Читать книгу Redemption Redeemed - John Goodwin - Страница 8

THE first of these Scriptures there mentioned was this: “Who gave himself ransom for all,” or for all men, “to be testified in due time,” 1 Tim. ii. 6. Let the context adjoining to this Scripture be narrowly sifted, and then, if we shall but grant that the apostle speaks either sap, sense, savour, or anything congruous to the judgments or understandings of men, we shall not be able to deny but that it carries the doctrine asserted with a high hand of evidence in it.

Evident it is, that the apostle in this verse goes on with the confirmation or further proof of that reason of his, laid down in verse 4, for the making good what he had said in verse 3: “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour.” This is good, meaning the performance of that duty whereunto he had exhorted verses 1 and 2, viz. that “Supplications, prayers, intercessions, giving of thanks, should be made for all men, for kings, and for all that are in authority,” &c. Now then, most evident it is, that by all men, in this first verse, for whom prayers, &c. are to be made unto God, is not meant some of all sorts of men, nor yet all the elect or the like, but all of all sorts of men whatsoever, except haply those who have barred up the way of our prayers for them, by that unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost, as John intimates, 1 John v. 16.

For that which followeth verse 2 clearly evinceth it; “For kings, and for all in authority.” Certainly if this be good and acceptable in the sight of God, that we should pray for all of one sort or degree of men in the world, especially for all in authority, (in which sort or rank of men there are many as unworthy and incapable of our prayers as in any other) it is good and acceptable in his sight likewise, that we should pray for all in all other ranks or sorts of men whatsoever. For there is nothing imaginable to cause a difference in this point. So then, to prove that it is “good and acceptable in the sight of God to pray for all men,” without exception, the apostle layeth down this ground, verse 4: “That God will have all men to be saved.”

If now by all men in this reason we shall understand only some of all sorts of men, or all the elect only, as our opponents assert, we shall shorten the arm of the apostle’s argument so far that it will not reach half way towards that conclusion. For the proof shall make him reason very weakly, and, indeed, ridiculously, as viz., after this manner: “It is good and acceptable in the sight of God that we should pray universally for all men, without exception of any, because God will have all his elect to be saved, or some out of every sort of men.” There is little savour of an argument in this; whereas the rationality and strength of the apostle’s arguing rightly understood, is pregnant and full of conviction.

“It is good and acceptable in the sight of God” that we should pray for all men, without exception, because his will is to have all men, without exception, saved. The strength of this argument lieth in this ground, or clear principle in reason, viz., that a conformity unto his own will, in the will and endeavours of men, is, and must needs be, “good and acceptable in the sight of God.” Now then to prove that God’s will is, that all men without exception, should be saved, the apostle brings this reason, in the words in hand, viz., that “Christ Jesus gave himself a ransom for all men.” So that (in the Greek) pantōn, all men here, in this reason, must of necessity be of the same extent, with the same word in the doctrine or conclusion which was to be proved; otherwise we shall make the apostle stumble at that stone in arguing, at which only novices, or liars-in-wait to deceive, are wont to stumble, as viz., when there is more put into the conclusion than into the premises. That which here lay upon the apostle’s hand to prove, was, as hath been undeniably evicted, that God’s will is to have all men, without exception, saved.

Now, to prove this by such an argument or assertion as this, that Christ gave himself a ransom either for all his elect, or for some of all sorts of men, or for some as well Gentiles as Jews, and for no others, is as if I should undertake to prove the bountifulness of a prince towards all his subjects, being many, by such an argument as this, that he sent by a special servant of his very great rewards to two or three of them, but resolved to do nothing at all for any more of them. Therefore, universality of redemption by Christ is the most unquestionable doctrine of the apostle in this Scripture.

The next specified in the said catalogue or inventory, was, “Because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead; and that he died for all, that they who live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him who died for them, and rose again.” 2 Cor. v. 14, 15. We see the apostle’s judgment here is very clear, that Christ died for all. He once clearly supposeth that “if one died for all,” i.e. since one died for all, the particle if, being ratiocinantis, not dubitantis, as in twenty places besides, meaning Christ; and once plainly asserteth it, “and that he died for all,” i.e. we also judge that he died for all.

That which is commonly given by way of answer to this and other Scriptures, both of the former and latter import, by those who look another way in the controversy in hand, is not much considerable. They pretend that both the word “world” and such terms of universality as “all,” “all men,” “every man,” &c., in many places of Scripture used, and accordingly are to be understood in a restrained signification, as sometimes for many or greater numbers of men; sometimes for some of all sorts; sometimes for Jews and Gentiles, or the like. From whence they would infer, that therefore such terms and expressions as these are in the Scripture in hand, and in the others formerly cited for our purpose, to be taken in some of these limited significations; and not in the rigour or extent of what they properly signify, as viz., for an absolute and unlimited universality of men. For to this we answer,

1. By way of concession, most true it is, that these notes or terms of universality, “all,” “all men,” “every man,” &c., are in many places of Scripture necessarily to be taken in some such limited and restrained signification as is affirmed. But then,

2. I answer further, by way of exception, four things:

(a.) That neither the terms we speak of, nor any other words or expressions in Scripture, are in any other case, or upon any other pretence whatsoever, to be taken out of their proper and best-known significations, but only when the tenor of the context or some circumstance of the place doth necessitate and enforce such a construction of them. Now, evident it is, by what hath been formerly argued upon the Scriptures alleged, that there is no necessity at all in respect of any the respective contexts, nor of any circumstance in any of them, to understand the said terms of universality any otherwise than in their most proper, i.e. in their most extensive and comprehensive significations.

