doubtful about the grounds of his faith, and but weak in the comfort of it, (which was apparently the condition of those to whom John writes this epistle, and in consideration whereof that very clause we now speak of was added to the former) “Christ is the propitiation for the sins” of the elect, or of some few particular men, must needs rather add to their doubtings than their faith, and augment their fears rather than their comforts; yea, and would take from rather than add to that ground of consolidation, which he had administered in the former clause, “and he is the propitiation for our sins.” For when I am in suspense, and doubtful in my spirit whether Christ died for me, or be a “propitiation for my sins,” or no, how should it any ways tend or conduce to my establishment, for me to know or consider, that Christ died for his elect, or for some particular men, both of Jews and Gentiles, and for some only? Hath not such a doctrine, or consideration as this, fuel in it to increase the burnings of my fears within me, instead of water to quench or allay them? Or can I be ever a whit the more strengthened to believe that Christ died for me, by believing that he died for some particular men? Or must not my fears in this kind, I mean, whether Christ died for me, or no, needs be the more provoked and enraged within me, by considering, that Christ died for some particular men only?
Or doth such an assertion as this, that Christ died for some particular men, though never so substantially proved, though never so effectually believed, any ways enable, or dispose me to believe, that I am one of those particular men for whom he died? Nay, rather must not rumination or feeding upon such a notion, or conception as that, falling in conjunction with the weakness and doubtfulness of my faith, together with the sense and conscience of my many corruptions and infirmities otherwise, of necessity involve and perplex me with so much the more grievous and inextricable fears, that I am none of those particular men, none of those few for whom alone Christ died? Therefore any of those restrained interpretations of “the whole world,” which we have opposed, do most manifestly oppose the plain scope and drift of the Holy Ghost, which was, as hath been proved, the strengthening or encouragement of their faith upon rich and excellent terms; whereas the true interpretation of the words, and that which we plead, hath the fairest and fullest consistence with such an intent, which can lightly be imagined. For the consideration, that Christ by his death became a propitiation, or made a full atonement for the sins of men, without exception, as it tends to magnify “the unsearchable riches” of the grace “of Christ,” on the one hand, and so is proper to strengthen the hand of every man’s faith; so, on the other hand, it throws down every mountain, and fills every valley, removes all obstructions, takes away all impediments, clears all scruples, and so prepares a plain and smooth way for every man to come unto Christ by believing, yea, and cuts off all occasions of relapses, or faintings in faith afterwards.
How it comes to pass, and how it may well stand with the justice of God, that notwithstanding the death of Christ for the sins of all men, yet all men are not saved, shall be taken unto consideration in due time and place.
Concerning the distinction mentioned, of Christ’s dying sufficiently for all men, but not efficaciously or intentionally, on God’s part, as it was first hammered out by workmen of no great credit with us for spiritual building, (the schoolmen, I mean) so is it built upon a false foundation or supposition, as viz. the intentions are attributable unto God upon the same terms in every respect wherein they are competible unto men. The contrary position is that God is, and very properly may be, said to intend, whatsoever he vouchsafeth proper and sufficient means to effect especially with a command to improve or use them accordingly, whether the thing be effected or no.
So that to affirm and grant, that Christ died sufficiently for all men, and yet deny that he died intentionally for all men, is to speak contradictions, and to pull down with the left hand what a man hath built up with his right. Certainly he that levyeth and employeth a proportion of means sufficient and proper for the bringing of any thing to pass, must needs, in one sense or other, in one degree or other; be supposed to intend the bringing to pass such a thing. Nor is it any dishonour at all unto God, nor in the least unworthy of him, that he doth not always attain his ends, or things intended by him, no more than it is that sin should be committed in the world, notwithstanding his opposing it by his authority, law, and threatenings, though in strictness and propriety of speech it is most true, that God never fails of his intentions or ends, if by intentions and ends we mean only such things which are absolutely and positively intended by him.
But in this sense the actual salvation of particular men, under any other consideration than as believers, is none of his intentions. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,” (not simply or absolutely that the world, i.e. every man, no nor yet that any man should be saved, or “have everlasting life,”) but that “whosoever believeth” should have it. So that the absolute and positive intentions of God concerning the salvation of men, are not concerning the salvation simply of men, or of any man as such, but of believers; and of such intentions as these he never faileth, of suffers disappointment.
Besides, if Christ died sufficiently for all men, either God intended this sufficiency of his death for or unto all men or not. If not, then was the glory or sovereign worth of this death of his, besides the intentions of God. God did not intend any such completeness of merit or satisfaction in his death as were in it. But this, I presume, tempteth no man’s thoughts or belief. If, then, God did intend the sufficiency of his death for or unto all men, why may it not be said, that he intended his death itself accordingly? And so, that Christ died intentionally, on God’s part, for all men? The word sufficiently is not terminus diminuens, no term of diminution. Therefore the argument follows roundly: if God intended the sufficiency of Christ’s death for all men, then he intended his death itself for all men; and, consequently, Christ died not sufficiently only, but intentionally also for all men. And so the distinction vanisheth.
1. How can he, who payeth nothing at all for a man, nor intends to pay anything, be notwithstanding said to pay that which is sufficient for him? Suppose a man be in debt, and in danger of imprisonment for it, can a sufficient payment be said to be maid for him, whether any thing at all be paid for him, or in order to the keeping of him from imprisonment or not? When nothing at all is paid for that man that is a great debtor, but that remains as much a debtor and in as great danger as before, can that which is sufficient or enough for him, or for his discharge, be said to be paid for him, unless, haply, it be in a sense very delusory and deriding, in which sense, doubtless, Christ did not pay any ransom for any man? Suppose a man should pay a great sum of money only for the redeeming of John and Peter, being captives, by which money he might if he had pleased have ransomed me also, and a thousand more, being in the same condition of captivity with them. Can this man, by reason of the payment of such a sum as this upon the terms specified, be said to have paid that which is sufficient to ransom me? Or is that sufficient to ransom me, which was only paid for the ransom of another?
2. If there were a sufficiency in the death of Christ for all men, or for the salvation of all men, and God did not intend it for all men, but for a few, a number inconsiderably only, then will the death of Christ be found rather a matter of dishonour or disparagement unto him, than of honour? Suppose a man were possessed of a very great estate in gold, silver, and other the good things of this life, whereby he is able to relieve the necessities of all his neighbours round about him, who are generally poor, and that to such an extremity that without relief from him they must inevitably perish; in case this man should resolve to relieve only two or three of these indigent persons with this his abundance, and rather throw the rest of it into the midst of the sea, than minister unto any more of them, though they be many thousands, and these every whit as necessitous and as well deserving as the other; would not this great estate, in such a case and upon such terms as these, be a blot rather, and reproach, than an honour or matter of repute to this man, and declare him to be of a very unnatural, ignoble, and inhuman spirit?
In like manner, if God shall have satisfaction, merit, and atonement before him, abundantly sufficient to save the whole world from perishing everlastingly, and shall purpose rather to let it be “like water spilt upon the ground, which cannot be gathered up,” than dispose of it towards the salvation of any more than only a small handful of men, comparatively, leaving
