Chapter 8

By what was said in the last Chapter it clearly appears, that the Oblation and intercession of Christ are of equal compass, section 1, and extent, in respect of their objects, or the persons for whom he once offered himself, and does continually intercede, and so are to be looked on, as one joint means for the attaining of a certain proposed end: which, what it is comes next to be considered: but because I find some objections laid by some against the former truth, I must remove them before I proceed, which I shall do as a man removes dung until it is all gone.

The sum of one of our former arguments was that to sacrifice and intercede belong both to the same person as high Priest, section 2, which name none can answer, neither has any performed that office until both by him be accomplished. Where our Savior being the most absolute, and indeed only true High Priest, in whom were really all those perfections which in others received a weak typical representation, does perform both these in the behalf of them for whose sakes he was such.

An argument not unlike to this I find by some to be undertaken to be answered, being in these words proposed: (the ransom and Mediation of Christ is no larger than his office of Priest, Prophet and King, but those offices pertain to his Church and chosen, therefore his ransom pertains to them only.)

The intention and meaning of the argument is the same with what we proposed, namely that Christ offered not for them for whom he is no Priest, and he is a Priest only for them, for whom he does also intercede: if afterwards I shall have occasion to make use of this argument, I shall by the Lord's assistance give more weight and strength to it, than it seems to have in their proposal, whose interest it is, to present it as slightly as possible, that they may seem fairly to have waived it; but the evasion, such as it is, let us look upon.

This (said the answerer) is a sober objection, which friendly term I, section 3, imagined at first, he had given this reason, because he found it kind and easy to be satisfied: but reading the answer and finding it so wide from yielding any color or appearance of what was pretended, that it only served him some new weak false conceptions, I imagined that it must be some other kindness that caused him to give this objection (as he calls it) so much milder an entertainment, than those others, which equally trouble him, which hear nothing, but this is horrid, that blasphemy that detestable abominable and false, as being indeed by those of his persuasion, neither to be endured nor avoided: and at length I conceived that the reason of it was intimated in the first words of his pretended answer which are, that, this objection does not deny the death of Christ for all men, but only his ransom and mediation for all men. Now truly if it be so, I am not of his judgment, but so far from thinking it a sober objection, that I cannot be persuaded that any man in his right mind would once propose it; that Christ should die for all, and yet not be a ransom for all, himself affirming, that he came to give his life a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28), is to me a plain contradiction. The death of Christ, in the first most general notion and apprehension thereof, is a ransom. Nay, do not this answer, and those who are of the same persuasion with him, make the ransom of as large extent, as anything in, or about, or following the death of Christ? Or have they yet some further distinction to make, or rather division about the ends of the death of Christ? As we have had already, for such he not only paid a ransom, but also intercedes for them, which he does not for all for whom he paid a ransom: will they now go a step backwards and say, that for some he not only died, but also paid a ransom for them, which he did not for all for whom he died? Who then were these that he thus died for? They must be some beyond all and every man, for as they contend, for them he paid a ransom? But let us see what he says further, in so easy a cause as this, it is a shame to take advantages.

The answer to this objection (said he) is easy and plain in the, section 3, Scripture, for the mediation of Christ, is both more general, and more special, more general as he is the one Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), and more special as he is the Mediator of the New Testament that they which are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance (Hebrews 9:15). According to that it is said he is the Savior of all men especially of those that believe (1 Timothy 4:10). So in all the offices of Christ the Priest, the Prophet, the King, there is that which is more general and that which is more special and peculiar.

And this is that, which he calls a clear and plain answer from the Scripture, leaving the application of it, unto the argument, section 4, to other men's conjecture, which as far as I can conceive must be thus. It is true, Christ paid a ransom for none but those for whom he is a Mediator and Priest, but Christ is to be considered two ways, First, as a general Mediator and Priest for all. Secondly, as a special Mediator and Priest for some, now he pays the ransom as a general Mediator. This I conceive may be some part of his meaning, for in itself, the whole is in expression so barbarous, and remote from common sense, in substance such a wild unchristian madness: as contempt would far better suit it, than a reply. The truth is; for sense and expression, in men who from their manual trades leap into the office of preaching, and employment of writing, I know no reason why we should expect. Only it can never enough be lamented that wildness, in such tattered rags should find entertainment, whilst sober truth is shut out of doors. For what I pray you is the meaning of this distinction, Christ is either a general mediator between God and man, or a special mediator of the New Testament, was it ever heard before, that Christ was any way a Mediator, but as he is so of the New Testament? A Mediator is not of one, all mediation respects an agreement of several parties, and every mediator, is the mediator of a Covenant; now if Christ be a mediator more generally, than as he is so of the new Covenant: of what Covenant I ask you was that? Of the Covenant of works? Would not such an assertion overthrow the whole Gospel? Would it not be derogatory to the honor of Jesus Christ, that he should be the mediator of a cancelled Covenant? Is it not contrary to Scripture affirming him a surety (not of the first but) of a better Testament? (Hebrews 7:22). Are not such bold asserters fitter to be catechized than to preach? But we must not let it pass thus, the man harps upon something that he has heard from some Arminian Doctor, though he has had the ill fortune, so poorly to make out his conceptions? Therefore being in some measure acquainted with their occasions which they color with those texts of Scripture which are here produced, I shall briefly remove the poor shift, that so our former argument, may stand unshaken.

The poverty of the answer as before expressed, has been sufficiently already declared: the fruits of Christ's mediation have been distinguished by some, into those that are more general, and those which are more peculiar, which in some sense may be tolerable: but that the offices of Christ should be said to be either general or peculiar, and himself in relation to them so considered is a gross unshapen fancy. I answer then to the thing intended, that we deny any such general mediation, or function of office in general, in Christ, as should extend itself beyond his Church or chosen. It was his Church which he redeemed with his own blood (Acts 20:28), his Church that he loved and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it by the washing of water and the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious Church (Ephesians 5:25-27). They were his sheep he laid down his life for (John 10), and appears in heaven for us (Hebrews 9:26). Not one word of mediating for any other in the scripture. Look upon his Incarnation, it was because the children were partakers of flesh and blood (Hebrews 2:14), not because all the world were so. Look upon his Oblation, for their sakes (said he, those whom you have given me) do I sanctify myself (John 17:19), that is to be an Oblation, which was the work he had then in hand. Look upon his Resurrection, he died for our sins and rose for our justification (Romans 4:25). Look upon his Ascension, I go (said he) to my Father and your Father, and that to prepare a place for you (John 14). Look upon his perpetuated Intercession, is it not to save to the uttermost them that come unto God by him? (Hebrews 7:25). Not one word of this general mediation for all. Nay if you will hear himself, he denies in plain terms to mediate for all; for I pray not said he for the world but for those whom you have given me (John 17:9).

