Chapter 4
The second Argument wherewith our adversaries make no less flourish than with the former is raised from those places of Scripture where there is mention made of all men and every man in the business of Redemption. The chief places insisted on are 1 Timothy 2:4-6, 2 Peter 3:9, Hebrews 2:9, 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, 1 Corinthians 15:22, and Romans 5:18.
For the use and signification of the word 'all' in Scripture, so much has been said already by many that it would be needless for me to insist upon it. No strength of Argument can be taken from the word itself; wherefore I shall apply myself only to the examination of the particular places urged, and the objections from them raised.
The first and chief place is 1 Timothy 2:4-6: 'God will have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth; Christ gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time.'
If God will have all men to be saved, then Christ died for all; but God will have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth: therefore Christ died for all men.
Answer: The whole strength of this Argument lies in the ambiguity of the word 'all,' which being of various significations and to be interpreted suitably to the matter in hand, may be granted or denied according as the acceptation of the word is enforced. That 'all' or 'all men' do not always comprehend all and every man that were, are, or shall be may be made apparent by near five hundred instances from the Scripture. Taking then 'all' and 'all men' distributively for some of all sorts, we grant the whole; taking them collectively for all of all sorts, we deny the minor: namely, that God will have them all to be saved.
The will of God is usually distinguished into his will intending, and his will commanding. If they say he wills it with his will commanding, requiring, approving, then the sense of the words is this: God commands all men to use the means whereby they may obtain the end, or salvation. Now if this be the way whereby God wills the salvation of all men here mentioned, then certainly those 'all' can possibly be no more than those to whom he grants and reveals the means of grace. Besides, taking God's willing the salvation of men in this sense, we deny the sequence that Christ died for as many as God thus wills should be saved.
Secondly, if the will of God be taken for his efficacious will, the will of his purpose and good pleasure, then certainly it must be fulfilled, and all those saved whom he would have saved. If then 'all' here is to be understood of all men universally, one of these two things must of necessity follow: either that God fails of his purpose and intention, or else that all men universally shall be saved. He does whatsoever he pleases in heaven and earth (Psalm 115), and according to his will in the host of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth (Daniel 4:35).
By 'all men,' the Apostle here intends all sorts of men, indefinitely living under the Gospel, or in these latter times under the enlarged dispensation of the means of grace. The scope of the Apostle, treating of the amplitude, enlargement, and extent of grace in the outward administration thereof under the Gospel, will not suffer it to be denied. We say then that by the words 'all men' are here intended only men of all sorts, suitable to the purpose of the Apostle, which was to show that all external difference between the sons of men is now taken away.
First, the word 'all,' being in the Scripture most commonly used in this sense — that is, for many of all sorts — and there being nothing in the subject matter which should impel to another acceptation, especially for a universal collection of every individual, we hold it safe to cleave to the most usual sense and meaning of it.
Secondly, Paul himself plainly leads us to this interpretation: for after he has enjoined us to pray for all, because the Lord will have all to be saved, he expressly intimates that by 'all men' he understands men of all sorts, ranks, conditions, and orders, by distributing those all into several kinds, expressly mentioning some of them, as Kings and all in authority. Pray for all men (says he), that is all sorts of men, as Magistrates, all that are in authority, the time being now come wherein, without such distinctions as formerly have been observed, the Lord will save some of all sorts and Nations.
Thirdly, we are bound to pray for all whom God would have to be saved. Now we ought not to pray for all and every one, knowing that some are Reprobates and sin unto death, concerning whom we have an express caution not to pray for them.
Fourthly, all shall be saved whom God will have to be saved; this we dare not deny, for who has resisted his will? Seeing then it is most certain that all shall not be saved, it cannot be that the universality of men should be intended in this place.
Fifth, God would have no more to be saved than he would have come to the knowledge of the truth. But it is not the will of the Lord that all and every one in all ages should come to the knowledge of the truth. He suffered the Gentiles in former ages to walk in their own ways, and winked at the time of their ignorance (Acts 17:30), hiding the mystery of salvation from those former ages (Colossians 1:26). It is then evident that God does not will that all and every one in the world of all ages and times should come to the knowledge of the truth, but only all sorts of men without difference, and therefore they only are here intended.
These and the like reasons, which compel us to understand by 'all men' only men of all sorts, also prevail for the same acceptation of the word 'all' in verse 6, where Christ is said to give himself a ransom for all. Paying and accepting of a ransom intimate a commutation and setting free of all those for whom the ransom is paid and accepted. By 'all' then can none be understood but the Redeemed, Ransomed ones of Jesus Christ, such as are vindicated into the glorious liberty of the Children of God — as some of all sorts are expressly said to be (Revelation 5:9), while that all in the world universally are so is confessedly false.
Our answer to the objection — whose strength is a mere fallacy from the ambiguous sense of the word 'all' — is easy: for if by 'all men' you mean the 'all' in the Text, that is, all sorts of men, we grant the whole, namely that Christ died for all; but if by 'all men' you mean all universally, we absolutely deny the assumption, having sufficiently proved that there is no such 'all' in the Text.
The reinforcing of an objection from this place, T.M. in his 'Universality of Grace' makes the subject of one whole chapter; it is also one of the two places which he lays for the bottom and foundation of the whole building, and whereunto at a dead lift he always retires. I therefore thought to have considered that chapter at large, but upon second consideration have laid aside that resolution, and that for three reasons.
First, because I desired not to do again what has already been done, especially the thing itself being such as scarcely deserves to be meddled with at all. The learned work of Master Rutherford, about the death of Christ and the drawing of sinners thereby, came to my hand, wherein he has fully answered that chapter of Master M.'s book, whither I remit the Reader.
