CHAPTER I –Considerations prior to Answering Objections
CHAPTER I –Considerations prior to Answering Objections Things to be considered prior to the solution of objections.
THERE are various passages in Holy Scripture in which the ransom and propitiation made by the blood of Christ are set forth as general and indefinite expressions. There is seemingly intimated a fruitlessness or lack of success with regard to some for whom he died, through their own default. There are general offers, promises, and exhortations made to embrace the fruits of the death of Christ, even to those who never actually do it. From these passages, some have taken the opportunity to maintain that there is universal redemption, respecting everyone equally. They do so with great confidence, affirming that the contrary opinion cannot possibly be reconciled with those places of Scripture in which these things are proposed. These three parts are the only fountains from which are drawn
(but with violence) all the arguments that oppose the particular effectual redemption of the elect only. Before I answer objections which arise from a twisted interpretation of particular passages, I will lay down some fundamental principles that are in conformity to the word, and widely presented in it. These passages which have given rise to the general and indefinite affirmations laid down in the word, and upon which they are founded, in no way disagree with our judgment in this matter. Rather, they contain the truth of it, and that truth is not a universal ransom for everyone.
I will make some distinctions to further clarify the thing in question, and dispense with many false imputations of things and consequences that are erroneously or maliciously imposed on us.
1. The dignity, worth, and value of the blood of Christ The first thing that we will lay down concerns the dignity, worth, preciousness, and infinite value of the blood and death of Jesus Christ.
Maintaining and declaring this is especially considered. Every opinion that seemingly clashes against it is exceedingly prejudiced, or at least is deservedly suspect. Indeed, it is to be rejected by Christians if upon examination it is found to be injurious and derogatory to the merit and
honor of Jesus Christ. To this purpose, the Scripture is exceedingly full and frequent in setting forth the excellence and dignity of his death and sacrifice. By reason of the unity of his person with the godhead, it calls
Christ's blood, "God's own blood," Acts, 20:28. It exalts it infinitely above the blood of all other sacrifices, having for its character "the eternal Spirit," and being "without spot," Heb. 9:14. It is transcendently more precious than silver, or gold, or corruptible things, 1Pet. 1:18. It is able to give justification from all things, from which men could not be justified by the law, Acts 13:39.
Now, the sacrifice and offering of Christ was as it was intended to be by his Father. It was, then, the purpose and intention of God that his Son should offer a sacrifice of infinite worth, value, and dignity, sufficient in itself to redeem all and every man, if it had pleased the Lord to employ it to that purpose. Indeed, it was sufficient to redeem other worlds as well, if the Lord had freely made them, and wanted to redeem them. We say, then, that the sacrifice of Christ was sufficient to redeem the whole world, and to expiate all the sins of each and every man in the world. This sufficiency of his sacrifice has a twofold basis:
First, the dignity of the person that offered it, and was offered.
Secondly, the greatness of the pain he endured, By this pain he was able to bear, and he underwent, the whole curse of the law and the wrath of God that was due to sin.
And this presents the innate, real, true, worth and value of the bloodshedding of Jesus Christ. This is its own true internal perfection and sufficiency. Its application to anyone, as a price for them and as a benefit to them according to its worth, is external to the blood itself. It does not arise from it, but merely depends on the intention and will of God. It was in itself of infinite value and sufficiency to have been made a price to purchase each and every man in the world. That it formally became a price for anyone is solely ascribed to the purpose of God, to his intention to purchase and redeem them by it. The intention of the offerer and accepter, that it should be paid for someone or anyone, is what gives the formality to the price; this is external.
But the value and fitness of it to be made a price, arises from its own internal sufficiency. Hence we find that old distinction of the schoolmen, embraced and used by diverse protestant divines (though rejected by others), namely, "That Christ died for all with regard to the sufficiency of the ransom he paid, but not with regard to the efficacy of its application;" or, "The blood of Christ was a sufficient price for the sins of all the world;"
This last expression is corrected by some and reasserted this way: "The blood of Christ was sufficient to have been made a price for all." This is most true, as declared before. For being a price for some or all does not arise from its own sufficiency, worth, or dignity, but from the intention of God and Christ to use it to that purpose. Therefore, it is denied that the blood of Christ was a sufficient price and ransom for everyone, not because it was not sufficient, but because it was not a ransom.
And so the distinction between them, which was expressed earlier, easily appears. If it means only that the blood of our Savior was of sufficient value to redeem everyone, and that Christ intended to lay down a price which should be sufficient for their redemption, then it is acknowledged as most true. But the truth is, the expression "to die for them," shows that the intention of our Savior in laying down the price was their redemption; we deny the price was laid down for all. If it was, then all must be made actual partakers of the eternal redemption purchased for them. Otherwise, God failed in his design through the defect of the ransom paid by Christ, or because his justice refused to dismiss the charges upon the delivery of the ransom.
The worth of the Death of Christ is undervalued by Universal Redemption.
We conceive that the infinite value and worth of the death of Christ is exceedingly undervalued by those who assert universal redemption. We showed before that it is extrinsic to its value whether it is extended to this or that object, fewer or more. Its true worth consists in its immediate effects, products, and results, with what it is fit and able to do in its own nature.
This, they openly and obviously undervalue, almost annihilate. Hence these expressions concerning it:
First, that a door of grace was opened for sinners by his death; I suppose they know not where; but they deny that anyone was effectually carried in
at the door by grace.
Secondly, that God might save those for whom Christ died if he wanted to, on whatever condition he pleased; but they deny that Christ purchased a right of salvation for anyone.
Hence they grant that after the death of Christ, First, God might have dealt with man upon a legal condition again;
Secondly, that each and every man might have been damned, and yet the death of Christ had its full effect; moreover, that faith and sanctification are not purchased by his death, indeed, no more than what he may go to hell with.
