I might here add, that the Law being relaxed, to put in the name of a surety, whose payment was refusable; hereupon the solution being not in this respect the same in obligation, (for sum alius solvit, aliud solvitur and so being not solutio ejusdem, but tantidem, the discharge doth not immediately follow; especially seeing it was neither the will of God, nor of Christ, that an immediate discharge should be given, which appears by Scripture strongly by a negative argument thus, There is no Scripture can be produced from whence, without manifest injury to the Holy Ghost, this can be drawn by any tolerable consequence, that by virtue of Christ’s death all the Elect are ipso facto invested with Christ’s righteousness, and are actually justified without the intervention of faith; nay, the Scriptures expressly threatening unbelievers with damnation, and limiting salvation to Believers, do evidently declare the contrary. Neither let any reject this argument drawn from the Scripture negatively; for although this argument be infirm in matters of less consequence, yet in fundamentals it is of great force; such as this is, by what means this righteousness of Christ shall be applied to justification; therefore in such truths as concern our salvation, this is of main importance, it is not written, therefore it is not to be believed. Indeed if Christ had merited this absolutely, that we should be justified whether we believe, or not believe, the matter had been otherwise.

Thomas Warren, Unbelievers No Subjects of Justification, Nor of Mystical Union to Christ (London: Printed by E. T. for John Browne at the sign of the Acron in Pauls Church-yard, 1654), 17.

[Credit to Tony for the find]


Here it may be queried, whether the Lord Jesus Christ underwent the idem, the very self-same punishment that we should have undergone? or only the tantundem, that which did amount, and was equivalent thereunto? That in different respects, both may be affirmed. The punishment which Christ endured, if it be considered in its substance, kind, or nature, so ‘twas the same with that the sinner himself should have undergone, but if it be considered with respect to certain circumstances, adjuncts, or accidents, which attend that punishment, (as inflicted upon the sinner) so ‘twas but equivalent and not the same. The punishment due to the sinner was death, the curse of the law (upon the breach of the first covenant), now this Christ underwent, “For he was made a curse for us,” Gal. iii. 13. The adjuncts attending this death were the eternity of it, desperation going along with it, &c., these Christ was freed from (the dignity of his person supplying the former, the sanctity of his person, securing him against the latter), therefore in reference unto these (and to some other things already mentioned) it was but the tantundem, not the idem. But suppose there had been nothing of sameness, nothing beyond equivalency in what Christ suffered, yet that was enough, for it was not required that Christ should suffer every kind of curse, which is the effect of sin, but in the general accursed death. Look as in his fulfilling of the law for us, it was not necessary that he should perform every holy duty that the laws requires, for he could not perform that obedience which magistrates, or married persons are bound to: it’s enough that there was a fulfilling of it in the general for us. So here it is not necessary that Jesus Christ should undergo in every respect the same punishment which the offender himself was liable unto, but if he shall undergo so much as may satisfy the law’s threatenings, and vindicate the law-giver in his truth, justice, and righteous government, that was enough. Now that was unquestionably done by Christ.  

Thomas Brooks, A Golden Key to Open Hidden Treasures (Printed for Robert Smith, at the Sign of the Gilt-Bible, near the head of the Salt-mercat, 1763), 148-149.


1) Object. 3. If Christ died for all men, then he intercedes for all; but he intercedes only for the elect, therefore he died for them only. I answer that Christ doth in some sort intercede for all men; and this I shall clear several ways.

