Chapter 11

Our next argument is taken from some particular passages of Scripture clearly and distinctly in themselves holding out the truth of what we affirm; out of the great number of them I shall take a few to insist upon and therewith to close our arguments.

The first is the very first mention of Jesus Christ — the first revelation of the mind of God concerning a discrimination between the people of Christ and his enemies — in Genesis 3:15: 'I will put enmity between you (the serpent) and the woman, and between your seed and her seed.' By the seed of the woman is meant the whole body of the elect: Christ in the first place as the head, and all the rest as his members. By the seed of the serpent is meant the devil with the whole multitude of reprobates, making up the malignant state in opposition to the kingdom and body of Jesus Christ. That by the first — the seed of the woman — is meant Christ with all the elect is most apparent: for those in whom all things foretold of the seed of the woman concur are the seed of the woman (the properties of a thing prove the thing itself). But in the elect and believers, in and through Christ, are found all the properties of the seed of the woman — for for them, in them, and by them is the head of the serpent broken, and Satan trodden down under their feet, the devil disappointed in his temptations, and the devil's agents frustrated in their undertakings; this is principally and especially spoken of Christ himself and collectively of his whole body, which bears a continual hatred to the serpent and his seed.

Second, by the seed of the serpent is meant all the reprobate — people of the world, the impenitent and unbelievers.

For first, the enmity of the serpent lives and exercises itself in them; they hate and oppose the seed of the woman, they have a perpetual enmity with it, and everything said of the seed of the serpent belongs properly to them.

Second, they are often so called in Scripture: 'O generation of vipers' (Matthew 3:7; 23:33); Christ told the reprobate Pharisees 'you are of your father the devil and his works you will do' (John 8:44); so also 'child of the devil' (Acts 13:10), meaning the seed of the serpent, 'for he who commits sin is of the devil' (1 John 3:8). These things being undeniable, we proceed thus: Christ died for no more than God promised him he should die for; but God did not promise him to all — he did not promise the seed of the woman to the seed of the serpent, Christ to reprobates; rather in the very first word about him he promises an enmity against them. In sum: the seed of the woman did not die for the seed of the serpent.

Second, Matthew 7:23: 'I profess to you I never knew you.' Christ on the last day professes to some that he never knew them. Christ says directly that he knows his own, for whom he lays down his life (John 10:14, 17). And surely he knows whom and what he has bought. Were it not strange that Christ should die for people and buy them, and then will not own them but profess he never knew them? If they are bought with a price, surely they are his own (1 Corinthians 6:20)? If Christ so bought them and laid out the price of his precious blood for them, and then at last denied that he ever knew them — might they not well reply: 'Ah Lord! was not your soul heavy unto death for our sakes? Did you not for us undergo that wrath that made you sweat drops of blood? Did you not bathe yourself in your own blood that our blood might be spared? Did you not sanctify yourself to be an offering for us as well as for any of your apostles? Was not your precious blood poured out for us by stripes, by sweat, by nails, by thorns, by spear? Did you not remember us when you hung upon the cross? And now do you say you never knew us?' What can be answered to this plea upon the granting of a general ransom, I do not know.

Third, Matthew 11:25: 'I thank you, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes; even so, O Father, for so it seemed good in your sight.' Those from whom God in his sovereignty as Lord of heaven and earth, of his own good pleasure, hides the Gospel — either in respect of the outward preaching of it or the inward revelation of its power in their hearts — for those certainly Christ did not die. For to what end should the Father send his only Son to die for the redemption of those whom he of his own good pleasure had determined should be everlasting strangers to that redemption and never so much as hear of it in the power of it revealed to them? Now that such there are, our Savior here affirms and thanks his Father for that dispensation — at which so many today are repining.