In these and other various ways they express their low thoughts and slight imaginations concerning the innate value and sufficiency of the death and blood-shedding of Jesus Christ. To the honor, then, of Jesus Christ our
Mediator, God and man, our all-sufficient Redeemer, we affirm that his death and blood-shedding was of so great a dignity and worth, of so precious a value, of such an infinite fullness and sufficiency, that this oblation of himself was in every way able and perfectly sufficient to redeem, justify, reconcile, and save all the sinners in the world. It was fully able and sufficient to satisfy the justice of God for all the sins of all mankind, and to bring every one of them to everlasting glory.
Now, this fullness and sufficiency of the merit of the death of Christ is a foundation for two things:
First, it is the ground for generally publishing the gospel to "all nations," with the right to be preached to "every creature" (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15).
This is because the way of salvation which the gospel declares is wide enough for all to walk in. There is enough in the remedy that it brings to light, to heal all their diseases and to deliver them from all their evils. If there were a thousand worlds, the gospel of Christ might, upon this ground, be preached to them all, because there is enough in Christ for the salvation of them all, if they would derive virtue from him by touching him in faith, the only way to draw refreshment from this fountain of salvation.
Some object in vain that the preaching of the gospel to all is needless and useless if Christ did not die for all. Indeed, doing so would make God call upon men to believe what is not true, namely, that Christ died for them:
First, there are some to be saved among those nations where the gospel is sent ("I have many people"). But they cannot be saved in God's appointed way, unless the gospel is preached to others as well as to themselves.
Secondly, in the economy and dispensation of the new covenant, all external differences and privileges of people, tongues, and nations have been abolished. The word of grace is to be preached without distinction to all, and all men everywhere are called to repent.
Thirdly, when God calls upon men to believe, he does not call upon them to believe that Christ died for them, but that there is no name under heaven given to men by which they may be saved; only the name of Jesus
Christ, through whom salvation is preached.
Besides these certain truths, I say the sufficiency of Christ's blood, which we have described, is a sufficient basis and ground for all those general precepts for preaching the gospel to all men.
Secondly, those who preach the gospel in particular congregations, being utterly unacquainted with the purpose and secret counsel of God, and also being forbidden to pry or search into it (Deut. 29:29), may on this ground justifiably call upon every man to believe, giving an assurance of salvation to everyone in particular upon his believing. They may know, and be fully persuaded of this: that there is enough in the death of Christ to save everyone who will believe. They may leave the purpose and counsel of God to himself as to whom he will bestow faith, and for whom Christ died in particular (as they are commanded).
This one thing, being well observed, will crush many of the vain flourishes of our adversaries; as will what follows below.
2. The Administration of the New Covenant under the Gospel.
A second thing to be considered is the economy or administration of the new covenant in the times of the gospel. The kingdom and dominion of Christ are amplified and enlarged after his appearance in the flesh. All external differences are taken away, the name of Gentiles removed, the partition wall broken down, the promise to Abraham that he should be heir of the world, as he was father of the faithful, was now to be fully
accomplished. Now, this administration is opposite to that dispensation which was restrained to one people and family, which was uniquely God's.
All the rest of the world had been excluded, and it did not comprehend all individuals. But the new covenant denotes a removal of all those restraining exceptions that were in force before. So considering the end to which these general expressions are used in Scripture, and what they aim at, will clearly manifest their nature, how they are to be understood, and who is intended and comprehended in them. For if what is meant by them is only this enlargement of the visible kingdom of Christ to all nations with regard to right, and to many with regard to fact, then it is evident that they refer only to a collection of men without any differences, and not a universal collection of everyone; the thing meant by them requires the one and not the other. God has elect in all those nations, produced in several generations, in which the means of grace are employed.
Hence, those objections that are made against the particularity of the ransom of Christ and restricting it only to the elect, and which are based on the terms "all", "all men", "all nations", "the world", "the whole world", and the like, are all exceedingly weak and invalid. They twist the general expressions of the Scripture beyond their aim and intent. That is because these terms are being used by the Holy Ghost only to evidence the removal of all personal and national distinctions, breaking up all the narrow bounds of the Old Testament, enlarging the kingdom of Christ beyond the bounds of Jewry and Salem, abolishing all old restrictions, and opening a way for the elect among all people to come in (called "the fullness of the Gentiles").
There is now "neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, but Christ is all, and in all," Col. 3:11.
Hence the Lord promises to "pour out his Spirit upon all flesh," Joel 2:28.
Peter interprets this to be accomplished by filling the apostles with the gifts of the Spirit, that they might be enabled to preach to several nations, Acts
2:17, "having received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations" Rom. 1:5. This is not the Jews only, but some among all nations, "the gospel being the power of God unto salvation for everyone that believes, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek," verse 16. As to salvation, it intends only those specifically bought by Christ, which he
"redeemed out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation," Rev.
5:9. There you have a specific distribution of what is generally set down in
other passages; the gospel is commanded to be preached to all these nations, Matt. 28:19, so that those bought and redeemed among them all might be brought home to God, John 11:52. And this is what the apostle so largely sets forth in Eph. 2:14-17.
Now, this is the sense, and no other, in which those many passages usually urged for universal grace and redemption are to be taken, as we have explained.
3. The distinction between man's duty and God's purpose.
There being no connection between man's duty and God's purpose, we must exactly distinguish between them. The purpose and decree of God is not the rule of our duty; nor is the performance of our duty to do what we are commanded, any declaration of what God's purpose is, nor his decree as to what should be done. This is especially seen and considered in the duty of the ministers of the gospel to dispense the word, exhort, invite, give precepts and warnings, all of which has been committed to them. All of these are perpetual declarations of our duty, and they manifest the approval of the things exhorted and invited to, along with the truth of the connection between one thing and another. But these are not from the counsel and purpose of God with regard to individual persons in the ministry of the word. A minister is not to inquire after nor trouble himself about those secrets of the eternal mind of God; namely, whom he purposes to save, and whom in particular he has sent Christ to die for. It is enough for them to search out his revealed will, and from there take their directions, from which they have their commissions.
