Chapter 1

A second thing to be considered is the economy or administration of the new covenant in the times of the gospel, with the breadth and enlargement of the kingdom and dominion of Christ after his appearance in the flesh. By this, all external differences having been removed, the distinction of Gentiles taken away, the dividing wall broken down, the promise to Abraham that he should be heir of the world as he was the father of the faithful was now fully to be accomplished. Now this administration is so opposed to that dispensation which was restricted to one people and family who were God's peculiar people — all the rest of the world being excluded — that it gives rise to many general expressions in scripture. These are far from comprehending a universality of all individuals, but denote only the removal of all such restricting qualifications as were previously in force. So consideration of the end for which these general expressions are used — and what they aim at — will clearly show their nature, and how they are to be understood, and who those are intended and comprised in them. For it being only this enlargement of the visible kingdom of Christ to all nations in respect of right — and to many in respect of fact, God having elect in all those nations to be brought forth in the several generations in which the means of grace are employed in those places — it is evident that these expressions import only a distribution of people through all differences whatsoever, and not a universal collection of all and every one. The thing intended by them requires the one and not the other. Hence those objections raised against the particular nature of the ransom of Christ and its restriction only to the elect — drawn from the terms 'all,' 'all people,' 'all nations,' 'the world,' 'the whole world,' and the like — are all exceedingly weak and invalid. They wrest the general expressions of scripture beyond their aim and intent. They are used by the Holy Spirit only to evidence the removal of all personal and national distinction, the breaking of all the narrow bounds of the old testament, the enlarging of the kingdom of Christ beyond the borders of Judea and Jerusalem, the abolishing of all old restrictions, and the opening of a way for the elect among all peoples — called 'the fullness of the Gentiles' — to come in. There being now 'neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all' (Colossians 3:11). Hence the Lord promises to 'pour out his Spirit on all flesh' (Joel 2:28), which Peter interprets as accomplished by the filling of the apostles with the gifts of the Spirit, enabling them to preach to several nations (Acts 2:17). 'Having received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations' (Romans 1:5) — not the Jews only, but some among all nations. The gospel being 'the power of God to salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek' (verse 16) — intending only, as to salvation, the particular people bought by Christ, whom he redeemed out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation (Revelation 5:9), where an evident distribution is given of what in other places is set down in general terms. The gospel being commanded to be preached to all these nations (Matthew 28:19), that those redeemed ones among them all might be brought home to God (John 11:52). This is what the apostle sets forth at length in Ephesians 2:14-17. Now in this sense — which we have explained — and no other, are those many passages to be taken which are usually urged for universal grace and redemption, as will afterward be declared in particular.

Third, an exact distinction must be made between human duty and God's purpose, there being no connection between them. The purpose and decree of God is not the rule of our duty, nor is the performance of our duty in doing what we are commanded any declaration of what God purposes to do or has decreed that it shall be done. This is especially to be seen and considered in the duty of the ministers of the gospel in dispensing the Word — in exhortations, invitations, precepts, and warnings committed to them. All of these are perpetual declarations of our duty and manifest the approbation of the thing exhorted and invited to, along with the truth of the connection between one thing and another. But they are not declarations of the counsel and purpose of God in respect of individual persons in the ministry of the Word. A minister is not to inquire after, nor to trouble himself about, those secrets of the eternal mind of God — namely, whom he purposes to save and for whom in particular he sent Christ to die. It is enough for them to search his revealed will and take their directions from there, from which they have their commission. Therefore there is no sequence from the universal precepts of the Word concerning things to God's purpose in himself concerning persons. They command and invite all to repent and believe, but they do not know in particular on whom God will bestow repentance to salvation, nor in whom he will effect the work of faith with power. When they make offers and tenders in the name of God to all, they do not say to all: it is the purpose and intention of God that you should believe. Who gave them any such authority? Rather, they declare that it is his command, which makes it the duty of those addressed. They do not declare his mind as to what he himself in particular will do. The external offer is such that from it every person may conclude their own duty — no one can conclude God's purpose, which yet may be known upon the performance of that duty. Their objection is then vain who affirm that God has given Christ for all to whom he offers Christ in the preaching of the gospel. For his offer in the preaching of the gospel is not declarative to any in particular — neither of what God has done nor of what he will do in reference to that person — but of what that person ought to do, if he would be approved of God and obtain the good things promised. From this it will follow: first, that God always intends to save some among those to whom he sends the gospel in its power. The ministers of it, being first, unacquainted with his particular purpose; second, bound to seek the good of all and every one as much as in them lies; third, to hope and judge well of all, even as it is fitting for them — they may make an offer of Jesus Christ with life and salvation in him, notwithstanding that the Lord has given his Son only to his elect.

Now the infinite value and worth we assert to be in the death of Christ is exceedingly undervalued by the assertors of universal redemption. That it should be extended to this or that object, fewer or more, is external to it, as we showed before. But its true worth consists in the immediate effects, products, and issues of it — with what in its own nature it is fit and able to do. And these they openly and apparently undervalue, indeed almost annihilate.

First, that by it a door of grace was opened for sinners — they know not where — but that any were effectually carried in at the door by it, they deny. Second, that God might, if he would and upon whatever condition he pleased, save those for whom Christ died — but that a right of salvation was purchased by him for any, they deny. Hence they grant: first, that after the death of Christ, God might have dealt with humanity again on a legal condition; second, that all and every man might have been damned, and yet the death of Christ have had its full effect. They also grant that faith and sanctification are not purchased by his death — indeed, no more is procured for any than what he may go to hell with. And in various other ways do they express their low thoughts and slight imaginations concerning the innate value and sufficiency of the death and blood-shedding of Jesus Christ. To the honor then of Jesus Christ our mediator, God and man, our all-sufficient Redeemer, we affirm: such and so great was the dignity and worth of his death and blood-shedding, of so precious a value, of such an infinite fullness and sufficiency was this offering of himself, that it was in every way able and perfectly sufficient to redeem, justify, reconcile, and save all the sinners in the world, and to satisfy the justice of God for all the sins of all mankind, and to bring them every one to everlasting glory. Now this fullness and sufficiency of the merit of the death of Christ is a foundation for two things.

First, the general publishing of the gospel to all nations with the right it has to be preached to every creature (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16). Because the way of salvation which it declares is wide enough for all to walk in. There is enough in the remedy it brings to light to heal all their diseases and to deliver them from all their evils. If there were a thousand worlds, the gospel of Christ might on this ground be preached to them all, there being enough in Christ for the salvation of them all, if they will derive virtue from him by touching him in faith — the only way to draw refreshment from this fountain of salvation. It is then altogether vain which some object: that the preaching of the gospel to all is needless and useless if Christ did not die for all, and that it is to make God call upon men to believe what is not true — namely, that Christ died for them. For first, besides that among those nations to which the gospel is sent there are some to be saved ('I have many people there') who cannot be saved in the way God has appointed unless the gospel is preached to others as well as themselves. And besides second, that the economy and administration of the new covenant — by which all external differences and privileges of peoples, tongues, and nations were abolished and taken away — required the word of grace to be preached without distinction, and all men everywhere called to repent. And besides third, that when God calls upon men to believe, he does not in the first place call upon them to believe that Christ died for them, but that there is no name under heaven given to men whereby they may be saved, but only Jesus Christ, through whom salvation is preached. This one thing of which we speak — the sufficiency we have described — is a sufficient basis and ground for all those general precepts of preaching the gospel to all men.

Second, the preachers of the gospel in their particular congregations, being utterly unacquainted with the purpose and secret counsel of God, and also forbidden to pry or search into it (Deuteronomy 29), may from this ground justifiably call upon every man to believe, with assurance of salvation to every one in particular upon so doing. They know and are fully persuaded of this: that there is enough in the death of Christ to save every one who shall so do. They leave the purpose and counsel of God — on whom he will bestow faith and for whom in particular Christ died, as they are commanded — to himself.

And this is one principal thing which, being well observed, will crush many of the vain boasts of our adversaries, as will in particular afterward appear.

A second thing to be considered is the economy or administration of the new covenant in the times of the gospel, with the breadth and enlargement of the kingdom and dominion of Christ after his appearance in the flesh. By this, all external differences having been removed, the distinction of Gentiles taken away, the dividing wall broken down, the promise to Abraham that he should be heir of the world as he was the father of the faithful was now fully to be accomplished. Now this administration is so opposed to that dispensation which was restricted to one people and family who were God's peculiar people — all the rest of the world being excluded — that it gives occasion to many general expressions in scripture. These are far from comprehending a universality of all individuals, but denote only the removal of all such restricting qualifications as were previously in force. So a consideration of the end for which these general expressions are used — and what they aim at — will clearly show their nature, and how they are to be understood, and who those are intended and comprised in them. For it being only this enlargement of the visible kingdom of Christ to all nations in respect of right — and to many in respect of fact, God having elect in all those nations to be brought forth in the several generations in which the means of grace are employed in those places — it is evident that these expressions import only a distribution of men through all differences whatsoever, and not a universal collection of all and every one. The thing intended by them requires the one and not the other. Hence those objections raised against the particular nature of the ransom of Christ and its restriction only to the elect — drawn from the terms 'all,' 'all men,' 'all nations,' 'the world,' 'the whole world,' and the like — are all exceedingly weak and invalid. They wrest the general expressions of scripture beyond their aim and intent. They are used by the Holy Spirit only to evidence the removal of all personal and national distinction, the breaking of all the narrow bounds of the old covenant, the enlarging of the kingdom of Christ beyond the borders of Judea and Jerusalem, the abolishing of all old restrictions, and the opening of a way for the elect among all peoples — called 'the fullness of the Gentiles' — to come in. There being now 'neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, but Christ is all and in all' (Colossians 3:11). Hence the Lord promises to 'pour out his Spirit on all flesh' (Joel 2:28), which Peter interprets as accomplished by the filling of the apostles with the gifts of the Spirit, that they might be enabled to preach to several nations (Acts 2:17). 'Having received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations' (Romans 1:5) — not the Jews only, but some among all nations. The gospel being 'the power of God to salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek' (verse 16) — intending only, as to salvation, the peculiar people bought by Christ, whom he redeemed out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation (Revelation 5:9), where an evident distribution is given of what in other places is generally stated. The gospel being commanded to be preached to all these nations (Matthew 28:19), that those bought and redeemed ones among them all might be brought home to God (John 11:52). This is what the apostle sets forth at length in Ephesians 2:14-17. Now in this sense — which we have explained — and no other, are those many passages to be taken which are usually urged for universal grace and redemption, as will afterward be declared in particular.

