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 innumerable souls to perish irrecoverably, and without 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