Chapter 2

That the death, oblation, and bloodshedding of Jesus Christ, section 1, is to be considered as the means for the compassing of an appointed end, was before abundantly declared; and that such a means, as is not in itself any way desirable, but for the attaining of that end: Now, because that which is the end of anything, must also be good, for unless it be so, it cannot be an end, (for goodness and end are convertible) it must be either his Father's good, or his own good, or our good, which was the end proposed. That it was not merely his own, is exceedingly apparent; for in his divine nature, he was eternally and essentially partaker of all that glory which is proper to the Deity, which though in respect of us it is capable of more or less manifestation, yet in itself it is always alike eternally and absolutely perfect. And in this regard, at the close of all, he desires and requests no other glory, but that which he had with his Father before the world was (John 17:5). And in respect of his human nature, as he was eternally predestined, without any foresight of doing or suffering to be personally united; from the instant of his conception with the second Person of the Trinity; so neither while he was in the way, did he merit anything for himself by his death and oblation: he needed not to suffer for himself, being perfectly and legally righteous, and the glory that he aimed at, by enduring the curse, and despising the shame, was not so much his own, in respect of possession, by the exaltation of his own nature, as the bringing of many children to glory, even as it was in the promise set before him; as we before at large declared. His own exaltation indeed, and power over all flesh, and his appointment to be judge of the living and the dead, was a consequence of his deep humiliation and suffering, but that it was the effect and product of it, procured meritoriously by it; that it was the end aimed at by him in his making satisfaction for sin, that we deny. Christ has a power and dominion over all, but the foundation of this dominion is not in his death for all: for he has dominion over all things being appointed Heir of them, and upholding them all by the word of his power (Hebrews 1:3-4). He is set over the works of God's hands, and all things are put in subjection under him (Hebrews 2:7-8). And what are those all things, or what are among them, you may see in the place of the Psalmist from which the Apostle cites those words (Psalm 8:6-8). And did he die for all these things? Nay, has he not power over the Angels, are not principalities and powers made subject to him? Shall he not at the last day, judge the Angels, for with him the saints shall do it, by giving attestation to his righteous judgments (1 Corinthians 6)? And yet, is it not expressly said that the Angels have no share in the whole dispensation of God manifested in the flesh, so as to die for them to redeem them from their sins? Of which some had no need, and the other, are eternally excluded (Hebrews 2:16): He took not on him the nature of Angels, but he took upon him the seed of Abraham. God setting him King upon his Holy hill of Zion, in spite of his enemies to crush them and to rule them with a rod of iron (Psalm 2:9). Is not the immediate effect of his death for them; but rather all things are given into his hand, out of the immediate love of the Father to his Son (John 3:35; Matthew 11:27). That is the foundation of all this sovereignty and dominion over all creatures, with his power of judging that is put into his hand.

Besides, be it granted (which cannot be proved) that Christ by his death did procure this power of judging; would anything hence follow that might be beneficial to the proving of the general ransom for all? No doubtless, this dominion and power of judging is a power of condemning as well as saving, it is all judgment that is committed to him (John 5:22). He has authority given unto him to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man, that is at that hour when all that are in their graves, shall hear his voice, and come forth, they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil to the resurrection of condemnation (verses 28-29; 2 Corinthians 5:10). Now can it be reasonably asserted, that Christ died for men to redeem them, that he might have power to condemn? Nay, do not these two overthrow one another? If he redeemed them by his death, then he did not aim at the obtaining of any power to condemn them; if he did the latter, then that former was not in his intention.

Nor secondly, was it his Father's good; I speak now of the proximate and immediate end and product of the death of Christ, not of the ultimate and remote, knowing that the supreme end of, section 1, Christ's oblation and all the benefits purchased and procured by it was the praise of his glorious grace; but for this other it does not directly tend to the obtaining of anything unto God, but of all good things from God to us. Arminius with his followers, with the other universalists of our days, affirm this to be the end proposed, that God might, his justice being satisfied, save sinners, the hindrance being removed by the satisfaction of Christ, he had by his death a right and liberty obtained, of pardoning sin upon what condition he pleased: so that after the satisfaction of Christ yielded and considered, it was in God's free disposal, (as his words are) as it was holy in God's free disposal, whether he would save any or not, and upon what condition he would, whether of faith, or of works. God (said they) had a good mind and will to do good to humankind, but could not by reason of sin, his justice lying in the way: whereupon he sent Christ to remove that obstacle, that so he might upon the prescribing of what condition he pleased and its being by them fulfilled have mercy on them. Now because in this they place their chief, if not the sole end of the oblation of Christ, I must a little show the falseness and folly of it, which may be done plainly by these following reasons.