(b.) That which is more than this, we have evidently proved that the very tenor of the several contexts wherein the aforesaid places are found, doth absolutely enforce and necessitate us unto such a proper and comprehensive signification of the said terms of universality, as hath been contended for. So there can be no reasonable, regular, or grammatical sense or construction made of those places, unless such a sense of these terms be admitted.

(c.) To reason thus, that these words or terms, are to be taken in this or in that sense in such and such places of Scripture; therefore they must or they may be taken in the same sense in such and such other places of Scripture, is to reason ourselves into a thousand errors and absurdities. For example, evident it is, that in the Scripture, John xviii. 16, where it is said that Peter stood at the door, by the word door is meant a door of wood or some such material; but it would be ridiculously erroneous to infer from hence that therefore it is to be taken, and may be taken, in the same sense in John x. 9, where Christ saith, “I am the door.” So again, when Paul saith that Christ sent him “to the gentiles to open their eyes,” Acts xxvi. 18, evident it is, that by the word eyes he means their inward eyes, their minds, judgments, and understandings. But from hence to conclude that therefore when David saith about idols, “eyes have they…” Psal. cxv. 5, the word eyes is to be understood in the same sense, is to conclude that which common sense itself abhorreth.

So that the weakness of all such arguings or pleadings as this, that “all,” “all men,” “every man,” are in various places of Scripture to be taken in a limited sense, for some of all sorts of men, for Jews and Gentiles, or the like, and therefore are to be taken in the same sense in all others where they are found—is notorious and most unworthy of considering men. Though, whilst a man is a prisoner, he cannot go whither he desires, but must be content with the narrow bounds of this prison; it doth not follow from hence, that therefore, when he is discharged and set at liberty, he must needs continue in his prison still, especially when his necessary occasions call him to another place, whither also he hath desire otherwise to go.1

We have, as concerning the former Scripture, evidently proved that the terms “all” and “all men” must be of necessity taken in their most proper, free, and unlimited significations; and shall, God assisting, demonstrate the same in those yet remaining. Let us at present, because the place in hand is pregnant and full to our purpose, evince, above all contradiction, that the words “all,” or “all men,” in it cannot, with the honour of Paul’s intellectuals, be understood otherwise. “Because we thus judge,” saith he, “that if one died for all, then were all dead: and that he died for all, that they who live,” &c. Observe that clause of distribution, “that they who live.” “We judge that Christ died for all, that they who live,” i.e. that all they, without exception, who recover, and are, or shall be delivered from his death by Chris for them, “should not live unto themselves,” &c. So then, if by the word “all” or “all men,” for whom the apostle here judgeth or concludeth that Christ died, we shall understand the universality of the elect only, “for all men,” i.e. for all the elect, and for these only, we shall grievously misfigure the fair face a worthy sentence, and render it incongruous and inconsistent with all rules and principles of discourse.

For then the tenor of it must rise and run thus: We judge that Christ died for all the elect, that all the elect who shall live and be recovered from death by Christ, should not live, &c. Doth not the ears of every man’s reason, yea, of common sense itself, taste an uncouthness and unsavouriness of sound in such a texture of words as this? Yea, doth not such a carriage of the place clearly imply that there are or may be some of the elect themselves who shall not live or be restored from dead by Christ, and consequently shall not be bound upon any such engagement to live unto him? Doubtless, if by the word all, the apostle had meant all the elect, and these only, he would not have added, “that they who live,” but rather, that they or these might live: for these words, “that they who live,” clearly import a possibility at least, yea, a futurity also, i.e. that it would so come to pass, that some of those all, for whom Christ died, would not live, and consequently would be in no capacity of living from themselves to live unto him.

The uncouthness and senselessness of such interpretations as these was somewhat more at large argued in the next preceding chapter; but now let us take the word pantōn, all, in the proper and due signification of it, viz. for the generality or universality of men, the sense will run clear, and have a savoury and sweet relish with it: “Because we thus judge,” i.e. upon clear grounds and principles of reason, argue and conclude, “that if one died for all men, then were all men dead;” i.e. obnoxious unto death, dead in law, as good as dead, otherwise they should not have had any need that another should die for their preservation; “and that he died for all men,” i.e. we further also judge and conclude that he died for all men, with this intent or for this end amongst others, “that they who live,” i.e. that whosoever of those, for whom he thus died, shall be saved by this death of his for them, “should,” in consideration of, and by way of signal thankfulness for such a salvation, “not live unto themselves,” i.e. only and chiefly mind themselves whilst they live in the world, in their carnal and worldly interests, “but unto him who died for them and rose again,” i.e. promote his interest and affairs in the world, who so notably engaged them hereunto by dying for them, and, by resuming his life and being after his death, is capable of their love and service to him in this kind.

In such a carriage of the place as this, there is spirit and life, evidence of reason, commodiousness of sense, regularity of construction, no forcing or straining of words or phrases, or the like. Whereas, in any such expositions which contract the signification of the word pantōn (all) men, either to the elect, or to any lesser number of men than all, there will be found a universal disturbance in the sentence, nothing orderly, smooth, or clear.