Therefore, there is no sequel between the universal precepts from the word concerning the things to be done, to God's purpose in himself concerning specific persons. They command and invite all to repent and believe. But they do not know in particular on whom God will bestow repentance unto salvation, nor in whom he will effect the work of faith with power. And when they make proffers and tenders in the name of God to all, they do not say to all, "It is the purpose and intention of God that you should believe."
Who gave them any such power? It is his command that makes it their duty to do what is required of them. But they do not declare his mind, that is,
what he will do in particular. The external offer is one from which every man may conclude his own duty; none may conclude God's purpose, which yet may be known upon performing his duty. It is in vain to say that God has given Christ for all to whom he offers Christ in the preaching of the gospel. For his offer in the preaching of the gospel is not a declaration to anyone in particular either of what God has done for him, or will do in reference to him, but of what that individual ought to do if he wants to be approved by God, and obtain the good things that are promised. From this, it follows, First, God always intends to save some among those to whom he sends the gospel in its power. Ministers of the gospel are unacquainted with God's particular purpose; they are bound to seek the good of everyone; and they are to hope and judge well of all, as befits them. Thus, they may offer Jesus
Christ to all, with the life and salvation that is in him, notwithstanding the fact that the Lord has given his Son only to his elect.
Secondly, this offer is neither vain nor fruitless. If it is performed as it ought to be, and as it is required, then it declares their duty, and what is acceptable to God. If anyone asks, "What is declared and made known of God's mind and will when men for whom Christ did not die are commanded to believe?" I answer, first, they are commanding what ought to be done if someone would be acceptable to God; secondly, they are declaring the sufficiency of salvation that is in Jesus Christ for all who believe on him; thirdly, they are declaring the certain, infallible, inviolable connection between faith and salvation, so that whoever performs the one will surely enjoy the other; for whoever comes to Christ he will in no way cast out (Jn.
6:37).
4. The Error of the Jews concerning the extent of Redemption.
There was an ingrafted and erroneous persuasion of the Jews that restricted salvation and deliverance by the Messiah (or promised seed) to themselves alone. For awhile it had a strong influence on the apostles themselves, who were the offspring of Abraham according to the flesh. This must be considered the basis for many of the general expressions and expansions of the objects of redemption in Scripture. Yet, their presence gives no
plausibility to unlimited universality. It is very apparent that the Jews were generally infected with this proud opinion, and that all the promises belonged only to them and theirs. These were universally theirs, exclusive of all those others whom they called "dogs, uncircumcised," and on whom they poured out curses. Hence, when they saw the multitudes of Gentiles coming to the preaching of Paul, they were "filled with envy, contradicting, blaspheming, and stirring up persecution against them," Acts 13:45-50. The apostle again speaks of these proud Jews in 1Thes. 2:15, 16. "They do not please God," he says, "and are opposed to all men; forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved." What most enraged them in the preaching of our Savior was his prediction of letting out his vineyard to others (Matt. 21:41).
It is apparent that the apostles themselves had deeply drunk in this opinion, learned by tradition from their fathers, not only in their questioning about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, Acts 1:6, but it is also evident in their understanding of the Great Commission. They had received their commission to teach and baptize all nations, Matt. 28:19, and every creature, Mark 16:15, and they were endowed with power from above to do it, Acts 1:8. Yet they seem to have understood their commission to extend only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, for they went about preaching only to the Jews, Acts 11:19. When the contrary was evidenced and demonstrated to them, they glorified God, saying, "Then God has also granted repentance unto life to the Gentiles" Acts 11:18. They admired it as something they were not acquainted with before. And it is no wonder that men were not easily or soon persuaded of this, because it was the great mystery which was not made known in former ages. It was then revealed to God's holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit: "That the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel," Eph. 3:5, 6.
Now, this being made known to them by the Spirit, and the time having come in which the little sister was to be considered (So 8:8), the prodigal brought home (Lk. 15:11+), and Japheth persuaded to dwell in the tents of Shem (Gen. 9:27), they labored by all means to root it out of the minds of their brethren according to the flesh, 193 those for whom they especially cared. They also labored to leave no thought in the mind of the eunuch that he was a dry tree, nor in the mind of the Gentile that he was cut off from the
people of God. To this end, they used various general expressions to directly rebut that former error which was absolutely destructive to the kingdom of Jesus Christ. Hence we find the terms "the world", "all men",
"all nations", "every creature", and the like, used in the business of redemption and preaching the gospel. These things were not restricted to one certain nation and family (as was supposed), but they extended universally to God's people scattered abroad in every region under heaven.
This is especially true of those expressions used by John. He lived to see the first coming of the Lord in that fearful judgment and vengeance which he executed upon the Jewish nation some forty years after his death.
194 He frequently asserts that Christ benefits the world in contrast to the Jewish nation, as I said before. He gives us a rule for understanding such phrases and locutions. John 11:51-52: "He signified that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that he should also gather together into one the children of God that were scattered abroad." To this end, he tells the believing Jews that Christ is not a propitiation for them only, "but for the sins of the whole world," 1Jn. 2:2, or the people of God scattered throughout the whole world. It is not tied to any one nation, as they sometimes vainly imagined. And this shines much light on the sense and meaning of those passages where the words "world" and "all" are used in the business of redemption. They do not show a collective universality, but a general distribution to men of all sorts, in opposition to the erroneous persuasion recounted before.
5. The Meaning of the Words concerning the extent of the Atonement.
We must seriously weigh the extent, nature, and meaning of the general terms which are frequently used in an indefinite way in the Scripture to identify the object of Christ's redemption. The whole weight of the argument for universal redemption hangs on these expressions. The chief if not the only argument for it is taken from words which seem to have a latitude in their meaning, such as "the world", "the whole world", "all", and the like. These terms, once the universalists fasten onto them, cause them to run with "Io triumphe," as though the victory were surely theirs. The world, the whole world, all, all men! – who can oppose it? Call their attention to the context of the several passages where the words appear, appeal to rules
of interpretation, remind them of the circumstances and scope of the passage, the sense of the same words in other passages, and use other helps and assistance which the Lord has acquainted us with to discover his mind and will in his word, and they shortly cry out to use the bare letter of the word, its literal meaning independent of its context:
"Away with the gloss and interpretation; allow us to believe what the word expressly says."
