hereunto, namely, that this is his ordinary way, in which he works grace; or, if God is pleased to give us desires after the efficacy of his grace, or any degree of conviction of sin and misery; this is still a farther ground of hope, though it fall short of that grace of hope that accompanies salvation.

(2.) As to what concerns the preaching of the gospel, and the overtures of salvation to all therein, which, upon the supposition of Christ’s not dying for all men, they conclude to be illusory, and repugnant to the holiness of God. To this it may be replied, that we do not deny that in preaching the gospel, Christ is offered to the chief of sinners, or that the proclamation of grace is made public to all, without distinction: but this will not overthrow the doctrine of particular redemption, if we rightly consider what is done, in offering Christ to sinners; which, that it may be understood, let it be observed,

1st, That God has given us no warrant to enter into his secret determinations, respecting the event of things, so as to give any persons ground to conclude that they are redeemed, and have a warrant to apply to themselves the promise of salvation, or any blessings that accompany it, while in an unconverted state. Ministers are not to address their discourses to a mixed multitude of professing Christians, in such a way, as though they knew that they were all effectually called, and chosen of God. Our Saviour compares them to the faithful and wise steward, whose business it is to give every one their portion of meat in due season, Luke xii. 42. and therefore they are, consistently with what is contained in scripture, to tell them, that salvation is purchased for a part of mankind, and they know not but that they may be of that number, which will be an evidence to them that they are so.

2dly, When Christ is said to be offered to sinners, in the preaching of the gospel, that, which is intended thereby, is his being set forth therein as a most desirable object, altogether lovely, worthy to be embraced, and submitted to; and not only so, but that he will certainly save all whom he effectually calls, inasmuch as he has purchased salvation for them.

3dly, It includes in it an informing sinners, that it is their indispensible duty and interest to believe in Christ, and in order thereto, that they are commanded and encouraged to wait on him for that grace, which can enable them thereunto: and, as a farther encouragement, to let them know that there is a certain connexion between grace and salvation; so that none, who are enabled, by faith, to come to Christ, shall be cast out, or rejected by him. This is the preaching and hope of the gospel; and, in this sense, the overtures of salvation are made therein; which is not in the least inconsistent with the doctrine of particular redemption.^[177]

Object. Though this be such a method of preaching the gospel, as is consistent with the doctrine of special redemption; yet there is another way of preaching it, which is more agreeable to the express words of scripture, and founded on the doctrine of universal redemption; and accordingly sinners ought to be told, that the great God, in the most affectionate manner, expostulates with them, to persuade them to accept of life and salvation, when he represents himself, as having no pleasure in the death of the wicked, and, with an earnestness of expression says, Turn ye, turn ye, from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? Ezek. xxxiii. 11. Therefore the design of the gospel is, to let the world know that God’s dealing with mankind, in general, are full of goodness; he would not have any perish, and therefore has sent his Son to redeem them all, and, as the consequence hereof, pleads with them to turn to him, that they may reap the benefits purchased thereby.

Answ. Whatever be the sense of these expostulatory expressions, which we frequently meet with in scripture, we must not suppose that they infer, that the saving grace of repentance is in our own power; for that is not only contrary to the sense of many other scriptures, but to the experience of every true penitent, whose language is like that of Ephraim, Turn thou me, and I shall be turned, Jer. xxxi. 18. nor must we conclude, that God designs to save those that shall not be saved; for then he could not say, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure, Isa. xlvi. 10. If these ideas, as unworthy of God, be abstracted from the sense of such-like scriptures, we may understand them, not only in a way that is consistent with the divine perfections, but with the doctrine of particular redemption; which, that it may appear, let it be considered, that it is a very common thing, in scripture, for God to condescend to use human modes of speaking, and those, in particular, by which various passions are set forth; notwithstanding, we must not conclude that these passions are in God as they are in men. Such expostulations as these, when used by us, signify, that we earnestly desire the good of others, and are often warning them of their danger: but all is to no purpose, for they are obstinately set on their own ruin, which we can by no means prevent; it being either out of our power to help them, or, if we could, it would not redound to our honour to do it. This draws forth such-like expostulations from men; but the weakness contained in them, is by no means to be applied to God: it cannot be said to be out of his power to give grace to impenitent sinners; nor, in case he has so determined, will it tend to his dishonour to bestow it. Now, that we may understand the sense of these scriptures, let it be considered,