By the way, the apostle in saying that Christ died for all men, that they who live should not live unto themselves, &c. doth not intend to confine the duty of thankfulness for Chris’s death only unto the saints, or those that are put into an estate of salvation by it, as if wicked men and unbelievers owed him no service at all upon that account. Paul only shows, that Christ expects or looks for no such denial of themselves for his sake at the hands of any, but of theirs only who come actually to taste and partake of the great benefit and blessing of his death. Thus then we see, that the word “all,” and “all men,” though in some place or places it may, yea, of necessity must signify only some men, or some parts of all men, yet in those two lately insisted upon, it must with the like necessity signify all men without exception.

(d.). And lastly, for the word “world,” which was the term of contention in the former head of Scriptures, though I deny not, but that in some places it signifies only some part of men in the world, and not the entire universality of men, as Luke ii. 1; Acts xiv. 27, and frequently elsewhere. Yet I do deny that it anywhere signifies precisely that part of the world which the Scripture call the elect, I absolutely deny, neither hath it yet been, nor, I believe, ever will be proved; and the rather, because the Holy Ghost delights still, as some instances have been given in Chap. I, and more might be added without number, to express that part or party of men in the world, which is contrary unto the saints, and which are strangers and enemies unto God, by “the world.” This by way of answer to that exception of pretence against the exposition given of the Scriptures alleged, viz. that the word “world,” and those general terms “all” and “every man,” are sometimes used in a restrained signification.

Concerning the exposition given of the Scripture last argued, were it not clear and pregnant enough by the light wherein it hath been presented, further countenance might be given unto it, by showing what friends it hath amongst our best and most approved authors. Among the ancients, Chrysostom is generally esteemed, and that worthily, the best interpreter of the Scriptures. His sense of the place under debate is plainly enough the same with ours. “For,” saith he, writing upon the place, “He (meaning Christ) had not died, or would not have died, for all, had not all died or been dead.” In which words he clearly supposeth, that Christ died for as many as were dead, and consequently for all, without exception, inasmuch as all, without exception or difference, were dead. A little after, thus: “for it argueth an excess of much love, both to die for so great a world, and to die for it being so affected or disposed as it was.”

Amongst our later divines, Musculus is not the least, if not equal to the greatest. Yet he also gives the right hand of fellowship to the interpretation given upon the place. “But Christ,” saith he, “died not only for his friends, but for his enemies also; not for some men only, but for all, without exception. This is the unmeasurable or vast extent of the love of God.” But the cause we plead needs no such advocates as these, being potent enough with its own evidence and equity, and therefore we shall retain no more of them.

A third text of Scripture presented upon the same account with the former, was, “that he by the grace of God should taste death huper pantos for every man.” Heb. ii. 9. This clause importeth that universality of atonement made by the death of Christ, which we maintain more significantly, if more may be, and with less liableness to any evasion or shift, than any of the former places engaged in the warfare. To show that the Lord Christ, though clothed with a body of flesh, wherein he was capable of dying as well as other men, yet did not suffer death simply through the malice or power of his enemies, but upon an account far superior to these. The inspired writer attributes his death to the grace of God, i.e. the love and gracious affections of God, not towards some, or a few, no, nor yet towards all men collectively taken or in the lump, but towards all men distributively taken, i.e. towards every particular and individual man. “Huper pantos,” saith the Holy Ghost, “for every man;” i. e. to procure eternal redemption and salvation for every man, without the exclusion of any. I cannot apprehend what can reasonably be said to alienate the mind or import of this Scripture from our present cause.

Evident it is, and you shall find our best interpreters of the place affirming the same, that the author in these words, “that through the grace of God he might taste death,” &c., assigns a reason, or two rather, of what he had said a little before concerning the incarnation and humiliation of Jesus Christ, whom he had in the former chapter asserted to be the Son of God, to prevent or heal any scandal or offence that either had already, or might afterwards arise in the minds of these Hebrews, through the unlikelihood, strangeness, or incredibleness of such a thing. It is a saying among philosophers, and many men have experienced the truth in it that knowledge of reasons or causes of things causeth admiration, and prompts all troublesomeness of thoughts about them to cease.

So then, the author’s drift and intent in these words mentioned, being to satisfy the Hebrews concerning such a strange, wonderful, and unheard of thing, as, 1. That the Son of God should be made man; and, 2. That being made man, he should suffer death; it is no ways credible but that he should, (a.) Assign such a cause as would carry the greatest weight of satisfaction in it; and (b.) Express himself in such perspicuity and plainness of words, that they might not lightly mistake his meaning, lest if by occasion of his words they should first apprehend the reason or cause assigned by him, to be more weighty or considerable than he intended it, and afterwards should come to understand that it was far lighter and less considerable. Their scandal and offence, instead of being healed or prevented, would be more strengthened and increased, as usually it comes to pass in such cases.

Now, evident it is, 1. That the author’s words in this place, “That He, through the grace of God, should taste death for every man,” in the plainest, the most obvious and direct sense and signification of them, hold forth the doctrine which we maintain for truth, here being no restraint at all, nor the least whispering of any limitation to be put upon that term of universality, pantos, every man; and 2. As evident it is, that the death of Christ for all men, without the exception of any, which is the doctrine we assert, and the grace of God so intending it, amount to a far more weighty consideration and satisfaction, touching those great dispensations spoken of, (the incarnation and humiliation of the Son of God) than his dying only for a few, or for a select number of men, and the grace of God commensurable hereunto.