Being deluded by the love of their own darling, they little imagine (I hope) that if this assertion were generally applied, and they will not allow us the gift of interpretation in proportion to our faith, then at one clap they would confirm the cursed madness of the Anthropomorphites, who assign a human body, form and shape, to God, who has none. Likewise they would confirm the cursed figment of transubstantiation, destroying the body of Christ who actually has one, along with numerous other pernicious errors. Let them continue such empty clamors as long as they please. They are fit only to terrify and shake weak and unstable men; we will not be silent for the truth's sake. And I hope we will very easily make it apparent that the general terms that are used in this matter will indeed give no credence to any argument for universal redemption, whether absolute or conditional.
Two words are badly stumbled over: "the world," and "all". We will consider later the particular passages in which these are found, and which drive the arguments of our adversaries. For the present, we will only show that the words themselves, according to their use in Scripture, do not necessarily show a universal collection of those toward whom they are directed. Instead, being words with various meanings, they must be interpreted according to the scope and the subject-matter of the place where they are used in Scripture.
First, is the word "world."
In the New Testament, this is called kosmos (NT:2889). There is another word, aion (NT:165) that is sometimes translated "world," but it is not involved in this matter. It denotes duration of time rather than the scope or extent of something. I will briefly give you enough of the various meanings of kosmos to make it apparent that no argument can be made based on the bare usage of a word which is so equivocal. Its meaning will need to be distinguished in each passage from which the argument is taken.
THE SCHEME
The World is taken, I. Subjectively A. Universally B. Partially; for 1. The visible heaven.
2. The habitable earth.
II. Adjunctively, 195 with regard to, A. The inhabitants, 1. Collectively for the whole.
2. Distributively for, (1.) Any.
(2.) Many.
3. Signally, (1.) The good, or elect.
(2.) The wicked, or reprobate.
4. Indifferently, or in common.
5. Restrictively, or synecdochically; 196 for, (1.) The chief.
(2.) The Romans.
B. The accidents; 1. Of corruption.
(1.) Corruption itself.
(2.) The seat of corruption.
(3.) The earthly condition.
2. Of the curse.
All these distinctions of the use of the word are made out in the following observations:
The word "world" in the Scripture is in general taken five ways:
First, Pro mundo continente; First, generally – holos for the whole fabric of heaven and earth, with all things contained in them, which were created by God in the beginning:
Job 34:13; Acts 17:24; Eph. 1:4; and many other passages.
Secondly, distinctively, First, for the heavens, and all things belonging to them, distinguished from the earth, Ps. 90:2; Secondly, The habitable earth, and this very frequently, as Ps. 24:1,
98:7; Matt. 13:38; John 1:9, 3:17, 19, 4:14, 17:11; 1Tim. 1:15, 6:7.
Secondly, For the world contained, especially men in the world; and that either, First, universally for everyone, Rom. 3:6, 19, 5:12.
Secondly, indefinitely for men, without restriction or enlargement, John 7:4; Isa. 13:11.
Thirdly, exegetically, for many, which is the most usual acceptance of the word, Matt. 18:7; John 4:42, 12:19, 16:8, 17:21; 1Cor. 4:9; Rev. 13:3.
Fourthly, comparatively, for a great part of the world, Rom. 1:8; Matt.
24:14, 26:13; Rom. 10:18.
Fifthly, restrictively, for the inhabitants of the Roman empire, Luke 2:1.
Sixthly, for men distinguished by their various qualifications, 1st, For the good of God's people, referring either to their designation or their possession of something, Ps. 22:27; John 3:16, 6:33, 51; Rom.
4:13, 11:12, 15; 2Cor. 5:19; Col. 1:6; 1Jn. 2:2.
2dly, For the evil, wicked, rejected men of the world, Isa. 53:11; John 7:7, 14:17, 22, 15:19, 17:25; 1Cor. 6:2, 11:32; Heb. 9:38; 2Pet. 2:5;
1Jn.5:19; Rev. 13:3.
Thirdly, For the corrupted world, or that universal corruption which is in all things in the world: Gal 1:4,6:14; Eph. 2:2; James 1:27, 4:4; 1Jn. 2:1517; 1Cor. 7:31, 33; Col 2:8; 2Tim. 4:10; Rom 12:2; 1Cor. 1:20, 21, 3:18,
19.
Fourthly, For a worldly estate or the condition of men or things, Ps. 73:12; Luke 16:8; John 18:36; 1Jn. 4:5; and many other passages.
Fifthly, For the accursed world, as under the power of Satan, John 7:7, 14:30, 16:11, 33; 1Cor. 2:12; 2Cor. 4:4; Eph. 6:12.
This word has various other meanings in Holy Scripture, which it is unnecessary to recount further. I have reviewed these various meanings to
show the emptiness of the clamor with which some men fill their mouths, who frighten unstable souls with those scriptures mentioning "world" so often in the business of redemption, as though some strength might be taken from that to uphold the general ransom. "Parvas habet spes Troja, si tales habet."
198 If their great strength is only sophistical craft, 199 taken from the ambiguity of an equivocal word, their whole endeavor is likely to prove fruitless. I have declared that the word has various other uses in the Scripture. So when I come to consider the objections which use the word
"world" to mean universal redemption, I hope by God's assistance to show that in no place in which the word is used in redemption, can it be taken for all and every man in the world. Indeed, it is used in very few passages besides those to mean all and every man. Concerning this word, our way will be clear if you add these observations to what has been said,
First, as in other words, so it is with these: the same word is repeated in a different sense and understanding. Matt. 8:22, "Let the dead bury their dead;" – dead in the first instance denotes those who are spiritually dead in sin; in the next instance, it refers to those who are naturally dead by a dissolution of soul and body. John 1:11, He "came to his own," eis idios, to all the things that he had made; "and his own," kai idios, that is, the great part of the people, "did not receive him." Again, John 3:6, "What is born of the Spirit is spirit." Spirit in the first instance is the almighty Spirit of God; in the latter instance, it is a spiritual life of grace received from him. Now, in such passages as these, to argue that the meaning of the word is such in one place, therefore it is the same in the other, would violently pervert the mind of the Holy Ghost. So too, the word "world" usually changes in its meaning. John 1:10, "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and yet the world did not know him!" The one who would force the same meaning on the word "world" in its triple mention here would make an egregious gloss. In the first, it plainly signifies some part of the habitable earth; it is taken subjective "partially" in the second, as the whole frame of heaven and earth; and then it is taken subjective "universally" in the third, for some men living in the earth, namely, unbelievers, who may be said to be "the world" adjunctively.