Fourth, John 10:11, 15-16, 27-28: This clear passage, which by itself is sufficient to overturn the general ransom, has been considered briefly before and will therefore be passed over more briefly now. First, that not all people are the sheep of Christ is most apparent: he himself says so in verse 26 — 'you are not of my sheep'; the distinction on the last day will make it evident when the sheep and the goats are separated; and the properties of the sheep here — that they hear the voice of Christ, that they know him, and the like — are not in all. Second, the sheep mentioned here are all his elect, both those yet to be called and those already called (verse 16), some not yet of his visible fold — so they are sheep by election, not by believing. Third, Christ says so plainly that he lays down his life for his sheep that he evidently excludes all others: first, he lays down his life for them as sheep, and what belongs to them as such belongs only to such — if he lays down his life for sheep as sheep, he does not do so for goats and wolves and dogs; second, he lays it down as a shepherd (verse 11) and therefore for them as the sheep — what has the shepherd to do with wolves unless it be to destroy them?; third, dividing all into sheep and others (verse 26), he says he lays down his life for his sheep, which is the same as saying he does it for them only; fourth, he describes those for whom he died as those whom his Father gave to him (verse 29; 17:6), 'yours they were and you gave them to me' — which are not all — and he gives to them eternal life and they shall never perish (verse 28). Let but the sheep of Christ keep close to this evidence and all the world shall never deprive them of their inheritance. To confirm this further, add Matthew 20:28 and John 11:52.

Fifth, Romans 8:32-34: the Apostle's intention here is to hold out consolation to believers in affliction or under any distress — which he does in verse 31 in general, from the assurance of God's presence with them and his assistance at all times, enough to conquer all opposition. To manifest this his presence and kindness, the Apostle recalls that most excellent, transcendent, and singular act of love toward them: God sending his Son to die for them, not sparing him, but requiring their debt at his hand. He then argues from the greater to the lesser — if God has done the greater, will he not do the lesser? If he gives his Son to death, will he not also freely give us all things? From this we may observe: first, that the greatest expression of God's love toward believers is in sending his Son to die for them — this is made the chief of all; now if God sent his Son to die for all, he has as great an act of love and has made as great a manifestation of it to those who perish as to those who are saved, which is most untrue. Second, for whomever he has given and not spared his Son, to them he will assuredly freely give all things; but he does not give all good things — faith, grace, and glory — to all; from which we conclude that Christ did not die for all. Again, verse 33 describes those who have a share in this consolation as God's elect — not all, but only those whom he has chosen; and verse 34 further confirms that those of whom he speaks shall be freely justified and freed from condemnation, first because Christ died for them and second because he is risen and makes intercession for them for whom he died. This yields two invincible arguments: first, the death of Christ infallibly frees from condemnation all for whom he died; second, the Apostle makes an inseparable connection between the death and intercession of Jesus Christ — for whom he died, for them he makes intercession, and he saves to the uttermost those for whom he intercedes (Hebrews 7:25). From all this it is undeniably apparent that the death of Christ with the fruits and benefits thereof belongs only to the elect of God.

Sixth, Ephesians 1:7: 'In whom we have redemption' — if his blood were shed for all, then all must have a share in those things that are to be had in his blood; but among these is the redemption that consists in the forgiveness of sins, which certainly not all have, for those who have it are blessed (Romans 4) and shall be blessed forevermore, which blessing comes not upon all but upon the seed of righteous Abraham.

Seventh, 2 Corinthians 5:21: 'He made him to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him.' It was in his death that Christ was made sin or an offering for it; now for whomever he was made sin, they are made the righteousness of God in him. 'By his stripes we are healed' (Isaiah 53); 'Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends' (John 15:13). Intercession is not of greater love than dying, nor is anything else he does for his elect. If then he laid down his life for all — which is the greatest — why does he not also do everything else for them and save them to the uttermost?

Eighth, John 17:9: 'I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.' And verse 19: 'For their sakes I sanctify myself.'

Ninth, Ephesians 5:25: 'Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved his church and gave himself for it' (as Acts 20:28). The object of Christ's love and his death is here asserted to be his bride, his church — as properly as a man's own wife is the only lawful object of his conjugal affections. And if Christ had a love for others so as to die for them, then in the exhortation a latitude is left to men in conjugal affections for other women besides their wives.

I had intended to add other arguments, planning a full discussion of the whole controversy. But upon reviewing what has been said, I take up and conclude with confidence that what has already been urged will be sufficient to satisfy those who will be satisfied by anything, and that those who are obstinate will not be satisfied by more. So here our arguments come to an end.

