Chapter 2

If Jesus Christ died for all people — that is, purchased and procured for them, according to the mind and will of God, all those things we recounted and that scripture sets forth as the effects and fruits of his death (which may be summed up in the phrase 'eternal redemption') — then he did this, and that according to the purpose of God, either absolutely or upon some condition to be fulfilled by them. If absolutely, then all and every one ought absolutely and infallibly to be made actual partakers of that eternal redemption so purchased. For what should hinder the enjoyment of that by any person which God absolutely intended and Christ absolutely purchased for them? If upon condition, then he either procured this condition for them, or he did not. If he did procure this condition for them — that is, that it should be bestowed on them and worked within them — then he did so either absolutely again or upon a further condition. If absolutely, then we are back where we were before. For to procure anything for another to be conferred on him upon such a condition, and at the same time to procure that condition absolutely to be bestowed on him, is equivalent to procuring the thing itself absolutely. For so we affirm in this very matter: Christ procured salvation for us, to be bestowed conditionally if we believe; but faith itself he has absolutely procured without prescribing any condition. Hence we affirm that the purchasing of salvation for us is equivalent to what it would have been had it been absolutely purchased, in respect of the outcome and issue. So thus also must all be absolutely saved. But if this condition is procured upon a further condition, let that condition be assigned and the same question will be renewed concerning whether its procuring was absolute or conditional. And so the chain never terminates until they fix somewhere, or runs in a circle forever. On the other side: if this condition is not procured by Christ — the condition upon the performance of which all the good things purchased by him are to be actually enjoyed — then first, this condition must be made known to all, as in the second argument. Second, all people are either able of themselves to perform this condition, or they are not. If they are, then since that condition is faith in the promises, as is conceded on all sides, then all people are of themselves, by the power of their own free will, able to believe. This is contrary to scripture, as will by the Lord's help be declared. If they cannot, but this faith must be bestowed on them and worked within them by the free grace of God, then when God gave his Son to die for them and to procure eternal redemption for all upon condition that they believe, he either purposed to work faith in all of them by his grace so that they might believe, or he did not. If he did, then why does he not actually perform it, seeing he is of one mind and who can turn him? Why do not all believe? Why do not all have faith? Or does he fail in his purpose? If he did not purpose to bestow faith on all — or what amounts to the same thing, if he purposed not to bestow faith on all, for the will of God does not consist in a mere negation of anything; what he does not will to be, he wills should not be — then the sum of it comes to this. God gave Christ to die for all people, but upon this condition: that they perform what of themselves they cannot perform, without him; and he purposed for his part not to accomplish it in them. Now if this is not extreme madness — to assign to God a will to do what he himself knows and orders shall never be done, to grant a thing upon a condition which without his help cannot be fulfilled, and which help he purposed not to grant — let all judge. Is this anything but to delude poor creatures? Is it possible that any good at all should arise to anyone from such a purpose, such a giving of a Redeemer? Is it consistent with the goodness of God to intend so great a good as the redemption purchased by Christ, and to pretend he would have it profitable for people, when he knows they can no more fulfill the required condition than Lazarus could of himself come out of the grave? Does it befit the wisdom of God to purpose what he knows shall never be fulfilled? If a man were to promise a thousand pounds to a blind man upon condition that he open his eyes and see — knowing full well that he cannot — would that promise be supposed to come from a heart pitying his poverty, or rather from a mind to mock his misery? If a king were to promise to pay a ransom for the captives in Algiers upon condition that they conquer