1. From the nature of Christ’s intercession; that is not a formal prayer, but an appearing in the holy of holies before the face of God as an advocate, and there presenting his blood and righteousness in their freshness and endless life of merit, with a will that all the grace purchased thereby may be dispensed to the sons of men; therefore Christ even in glory stands ὡς ἐσϕαγμενος, as one slain, (Rev. v. 6), showing his bleeding wounds to make intercession with God. Hence it follows, that his intercession (being a kind of celestial oblation) perfectly answers to his oblation on the cross; he is an advocate above, so far as he was a surety here below; his blood speaks the very same things in heaven as it did on earth, and his will stands in the same posture towards sinners there as here. Now how far was Christ a surety for all? Surely thus far, that all may be saved if they believe; else either they cannot be saved at all, which is contrary to the truth of the promise, or they may be saved without a surety, which is contrary to the current of the scriptures. But if he were so far a surety for all, then he is so far an advocate for all; for he appears an advocate in heaven for al those for whom he appeared as a surety on the cross. Hence the apostle saith in general, If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, (l John ii. 1); he saith not strictly, if the elect sin, but at large, if any man sin we have an advocate; and as the true groundwork of this general advocation, he adds, he is the propitiation for the whole world, (v. 2). So far forth as he was a propitiation for the world, so far forth he is an advocate for it. And another apostle affirms, that Christ is a mediator between God and men, (1 Tim. ii. 5); he says not, betwixt God and his church, but betwixt God and men; and the following words give the true reason of it. "Christ gave himself a ransom for all," v. 6), he is no less a mediator for all. than he was a ransom for all. Christ’s blood shed on the cross spake thus far for all men, that they might have their pardon on gospel terms; and after wards being carried to heaven, it speaks the very same language for them; for the voice or speech of that blood is its merit, and that merit is of an indeficient virtue. Hence that blood cannot be speechless, because it cannot be meritless; and so far on earth as it merited for al, so far in heaven it speaks and intercedes for all. Moreover, as Christ’s blood speaks the same things for them in heaven as it did on earth, so Christ’s will in heaven stands in the same posture towards them as it did on earth; wherefore, in a sort, he intercedes for all.

Read the rest of this entry »


1. The price is redemptive from the guilt of sin and wrath of God; and this in a more immediate way by itself. Now, albeit the entire price concur herein, yet because as to this there is a special reluctancy in some parts thereof, I shall only insist on give things, viz.,

1. Our sins were laid upon Christ.

2. He suffered the same punishment, for the main, that was due to these sins. . . .

There are two essentials of punishment of hell, poena sensus, et poena damni, and he suffered both: when the fire of God’s wrath melted into a bloody sweat, where was poena sensus; and when the great eclipse of God’s favor made him cry out of forsaking, there was poena damni. Christ suffered the same punishment for the main, which we should have suffered; the chief change was in the person, the just suffering for the unjust, the surety for the sinner. But you would say, Christ did not suffer the same punishment, for he neither suffered eternal death, not yet the worm of conscience.

As to that of eternal death, I answer by two distinctions.

1. In eternal Death we must distinguish between the immensity of the sufferings and the Duration; the Immensity is essential to it, but the duration is but mora in esse and accidental. Christ suffered eternal Death as to the immensity of his sufferings, though not as to the duration of them; he paid down the idem, as to essentials of punishment, and the tantundem as to the accidentals; what was wanting in the duration of his sufferings, was more than compensated by the dignity of his person: for it was far more for God to suffer for a moment, than for all creatures to suffer to eternity.

2. We must distinguish between punishment as it stands in the law absolutely, and punishment as it stands there in relation to a finite creature, which cannot at once admit a punishment commensurate to its offense; and so must ever suffer, because it cannot satisfy to eternity. Punishment as it stands in the law absolutely, is death punishment as it stands there in relation to a finite creature, is eternal death: the first was really suffered by Christ, and the second could not be justly exacted of him; for he paid down the whole sum of sufferings al at once, and so swallowed up death in victory.

Edward Polhill, The Divine Will Considered in its Eternal Decrees in, The Works of Edward Polhill (Morgan PA.: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1988), 153 and 154. [Some spelling modernized; italics original; and underlining mine.]

[Credit to Tony for the find.]

Read the rest of this entry »

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin.
But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 2: 1-2

The aim of this essay is to draw out the implicit forms of the argument which are normally assumed in arguments for limited satisfaction based on 1 John 2:2. My goal is to make these implicit arguments or assumptions explicit.1 As with many of the arguments for limited satisfaction, the basic form runs along the lines of a modus tollens axis.2 A premise is alleged, and then a modus tollens argument is enlisted. More formally the argument looks something like this: If Christ died for a person, that person cannot fail be saved.3 This is then simply generalized or converted into a universal statement:

If Christ died for the whole world, then the whole world will necessarily be saved4
It is not the case that the whole world is saved
Therefore, it is not the case that Christ died for the whole world

I argue that sort of argument lies at the back of the arguments for limited satisfaction based on 1 John 2:2.

The overarching goal of this essay is to remove the alleged logical impediments enlisted to restrict or limit the meaning of “whole world” in 1 John 2:2.

Read the rest of this entry »