But let us see what is brought to confirm this distinction; (1 Timothy 2:5) is quoted for the maintenance thereof. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, what then I pray? What will be concluded from this? Cannot Christ be a Mediator between God and man, but he must be a Mediator for all men? Are not the elect, men? Do not the children partake of flesh and blood? Does not his Church consist of men? What reason is there to assert out of an indefinite proposition a universal conclusion? Because Christ was a Mediator for men, (which were true had he been so only for his Apostles) shall we conclude therefore he was so for all men? Away with such nonsense, but let us see another proof which happily may give more strength to the awkward distinction we oppose, and that is (1 Timothy 4:10): who is the Savior of all men especially of them that believe, had it been who is the Mediator of all men especially of them that believe, it had been more likely. But the consciences, or at least the foreheads of these men! Is there any word here spoken of Christ as Mediator? Is it not the living God in whom we trust that is the Savior here mentioned, as the words going before in the same verse are? And is Christ called so in respect of his Mediation? That God the Father is often called Savior I showed before, and that he is here intended, as is agreed upon by all sound interpreters, so also it is clear from the matter in hand, which is the protecting providence of God, general towards all, special and peculiar towards his Church, thus is he said to save man and beast (Psalm 36:6), translating the Hebrew, you shall save or preserve. It is God then that is here called the Savior of all by deliverance and protection in danger of which the Apostle treats, and that by his providence, which is peculiar towards believers; and what this makes for a universal mediation I know not.

Now the very context in this place will not admit of any other interpretation, for the words render a reason why, notwithstanding all the injury and reproaches, wherewith the people of God are continually assaulted, yet they should cheerfully go forward to run with joy the race that is set before them, even because as God preserves all, for in him we live and move and have our being (Acts 17; Psalm 145:14-16), so that he will not suffer any to be injured, and unrevenged (Genesis 9:5), so is he especially the preserver of them that do believe, for they are as the apple of his eye (Zechariah 2:8; Deuteronomy 32:10), so that if he should suffer them to be pressed for a season yet let them not let go their hope and confidence, nor be weary of well-doing, but still rest on and trust in him. This encouragement being that which the Apostle was to lay down, what motive would it be for this purpose, to tell believers, that God would have those saved, who neither do, nor ever will, or shall believe? That I say nothing how strange it seems, that Christ should be the Savior of them who are never saved, to whom he never gives grace to believe, for whom he denies to intercede (John 17:9), which yet is no small part of his mediation whereby he saves sinners. Neither the subject then, nor the predicate of the proposition (he is the Savior of all men) is rightly apprehended, by them who would wrest it to the maintenance of universal redemption. For the subject, he, is God the Father, and not Christ the Mediator, and for the predicate it is a providential preservation, and not a purchased salvation that is intimated, that is the providence of God, protecting and governing all, but watching in an especial manner for the good of them that are his, that they be not always unjustly and cruelly traduced and reviled, with other pressures that the Apostle here rests upon. As also he shows that it was his course to do (2 Corinthians 1:9-10): but we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God that raises the dead, who delivered us from so great a death, and does deliver us, and whom we trust, that he will yet deliver us, for he is the Savior of all men especially of them that do believe. If any shall conceive that these words, (because we hope in the living God who is, etc.,) do not render an account of the ground of Paul's confidence, in going through with his labors and afflictions, but rather are an expression of the head and sum of that doctrine, for which he was so troubled and afflicted, I will not much oppose it, for then also it includes nothing but an assertion of the true God and dependence on him, in opposition to all the idols of the Gentiles, and other vain conceits whereby they exalted themselves into the throne of the Most High. But that Christ should be said to be a Savior of first, those who are never saved from their sins, as he saves his people (Matthew 1:21); second, of those who never hear one word of saving or a Savior; third, that he should be a Savior in a two-fold sense, first for all, second for believers; fourth, that to believe is the condition whereby Christ becomes a Savior in an especial manner unto any, and that condition not procured nor purchased by him; that this I say, is the sense of this place, let those believe who can; to me nothing is more certain, than that to whom Christ is in any sense a Savior in the work of redemption, he saves them to the uttermost from all their sins of unbelief and disobedience, with the saving of grace here, and glory hereafter.

Further attempts also there are to give strength to this evasion, section 7, and so to invalidate our former argument, which I must also remove.

(Christ said they) in some sort intercedes and puts in for transgressors, even the sons of men, yet in, and of the world, that the Spirit may so still unite and bless those that believe on him, and so go forth in their confessions and conversations, and in the ministration of his Gospel by his servants, that those among whom they dwell, and converse might be convinced and brought to believe the report of the Gospel (Isaiah 53:12), as once (Luke 23:34), as himself left a pattern to us (John 17:21, 23), that so the men of the world might be convinced and the convincers allured to Christ and to God in him (Matthew 5:14-16), yes so as that he does in some measure enlighten every man that comes into the world (John 1:9). But in a more special manner does he intercede, etc.

Here is a two-fold intercession of Christ as Mediator, first for all sinners, that they may believe, (for that is it which is intended by the many cloudy expressions wherein it is involved,) second for believers that they may be saved. It is the first member of the distinction which we oppose, and therefore must insist a little upon it.

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

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

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

Thirdly, does he intercede for them that they should believe with an intention or desire that they should be so, or not? If not, it is but a mock intercession, and an entreaty for that which he would not have granted: if so, why is it not accomplished? Why do not all believe? Yes, if he died for all, and prayed for all that they might believe, why are not all saved? For Christ is always heard of his Father (John 11:42).

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

Fifthly, if his intercession be for faith, then either Christ intercedes for it absolutely, that they may certainly have it, or upon condition; and that, either on the part of God, or man; if absolutely, then all do actually believe, or that is not true, the Father always hears him (John 11:42). If upon condition on the part of God, it can be nothing but this, if he will or please, now the adding of this condition may denote in our Savior two things. First, an ignorance of what is his Father's will in the thing interceded for: which first cannot stand with the unity of his person as now in glory, and secondly, cannot be, because he has the assurance of a promise to be heard in whatever he asks (Psalm 2:8). Or secondly, an advancement of his Father's will, by submission to that, as the prime cause of the good to be bestowed, which may well stand with absolute intercession, by virtue whereof all must believe. Secondly, is it a condition on the part of those for whom he does intercede? Now I ask you what condition is that, where in the Scripture assigned; where is it said that Christ does intercede for men that they may have faith, if they do such and such things? Nay, what condition can rationally be assigned of this desire? Some often suggest that it is, if they allow the Spirit to have its work upon their hearts, and obey the grace of God: now what is it to obey the grace of God? Is it not to believe? Therefore it seems that Christ intercedes for them that they may believe, upon condition that they do believe. Others more cautiously assert the good using of the means of grace, that they do enjoy, to be the condition upon which the benefit of this intercession does depend; but again, first what is the good using of the means of grace, but submitting to them, that is believing; and so we are as before. Second, all have not the means of grace to use well or ill. Third, Christ prays that they may use the means of grace well, or he does not: if not, then how can he pray, that they may believe, seeing to use well the means of grace, by yielding obedience unto them, is indeed to believe? If he does, then he does it absolutely or upon condition, and so the argument is renewed again as in the entrance. Many more reasons might be easily produced to show the madness of this assertion, but those may suffice. Only we must look upon the proof and confirmations of it.