their tyrants and come away — knowing full well they cannot do so — would this be a kingly act? Or as if a man were to pay a price to redeem captives, but not so that their chains might be taken off, without which they cannot come out of prison? To promise dead men great rewards upon condition that they rise of themselves? Are not these as pointless as the obtaining of salvation for people upon condition that they believe, without obtaining that condition for them? Would this not be assigning to Jesus Christ such a will and purpose as this: 'I will obtain eternal life to be bestowed on people and to become theirs by the application of the benefits of my death, but upon this condition that they believe. Yet as I will not reveal my mind and will in this matter, nor this condition itself, to innumerable of them — so concerning the rest, I know they are in no way able of themselves, any more than Lazarus was to rise or a blind man is to see, to perform the condition I require, without which none of the good things intended for them can ever become theirs. Neither will I procure that condition ever to be fulfilled in them. That is, I will that what shall never be done shall be done — and not only know that it cannot be done, but also that it cannot be done because I will not do what is necessary for its accomplishment.' Now whether such a will and purpose befits the wisdom and goodness of our Savior, let the reader judge. In brief, an intention to do good to anyone upon performance of a condition which the intender knows is absolutely above the strength of the one required to perform it — especially when he knows it can in no way be accomplished without his own concurrence, and he has resolved not to yield that assistance necessary for its actual accomplishment — is a vain, fruitless flourish. That Christ should then obtain from his Father eternal redemption, and the Lord through his Son should intend it for those who shall never be made partakers of it — because they cannot perform, and God and Christ have purposed not to bestow, the condition on which alone it is to be actually made theirs — is unworthy of Christ and unprofitable to those for whom it is obtained. That anything Christ obtained for the sons of men should be so to them is indeed a hard saying. Again: if God through Christ purposes to save all if they believe, because he died for all, and this faith is not purchased by Christ, nor are people able of themselves to believe — how does it come about that any are saved?

God bestows faith on some and not on others. I reply: is this distinguishing grace purchased for those some in comparison with those who are passed by without it? If it is, then Christ did not die equally for all — for he died that some might have faith and not others. Indeed, in comparison, he cannot be said to have died for those other some at all, not dying that they might have faith, without which he knew that all the rest would be unprofitable and fruitless. But if it is not purchased for them by Christ, then those he saved have no more to thank Christ for than those who are damned — which would be strange and contrary to Revelation 1:5: 'To him that has loved us and washed us with his own blood, and has made us kings and priests to God and his Father.' For my part, I consider that Christ has obtained salvation for people not upon condition if they receive it, but so fully and perfectly that they shall certainly receive it. He purchased salvation to be bestowed on those who believe, but also purchased faith that they might believe. Nor can it be objected that according to our doctrine God requires of people what they cannot do — namely, faith to believe in Christ. For, first, commands do not signify what God intends to be done, but what is our duty to do — which may be made known to us whether or not we are able to perform it. A command signifies no intention or purpose of God. Second, for the promises which are proposed together with the command to believe — these do not hold out the intent and purpose of God that Christ should die for us if we do believe (which would be absurd, since the act cannot be the maker of its own object, which must exist before it, and is presupposed to exist before we are asked to believe it). Nor, second, do they hold out the purpose of God that the death of Christ should be profitable to us if we believe — which we refuted above. But third, only that faith is the way to salvation which God has appointed. So that all who do believe shall undoubtedly be saved, faith and salvation being inseparably linked together, as shall be declared.