First the foundation of this whole assertion seems to me to be false and erroneous, namely, that God could not have mercy on mankind, unless satisfaction were made by his Son: it is true indeed, supposing the decree, purpose and constitution of God, that so it should be, that so he would manifest his glory by the way of vindicative justice, it was impossible that it should otherwise be, for with the Lord, there is neither change nor shadow of turning (James 1:17; 1 Samuel 15:29). But to assert positively, that absolutely and antecedently, to his constitution he could not have done it, is to me an unwritten tradition, the Scripture affirming no such thing, neither can it be gathered from there in any good consequence; if any one shall deny this, we will try what the Lord will enable us to say unto it, and in the mean time rest contented in that of Augustine, though other ways of saving us were not wanting to his infinite wisdom, yet certainly the way which he did proceed in, was the most convenient, because we find he proceeded therein.

Secondly this would make the cause of sending his Son to die, to be a common love, or rather wishing that he might do good, or show mercy to all, and not an entire act of his will or purpose of knowing, redeeming, and saving his elect, which we shall afterwards disprove.

Thirdly, if the end of the death of Christ were to acquire a right to his Father, that notwithstanding his justice he might save sinners, then did he rather die to redeem a liberty unto God, than a liberty from evil unto us; that his Father might be enlarged from that estate, wherein it was impossible for him to do that which he desired, and which his nature inclined him to, and not that we might be freed from that condition, wherein, without this freedom purchased, it could not be but we must perish. If this be so, I see no reason why Christ should be said to come and redeem his people from their sins, but rather plainly to purchase this right and liberty for his Father: now where is there any such assertion, wherein is anything of this nature, in the Scripture? Does the Lord say that he sent his Son out of love to himself or unto us? Is God or men made the immediate Subject of good attained unto by this oblation? But it is said that although immediately and in the first place this right did arise unto God by the death of Christ, yet that that also was to tend to our good, Christ obtaining that right, that the Lord might now bestow mercy on us if we fulfilled the condition that he would propose. But I answer that this utterly overthrows all the merit of the death of Christ towards us, and leaves not so much as the nature of merit unto it; for that which is truly meritorious indeed, deserves that the thing merited or procured and obtained by it, shall be done, or ought to be bestowed, and not only that it may be done; there is such a relationship between merit and the thing obtained by it, whether it be absolute or arising on contract, that there arises a real right to the thing procured by it in them, by whom or for whom it is procured. When the laborer has worked all day, do we say now his wages may be paid or rather now they ought to be paid? Has he not a right unto it? Was ever such a merit heard of before, whose nature should consist in this, that the thing procured by it might be bestowed, and not that it ought to be: and shall Christ be said now to purchase by his meritorious oblation, this only at his Father's hand, that he might bestow upon, and apply the fullness of his death to some or all, and not that he should so do? To him that works (said the Apostle) the reward is not due of grace, but of debt (Romans 4:4). Are not the fruits of the death of Christ, by his death as truly procured for us, as if they had been obtained by our own working? And if so, though in respect of the persons on whom they are bestowed, they are of free grace, yet in respect of the purchase, the bestowing of them is of debt.

Fourthly, that cannot be assigned as the complete end of the Death of Christ, which being accomplished, it had, not only been possible, that not one soul might be saved, but also impossible that by virtue of it any sinful soul should be saved, for sure the Scripture is exceedingly full in declaring that through Christ we have remission of sins, grace and glory (as afterwards) but now notwithstanding this, that Christ is said to have procured and purchased by his death such a right and liberty to his Father, that he might bestow eternal life upon all, upon what conditions he would, it might very well stand, that not one of those should enjoy eternal life; for suppose the Father would not bestow it, as he is by no engagement according to this persuasion bound to do, he had a right to do it, it is true; but that which is anyone's right he may use, or not use at his pleasure. Again, suppose he had prescribed a condition of works, which it had been impossible for them to fulfill, the death of Christ might have had its full end, and yet not one been saved. Was this his coming to save sinners, to save that which was lost? Or could he upon such an accomplishment as this pray as he did, Father I will; that those whom you have given me, may be where I am to behold my glory? (John 17:24). Diverse other reasons might be used to overturn this fancy, that would make the purchase of Christ in respect of us, not to be the remission of sins, but a possibility of it, not salvation but a salvability, not reconciliation and peace with God, but the opening of a door towards it: but I shall use them in assigning the right end of the death of Christ.