First, then the words of the prophet (Isaiah 53:12): he made intercession for the transgressors, are insisted on. Answer: the transgressors here for whom our Savior is said to make intercession, are either all the transgressors for whom he suffered, as is most likely, from the description we have of them (verse 6), or the transgressors only by whom he suffered, that acted in his sufferings as some suppose? If the first, then this place proves that Christ intercedes for all those for whom he suffered, which differs not, from that which we contend for. If the latter, then we may consider it as accomplished, how he then did it, so it is here foretold that he should, which is the next place urged, namely (Luke 23:34): then said Jesus Father forgive them, they know not what they do.

Answer: the conclusion which from these words is inferred, being, therefore there is a general intercession for all that they may believe, I might well leave the whole argument to the silent judgment of men, without any further opening and discovery of the invalidity and weakness, but because the ablest of that side, have usually insisted much on this place, for a general unsuccessful intercession, I will a little consider the inference, in its dependence on these words of the Gospel, and search whether it has any appearance of strength in us: to which end we must observe.

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

It does not appear that he prayed for all his crucifiers either, but only for those who did it out of ignorance, as appears by the reason annexed to his supplication, for they know not what they do. And though (Acts 3:17) it is said that the rulers also did it ignorantly, yet that all of them did so is not apparent, that some did is certain from that place, and so it is that some of them were converted as afterwards, indefinite propositions, must not in such things be made universally. Now does it follow, that because Christ prayed for the pardon of their sins, who crucified him out of ignorance, as some of them did, that therefore he intercedes for all that they may believe? Crucifiers who never once heard of his crucifying.

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

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

Fifthly, it cannot be affirmed with any probability, that our Savior should pray for all and every one of them, supposing some of them to be finally impenitent: for he himself knew full well what was in man (John 2:25), yes he knew from the beginning who they were that believed not (John 6:64). Now it is contrary to the rule which we have (1 John 5:16): there is a sin unto death, etc., to pray for them whom we know to be finally impenitent, and to sin unto death.

Sixthly, it seems to me that this supplication was effectual and successful, that the Son was heard in this request also: faith and forgiveness being granted to them for whom he prayed: so that this makes nothing for a general ineffectual intercession, it being both special and effectual. For (Acts 3), of them whom Peter tells, that they denied the Holy One and desired a murderer (verse 14), and killed the Prince of life (verse 15), of these I say five thousand believed (Acts 4:4): many of them which heard the word, believed, and the number of them was about five thousand. And if any other were among them, whom our Savior prayed for, they might be converted afterwards. Neither were the Rulers, without the compass of the fruits of this prayer, for a great company of the Priests were obedient to the faith (Acts 6:7). So that nothing can possibly be hence inferred for the purpose intended.

We may, nay we must grant a two-fold praying in our Savior, one by virtue of his office as he was Mediator, the other in answer of his duty, as he was subject to the law and a private person. It is true, he who was Mediator was made a subject to the law, but yet those things which he did in obedience to the Law as a private person, were not acts of mediation: nor works of him as Mediator, though of him who was Mediator: now as he was subject to the Law, our Savior was bound to forgive offenses, and wrongs done unto him, and to pray for his enemies, as also he had taught us to do, whereof, in this he gave us an example (Matthew 5:44): I say unto you love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which spitefully use you and persecute you, which doubtless he infers from that Law (Leviticus 19:18): you shall not avenge nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but shall love your neighbor as yourself, quite contrary to the wicked gloss put upon it by the Pharisees. And in this sense, our Savior here, as a private person, to whom revenge was forbidden, pardon enjoined, prayer commended, prays for his very enemies and crucifiers: which does not at all concern his interceding for us as Mediator, wherein he was always heard, and so is nothing to the purpose in hand.

Again (John 17:21, 23) is urged to confirm this general intercession, which we have set aside, our Savior praying that by the unity, concord, and flourishing of his servants, the world might believe and know, that God had sent him, from which words though some make a seeming flourish, yet the thing pretended is no way confirmed.

First, if Christ really intended and desired that the whole world, or all men in the world should believe, he would also no doubt have prayed for more effectual means of Grace to be granted unto them, than only a beholding of the blessed condition of his, (which yet is granted to a small part of the world) at least the preaching of the word to them all, that by it, as the only ordinary way, they might come to the knowledge of him. But this we do not find that ever he prayed for, or that God has granted it; nay he blessed his Father that so it was not, because so it seemed good in his sight (Matthew 11:25-26).

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

Thirdly, say some, the world is here taken for the world of the elect, the world to be saved, God's people throughout the world. Certain it is that the world, is not here taken properly, for the world containing, but figuratively, for the world contained, or men in the world, neither can it be made to appear that it must be taken universally for all the men in the world, as seldom it is in the scripture, which afterwards we shall make appear: but may be understood indefinitely, for men in the world few, or more, as the elect are in their several generations. But this exposition though it has great authorities, I cannot absolutely adhere unto, because through this whole chapter, the world is taken, either for the world of reprobates, opposed to them that are given to Christ by his Father, or for the world of unbelievers, (the same men under another notion) opposed to them who are committed to his Father by Christ. Therefore, I answer,

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

The following place of (Matthew 5:15-16) (containing some instructions given by our Savior to his Apostles, so to improve the knowledge and light which of him they had, and were further to receive, in the preaching of the word, and holiness of life, that they might be a means to draw men to glorify God) is certainly brought in to make up a show of a number, as very many other places are, the author not once considering, what is to be proved by them, nor to what end they are used, and therefore without further inquiry may well be laid aside as not at all belonging to the business in hand, nor to be dragged within many leagues of the conclusion, by all the strength and skill of Mr. More.