Therefore there is not the least question to be made, but that the large, and not the limited sense, was the author’s sense in the words now under debate. And when the Holy Ghost expresseth himself, as we have heard, “That he, through the grace of God, should taste death for every man;” for any man to come and interpret thus, for every man, i. e. for some men, or for a few men, which, if not for form, yet for matter and substance must be their interpretation who oppose the exposition given, is not to interpret, but to correct, and to exercise a magisterial authority over the Scriptures.

Nor had Pareus himself the heart to decline the interpretation asserted, though he seems somewhat desirous by some expressions, to hide this his ingenuity from his fellows, to avoid their offence, “Whereas,” saith he, the author “saith, for every man, it respects the amplification, or extent, of the death of Christ. He died not for some few; the efficacy, or virtue, of it appertains unto ALL. Therefore there is life prepared,” (or made ready) “in the death of Christ, for ALL afflicted consciences,” &c. The truth is, that there can he no solid ground of peace or comfort to any afflicted conscience whatsoever, without the supposal of Christ’s death for every man, without exception, as hath been argued in part in Chapter 1, and might be further evicted above all contradiction.

Amongst the orthodox fathers, Chrysostom, who, as we heard, avouched the exposition given of the former Scripture, stands by his own judgment and mine, in his explication of this. “That he, through the grace of God, should taste death for every man; not only,” saith he, “for the faithful, or those that believe, but for all the world. He indeed died for ALL men. For what if all men do not believe? yet he hath done his part,” or fully performed that which was proper for him to do.

The Scripture next advancing in the fore-mentioned troop was, “Who will have all men to be saved,” (speaking of God) “and to come unto the knowledge of the truth,” 1 Tim. ii. 4. Whereunto (for conformity in import) we shall join the last there specified, which is this: “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise as some men count slackness; but is long suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” 2 Pet. iii. 9. Concerning the former of these places, we clearly evinced, earlier in this chapter, from the unquestionable tenor and carriage of the whole context, that by “all men,” cannot possibly be understood, either some of all sorts of men, or Jews and Gentiles, or all the elect, or the like; but of necessity, all of all sorts of men, simply and universally, without the exception of any, whether Jews or Gentiles. Any other interpretation or sense of the words, pantas anthrōpous, all men (1 Tim. 2:4), but this, renders the apostle palpably impertinent and weak (that I say not ridiculous) in his arguing in this place.

This I plainly demonstrate in the place above cited: I now add, that if it be said that God will have all men to be saved, because he will have some of all sorts of men to he saved; it may more properly and truly be said of him, that he will have all men to be destroyed, at least in their sense, who hold an irreversible reprobation of persons personally considered, from eternity, because not simply some, but a very great part of all sorts of men, now extant in the world, will in time perish, and that according to the decree or will of God; the tenor whereof is, that all persons dying in impenitency and unbelief shall perish. Yet the Scriptures do no where say upon any such account as this, either in terminis, or in substance, that God will have all men to perish, and not to come to the knowledge of the truth. Which is somewhat more than a topic argument, that God is not therefore said to will that all men should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, only because he will have some, some few of all sorts of men to be saved, and come to this knowledge: but simply because his will is to have all men, without exception, (viz., as they are men, and whilst they are yet capable of repentance) to be saved, and in order thereunto to come to the knowledge of the saving truth, i.e. the gospel.

Nor doth it follow, that the will of God is changeable, in case he should will the same man as this day to be saved, and so on the morrow to perish, but only that such a man is changeable, as we shall further show, God willing, in due time. Now then, if it be the will of God to have all men, without exception, saved, &c., most certain it is that Christ died, and intentionally on God’s part, for all men, without exception. That because it is not imaginable that God should be willing to have those saved for whom he was unwilling that salvation should be procured.

The latter of the two Scriptures lately brought upon the theatre of our present discourse, acts the same part with the former. There it is said of the Lord (Christ) that he is not “willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” If so, then certainly there neither was, nor is, nor ever shall be any, for whom Christ was not willing, did not intend, to die, and to purchase repentance. So that his death was intentionally for all men, as well in respect of himself, as of God the Father. Besides those slimy evasions and shifts of making bondmen of Christ’s freemen, I mean of an arbitrary and importunate confining the expressions importing a simple and absolute universality, in such Scriptures as these, to petty universalities, as of the elect, of species, sorts, or kinds of men, &c., (the nakedness whereof hath been detected over and over) our adversaries in the cause in hand are wont to take sanctuary from such Scriptures as the two now in debate, under the wing of this distinction. “It is true,” say they, “God wills that all men should be saved, and so that all should come to repentance, voluntate signi, with his signified or revealed will; but this doth not prove but that voluntate beneplaciti, with the will of his pleasure, or purpose, he may be willing that many, even far the greatest part of men, should perish.” But to show the vanity, or at least the impertinency of this distinction to the business in hand:

1. I would demand of those who lean upon the broken reed of this distinction, in opposition to the clear and distinct sense given of the two Scriptures last mentioned, what they mean by their voluntas signi, the signified or revealed will of God. And wherein doth the opposition or difference lieth between this and that other will of God, which they term the will of his good pleasure or purpose? If by his signified or revealed will, they mean only the precepts or commandments of God concerning such and such duties, which God would have practised and done by men, (which is all the account that some of the greatest opposers in the point in hand give of it) I do not understand how, or in what respect, God can be said to will the salvation of all men, and that none should perish. For,

(a.) Salvation actively taken, is an act of God himself, not of men; and consequently cannot be said to be a duty enjoined by him unto men, and therefore not to be willed neither by him, by way of precept or command.