1. That life and death, in scripture, are oftentimes used to signify the external dispensations of providence, as to what concerns that good or evil, which God would bring on his people: thus it is said, See, I have set before thee this day, life and good, death and evil, Deut. xxx. 15, 19, 20. where life is explained in the following words, as signifying their being multiplied and blessed in the land, whither they were to go to possess it; and when God advises them in a following verse, to choose life, the consequence of this is, that both they and their seed should live, that they might dwell in the land, which the Lord sware to their fathers to give them; and elsewhere, when God says, by the prophet Jeremiah, I set before you the way of life, and the way of death, Jer. xxi. 8. he explains it in the following words, as containing an expedient for their escaping temporal judgments, when he says, He that abideth in the city, shall die by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence; but he that goeth out, and falleth to the Chaldeans, shall live. And I cannot see any reason to conclude, but that many other expressions, of the like nature, in which God promises life, or threatens death to the house of Israel, by the prophets, who often warned them of their being carried into captivity, and dying in their enemies’ land, have a more immediate respect thereunto; and that proverbial expression, which the Israelites are represented as making use of, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the childrens’ teeth are set on edge, Ezek. xviii. 2. seems to intimate no more than this; q. d. that our fathers have sinned, and thereby deserved that the nation should be ruined by being carried captive, and we must suffer for their sins; in answer to which, God tells them, that this proverb should not be used by them, but this evil should be brought on them for their own iniquities, or prevented by their reformation, namely, by forsaking their idolatry, whoredom, violence, oppression, and other abominations. And then he adds, ver. 12, 13, 17, 18. the soul that sinneth, it shall die, that is, if you continue to commit these vile enormities, you shall be followed with all those judgments which shall tend to your utter ruin; but if the wicked will turn from all his sins which he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die, ver. 21. If this be the sense of these and such-like texts, then it was not wholly out of their own power thus to turn to God, how much soever that special grace, which accompanies salvation, be out of our power. It is one thing to say, that man cannot work a principle of grace in himself, or to do that by his own power, which is the special gift and work of the Spirit of God, and, as the consequence thereof, have ground to expect eternal salvation; and another thing to say, that he cannot abstain from some gross enormities, as an expedient to prevent desolating judgments. But if it will not be allowed that this is the sense of all those scriptures, that promise or threaten life or death, which I do not pretend peremptorily to assert, let it be farther added,

2. That if spiritual and eternal blessings be included in the word life, and the contrary in death, in the scriptures but now referred to, we may account for the sense of them, without supposing that God designs what shall never come to pass, to wit, the universal salvation of mankind, though a part of them shall not be saved, by considering desire, in him, as signifying the effects of desire in men.^[178] Thus God’s not desiring a thing, denotes it not to be the object of desire; accordingly when he desires not the death of sinners, it implies, that they ought to endeavour to avoid it, as the most formidable evil; and, on the other hand, his taking pleasure in a thing, as he does in the salvation of his people, signifies not only his intending to save them, but the inexpressible happiness which they shall attain thereby; and, when he exhorts them, as an expedient to attain this privilege, to turn, this signifies the inseparable connexion between salvation and repentance, or turning to God, which, though it be God’s gift, it is, notwithstanding, our act and indispensible duty. Therefore, if we take this, and such-like scriptures, in either of these two senses, they are far from giving countenance to the doctrine of universal redemption.

3. There is another absurd consequence charged upon the doctrine of special redemption, namely, that it is inconsistent with our being exhorted and encouraged to repent and believe for the remission of sins, or to the saving of the soul, as scripture gives all men a warrant to do, Acts ii. 38. and since all are commanded to exercise these graces, and to expect salvation, as connected therewith, the doctrine of particular redemption, as a late writer insinuates, puts us under a necessity of believing a lie. And he farther adds, that if the condition, annexed to the promise of salvation, be impossible, and known to be so, it gives no encouragement to set about it; and, if he who promises knows it to be so, he promises nothing, because nothing that a person can obtain, or be the better for, whereby he is deluded, and a cheat put upon him, by pretending kindness, in making the promise, and intending no such thing.^[179] Thus that author represents the doctrine of particular redemption, as containing the most blasphemous consequences that words can express: he must therefore have been very sure that his argument was unanswerably just, though, I hope, we shall be able to make it appear that it is far from being so; which, that we may do, let it be considered,

(1.) That we are to distinguish between a person’s being bound to believe in Christ, and to believe that Christ died for him; the first act of faith does not contain in it a person’s being persuaded that Christ died for him, but that he is the Object of faith, as he is represented to be in scripture; and accordingly it supposes that we are convinced that Christ is the Messiah, that he purchased salvation for all who shall attain it, and is able to save, unto the utmost, all that come unto God by him; and also, that it is our duty and interest so to do. And, since saving faith is not in our own power, but the work and gift of divine grace, we are encouraged to wait on God in his ordinances, and, with fervent prayer, to beseech him that he would work this grace in us, acknowledging, that if he should deny us this blessing, there is no unrighteousness in him; and we are to continue waiting on him, and using all those means which are in our power, though they cannot attain their end, without his blessings; and, when he is pleased to work this grace in us, we shall be enabled to put forth another act of faith, which is properly saving, as intended by the scripture, which speaks of believing to the saving of the soul, which consists in receiving of him, and resting on him for salvation, as hoping that he hath died for us, inasmuch as he hath given us that temper and disposition of soul, which is contained in that character which is given of those for whom Christ died.

