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
