limited sense, was the author’s sense in the words now under debate. And when the Holy Ghost expresseth himself, as we have heard, “That he, through the grace of God, should taste death for every man;” for any man to come and interpret thus, for every man, i. e. for some men, or for a few men, which, if not for form, yet for matter and substance must be their interpretation who oppose the exposition given, is not to interpret, but to correct, and to exercise a magisterial authority over the Scriptures.
Nor had Pareus himself the heart to decline the interpretation asserted, though he seems somewhat desirous by some expressions, to hide this his ingenuity from his fellows, to avoid their offence, “Whereas,” saith he, the author “saith, for every man, it respects the amplification, or extent, of the death of Christ. He died not for some few; the efficacy, or virtue, of it appertains unto ALL. Therefore there is life prepared,” (or made ready) “in the death of Christ, for ALL afflicted consciences,” &c. The truth is, that there can he no solid ground of peace or comfort to any afflicted conscience whatsoever, without the supposal of Christ’s death for every man, without exception, as hath been argued in part in Chapter 1, and might be further evicted above all contradiction.
Amongst the orthodox fathers, Chrysostom, who, as we heard, avouched the exposition given of the former Scripture, stands by his own judgment and mine, in his explication of this. “That he, through the grace of God, should taste death for every man; not only,” saith he, “for the faithful, or those that believe, but for all the world. He indeed died for ALL men. For what if all men do not believe? yet he hath done his part,” or fully performed that which was proper for him to do.
The Scripture next advancing in the fore-mentioned troop was, “Who will have all men to be saved,” (speaking of God) “and to come unto the knowledge of the truth,” 1 Tim. ii. 4. Whereunto (for conformity in import) we shall join the last there specified, which is this: “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise as some men count slackness; but is long suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” 2 Pet. iii. 9. Concerning the former of these places, we clearly evinced, earlier in this chapter, from the unquestionable tenor and carriage of the whole context, that by “all men,” cannot possibly be understood, either some of all sorts of men, or Jews and Gentiles, or all the elect, or the like; but of necessity, all of all sorts of men, simply and universally, without the exception of any, whether Jews or Gentiles. Any other interpretation or sense of the words, pantas anthrōpous, all men (1 Tim. 2:4), but this, renders the apostle palpably impertinent and weak (that I say not ridiculous) in his arguing in this place.
This I plainly demonstrate in the place above cited: I now add, that if it be said that God will have all men to be saved, because he will have some of all sorts of men to he saved; it may more properly and truly be said of him, that he will have all men to be destroyed, at least in their sense, who hold an irreversible reprobation of persons personally considered, from eternity, because not simply some, but a very great part of all sorts of men, now extant in the world, will in time perish, and that according to the decree or will of God; the tenor whereof is, that all persons dying in impenitency and unbelief shall perish. Yet the Scriptures do no where say upon any such account as this, either in terminis, or in substance, that God will have all men to perish, and not to come to the knowledge of the truth. Which is somewhat more than a topic argument, that God is not therefore said to will that all men should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, only because he will have some, some few of all sorts of men to be saved, and come to this knowledge: but simply because his will is to have all men, without exception, (viz., as they are men, and whilst they are yet capable of repentance) to be saved, and in order thereunto to come to the knowledge of the saving truth, i.e. the gospel.
Nor doth it follow, that the will of God is changeable, in case he should will the same man as this day to be saved, and so on the morrow to perish, but only that such a man is changeable, as we shall further show, God willing, in due time. Now then, if it be the will of God to have all men, without exception, saved, &c., most certain it is that Christ died, and intentionally on God’s part, for all men, without exception. That because it is not imaginable that God should be willing to have those saved for whom he was unwilling that salvation should be procured.
The latter of the two Scriptures lately brought upon the theatre of our present discourse, acts the same part with the former. There it is said of the Lord (Christ) that he is not “willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” If so, then certainly there neither was, nor is, nor ever shall be any, for whom Christ was not willing, did not intend, to die, and to purchase repentance. So that his death was intentionally for all men, as well in respect of himself, as of God the Father. Besides those slimy evasions and shifts of making bondmen of Christ’s freemen, I mean of an arbitrary and importunate confining the expressions importing a simple and absolute universality, in such Scriptures as these, to petty universalities, as of the elect, of species, sorts, or kinds of men, &c., (the nakedness whereof hath been detected over and over) our adversaries in the cause in hand are wont to take sanctuary from such Scriptures as the two now in debate, under the wing of this distinction. “It is true,” say they, “God wills that all men should be saved, and so that all should come to repentance, voluntate signi, with his signified or revealed will; but this doth not prove but that voluntate beneplaciti, with the will of his pleasure, or purpose, he may be willing that many, even far the greatest part of men, should perish.” But to show the vanity, or at least the impertinency of this distinction to the business in hand:
1. I would demand of those who lean upon the broken reed of this distinction, in opposition to the clear and distinct sense given of the two Scriptures last mentioned, what they mean by their voluntas signi, the signified or revealed will of God. And wherein doth the opposition or difference lieth between this and that other will of God, which they term the will of his good pleasure or purpose? If by his signified or revealed will, they mean only the precepts or commandments of God concerning such and such duties, which God would have practised and done by men, (which is all the account that some of the greatest opposers in the point in hand give of it) I do not understand how, or in what respect, God can be said to will the salvation of all men, and that none should perish. For,
(a.) Salvation actively taken, is an act of God himself, not of men; and consequently cannot be said to be a duty enjoined by him unto men, and therefore not to be willed neither by him, by way of precept or command.
(b.) Salvation, passively taken, is not an act, but a state or condition; and consequently is no matter of duty; and so cannot be said to be willed by God in such a sense.
If by the signified or revealed will of God, in the distinction now under canvass, be meant the declaration which he hath made in his word concerning the final or eventual salvation or condemnation of men, evident it is, that neither in this sense can be said to will the salvation of all men; because he hath declared and signified unto the world that few comparatively will or shall in time be saved.
If it be pleaded, that in this sense God may be said to will the salvation of all men with his signified or revealed will, because he enjoins faith and repentance unto all men, which are the means of salvation; and he that enjoins the means, may, in a consequential way, be said to enjoin the end in the same injunction, I answer,
If God enjoins faith and repentance unto all men, it argues that he preacheth the gospel unto all men; and consequently, that they who have not the letter of the gospel preached unto them by books or men, as many heathen nations have not at this day, yet have the spirit, substance, and effect of the gospel preached to them otherwise, as, viz. by God’s creation and gracious government of the world, which is, as I have shown elsewhere,2 purely evangelical and corresponding with the Scriptures. But how this will stand with our adversaries’ judgment in the case depending, I understand not.
2. It is the sense of one of the greatest patrons of the adverse cause,
