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