(2.) We must farther distinguish between God’s commanding all that sit under the sound of the gospel to believe in Christ; and his giving them ground to expect salvation, before they believe in him. Faith and repentance may be asserted to be duties incumbent on all, and demanded of them, when, at the same time, it doth not follow that all are given to expect salvation, upon the bare declaration that they are so. Accordingly the command and encouragement is to be considered in this order; first, as it respects our obligation to believe; and then, as it respects our hope of salvation; and neither the former nor the latter of these does, in the least, infer that God intended to save all mankind, or gave them ground to expect salvation, who do not believe in Christ.

(3.) As to what is farther suggested, concerning salvation’s being promised on such conditions, as are known, both by God and man, to be impossible, the only answer that need be given to this, is, that though with men this is impossible, yet with God all things are possible, Matt. xix. 26. When we consider faith and repentance, as conditions connected with salvation, or as evincing our right to claim an interest in Christ, and that salvation, which is purchased by him, in which sense, as was before observed, we do not oppose their being called conditions thereof, by those who are tenacious of that mode of speaking;^[180] and we do not call them impossible conditions, any otherwise than as they are so, without the powerful energy of the Holy Spirit; we cannot think that our asserting, that it is impossible that all mankind should thus repent and believe, is a doctrine contrary to scripture, which gives us ground to conclude, that all men shall not be saved, and consequently that all shall not believe to the saving of the soul. And, when we consider the impossibility thereof, we do not suppose that God has given all mankind ground to expect this saving faith, upon which the blasphemous suggestion, relating to his deluding men, is founded; it is enough for us to say, that God has not told any one, who attends on his ordinances, in hope of obtaining this grace, that he will not give him faith; and more than this need not be desired by persons to induce them to perform this duty, while praying and waiting for the happy event thereof, to wit, our obtaining these graces, and so being enabled to conclude that Christ has died for us.

4. If all the absurdities before mentioned will not take place to overthrow the doctrine of particular redemption, there is another argument, which they, who oppose it, conclude to be unanswerable, namely, that it does not conduce so much to advance the grace of God, as to assert that Christ died for all men, inasmuch as more are included herein, as the objects of divine favour, therefore God is hereby more glorified.

To this it may be replied, that it does not tend to advance the divine perfections, to suppose that God designed to save any that shall perish, for that would be to argue, as has been before considered, that the purpose of God, with respect to the salvation of many, is frustrated. But, since the stress of the argument is laid on the display of the glory of divine grace; that does not so much consist in the extent of the favour, with respect to a greater number of persons, as it does in its being free and undeserved, and tending, for this reason, to lay the highest obligation on those who are concerned herein, which is the most known sense of the word grace.

But inasmuch as it will be objected, that this is only a criticism, respecting the sense of a word, it may be farther replied to it, that if the grace, or goodness of God, be more magnified by universal, than particular redemption, as including more, who are the objects thereof, the same method of reasoning would hold good, and they might as well attempt to prove, that there must be an universal salvation of mankind; for that would be a greater display of divine goodness, than for God only to save a few; and it would be yet more eminently displayed, had he not only saved all mankind, but fallen angels. Shall the goodness of God be pretended to be reflected on, because he does not extend it to all that might have been the objects thereof, had he pleased? Has he not a right to do what he will with his own? And may not his favour be communicated in a discriminating way, whereby it will be more advanced and adored, by those who are the objects thereof, without our taking occasion from thence to reply against him, or say, what dost thou?