Third, we must exactly distinguish between human duty and God's purpose, there being no connection between them. The purpose and decree of God is not the rule of our duty, nor is the performance of our duty in doing what we are commanded any declaration of what is God's purpose to do or his decree that it should be done. This is especially to be seen and considered in the duty of the ministers of the gospel in dispensing the word — in exhortations, invitations, precepts, and warnings committed to them. All of these are perpetual declarations of our duty and manifest the approval of the thing exhorted and invited to, along with the truth of the connection between one thing and another. But they are not declarations of the counsel and purpose of God in respect of individual persons in the ministry of the word. A minister is not to inquire after, nor to trouble himself about, those secrets of the eternal mind of God — namely, whom he purposes to save and for whom in particular he sent Christ to die. It is enough for them to search his revealed will and take their directions from there, from which they have their commission. Therefore there is no inference from the universal precepts of the word concerning things to God's purpose in himself concerning persons. They command and invite all to repent and believe, but they know not in particular on whom God will bestow repentance to salvation, nor in whom he will effect the work of faith with power. And when they make offers and tenders in the name of God to all, they do not say to all: it is the purpose and intention of God that you should believe. Who gave them any such authority? Rather, they declare that it is his command, which makes it their duty to do what is required of them. They do not declare his mind as to what he himself in particular will do. The external offer is such that from it every man may conclude his own duty — none can conclude God's purpose, which yet may be known upon performance of that duty. Their objection then is vain who affirm that God has given Christ for all to whom he offers Christ in the preaching of the gospel. For his offer in the preaching of the gospel is not declarative to any in particular — neither of what God has done nor of what he will do in reference to that person — but of what that person ought to do, if he would be approved of God and obtain the good things promised.

From this it will follow: first, that God always intends to save some among those to whom he sends the gospel in its power. The ministers of it, being first, unacquainted with his particular purpose; second, bound to seek the good of all and every one as much as in them lies; third, to hope and judge well of all, even as it is fitting for them — they may make an offer of Jesus Christ with life and salvation in him, notwithstanding that the Lord has given his Son only to his elect.

Second, that this offer is neither vain nor fruitless, being declarative of their duty and of what is acceptable to God if it be performed as it ought to be, even as it is required. And if any ask what it is of the mind and will of God that is declared and made known when men are commanded to believe for whom Christ did not die — I answer: first, what they ought to do if they will do that which is acceptable to God. Second, the sufficiency of salvation that is in Jesus Christ to all who believe on him. Third, the certain, infallible, inviolable connection between faith and salvation — so that whoever performs the one shall surely enjoy the other. For whoever comes to Christ, he will in no way cast out — of which more afterward.

Fourth, the ingrained erroneous persuasion of the Jews — which for a while had a strong influence upon the apostles themselves — restricting salvation and deliverance by the Messiah, or promised seed, to themselves alone, who were the offspring of Abraham according to the flesh, must be considered as the ground of many general expressions and enlargements of the objects of redemption. These expressions, being so occasioned, give no appearance of any unlimited universality. That the Jews were generally infected with this proud opinion — that all the promises belonged only to them and theirs — is most apparent. Hence, when they saw the multitude of the Gentiles coming to the preaching of Paul, they were filled with envy, contradicting, blaspheming, and stirring up persecution against them (Acts 13:45, 50). Which the apostle again relates of them in 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16: 'They please not God and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved.' That the apostles themselves had also deeply drunk in this opinion, learned by tradition from their fathers, appears not only in their questioning about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6), but most evidently in this: that after they had received a commission to teach and baptize all nations (Matthew 28:19-20) or every creature (Mark 16), and were endued with power from above to do so, they seem to have understood their commission to extend only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. For they went about and preached only to the Jews (Acts 11:19). And when the contrary was evidenced and demonstrated to them, they glorified God, saying, 'Then has God also to the Gentiles granted repentance to life!' (Acts 11:18) — marveling at it as something before unknown to them. And no wonder that men were not easily or soon persuaded of this, it being the great mystery that was not made known in other ages as it was then revealed to God's holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit — namely, that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs of the same body and partakers of his promises in Christ by the gospel (Ephesians 3:5-6). But now, this being made known to them by the Spirit, and the time having come for the little sister to be considered, the prodigal to be brought home, and Japheth to be persuaded to dwell in the tents of Shem, they labored by all means to root out the old error from the minds of their brethren according to the flesh, of whom they had a special care. They also sought to leave no doubt in the mind of the eunuch that he was a dry tree, or of the Gentile that he was cut off from the people of God. To this end they used various general expressions carrying a direct opposition to that former error which was absolutely destructive to the kingdom of Jesus Christ. Hence are those terms 'the world,' 'all men,' 'all nations,' 'every creature,' and the like, used in the business of redemption and the preaching of the gospel — these things being not restricted, as they supposed, to one certain nation and family, but extended to the universality of God's people scattered abroad in every region under heaven. These expressions are especially used by John, who living to see the first coming of the Lord in that fearful judgment and vengeance he executed upon the Jewish nation some forty years after his death, is very frequent in asserting the benefit of the world by Christ, in opposition as I said before to the Jewish nation. He gives us a rule for understanding such phrases: 'He signified that Jesus should die for that nation, and not for that nation only, but that he should also gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad' (John 11:51-52). Conformable to this he tells the believing Jews that Christ is not a propitiation for their sins only, but for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2) — that is, the people of God scattered throughout the whole world, not tied to any one nation, as they once vainly imagined. This gives much light into the meaning of those places where the words 'world' and 'all' are used in the business of redemption. They do not denote a collective universality, but a general distribution into men of all sorts, in opposition to the erroneous persuasion described above.

Fifth, the extent, nature, and signification of those general terms which are frequently used indefinitely in scripture to describe the object of the redemption by Christ must be seriously weighed. Upon these expressions hangs the whole weight of the opposing cause. The chief — if not the only — argument for the universality of redemption is taken from words which seem to have a breadth in their meaning equal to such an assertion: 'the world,' 'the whole world,' 'all,' and the like. Once they have fastened upon these terms, they cry triumph as though the victory were surely theirs: 'The world, the whole world, all, all men — who can oppose it?' Call them to the context of the several places where the words are, appeal to rules of interpretation, remind them of the circumstances and scope of the passage, the sense of the same words in other places, and the other guides the Lord has given us for discovering his mind in his word — and they immediately cry out that the bare word and the letter are theirs, away with gloss and interpretation, give them leave to believe what the word expressly says. Little do they imagine, being deluded by the love of their own opinion, that if this assertion is general and they will not allow us interpretation agreeable to the analogy of faith, they at one stroke confirm the cursed madness of the Anthropomorphites — assigning a human body, form, and shape to God who has none — and the equally cursed fiction of transubstantiation, along with various other most pernicious errors. Let them then continue such empty clamors as long as they please. For the truth's sake we will not be silent, and we hope to make it very easily apparent that the general terms used in this business will give no support to any argument for universal redemption, whether absolute or conditional.

Two words are mightily seized upon: first, 'the world'; second, 'all.' The particular passages in which they appear, and from which the arguments of our adversaries are urged, we will consider afterward. For the present we only show that the words themselves, according to scriptural usage, do not necessarily carry any collective universality regarding those of whom they are affirmed. Being words of various meanings, they must be interpreted according to the scope of the passage where they are used and the subject matter the scripture treats in those places.

First then, for the word 'world' — which in the New Testament is a term of highly varied meanings, as any acquainted with the scriptures well knows — I will briefly give you enough distinct usages to make plain that from the bare use of a word so exceedingly ambiguous, no argument can be drawn until it is distinguished and its meaning in that particular passage determined.

The word 'world' may be taken: subjectively, for the physical creation or the habitable earth; collectively, for all people, for many, or for specific groups (good or evil); or as denoting worldly corruption or a worldly condition.

All these distinctions of the usage of the word are made out in the following observations.

The word 'world' in scripture is in general taken four ways. First, for the world as container — generally for the whole fabric of heaven and earth with all things in them contained, which God created in the beginning (Job 34:13; Acts 17:24; Ephesians 1:4); and distinctly, first for the heavens and all things belonging to them distinguished from the earth (Psalm 90:2), and second for the habitable earth, very frequently (Psalm 24:1; Psalm 98:7; Matthew 13:38; John 1:9; John 3:17, 19; John 6:14; John 17:11; 1 Timothy 1:15; 1 Timothy 6:7).

Second, for the world as contained — especially men in the world — and that either universally for all and every one (Romans 3:6; 3:19; 5:12), or indefinitely for men without restriction or enlargement (John 7:4; Isaiah 13:11), or for many which is the most usual meaning (Matthew 18:7; John 4:42; John 12:19; John 16:8; John 17:21; 1 Corinthians 4:9; Revelation 13:3), or comparatively for a great part of the world (Romans 1:8; Matthew 24:14; 26:13; Romans 10:18), or restrictively for the inhabitants of the Roman Empire (Luke 2:1), or for men distinguished in their several conditions: first for the good, God's people either by designation or possession (Psalm 22:27; John 3:16; John 6:36, 51; Romans 4:13; 11:12, 15; 2 Corinthians 5:19; Colossians 1:6; 1 John 2:2), and second for the evil — wicked, rejected men of the world (Isaiah 13:11; John 7:7; John 14:17, 22; John 15:19; John 17:25; 1 Corinthians 6:2; 1 Corinthians 11:32; Hebrews 9:11; Hebrews 11:38; 2 Peter 2:5; 1 John 5:19; Revelation 13:3).

Third, for the world as corrupted — or that universal corruption which is in all things in it (Galatians 1:4; 4:1, 4; 6:14; Ephesians 2:2; James 1:27; James 4:4; 1 John 2:15-17; 1 Corinthians 7:31, 33; Colossians 2:8; 2 Timothy 4:10; Romans 12:2; 1 Corinthians 1:20-21; 1 Corinthians 3:18-19).

Fourth, for a worldly estate or condition of men or things (Psalm 73:12; Luke 16:8; John 18:36; 1 John 4:5; and very many other places).