(b.) Salvation, passively taken, is not an act, but a state or condition; and consequently is no matter of duty; and so cannot be said to be willed by God in such a sense.

If by the signified or revealed will of God, in the distinction now under canvass, be meant the declaration which he hath made in his word concerning the final or eventual salvation or condemnation of men, evident it is, that neither in this sense can be said to will the salvation of all men; because he hath declared and signified unto the world that few comparatively will or shall in time be saved.

If it be pleaded, that in this sense God may be said to will the salvation of all men with his signified or revealed will, because he enjoins faith and repentance unto all men, which are the means of salvation; and he that enjoins the means, may, in a consequential way, be said to enjoin the end in the same injunction, I answer,

If God enjoins faith and repentance unto all men, it argues that he preacheth the gospel unto all men; and consequently, that they who have not the letter of the gospel preached unto them by books or men, as many heathen nations have not at this day, yet have the spirit, substance, and effect of the gospel preached to them otherwise, as, viz. by God’s creation and gracious government of the world, which is, as I have shown elsewhere,2 purely evangelical and corresponding with the Scriptures. But how this will stand with our adversaries’ judgment in the case depending, I understand not.

2. It is the sense of one of the greatest patrons of the adverse cause, that “the precept or injunction of God3 is not properly the will of God because,” saith be, “he doth not hereby so much signify what himself willeth to be done, as what is our duty to do.” I confess that no signification whatsoever, whether of what a man willeth or decreeth to be done, or of what is the duty of another to do, can properly be said to be the will of the signifier; but yet that will, wherewith or out of which God willeth or commandeth us to do that which is our duty to do, is as properly his will as that whereby he willeth or decreeth things to be done.

My will or desire that my child should obey me, or that he should prosper in the world, is as properly my will as that whereby I will or purpose to show the respects of a father unto him in providing for him; being as proper, natural, and direct an act of that principle or faculty of willing within me whereby I will the former, as that act itself of this faculty wherein I will the latter is. For the principle or faculty within me of willing, how numerous or different soever the acts of willing which I exert by virtue of this faculty may be, is but one and the same; and this faculty being natural, there can be no such difference between the acts proceeding from it which should make some to be more proper and others less, though some may be better and others worse.

But this difference can have no place in the acts of the will of God; therefore, if the precept or preceptive will of God be not properly his will, neither can any other will of his, or any other act of his will, be properly such. If so, then that will of God, or act of will in God, whereby he willeth or enjoineth faith and repentance, and consequently salvation, unto all men, is as properly his will as that whereby he willeth the salvation of any man. Therefore, if there be any secret or unrevealed will in God, whereby he willeth the destruction of any man at the same time when he willeth the salvation of all men, (be it with what kind of will soever) these two wills must needs interfere and contradict the one the other.

Nor will that distinction of the late-mentioned author salve a consistency between them, wherein he distinguisheth between the decree of God and the thing decreed by him, affirming that “the thing which God decreeth may be repugnant to or inconsistent with the thing which he commandeth, though the decree itself cannot be repugnant to the command.”4 The vanity of this distinction clearly appeareth upon this common ground, viz. that acts are differenced and distinguished by their objects: therefore, if the object of God’s decreeing will, or the thing decreed by him, be contrary to the thing preceptively willed or commanded by him, impossible it is but that the two acts of his will, by the one of which he is supposed to will the one, and by the other the other, should digladiate and one fight against the other. Therefore, certainly, there is no such pair or combination of wills in God as the distinction of voluntas signi and beneplaciti (as applied in the question in hand) doth suppose. It is impossible that I should inwardly and seriously will or desire the death of my child, and yet at the same time seriously also will and enjoin the physician to do his best to recover him.

Again, if God enjoin faith and repentance unto all men, with a declaration that he enjoineth them in order to their salvation, or with a promise that, upon their obedience to this injunction of his, they shall be actually saved, then can he not at the same time will with a secret will the condemnation of any? But most evident it is, that unto whomsoever he enjoineth faith or repentance, he enjoineth them in order to their salvation, and with promise of actual salvation upon their obedience to this injunction, Mark 1. 15; Acts iii. 19; John xx. 31, &c. Therefore, impossible it is, that he should secretly intend, will, or purpose the destruction of any to whom he enjoins faith and repentance.

The consequence in this argument is so rich in evidence, that it needs no proof. If a prince should inwardly and resolvedly determine to put such or such a malefactor to death, and yet by proclamation or otherwise promise him his life or a pardon upon condition he would reform his course, would this be a strain of divine perfection, or like unto one of the ways of God?

There is a sense, I confess, wherein the distinction now in consideration may be admitted. If by the signified or revealed will of God be meant nothing else but such declarations or manifestations made by God, which, when made by men, are signs of a will, purpose, or desire in them, suitable to their respective tenors and imports, (which is clearly their sense of this member of the distinction who were the first coiners of it, I mean the schoolmen)5 there is no inconvenience in granting a revealed will in God distinguished from or opposed unto a will of good pleasure or of purpose in him. This sense makes no opposition of wills in God, nor yet between things willed or purposed by him. It only showeth or supposeth that the will and good pleasure in God extendeth not to the actual procurement of obedience from men unto all those laws or commands which he judgeth meet to impose upon them; or, which is the same, that God hath not positively decreed that all men shall, or shall be necessitated by him to live in subjection to all those laws which he hath appointed unto them.