Neither is that other place of (John 1:9) anything more advisedly or seasonably urged, though wretchedly glossed, and rendered in some measure enlightening every one that comes into the world: the scripture says that Christ is the true light, that lights every man that comes into the world in some measure says Mr. More; now I ask you in what measure is this? How far, into what degree, in what measure, is illumination from Christ? By whom, or by what means separated from him, independent of him, is the rest made up? Who supplies the defect of Christ. I know your aim is, to draw in your illumination by the light of nature, and I know not what common helps, that you dream of, towards them, who are utterly deprived of all Gospel means of grace, and that not only for the knowledge of God as Creator, but also of him as in Christ the Redeemer. But whether the idols of your own setting up should be thus worshiped, with wresting and perverting the word of God, and undervaluing of the grace of Christ, you will one day I hope be convinced. It suffices us, that Christ is said to enlighten every one, because he is the only true light, and every one that is enlightened, receives his light from him, who is the source, the fountain thereof. And so the general defense, of this general ineffectual intercession is vanished, but yet further, it is particularly replied concerning the Priesthood of Christ, that

As a Priest in respect of one end, he offered sacrifice, that is, propitiation for all men (Hebrews 9:26; John 1:29; 1 John 2:2), in respect of all the ends, propitiation, and sealing the New Testament, and testification to the truth, and of the uttermost end in all, for his called and chosen ones (Hebrews 9:14-15; Matthew 26:26) (what follows after, being repeated out of another place has been already answered.)

Answer, First, these words as here placed have no tolerable sense in them, neither is it an easy thing to gather the mind of the Author out of them, so far are they from being a clear answer to the argument as was pretended. Words of Scripture indeed are used, but wrested; and corrupted, not only to the countenance of error, but to bear a part in unreasonable expressions. For what I pray is the meaning of these words, he offered sacrifice in respect of one end, then of all ends, then of the uttermost end in all? To inquire backwards, first, what is this uttermost end in all? Is that in all, in, or among all the end proposed and accomplished? Or in all those for whom he offered sacrifice? Or is it the uttermost end and proposal of God and Christ in his oblation? If this latter, that is the glory of God, now there is no such thing once intimated in the places of Scripture quoted (Hebrews 9:14-15; Matthew 26:26). Second, do those places hold out the uttermost end of the death of Christ (subordinate to God's glory)? Why in one of them it is the obtaining of redemption, and in the other, the shedding of his blood for the remission of sins is expressed? Now all this you affirm to be the first end of the death of Christ, in the first words used in this place, calling it propitiation, that is, an atonement for the remission of sins, which remission of sins and redemption, are for the substance one and the same, both of them the immediate fruits, and first end of the death of Christ, as is apparent (Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14). So here you have confounded the first, and last end of the death of Christ, spoiling indeed and casting down (as you may lawfully do, for it is your own) the whole frame and building, whose foundation is this, that there be several and diverse ends of the death of Christ, towards several persons, so that some of them belong unto all, and all of them only to some, which is the main point of the whole Book. Third, Christ's offering himself to put away sin, out of (Hebrews 9:26) the place for the first end of the death of Christ, and his shedding of his blood for the remission of sins, from (Matthew 26:26) to be the last, pray when you write next, give us the difference between these two. Fourth, you say, he offered sacrifice, in respect of one end, that is propitiation for all men: now truly, if you know the meaning of sacrifice and propitiation, this will scarcely appear sense unto you upon a second view.

But to leave your words and take your meaning, it seems to be this in respect of one end, that Christ proposed to himself, in his sacrifice, he is a Priest for all, he aimed to attain and accomplish it for them, but in respect of other ends, he is so only for his chosen and called. Now truly this is an easy kind of answering, which if it will pass for good and warranted, you may easily disappoint all your adversaries, even first by laying down their arguments, then saying your own opinion is otherwise, for the very thing that is here imposed on us for an answer is the chief matter in debate, we absolutely deny, that the several ends of the death of Christ, or the good things procured by his death are thus distributed as is here pretended. To prove our assertion, and to give a reason of our denial of this dividing of these things in respect of their objects, we produce the argument above proposed, concerning the Priesthood of Christ; to which the answer given is a bare repetition of the thing in question. But you will say diverse places of Scripture are quoted for the confirmation of this answer. But these, as I told you before, are brought forth for pomp and show, nothing at all being to be found in them to the business in hand; such are (Hebrews 9:26; John 1:29), for what consequence is there from an affirmation indefinite, that Christ bore or took away sin, to this, that he is a Priest for all and every one in respect of propitiation? Besides in that of (John 1:29), there is a manifest allusion to the Passover Lamb, by which there was a typical ceremonial purification, and cleansing of sin, which was proper only to the people of Israel, the type of the elect of God, and not of all in the world, of all sorts, reprobates and unbelievers also. Those other two places of (Hebrews 2:9; 1 John 2:2) shall be considered apart, because they seem to have some strength for the main of the cause; though apparently there is no word in them that can be wrested to give the least color to such an awkward distinction, as that which we oppose. And thus our argument from the equal objective extent of the oblation and intercession of Jesus Christ, is confirmed and vindicated: and with it, the means used by the blessed Trinity for the accomplishment of the proposed end, unfolded: which end what it was is next to be considered.

From what was said in the last chapter, it is clear that the oblation and intercession of Christ are equal in scope and extent with respect to their objects — the persons for whom He once offered Himself and for whom He continually intercedes. They are therefore to be understood as one joint means for attaining a certain proposed end. What that end is comes next for consideration. But since I find some objections raised against the point just established, I must clear them away before proceeding — as a man clears away rubbish until it is all gone.

The essence of one of our earlier arguments was that sacrificing and interceding both belong to the same person as high priest. No one can rightly bear that name, and no one has truly fulfilled that office, unless he has performed both. Our Savior is the most complete and indeed the only true High Priest. In Him all those perfections existed in reality that in others were faintly represented by types. He performs both functions on behalf of those for whose sake He became such a priest.

I find that others have attempted to answer an argument similar to this one, stated in these terms: the ransom and mediation of Christ is no broader than His offices of priest, prophet, and king; but those offices belong to His Church and chosen people; therefore His ransom belongs to them only.

The intent and meaning of this argument is the same as what we proposed — namely, that Christ did not offer for those for whom He is not a priest, and He is priest only for those for whom He also intercedes. If I have occasion to use this argument later, I will by the Lord's help give it more weight and force than it appears to have in the way those who oppose us have stated it. It is in their interest to present it as weakly as possible so they can appear to have neatly set it aside. But let us look at their evasion for what it is.