Fifth, for the world as cursed and under the power of Satan (John 7:7; John 14:30; John 16:11, 33; 1 Corinthians 2:12; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 6:12). And the word has various other meanings in holy scripture which are needless to recount. These I have noted to show the vanity of the clamor some men fill their mouths with — frightening unstable souls with the scripture's frequent mention of 'world' in the business of redemption, as though some strength might be drawn from it for supporting the general ransom. Their greatest strength is but sophistical craftiness taken from the ambiguity of an equivocal word, and their whole endeavor is likely to prove fruitless. Now as I have shown that it has various other meanings in scripture, so when I come to consider their objections that use the word for this purpose, I hope by God's assistance to show that in no one place where it is used in the business of redemption can it be taken for all and every man in the world — as indeed it is in very few places besides. So, concerning this word, our way will be clear if to what has been said you add these observations.

First, as in other words so in this one, the scripture often uses the same word in a different sense within the same passage, so that Matthew 8:22 reads: 'Let the dead bury their dead' — 'dead' in the first instance denoting those spiritually dead in sin, and in the second those who are naturally dead by dissolution of soul and body. So John 1:11: 'He came to his own' — all things he had made — and 'his own,' that is the greater part of his people, received him not. So again John 3:6: 'That which is born of the Spirit is spirit' — 'Spirit' in the first place being the Almighty Spirit of God, and in the latter a spiritual life of grace received from him. Now in such passages to argue that because a word has a certain meaning in one place it must have the same meaning in another would violently pervert the mind of the Holy Spirit. Thus also is the word 'world' commonly varied in its meaning. So John 1:10: 'He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.' — In the first it plainly means some part of the habitable earth; in the second the whole frame of heaven and earth; and in the third some men living in the earth, namely unbelievers. So again, John 3:17: 'God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.' By 'the world' in the first is necessarily understood that part of the habitable world where our Savior conversed. In the second, all men in the world — as some suppose, and there is also truth in this reading, for our Savior came not to condemn all men in the world: first because condemnation of any was not the prime aim of his coming; second because he came to save his own people and so not to condemn all. In the third, God's elect or believers living in the world in their several generations — those whom he intended to save, and none else, or he failed in his purpose and the endeavor of Christ was insufficient for the accomplishment of that for which it was designed.

Second, no argument can be taken from a phrase of speech in scripture in any particular place if in other places where it is used the meaning pressed from that place is evidently denied — unless the scope of the place or the subject matter enforces it. For instance, God is said to love the world and send his Son, to be in Christ reconciling the world to himself, and Christ to be a propitiation for the sins of the whole world. If the scope of the places where these assertions appear, or the subject matter they treat, will force a universality of all persons to be meant by the word 'world,' so let it be. But if not — if there is no such enforcement from the places themselves — why should 'world' there mean all and every one more than in John 1:10 ('the world knew him not'), which if meant of all without exception would mean no one believed in Christ, contrary to verse 12? Or more than in Luke 2:1 ('that all the world should be registered'), when none but the chief inhabitants of the Roman Empire can be understood? Or in John 8:26 ('I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him'), where he addresses only the Jews to whom he was then speaking? Or in John 12:19 ('Perceive you not that the world is gone after him?'), where 'the world' was nothing but a great multitude of one small nation? Or in 1 John 5:19 ('The whole world lies in wickedness'), from which believers are nonetheless exempted? Or in Revelation 13:3 ('All the world wondered after the beast'), which few would take as meaning every individual person on earth? That 'all nations,' an expression of equal breadth with 'the world,' is to be understood in like manner is apparent from Romans 1:5; Revelation 18:3, 23; Psalm 118:10; 1 Chronicles 14:17; Jeremiah 27:7. It is evident that the words 'world,' 'all the world,' 'the whole world,' when taken as referring to men in the world, usually and almost always denote only some or many men in the world, distinguished into good or bad, believers or unbelievers, elect or reprobate — by what is immediately affirmed of them in the several places. I see no reason why they should be wrested to any other meaning in the places that are in controversy between us and our opponents. The particular places we will consider afterward.

Now as we have said of the word 'world,' so we may say of the word 'all,' wherein much strength is placed and many baseless boasts are raised. That it is nowhere affirmed in scripture that Christ died for 'all men,' or gave himself a ransom for 'all men,' much less for all and every man, we have before declared. That he gave himself a ransom for all is expressly affirmed in 2 Timothy 2:6. But who this 'all' should be — whether all believers, or all the elect, or some of all sorts, or all of every sort — is in debate. Our adversaries affirm the last, and the main reason they bring to assert their interpretation is the force of the word itself. For the circumstances of the passage, the analogy of faith, and other helps for exposition do not at all favor their reading, as we shall show when we come to the particular passages urged. For the present let us look upon the word in its usual meaning in scripture, and search whether it always necessarily requires such an interpretation.

That the word 'all,' when spoken by anyone expressing themselves but especially in holy scripture, is to be taken either collectively for all in general without exception, or distributively for some of all sorts excluding none — is more apparent than it needs any illustration. That it is sometimes taken in the first sense, for all collectively, is granted and need not be proved. They whom we oppose affirm that this is the only sense of the word, though I dare boldly say it is not one time in ten so to be understood throughout the whole book of God. That it is commonly and indeed properly used in the latter sense — for some of all sorts, concerning whatever it is affirmed — a few instances for the many that might be urged will make clear. So John 12:32: 'And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all to me.' Who are these 'all'? Are they all and every one? Then all and every one are drawn to Christ, made believers, and truly converted, and shall certainly be saved — for those the Father draws to him he will in no way cast out (John 6:37). 'All' then can here be no other than many, some of all sorts, no sort excluded, according as the word is interpreted in Revelation 5:9: 'You have redeemed us out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation' — these are the 'all' he draws to him. So also Luke 11:42, where our translators have rendered 'all manner of herbs' — taking the word distributively for herbs of all sorts, not for every individual herb, which the Pharisees did not and could not tithe. And in the very same sense is the word used again in Luke 18:12: 'I give a tithe of all that I have,' where it cannot mean every individual thing, as is apparent. Most evident also is this restrained meaning of the word in Acts 2:17: 'I will pour out of my Spirit on all flesh' — whether this means every individual person, let every man judge. In Acts 10:12 our translators render the phrase as 'all manner of beasts' — beasts of sundry sorts. In the same sense also must it be understood in Romans 14:2: 'One believes that he may eat all things' — that is, what he pleases of things that may be eaten. Indeed, in the very chapter where men so eagerly contend that 'all' is to be taken for all and every one (though fruitlessly and falsely, as shall be demonstrated) — namely 1 Timothy 2:4, where it is said that God would have all men to be saved — in that very chapter the word must be expounded according to the sense we give it: verse 8, 'I will therefore that men pray everywhere,' which cannot mean every individual place in heaven, earth, and hell, as all confess. No more than when our Savior is said to cure all diseases (Matthew 8:35) does this prove that he cured every disease of every man — but only all sorts of diseases. Numerous other instances could be given to show that this is the most usual and frequent meaning of the word 'all' in holy scripture, and therefore from the bare word nothing can be inferred to enforce an absolute unlimited universality of all individuals. The particular passages insisted on we will consider afterward. I will conclude all concerning these general expressions used in scripture about this business with the following observations.

First, the word 'all' is certainly and unquestionably sometimes restricted to all of some sorts, although the qualification limiting it is not expressed. So for all believers: 1 Corinthians 15:22; Ephesians 4:10. Romans 5:18: 'The free gift came upon all men to the justification of life' — which 'all men' who are so actually justified are no more nor fewer than those who are Christ's, that is, believers. For justification is certainly not without faith.

Second, the word 'all' is sometimes used for some of all sorts (Jeremiah 31:34; Hebrews 8:11; John 12:32; 1 Timothy 2:1-3), which is made apparent by the mention of kings as one sort of people there intended. And I make no doubt that it will appear to all that the word must be taken in one of these senses in every place where it is used in the business of redemption, as shall be proved.

Third, let a diligent comparison be made between the general expressions of the New Testament and the predictions of the Old, and they will be found to correspond to and explain one another — the Lord affirming in the New that what he foretold in the Old had been accomplished. Now in the predictions and prophecies of the Old Testament — that all nations, all flesh, all people, all the ends and families of the earth, the world, the whole earth, the isles, shall be converted, look up to Christ, come to the mountain of the Lord, and the like — none doubts that the elect of God in all nations are only signified, knowing that in them alone those predictions have the truth of their fulfillment. Why then should the same expressions used in the gospel — many of them aiming directly to declare the fulfilling of the other — be stretched to a larger extent, so contrary to the mind of the Holy Spirit? In sum: just as when the Lord is said to wipe tears from all faces it does not prevent the reprobates from being cast out to eternity where there is weeping and wailing, so when Christ is said to die for all, it does not prevent those reprobates from perishing to eternity for their sins, without any effectual remedy intended for them, though occasionally proposed to some of them.

Sixth, observe that scripture often speaks of things and persons according to the appearance they have and the account that is taken of them among men — or the esteem that those to whom it speaks have of them — frequently speaking of men and to men as in the condition they appear to be in, according to outward appearance upon which human judgment must proceed, and not what they are in reality. Thus many are called and said to be wise, just, and righteous according as they are so esteemed, though the Lord knows them to be foolish sinners. So Jerusalem is called the holy city (Matthew 27:53) because it was so in esteem and appearance, when in reality it was a den of thieves. And 2 Chronicles 28:23 says of Ahaz that wicked king of Judah that he sacrificed to the gods of Damascus that had struck him — when it was the Lord alone who struck him, and those idols to whom he sacrificed were stocks and stones, the work of men's hands, which could no way help themselves, much less strike their enemies. Yet the Holy Spirit uses an expression answering his idolatrous persuasion and says they struck him. Indeed, is it not said of Christ in John 5:18 that he had broken the Sabbath, which yet he only did in the corrupt opinion of the blinded Pharisees? Add moreover to what has been said this equally undeniable truth: that many things which are proper and peculiar to the children of God are frequently assigned to those who live in the same outward communion with them and partake of the same external privileges, though in reality they are strangers to the grace of the promise. Put these two things together — which are most evident — and it will easily appear that those places which seem to express a possibility of perishing and eternal destruction for those said to be redeemed by the blood of Christ are in no way advantageous to the adversaries of the effectual redemption of God's elect. For such may be said to be redeemed in respect of appearance, not reality — as is the use of scripture in various other things.