If all humanity, by the eternal purpose of God, is distinguished into two sorts and conditions — severally and distinctly described and set forth in scripture — and Christ is peculiarly said to die for one of these sorts and nowhere for those of the other, then he did not die for all. For of the one sort he dies for all and every one, and of the other for no one at all. But first, there is such a discriminating distinction among people by the eternal purpose of God as those whom he loves and those whom he hates (Romans 9:11-12); those whom he knows and those whom he does not know (John 10:14: 'I know my sheep'; 2 Timothy 2:19: 'God knows who are his'; Romans 8:29: 'whom he foreknew'; Romans 11:2: 'the people whom he foreknew'); 'I never knew you' (Matthew 7:23); so also John 13:18: 'I speak not of you all; I know whom I have chosen.' Those appointed to life and glory, and those appointed to and fitted for destruction; elect and reprobate; those ordained to eternal life and those long before ordained to condemnation. Ephesians 1:4: 'He has chosen us in him.' Acts 13:48: 'ordained to eternal life.' Romans 8:30: 'Whom he predestined, them he also called; whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified.' So on the other side, 1 Thessalonians 5:9: 'God has not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation' — implying those appointed to wrath. Romans 9:18-21: 'He has mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardens. You will say then to me, Why does he then find fault? For who has resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who are you that reply against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why have you made me thus? Has not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor?' Jude 4: 'ordained to this condemnation.' 2 Peter 2:12: 'made to be taken and destroyed.' Sheep and goats (Matthew 25:32; John 10 throughout); those on whom he has mercy and those whom he hardens (Romans 9); those who are his peculiar people and children according to promise, who are not of the world — his church — and those who in opposition to them are the world, not prayed for, not his people (Titus 2:14; John 17:9-10; John 11:51; Hebrews 2:10-13). This distinction among people is everywhere ascribed to the purpose, will, and good pleasure of God. Proverbs 16:4: 'The Lord has made all things for himself, even the wicked for the day of wrath.' Matthew 11:25-26: 'Father, I thank you that you have hid these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes; even so, O Father, for so it seemed good in your sight.' Romans 9:11-12: 'The children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of him who calls, it was said to her, The elder shall serve the younger.' Romans 9:16-17: 'So then it is not of him that wills nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.' Romans 8:28-30: 'Who are called according to his purpose, for whom he did foreknow, he did also predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified.' So the first part of the proposition is clear from scripture. Now Christ is expressly and pointedly said to die for those on the one side: for his people (Matthew 1:21); his sheep (John 10:11-12, 14); his church (Acts 20:28; Ephesians 5:25); as distinguished from the world (Romans 5:8-9; John 11:51-52); his elect (Romans 8:32, 34); his children (Hebrews 2:12-13) — as set out at greater length before. From this we may surely conclude that Christ did not die for all and every one — that is, not for those he never knew, whom he hates, whom he hardens, on whom he will not show mercy, who were long before ordained to condemnation; in short, not for a reprobate, not for the world, for which he would not pray. The objection that though Christ is said to die for his sheep, for his elect, his chosen, yet he is not said to die for them only — that the word 'only' is nowhere expressed — is of no weight. For is it not, without any forced interpretation, in common sense and according to the ordinary way of speaking, when people are distinguished into two such opposite conditions as elect and reprobate, sheep and goats, and then it is affirmed that he died for his elect — equivalent in meaning to 'he died for his elect only'? Is not the sense as clearly restricted as if that limiting word had been expressly added? Or is that word always added in scripture in every indefinite assertion which yet must of necessity be limited and restricted as if it were expressly added? As where our Savior says, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life' (John 14) — he does not say that he only is so, and yet of necessity it must be so understood. Also in Colossians 1:19: 'It pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell' — he does not express the limitation 'only,' and yet it would be nothing less than blasphemy to suppose a possibility of extending the affirmation to any other. So this objection notwithstanding, this argument is, as far as can be seen, unanswerable. It might further be urged by a more extended treatment of God's purpose of election and reprobation, showing how the death of Christ was a means set apart and appointed for the saving of his elect, and not at all undergone and suffered for those whom in his eternal counsel he determined should perish for their sins and so never be made partakers of the benefits thereof. But of this more must be spoken, if the Lord preserves us and grants assistance for the other part of this controversy concerning the cause of sending Christ.

That is not to be asserted and affirmed which scripture nowhere precedes us in. But scripture nowhere says Christ died for all people, much less for 'all and every person' (between which two there is a wide difference, as will be declared). Therefore this is not to be asserted. It is true, Christ is said to give his life a ransom for all, but nowhere for 'all people.' And because it is expressly affirmed in other places that he died for many, for his church, for those who believe, for the children God gave him, for us, for some of all sorts — though not expressly, yet clearly in equivalent terms (Revelation 5:9-10) — it must be clearly proved that where 'all' is mentioned it cannot be taken to mean all believers, all his elect, his whole church, all the children God gave him, some of all sorts, before a universal affirmative can be concluded from it. If people will but consider the particular passages and restrain themselves until they have done what is required, the controversy will, I am persuaded, be settled.