Ask now of these, what it is that the Father can do, section 3, and will do upon the death of Christ, by which means his justice, that before hindered the execution of his good will towards them is satisfied? And they tell you, it is the entering into a new Covenant of grace with them, upon the performance of whose condition, they shall have all the benefits of the death of Christ applied to them. But to us it seems that Christ himself, with his death and passion, is the chief promise of the new Covenant itself, as (Genesis 3:15), and so the Covenant cannot be said to be procured by his Death. Besides the nature of the Covenant overthrows this Proposal, that they that are covenanted with shall have such and such good things, if they fulfill the condition, as though that all depended on this obedience, when that obedience itself, and the whole condition of it, is a promise of the Covenant (Jeremiah 31:32), which is confirmed and sealed by the blood of Christ. We deny not, but the death of Christ has a proper end in respect of God, to wit, the manifestation of his glory, hence he calls him his servant in whom he will be glorified (Isaiah 49), and the bringing of many Sons to glory wherewith he was entrusted, was to the manifestation and praise of his glorious grace, that so his love to his elect might gloriously appear, his salvation being borne out by Christ to the uttermost parts of the earth. And this full declaration of his glory by the way of mercy tempered with justice, for he set forth Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood that he might be just, and the justifier of them that believe in Jesus (Romans 3:25). Is all that which accrued to the Lord by the death of his Son, and not any right and liberty of doing that which before he would have done, but could not for his justice. In respect of us the end of the oblation and bloodshedding of Jesus Christ was, not that God might, if he would, but that he should by virtue of that compact and covenant, which was the foundation of the Merit of Christ, bestow upon us all the good things, which Christ aimed at, and intended to purchase and procure by his offering of himself for us unto God, which is in the next place to be declared.

It was established earlier at length that the death, oblation, and bloodshedding of Jesus Christ is to be considered as the means for achieving an appointed end — and a means not desirable in itself, but only for the sake of that end. Now, since the end of anything must be something good (for goodness and end are inseparable — they go together), the end proposed must be either the good of the Father, the good of the Son, or our good. That it was not primarily His own good is abundantly clear. In His divine nature, He was eternally and essentially a partaker of all the glory proper to the Godhead. Though that glory admits of more or less outward manifestation to us, in itself it is always equally and perfectly eternal and absolute. In this regard, at the close of His earthly work, He requests no other glory than what He had with His Father before the world existed (John 17:5). And in respect of His human nature: since He was predestined from eternity — without any foresight of His obedience or suffering — to be personally united to the second Person of the Trinity from the moment of His conception, He likewise merited nothing for Himself by His death and oblation during the course of His earthly life. He had no need to suffer for His own sake, being perfectly and legally righteous. The glory He aimed at in enduring the curse and despising the shame was not so much His own possession through the exaltation of His own nature, as it was the bringing of many children to glory — as was set before Him in the promise, which we described at length earlier. His exaltation, His authority over all flesh, and His appointment as judge of the living and the dead were indeed consequences of His deep humiliation and suffering. But that these were the meritorious effects and products of His sufferings — that they were the end He aimed at in making satisfaction for sin — this we deny. Christ has authority and dominion over all things, but the foundation of that dominion is not His death for all. He has dominion over all things as the One appointed heir of all things, who upholds all things by the word of His power (Hebrews 1:2-3). He is set over the works of God's hands, and all things are put in subjection under Him (Hebrews 2:7-8). And what are those "all things"? You can see in the psalm the apostle cites (Psalm 8:6-8). Did He die for all these things? Does He not also have authority over the angels? Are not principalities and powers made subject to Him? Will He not judge the angels at the last day? For the saints will join in this by giving their assent to His righteous judgments (1 Corinthians 6). And yet is it not expressly stated that the angels have no share in the whole plan of God manifest in the flesh — that He did not die for them to redeem them from sins? Of angels in general some had no need of redemption, and the fallen ones are eternally excluded from it (Hebrews 2:16): He did not take on the nature of angels but the seed of Abraham. God set Him as King on His holy hill of Zion, to crush His enemies and rule them with a rod of iron (Psalm 2:9). This is not the immediate effect of His death for them. Rather, all things are given into His hand out of the Father's direct love for His Son (John 3:35; Matthew 11:27). That love of the Father is the foundation of all this sovereignty and dominion over all creatures, and of the power of judgment placed into His hand.