Our next argument comes from particular Scripture passages that clearly and plainly set out the truth of what we affirm; from the great number of them I will take a few to examine and with them close our arguments.

The first is the very first mention of Jesus Christ — the first revelation of God's mind concerning a distinction between the people of Christ and His enemies — in Genesis 3:15: 'And I will put enmity between you (the serpent) and the woman, and between your seed and her seed.' By the seed of the woman is meant the whole body of the elect: Christ in the first place as the head, and all the rest as His members. By the seed of the serpent is meant the devil together with the whole multitude of the reprobate, making up the opposing kingdom in opposition to the kingdom and body of Jesus Christ. That the seed of the woman refers to Christ along with all the elect is most apparent: for those in whom all the things foretold of the seed of the woman are fulfilled are the seed of the woman — the properties of a thing prove the thing itself. But in the elect and believers, in and through Christ, are found all the properties of the seed of the woman — for in them, through them, and for them the head of the serpent is crushed, Satan is trodden down under their feet, the devil is defeated in his temptations, and the devil's agents are frustrated in their schemes; this is stated principally and especially of Christ Himself and collectively of His whole body, which bears a continual hatred toward the serpent and his seed.

Second, by the seed of the serpent is meant all the reprobate — the worldly, the impenitent, and unbelievers.

First, because the enmity of the serpent lives and works in them; they hate and oppose the seed of the woman, they have a perpetual enmity with it, and everything said of the seed of the serpent applies properly to them.

Second, they are often called this in Scripture: 'You brood of vipers!' (Matthew 3:7; 23:33); Christ told the reprobate Pharisees 'You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father' (John 8:44); similarly 'son of the devil' (Acts 13:10), meaning the seed of the serpent, 'for the one who practices sin is of the devil' (1 John 3:8). These things being undeniable, we proceed as follows: Christ died for no more than God promised Him He should die for; but God did not promise Him to all — He did not promise the seed of the woman to the seed of the serpent, or Christ to the reprobate; on the contrary, in the very first word about Him He promises an enmity against them. In short: the seed of the woman did not die for the seed of the serpent.

Second, Matthew 7:23: 'I will declare to them, "I never knew you."' Christ on the last day declares to some that He never knew them. Christ says plainly that He knows His own, for whom He lays down His life (John 10:14, 17). Surely He knows whom and what He has bought. Would it not be remarkable if Christ died for people and purchased them, and then refused to acknowledge them but declared He never knew them? If they were bought with a price, surely they are His own (1 Corinthians 6:20)? If Christ so bought them and paid with the price of His precious blood for them, and then in the end declared He never knew them — could they not well reply: 'Lord! Was not Your soul deeply grieved for our sakes? Did You not endure for us that anguish that made You sweat drops of blood? Did You not pour out Your own blood that ours might be spared? Did You not sanctify Yourself as an offering for us just as for Your apostles? Was not Your precious blood shed for us through stripes, through sweat, through nails, through thorns, through spear? Did You not remember us when You hung upon the cross? And now do You say You never knew us?' What can be said in answer to this plea if a general ransom is granted, I do not know.

Third, Matthew 11:25: 'I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight.' Those from whom God in His sovereignty as Lord of heaven and earth, of His own good pleasure, hides the Gospel — whether in respect of its outward preaching or the inward revelation of its power in their hearts — for those Christ certainly did not die. For what purpose would the Father send His only Son to die for the redemption of those whom He in His good pleasure had determined should be eternal strangers to that redemption and never even hear of it in the power of its revelation to them? Now that such people exist, our Savior here affirms and thanks His Father for that arrangement — at which so many today are complaining.

