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 consequently would be in no capacity of living from themselves to live unto him.
The 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