This sense is orthodox, and blameable, but holds no intelligence with that opinion which supposeth one will in God, according unto which he willeth all men to be saved; and another, according unto which he willeth the far greatest part of men to be damned, and both antecedent. For otherwise, two such wills as these are fairly and clearly enough consistent in him. God, according to the distinction of the will of God into antecedent and consequent, first set on foot by some of the fathers, Chrysostom, and Damascen by name, and since made use of by the schoolmen, may, with the former, be said to will the salvation of all men. Yet with the latter be said also, in a sense, to will the condemnation of far the greatest part of them.

His antecedent will, the distinction being admitted as it ought to be, having so clear a foundation in Scripture, respecteth men simply as men; his consequent will relateth to them as considerable under the two opposite qualifications, or immediate capacities of life and death, or of salvation and condemnation; the one of these being faith persevered in unto death, the other, final impenitency or unbelief. According to the former of these wills, God is said to will the salvation of all men, partly because he vouchsafeth a sufficiency of means unto all men whereby to be saved; partly also, because he hath passed no decree against any man which either formally, or consequentially, or in any consideration whatsoever excludeth any man, personally considered, from salvation before he voluntarily excludeth himself by such sinful miscarriages and deportments, which, according to the revealed will of God, render him utterly incapable thereof.

According to the latter of these wills, as he peremptorily willeth the salvation of all those who are faithful unto death; so doth he as peremptorily will the condemnation of all those who shall not be found in the faith of Jesus Christ at their end. The latter, through their own deplorable and voluntary carelessness and negligence, proving to be in number far the greater part of men, God, upon this supposition, and in a consequential way, may be said to will the condemnation of the greatest part of men, and the salvation only of a few, comparatively. But of these things more hereafter.

In the meantime, evident it is from the Scriptures argued, that Christ died intentionally for all men, without exception, considered as men; and that there was nothing more procured, nor intended to be procured, thereby for one man than another, personally considered, or simply as men. Only this was intended in this death of Christ, in the general, that whosoever, whether few or whether many, should with a true and persevering faith believe in him, should actually partake of the benefit and blessing of this his death in the great reward of salvation; and on the other hand, that whosoever, whether few or whether many, should not believe in him with such a faith, should, upon this account, be excluded from all participation in the great blessing of salvation purchased by his death. This notwithstanding the purchase that was made, and intended to be made for them as for those who come actually to inherit; even as the marriage feast in the parable was as much provided, prepared, and intended for those, who upon their invitation came not, as it was for those who came and actually partook of it; unless we shall say that the king who made this feast intended it not for those whom, notwithstanding, he solemnly invited to it, and with whom he was highly displeased for their refusal to come, being invited, Matt. xxii. 3, 4, &c.

And that the death of Christ, and the gracious intentions of God therein, did, and do equally and uniformly respect all men, is abundantly manifest from that declaration made by the Lord Christ himself on this behalf, formerly opened; “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John iii. 16. Those words, “that whosoever believeth on him should not perish,” &c., evidently import indifferenced and impartial intentions on God’s part towards men in the gift of his Son.

The last Scripture of the division yet in hand was this, “Therefore as by the offence of one, the judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto the justification of life,” Rom. v. 18. Evident it is, that the apostle in this passage compareth the extent of the condemnation which came by the sin of Adam, with the extent of the grace of justification which came by Christ, in respect of the numbers of persons unto whom they extended respectively, and finds them in this point commensurable the one unto the other.

The persons upon whom the gift of justification cometh by Christ, are made equal in number unto those upon whom the judgment of condemnation came by Adam. For as the offence of Adam is here said to have come upon all men unto condemnation, so also is the gift of justification of life, i.e. of such a justification upon which, and by means whereof, men are saved, which comes by Jesus Christ and said to come upon all men likewise. Now to say, that all men in the former clause is to be taken properly and signifies all men, indeed, without exception of any, which all expositors grant without exception of any, but in the latter improperly and with limitation, yea, with such a limitation, which comparatively, and a few only excepted, excludes all men, there being not the least ground or reason in the context to vary the signification of the words, or to make them to signify more in the one clause and fewer in the other, is to exercise an arbitrary dominion over the expressions of the Holy Ghost, and to invent and set up significations and senses of words at pleasure.