Secondly, I find that he has not once attempted to meddle with any of those Reasons and Arguments whereby we confirm our answer to the Objection from the place, and prove undeniably that by 'all men' is meant only men of all sorts.
Thirdly, because, setting aside those bare naked assertions of his own whereby he seeks to strengthen his Argument from and interpretation of this place, the residue wherewith he flourishes is a poor fallacy running through the whole. The strength of all his argumentations consists in this: that by 'all we are to pray for' are not meant only all who are at present Believers — which as no man in his right wits will affirm; so he that will conclude from thence that because they are not only all present believers, therefore they are all the individuals of mankind, is not to be esteemed very sober.
2 Peter 3:9: 'The Lord is long-suffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to Repentance.' The will of God for the salvation of all is here set down both negatively, that he would not have any perish, and positively, that he would have all come to repentance. Now seeing there is no coming to repentance, nor escaping destruction, but only by the blood of Christ, it is manifest that that blood was shed for all.
Answer: That indefinite and general expressions are to be interpreted in an answerable proportion to the things whereof they are affirmed is a rule in the opening of the Scripture. See then of whom the Apostle is here speaking: 'The Lord is long-suffering toward us, not willing that any should perish.' Will not common sense teach us that 'us' is to be repeated in both the following clauses: 'Not willing that any of us should perish, but that all of us should come to Repentance'? Now who are these of whom the Apostle speaks, to whom he writes? Such as had received great and precious promises (chapter 1:4), whom he calls Brethren (chapter 3:1), whom he opposes to the scoffers of the last days (verse 3), to whom the Lord has respect in the disposal of these days, who are said to be elect (Matthew 24). To argue that because God would have none of those to perish, but all of them to come to repentance, therefore he has the same will and mind towards all and every one in the world — even those to whom he never makes known his will, nor ever calls to repentance, who never once hear of his way of salvation — comes not much short of extreme madness and folly. The Text is clear, that it is all, and only the Elect, whom he would not have to perish.
Hebrews 2:9: 'That he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.'
Answer: That 'for every one' is here used for 'for all' by an enallage of the number is by all acknowledged. The whole question is who these all are — whether all men universally, or only all those of whom the Apostle there treats. That this expression 'every man' is commonly used in Scripture to signify men under some restriction cannot be denied — as in Colossians 1:28, 'warning every man and teaching every man,' that is, all those to whom he preached the Gospel. I have frequently met with this present place produced in behalf of universal Redemption, but never once found any endeavor from the text to prove that 'all' here is to be taken for all and every one — although they cannot but know that the usual acceptation of the word is against their purpose. Mr. M. spends a whole chapter about this place, but with abundance of smooth words he does nothing but humbly and heartily beg the question, to which petition, though he be exceedingly earnest, we cannot consent.
First, to taste death is to drink up the cup due to sinners; certainly for whomsoever our Savior did taste of it, he left not one drop for them to drink after him. He tasted or underwent death in their stead, that the cup might pass from them, which passed not from him. Now the cup of death passes only from the elect, from believers; for whomsoever our Savior tasted death, he swallowed it up into victory.
Second, there is an evident apparent cause that should move the Apostle here to call those for whom Christ died 'all' — namely, that he wrote to the Hebrews who were deeply tainted with the erroneous persuasion that all the benefits purchased by the Messiah belonged only to their nation, excluding all others. To root out this pernicious opinion it was fitting for the Apostle to speak of the extent of free grace under the Gospel and to hold out a universality of God's elect throughout the world.
Third, the description given in the same passage of the 'all' for whom Christ tasted death by the grace of God will not suit to all and every person, but only to the elect of God. For in verse 10 they are called 'many sons to be brought to glory'; in verse 11, 'those who are sanctified, his brothers, the children that God gave him'; in verse 13, 'those delivered from the bondage of death' (verse 15) — none of which can be affirmed of those who are born, live, and die as children of the wicked one. Christ is not a captain of salvation, as he is here styled, to any but those who obey him (Hebrews 5:9). Righteousness comes by him 'unto all and upon all who believe' (Romans 3:22). For these and similar reasons we cannot be induced to accept our adversaries' interpretation, being fully persuaded that by 'everyone' here is meant all and only God's elect, in whose stead Christ by the grace of God tasted death.
Another passage is 2 Corinthians 5:14-15: 'For the love of Christ constrains us, because we thus judge: that if one died for all, then all died; and that he died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves but for him who died for them.' They say: in verse 14 you have two 'alls' that must both be of equal extent — if 'all' died, then Christ died for 'all,' that is, for as many as were dead; again, he died for 'all' that should live to him, but that is the duty of every person in the world, and therefore he died for them all. Further, that 'all' means every individual is clear from verse 10 where it is said that all must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, from which appearance none shall be exempted.
In answer: first, taking the words as some of our adversaries take them, yet it does not appear from the texture of the Apostle's argument that the two 'alls' of verse 14 are of equal extent. He does not say Christ died for all who were dead, but only that all were dead for whom Christ died — which proves no more than this: all those for whom Christ died were dead with that kind of death of which he speaks. The extent of the words is to be taken from the first 'all,' not the latter. The Apostle affirms so many to be dead as Christ died for, not that Christ died for so many as were dead. So the 'all' that were dead can give no light to the extent of the 'all' that Christ died for, being merely regulated by it. Second, that all and every person are morally bound to live to Christ by virtue of a precept, we deny — only those are bound to live to him to whom he is revealed, and indeed only those who live by him and have a spiritual life in and with him. Third, it is true that all and every person must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, since he is ordained to be judge of the world — but that they are intended in verse 10 of this chapter is not true; the Apostle speaks of 'us all,' all believers and especially all preachers of the Gospel, neither of which is all people. So despite what has been said, it does not appear that by 'all' here is meant any but the elect of God and all believers.