Moreover, even granting what cannot be proved — that Christ by His death secured this power of judgment — would anything follow from that to help prove a general ransom for all? Surely not. This dominion and power of judgment includes the power to condemn as well as to save. All judgment is committed to Him (John 5:22). He has been given authority to execute judgment because He is the Son of Man — authority exercised at the hour when all who are in the tombs will hear His voice and come out: those who have done good to a resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to a resurrection of condemnation (verses 28-29; 2 Corinthians 5:10). Can it reasonably be claimed that Christ died to redeem people in order to gain the power to condemn them? Do not these two ideas cancel each other out? If He redeemed them by His death, He was not aiming at gaining the power to condemn them. If He was aiming at the latter, then the former was not His intention.

Nor, second, was it the Father's good that was the end — I am speaking now of the proximate and immediate end and product of Christ's death, not of the ultimate and remote end. I acknowledge that the supreme end of Christ's oblation and all the benefits purchased by it is the praise of His glorious grace. But in terms of this second possible end: the death of Christ does not directly tend toward obtaining anything for God, but rather toward obtaining all good things from God for us. Arminius and his followers, along with other universalists of our day, claim this to be the end proposed: that God, His justice being satisfied, might save sinners. With the obstacle removed by Christ's satisfaction, God gained by His death the right and liberty to pardon sin on whatever condition He chose. So that after the satisfaction of Christ was given and accepted, it was in God's free disposal — as they put it — whether He would save anyone at all, and on what condition He would do so — whether faith or works. They say God had a good intention and desire to do good to humanity, but was prevented by sin, since His justice stood in the way. So He sent Christ to remove that obstacle, so that He might then show mercy to those who fulfilled whatever condition He chose to prescribe. Since they place the chief — if not the only — end of Christ's oblation in this, I must briefly show its falseness and folly, which can be done plainly through the following reasons.

First, the very foundation of this whole claim seems to me false and mistaken — namely, that God could not have had mercy on humanity unless satisfaction were made by His Son. It is true that given God's decree, purpose, and settled design to manifest His glory through the way of retributive justice, it was impossible for it to happen any other way. For with the Lord there is no change or shadow of turning (James 1:17; 1 Samuel 15:29). But to assert positively that absolutely and prior to His own constitution He could not have done it otherwise — that seems to me to be an unwritten tradition. Scripture says no such thing, nor can that conclusion be rightly drawn from it. If anyone disputes this, we will see what the Lord enables us to say in reply. In the meantime, we rest content in the words of Augustine: though other ways of saving us were not beyond His infinite wisdom, the way He actually chose was certainly the most fitting — and we know this precisely because He proceeded in it.

Second, this view would make the cause of God's sending His Son to die a general benevolence — a vague desire to do good or show mercy to all — rather than a complete act of His will and purpose to know, redeem, and save His elect, which we will disprove later.