And to this it may be added, that they, who make use of this method of reasoning, ought to consider that it tends as much to militate against the doctrine they maintain, namely, that God hath put all mankind into a salvable state, or that Christ, by his death, procured a possibility of salvation for all; which, according to their argument, is not so great a display of the divine goodness, as though God had actually saved all mankind, which he might have done; for he might have given repentance and remission of sins to all, as well as sent his Son to die for all; therefore, upon this head of argument, universal redemption cannot be defended, without asserting universal salvation. Thus concerning those absurdities which are pretended to be fastened on the doctrine of particular redemption; we proceed to consider the last and principal argument that is generally brought against it, namely,

5. That it is contrary to the express words of scripture; and some speak with so much assurance, as though there were not one word in scripture, intimating, that our Lord died only for a few, or only for the elect;^[181] though others will own, that there are some scriptures that assert particular redemption, but that these are but few; and therefore the doctrine of universal redemption must be aquiesced in, as being maintained by a far greater number of scriptures: but, in answer to this, let it be considered, that it is not the number of scriptures, brought in defence of either side of the question, that will give any great advantage to the cause they maintain, unless it could be made appear that they understood them in the true and genuine sense of the Holy Ghost therein: but this is not to be passed over, without a farther enquiry into the sense thereof, which we shall do, and endeavour to prove that it does not overthrow the doctrine we have been maintaining, how much soever the mode of expression may seem to oppose it; and, in order hereunto, we shall first consider in what sense all, all men, the world, all the world, and such-like words are taken in scripture, as well as in common modes of speaking, in those matters that do not immediately relate to the subject of universal redemption; and then we may, without much difficulty, apply the same limitations to the like manner of speaking, which we find in those scriptures which are brought for the proof of universal redemption. Here we are to enquire into the meaning of those words that are used, which seem to denote the universality of the subject spoken of, when nothing less is intended thereby, in various instances, which have no immediate reference to the doctrine of redemption. And,

(1.) As to the word all. It is certain, that it is often used when every individual is not intended thereby: thus we read in Exod. ix. 6. that all the cattle of Egypt died, when the plague of murrain was inflicted on the beasts; whereas it is said, in the following words, that none of the cattle of the children of Israel died; and, from ver. 3. it appears that none of the Egyptians’ cattle died, save those in the field; and it is plain, that there was a great number of cattle that died not, which were reserved to be cut off by a following plague, viz. that of hail, in ver. 19. Moreover, it is said, in ver. 25. that the hail smote every herb of the field, and brake every tree of the field; yet we read, in chap. x. 5. of the locusts eating the residue of that which escaped, and remained unto them from the hail.

Again, we read, in Exod. xxxii. 3. that all the people brake off the golden ear-rings which were in their ears, of which Aaron made the calf, which they worshipped; whereas it is not probable that all wore ear-rings; and it is certain, that all did not join with them, who committed idolatry herein; for the apostle intimates as much, when he speaks of some of them as being idolaters, who sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play, 1 Cor. x. 7. And some conclude, that those of the tribe of Levi, who gathered themselves unto Moses, and joined with him in executing the vengeance of God on the idolaters, are said to be on the Lord’s side; not barely because they repented of their idolatry, but because they did not join with the rest in it; and, if this be the sense of the text, yet it does not appear that they were all exempted from the charge of idolatry, though it be said, that all the sons of Levi were gathered to him; for we read, in ver. 29. of every man’s slaying his son, and his brother; and, in Deut. xxxiii. 9. it is said, on this occasion, that they did not know their fathers, nor their children, that is, they did not spare them; therefore some of that, as well as the other tribes, joined in the idolatry, though they were all gathered to Moses, as being on the Lord’s side.

Again, we read, in Zeph. ii. 14. where the prophet speaks concerning God’s destroying Syria, and making Nineveh desolate, that all the beasts of the nations shall lodge in the upper lintels of it; by which he intends that those beasts, that generally lodge in the wilderness, or in places remote from cities, such as the cormorant and bittern, &c. should take up their residence in those places, which were formerly inhabited by the Ninevites; therefore all the beasts cannot be supposed to signify all that were in all parts of the world.

Again, the prophet Isaiah, in chap. ii. 2. when speaking of the multitude which should come to the mountain of the Lord’s house, which he expresses by all nations coming to it, explains what is meant by all nations coming to it, in the following verse, namely, that many people should say, Let us go up to the mountain of the Lord; and the prophet Micah, referring to the same thing, says, in chap. iv. 2. that many nations shall say, Let us go up to it, as containing a prediction of what was to be fulfilled in the gospel-day, in those that, out of various nations, adhered to the true religion.

Again, it is said, in 1 Chron. xiv. 17. that the fame of David went forth into all the lands, which cannot be meant of those which were far remote, but those that were round about Judea.