Nor doth it at all ease the matter, to say or prove, that in other places of Scripture this phrase pantas anthrōpous, all men, signifies not all without exception, but only a great number, or all of one particular sort or kind of persons; because,

1. If it can be proved that in other places of Scripture it so signifies, I mean not all without exception, but only some greater number or numbers of men, it seems then there is a reason why it should or must so signify in these places; otherwise, it could not be proved that there it so signifies. But here is no reason at all to be given why it should be taken out of the proper and native signification, or signify any lesser number than all men simply. Now to refuse the proper signification of a word, where there is no other reason why it should be refused, but only because it is to be refused where there is a reason, and so a necessity, to refuse it, is as if one should persuade a man that is hungry to forbear meat whilst he may have it, because he must forbear it when he cannot get it. When the context or subject matter doth require a by, less proper or limited signification of a word or phrase, this signification is put upon them by God. But when there is no occasion or necessity, either in respect of the one or of the other, why such a signification should be put upon them, now if it be done, the doing of it is arbitrary, and from the lawless presumption of men. How much more when men shall do it, not only without any sufficient ground or reason, but against reason? That is the case of those, who by all men in the latter clause of the verse in hand, will needs understand only some men, and these but few comparatively. For,

2. Though one and the same word or phrase, is sometimes to be taken in a different signification in one and the same period or sentence, as elsewhere is observed, yet this is nowhere to be done, but where there is manifest and pregnant reason for the doing of it, as in these and the like eases. “Let the dead bury their dead,” Mat. viii. 22. So again, “Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again; but whosoever shall drink of the water that I shall give him, shall never thirst more…” John iv. 13, 14. There is a plain reason why by the “dead,” in the end of the former of these places, should be meant such as were naturally or corporally dead, viz. because such only are to be buried with that kind of burial, whereof our Saviour had occasion to speak, as appears from the former verse. Again, why by “the dead” in the beginning of the said passage, should be meant those that are spiritually dead, and not those that are corporally dead, there is this reason, every whit as plain as the former, viz. because those that are naturally or corporally dead, are not capable of burying those that are dead, either with one kind of burial or other. So why the word “water,” in the latter of the passages mentioned, should in the first place signify material or elementary water; in the latter, spiritual water or the Holy Ghost, reasons are obvious and near at hand; we shall not need to name them. But why the words, pantas anthrōpous, all men, in the place of the apostle under debate, being twice used, should be conceived so far to vary in their significations as in the former clause, to signify all men without exception; in the latter, very few men, no like reason, nor indeed any competent, can be given.

3. Though “all men” doth in some places signify only a greater number of men, not all men simply or universally, yet it never signifieth a small number of men, either in opposition to or in comparison with a greater, least of all with the greatest number that is, as they must make it signify in the Scripture in hand, who will have no more signified by it, in the latter of the two clauses where it is used, than only those who come in time to be actually saved by Christ. For these are a very small number, “Few there be,” saith Christ, “that find it,” speaking of the strait gate which leadeth unto life, in comparison of those upon whom condemnation came by Adam.

4. If condemnation should come upon all men simply by the offence of Adam, and righteousness only upon some men, and these but a few neither, comparatively, by the obedience and gift of Christ, then where sin abounded, grace should not much more abound, as the apostle saith it did; nay, sin should much more abound, and grace be confined to a narrow compass, comparatively. To say that the superabounding of grace above sin here spoken of, is to be considered in the intensiveness of it, i.e. in its prevalency over sin where it is vouchsafed, not in the extensiveness of it, as if it extended to more persons, is thus far acknowledged for a saying of truth. Grace doth not extend to more persons than sin, at least not to more persons of men, because sin extendeth unto all, and grace cannot extend to more than all. But if we shall straiten and limit grace in respect of the extent of it, to a small number of persons, the glory of the greater abounding of grace above sin in respect of the prevalency of it, where it is in such a sense given, will be fully matched or rather overcome and swallowed up by the prevailing extensiveness of sin above grace. We must searcheth for a better interpretation.

5. The apostle, both before and after, Romans 5: 15 and 19, speaks of the condemned ones of Adam and the justified ones of Christ, by one and the same numerical expression. He tells us in both places of many dead by Adam, and of no fewer than many justified and redeemed by Christ. Now what the Holy Ghost makes equal for men to disequalize, especially to such a proportion or degree that the one number shall be inconsiderable, and as nothing in comparison of the other, is to lift up themselves above their line, and so take hold of vanity instead of truth. The apostle’s expression, verse 15, is somewhat more emphatical, “For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God and the gift by grace, which is by one man Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.”

If it shall be supposed that many more millions of men are dead through the offence of Adam, than are justified or made alive by the grace of God in Christ, Paul’s glorying over the grace of God in Christ, as much more abounding to the justification of many, must fall to the ground. For, if by the offence of Adam all became dead, and a few only be made alive by the gift of the grace of God in Christ, who will not judge but that the offence of one much more abounded to the death of many, than the grace of God to the justification or life of many? The apostle is therefore referring to something more; an objective justification for all men (and a full justification for those who receive it) that broke the power of the devil and of Adam’s sin.

6. And lastly, the apostle having said, verse 20, that “Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound;” he adds, verse 21, “that as sin hath reigned unto death, so did grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Now, evident it is from verses 12 and 14, that sin reigned over all men, without exception, unto death; therefore, grace must have a proportionable reign unto life, i. e. must by a strong and overruling hand put all men into a capacity for life and salvation. If so, it undeniably follows that Christ died for all men, without exception for any, because otherwise all men could not be put into an estate of grace or salvation by Him.

Nor was this interpretation counted either heretical or erroneous by the most orthodox expositors of old. Chrysostom himself commenting upon the place, makes the apostle to speak thus, “If all men were punished through the offence,” (or his offence, meaning Adam’s) “they” (i. e. these all men) “may doubtless be justified from hence;” (i. e. by that overabundance of grace and righteousness as he there speaketh, which is given in Christ.) The former part of his commentary is more full and pregnant to this purpose, but because the transcription would be somewhat long, I leave it to be read in the author himself. Nor are there wanting amongst our late reformed divines, surnamed orthodox, men of eminent learning, piety and worth, who subscribe the said interpretation. “That our reparation,” (restauration) saith Mr. Bucer upon the place, “is made by Christ, and that it is more efficacious than the sin of Adam, and that it is of larger extent, is that which the apostle argueth in this and the following section.”