Again, John 3:17, "God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him;" the word
"world" in the first instance is necessarily understood as that part of the habitable world in which our Savior lived; in the second instance, it refers
to all men in the world, just as some suppose (there is a truth in this: for our Savior did not come to condemn all men in the world; condemnation was not the prime aim of his coming, and he came to save his own people, thus not condemning all); in the third instance, it refers to God's elect, or believers living in the world in their several generations; these were the ones he intended to save and no one else; otherwise Christ fails in his purpose, and his endeavor is insufficient to accomplish that for which it is designed.
Secondly, no argument can be taken from a phrase in a particular Scripture passage if, in other passages where it is used, the meaning there is obviously denied (unless the scope of the passage or its subject-matter compels it). For instance: God is said to love the world, and to have sent his Son to reconcile the world to himself in Christ; and Christ is said to be a propitiation for the sins of the whole world. If the scope of the passages where these assertions are found, or the subject-matter which they address, compels the word "world" to mean all persons universally, then let it be so without restriction. But if such an interpretation is not compelled from the passages themselves, then why should "world" there signify everyone more than it does in John 1:10: "The world did not know him." If there it means all without exception, then no one believed in Christ. That would be contrary to verse 12. Or in Luke 2:1, "That all the world should be taxed," it can only be understood to mean the chief inhabitants of the Roman empire; or in John 8:26, "I say to the world those things which I have heard" is understood to mean the Jews to whom he spoke, those who then lived in the world, and not those to whom he was not sent; or in John
12:19, "Behold, the world has gone after him!" That world was nothing but a great multitude of one small nation. Or in 1Jn. 5:19, "The whole world lies in wickedness," from which it is understood that all believers are exempted; or in Rev. 13:3, "All the world wondered after the beast;" judge for yourself whether it affirms the whole universe of individuals in the world wondered after the beast. In the same way, it is understood that "all nations" is equal in extent to "the world." This is apparent in Rom.
1:5; Rev. 18:3, 23; Ps. 118:10; 1Chron. 14:17; Jer. 27:7.
It is evident that the words "world", "all the world", and "the whole world", where taken adjunctively for men-in-the-world, almost always denote only some or many men in the world. They are separated into good or bad,
believers or unbelievers, and elect or reprobate. This is understood from from what is immediately affirmed about them in the passages cited. I see no reason in the world 200 why they should be bent to mean anything else in the passages cited in the controversy between us and our opponents. We will consider the particular passages later.
Second, is the word "all"
Now, what we have said of the word "world", we may say of the word "all." Much reliance is placed on it, and many boasts are made from it – without cause. We declared before that nowhere is it affirmed in the Scripture that Christ died for all men, or gave himself a ransom for all men, much less for all and every man. It is expressly affirmed that he "gave himself a ransom for all," 1Tim. 2:6. But what is now in debate is who this
"all" should be, whether all believers, or all the elect, or some of all sorts, or all of every sort. Our adversaries affirm it is all of every sort. The main reason for their interpretation is the importance of the word itself. We will show, when we come to the particular passages they urge, that the circumstances of the passage, the analogy of faith, and other helps for exposition, do not favor their gloss at all. For the present let us look at the word in its usual acceptance in the Scripture, and see whether it always requires such an interpretation.
It is too apparent to require any illustration that the word "all" is to be taken either collectively for all in general, without exception, or distributively for some of all sorts, excluding none. It is used in this second sense by all sorts of people, whether speaking, writing, or expressing themselves in another way; but this is especially so in holy writ. It is is granted that the word is sometimes taken in the first sense (for all collectively) and I need not prove it. Those whom we oppose affirm that this is the only sense of the word – though I dare boldly say it is not to be understood in that sense once in ten times through the whole book of God. Instead, it is commonly and indeed properly used in the latter sense (for some of all sorts) concerning whatever is affirmed. A few instances from the many that might be urged will make it clear.
Thus then, you have it in John 12:32, "And if I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all unto me" I cannot approve that we translate it "all men" as in other places. Though I know the sense is the same, yet the word "men" is
not in the original, only the word "all." But who, I ask, are these all? Are they everyone? Then is everyone drawn to Christ, made believers, truly converted, and certainly saved? For those who come to him by his and his
Father's drawing, "he will in no way cast out, "John 6:37.
Here then, "all" can have no other meaning than many, some of all sorts, no sort excluded. Accordingly the word is interpreted this way in Rev. 5:9,
"You have redeemed us out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." These are the "all" he draws to him. This particular exposition of this phrase is to me of more value and esteem than a thousand glosses of the sons of men. Translators are to keep close to the propriety and native meaning of every word. Thus in Luke 11:42, our translators have made the word "all" properly signify what we assert is the right interpretation of it; for they render rhetos (which expressly is "every herb"), "all manner of herbs," taking the word distributively (as it must be taken). It signifies herbs of all sorts, and not any individual herb, for which the Pharisees did not and could not tithe. And in the very same sense the word is used again in Luke
18:12, "I give tithes of all that I possess;" where it cannot signify every individual thing, as is apparent.
201 Most evident, also, is this restrained meaning of the word in Acts 2:17, "I will pour out of my Spirit, upon all flesh." Whether or not it comprises every man or rather men of several and various sorts, let every man judge for himself.