Seventh, that which is spoken according to the judgment of charity on our parts must not always be exactly squared to correspond to truth in respect of those of whom anything is affirmed. For the rectitude of our judgment it is sufficient that we proceed according to the rules of judging that are given us. What is beyond our knowledge — whether those we judge in charity are truly so — belongs not to us. Thus often the apostles in the scriptures write to men and call them holy, saints, even elect — but from this to positively conclude that they were all so indeed, we have no warrant. So Peter in 1 Peter 1:2 calls all the strangers to whom he wrote, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 'elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father' — and yet that we have any warrant to conclude with certainty that all were such, none dare affirm. So Paul tells the Thessalonians — the whole church to whom he wrote — that he knew their election of God (1 Thessalonians 1:4), and in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 he blesses God who had chosen them to salvation. Now did not Paul make this judgment of them by the rule of charity? as he affirms in another place: 'It is right for me to think this of you all' (Philippians 1:3). And can it, ought it, hence be infallibly concluded that they were all elected? If some of these should be found to have fallen away from the gospel and perished, would an argument from this be valid — that the elect might perish? Would we not presently answer that they were said to be elected according to the judgment of charity, not that they were so indeed? And why is not this answer equally sufficient and satisfying when given to the objection taken from the perishing of some who were said to be redeemed — merely by the judgment of charity — as when it is given to the objection taken from those who were said to be elected?

Eighth, the infallible connection — according to God's purpose and will — between faith and salvation, which is frequently the thing intended in gospel proposals, must be considered. The Lord has established this in his counsel and revealed in his word that there is an indissoluble bond between these two things, so that whoever believes shall be saved (Mark 16:16). This is indeed the substance of the gospel in its outward proclamation. This is the testimony of God that eternal life is in his Son — which whoever believes sets his seal to that God is true; he who believes not does what in him lies to make God a liar (1 John 5:9-11). Now this connection between the means and the end, faith and life, is the only thing signified and held out to innumerable hearers to whom the gospel is preached. All the commands, offers, and promises made to them intimate no more than this will of God: that believers shall certainly be saved. This is an unquestionable divine truth and a sufficient object for supernatural faith to rest upon. And not being embraced, it is a sufficient cause of damnation: 'If you believe not that I am he — that is, the way, the truth, and the life — you shall die in your sins' (John 8:24). It is a vain imagination of some that when the command and promise of believing are extended to any man, even if he is of the number of those who shall certainly perish, yet the Lord has a conditional will of his salvation and intends that he shall be saved on condition that he believes. When in fact the condition lies not at all in the will of God — which is always absolute — but only between the things proposed to them, as was before declared. Those who with great fanfare hold out the broken pieces of an old Arminian argument — that as is God's offer so is his intention, and since he calls all to believe and be saved, he therefore intends it for all — exceedingly betray their own ignorance. For first, God does not offer life to all upon the condition of faith, passing by a great part of mankind without any such offer made to them at all. Second, if by God's offer they understand his command and promise — who told them that these things are declarative of his will and purpose or intention? He commands Pharaoh to let his people go, but did he intend he should do so according to his command? Had he not foretold that he would so order things that Pharaoh should not let them go? God's commands and promises reveal our duty, not his purpose — what God would have us do, not what he will do. His promises, as particularly applied, hold out his mind to the persons to whom they are applied; but as indefinitely proposed, they reveal no other intention of God than what we before discovered — his determinate purpose infallibly to connect faith and salvation. Third, if the offer is universal and the intention of God is answerable to it — that is, he intends the salvation of those to whom the tender of it upon faith is made — then first, what becomes of election and reprobation? Neither can consist with this universal purpose of saving all. Second, if he intends it, why is it not accomplished? Does he fail in his purpose? They say he intended it only on condition, and the condition not being fulfilled, he does not fail in his purpose though the thing is not conferred. But did the Lord foreknow whether the condition would be fulfilled by those to whom the proposal was made or not? If not, where is his foreknowledge, his omniscience? If he did foreknow, how can he be said to intend salvation for those of whom he certainly knew they would never fulfill the condition — and moreover knew this with the circumstance that the condition was not to be attained without his bestowing, and that he had determined not to bestow it? Would they ascribe such a will and purpose to a wise man as they do ignorantly and presumptuously to the only wise God — namely, that he should intend to have a thing done upon the performance of such a condition as he knew full well could never be performed without him, and he had fully resolved never to effect it? This then is the main thing demonstrated and held out in the proclamation of the gospel, especially concerning unbelievers: the strict connection between the duty of faith assigned and the benefit of life promised, which has a truth of universal extent grounded upon the plenary sufficiency of the death of Christ toward all who shall believe.

Ninth, the mixed distribution of the elect and reprobate, believers and unbelievers, according to the purpose and mind of God throughout the whole world and in the several places thereof — in all or most of the single congregations — is another ground of holding out a tender of the blood of Jesus Christ to those for whom it was never shed, as is apparent in the event by the ineffectiveness of its proposals. The ministers of the gospel, who are stewards of the mysteries of Christ and to whom the word of reconciliation is committed, being acquainted only with revealed things — the Lord lodging his purposes and intentions toward particular persons in the secret ark of his own bosom, not to be searched into — are bound to admonish all and warn all men to whom they are sent. They give the same commands, propose the same promises, and make tenders of Jesus Christ in the same manner to all, that the elect whom they know not but by the event may obtain, while the rest are hardened. Now these things being thus ordered by him who has the supreme disposal of all — first, that there should be such a mixture of elect and reprobate, of tares and wheat, to the end of the world; and second, that Christ and reconciliation through him should be preached by men ignorant of his eternal discriminating purposes — there is an absolute necessity of two other things. First, that the promises must have a kind of unrestrained generality, to be suitable to this dispensation. Second, that they must be proposed to those toward whom the Lord never intended the good things of the promises, they having a share in this proposal by their mixture in this world with the elect of God. So from the general proposition of Christ in the promises, nothing can be concluded concerning his death for all to whom it is proposed, as it has another rise and occasion. In sum: the word of reconciliation being committed to men unacquainted with God's distinguishing counsels, to be preached to men of a various mixed condition in respect of his purpose, and the way he has determined to bring his own home to himself being by exhortations, entreaties, promises, and like means accommodated to the reasonable nature of all to whom the word is sent — which are also suited to accomplishing other ends toward the rest, as conviction, restraint, hardening, and inexcusableness — it cannot be but that the proposal and offer must necessarily be made to some upon condition who intentionally, in respect of the purpose of God, have no right to it in its just aim and intent. Only for a close, observe these two things: first, that the offer itself neither is nor ever was absolutely universal to all, but only indefinite, without respect to outward differences. Second, that Christ being not to be received without faith, and God giving faith to whom he pleases, it is manifest that he never intends Christ to those on whom he will not bestow faith.

Tenth, the faith enjoined and commanded in the gospel has various acts and different degrees, in the exercise of which it proceeds in an orderly way according to the natural method of proposing the objects to be believed. The consideration of this is of much use in the business at hand. Our adversaries pretend that if Christ did not die for all, then in vain are those for whom he did not die exhorted to believe, there being no proper object of faith for innumerable persons because Christ did not die for them. As though the gospel, from the very beginning, holds out this doctrine: that Christ died for every one, elect and reprobate alike. Or as though the first thing any one living under the means of grace is exhorted to believe were that Christ died for him in particular. Both of these are notoriously false, as I hope will be made manifest to all by the close of our undertaking. For the present I will only indicate something of what I said before, concerning the order of exercising the several acts of faith, whereby it will appear that no one in the world is commanded or invited to believe without having a sufficient object to fix the act of faith on — of truth enough for its foundation and latitude enough for its utmost exercise.

First then, the first thing which the gospel enjoins sinners — and which it persuades and commands them to believe — is that salvation is not to be had in themselves, inasmuch as all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, nor by the works of the law, by which no flesh living can be justified. Here is a saving gospel truth for sinners to believe, which the apostle dwells upon wholly in Romans chapters 1, 2, and 3, to prepare the way for justification by Christ. Now what countless numbers are there to whom the gospel is preached who never come so far as to believe so much as this? — among whom you may reckon almost the whole nation of the Jews, as is apparent from Romans 9 and 10. A contempt of this object of faith is the sin of unbelief.

Second, the gospel requires faith that there is salvation to be had in the promised seed — in him who was ordained to be a captain of salvation to those who believe. And here also, at this test, some millions of the great company of men outwardly called drop off and never believe with true divine faith that God has provided a way for the saving of sinners.

Third, that Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified by the Jews was this promised Savior, and that there is no other name under heaven given whereby men may be saved besides his. This was the main point on which the Jews broke off, refusing to accept Christ as the Savior of men but rather prosecuting him as an enemy of God — and they are therefore so often charged with unbelief and damnable infidelity. The question was not between Christ and them whether he died for them all or not, but whether he was the promised Messiah, which they denied and perished in their unbelief. Now before these three acts of faith are performed, it is in vain to exhort the soul to climb the uppermost steps while missing all the foundational ones.

Fourth, the gospel requires a resting upon this Christ — so discovered and believed to be the promised Redeemer — as an all-sufficient Savior, with whom is plenteous redemption, and who is able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through him, and to bear the burden of all weary laboring souls who come by faith to him. In this proposal there is a certain and infallible truth grounded upon the superabundant sufficiency of the offering of Christ in itself for whoever — fewer or more — it may be intended. Now much self-knowledge, much conviction, much sense of sin, God's justice, and free grace is required for the exercise of this act of faith. Good Lord! how many thousand poor souls within the pale of the church can never be brought to it? The truth is, without the help of God's Spirit none of those three acts before, much less this last, can be performed — which Spirit works freely, when, how, and in whom it pleases.

Fifth, these things being firmly seated in the soul — and not before — we are each one called in particular to believe in the efficacy of the redemption that is in the blood of Jesus toward our own souls in particular. Every one may assuredly do this in whom the free grace of God has worked the former acts of faith and does work this also, without either doubt or fear of want of a right object to believe. For certainly Christ died for every one in whose hearts the Lord by his almighty power works effectually the faith to lay hold on him and assent to him, according to that orderly proposal held forth in the gospel. Now according to this order — as some have observed — are the articles of our faith disposed in the Apostles' Creed, that ancient summary of Christian religion, the remission of our sins and life eternal being in the last place proposed to be believed. So it is senseless vanity to cry out of the nullity of the object to be believed if Christ did not die for all, there being an absolute truth in every thing which any is called to assent to according to the order of the gospel.