Moreover, it is said, in Matt. iii. 5, 6. that Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, went out to John, and were baptized of him; which cannot be understood in any other sense, but that a great number of them went out to him for that purpose. And when it is said, in Matt. xxi. 26. that all men held John as a prophet, it is not to be supposed that the Scribes and Pharisees, and many others, who cast contempt on him, held him to be so; but that there were a great many who esteemed him as such. And when our Saviour says, in Matt. x. 22. Ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake, it is certain, that those that embraced Christianity are to be excluded out of their number who hated them. Again, when it is said, in Acts ii. 5. that there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews of every nation under heaven, it is not to be supposed that there were Jews residing in every nation, who resorted to Jerusalem; upon which occasion, a learned writer^[182] puts this question, Were there any who resorted there from England or Scotland?

Again, we read, in John iii. 26. that John’s disciples came to him, complaining, that Jesus baptized, and all men came unto him; by which nothing more is to be understood, but that many, among the Jews attended on his ministry, which were, by far, the smaller part of that nation. By these, and many other scriptures, that might be brought to the same purpose, it appears, that the word All sometimes denotes not every individual, but a part of mankind.

(2.) Let us now consider the sense in which we are to understand the world, or all the world; from whence it will appear, that only a small part of the world is intended thereby in many scriptures: thus the Pharisees said, upon the occasion of a number of the Jews following our Saviour, in John xi. 19. The world is gone after him. How small a part of the world was the Jewish nation? and how small a part of the Jewish nation attended on our Saviour’s ministry? yet this is called the world.

Again, it is said, in Luke ii. 1. There went out a decree from Augustus, that all the world should be taxed; by which nothing more is intended than those countries that were subject to the Roman empire; and, in Acts xvii. 26. it is said, that these that have turned the world upside down, are come hither also; which cannot be meant in any other sense, but those parts of the world where the apostles had exercised their ministry. And when the apostle tells the church, in Rom. i. 8. that their faith was spoken of throughout the whole world, he only means those other churches that were planted in several parts of the world. And, in Acts xi. 28. it is said, that Agabus signified, by the Spirit, that there should be a great dearth, throughout all the world; by which nothing is meant but all adjacent countries, which is to be taken in the same sense, as when it is said, in Gen. xli. 51. that all countries came into Egypt to buy corn, because the famine was so sore in all lands, that is, in the parts adjacent to Egypt: thus we have sufficient ground to conclude, that all men, the world, and all the world, is often taken for a small part of mankind.

But, that we may be a little more particular in considering the various limitations these words are subject to in scripture, as well as in our common modes of speaking, let it be observed,

1st, That sometimes nothing is intended by all men, but all sorts of men, without distinction of sex, nation, estate, quality, and condition, of men in the world: thus the apostle says, in 1 Cor. ix. 19. I made myself servant to all, that I might gain the more; this he explains in the following verses, as including men of all ranks and characters: To the Jews, I became a Jew; to them that were under the law, as under the law; to them that were without the law, as without law; to the weak, I became weak: I became all things to all men, that by any means I might gain some.

2dly, Sometimes the word All, or the world, is taken for the Gentiles, in opposition to the Jews; thus the apostle saith, in Rom. xi. 12. Now if the fall of them, viz. the Jews, be the riches of the world, that is, of the Gentiles, as he explains it in the following words; And the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles, how much more their fulness? and in ver. 32. he saith, God hath concluded all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.^[183]

3dly, The world is sometimes taken for those who do not believe, in opposition to the church: thus it is said, in Rev. xiii. 3, 4. All the world wondered after the beast and they worshipped the dragon; which is farther explained, in ver. 8. where it is said, that all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life; and in 1 John v. 19. it is said, We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness, or, as some render it,^[184] in the wicked one, as being subject to Satan; but the church is exempted from that charge, notwithstanding the universality of this expression.

4thly, Sometimes the word All is limited by the nature of the thing spoken of, which is very easy to be understood, though not expressed: thus the apostle in Tit. ii. 9. exhorts servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; which must be certainly understood as intending all things just, and not contrary to the laws of God, or the civil laws of the land, in which they live.

5thly, The word All is often used, not only in scripture, but in our common modes of speaking, to signify only those, who are the objects of that thing, which is done for them, and then the emphasis is laid on the action, or the person that performs it; as when we say, all malefactors under a sentence of death, are to be pardoned by the king; we mean nothing else by it, but that all, who are pardoned, do receive their pardon from him; or when we say, that virtue renders all men happy, and vice miserable; we mean, that all who are virtuous are happy, and all who are vicious miserable; not that virtue, abstracted from the exercise thereof, makes any happy, or vice miserable; in which case, the word all is not taken for every individual person, but only for those who are either good or bad: and this is agreeable to the scripture-mode of speaking; as when it is said, in Prov. xxiii. 21. Drowsiness shall clothe a man, or every man, with rags; or sloth reduces all to poverty; not all mankind, but all who are addicted to this vice.