One opponent called this "a sober objection" — a friendly label that I at first assumed he applied because he found it easy and comfortable to answer. But on reading the reply and finding it so far from providing any genuine response that it only served him as a launching pad for several new weak and false ideas, I concluded there must be some other reason for treating this particular objection more mildly than the others that trouble him equally — objections that receive nothing but "this is horrid," "that is blasphemy," "that is detestable, abominable, and false" — because his position can neither endure them nor escape them. Eventually I concluded that his reason was hinted at in the opening words of his supposed answer: that this objection does not deny the death of Christ for all men, but only his ransom and mediation for all men. Frankly, if that is his interpretation, I cannot share it. Far from thinking this a sober objection, I cannot be persuaded that any sane person would even propose it. That Christ should die for all and yet not be a ransom for all — when He Himself said He came to give His life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28) — seems to me a plain contradiction. In its most basic and general sense, the death of Christ is a ransom. Furthermore, do not this opponent and those of his persuasion make the ransom at least as broad as anything in, around, or following the death of Christ? Or do they have yet some further distinction to make — or rather division — regarding the ends of Christ's death? As we have already seen, on their view Christ not only paid a ransom for certain persons but also intercedes for them — while He does not intercede for all for whom He paid a ransom. Now will they go a step further back and say that for some He not only died but also paid a ransom, which He did not do for all for whom He died? Who then are these people He supposedly died for in this additional sense? They must be a group beyond all and every person — since on their view He paid a ransom for those others. But let us see what else he says. In so straightforward a case as this, it is a shame to resort to tricks.

"The answer to this objection," he says, "is easy and plain in Scripture. The mediation of Christ is both more general and more special. More general in that He is the one mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), and more special as He is the mediator of the new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance (Hebrews 9:15). Accordingly it is said that He is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe (1 Timothy 4:10). So in all of Christ's offices — as priest, prophet, and king — there is that which is more general and that which is more special and particular."

This is what he calls a clear and plain answer from Scripture — leaving the application of it to the argument to other people's guesswork. As far as I can make it out, his meaning must be something like this: It is true that Christ paid a ransom for none but those for whom He is a mediator and priest. But Christ is to be considered in two ways: first, as a general mediator and priest for all; and second, as a special mediator and priest for some. He pays the ransom in His role as general mediator. That, I suppose, is some part of his meaning. In itself, the whole thing is so poorly expressed and so far from common sense, so wildly unchristian in substance, that contempt would suit it better than a response. Frankly, in the case of men who leap from manual trades into preaching and writing, I do not know why anyone should expect clarity or rigor. What can never be sufficiently lamented is that such wildness dressed in such threadbare rags finds a welcome, while sober truth is shut out the door. For what, I ask, is meant by this distinction? Christ is either a general mediator between God and man, or a special mediator of the new covenant. Has it ever been heard before that Christ was in any sense a mediator except as mediator of the new covenant? A mediator is not appointed over a single party — all mediation concerns an agreement between several parties, and every mediator is the mediator of a covenant. If Christ is a mediator in some sense broader than as mediator of the new covenant — of what covenant was that, exactly? The covenant of works? Would not such a claim overturn the entire Gospel? Would it not dishonor Jesus Christ to make Him the mediator of a cancelled covenant? Is it not contrary to Scripture, which declares Him the guarantee — not of the first, but — of a better covenant? (Hebrews 7:22). Are not people who make such bold assertions more in need of basic instruction than in any position to preach? But we must not simply let it pass. The man is echoing something he has heard from some Arminian teacher, though he has had the misfortune of expressing the idea so poorly. Being somewhat familiar with the passages of Scripture they use to color this argument, I will briefly clear away this poor dodge so that our earlier argument may stand unshaken.

The inadequacy of the answer as stated above has already been sufficiently exposed. Some have distinguished the fruits of Christ's mediation into those that are more general and those that are more particular — and that distinction, in some sense, may be tolerable. But to say that the offices of Christ are either general or particular, and to consider Christ Himself in relation to them in that way, is a crude and misshapen notion. My answer to what is actually intended is this: we deny any such general mediation or general function of office in Christ that would extend beyond His Church or chosen people. It was His Church that He redeemed with His own blood (Acts 20:28). It was His Church that He loved and gave Himself for, that He might sanctify and cleanse it by the washing of water and the word, and present it to Himself as a glorious church (Ephesians 5:25-27). It was His sheep He laid down His life for (John 10), and He appears in heaven for us (Hebrews 9:24). Not one word in Scripture about mediating for any others. Consider His incarnation: it was because the children shared in flesh and blood (Hebrews 2:14) — not because all the world did. Consider His oblation: "For their sake," He said — those whom the Father gave Him — "I consecrate Myself" (John 17:19) — that is, to be an offering, which was the work He had in hand at that moment. Consider His resurrection: He died for our sins and rose for our justification (Romans 4:25). Consider His ascension: "I go to My Father and your Father" — and to prepare a place for you (John 14). Consider His continuing intercession: is it not to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through Him? (Hebrews 7:25). Not one word about this general mediation for all. In fact, if you listen to Christ Himself, He explicitly refuses to mediate for all: "I do not ask on their behalf; I am not asking on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me" (John 17:9).

But let us look at the texts brought to support this distinction. 1 Timothy 2:5 is cited: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." What then? What is the conclusion to be drawn from this? Cannot Christ be a mediator between God and man without being a mediator for all men? Are not the elect human beings? Do not the children share in flesh and blood? Does not His Church consist of people? What logic is there in drawing a universal conclusion from an indefinite proposition? Because Christ was a mediator for men — which would be true even if He were so only for His apostles — must we conclude He was therefore so for all men? Away with such nonsense. But let us look at the other proof, which perhaps may give more support to the awkward distinction we are opposing — 1 Timothy 4:10: "who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." Had it read, "who is the mediator of all men, especially of those who believe," it would have been a better fit. But the audacity of these men! Is there any word here about Christ as mediator? Is not the living God, in whom we trust, the one called Savior here, as the words immediately preceding in that same verse make clear? And is Christ described here in terms of His mediation? I showed earlier that God the Father is frequently called Savior. That He is the one intended here is agreed by all sound interpreters, and it is also clear from the subject under discussion: the protective providence of God — general toward all people, special and particular toward His Church. This is how He is said to save both man and beast (Psalm 36:6), where the Hebrew reads "You preserve." It is God, then, who is here called the Savior of all — through His deliverance and protection in times of danger, which is what the apostle is discussing — and this providential saving is extended in a peculiar way toward believers. What this has to do with a universal mediation I cannot see.

