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 in the sight of God” that we should pray for all men, without exception, because his will is to have all men, without exception, 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