Moreover, it is said, in Psal. cxlv. 14. The Lord upholdeth all that fall, and raiseth up all those that be bowed down; which is not to be understood, as though God keeps all mankind from falling, or raises every individual person, that is bowed down, so as not to suffer him to sink under his burden; but that all who are upheld, or raised up, when bowed down, are made partakers of this privilege by the Lord alone.

Having shewn in what sense the word All, or all the world, is frequently used in scripture, when not applied to the doctrine of redemption; we shall now consider the application thereof unto it, whereby it may appear, that those scriptures, which are generally brought in defence of the doctrine of universal redemption, do not tend to support it, or overthrow the contrary doctrine that we are maintaining.

1. The first scripture, that is often referred to for that purpose, is 1 John ii. 2. in which it is said, concerning our Saviour, that he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. For the understanding of which, we must consider, that it is more than probable that the apostle writes this epistle to the converted Jews, scattered through various countries in Asia, as Peter is said to do, 1 Pet. i. 1. and James, James i. 1. for which reason they are called general epistles; as likewise this of John is, inasmuch as they are not addressed to particular churches among the Gentiles, converted to the faith, as most of the apostle Paul’s are. Now, it is plain, that, in the scripture but now mentioned, when these believing Jews are given to understand, that Christ is a propitiation for their sins, and not for their’s only, but for the sins of the whole world; the meaning is, not for their sins only, who were Jews, but for the sins of the believing Gentiles, or those who were converted by the ministry of the apostle Paul, who is called the apostle of the Gentiles. This has been before considered to be the meaning of the word world in many scriptures; and so the sense is, that the saving effects of Christ’s death redound to all who believe, throughout the world, whether Jews or Gentiles.

2. Another scripture generally brought to prove universal redemption, is, that in Heb. ii. 9. That he, to wit, Christ, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man. For the understanding of which, we must have recourse to the words immediately following, which are plainly an illustration thereof; accordingly they, for whom Christ tasted death, are styled many sons, who are to be brought to glory; and, in order thereunto, Christ, the Captain of their salvation, was made perfect through sufferings, which is an explication of his being crowned with glory and honour, for the suffering of death; and it plainly proves, that it was for these only that he tasted death, and that by every man, for whom he tasted it, is meant every one of his sons, or of those who are described, in ver. 11. as sanctified, and whom he is not ashamed to call brethren; and they are further styled, in ver. 13. The children whom God hath given him; so that this sense of the words being so agreeable to the context, which asserts the doctrine of particular redemption, it cannot reasonably be supposed that they are to be taken in a sense which has a tendency to overthrow it, or prove that Christ died equally and alike for all men.

3. Another scripture, brought for the same purpose, is 1 Cor. xv. 22. As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But let it be considered, that the apostle is not speaking directly concerning redemption in this text, but concerning the resurrection of the dead; and, if it be understood of a glorious resurrection unto eternal life, no one can suppose that every individual of mankind shall be made partaker of this blessing, which is also obvious, from what is said in the verse immediately following, where they who are said to be made alive in Christ, are described as such, whom he has a special propriety in, Christ the first fruits, afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming; and therefore the meaning is only this, that all of them, who shall be raised up in glory, shall obtain this privilege by Christ, whose resurrection was the first-fruits thereof.

I am sensible that the reason of the application of this scripture to prove universal redemption, is principally taken from the opposition that there seems to be between the death of all mankind in Adam, and the life which is obtained by Christ; and therefore they suppose, that the happiness, which we enjoy by him, is of equal extent with the misery we sustained by the fall of Adam: but, if this were the sense of the text, it must prove an universal salvation, and not barely the possibility thereof; since the apostle is speaking of a privilege that should be conferred in the end of time, and not of that which we enjoy under the gospel-dispensation; accordingly it does not, in the least, answer the end for which it is brought.

4. The next scripture, by which it is supposed that universal redemption may be defended, is that in Rom. v. 18. As by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For the understanding of which scripture, let it be considered, that the blessing, which is said to extend to all, is no less than justification of life, and not merely a possibility of attaining salvation; and, in the foregoing verse, they, who are interested in this privilege, are said to receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, and to reign in life by Jesus Christ. Now certainly this privilege is too great to be applied to the whole world; and, indeed, that which the apostle, in this verse, considers, as being upon all men unto justification of life, he explains, when he says, Many shall be made righteous; therefore this free gift, which came upon all men unto justification, intends nothing else, but that a select number, who are said to be many, or the whole multitude of those who do, or shall believe, shall be made righteous.