The very context of this passage will not allow any other interpretation. The words give a reason why, despite all the injury and reproaches that continually assault God's people, they should press on with joy in the race set before them. The reason is this: just as God preserves all people — for in Him we live and move and have our being (Acts 17; Psalm 145:14-16), and He will not allow anyone to be wronged without consequence (Genesis 9:5) — so He is especially the preserver of those who believe. They are the apple of His eye (Zechariah 2:8; Deuteronomy 32:10). So even if He permits them to be pressed for a season, they should not let go of their hope and confidence or grow weary of doing good, but continue to rest and trust in Him. Given that this is the encouragement the apostle intended to provide, what motivation would it be to tell believers that God desires the salvation of those who neither do nor ever will believe? That is to say nothing of how strange it seems that Christ should be called the Savior of those who are never saved — those to whom He never gives grace to believe, and for whom He refuses to intercede (John 17:9) — which is no small part of His mediation through which He saves sinners. Neither the subject nor the predicate of the statement — "He is the Savior of all men" — is correctly understood by those who try to twist it to support universal redemption. The subject, "He," refers to God the Father, not Christ the Mediator. The predicate describes a providential preservation, not a purchased salvation. That is, it speaks of God's providence protecting and governing all, while watching over His own in a special way to ensure they are not perpetually and unjustly slandered and reviled — along with the other pressures the apostle addresses here. He also shows that this was his own consistent experience (2 Corinthians 1:9-10): "We had the sentence of death within ourselves so that we would not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead; who delivered us from so great a peril of death, and will deliver us, He on whom we have set our hope — for He is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." If someone thinks those words — "because we hope in the living God who is" — are not giving the grounds for Paul's confidence in pressing through his labors and afflictions, but are instead a summary statement of the doctrine for which he suffered, I will not strongly object. In that reading too, the passage contains nothing but an affirmation of the true God and trust in Him, in contrast to all the idols of the Gentiles and other vain notions by which people exalted themselves to the throne of the Most High. But that Christ should be called a Savior of — first, those who are never saved from their sins, as He saves His people (Matthew 1:21); second, those who never hear a single word about salvation or a savior; third, that He should be a savior in a twofold sense, first for all and then specially for believers; fourth, that faith should be the condition by which Christ becomes a savior in a special sense to any person, and that condition not secured or purchased by Him — that all this is the meaning of this passage, let those believe who can. To me nothing is more certain than this: to whomever Christ is in any sense a savior in the work of redemption, He saves them to the uttermost from all their sins — including unbelief and disobedience — with saving grace in this life and glory in the next.

Further attempts are also made to reinforce this evasion and thereby to undermine our earlier argument, and I must clear those away as well.

They say: Christ in some sense intercedes and pleads for transgressors — even the unregenerate among humanity, those still in and of the world — that the Spirit might continue to unite and bless those who believe in Him, and that as they live out their faith and proclaim the Gospel through His servants, those among whom they dwell might be convinced and come to believe the message of the Gospel (Isaiah 53:12). Just as Christ once prayed (Luke 23:34), and as He left an example for us (John 17:21, 23), so the people of the world might be convinced, and those who convince them drawn to Christ and to God in Him (Matthew 5:14-16). He even, in some measure, enlightens every person who comes into the world (John 1:9). But He intercedes in a more special way for His own, and so on.

Here is a twofold intercession of Christ as mediator: first, for all sinners — that they might believe (which is what is intended by the many cloudy phrases wrapped around it); and second, for believers — that they might be saved. It is the first part of this distinction that we oppose, and we must press on it a little.

First, our author says it is interceding "in some sort." I ask: in what sort? Is it directly or indirectly? Is it by virtue of His blood shed for them, or by some other means? Is it with an intention and desire to obtain for them the good things interceded for — or with the expectation that they will go without them? Is it for every person without exception, or only for those within the outward bounds of the church? Is faith what He is asking for on their behalf, or something else? Is that request absolute, or conditional? All of these questions must be clearly answered before this supposed general intercession can be made intelligible.

First, consider whether this intercession "in some sort" is direct or only indirect and incidental. For the thing supposedly interceded for is not presented as the immediate aim of Christ's prayer, but as a side benefit arising from a blessing obtained for others. The prayer described is that God would so bless believers that those among whom they live might come to believe the Gospel message. Believers are the direct object of this intercession; others are only reached through them as a secondary consequence. The good hoped for on behalf of those others is viewed either as something that might incidentally result from believers flourishing, or as a goal the prayer intentionally aims at. If the first — their good is aimed at no more than their harm. If the second — why is it not achieved? Why is the Savior's intention not accomplished? Is it for lack of wisdom to choose means suited to the end He proposes, or for lack of power to accomplish what He intends?

Second, is this intercession grounded on His blood shed for them, or on something else? If it is, then Christ intercedes for them to receive those things His oblation purchased for them — for this is what it means to make His death and bloodshedding the foundation of His intercession. It would then follow that Christ by His death purchased faith for all, since He intercedes for all to believe and grounds that intercession on the merit of His death. But first, this is more than the proponents of universal redemption are willing to maintain. Among all the ends they assign to Christ's death, the effectual and certain bestowal of faith on those for whom He died is not one of them. Second, if by His death He purchased faith for all, and by His intercession He asks for it to be given to all — why is it not actually given to them? Is the combination of both not sufficient to secure that one spiritual blessing? And second, if this intercession is not grounded on His death and bloodshedding, we invite them to describe for us what this intercession of Christ is, if it is something other than His appearing in heaven for us sprinkled with His own blood.

Third, does He intercede for all to believe with genuine intention and desire that they should believe — or not? If not, then it is a sham intercession — an appeal for something He does not actually want granted. If so, why is it not accomplished? Why do not all believe? Indeed, if He died for all and prayed for all to believe, why are not all saved? For Christ is always heard by His Father (John 11:42).

Fourth, is this intercession for every person in the world, or only for those within the visible bounds of the church? If only for the latter, then this does not establish a truly general intercession for all — it only establishes one broader than the intercession for believers. For if even one person in the world is left out, the whole claim falls apart. If it is for all, how can it consist in the prayer that the Spirit would lead, guide, and bless believers — and that through the ministry of the Gospel by His servants others might be convinced and brought to believe? How, I ask, can this apply to the millions of souls who never encounter a believer, who never hear a word of the Gospel?