If Jesus Christ died for all people — that is, purchased and procured for them, according to the mind and will of God, all those things Scripture sets forth as the effects and fruits of His death (which may be summed up as "eternal redemption") — then He did this either absolutely or upon some condition to be fulfilled by them, according to God's purpose. If absolutely, then all and every one ought absolutely and certainly to become actual partakers of that eternal redemption so purchased. What could prevent any person from enjoying what God absolutely intended and Christ absolutely purchased for them? If conditionally, then He either procured this condition for them or He did not. If He did procure the condition for them — that it should be bestowed on them and worked within them — then He did so either absolutely or upon a further condition. If absolutely, then we are back where we started. For to procure something for another to be given to him on a certain condition, while at the same time securing that condition absolutely for him, is equivalent to procuring the thing itself absolutely. This is in fact exactly what we affirm in this very matter: Christ procured salvation for us, to be bestowed conditionally upon believing; but faith itself He procured absolutely, without prescribing any condition. Therefore we affirm that the purchasing of salvation for us, in terms of its outcome, is as certain as if it had been purchased absolutely. So on their view as well, all must be absolutely saved. But if this condition is procured upon a further condition — let that condition be stated, and the same question will arise again: was the procuring of it absolute or conditional? The chain never reaches a stopping point unless they fix it somewhere, or it circles forever. On the other side: if this condition is not procured by Christ — the condition upon performance of which all the good things He purchased are actually to be enjoyed — then first, this condition must be made known to all, as in the second argument. Second, all people are either capable of fulfilling this condition on their own or they are not. If they are, then since that condition is faith in the promises, as all sides agree, all people are by the power of their own free will capable of believing. This contradicts Scripture, as will be shown by the Lord's help. If they are not capable, but faith must be bestowed on them and worked in them by God's free grace — then when God gave His Son to die for them and procure eternal redemption for all on condition that they believe, He either purposed to work faith in all of them by His grace so they might believe, or He did not. If He did, then why does He not actually do it? For He is of one purpose and who can turn Him? Why do not all believe? Why do not all have faith? Or does He fail in His purpose? If He did not purpose to bestow faith on all — or equivalently, if He purposed not to bestow faith on all, for God's will does not consist in a mere negation; what He does not will to be, He wills should not be — then the whole thing amounts to this: God gave Christ to die for all people, but on this condition: that they perform what they cannot perform without Him; and He purposed for His own part not to accomplish it in them. If this is not extreme madness — to assign to God a will to bring about what He Himself knows and has ordained shall never happen; to grant something on a condition which cannot be fulfilled without His help, and which help He purposed not to give — let all judge. Is this anything but to mock poor creatures? Is it possible that any good at all could come to anyone from such a purpose, such a giving of a Redeemer? Is it consistent with God's goodness to intend so great a good as the redemption purchased by Christ, and to pretend He desires it to be profitable for people, when He knows they can no more fulfill the required condition than Lazarus could rise from the grave on his own? Does it befit the wisdom of God to purpose what He knows shall never come to pass? If a man were to promise a blind man a thousand pounds on condition that he open his eyes and see — knowing full well that he cannot — would that promise be supposed to come from a heart that pities his poverty, or rather from a mind that mocks his misery? If a king were to promise to pay a ransom for captives in Algiers on condition that they conquer their captors and come away — knowing full well that they cannot do so — would this be a kingly