Object. If it be objected to this sense of the text, that there is an opposition between that judgment which came by the offence of one, to wit, Adam, upon all men, unto condemnation, and that righteousness, which came upon all men, unto justification; and therefore all men must be taken in the same sense in both parts of the verse, and consequently must be extended to all the world.

Answ. To this it may be replied, that it is not necessary, nor reasonable, to suppose, that these terms of opposition have any respect to the universal extent of condemnation and justification; for the apostle’s design is not to compare the number of those who shall be justified, with that of those who were condemned by the fall of Adam; but to compare the two heads together, Adam and Christ, and to shew, that as we are liable to condemnation by the one, so we obtain the gift of righteousness by the other; which is plainly the apostle’s method of reasoning, agreeable to the whole scope of the chapter, as may easily be observed, by those who compare these words with several foregoing verses.

5. There is another scripture brought to prove universal redemption, in 2 Cor. v. 14, 15. The love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead; by which it is supposed, that the apostle is here proving that all mankind are dead in sin, and that the medium by which he proves it, is Christ’s dying for all men; so that the remedy is as extensive as the disease, and therefore that this is an undeniable proof of universal redemption.

But this is not a true representation of the apostle’s method of reasoning; for he designs not to prove that all were dead in sin, but to it. That this may appear, let us consider the connexion of this text with what goes before. The apostle speaks of them, in the foregoing verses, as having assurance of their future salvation, and as groaning to be clothed upon with their house, which is from heaven; and as having the first fruits of the Spirit, and says that the apostles were made manifest in their consciences, that is, they had something in their own consciences that evinced the success of their ministry to them, upon which account they had occasion to glory on their behalf; all which expressions denote them to have been in a converted state. And the apostle adds, in ver. 13. Whether we be beside ourselves, or whether we be sober, that is, whether we have a greater or less degree of fervency in preaching the gospel, it is for God, that is for his glory, and for your sakes; for the love of Christ, that is, either his love to us, or our love to him, constraineth us hereunto; because we thus judge, that if one, namely, Christ, died for all, that is, for you all, then were all dead, or you all are dead, that is, not dead in sin, but you are made partakers of that communion which believers have with Christ in his death, whereby they are said to be dead unto sin, and unto the world; and the result hereof is, that they are obliged to live not to themselves but to Christ. This seems more agreeable to the design of the apostle, than to suppose that he intends only to prove the fall of man, from his being recovered by Christ, since there is no appearance of any argument to the like purpose, in any other part of the apostle’s writings; whereas our being dead to sin, as the consequence of Christ’s death, is what he often mentions, and, indeed, it seems to be one of his peculiar phrases: thus he speaks of believers, as being dead to sin, Rom. vi. 2. and dead with Christ, ver. 8. and elsewhere he says, You are dead, Col. iii. 3. that is, you have communion with Christ, in his death, or are dead unto sin; and the apostle speaks of their being dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, chap. ii. 20. that is, if you have communion with Christ, in his death, you are obliged not to observe the ceremonial law, which is called the rudiments of the world; and, in several other places, he speaks of believers being crucified, dead, buried, and risen, from the dead, as having communion with Christ therein, or being made partakers of those benefits which he procured thereby. If, therefore, this be the apostle’s frequent method of speaking, why may not we suppose, that in this verse, under our present consideration, he argues, that because Christ died for them all, therefore they were, or they are all dead;^[185] And, being thus dead, they are obliged, as he observes in the following verse, not to live to themselves, but to Christ that died for them, and thereby procured this privilege, which they are made partakers of. If this sense of the text be but allowed to be equally probable with the other, it will so far weaken the force thereof, as that it will not appear, from this scripture, that Christ died for all men.

6. Universal redemption is attempted to be proved, from John iii. 16. God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life: But, if we understand the world, as taken for the Gentiles, as it is oftentimes in scripture, then the sense of the text seems to be this, which is not inconsistent with special redemption, namely, that the love of God, which was expressed in sending his Son to die for those whom he designed hereby to redeem, is of a much larger extent, as to the objects thereof, than it was in former ages; for it includes in it not only those who believe among the Jews, but whosoever believes in him, throughout the world; not that their believing in him is the foundation, or cause, but the effect of his love, and is to be considered as the character of the persons, who are the objects thereof. In this sense, we are also to understand another scripture, in John i. 29. Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world, that is, of all those whose sins are expiated hereby, throughout the whole world.