Fifth, if His intercession is for faith, then either Christ intercedes for it absolutely — meaning they will certainly receive it — or conditionally. And if conditionally, the condition is either on God's side or on the human side. If absolutely, then all actually do believe — or else it is not true that the Father always hears Him (John 11:42). If the condition is on God's side, it can only mean: "if God is willing." Adding this condition may indicate one of two things in our Savior. First, an ignorance of His Father's will in the matter — which cannot stand, both because it contradicts the unity of His person in His present state of glory, and because He has the assurance of a promise to be heard in whatever He asks (Psalm 2:8). Or second, a submission to the Father's will as the primary cause of the good to be bestowed — which is fully compatible with an absolute intercession, one by which all must believe. Second, is the condition on the side of those He intercedes for? What condition is that? Where is it assigned in Scripture? Where does it say that Christ intercedes for people to have faith if they do this or that? What condition can rationally be assigned to such a request? Some commonly suggest: if they allow the Spirit to work upon their hearts and obey the grace of God. But what is it to obey the grace of God? Is it not to believe? So it seems Christ intercedes for people to believe — on condition that they believe. Others more carefully propose the proper use of the means of grace as the condition on which the benefit of this intercession depends. But again: first, what is properly using the means of grace but submitting to them — that is, believing? So we are back to the same problem as before. Second, not everyone has access to the means of grace to use well or poorly. Third, Christ either prays for them to use the means of grace well or He does not. If He does not, then how can He pray for them to believe — when using the means of grace properly, by yielding to them in obedience, simply is believing? If He does pray for it, then He does so either absolutely or conditionally — and the argument starts over again from the beginning. Many more arguments could easily be given to show the absurdity of this claim, but these may suffice. We must now look at the proofs offered in its support.

First, the words of the prophet are cited: "He interceded for the transgressors" (Isaiah 53:12). Answer: the transgressors for whom our Savior is said to intercede are either all the transgressors for whom He suffered — which is the most natural reading, given the description of them in verse 6 — or only the transgressors through whom He suffered, that is, those who acted against Him in His suffering, as some suggest. If the first, then this passage proves that Christ intercedes for all those for whom He suffered — which is exactly what we maintain, and no different from our position. If the second, then we may understand this as what He accomplished then and there. It is foretold in Isaiah that He should do this, and the event is recorded in the next text cited: "Jesus said, 'Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing'" (Luke 23:34).

Answer: the conclusion drawn from these words — that there is therefore a general intercession for all that they might believe — is one I could leave to the silent judgment of readers, without any further demonstration of its weakness and invalidity. But since the ablest defenders of that position have made much of this passage to support the idea of a general, unsuccessful intercession, I will briefly examine the inference and whether it has any real force. To that end, we must observe:

This prayer was not for all people but only for that small group of Jews by whom He was crucified. To infer from a prayer for them a prayer for every person who ever has, does, or will exist is a wild leap of logic.

It does not even appear that He prayed for every one of His crucifiers, but only for those who acted out of ignorance — as the reason He gave in His prayer makes clear: "for they do not know what they are doing." Though in Acts 3:17 it is said that even the rulers did it in ignorance, it is not clear that all of them did so. That some did is certain from that passage, and it is also true that some of them were later converted. Indefinite statements in such matters must not be expanded into universal claims. Does it follow, then, that because Christ prayed for the forgiveness of those who crucified Him out of ignorance — as some of them did — He therefore intercedes for all people throughout history that they might believe? People who crucified him and never once heard of His crucifixion?

Third, in those words Christ does not even pray that those men would believe, but only that the sin of crucifying Him might be forgiven them — not charged against them. To conclude from this that He therefore intercedes for all people that they might believe is a remarkable stretch of logic.

Fourth, there is another clear limitation in the scope of this prayer: among His crucifiers, He prays only for those present at His death. Among that crowd, many doubtless came out of curiosity to watch, as is common in such situations, rather than out of malice and spite. The objection some raise — that despite this prayer the chief priests continued in unbelief — misses the point, since it cannot even be shown that the chief priests were present at the crucifixion.

Fifth, it cannot reasonably be claimed that our Savior prayed for every one of them if some were finally impenitent — for He knew full well what was in the hearts of people (John 2:25), and He knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe (John 6:64). To pray for those we know to be finally impenitent — those who sin unto death — would contradict the rule given to us in 1 John 5:16.

Sixth, it seems to me that this prayer was effectual and answered — that the Son was heard in this request as well, with faith and forgiveness granted to those for whom He prayed. This therefore supports neither a general nor an unsuccessful intercession, but one that was both specific and effective. In Acts 3, Peter addresses people who had denied the Holy One and asked for a murderer to be released (verse 14), and had killed the Prince of life (verse 15). Of these same people, five thousand believed (Acts 4:4): "Many of those who had heard the message believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand." And if others were among those Christ prayed for at the cross, they may have been converted afterward. Even the rulers were not entirely outside the reach of this prayer's fruit, for a great number of the priests became obedient to the faith (Acts 6:7). Nothing in this passage, therefore, can be cited in support of the conclusion being drawn.

We may — indeed we must — acknowledge a twofold praying in our Savior: one by virtue of His office as Mediator, and the other in fulfillment of His duty as one subject to the law and as a private individual. It is true that the one who was Mediator was also made subject to the law. But the things He did in obedience to the law as a private person were not acts of mediation — not works of Him as Mediator, even though they were performed by the One who was Mediator. As one subject to the law, our Savior was bound to forgive offenses and wrongs done to Him and to pray for His enemies, just as He had taught us to do and of which He here gave us an example (Matthew 5:44): "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." This He drew from the law in Leviticus 19:18 — "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" — in direct contrast to the wicked twist the Pharisees had put on it. In this sense, our Savior here — as a private person to whom vengeance was forbidden, pardon enjoined, and prayer commended — prays for His very enemies and crucifiers. This has nothing to do with His interceding for us as Mediator, in which He was always heard. It is therefore irrelevant to the matter at hand.

John 17:21 and 23 are also cited in support of this alleged general intercession, where our Savior prays that through the unity, harmony, and flourishing of His servants, the world might believe and know that God had sent Him. Some make a show of force with these words, but the claim is not at all established by them.

First, if Christ truly intended and desired that all people in the world should believe, He would surely also have prayed for more effective means of grace to be given to them than merely the sight of the blessed condition of His people — which in any case only a small portion of the world ever sees. At minimum, He would have prayed for the preaching of the word to all, since that is the ordinary means by which people come to know Him. But we do not find that He ever prayed for this, or that God has granted it. Indeed, He gave thanks to His Father that it was not so, saying, "I praise You, Father, because You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and revealed them to infants — yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight" (Matthew 11:25-26).

Second, no interpretation of this passage can be allowed that runs counter to the plain words of our Savior in verse 9: "I do not ask on behalf of the world." For if He here prayed that the world would receive true, holy, saving faith, He was asking for just as great a blessing and privilege for the world as anything He interceded for on behalf of His own.