And so I have proposed the general foundations of those answers which we shall give to the following objections, to which making particular application will be an easy task, as I hope will be made apparent to all.

A second thing to consider is the structure and administration of the new covenant in the gospel age, with the expansion and enlargement of the kingdom and dominion of Christ after His appearance in the flesh. By this, all external distinctions having been removed, the division between Gentiles taken away, the dividing wall broken down, the promise to Abraham that he should be heir of the world as the father of the faithful was now to be fully fulfilled. Now this administration stands in sharp contrast to the earlier arrangement that was restricted to one people and family as God's special people — with all the rest of the world excluded — and for this reason gives rise to many broad, general expressions in Scripture. These expressions are far from meaning a universal collection of every individual, but indicate only the removal of all the restricting qualifications that were previously in force. So considering the purpose for which these general expressions are used — and what they are aimed at — will clearly reveal their nature, how they are to be understood, and who is intended and included in them. The purpose is only this expansion of the visible kingdom of Christ to all nations — in terms of right — and to many in terms of reality, since God has elect in all those nations to be gathered in during the various generations in which the means of grace operate in those places. It is therefore clear that these expressions indicate only a distribution across all groups and peoples, not a universal gathering of every single individual. The thing intended requires the one and not the other. Hence the objections raised against the particular nature of Christ's ransom and its restriction to the elect alone — drawn from the terms 'all,' 'all people,' 'all nations,' 'the world,' 'the whole world,' and the like — are all extremely weak and invalid. They force the general expressions of Scripture beyond their aim and intent. The Holy Spirit uses them only to demonstrate the removal of all personal and national distinctions, the breaking of all the narrow bounds of the old covenant, the expansion of Christ's kingdom beyond the borders of Judea and Jerusalem, the abolishing of all old restrictions, and the opening of the way for the elect among all peoples — called 'the fullness of the Gentiles' — to come in. There being now 'neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, or free, but Christ is all, and in all' (Colossians 3:11). Hence the Lord promises to 'pour out My Spirit on all mankind' (Joel 2:28), which Peter interprets as fulfilled by the filling of the apostles with the gifts of the Spirit, enabling them to preach to various nations (Acts 2:17). 'Through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles' (Romans 1:5) — not among the Jews only, but some among all nations. The gospel being 'the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek' (verse 16) — meaning, as to salvation, only the particular people bought by Christ, whom He redeemed from every tribe and tongue and people and nation (Revelation 5:9), where a clear distribution is given of what elsewhere is stated in general terms. The gospel is commanded to be preached to all these nations (Matthew 28:19), so that the redeemed among all of them might be brought home to God (John 11:52). This is what the apostle sets out at length in Ephesians 2:14-17. In this sense — which we have explained — and in no other sense are those many passages to be taken that are commonly used as evidence for universal grace and redemption, as will afterward be shown in particular.

Third, an exact distinction must be made between human duty and God's purpose, since there is no necessary connection between them. The purpose and decree of God is not the rule of our duty, nor does the fulfilling of our duty in doing what we are commanded declare what God purposes to do or has decreed shall happen. This is especially to be seen and considered in the duty of gospel ministers in proclaiming the Word — in exhortations, invitations, commands, and warnings entrusted to them. All of these are ongoing declarations of our duty and show God's approval of the things exhorted and invited to, as well as the truth of the connection between one thing and another. But they are not declarations of God's counsel and purpose with respect to particular persons in the ministry of the Word. A minister is not to inquire into, nor trouble himself about, those secrets of God's eternal mind — namely, whom He purposes to save and for whom in particular He sent Christ to die. It is enough for them to search His revealed will and take their direction from that, for that is the source of their commission. Therefore there is no logical step from the universal commands of the Word regarding things to God's purpose within Himself regarding persons. They command and invite all to repent and believe, but they do not know in particular on whom God will bestow repentance leading to salvation, or in whom He will powerfully work faith. When they make offers and invitations in God's name to all, they are not saying to all: it is God's purpose and intention that you should believe. Who gave them any such authority? Rather, they declare that it is His command, which makes it the duty of those addressed. They do not declare God's mind as to what He Himself will specifically do. The external offer is such that from it every person may understand their own duty — but no one can conclude God's purpose from it, though that purpose may be known upon the fulfilling of that duty. The objection is then groundless that claims God has given Christ for all to whom He offers Christ in gospel preaching. For His offer in gospel preaching does not declare to any particular person either what God has done or what He will do for that person — but rather what that person ought to do if he wishes to be approved by God and receive the promised good things. From this it follows: first, that God always intends to save some among those to whom He sends the gospel in its power. The ministers of it — being first, unaware of His particular purpose; second, bound to seek the good of all and every one as far as in them lies; third, to hope well of all and think the best of all, as is fitting for them — may offer Jesus Christ with life and salvation in Him, even though the Lord has given His Son only to His elect.

The infinite value and worth we attribute to Christ's death is seriously undervalued by those who assert universal redemption. That this value extends to this or that object, fewer or more individuals, is external to it, as we showed earlier. But its true worth consists in the immediate effects, fruits, and results of it — in what it is by its own nature fit and able to accomplish. And these the universalists openly and plainly undervalue — indeed, they nearly reduce them to nothing.

First, they say that by it a door of grace was opened for sinners — they are uncertain where — but they deny that any were effectively brought through that door by it. Second, they say that God could, if He chose and on whatever condition He pleased, save those for whom Christ died — but they deny that a right of salvation was actually purchased by Him for any. From this they conclude: first, that after Christ's death, God could have dealt with humanity again on a legal footing; second, that all and every person could have been damned, and yet the death of Christ have had its full effect. They also grant that faith and sanctification are not purchased by His death — indeed, they say no more is procured for anyone than what he might go to hell in possession of. In various other ways they express their low opinion and slight regard for the inherent value and sufficiency of the death and blood-shedding of Jesus Christ. To the honor of Jesus Christ our mediator — God and man, our all-sufficient Redeemer — we affirm: so great and so dignified was His death and blood-shedding, of such precious value, of such infinite fullness and sufficiency was this offering of Himself, that it was in every way able and perfectly sufficient to redeem, justify, reconcile, and save all the sinners in the world, and to satisfy the justice of God for all the sins of all mankind, and to bring every one of them to everlasting glory. Now this fullness and sufficiency of the merit of Christ's death is the foundation for two things.

First, the universal proclamation of the gospel to all nations and the right it has to be preached to every creature (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16). Because the way of salvation it declares is wide enough for all to walk in. There is enough in the remedy it reveals to heal all their diseases and deliver them from all their evils. If there were a thousand worlds, the gospel of Christ could on this basis be preached to them all — there being enough in Christ to save them all, if they will draw virtue from Him by touching Him in faith, the only way to draw refreshment from this fountain of salvation. It is then entirely groundless when some object that preaching the gospel to all is needless and pointless if Christ did not die for all, and that it makes God call people to believe something that is not true — namely, that Christ died for them. First, because among the nations to which the gospel is sent there are some who will be saved ('I have many people there') who cannot be saved in the way God has appointed unless the gospel is preached to others as well as themselves. Second, because the structure and administration of the new covenant — by which all external distinctions and privileges of peoples, languages, and nations were abolished and removed — required the word of grace to be preached without distinction and all people everywhere to be called to repentance. Third, because when God calls people to believe, He does not first call them to believe that Christ died specifically for them, but that there is no other name under heaven given to people by which they may be saved, except Jesus Christ, through whom salvation is proclaimed. This one thing of which we speak — the sufficiency we have described — is a sufficient foundation and basis for all the general commands to preach the gospel to all people.

Second, gospel preachers in their particular congregations — being completely unaware of God's purpose and secret counsel, and also forbidden to pry into it (Deuteronomy 29) — may on this basis rightly call on every person to believe, with the assurance of salvation given to every individual who does so. They know and are fully persuaded of this: that there is enough in Christ's death to save every one who believes. They leave to God — as they are commanded — the question of on whom He will bestow faith and for whom in particular Christ died.

This is one principal point which, when well understood, will refute many of the groundless claims of our opponents, as will be shown in detail afterward.

A second thing to consider is the administration of the new covenant in the Gospel age, with the expansion and enlargement of the kingdom and dominion of Christ following His appearance in the flesh. Through this, all external distinctions having been removed, the barrier between Jews and Gentiles broken down, and the wall of separation demolished, the promise to Abraham that he would be heir of the world as the father of all who believe was now to be fully accomplished. This administration stands in sharp contrast to the arrangement that was limited to one people and family — God's special possession, all others excluded — and gives rise to many sweeping expressions in Scripture. These expressions are far from encompassing every individual person; they simply signal the removal of the restricting national qualifications that were previously in force. Considering the purpose for which these general expressions are used — and what they aim to convey — will make their nature clear, show how they are to be understood, and identify who is included in them. Since the only purpose is this enlargement of the visible kingdom of Christ to all nations in terms of right — and to many in terms of fact, God having elect among all those nations to be gathered in throughout the generations in which the means of grace are at work — it is clear that these expressions denote only a distribution of people across all differences, not a collective gathering of every single individual. The thing intended requires the one and not the other. This is why the objections raised against the particular nature of Christ's ransom and its restriction to the elect alone — drawn from the terms 'all,' 'all people,' 'all nations,' 'the world,' 'the whole world,' and the like — are all extremely weak and invalid. They stretch Scripture's general expressions beyond their aim and intent. The Holy Spirit uses them only to demonstrate the removal of all personal and national distinction, the breaking of all the narrow limits of the old covenant, the enlargement of Christ's kingdom beyond the borders of Judea and Jerusalem, the abolishing of all former restrictions, and the opening of a way for the elect among all peoples — called 'the fullness of the Gentiles' — to come in. There is now 'neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all' (Colossians 3:11). So the Lord promises to 'pour out My Spirit on all mankind' (Joel 2:28), which Peter interprets as fulfilled by the filling of the apostles with the Spirit's gifts, enabling them to preach to various nations (Acts 2:17). 'Having received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles' (Romans 1:5) — not the Jews only, but some among all nations. The Gospel being 'the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek' (verse 16) — intending, as to salvation, only the special people purchased by Christ, whom He redeemed out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation (Revelation 5:9), where an evident distribution is given of what in other places is stated generally. The Gospel being commanded to be preached to all these nations (Matthew 28:19), so that those purchased and redeemed ones among them all might be brought home to God (John 11:52). This is what the apostle sets forth at length in Ephesians 2:14-17. In this sense — which we have explained — and no other, are those many passages to be understood that are usually pressed for universal grace and redemption, as will be shown in particular cases afterward.