7. The doctrine of universal redemption is farther maintained, from our Saviour’s words, in John vi. 33. The bread of God is he that cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world; which is explained in ver. 51. I am the living bread, which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world: But it does not appear, that Christ hereby intends that his death was a price of redemption paid for all mankind; for he speaks of the application of redemption, which is expressed by his giving life, and not barely of his procuring a possibility of its being attained; and they, to whom he gives this privilege, are described as applying it to themselves, by faith, which is doubtless, the meaning of that metaphorical expression, whereby persons are said to eat of this bread, or his flesh; so that the meaning of this scripture is, that the death of Christ is appointed, as the great means whereby all men, throughout the whole world, who apply it by faith, should attain eternal life: But this cannot be said of all, without exemption; and therefore it does not from hence appear, that Christ’s death was designed to procure life for the world.

8. There is another scripture, brought to the same purpose, in Matt. xviii. 11. The Son of man is come to save that which is lost, that is, as they suppose, all that were lost; and consequently, since the whole world was brought into a lost state by the fall, Christ came to save them. The whole stress of this argument is laid on the sense that they give of the Greek word^[186], which we render, that which was lost, whereby they understand every one that was lost; whereas it only denotes, that salvation supposes them, that have an interest in it, to have been in a lost state. And, indeed, the text does not seem immediately to respect the purchase of redemption, or salvation, by Christ’s shedding his blood, as a Priest, but the application thereof, in effectually calling, and thereby saving lost sinners. This is illustrated by the parable of the lost sheep, (in the following words,) which the shepherd brings back to the fold, upon which occasion he says, that it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish. And this farther appears, from our Saviour’s using the same mode of speaking, with this addition, that he came to seek, as well as to save, Luke xix. 9, 10. them, upon the occasion of his converting Zaccheus, and telling him, that salvation was come to his house. And this agrees well with that prediction relating to Christ’s executing his Prophetical office, in the salvation of his people, as being their Shepherd; in which he is represented, as saying, I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and will bind up that which was broken, and will strengthen that which was sick, Ezek. xxxiv. 16. Moreover, the parable of the lost sheep, which Christ recovered, appears by its connexion with the foregoing verses, to have a particular respect to those little, or humble ones, that believe in him, who went astray, by reason of some offences that were cast in their way; and therefore, when he had denounced a threatening against those who should offend any of them, and cautioned the world that they should not do this, by despising them, Matt, xviii. 6, 10. he supposes this treatment would cause some of them to go astray; upon which he says, that one of his ends of coming into the world, was to seek, to save, and to recover them.

9. Universal redemption is farther argued, from the universality of divine grace; and accordingly that text is often referred to, in Tit. ii. 11. The grace of God that bringeth salvation, hath appeared to all men: But this seems very remote from the sense of the Holy Ghost, in these words; for by the grace of God is meant the gospel, that brings the glad tidings of salvation; and its appearing to all men, signifies being preached to the Gentiles: or suppose, by the grace of God, we understand the display of his grace in the work of redemption, it is not said, that it was designed for, or applied to all men, but only that the publication thereof is more general than it had formerly been. And when the apostle, in ver. 14. speaks more particularly concerning redemption, he alters his mode of expression, and considers it, with its just limitation, with respect to the objects thereof, viz. that he gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. We shall add but one scripture more, which is brought in defence of universal redemption, viz.

10. That in which the apostle speaks of God, in 1 Tim. iv. 10. as the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe; wherein universal redemption is not asserted in the same sense in which they maintain it, viz. that God hath brought all men into a salvable state, so that they may be saved if they will: But the meaning of this scripture is, that God is the Saviour of all men, that is, his common bounty extends itself to all, as the Psalmist observes, The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works, Psal. cxlv. 9. but he is more especially the Saviour of them that believe, inasmuch as they are interested in the special benefits purchased by his redemption, who are said to be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation, Isa. xlv. 17.

There are several other scriptures brought to prove universal redemption, as when it is said, that God will have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, 1 Tim. ii. 4. and, The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, 2 Pet. iii. 9. which have been before considered^[187]; and therefore we pass them over at present, and some other scriptures, from whence it is argued, that Christ died for all, because he died for some that shall perish, as when the apostle speaks of some false teachers, who deny the Lord that bought them, 2 Pet. ii. 1. and another, Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died, Rom. xiv. 15. and that in which the apostle speaks of a person who counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, Heb. x. 29. and some other scriptures to the like purpose, the consideration whereof I shall refer to a following answer^[188], in which the doctrine of the saints’ perseverance is defended.^[189]

Thus concerning the first branch of Christ’s Priestly office, consisting in his offering himself a sacrifice, without spot, to God, and the persons for whom this was done. We should now proceed to consider the second branch thereof, consisting in his making continual intercession for them, for whom he offered up himself: But, this being particularly insisted on in a following answer^[190], we shall pass it over at present, and proceed to consider the execution of his Kingly office.