act? Or as if a man were to pay a price to free captives, but not so that their chains might be removed, without which they cannot leave the prison? Or to promise dead men great rewards on condition that they rise by their own power? Are these not as pointless as obtaining salvation for people on condition that they believe — without obtaining that condition for them? Would this not be assigning to Jesus Christ such a will and purpose as this: "I will obtain eternal life to be bestowed on people and become theirs through the application of the benefits of My death — but on this condition, that they believe. Yet as I will not reveal My mind and will in this matter, nor this condition itself, to countless of them — so concerning the rest, I know they are in no way able of themselves, any more than Lazarus was able to rise or a blind man to see, to fulfill the condition I require. And without fulfilling it, none of the good things intended for them can ever become theirs. Nor will I bring it about that this condition is ever fulfilled in them. That is, I will that what shall never be done shall be done — and not only know that it cannot be done, but also that it cannot be done because I will not do what is necessary for its accomplishment." Whether such a will and purpose befits the wisdom and goodness of our Savior, let the reader judge. In brief: an intention to do good to anyone upon performance of a condition which the intender knows is entirely beyond the strength of the one required to perform it — especially when he knows it cannot be accomplished without his own involvement, and has resolved not to provide the assistance necessary for its accomplishment — is a vain and fruitless display. That Christ should obtain eternal redemption from His Father, and that God through His Son should intend it for those who shall never partake of it — because they cannot fulfill, and God and Christ have purposed not to bestow, the condition on which alone it can actually become theirs — is unworthy of Christ and worthless to those for whom it is obtained. That anything Christ obtained for the sons of men should come to nothing for them is indeed a hard saying. Again: if God through Christ purposes to save all if they believe, because He died for all, and this faith is not purchased by Christ, nor are people capable of believing on their own — how does anyone come to be saved?

God bestows faith on some and not on others. I ask: is this distinguishing grace purchased for those some, as compared to those who are passed by without it? If it is, then Christ did not die equally for all — for He died that some might have faith and not others. Indeed, in comparison He cannot be said to have died for the others at all, since He did not die that they might have faith — without which He knew all the rest would be unprofitable and fruitless. But if this faith is not purchased for the saved by Christ, then those He saved have no more reason to thank Christ than those who are condemned — which would be strange and contrary to Revelation 1:5: "To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood, and has made us a kingdom, priests to His God and Father." For my part, I maintain that Christ obtained salvation for people not conditionally upon their receiving it, but so fully and perfectly that they shall certainly receive it. He purchased salvation to be bestowed on those who believe, but He also purchased faith so that they would believe. Nor can it be objected that on our doctrine God requires of people what they cannot do — namely, faith to believe in Christ. For first, commands do not signify what God intends to happen, but what we are duty bound to do — which may be made known to us whether or not we are able to perform it. A command signifies no intention or purpose of God regarding outcomes. Second, as for the promises set alongside the command to believe — these do not set out the intention and purpose of God that Christ should die for us if we believe. That would be absurd: the act cannot create its own object, which must exist prior to the act, and is presupposed to exist before we are asked to believe it. Nor, second, do they set out God's purpose that Christ's death should be profitable to us if we believe — which we refuted above. But third, they simply declare that faith is the way to salvation that God has appointed. So all who believe will undoubtedly be saved — faith and salvation being inseparably linked, as will be shown.