First, the resurrection of Christ is here joined with his death — he died for them and rose again. Now for whomever Christ rises, he rises for their justification (Romans 4:25), and they must be justified (Romans 8:34); our adversaries themselves have always confessed that the fruits of the resurrection of Christ are peculiar to believers.
Second, the Apostle speaks only of those who by virtue of the death of Christ live to him (verse 15), who are new creatures (verse 17), to whom the Lord does not impute their trespasses (verse 19), who become the righteousness of God in Christ (verse 21) — which are only believers, not all.
Third, the Greek article joined to the noun 'all' evidently restricts that 'all' to all of some particular group — 'then were they all (or rather, all these) dead': what 'all'? All these believers of whom he treats, as above.
Fourth, all those of whom the Apostle treats are proved to be dead because Christ died for them: 'if one died for all, then all died' — what death is spoken of here? Not natural death but spiritual — specifically not the death that is in sin, but the death that is to sin. Even the greatest champions of the Arminian cause, such as Vorstius and Grotius on this passage, convinced by the evidence of the text, acknowledge that it is a death to sin by virtue of the death of Christ that is spoken of here. It is apparent from the text itself: the Apostle's intention is to prove that those for whom Christ died are so dead to sin that they should no longer live to it but to him who died for them — the same subject he handles at greater length in Romans 6:5, where we are said to be dead to sin by being planted together in the likeness of the death of Christ. These words then — 'if Christ died for all, then all died' — concern the death to sin of those for whom Christ died; and what does this have to do with a general ransom?
Fifth, the Apostle speaks of the death of Christ in respect of application: the effectualness thereof toward those for whom he died, to cause them to live unto him, is insisted on. That Christ died for all in respect of application has not yet by any been affirmed. Then must we live unto him — yes, live with him forevermore — if there is any virtue or efficacy in his applied oblation for that end. In sum, here is no mention of Christ's dying for any but those that are dead to sin and live to him.
A fifth place urged to prove universal Redemption from the word 'all' is 1 Corinthians 15:22: 'For as in Adam all men die, so in Christ shall all be made alive.'
Answer: There being another place hereafter to be considered wherein the whole strength of the argument usually drawn from these words is contained, I shall not need to speak much to this. Those concerning whom Paul speaks in this chapter are called 'all'; those are they who are implanted into Christ, joined to him as the members to the head, receiving a glorious resurrection by virtue of his. That Paul in this whole chapter discourses of the resurrection of believers is manifest from the arguments he brings to confirm it, which are taken from the resurrection of Christ, the hope, faith, customs, and expected rewards of Christians — all of which would have been exceedingly ridiculous had they been held out to the men of the world to prove the resurrection of the dead in general. All who by virtue of the resurrection of Christ shall be made alive are all those who are partakers of the nature of Christ, who in verse 23 are expressly called 'those that are Christ's'; and certainly Christ is not the first-fruits of the damned. Lastly, granting all that can be desired — namely the universality of the word 'all' in both places — yet I am no way able to discern a medium that may serve as an argument to prove the general ransom.
Romans 5:18 is the last place urged in this kind: 'As by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men unto condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men to justification of life.' It might suffice to declare briefly that by 'all men' in the latter place can none be understood but those whom the free gift actually comes unto justification of life — those who in verse 17 are said to receive abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness, and so reign in life by Christ. Some believe not; all men have not faith; on some the wrath of God abides (John 3:36) — upon whom surely grace does not reign through righteousness to eternal life by Jesus Christ.
Verse 14: Adam is called the type and figure of him that was to come — not an instituted type ordained for that end only, but one in whom there was a resemblance between himself and Jesus Christ. The Apostle prosecutes this resemblance to show an alike, though not equal, efficacy of the demerit and transgression of the one to condemn all those in whose room he was a public person, and of the righteousness and death of the other for the absolution and salvation of all those to whom he was a spiritual head. That these last were all and every one of the first is not the least mentioned. The comparison is solely to be considered intensively, in respect of efficacy, not extensively in respect of object — though the 'all' of Adam be called his 'many,' and the 'many' of Christ be called his 'all,' as indeed they are, even all the seed which is given unto him.
T.M. in his 'Universality of Free Grace,' chapter 8, lays down the comparison instituted by the Apostle between Adam and Christ as one of the main foundations of his universal Redemption, affirming it to consist in four things.
First, that Adam in his first sin and transgression was a public person in the room and place of all mankind, by virtue of the covenant between God and him, so that whatever he did therein all were alike sharers with him; and so also was Christ a public person in his obedience and death in the room and place of all mankind, represented by him — every one of the posterity of Adam.
Answer: To that which concerns Adam, we grant he was a public person in respect of all his who were to proceed from him by natural propagation, and that Christ also was a public person in the room of his, prefigured by Adam. But that Christ in his obedience, death, and sacrifice was a public person standing in the room of all and every one in the world — including reprobate persons hated of God from eternity, those he never knew, concerning whom in the days of his flesh he thanked his Father for hiding from them the mysteries of salvation, whom he refused to pray for, the greatest part of whom were already damned in hell — is to us such a monstrous assertion as cannot be apprehended without horror. That any should perish in whose room the Son of God appeared before his Father with his perfect obedience, that any of those for whom he is a Mediator and Advocate should be plucked out of his arms — his satisfaction and intercession in their behalf being refused — is a doctrine that will scarcely be owned by those who strive to preserve the witness and testimony of the Lord Jesus.
