mercy; would not this abundance of merit and satisfaction, upon such an account as this, be, in the eyes of all considerate men, an obscuring veil over the mercy, love, goodness, and bounty of God, and occasion the creature to judge of him, as a God rather envying than desiring the peace and welfare of men?
And if God so deeply abhorred the fact of Onan, “in spilling the seed upon the ground, lest he should give seed unto his (deceased) brother,” that he slew him for it, Gen. xxxviii. 9, 10, how dare men present him so near unto communion in such a fact, as the spilling, interverting, or non-consigning of the far greater part of the merit of the death of Christ unto men, lest they should be saved, would render him?
3. If Christ died sufficiently for all men, and not intentionally, as, viz. not for reprobates, so called, then he died as much for the devils themselves as he did for the greatest part of men. Because his death, in respect of the intrinsical value and worth of it, was sufficient to have redeemed the devils as well as men. Yea, if the sufficiency of the price paid by Christ, be a sufficient ground to bear such a saying as this, that he died sufficiently for all men, he may be said to have died, not only for reprobates as reprobates, and so for unbelievers as unbelievers, (viz. sufficiently) but for the devils also, quatenus devils: inasmuch as there is no defect imaginable in the price we speak of, in respect of the absolute and inherent dignity, value, or worth of it, but that all these, even under the considerations mentioned, might have been redeemed by it as well as the elect. But that Christ died for reprobates as reprobates, and for devils as devils, in one sense or other, were never yet, I conceive, the sayings or thoughts of any man, nor, I suppose, ever will be; certain I am, cannot reasonable be.
4. Lastly, as yet there hath no sufficient ground been shown, either from the Scriptures, or from principles of reason, for the distinction under contest, nor I believe, ever will be, or can be. Therefore they who distinguish between Christ’s dying for all men, sufficiently and intentionally, opposing the one to the other, affirming the former, and denying the latter, do not only go about to set lambs together by the ears, which will not fight, but also speak things most unworthy of God, and which render him a far greater deluder or derider of his poor creature, man, than a benefactor or well-willer to him, in all his declarations and professions of love unto him, in the gift of his Son Jesus Christ to make his atonement, and procure redemption for him.
Upon consultation had with the premises, with other considerations, haply, of like import, some of the greatest and most learned opposers of universal redemption, Piscator and Beza by name, have stigmatized the aforesaid distinction, (at least that member of it wherein Christ is said to have died sufficiently for all men) as harsh, barbarous, homonymous; yea, the former of the two as absolutely false. “That expression,” saith Beza, “Christ died for the sins of all men, sufficiently, but not efficaciously, though in a rectified sense it be true, yet is it extremely harsh, and no less ambiguous than barbarous. For the particle for imports either the counsel of the Father, according to which Christ suffered, or else the effect itself of his sufferings, or rather both; whereas neither of them belong to any but the elect.”8 Piscator to his antagonist, thus: “The proposition laid down is false, viz. that Christ died sufficiently for every particular or single man; this is thy assertion. For Christ died most sufficiently for the elect, paying the price of their redemption, I mean his precious blood, that blood of the Son of God. But for reprobates Christ died neither in one kind nor other, neither sufficiently nor efficaciously.”9
1. Calv. in Joh. iii. 17. (Unless indicated otherwise, quotes from Calvin are from his multi-volume commentary series on the Bible.—Editor)
2. Calv. in Joh. iii. 15, 16.
3. Gualter. Homil. 20, in Johan.
4. Musc. loc. de Philanthropia Dei; Idem. Loc., de Redempt. Gen. Humani.
5. Syn. Dord. Sentent. Theol. Mag. Brit. de artic.ii thes. 3.
6. Aug. in Johan. tractat. 12.
7. Chrys. Homil. xxvii in Johan.
8. Beza ad Acta Coloq. Monpelg. part ii. p. 217.
9. Pisc. contra Schaffman, p. 123.
Wherein several texts of the second sort of Scriptures propounded in Chap. I, as holding forth the Universality of Redemption by Christ, are discussed.
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
