END OF Christ's death as actually accomplished. 199
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 back- wards:— 1. What is this " uttermost end in all?" Is that "in all," in or among all the ends 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, Heb. ix. 14, 15; Matt. xxvi. 28. -2. 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 re- demption, and in the other the shedding of his blood for the remis- sion 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, Eph. i. 7; Col. i. 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 'xpuirov -^sudog of the whole book. 8. Christ's offering himself to put away sin, out of Heb. ix. 26, [you make to be] the place for the first end of the death of Christ, and his shedding of his blood for the remission of sins, from Matt. xxvi. 28, to be the last! Pray, when you write next, give us the difference between these two. 4. You say, " He offered sacrifice in respect of one end, — that is, propitiation for all men." Now, truly, if ye know the meaning of sacrifice and propitiation, this will scarce aj)pear sense unto you upon a second view.
But, [secondly,] to leave your words and take your meaning, it seems to be this, in respect of one end that Christ proposed to him- self 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 answer- ing, which, if it will pass for good and warrantable, you may easily disappoint all your adversaries, even first by laying down their argu- ments, then saying your own opinion is otherwise; for the very thing that is here imposed on us for an answer is the rh xpnofisvov, 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 tlnis distributed as is here pretended. To prove our assertion, and to give a reason of our denial of this dividing of these thiugs in respect of their objects, we produce the argument above proposed concerning
200 THE DEATH OF DEATH. [BOOK II.
the priesthood of Christ ; to which the answer given is a bare repeti- tion of the thing in question.
But you will say clivers places of Scripture are quoted for the con- firmation 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 Heb. ix. 26 ; John i. 29. B'or what consequence is there from an affirmation indefinite, that Christ bare 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 i. 29 there is a manifest allusion to the paschal 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 Heb. ii. 9, 1 John ii. 2, shall be considered aj^art, 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 srive the least colour to such an uncouth distinction as that which
o
we oppose. And thus our argument from the eqiial objective extent of the oblation and intercession of Jesus Christ is confirmed and vindicated, and, withal, the means used by the blessed Trinity for the accomplishment oi the proposed end unfolded ; which end, what it luas, is next to be considered.
BOOK II. CHAPTER I.
Some previous considerations to a more particular inquiry after the proper end and effect of the death of Christ.
The main thing upon which the whole controversy about the death of Christ turneth, and upon which the greatest weight of the business dependeth, comes next to our consideration, being that Avhich we have prepared the way unto by all that hath been already said. It is about the proper end of the death of Christ; which whoso can rightly constitute and make manifest may well be admitted for a day's-man and umpire in the whole contestation: for if it be the end of Christ's death which most of our adversaries assign, we will not deny but that Christ died for all and every one; and if that be the end of it which we maintain so to be, they will not extend it beyond the elect, beyond believers. This, then, must be fully cleared and solidly confirmed by them who hope for any success in their under- takings. The end of the death of Christ we asserted, in the begin-