First, he stood not in the room only of the elect, because Adam lost not election, not being entrusted with it. Second, if he stood not in the room of all, then he had come short of his figure. Third, it is said he was to restore all men lost by Adam (Hebrews 2:9). Fourth, he took flesh, was subjected to mortality, became under the law, and bore the sins of mankind. Fifth, he did it in the room of all mankind once given unto him (Romans 14:9; Philippians 2:8, 11). Sixth, he is called the last Adam. Seventh, he is said to be a public person in the room of all ever since the first Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45, 47; 1 Timothy 2:5; Romans 5).
Answer: Never surely was a rotten conclusion bottomed upon more loose and tottering principles, nor the word of God more boldly corrupted for the maintenance of any error. To the first: though Adam lost not election, yet in him all the elect were lost, whom Christ came to seek, whom he found, in whose room he was a public person. To the second: Christ is nowhere compared to Adam in respect of the extent of the object of his death, but only of the efficacy of his obedience. To the third: the third is a false assertion — see our foregoing consideration of Hebrews 2:9. To the fourth: he took flesh because the children were partakers of the same — it was necessary for saving his elect. To the fifth: no such thing is once affirmed in the whole book of God, that all the sons of men were given to Christ to redeem; Christ himself plainly affirms the contrary in John 17:6, 9. To the sixth: he is called the last Adam in respect of the efficacy of his death unto the justification of the seed given unto him, which proves not that he stood in the room of all those to whom his death was never known nor in any way profitable. To the seventh: that he was a public person is confessed; that he was so in the room of all is not proved by what has been alleged. Another strange assertion of his is that the end of the death of Christ was his presenting himself alive and just before his Father — as though it were the ultimate thing intended; whereas the Holy Ghost expressly affirms that he loved his church and gave himself for it, that he might present it a glorious church unto himself (Ephesians 5:25-27).
The following parallels which he institutes between Adam and Christ have nothing of proof in them to the business in hand — namely that Christ was a public person standing in his obedience in the room of all and every one concerned in the disobedience of Adam. They are a confused medley of some truths and diverse unsavory errors, and I shall only give the reader a taste of some of them whereby he may judge of the rest.
First, in the second part of his parallel he affirms that when Christ finished his obedience in dying and rising, it was accepted with God for Christ's sake as the death, resurrection, sacrifice, satisfaction, and redemption of all — that is, all and every one. Now that the death of Christ should be accepted before God as the death of all, and yet the greatest part of these all be adjudged to eternal death in their own persons by the same righteous God; that all and every one should arise in and with Jesus Christ, and yet most continue dead in their sins and die for sin eternally; that satisfaction should be made and accepted for those who are never spared one farthing of their debt; that all the reprobates — Cain, Pharaoh, Ahab, and the rest — who were actually damned in hell when Christ died and rose, should be esteemed with God to have died and risen again with Christ: such senseless contradictions and abominable assertions, thrust upon Christians without the least color of proof, are enough to make any man amazed.
Secondly, in the third of his parallels he goes one step higher, affirming that as by the sin of Adam all his posterity were deprived of life, so by the efficacy of the obedience of Christ, all men without exception are redeemed, restored, made righteous, and justified freely — wickedly corrupting Romans 3:22 by cutting off the following words 'and upon all that believe.' What remains then but that all should also be saved? That men should be restored and yet continue lost; that they should be made righteous and yet remain detestably wicked; that they should be justified freely by the grace of God and always lie under the condemning sentence of his law — these are not only exceedingly opposite to the Gospel, but so absolutely at variance with one another that no salve of Mr. More's following cautions will heal their mutual wounds. I shall now transgress the rule of disputation slightly and produce some few reasons to demonstrate that Christ in his obedience to the death was not a public person in the room of all and every man in the world.
First, the seed of the woman was not to be a public person in the place and room of the seed of the serpent. Jesus Christ is the seed of the woman; all the reprobates are the seed of the serpent. Therefore Jesus Christ was not, in his oblation and suffering, a public person in their room.
Secondly, Christ as a public person represents only those for whose sake he set himself apart to that office and employment wherein he was such a representative. But on his own testimony in John 17:19, he set himself apart for the sake only of some who were given him out of the world, and not of all and every one. Therefore he was not a public person in the room of all.
Thirdly, Christ was a surety as he was a public person (Hebrews 7:22), but he was not a surety for all: for first, all are not taken into that covenant whereof he was a surety; second, none can perish for whom Christ is a surety unless he is not able to pay the debt. Therefore he was not a public person in the room of all.
Fourthly, for whom he was a public person, in their rooms he suffered and for them he made satisfaction (Isaiah 53), but he suffered not in the stead of all, nor made satisfaction for all; for some must suffer themselves, which makes it evident that Christ did not suffer for them (Romans 8:33-34), and the justice of God requires satisfaction from themselves to the payment of the utmost farthing.
Fifth, Jesus Christ as a public person did nothing in vain in respect of any for whom he was a public person; but many things which Christ as a public person performed were altogether in vain and fruitless in respect of the greatest part of the sons of men, being under an incapability of receiving any good by anything he did — to wit, all that then were actually damned. In respect of these, redemption, reconciliation, satisfaction, and the like, could possibly be no other than empty names.
Sixth, if God were well pleased with his Son in what he did as a public person in his representation of others (as he was, Ephesians 5:2), then must he also be well pleased with them whom he did represent, either absolutely or conditionally. But with many of the sons of men, God in the representation of his Son was not well pleased neither absolutely nor conditionally — to wit, with Cain, Pharaoh, Saul, Ahab, and others dead and damned before. Therefore Christ did not as a public person represent all.