Third, we must carefully distinguish between human duty and God's purpose, since there is no necessary connection between them. God's purpose and decree is not the standard by which our duty is measured, nor does our performance of duty in doing what we are commanded declare what God has purposed or decreed. This is especially to be seen and considered in the duty of Gospel ministers as they dispense the Word — in exhortations, invitations, commands, and warnings committed to them. All of these are ongoing declarations of our duty and express God's approval of the things being urged, along with the truth of the connection between one thing and another. But they are not declarations of God's counsel and purpose regarding individual persons in the ministry of the Word. A minister is not to inquire after, nor trouble himself about, those secrets of God's eternal mind — namely, whom He has purposed to save and for whom in particular He sent Christ to die. It is enough for them to search His revealed will and take their direction from there, from which they receive their commission. Therefore no inference may be drawn from the universal commands of the Word about things to God's purpose in Himself regarding persons. Ministers command and invite all to repent and believe, but they do not know in particular on whom God will bestow repentance leading to salvation, nor in whom He will bring about the work of faith with power. And when they make offers and tenders in God's name to all, they do not say to all: it is the purpose and intention of God that you should believe. Who gave them any such authority? Rather, they declare it to be His command, which makes obedience to it the duty of those who hear it. They do not declare His mind as to what He Himself will actually do in any particular case. The outward offer is such that from it every person may conclude his own duty — none can conclude God's purpose from it, though that purpose may be known upon the performance of that duty. The objection of those who claim that God has given Christ to all to whom He offers Christ in Gospel preaching is therefore groundless. For His offer in Gospel preaching is not a declaration to any individual — either of what God has done or of what He will do for that person — but of what that person ought to do if he would be pleasing to God and obtain the promised blessings.

From this the following will flow: first, that God always intends to save some among those to whom He sends the Gospel in its power. The ministers of the Gospel, being first, unacquainted with His particular purpose; second, bound to seek the good of all and every person as much as lies in them; third, expected to hope and think well of all — as is appropriate for them — may offer Jesus Christ with life and salvation in Him, even though the Lord has given His Son only to His elect.

Second, this offer is neither empty nor fruitless, since it declares their duty and what is acceptable to God if it is performed as He requires. If anyone asks what of God's mind and will is declared when people are commanded to believe who did not have Christ die for them, I answer: first, what they ought to do if they will do what is acceptable to God. Second, the sufficiency of salvation that is in Jesus Christ for all who believe in Him. Third, the certain, infallible, and unbreakable connection between faith and salvation — so that whoever performs the one will surely enjoy the other. For whoever comes to Christ, He will in no way turn away — of which more will be said later.

Fourth, the deep-rooted mistaken belief of the Jews — which for a time had a strong hold even on the apostles themselves — that salvation and deliverance through the Messiah, the promised Seed, belonged to themselves alone as the physical descendants of Abraham, must be recognized as the background of many sweeping expressions and expansive descriptions of the objects of redemption. These expressions, arising from this background, give no appearance of any unlimited universality. That the Jews were generally infected with this proud belief — that all the promises belonged only to them and theirs — is entirely clear. So when they saw crowds of Gentiles responding to Paul's preaching, they were filled with envy, contradicting him, blaspheming, and stirring up persecution against them (Acts 13:45, 50). The apostle again describes this of them in 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16: 'They displease God and are hostile to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles so that they may be saved.' That the apostles themselves had also deeply absorbed this view, inherited by tradition from their fathers, appears not only in their question about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6), but most clearly in this: that even after receiving a commission to teach and baptize all nations (Matthew 28:19-20) and every creature (Mark 16), and being equipped with power from above to do so, they seem to have understood their commission as extending only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. For they went about and preached only to the Jews (Acts 11:19). And when the opposite was made clear and demonstrated to them, they glorified God, saying, 'Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life!' (Acts 11:18) — marveling at it as something previously unknown to them. No wonder people were not quickly or easily persuaded of this, it being the great mystery that had not been made known in earlier ages as it was then revealed to God's holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit — namely, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and members of the same body and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the Gospel (Ephesians 3:5-6). But now, this having been made known to them by the Spirit, and the time having come for the younger sister to be considered, the prodigal to be welcomed home, and Japheth to be brought to dwell in the tents of Shem, they labored by every means to root out the old error from the minds of their kinsmen, for whom they had a special concern. They also worked to remove any doubt from the mind of the eunuch that he was a dry tree, or from the Gentile that he was cut off from the people of God. To this end they used various sweeping expressions that stood in direct opposition to the former error, which was completely destructive to the kingdom of Jesus Christ. Hence the terms 'the world,' 'all people,' 'all nations,' 'every creature,' and the like, used in connection with redemption and the preaching of the Gospel — since these things were not restricted, as they had supposed, to one certain nation and family, but extended to the whole company of God's people scattered in every region under heaven. These expressions are especially used by John, who lived to see the Lord's first coming in that fearful judgment and vengeance He executed upon the Jewish nation some forty years after His death, and is therefore frequent in asserting the benefit of the world through Christ, in opposition, as I said, to the Jewish nation. He gives us the interpretive key: 'He prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad' (John 11:51-52). Consistently with this he tells the believing Jews that Christ is not a propitiation for their sins only, but for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2) — that is, the people of God scattered throughout the whole world, not tied to any one nation, as they had vainly imagined. This sheds much light on the meaning of those places where the words 'world' and 'all' are used in connection with redemption. They do not denote a collective universality, but a general distribution of people of all kinds, in opposition to the mistaken belief described above.

Fifth, the extent, nature, and meaning of those general terms frequently used in Scripture without restriction to describe the objects of redemption through Christ must be carefully considered. The entire weight of the opposing case rests on these expressions. The chief — if not the only — argument for universal redemption is drawn from words that seem broad enough in meaning to support such a claim: 'the world,' 'the whole world,' 'all,' and the like. Once they fix on these terms, they cry victory as if the matter were settled: 'The world, the whole world, all, all people — who can argue with that?' Direct them to the context of the particular passages, appeal to rules of interpretation, remind them of the circumstances and scope of the passage, the sense of the same words in other places, and the other guides the Lord has given us for understanding His mind in His Word — and they immediately cry out that the plain word and the letter are on their side, away with interpretation and comment, let them believe what the text plainly says. Little do they realize, blinded by attachment to their own view, that if they insist on this approach and refuse to allow interpretation according to the analogy of faith, they in one stroke confirm the senseless madness of the Anthropomorphites — who assigned a physical body, form, and shape to God who has none — and the equally senseless fiction of transubstantiation, along with various other highly destructive errors. Let them go on with such hollow arguments as long as they please. For truth's sake we will not be silent, and we hope to make it very easily apparent that the general terms used here give no support to any argument for universal redemption, whether absolute or conditional.

Two words are especially seized upon: first, 'the world'; second, 'all.' The particular passages in which they appear, and from which our opponents' arguments are drawn, we will consider afterward. For now we only show that the words themselves, according to their scriptural usage, do not necessarily carry any collective universality regarding those of whom they are affirmed. Being words of varied meanings, they must be interpreted according to the scope of the passage in which they occur and the subject matter Scripture treats in those places.

First, regarding the word 'world' — which in the New Testament is a term of highly varied meanings, as anyone familiar with Scripture well knows — I will briefly set out enough distinct usages to show that from the bare use of a word so thoroughly ambiguous, no argument can be drawn until its meaning in the particular passage is determined.

The word 'world' may be taken: in its physical sense, for the created order or the habitable earth; collectively, for all people, for many, or for specific groups (whether good or evil); or as referring to worldly corruption or a worldly condition.

All these distinct usages of the word are established in the following observations.

The word 'world' in Scripture is generally used in four ways. First, for the world as container — broadly for the entire frame of heaven and earth with everything in them that God created in the beginning (Job 34:13; Acts 17:24; Ephesians 1:4); and more specifically, first for the heavens and everything belonging to them, distinct from the earth (Psalm 90:2), and second for the habitable earth, which is very frequent (Psalm 24:1; Psalm 98:7; Matthew 13:38; John 1:9; John 3:17, 19; John 6:14; John 17:11; 1 Timothy 1:15; 1 Timothy 6:7).

Second, for the world as contained — especially people in the world — and that either universally for all without exception (Romans 3:6; 3:19; 5:12), or indefinitely for people without restriction or expansion (John 7:4; Isaiah 13:11), or for many, which is the most common meaning (Matthew 18:7; John 4:42; John 12:19; John 16:8; John 17:21; 1 Corinthians 4:9; Revelation 13:3), or comparatively for a large portion of the world (Romans 1:8; Matthew 24:14; 26:13; Romans 10:18), or specifically for the inhabitants of the Roman Empire (Luke 2:1), or for people distinguished by their various conditions: first for the good — God's people either by designation or possession (Psalm 22:27; John 3:16; John 6:36, 51; Romans 4:13; 11:12, 15; 2 Corinthians 5:19; Colossians 1:6; 1 John 2:2), and second for the evil — wicked, rejected people of the world (Isaiah 13:11; John 7:7; John 14:17, 22; John 15:19; John 17:25; 1 Corinthians 6:2; 1 Corinthians 11:32; Hebrews 9:11; Hebrews 11:38; 2 Peter 2:5; 1 John 5:19; Revelation 13:3).

Third, for the world as corrupted — or that universal corruption found in all things within it (Galatians 1:4; 4:1, 4; 6:14; Ephesians 2:2; James 1:27; James 4:4; 1 John 2:15-17; 1 Corinthians 7:31, 33; Colossians 2:8; 2 Timothy 4:10; Romans 12:2; 1 Corinthians 1:20-21; 1 Corinthians 3:18-19).

Fourth, for a worldly condition or estate of people or things (Psalm 73:12; Luke 16:8; John 18:36; 1 John 4:5; and many other places).