Again, upon those words, “Sed non ut paraptōma,” and thus: “The apostle here meaneth, that the grace of Christ did more profit mankind, than the sin of Adam damnified it.” Doubtless, if all men, without exception, were brought into a condition of misery by the sin of Adam, and but a handful only, in comparison, made happy by the grace of Christ; the grace of Christ cannot be said to have profited mankind more than the sin of Adam damnified it. Yet again, upon verse 16, “For whereas the world was lost” (or undone) “by the one sin of Adam, the grace of Christ did not only abolish this sin, and that death which it brought,” (upon the world) “but likewise took away an infinite number of other sins, which we, the rest of men, added to that first sin.”

The commensurableness of the grace of Christ with the sin of Adam, in respect of the number of persons gratified by the one, and damnified by the other, cannot lightly be asserted in terms more significant. Nor do the words following import anything contrary hereunto, wherein the author addeth, “that the said grace of Christ bringeth all that are of Christ into a full or plenary justification.” For by a full or plenary justification, it is evident that he means an actual justification, yea, (as he explains himself a little after) that justification which shall be awarded unto the saints at the great day of the resurrection; to the obtaining of which, it is acknowledged, that men must receive a new being from Christ by faith. In what sense Christ abolished the sin of Adam, together with that death which it brought into the world; and so in what sense he is said to have brought righteousness, justification, and salvation unto all men, remains to be unfolded in due place. Upon the 17th verse the aforesaid author yet more clearly attests the substance of our interpretation, where he gives an account how the grace of Christ may be said to be of larger extent than the sin of Adam, notwithstanding it be true that this grace took away nothing but what, in a sense, was the fruit and effect of sin.

“If we consider,” saith he, “that every particular man by his transgressions increaseth the misery of mankind, and that whosoever sinneth, doth no less hurt his posterity than Adam did all men; it is a plain case, that the grace of Christ hath removed more evils from men than the sins of Adam brought upon them. For though there be no sin committed in all the world which hath not its original from that first sin of Adam, yet all particular men who sin, as they sin voluntarily and freely, so do they make an addition of their own proper guilt and misery. All which evils, since the alone benefit of Christ hath taken away, it must needs be that it hath taken away the sins of many, and not of one only. Manifest, therefore, is it, that more evils have been removed by Christ, than were brought in by Adam.”

And yet more plainly and expressly to the point in hand (if more may be) upon verse 18, the sense whereof he gives thus: “As by the fall of one, sin prevailed over all, so as to make all liable unto condemnation: so likewise the righteousness of one so far took place on the behalf of all men, that all men may obtain the justification of life thereby.” By this time I suppose Bucer hath said enough, both to assert the interpretation of the Scripture in hand, that hath been given, as also the universality of redemption by Christ.

The said Scripture calls for the sense and exposition asserted, with such a loud and distinct voice, that Gualter also (another divine of the same rank and quality with the former) could not but hearken to it. “As by the offence of one,” saith he, completing the apostle’s sentence, and rendering his sense therein, “condemnation was propagated unto all men; so also, by the righteousness of one, justification of life was propagated…unto all men.” Again thus, “As by the offence of one Adam, the judgment or guilt came upon all men to condemnation; so also by the righteousness of one Jesus Christ, the gift or benefit of God, abounded unto all men to justification of life.”

Any man that shall read with a single eye what Calvin himself hath written upon the said contexture of Scriptures, cannot judge him an adversary to the premised exposition. “Paul,” saith he, upon verse 15, “simply teacheth that the amplitude,” or compass, “of the grace purchased by Christ, is greater than of the condemnnation contracted by the first man.” Not long after, “The sum of all comes to this, that Christ overcomes Adam: the righteousness of Christ vanquisheth Adam’s sin: Adam’s malediction,” or curse, “is overwhelmed with Christ’s grace: the death which proceeded from Adam is swallowed up by that life which comes from Christ.”

Doubtless if the curse brought upon men by Adam prevails and remains still untaken off upon far the greatest part of men, it is not overwhelmed within the grace of Christ: nor is the death which proceeded from him swallowed up by the life of Christ, if still it reigns and magnifies itself over and against far greater numbers of men than the life itself of Christ preserves or delivers from it. Upon verse 18, he presenteth his thoughts in these words, “He,” Paul, “makes grace common unto all men, because it is exposed unto,” or laid within the reach of, “all men: not because it is in the reality of it extended unto all men,” i. e. not because it is accepted or received by all men, as the words following plainly show: “For,” saith he, “though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and through the goodness or bounty of God be offered unto all men, yet all men do no take, or lay hold on him.” So that if Calvin would but quit himself like a man, and stand his own ground, he would remonstrate as stoutly as Corvine, or Arminius himself.

1. See more about this in Chap. I.

2. Divine Authority of the Scriptures, p. 184, 185, 332, 333.

3. Dr. Twisse, Vindicia Gratie, &c. p. 171.

4. Twissus, ubi supra.

5. Aqu. Sum. part I, qu. 19, Art. 12. in Cor.