Seventh, for testimonies, see John 17:9; Matthew 20:28; Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 10:45; Hebrews 6:20; Isaiah 53:12; John 10:15; Hebrews 13:20; Matthew 1:21; Hebrews 2:17; John 11:51-52; Acts 20:28; Ephesians 5:2, 23-25; Romans 8:33-34.
The second argument our opponents promote with no less confidence than the first is drawn from those Scripture passages that mention 'all men' and 'every man' in connection with redemption. The chief passages relied upon are 1 Timothy 2:4-6, 2 Peter 3:9, Hebrews 2:9, 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, 1 Corinthians 15:22, and Romans 5:18.
Regarding the use and meaning of the word 'all' in Scripture, so much has already been said by many others that it would be unnecessary for me to dwell on it. No argumentative force can be drawn from the word itself; so I will focus on examining the particular passages cited and the objections raised from them.
The first and chief passage is 1 Timothy 2:4-6: 'who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.'
If God desires all people to be saved, then Christ died for all; but God desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth: therefore Christ died for all people.
Reply: the entire force of this argument rests on the ambiguity of the word 'all,' which carries various meanings and must be interpreted according to the subject matter at hand, and so may be granted or denied depending on how the word is being used. That 'all' or 'all people' does not always mean every single person who ever lived, lives, or will live can be shown by nearly five hundred examples from Scripture. Taking then 'all' and 'all people' distributively — meaning some of all kinds — we grant the whole argument. Taking them collectively — meaning every one of all kinds — we deny the second premise: namely, that God desires every single person to be saved.
God's will is commonly distinguished into His will of intention and His will of command. If they say He wills this by His will of command — requiring, approving — then the sense of the words is: God commands all people to use the means by which they may attain the end, which is salvation. Now if this is how God desires the salvation of the 'all people' mentioned here, then certainly those 'all' can be no more than those to whom He grants and reveals the means of grace. Moreover, taking God's desiring the salvation of people in this sense, we deny that it follows that Christ died for as many as God thus wills should be saved.
Second, if God's will here is taken as His effectual will — the will of His purpose and good pleasure — then it must certainly be fulfilled, and all those God desires to be saved will indeed be saved. If then 'all' here is to be understood as all people without exception, one of two things must necessarily follow: either God fails in His purpose and intention, or all people without exception will be saved. He does whatever He pleases in heaven and on earth (Psalm 115), and acts according to His will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth (Daniel 4:35).
By 'all people' the apostle here means all kinds of people, generally considered, living under the Gospel, or in these latter times under the expanded administration of the means of grace. The context of the apostle's discussion — treating the breadth, enlargement, and reach of grace in its outward administration under the Gospel — does not allow this to be denied. We say then that by 'all people' only people of all kinds are meant, consistent with the apostle's purpose, which was to show that all external distinctions among people have now been removed.
First, the word 'all' in Scripture most commonly carries this meaning — that is, many of all kinds — and there is nothing in the subject matter that should push toward another reading, especially toward a universal collection of every individual. We therefore hold it right to stick with the most common sense and meaning of the word.
Second, Paul himself plainly leads us to this interpretation: for after he commands us to pray for all, because the Lord desires all to be saved, he expressly shows that by 'all people' he means people of all kinds, ranks, conditions, and positions — by distributing those 'all' into several categories and expressly naming some of them, such as kings and all who are in authority. Pray for all people, he says — that is, all kinds of people, such as rulers and all in authority, the time now having come when, without the distinctions formerly observed, the Lord will save some of all kinds and nations.
Third, we are bound to pray for all whom God desires to be saved. But we are not to pray for every single individual — for we know that some are reprobate and have sinned a sin unto death, concerning whom we are expressly warned not to pray for them.
Fourth, all those God desires to be saved will be saved — we dare not deny this, for who has resisted His will? Since it is certain that not all will be saved, it cannot be that every person without exception is intended in this passage.
Fifth, God desires no more to be saved than He desires to come to the knowledge of the truth. But it is not God's will that all and every person in all ages should come to the knowledge of the truth. He allowed the Gentiles in former ages to walk in their own ways and overlooked the times of their ignorance (Acts 17:30), hiding the mystery of salvation from those earlier ages (Colossians 1:26). It is then evident that God does not will that every single person in the world in all ages and times should come to the knowledge of the truth, but only all kinds of people without distinction — and therefore only they are intended here.
These and similar reasons, which compel us to understand 'all people' as meaning only people of all kinds, also apply equally to the word 'all' in verse 6, where Christ is said to give Himself a ransom for all. The paying and accepting of a ransom implies a substitution and the freeing of all those for whom the ransom is paid and accepted. By 'all' then, only the redeemed and ransomed of Jesus Christ can be meant — those brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God — as some of all kinds are expressly said to be (Revelation 5:9), while it is openly acknowledged to be false that all people in the world universally are so.
Our answer to the objection — whose strength rests on nothing more than a fallacy from the ambiguous meaning of the word 'all' — is straightforward: if by 'all people' you mean the 'all' in the text, that is, all kinds of people, we grant the whole claim and agree that Christ died for all; but if by 'all people' you mean every individual without exception, we flatly deny the premise, having sufficiently proved that no such 'all' exists in the text.
T.M. in his 'Universality of Grace' devotes an entire chapter to pressing this objection; it is also one of the two passages he lays as the foundation for his whole case, and to which he always retreats when pressed. I had therefore intended to address that chapter at length, but on reflection I laid that aside, and for three reasons.