Third, if the end of Christ's death was to acquire a right for His Father so that — despite His justice — He might save sinners, then Christ died to redeem a liberty for God rather than a liberty from evil for us. He would have died so that His Father might be freed from a condition in which it was impossible for Him to do what He desired and what His nature inclined Him toward — not so that we might be freed from the condition in which, without this purchased freedom, we would certainly perish. If this were true, I see no reason why Christ should be said to come and redeem His people from their sins, rather than simply to purchase this right and liberty for His Father. Where is any such assertion in Scripture? Where is anything of this nature? Does the Lord say He sent His Son out of love for Himself or for us? Is God or humanity made the immediate recipient of the good secured by this oblation? But someone will say: although this right arose immediately and in the first place to God through Christ's death, it was still intended for our good — Christ securing for the Father the right to now show mercy to us if we fulfilled whatever condition He chose to set. My answer is that this completely destroys the merit of Christ's death in relation to us and leaves it with nothing that truly deserves the name of merit. What is truly meritorious deserves that the thing merited — procured and obtained by it — shall be done and ought to be bestowed, not merely that it may be done. There is such a relationship between merit and the thing obtained by it — whether it arises absolutely or by contract — that a real right to the thing obtained arises in those for whom or by whom it was procured. When a worker has labored all day, do we say his wages may be paid — or rather that they ought to be paid? Does he not have a right to them? Has any merit ever been conceived whose very nature consists in this: that the thing secured by it may be bestowed, but not that it ought to be? And shall Christ be said to purchase by His meritorious oblation nothing more from His Father than the freedom for the Father to apply the fullness of His death to some or all — and not that He should do so? "To the one who works, his wages are not credited as a favor but as what is owed" (Romans 4:4). Are not the fruits of Christ's death truly procured for us by His death — just as genuinely as if they had been obtained by our own efforts? And if so, then though in respect of the persons on whom they are bestowed, they are freely given, yet in respect of the purchase, the bestowing of them is a matter of debt.

Fourth, that cannot be assigned as the complete end of Christ's death which, even after being fully accomplished, would have made it not only possible that not one soul would be saved, but actually impossible that by virtue of it any sinful soul could be saved. For Scripture is abundantly clear that through Christ we have forgiveness of sins, grace, and glory — as we will show. But on this opposing view — where Christ is said to have purchased for the Father a right and liberty to bestow eternal life on all upon whatever conditions He chose — it would be entirely consistent that not one of those people ever enjoyed eternal life. Suppose the Father chose not to bestow it. On this view He was under no binding obligation to do so. He had a right to do it, yes. But a right may be exercised or not exercised at the holder's discretion. Suppose further that He had prescribed a condition of works that was impossible for anyone to fulfill. Christ's death could have reached its complete end — and yet no one been saved. Was this His coming to save sinners, to seek and save the lost? Or could He, on the basis of such an accomplishment, have prayed as He did: "Father, I desire that those whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, to see My glory" (John 17:24)? Many other arguments could be used to overthrow this notion — which makes Christ's purchase, in relation to us, not the forgiveness of sins but only the possibility of forgiveness; not salvation but mere salvability; not reconciliation and peace with God, but only the opening of a door toward it. But I will bring those arguments forward when setting out the proper end of the death of Christ.

Ask these same people: what is it that the Father can and will do upon the death of Christ, now that His justice — which previously prevented the execution of His goodwill toward sinners — has been satisfied? Their answer is that He will enter into a new covenant of grace with them, upon the fulfillment of whose condition they will have all the benefits of Christ's death applied to them. But it seems to us that Christ Himself, with His death and passion, is the chief promise of the new covenant itself — as in Genesis 3:15. Therefore the covenant cannot be said to be procured by His death. Furthermore, the nature of the covenant itself undermines this proposal. The covenant says that those who are in it shall have such and such good things if they fulfill the condition — as though everything depended on their obedience. But that very obedience, and the whole condition the covenant requires, is itself a promise of the covenant (Jeremiah 31:33), confirmed and sealed by the blood of Christ. We do not deny that the death of Christ has a proper end in relation to God — namely, the manifestation of His glory. This is why God calls Him His servant in whom He will be glorified (Isaiah 49). And the bringing of many sons to glory with which He was entrusted served the manifestation and praise of His glorious grace, so that His love for His elect might gloriously appear, His salvation being carried by Christ to the ends of the earth. This full declaration of His glory — through the way of mercy tempered with justice, since He presented Christ as a propitiation through faith in His blood so that He might be just and the justifier of those who believe in Jesus (Romans 3:26) — — this is all that accrued to the Lord through the death of His Son. Not a right and liberty to do what He previously desired but was prevented from doing by His own justice. In relation to us, the end of the oblation and bloodshedding of Jesus Christ was not that God might, if He chose, bestow good things upon us. It was that He should — by virtue of the compact and covenant that was the foundation of Christ's merit — bestow upon us all the good things Christ aimed at and intended to purchase and procure by His self-offering to God. What those good things are will be declared next.