Fifth, for the world as cursed and under the power of Satan (John 7:7; John 14:30; John 16:11, 33; 1 Corinthians 2:12; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 6:12). The word has various other meanings in Scripture that are needless to list. I have noted these to expose the emptiness of the arguments some people raise — frightening unstable souls with Scripture's frequent mention of 'the world' in connection with redemption, as though some advantage could be drawn from it in support of the general ransom. Their greatest strength is nothing but sophisticated wordplay drawn from the ambiguity of an equivocal term, and their whole effort is likely to prove fruitless. Now, having shown that the word has various other meanings in Scripture, when I come to consider their objections that use the word for this purpose, I hope with God's help to show that in not one place where it is used in connection with redemption can it be taken to mean all and every person in the world — as indeed it is in very few places otherwise. Regarding this word, then, our way will be clear if you add these observations to what has already been said.

First, as with other words, so with this one: Scripture often uses the same word in different senses within the same passage. Matthew 8:22 reads: 'Let the dead bury their own dead' — 'dead' in the first instance denoting those spiritually dead in sin, and in the second those who are physically dead through the separation of soul and body. So John 1:11: 'He came to His own' — all things He had made — and 'His own' people received Him not. So also John 3:6: 'That which is born of the Spirit is spirit' — 'Spirit' in the first place being the Almighty Spirit of God, and in the second a spiritual life of grace received from Him. Now in such passages, to argue that because a word has a certain meaning in one place it must have the same meaning in another would violently distort the mind of the Holy Spirit. So also the word 'world' is commonly varied in its meaning. Consider John 1:10: 'He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.' In the first instance it plainly means some portion of the habitable earth; in the second the entire frame of heaven and earth; and in the third some people living on the earth, namely unbelievers. So again, John 3:17: 'God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.' By 'the world' in the first instance we must understand that part of the habitable world where our Savior lived. In the second, all people in the world — as some suppose, and there is truth in this reading too, for our Savior did not come to condemn all people in the world: first because condemning anyone was not the primary aim of His coming; second because He came to save His own people and thus not to condemn all. In the third, God's elect or believers living in the world in their various generations — those He intended to save, and none else, or else He failed in His purpose and Christ's effort was insufficient for what it was designed to accomplish.

Second, no argument can be taken from a phrase in Scripture in any particular place if in other places where it is used the meaning being pressed from that place is clearly denied — unless the scope of the passage or its subject matter compels it. For instance, God is said to love the world and send His Son, to be in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, and Christ to be a propitiation for the sins of the whole world. If the scope of the passages where these statements appear, or the subject matter they address, requires that 'world' mean every individual person, so let it be. But if not — if there is nothing in the passages themselves that forces this — why should 'world' there mean all and every person, more than in John 1:10 ('the world did not know Him'), which if taken of all without exception would mean no one believed in Christ, contrary to verse 12? Or more than in Luke 2:1 ('that all the world should be registered'), when only the chief inhabitants of the Roman Empire can be meant? Or in John 8:26 ('I speak to the world the things which I have heard from Him'), where He is addressing only the Jews to whom He was then speaking? Or in John 12:19 ('Look, the world has gone after Him!'), where 'the world' was nothing more than a great crowd from one small nation? Or in 1 John 5:19 ('The whole world lies in the power of the evil one'), from which believers are nonetheless exempted? Or in Revelation 13:3 ('The whole earth was amazed and followed after the beast'), which few would take to mean every individual person on earth? That 'all nations,' an expression of equal breadth to 'the world,' is to be understood in the same way is clear from Romans 1:5; Revelation 18:3, 23; Psalm 118:10; 1 Chronicles 14:17; Jeremiah 27:7. It is plain that the words 'world,' 'all the world,' and 'the whole world,' when taken as referring to people in the world, usually and almost always denote only some or many people in the world — distinguished as good or bad, believers or unbelievers, elect or reprobate — by what is immediately affirmed of them in the various passages. I see no reason why they should be forced into any other meaning in the passages that are in dispute between us and our opponents. The particular passages we will consider afterward.

What we have said of the word 'world' applies equally to the word 'all,' on which much weight is placed and many groundless boasts are built. We have already stated that Scripture nowhere affirms that Christ died for 'all people' or gave Himself as a ransom for 'all people' — much less for every individual person. That He gave Himself as a ransom for all is expressly affirmed in 1 Timothy 2:6. But who this 'all' should be — whether all believers, all the elect, some of all kinds, or every one without exception — is in dispute. Our opponents affirm the last, and the main reason they give for their interpretation is the force of the word itself. For the circumstances of the passage, the analogy of faith, and other interpretive guides do not favor their reading at all, as we will show when we come to the particular passages they press. For now let us look at the word in its common scriptural usage and consider whether it always necessarily requires such an interpretation.

That the word 'all,' when used by anyone expressing themselves — and especially in Scripture — is to be taken either collectively for all without exception, or distributively for some of all kinds excluding none, is clear enough that it needs no illustration. That it is sometimes used in the first sense, collectively for all, is granted and need not be proved. Those we oppose claim this is the word's only sense, though I would boldly say it is used in that sense not even once in ten occurrences throughout the whole of Scripture. That it is commonly and indeed frequently used in the latter sense — for some of all kinds, regarding whatever it is affirmed — a few examples from the many that could be given will make clear. So John 12:32: 'And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.' Who are these 'all'? Are they every individual person? Then every individual person is drawn to Christ, made a believer, truly converted, and will certainly be saved — for those the Father draws to Him, He will in no way turn away (John 6:37). 'All' then can here be no other than many, some of all kinds, no kind excluded — as the word is interpreted in Revelation 5:9: 'You purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.' These are the 'all' He draws to Himself. So also Luke 11:42, where our translators have rendered the phrase as 'all kinds of herbs' — taking the word distributively for herbs of every sort, not for every individual herb, which the Pharisees did not and could not tithe. In exactly the same sense the word is used in Luke 18:12: 'I pay tithes of all that I get' — which clearly cannot mean every individual item, as is obvious. Most evident also is this restricted meaning of the word in Acts 2:17: 'I will pour forth of My Spirit on all mankind' — whether this means every individual person, let everyone judge. In Acts 10:12 our translators render the phrase as 'all kinds of four-footed animals' — creatures of various sorts. In the same sense it must be understood in Romans 14:2: 'One person has faith that he may eat all things' — that is, whatever he chooses among things that are fit to be eaten. Indeed, in the very chapter where our opponents so eagerly insist that 'all' means every individual person (though fruitlessly and falsely, as will be demonstrated) — namely 1 Timothy 2:4, where it is said that God desires all people to be saved — in that very chapter the word must be understood in the sense we give it: verse 8, 'Therefore I want the men in every place to pray' — which cannot mean every individual place in heaven, earth, and hell, as everyone agrees. No more does 'He healed all diseases' (Matthew 8:35) prove that He cured every disease of every person — it means only all kinds of diseases. Numerous other examples could be given to show that this is the most common and frequent meaning of 'all' in Scripture, and therefore from the bare word alone nothing can be inferred to require an absolute unlimited universality of every individual. The particular passages pressed in debate we will consider afterward. I will conclude this discussion of general scriptural expressions used in this matter with the following observations.

First, the word 'all' is certainly and unmistakably sometimes restricted to all of some kinds, even though the qualifying limitation is not expressly stated. So, for all believers: 1 Corinthians 15:22; Ephesians 4:10. Romans 5:18: 'So through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men' — the 'all people' who are actually so justified are no more and no fewer than those who are Christ's, that is, believers. For justification is certainly not apart from faith.

Second, the word 'all' is sometimes used for some of all kinds (Jeremiah 31:34; Hebrews 8:11; John 12:32; 1 Timothy 2:1-3) — made apparent by the mention of kings as one type of people intended there. And I have no doubt it will be apparent to all that the word must be taken in one of these senses in every place where it is used in connection with redemption, as will be proved.

Third, let a careful comparison be made between the general expressions of the New Testament and the predictions of the Old, and they will be found to correspond and explain one another — the Lord affirming in the New that what He foretold in the Old has been accomplished. Now in the predictions and prophecies of the Old Testament — that all nations, all flesh, all peoples, all the ends and families of the earth, the world, the whole earth, the islands, shall be converted, look to Christ, come to the mountain of the Lord, and the like — no one doubts that only the elect of God among all nations are meant, knowing that in them alone those predictions find their true fulfillment. Why then should the same expressions in the Gospel — many of them aiming expressly to declare the fulfilling of the former — be stretched to a larger scope, so contrary to the mind of the Holy Spirit? In short: just as when the Lord is said to wipe tears from all faces it does not prevent the reprobate from being cast out into eternity where there is weeping and wailing, so when Christ is said to die for all, it does not prevent those reprobates from perishing eternally for their sins, without any effectual remedy being intended for them, though an offer is incidentally proposed to some of them.

Sixth, observe that Scripture often speaks of things and persons according to the appearance they present and the account taken of them by those observing — frequently speaking of people and to people according to the condition they appear to be in from outward appearances, which human judgment must proceed on, and not according to what they are in reality. So many are called and said to be wise, just, and righteous in accordance with how they are regarded, even though the Lord knows them to be foolish sinners. So Jerusalem is called the holy city (Matthew 27:53) because it bore that reputation and appearance, when in reality it was a den of thieves. And 2 Chronicles 28:23 says of Ahaz that wicked king of Judah that he sacrificed to the gods of Damascus who had struck him — when in reality it was the Lord alone who struck him, and those idols to whom he sacrificed were stocks and stones, the work of human hands, which could in no way help themselves, much less strike their enemies. Yet the Holy Spirit uses an expression that answers to his idolatrous belief and says they struck him. Indeed, is it not said of Christ in John 5:18 that He had broken the Sabbath, when in fact He had only done so in the corrupt opinion of the blind Pharisees? Add to what has been said this equally undeniable truth: that many things which are proper and particular to the children of God are frequently attributed to those who share outward communion with them and partake of the same external privileges, though in reality they are strangers to the grace of the promise. Put these two observations together — which are entirely plain — and it will readily appear that those passages which seem to express a possibility of perishing and eternal destruction for those said to be redeemed by Christ's blood give no advantage at all to the opponents of the effectual redemption of God's elect. For such people may be said to be redeemed in terms of appearance, not reality — as Scripture speaks in various other cases.