First, because I had no desire to repeat what has already been done, especially since the matter itself scarcely deserves to be engaged with at all. The learned work of Master Rutherford on the death of Christ and the drawing of sinners thereby came to my hand, in which he fully answers that chapter of Master M.'s book, and to that I direct the reader.
Second, I find that he has not once attempted to engage with any of the reasons and arguments by which we establish our reply to the objection from this passage and prove beyond question that 'all people' means only people of all kinds.
Third, because setting aside his bare assertions by which he attempts to strengthen his argument from and interpretation of this passage, what remains is a weak fallacy running through the whole. The force of all his arguments comes down to this: that by 'all we are to pray for' is not meant only all who are present believers — which no one in their right mind would affirm; but to conclude from this that because they are not only all present believers, they must therefore be every individual in humanity, is not a sober argument.
2 Peter 3:9: 'The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.' The will of God for salvation is here stated both negatively — that He does not want any to perish — and positively — that He wants all to come to repentance. Now since there is no coming to repentance, and no escaping destruction, except through the blood of Christ, it appears that that blood was shed for all.
Reply: It is a principle in interpreting Scripture that indefinite and general expressions are to be understood in proportion to the things they are being said about. Consider therefore whom the apostle is speaking of here: 'The Lord is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish.' Does not plain reading teach us that 'you' is to be read in the following clauses as well: 'not wishing for any of you to perish, but for all of you to come to repentance'? Now who are these the apostle is addressing? Those who had received great and precious promises (chapter 1:4), whom he calls brethren (chapter 3:1), whom he sets in contrast to the mockers of the last days (verse 3), whom the Lord has in view in the timing of these days, and who are described as elect (Matthew 24). To argue that because God wishes none of these to perish but all of them to come to repentance, therefore He has the same will toward every single person in the world — even those to whom He never makes His will known, whom He never calls to repentance, who never once hear of His way of salvation — falls not far short of extreme foolishness. The text is clear: it is all, and only, the elect whom He does not wish to perish.
Hebrews 2:9: 'But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.'
Reply: That 'for everyone' here is used for 'for all' by a change in grammatical number is universally acknowledged. The whole question is who these 'all' are — whether all people without exception, or only all those the apostle is there treating of. That 'every man' is commonly used in Scripture to refer to people under some restriction cannot be denied — as in Colossians 1:28, 'admonishing every man and teaching every man,' meaning all those to whom he preached the Gospel. I have frequently encountered this passage produced in support of universal redemption, but never once found any attempt from the text itself to prove that 'all' here means every individual — even though those who cite it know full well that the ordinary meaning of the word works against their purpose. Mr. M. spends an entire chapter on this passage, but with a great many smooth words he does nothing but beg the question at great length — and however earnestly he pleads, we cannot consent.
First, to taste death is to drink the cup due to sinners; certainly for everyone our Savior tasted it, He left not one drop for them to drink afterward. He tasted or underwent death in their place, so that the cup might pass from them that did not pass from Him. Now the cup of death passes only from the elect, from believers — for everyone our Savior tasted death for, He swallowed it up in victory.
Second, there is a clear and evident reason why the apostle here calls those for whom Christ died 'all' — namely, that he was writing to the Hebrews, who were deeply infected with the erroneous belief that all the benefits purchased by the Messiah belonged exclusively to their nation, to the exclusion of all others. To uproot this dangerous opinion it was fitting for the apostle to describe the breadth of free grace under the Gospel and to set forth the universality of God's elect spread throughout the world.
Third, the description given in the same passage of the 'all' for whom Christ tasted death by the grace of God does not fit all and every person, but only God's elect. For in verse 10 they are called 'many sons to be brought to glory'; in verse 11, 'those who are sanctified, His brothers, the children whom God gave Him'; in verse 13, those 'delivered from the bondage of death' (verse 15) — none of which can be said of those who are born, live, and die as children of the wicked one. Christ is not the captain or author of salvation, as He is called here, to any but those who obey Him (Hebrews 5:9). Righteousness comes through Him 'to all and upon all those who believe' (Romans 3:22). For these and similar reasons we cannot accept our opponents' interpretation, being fully persuaded that by 'everyone' here is meant all and only God's elect, in whose place Christ by the grace of God tasted death.
Another passage is 2 Corinthians 5:14-15: 'For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.' They say: in verse 14 there are two 'alls' that must both be of equal extent — if 'all' died, then Christ died for 'all,' that is, for as many as were dead; and again, He died for 'all' who should live to Him, but living to Him is the duty of every person in the world, and therefore He died for them all. Furthermore, they say that 'all' means every individual is clear from verse 10 where it states that all must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, from which no one is exempted.
In reply: first, even taking the words as some of our opponents take them, the apostle's argument does not show that the two 'alls' of verse 14 are of equal extent. He does not say Christ died for all who were dead, but only that all were dead for whom Christ died — which proves no more than this: all those for whom Christ died were dead with the kind of death he is speaking of. The scope of the 'all' is determined by the first use, not the latter. The apostle affirms that as many are dead as Christ died for, not that Christ died for as many as were dead. So the 'all' that were dead gives no indication of the extent of the 'all' that Christ died for, since it is simply defined by the first. Second, we deny that every person in the world is morally bound to live to Christ by virtue of a command — only those to whom Christ is revealed are bound to live to Him, and in truth only those who live by Him and have spiritual life in and with Him. Third, it is true that all and every person must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, since He is appointed as judge of the world — but that they are meant in verse 10 of this chapter is not true; the apostle speaks of 'all of us,' all believers and especially all preachers of the Gospel, neither of which means all people. So despite all that has been said, it does not appear that by 'all' here is meant anyone but God's elect and all believers.