The same course of interpretation as before is followed by our translators in Acts 10:12. They render what is literally "all beasts or four-footed creatures," as "all manner of beasts;" or beasts of various sorts. It must also be understood in the same sense in Rom. 14:2, "One believes that he may eat all things;" that is, what he pleases of things to be eaten. See, moreover,
1Cor. 1:5.
202 Indeed, in 1Tim. 2:4 where it is said that "God will have all men to be saved," where men so eagerly contend that the word "all" is to be taken for everyone (though fruitlessly and falsely, as will be demonstrated),
– in that very chapter the word "all" must confessedly be expounded according to the sense we give it. In verse 8 of that chapter, it says, "I will, therefore, that men pray in every place." It cannot signify every individual place in heaven, earth, and hell. This is confessed by all,
203 and it needs no proof; no more than when our Savior is said to cure "every disease," in Matt. 9:35. There is no need to prove that he did not cure every disease of every man, but only all sorts of diseases.
Various other instances might be given to show that this is the most usual and frequent meaning of the word "all" in the Holy Scripture. Therefore, nothing can be inferred from the base word that would compel us to conclude that an absolute unlimited universality of all individuals is intimated by it. We will consider the particular passages insisted on afterward. I will conclude what has been said concerning these general expressions in Scripture with these observations:
First, the word "all" is certainly and unquestionably restrained sometimes, and it ought to be restrained, to "all of some sorts," even though the qualification which is the bond of the limitation is not expressed, namely
"all believers," (see 1Cor. 15:22; Eph. 4:6) In Rom. 5:18 we read, "The free gift came upon all men to justification of life." "All men" are those that are actually justified. They are no more or less than those who are
Christ's, that is, believers; for certainly justification is not possible without faith (Heb. 11:6).
Secondly, the word "all" is sometimes used for "some of all sorts," as in Jer. 31:34.
204 The Hebrew word there is kowl (OT:3635). It is rendered "all" by Paul in Heb. 8:11; so too in John 12:32 and 1Tim. 2:1-3. This is apparent by the mention of "kings" as one sort of people intended there.
And I have no doubt but it will appear to all that the word must be taken in one of these senses in every place where it is used in the business of redemption; as will be proved.
Thirdly, if a diligent comparison is made between the general expressions of the New Testament and the predictions of the Old, they will be found to answer and explain one another. The Lord affirms in the New what the Old fortold should be done. Now, there are predictions and prophecies of the Old Testament that all nations, all flesh, all people, all the ends, families, or kindreds of the earth, the world, the whole earth, and the isles, will be converted, and look up to Christ, and come to the mountain of the Lord. No one doubts that only the elect of God in all nations are signified, knowing that in them alone those predictions have their accomplishment.
Why should the same expressions used in the Gospel, many of them directly aiming to declare the fulfilling of these prophecies, be to a large extent wire-drawn so contrary to the mind of the Holy Ghost?
205 it does not hinder its meaning to say that the reprobates will be cast out to eternity where there is weeping and wailing, etc. So when Christ is said to die for all, it does not hinder its meaning to say that those reprobates may perish to eternity for their sins, without any effectual remedy intended for them, though that remedy may be occasionally proposed to some of them in the gospel.
6. The Appearance of Persons and Things in the Scripture.
In closing, as when the Lord is said to wipe the tears from all faces, Observe that the Scripture often speaks of things and persons according to the appearance they have, and their account or esteem among men.
Frequently it speaks of men's condition according to their outward appearance (on which human judgment is based), and not what they are indeed. Thus, many are called wise, just, and righteous according to how they are esteemed by men, though the Lord knows they are foolish sinners.
Jerusalem is called "The holy city," Matt, 27:53, because it was holy in esteem and appearance; but indeed it was a "den of thieves" (Matt. 21:13).
In 2Chron. 28:23, it is said of Ahaz, that wicked king of Judah, that "he sacrificed to the gods of Damascus that struck him." It was the Lord alone that struck him. Those idols to which he sacrificed were but sticks and stones, the work of mens hands. They could in no way help themselves much less strike their enemies. Yet the Holy Ghost uses an expression that addresses his idolatrous persuasion and says, "They struck him." Is it not said of Christ in John 5:18, that he had broken the Sabbath? Yet he only did that in the corrupt opinion of the blinded Pharisees.
Moreover, add to what has been said what is no less an undeniable truth, namely, that many things which are proper and specific to the children of God are often and frequently assigned to those who live only in outward communion with them, and who have partaken of the same external privileges, though indeed they are aliens with regard to their participation in the grace of the promise. Put these two things which are most evident together, and it will easily appear that those passages which seem to express a possibility that those who are said to be redeemed by the blood of Christ will perish and suffer eternal destruction, are in no way advantageous to the
adversaries of the effectual redemption of God's elect by the blood of Christ. This is because they may be said to be redeemed κατὰ τὴν δόξαν, not κατὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν, 206 — κατὰ τὸ φαίνεσθαι, not κατὰ τὸ εἷναι,
207 — it is in respect to appearance, not reality, as used in Scripture in various other things.
7. The Difference between a Judgment of Charity, and one of Fact.
What is spoken about someone as a charitable judgment on our part must not always be exactly squared to what is actually true in their regard. For the rightness of our judgment, it suffices that we proceed according to the rules of judging that are given us. For what is outside of our cognizance does not belong to us, whether it addresses our judgments or not. Thus the apostles in the Scriptures often write to men addressing them as "holy,"
"saints," even "elected." But from there is no warrant to positively conclude that they were all indeed holy, saints, or elect. This is so in 1Pet. 1:1, 2, where he calls all the strangers to whom he wrote, scattered throughout
Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father," etc. And yet no one would dare affirm that I have any warrant to conclude, that in truth all were such. So Paul tells the Thessalonians, the whole church to whom he wrote, that he "knew their election of God," 1Thes. 1:4. In 2Thes. 2:13, he blesses God "who had chosen them to salvation." Now, did not Paul make this judgment of them by the rule of charity? Accordingly, he affirms in another place, "It is fitting for me to think so of you all," Phil. 1:7. Can it be, should it be, infallibly concluded that they were all elected? If some of these should be found to fall away from the gospel and to have perished, would it be valid to conclude that the elect might perish? Would we not answer that they were said to be elected according to the judgment of charity, but that they were not so in fact? And why is this answer not as sufficient and satisfying when it is given in response to the objection that some are perishing who were charitably said to be redeemed, as when they were charitably said to be elected?