Seventh, what is spoken according to charitable judgment on our part must not always be taken to correspond exactly to the truth regarding those of whom something is affirmed. For the soundness of our judgment it is enough that we proceed according to the rules of judgment we have been given. What is beyond our knowledge — whether those we judge charitably are truly as we judge them — is not our concern. So the apostles in Scripture often write to people and call them holy, saints, even elect — but from this to conclude positively that they all were in fact so, we have no warrant. So Peter in 1 Peter 1:2 calls all the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia 'who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father' — yet that we have any warrant to conclude with certainty that all were such, no one would dare affirm. So Paul tells the Thessalonians — the whole church to whom he wrote — that he knew their election by God (1 Thessalonians 1:4), and in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 gives thanks that God had chosen them for salvation. Now did not Paul form this judgment about them by the rule of charity? — as he says elsewhere: 'It is only right for me to feel this way about you all' (Philippians 1:3). And can it, or ought it, therefore be concluded with certainty that they all were elected? If some of these were found to have fallen away from the Gospel and perished, would an argument from this be valid — that the elect may perish? Would we not immediately answer that they were said to be elected according to charitable judgment, not that they were so in fact? And why is that answer not equally sufficient and satisfying when given to the objection drawn from the perishing of those said to be redeemed — merely by the judgment of charity — as when it is given to the objection drawn from those said to be elected?

Eighth, the certain connection — according to God's purpose and will — between faith and salvation, which is frequently the thing conveyed in Gospel proposals, must be considered. The Lord has established in His counsel and revealed in His Word that there is an unbreakable bond between these two things, so that whoever believes will be saved (Mark 16:16). This is indeed the substance of the Gospel in its outward proclamation. This is God's testimony that eternal life is in His Son — which whoever believes sets his seal to the truth that God is faithful; he who does not believe does what he can to make God a liar (1 John 5:9-11). Now this connection between the means and the end, faith and life, is the only thing signified and presented to countless hearers to whom the Gospel is preached. All the commands, offers, and promises made to them declare no more of God's will than this: that believers will certainly be saved. This is an undeniable divine truth and a sufficient object for supernatural faith to rest upon. And not being embraced, it is a sufficient basis for condemnation: 'Unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins' (John 8:24). It is a vain imagination of some that when the command and promise of believing are extended to any person — even one of those who will certainly perish — the Lord has a conditional will for their salvation and intends that they should be saved if they believe. When in fact the condition lies not at all in God's will — which is always absolute — but only between the things proposed to them, as was declared before. Those who with great fanfare present the crumbled remains of an old Arminian argument — that as God's offer is, so is His intention, and since He calls all to believe and be saved, He therefore intends it for all — only expose their own ignorance. For first, God does not offer life to all people upon the condition of faith — He passes by a great part of humanity without making any such offer to them at all. Second, if by God's offer they mean His command and promise — who told them that these things declare His will and purpose or intention? He commanded Pharaoh to let His people go, but did He intend that Pharaoh would actually do so according to His command? Had He not foretold that He would order things so that Pharaoh would not let them go? God's commands and promises reveal our duty, not His purpose — what God would have us do, not what He will do. His promises, as applied to particular persons, declare His mind to those persons; but as indefinitely proposed, they reveal no other intention of God than what we have already shown — His certain purpose to connect faith and salvation infallibly. Third, if the offer is universal and God's intention corresponds to it — that is, He intends the salvation of those to whom the offer on condition of faith is made — then first, what becomes of election and reprobation? Neither can stand alongside a universal purpose of saving all. Second, if He intends it, why is it not accomplished? Does He fail in His purpose? They say He intended it only conditionally, and since the condition is not fulfilled, He does not fail in His purpose even though the thing is not given. But did the Lord foreknow whether the condition would be fulfilled by those to whom the proposal was made or not? If not, where is His foreknowledge, His omniscience? If He did foreknow, how can He be said to intend salvation for those of whom He certainly knew they would never fulfill the condition — and moreover knew this with the circumstance that the condition was not attainable without His granting it, and that He had determined not to grant it? Would they ascribe to a wise man such a will and purpose as they ignorantly and presumptuously ascribe to the only wise God — namely, that He should intend to have something done upon the performance of a condition He knew full well could never be performed without Him, and He had fully resolved never to bring about? This then is the main thing declared and set out in the proclamation of the Gospel, especially concerning unbelievers: the firm connection between the duty of faith assigned and the benefit of life promised — a connection of universal scope, grounded upon the complete sufficiency of Christ's death for all who will believe.

Ninth, the mixed distribution of the elect and reprobate, believers and unbelievers, according to God's purpose and mind, throughout the whole world and in its various places — in all or most individual congregations — is another reason why a tender of the blood of Jesus Christ is extended to those for whom it was never shed, as is evident in the event from how those proposals so often prove ineffective. The ministers of the Gospel, who are stewards of the mysteries of Christ and who have been entrusted with the message of reconciliation, are acquainted only with what has been revealed — the Lord keeping His purposes and intentions toward particular persons locked in the secret of His own heart, not to be searched out. They are therefore bound to warn and admonish all people to whom they are sent. They issue the same commands, present the same promises, and offer Jesus Christ in the same way to all, so that the elect — whom they cannot identify except by the outcome — may believe, while the rest are hardened. These things being so ordered by Him who has supreme authority over all — first, that there would be such a mixture of elect and reprobate, of wheat and weeds, until the end of the world; and second, that Christ and reconciliation through Him would be preached by people unacquainted with His eternal distinguishing purposes — two other things follow necessarily. First, that the promises must have a kind of unrestricted generality, to suit this manner of dispensation. Second, that they must be extended to those toward whom the Lord never intended the good things promised, those people having a share in this proposal by virtue of being mixed in this world with God's elect. So from the general presentation of Christ in the promises, nothing can be concluded about His dying for all to whom it is presented, since the presentation has a different origin and purpose. In summary: the message of reconciliation being committed to people unacquainted with God's distinguishing counsels, to be preached to people of various and mixed conditions in respect of His purpose, and the way He has determined to bring His own home to Himself being by exhortations, appeals, promises, and like means suited to the reasonable nature of all who receive the Word — which also serves other purposes toward the rest, such as conviction, restraint, hardening, and the removal of excuse — it necessarily follows that the proposal and offer must be made to some for whom, in respect of God's purpose, it was never intentionally designed. Only, as a conclusion, observe these two things: first, that the offer itself neither is nor ever was absolutely universal to all, but only without restriction as to outward differences. Second, that Christ is not to be received without faith, and God gives faith to whom He pleases; it is therefore clear that He never intends Christ for those on whom He will not bestow faith.

Tenth, the faith commanded and required in the Gospel has various acts and different degrees, which it exercises in an orderly way according to the natural sequence in which its objects are presented. This is very helpful in the matter at hand. Our opponents claim that if Christ did not die for all, then those for whom He did not die are pointlessly called to believe, since there is no proper object of faith for countless people given that Christ did not die for them. As though the Gospel, from the very beginning, proclaimed this doctrine: that Christ died for every person, elect and reprobate alike. Or as though the first thing anyone living under the means of grace is called to believe were that Christ died for him individually. Both of these are plainly false, as I hope will be made clear to all by the end of our discussion. For now I will only indicate something of what I said before concerning the order of the several acts of faith, by which it will appear that no one in the world is called or invited to believe without having a sufficient object for faith to rest on — truth enough for its foundation and scope enough for its fullest exercise.

First, the first thing the Gospel requires sinners to believe — and which it urges and commands them to believe — is that salvation is not to be found in themselves, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and not by the works of the law, by which no living person can be justified. Here is a saving Gospel truth for sinners to believe, on which the apostle dwells throughout Romans chapters 1, 2, and 3, to prepare the way for justification through Christ. Now how many countless people are there to whom the Gospel is preached who never even come this far — who never believe so much as this — among whom one may count nearly the entire nation of the Jews, as is evident from Romans 9 and 10. Contempt of this object of faith is the sin of unbelief.

Second, the Gospel requires faith that salvation is to be found in the promised Seed — in Him who was appointed to be the author of salvation for those who believe. And here also, at this point, some millions of the great company of outwardly called people fall away and never truly believe that God has provided a way for saving sinners.

Third, that Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified by the Jews was this promised Savior, and that there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved besides His. This was the main issue that caused the Jews to break away, refusing to accept Christ as the Savior of humanity and instead treating Him as an enemy of God — and they are therefore so often charged with unbelief and condemnable faithlessness. The question between Christ and them was not whether He died for them all or not, but whether He was the promised Messiah — which they denied, and they perished in their unbelief. Before these three acts of faith are performed, it is pointless to urge the soul to climb the highest steps while bypassing all the foundational ones.

Fourth, the Gospel requires a resting on this Christ — now known and believed to be the promised Redeemer — as an all-sufficient Savior, in whom there is abundant redemption, who is able to save to the uttermost all who come to God through Him, and who can carry the burden of all weary and burdened souls who come to Him by faith. In this presentation there is a certain and infallible truth grounded on the overflowing sufficiency of Christ's offering in itself for whoever — fewer or more — it may have been intended. Now much self-knowledge, much conviction, and a deep sense of sin, God's justice, and free grace is required for this act of faith to be exercised. Good Lord — how many thousands of poor souls within the visible church are never brought to it! The truth is, without the help of God's Spirit none of those three prior acts, much less this last one, can be performed — and that Spirit works freely, when, how, and in whom He pleases.

Fifth, with these things firmly established in the soul — and not before — each person individually is called to believe in the effective power of the redemption that is in the blood of Jesus toward his own soul in particular. Everyone may do this with certainty in whom God's free grace has worked the prior acts of faith and also works this one — without either doubt or fear that there is no proper object to believe. For certainly Christ died for every one in whose hearts the Lord by His almighty power effectively works the faith to lay hold on Him and trust in Him, according to that orderly presentation held out in the Gospel. Now according to this order — as some have observed — the articles of our faith are arranged in the Apostles' Creed, that ancient summary of the Christian faith, with the forgiveness of our sins and eternal life being proposed to be believed in the last place. So it is empty foolishness to cry out that the object of faith is nullified if Christ did not die for all, since there is absolute truth in everything anyone is called to believe according to the Gospel's order.

And so I have set out the general foundations of those answers we will give to the following objections. Applying them to particular cases will be a straightforward task, as I hope will be made plain to all.