First, the resurrection of Christ is here joined with His death — He died for them and rose again. Now for everyone Christ rises, He rises for their justification (Romans 4:25), and they must be justified (Romans 8:34); our opponents themselves have always acknowledged that the fruits of Christ's resurrection are specific to believers.
Second, the apostle speaks only of those who by virtue of Christ's death live to Him (verse 15), who are new creatures (verse 17), to whom the Lord does not count their sins (verse 19), who become the righteousness of God in Christ (verse 21) — which applies only to believers, not to all.
Third, the Greek article attached to 'all' clearly restricts that 'all' to all of a particular group — 'then were they all dead': which 'all'? All these believers of whom he speaks, as discussed above.
Fourth, all those the apostle is addressing are proved to be dead because Christ died for them: 'if one died for all, therefore all died' — what death is spoken of here? Not natural death but spiritual — and specifically not the death that is in sin, but the death that is to sin. Even the leading champions of the Arminian cause, such as Vorstius and Grotius on this passage, are convinced by the evidence of the text to acknowledge that it is a death to sin by virtue of Christ's death that is spoken of here. It is apparent from the text itself: the apostle's aim is to show that those for whom Christ died are so dead to sin that they should no longer live to it but to Him who died for them — the same subject he addresses at greater length in Romans 6:5, where we are said to be dead to sin by being joined to the likeness of Christ's death. These words then — 'if Christ died for all, then all died' — concern the death to sin of those for whom Christ died; and what does this have to do with a general ransom?
Fifth, the apostle speaks of Christ's death in terms of its application: he focuses on its effectiveness toward those for whom He died, in causing them to live to Him. No one has ever claimed that Christ died for all in terms of application. Then we must live to Him — yes, live with Him forever — if there is any virtue or power in His applied offering for that purpose. In short, this passage mentions Christ dying for no one but those who are dead to sin and live to Him.
A fifth passage pressed in support of universal redemption from the word 'all' is 1 Corinthians 15:22: 'For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.'
Reply: Since there is another passage to be considered later that contains the full force of the argument usually drawn from these words, I need not say much about this one. Those Paul speaks of in this chapter are called 'all'; these are those who are joined to Christ, united to Him as members to the head, receiving a glorious resurrection by virtue of His. That Paul in this whole chapter is speaking about the resurrection of believers is clear from the arguments he uses to confirm it, which are drawn from Christ's resurrection, the hope, faith, practices, and expected rewards of Christians — all of which would have been absurd if held out to the world at large to prove the general resurrection of the dead. All who will be made alive by virtue of Christ's resurrection are all those who share in the nature of Christ, who in verse 23 are expressly called 'those who are Christ's'; and certainly Christ is not the firstfruits of the condemned. Lastly, even granting everything that could be desired — namely the universal extent of 'all' in both clauses — I am still unable to see how this produces any argument for a general ransom.
Romans 5:18 is the last passage of this kind pressed in support: 'So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.' It is enough to observe briefly that by 'all men' in the latter clause only those can be meant to whom the free gift actually comes in justification of life — those who in verse 17 are said to receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness, and so reign in life through Christ. Some do not believe; not all people have faith; on some the wrath of God remains (John 3:36) — and on these surely grace does not reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ.
Verse 14: Adam is called the type and figure of the one to come — not a deliberately instituted type appointed for that purpose alone, but one in whom there was a resemblance to Jesus Christ. The apostle develops this resemblance to show a similar — though not equal — effectiveness of the wrongdoing and transgression of the one in condemning all those in whose place he was a public representative, and of the righteousness and death of the other in absolving and saving all those of whom He was the spiritual head. That those in the latter group were every single one of the former is not mentioned in the slightest. The comparison is to be understood entirely in terms of effectiveness, not in terms of its extent — though the 'all' of Adam is called his 'many,' and the 'many' of Christ is called His 'all,' which is indeed what they are — all the seed that was given to Him.
T.M. in his 'Universality of Free Grace,' chapter 8, presents the apostle's comparison between Adam and Christ as one of the main foundations of his universal redemption, claiming it consists of four things.
First, that Adam in his first sin and transgression was a public representative in the place of all mankind, by virtue of the covenant between God and him, so that whatever he did there, all were equally sharers with him; and so also was Christ a public representative in His obedience and death, standing in the place of all mankind — every descendant of Adam — represented by Him.
Reply: Regarding Adam, we grant that he was a public representative for all his descendants who would proceed from him by natural generation, and that Christ also was a public representative for His own, prefigured by Adam. But that Christ in His obedience, death, and sacrifice was a public representative standing in the place of all and every person in the world — including reprobate persons hated by God from eternity, those He never knew, those for whom in the days of His flesh He thanked His Father for hiding the mysteries of salvation from them, whom He refused to pray for, the great majority of whom were already condemned in hell — this is to us so monstrous an assertion that it cannot be grasped without horror. That any should perish in whose place the Son of God appeared before His Father with His perfect obedience, that any of those for whom He is Mediator and Advocate should be torn from His arms — His satisfaction and intercession on their behalf being rejected — is a doctrine that those who value the honor and testimony of the Lord Jesus will scarcely be willing to own.
First, He did not stand only in the place of the elect, because Adam did not forfeit election, having never been entrusted with it. Second, if He did not stand in the place of all, then He would have fallen short of His type. Third, it is said He was to restore all people lost through Adam (Hebrews 2:9). Fourth, He took on flesh, was subjected to mortality, came under the law, and bore the sins of humanity. Fifth, He did this in the place of all mankind once given to Him (Romans 14:9; Philippians 2:8, 11). Sixth, He is called the last Adam. Seventh, He is said to be a public representative in the place of all since the first Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45, 47; 1 Timothy 2:5; Romans 5).