Third, some say the "world" here means the world of the elect — God's people throughout the world who are to be saved. It is certain that "world" here is not used literally for the world as a container, but figuratively for those who inhabit it. Nor can it be shown that it must be taken universally for every person in the world — which is seldom how it is used in Scripture, as we will demonstrate later. It may be understood indefinitely, referring to people in the world — few or many — as the elect appear in their various generations. That said, even though this interpretation has strong support, I cannot fully commit to it, because throughout this entire chapter the word "world" is used either for the world of the reprobate — in contrast to those given to Christ by His Father — or for the world of unbelievers — the same people under a different description — in contrast to those entrusted to the Father by Christ. Therefore, I answer:

Fourth, the words "believe" (verse 21) and "know" (verse 23) do not mean believing in the full saving sense — a true comprehension and reception of Jesus Christ that makes one a child of God. That has never been fulfilled and never will be fulfilled in every person in the world, nor was it ever prayed for in that sense. Rather, "believe" and "know" here refer to a conviction and acknowledgment that the Lord Christ was not what His opponents had taken Him to be — a deceiver and false prophet — but truly what He claimed to be: one who came from God, with power to protect and do good for His own. That this kind of conviction is often called "believing" in Scripture is clear enough that it need not be argued, and interpreters across all traditions agree that this is what is meant here. This is not for the benefit of the world but for the vindication of Christ's people and the exaltation of His own glory — and so it proves nothing on the point in question. More will be said on the word "world" later.

The passage from Matthew 5:15-16 — in which our Savior instructs His apostles to make full use of the knowledge and light they had received from Him and were to receive, through the preaching of the word and holy living, so as to be a means of drawing others to glorify God — is clearly brought in only to pad the list of references. The author never considers what it is supposed to prove or what purpose it serves, and without further examination it may simply be set aside as having no bearing whatsoever on the matter at hand.

The passage from John 1:9 is no more carefully or appropriately used, though it is badly twisted. The text is rendered as saying Christ enlightens every person who comes into the world "in some measure" — those are the words Mr. More adds. I ask: in what measure? How much? To what degree? And to what extent is this illumination from Christ? By whom or what — apart from Him and independent of Him — is the rest supplied? Who makes up for Christ's supposed deficiency? I understand the aim: to import the light of nature, and whatever other common helps are imagined, for those who are entirely without any Gospel means of grace — not only for knowledge of God as Creator, but also of Him as Redeemer in Christ. But whether these idols of your own making should be so worshiped — through distorting and corrupting the word of God and diminishing the grace of Christ — I trust you will one day be convinced. It is sufficient for us that Christ is said to enlighten every person because He is the only true light. Everyone who is enlightened receives that light from Him as the source and fountain. And so the general defense of this general, unsuccessful intercession has evaporated. But there is one more specific reply concerning the priesthood of Christ that must be addressed.

They say: as a priest, with respect to one end, Christ offered a sacrifice — that is, a propitiation for all men (Hebrews 9:26; John 1:29; 1 John 2:2). With respect to all the ends together — propitiation, sealing the new covenant, and testifying to the truth — and with respect to the ultimate end of all, His sacrifice was for His called and chosen ones (Hebrews 9:14-15; Matthew 26:28). (What follows after this has already been repeated from another passage and has already been answered.)

Answer: First, as stated, these words have no intelligible meaning, and it is no easy task to extract the author's intention from them — they are far from being the clear answer to the argument they were presented as. Scripture words are certainly used, but they are twisted and corrupted — not only to lend cover to error, but to play a part in statements that defy sound reasoning. What, I ask, is the meaning of these words: he offered sacrifice in respect of one end, then in respect of all ends, then in respect of the uttermost end in all? Working backward: first, what is this "uttermost end in all"? Does "in all" mean among all the ends proposed and accomplished? Or among all those for whom He offered the sacrifice? Or is it the ultimate end and purpose of God and Christ in the oblation? If the last — that being the glory of God — there is no such thing even hinted at in the passages cited (Hebrews 9:14-15; Matthew 26:28). Second, do those passages actually set forth the ultimate end of Christ's death, subordinate to God's glory? For one of them speaks of obtaining redemption, and the other of the shedding of His blood for the forgiveness of sins. Now you yourself affirm this to be the first end of Christ's death in the opening of your statement, calling it propitiation — that is, atonement for the forgiveness of sins. The forgiveness of sins and redemption are, in substance, one and the same, and both are the immediate fruit and primary end of Christ's death, as is plain from Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 1:14. So you have here collapsed the first and the last end of Christ's death into one — undermining the entire framework and structure, which you may freely do since it is your own. That framework rests on the claim that there are several distinct ends of Christ's death directed toward different groups of people, so that some of those ends apply to all and only some of them apply to a few — which is the central thesis of the whole book. Third, you place Christ's offering Himself to put away sin from Hebrews 9:26 as the first end of His death, and His shedding of blood for the forgiveness of sins from Matthew 26:28 as the last. The next time you write, please explain the difference between these two. Fourth, you say He offered sacrifice with respect to one end — namely, propitiation for all men. If you actually understand the meaning of sacrifice and propitiation, you will find this barely coherent on a second reading.

But setting aside your words and taking your meaning: it seems to be this — with respect to one end Christ proposed in His sacrifice, He is a priest for all and aimed to accomplish that end for all. But with respect to the other ends, He is a priest only for His chosen and called. Truly this is a convenient way of answering. If it is allowed to stand, you could easily sidestep all your opponents by simply restating their argument and then asserting that your own view is otherwise. For the very thing being imposed on us as an answer here is the very point in dispute. We flatly deny that the various ends of Christ's death, or the good things purchased by it, are distributed in the way being claimed here. To prove our position and to explain our rejection of this division of the ends of Christ's death by their objects, we produced the argument above regarding the priesthood of Christ — and the only reply given was a bare repetition of the question itself. You will say: but several passages of Scripture are cited in support. But as I said before, these are brought in for show and display — nothing in them actually speaks to the matter at hand. Take Hebrews 9:26 and John 1:29: what logical conclusion follows from the indefinite statement that Christ bore or took away sin, to the conclusion that He is a priest for every person without exception in respect of propitiation? Furthermore, in John 1:29 there is an evident allusion to the Passover lamb, which effected a ceremonial, typical cleansing of sin that was specific to the people of Israel — the type of God's elect — and not to all people without distinction, including the reprobate and the unbelieving. The other two passages — Hebrews 2:9 and 1 John 2:2 — will be examined separately, since they appear to carry some weight for the main issue. But clearly there is no word in them that can be stretched even remotely to give the slightest plausibility to the clumsy distinction we are opposing. And so our argument from the equal scope of Christ's oblation and intercession is confirmed and vindicated. With it, the means used by the blessed Trinity for the accomplishment of the proposed end have been unfolded. What that end was is now to be considered.