If all humanity, by the eternal purpose of God, is divided into two distinct groups — each separately and clearly described in Scripture — and Christ is specifically said to die for one of these groups and nowhere for the other, then He did not die for all. For He dies for every single person in the one group, and for no one at all in the other. There is indeed such a distinguishing division among people by God's eternal purpose: those He loves and those He hates (Romans 9:11-12); those He knows and those He does not know (John 10:14: 'I know My sheep'; 2 Timothy 2:19: 'God knows who are His'; Romans 8:29: 'whom He foreknew'; Romans 11:2: 'the people whom He foreknew'); 'I never knew you' (Matthew 7:23); and John 13:18: 'I do not speak of all of you; I know whom I have chosen.' Those appointed to life and glory, and those appointed to and fitted for destruction; elect and reprobate; those ordained to eternal life and those long foreordained to condemnation. Ephesians 1:4: 'He chose us in Him.' Acts 13:48: 'ordained to eternal life.' Romans 8:30: 'Whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.' On the other side, 1 Thessalonians 5:9: 'God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation' — which implies that others are destined for wrath. Romans 9:18-21: 'He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?' Jude 4: 'ordained to this condemnation.' 2 Peter 2:12: 'born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed.' Sheep and goats (Matthew 25:32; John 10 throughout); those on whom He has mercy and those whom He hardens (Romans 9); those who are His special people and children according to promise, who are not of the world — His church — and those who in contrast are the world, not prayed for, not His people (Titus 2:14; John 17:9-10; John 11:51; Hebrews 2:10-13). This distinction among people is everywhere traced back to the purpose, will, and good pleasure of God. Proverbs 16:4: 'The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil.' Matthew 11:25-26: 'I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight.' Romans 9:11-12: 'For though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger."' Romans 9:16-17: 'So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth."' Romans 8:28-30: 'And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers; and those whom He predestined, He also called; and those whom He called, He also justified; and those whom He justified, He also glorified.' So the first part of the argument is clearly established from Scripture. Now Christ is specifically and plainly said to die for those on the one side: for His people (Matthew 1:21); His sheep (John 10:11-12, 14); His church (Acts 20:28; Ephesians 5:25); as distinguished from the world (Romans 5:8-9; John 11:51-52); His elect (Romans 8:32, 34); His children (Hebrews 2:12-13) — as laid out at greater length earlier. We may therefore confidently conclude that Christ did not die for all and every person — that is, not for those He never knew, whom He hates, whom He hardens, on whom He will not show mercy, who were long before ordained to condemnation; in short, not for the reprobate, not for the world, for which He would not pray. The objection that though Christ is said to die for His sheep, His elect, His chosen — He is not said to die for them only, since the word 'only' is nowhere expressed — carries no weight. For when people are divided into two such opposite categories as elect and reprobate, sheep and goats, and it is then affirmed that He died for His elect, is that not plainly equivalent in meaning to 'He died for His elect only'? Is not the sense just as clearly restricted as if that limiting word had been explicitly added? Does Scripture always add that word in every statement which must necessarily be understood as limited and restricted? When our Savior says, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life' (John 14) — He does not say He alone is so, yet that is necessarily how it must be understood. Similarly in Colossians 1:19: 'It was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him' — He does not add the word 'only,' yet it would be nothing less than blasphemy to imagine extending that affirmation to anyone else. So despite this objection, this argument remains, as far as can be seen, unanswerable. This point could be pressed further by a more extended treatment of God's purpose of election and reprobation, showing how the death of Christ was a means set apart and appointed for saving His elect, and was never undergone or suffered for those whom in His eternal counsel He determined should perish for their sins and so never share in its benefits. But more must be said on this subject, if the Lord preserves us and grants help for the other part of this controversy concerning the reason for Christ's sending.

We should not assert and affirm what Scripture itself nowhere states first. But Scripture nowhere says Christ died for all people, much less for 'all and every person' — between which two there is a significant difference, as will be explained. Therefore this should not be asserted. It is true that Christ is said to give His life as a ransom for all, but nowhere for 'all people.' And because it is expressly stated in other places that He died for many, for His church, for those who believe, for the children God gave Him, for us, for some of all kinds — though not in those exact words, yet clearly in equivalent terms (Revelation 5:9-10) — it must be clearly proved that where 'all' is mentioned it cannot mean all believers, all His elect, His whole church, all the children God gave Him, or some of all kinds, before a universal conclusion can be drawn from it. If people will simply examine the particular passages carefully and hold back until they have done what is required, I am persuaded the controversy will be settled.