Fourth, John 10:11, 15-16, 27-28: This clear passage, which by itself is sufficient to overturn the general ransom, has been briefly considered earlier and will therefore be treated even more briefly now. First, that not all people are the sheep of Christ is most evident: He Himself says so in verse 26 — 'you do not believe because you are not of My sheep'; the distinction on the last day will make it plain when the sheep and the goats are separated; and the properties of the sheep described here — that they hear the voice of Christ, that they know Him, and the like — are not true of all. Second, the sheep mentioned here include all His elect, both those not yet called and those already called (verse 16), some not yet in His visible fold — so they are sheep by election, not by believing. Third, Christ states so plainly that He lays down His life for His sheep that He evidently excludes all others: first, He lays down His life for them as sheep, and what belongs to them as such belongs only to such — if He lays down His life for sheep as sheep, He does not do so for goats and wolves and dogs; second, He lays it down as a shepherd (verse 11) and therefore for them as the sheep — what has the shepherd to do with wolves except to drive them away?; third, dividing all into sheep and others (verse 26), He says He lays down His life for His sheep, which is the same as saying He does it for them only; fourth, He describes those for whom He died as those the Father gave to Him (verse 29; 17:6), 'Yours they were, and You gave them to Me' — which are not all — and He gives to them eternal life and they will never perish (verse 28). Let the sheep of Christ hold firmly to this evidence and all the world will never deprive them of their inheritance. To confirm this further, add Matthew 20:28 and John 11:52.

Fifth, Romans 8:32-34: the apostle's purpose here is to offer consolation to believers in affliction or under any distress — which he does in verse 31 in general, from the assurance of God's presence with them and His help at all times, sufficient to overcome all opposition. To demonstrate this presence and kindness, the apostle points back to that most excellent, extraordinary, and unique act of love toward them: God sending His Son to die for them, not sparing Him, but requiring their debt at His hand. He then argues from the greater to the lesser — if God has done the greater, will He not also do the lesser? If He gives His Son to death, will He not also freely give all things? From this we may observe: first, that the greatest expression of God's love toward believers is in sending His Son to die for them — this is made the chief of all; now if God sent His Son to die for all, He has made as great an act of love and as great a demonstration of it to those who perish as to those who are saved, which is plainly false. Second, for everyone for whom He has given and not spared His Son, He will certainly and freely give all things; but He does not give all good things — faith, grace, and glory — to all; from which we conclude that Christ did not die for all. Again, verse 33 describes those who share in this consolation as God's elect — not all, but only those He has chosen; and verse 34 further confirms that those He is speaking of will be freely justified and freed from condemnation — first because Christ died for them, and second because He is risen and makes intercession for those for whom He died. This yields two unanswerable arguments: first, Christ's death infallibly frees from condemnation all for whom He died; second, the apostle makes an inseparable connection between the death and intercession of Jesus Christ — for those for whom He died, He makes intercession, and He saves to the uttermost those for whom He intercedes (Hebrews 7:25). From all this it is undeniably clear that Christ's death with its fruits and benefits belongs only to God's elect.

Sixth, Ephesians 1:7: 'In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses.' If His blood were shed for all, then all must share in those things available through His blood; but among these is the redemption that consists in the forgiveness of sins, which certainly not all have — for those who have it are blessed (Romans 4) and will be blessed forever, a blessing that does not come on all but on the seed of righteous Abraham.

Seventh, 2 Corinthians 5:21: 'He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.' It was in His death that Christ was made sin or an offering for it; now for everyone He was made sin for, they are made the righteousness of God in Him. 'By His scourging we are healed' (Isaiah 53); 'Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends' (John 15:13). His intercession is not a greater act of love than His dying, nor is anything else He does for His elect. If then He laid down His life for all — which is the greatest thing — why does He not also do everything else for them and save them completely?

Eighth, John 17:9: 'I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.' And verse 19: 'For their sakes I sanctify Myself.'

Ninth, Ephesians 5:25: 'Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her' (as Acts 20:28). The object of Christ's love and His death is here stated to be His bride, His church — as properly as a man's own wife is the only rightful object of his conjugal love. And if Christ had a love for others so as to die for them, then the exhortation effectively allows men a similar range of conjugal affections for women other than their wives.

I had intended to add further arguments, planning a full treatment of the whole controversy. But on reviewing what has been said, I am confident that what has already been presented will be sufficient to satisfy those who are willing to be satisfied by anything, and that those who are determined to resist will not be satisfied by more. So here our arguments come to an end.