8. The Connection between Faith and Salvation.
The infallible connection of faith and salvation according to God's purpose and will must be considered. It is frequently the thing intended in gospel proposals. The Lord has established it in his counsel, and revealed it in his word, that there is an indissoluble bond between these two things, so that "the one who believes shall be saved," Mark 16:16. This, indeed, is the substance of the gospel in its outward promulgation. This is the testimony of God, that eternal life is in his Son. Whoever believes this sets his seal to it that God is true. Whoever does not believe it makes God out to be a liar,
1Jn. 5:9-11. Now, this connection between the means and the end, faith and life, is the only thing which is meant and what is offered to countless people to whom the gospel is preached. All the commands, proffers, and promises that are made to them intimate no more than this will of God: that believers shall certainly be saved. This is an unquestionable divine truth, and it is a sufficient object for supernatural faith to rest upon. If it not accepted as true, it is a sufficient cause for damnation. John 8:24, "If you do not believe that I am he," (that is, "the way, the truth, and the life") "you shall die in your sins."
It is a vain imagination of some that, when the command to believe and the promise of life are presented to someone, even if he is one of those who will certainly perish, yet somehow the Lord's will is conditional as to this man's salvation. They imagine the Lord intends this man will be saved on condition that he will believe, when that condition does not at all lie in the will of God, which is always absolute. The condition exists only between the things proposed to these people, as declared before.
208 And those poor deluded things, who stand on their own legs before they are able to crawl, who might justly be persuaded to hold onto men of more strength, greatly betray their own conceited ignorance by this assertion. With great pomp, they show the broken pieces of an old Arminian sophism with acclamations of grace to this new discovery (for that is how they think of all that is new to them). They say, "As is God's proffer, so is his intention; if he calls all to believe and be saved, then he intends all to believe and be saved."
First, God does not proffer life to all upon the condition of faith, passing by a great part of mankind without any such proffer being made to them at all.
Secondly, if by God's proffer they understand his command and promise, who told them that these things declared his will and purpose, or intention? He commands Pharaoh to let his people go; but did he intend
Pharoah to do so according to his command? Had he not foretold that he would so order things that Pharoah would not let them go? I thought that God's commands and promises always revealed our duty, and not his purpose; they revealed what God would have us do, and not what he will do. Indeed, his promises as particularly applied reveal his mind to the persons to whom they are applied; but when they are indefinitely proposed, they reveal no other intention of God but what we discovered before: they concern things, not persons; they concern his determinate purpose to infallibly connect faith and salvation.
Thirdly, if the proffer is universal (as they say), and the intention of God is bound to the offer – that is, he intends the salvation of those to whom the tender offer is made, upon their profession of faith – then,
First, what becomes of election and reprobation? Neither of them, certainly, is consistent with this universal purpose of saving us all.
Secondly, if he intends it, then why is it not accomplished? Does his purpose fail? "Dum vitant stulti vitia, in contraria currunt."
209 Is this certain Scylla not worse than the feared Charybdis?
They say, "He intends salvation only on condition. The condition not being fulfilled, he does not fail in his purpose, though the thing is not conferred."
But did the Lord foreknow whether the condition would be fulfilled by those to whom the proposal was made, or not? If not, where is his prescience, his omniscience? If he did, then how can he be said to intend their salvation when he certainly knew that they would never fulfill the condition on which it was to be attained? Moreover, he knew that the condition was not to be attained without his bestowing it, and he had determined not to bestow it.
Would they ascribe such a will and purpose to a wise man as they ignorantly and presumptuously ascribe to the only wise God? Would a wise man intend to have a thing done upon the performance of a condition that
he knew full well could never be performed without him, and that he had fully resolved not to effect? For instance, would he intend to give his daughter in marriage to a man upon condition that this man would give him a jewel he does not have, nor can obtain, unless the father bestows it on him, but which he is resolved never to bestow? Where will blindness and ignorance, thought to be light and knowledge, carry such poor deluded souls?
This, then is the main thing demonstrated and held out in the promulgation of the gospel: the strict connection between the duty of faith assigned to them, and the benefit of life promised to them. This has a truth of universal extent, grounded upon the complete sufficiency of the death of Christ towards all who will believe. And I see no reason why this should be termed part of the mystery of the universalists, that the gospel could not be preached to all unless Christ died for all. With what was mentioned before concerning another part of it, this is an old, rotten, carnal, and long-sinceconfuted sophism, arising out of the ignorance of the word and right reason, which are no way contrary to one another.
9. The mixture of Elect and Reprobates in the world.
Another ground for holding out a tender of the blood of Jesus Christ to those for whom it was never shed, is the mixed distribution of the elect and reprobates, believers and unbelievers, according to the purpose and mind of God, through-out the whole world and in its several places, in all or most of the single congregations. The ineffectualness of the proposal that we cannot preach to all unless Christ died for all is apparent in this mixed distribution.
The ministers of the gospel, who are stewards of the mysteries of Christ, and to whom the word of reconciliation is committed, are bound to admonish and warn all men to whom they are sent. That is because they are acquainted only with revealed things. The Lord lodges his purposes and intentions towards particular persons in the secret ark of his own heart, which is not to be pried into. Ministers give the same commands, propose the same promises, make tenders of Jesus Christ in the same manner, to all.
This is done so that the elect, whom they do not know but by the event of their conversion, may obtain the promises, while the rest are hardened.
Now, these things are thus ordered by Him who is supreme over all.