Reply: Surely a weaker conclusion was never built on more unstable and shaky premises, nor God's Word more boldly twisted for the maintenance of any error. To the first: though Adam did not forfeit election, yet in him all the elect were lost — those whom Christ came to seek, whom He found, and in whose place He was a public representative. To the second: Christ is nowhere compared to Adam in terms of the extent of the object of His death, but only in terms of the effectiveness of His obedience. To the third: the third claim is a false assertion — see our earlier examination of Hebrews 2:9. To the fourth: He took on flesh because the children shared in it — it was necessary for saving His elect. To the fifth: no such thing is affirmed anywhere in the entire Word of God, that all the sons of men were given to Christ to redeem; Christ Himself states the opposite plainly in John 17:6, 9. To the sixth: He is called the last Adam in terms of the effectiveness of His death in justifying the seed given to Him, which does not prove that He stood in the place of all those to whom His death was never known and in no way profitable. To the seventh: that He was a public representative is granted; that He was so in the place of all is not proved by what has been put forward. Another strange assertion is that the goal of Christ's death was His presenting Himself alive and just before His Father — as though that were the ultimate purpose — whereas the Holy Spirit expressly states that He loved His church and gave Himself for it, so that He might present it to Himself as a glorious church (Ephesians 5:25-27).
The further parallels he draws between Adam and Christ have no bearing on the matter at hand — namely, that Christ was a public representative, in His obedience, in the place of all and every person involved in Adam's disobedience. They are a confused mixture of some truths and various serious errors, and I will only give the reader a sample of some of them so he may judge the rest.
First, in the second part of his parallel he claims that when Christ completed His obedience in dying and rising, it was accepted by God on Christ's behalf as the death, resurrection, sacrifice, satisfaction, and redemption of all — that is, all and every person. Now that the death of Christ should be accepted before God as the death of all, and yet the great majority of these 'all' be condemned to eternal death in their own persons by that same righteous God; that all and every person should rise in and with Jesus Christ, and yet most continue dead in their sins and die for sin eternally; that satisfaction should be made and accepted for those who are never relieved of a penny of their debt; that all the reprobate — Cain, Pharaoh, Ahab, and the rest — who were actually condemned in hell when Christ died and rose, should be counted by God as having died and risen with Christ: such senseless contradictions and offensive claims, pushed on Christians without the slightest evidence, are enough to leave anyone astonished.
Second, in the third of his parallels he goes one step further, claiming that as by Adam's sin all his descendants were deprived of life, so by the effectiveness of Christ's obedience all people without exception are redeemed, restored, made righteous, and justified freely — dishonestly distorting Romans 3:22 by cutting off the following words 'and upon all who believe.' What remains then but that all should also be saved? That people should be restored and yet remain lost; that they should be made righteous and yet remain utterly wicked; that they should be freely justified by God's grace and yet always lie under the condemning sentence of His law — these claims are not only thoroughly contrary to the Gospel, but so utterly contradictory to one another that no amount of Mr. More's subsequent qualifications can heal their mutual contradictions. I will now step slightly outside the rules of formal disputation and offer a few reasons to show that Christ in His obedience to death was not a public representative in the place of all and every person in the world.
First, the seed of the woman was not to be a public representative in the place of the seed of the serpent. Jesus Christ is the seed of the woman; all the reprobate are the seed of the serpent. Therefore Jesus Christ was not, in His offering and suffering, a public representative in their place.
Second, Christ as a public representative stands in for only those for whose sake He dedicated Himself to that office and role in which He was such a representative. But by His own testimony in John 17:19, He dedicated Himself only for those given to Him out of the world, and not for all and every person. Therefore He was not a public representative in the place of all.
Third, Christ was a surety as He was a public representative (Hebrews 7:22), but He was not a surety for all: first, not all are part of the covenant of which He was the guarantor; second, no one for whom Christ is a surety can perish unless He is unable to pay the debt. Therefore He was not a public representative in the place of all.
Fourth, for those He was a public representative for, He suffered in their place and made satisfaction for them (Isaiah 53); but He did not suffer in the place of all, nor make satisfaction for all — for some must suffer for themselves, which makes plain that Christ did not suffer for them (Romans 8:33-34), and God's justice demands satisfaction from them personally, down to the last cent.
Fifth, Jesus Christ as a public representative did nothing in vain with respect to any for whom He was a public representative; but many things Christ performed as a public representative were entirely vain and without fruit with respect to the great majority of humanity, who were incapable of receiving any benefit from anything He did — namely, all those already condemned at the time. In their case, redemption, reconciliation, satisfaction, and the like could only have been empty words.
Sixth, if God was well pleased with His Son in what He did as a public representative in representing others — as He was (Ephesians 5:2) — then He must also be well pleased with those He represented, either absolutely or conditionally. But with many of the sons of men, God was not well pleased — in His Son's representation of them — either absolutely or conditionally: that is, with Cain, Pharaoh, Saul, Ahab, and others who were already dead and condemned. Therefore Christ did not as a public representative stand in for all.
Seventh, for supporting testimonies, see John 17:9; Matthew 20:28; Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 10:45; Hebrews 6:20; Isaiah 53:12; John 10:15; Hebrews 13:20; Matthew 1:21; Hebrews 2:17; John 11:51-52; Acts 20:28; Ephesians 5:2, 23-25; Romans 8:33-34.