Namely, that there should be such a mixture of elect and reprobate, of tares and wheat, to the end of the world; and, secondly, that Christ, and reconciliation through him, should be preached by men ignorant of his eternal discriminating purposes. As such, there is an absolute necessity for two other things. First, the promises must have a kind of unrestrained generality in order to be suitable to this dispensation that was recounted before. Secondly, they must be proposed to those towards whom the Lord never intended the good things of the promises; they have a share in this proposal only by their mixture in this world with the elect of God. So from the general proposition of Christ in the promises, nothing can be concluded concerning his death for all those to whom it is proposed; it has another reason and occasion.
The sum is this: the word of reconciliation is committed to men unacquainted with God's distinguishing counsels. It is to be preached to men of a varied and mixed condition with regard to his purpose. The way by which he has determined to bring his own home to himself is by exhortations, entreaties, promises, and like means, accommodated to the reasonable nature of which all to whom the word is sent are partakers.
These means are also suited to the accomplishment of other ends towards the rest, such as conviction, restraint, hardening, inexcusableness. It can only be that the proposal and offer must necessarily be made to some upon condition, who intentionally, and with regard to the purpose of God, have no right to it in the just aim and intent of it. To close, observe two things.
First, the proffer itself neither is, nor ever was, absolutely universal to all; it is only indefinite, without respect to outward differences. Secondly, Christ is not to be received without faith, and God gives faith to whom he pleases; it is therefore clear that he never intends Christ for those on whom he will not bestow faith.
10. The Different Acts and Degrees of Faith.
The faith which is enjoined and commanded in the gospel has several diverse acts and different degrees. It proceeds orderly in its exercise according to the natural method by which the objects to be believed are proposed. The consideration of this is very useful in the business in hand.
Our adversaries pretend that if Christ did not die for all, then those for whom he did not die are exhorted in vain to believe. Indeed, there is no proper object for the faith of countless people because Christ did not die for them. It is as though the gospel presented this doctrine at the start, that Christ died for everyone, elect and reprobate; or as though the first thing which anyone living under the means of grace is exhorted to believe is that Christ died for him in particular; both of which are notoriously false, as I hope will be made manifest to all in the close of our undertaking. For the present I will only intimate something of what I said before concerning the order of exercising the several acts of faith. It will become clear that no one in the world is commanded or invited to believe unless he is enjoined to have a sufficient object on which to fix the act of faith, truth enough for its foundation, and latitude enough for its utmost exercise.
First, we cannot save ourselves.
The first thing which the gospel enjoins sinners, and which it persuades and commands them to believe, is that salvation is not to be had in themselves.
For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23). Nor is salvation to be had by the works of the law, by which no living flesh can be justified (Rom 3:20). Here is a saving gospel truth for sinners to believe, which the apostle dwells upon completely in Romans chapters 1-3 preparing a way for justification by Christ. Now, there are countless people to whom the gospel is preached who never come as far as to believe even this! Among these you may count almost the whole nation of the Jews, as is apparent in Rom. 9; 10:3-4. Now, before going any further, a contempt of this object of faith is the sin of infidelity.
Secondly, Salvation is found in the promised seed only.
The gospel requires faith that there is salvation to be had in the promised seed, in Him who was before ordained to be a captain of salvation for those who believe. And here also at this trial of true divine faith, some millions of the great army of men, outwardly called, drop off and never believe that God has provided a way to save sinners.
Thirdly, Jesus was this promised seed, the Savior.
Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified by the Jews, was this Savior who was before promised. There is no other name given under heaven by which men may be saved besides his (Ac 4:12). And this was the main point upon which the Jews broke off, refusing to accept Christ as the Savior of men.
Rather, they prosecuted him as an enemy of God. Thereupon they are so often charged with infidelity and damnable unbelief. The question was not, as between Christ and them, whether he died for them all or not, but whether he was the promised Messiah. They denied that he was, and perished in their unbelief. Now, before these three acts of faith are even performed, the soul is exhorted in vain to climb the uppermost steps [to resolve the extent of the atonement], and miss all the bottom foundation ones [of placing its faith in Christ alone].
Fourthly, the Gospel requires us to rely on Christ as the Redeemer.
Having discovered and believed on Jesus being the promised Redeemer, the gospel requires resting upon this Christ as an all-sufficient Savior. With him there is plenteous redemption. He is able to save to the utmost those who come to God by him, and to bear the burden of all weary laboring souls that come by faith to him. In this proposal there is a certain infallible truth, grounded upon the superabundant sufficiency of the oblation of Christ in itself for whomever it is intended (fewer or more). Now, to exercise this act of faith requires much self-knowledge, much conviction, much sense of sin,
God's justice, and free grace. Good Lord! How many thousand poor souls within the pale of the church can never be brought to it! The truth is, without the help of God's Spirit, none of those three before can be performed, much less this last one. He works freely, when, how, and in whom he pleases (Jn. 3:8).
Fifthly, we must individually believe in the efficacy of Christ's blood.
Once these things are firmly seated in the soul (and not before), every one of us is particularly called to believe the efficacy of the redemption that is in the blood of Jesus with regard to our own particular soul. Every one in whom the free grace of God has worked the former acts of faith may assuredly do this act, for God works this as well. If they should do so, they
may believe without either doubt or fear that they lack a right object in which to believe; for certainly Christ died for every one in whose heart the Lord, by his almighty power, effectually works faith to lay hold on him, and assent to him, according to that orderly proposal presented in the gospel.
Now, according to this order (as it is observed by some) are the articles of our faith, as proposed in the Apostles' Creed (that ancient summary of Christian religion), the remission of our sins, and life eternal, which is the last thing proposed to believe in, For before we can attain anything further, these must be firmly rooted. There is to be an absolute truth in everything to which we are called to assent, and we assent according to the order of the gospel. If Christ did not die for all, it would be senseless and vain to cry out that this object to be believed is a nullity.
And so I have proposed the general foundations of these answers which we will give to the ensuing objections. Making particular application of them will be an easy task, as I hope will be made apparent to all.