Redemption Redeemed. John Goodwin

the exposition given of the Scripture last argued, were it not clear and pregnant enough by the light wherein it hath been presented, further countenance might be given unto it, by showing what friends it hath amongst our best and most approved authors. Among the ancients, Chrysostom is generally esteemed, and that worthily, the best interpreter of the Scriptures. His sense of the place under debate is plainly enough the same with ours. “For,” saith he, writing upon the place, “He (meaning Christ) had not died, or would not have died, for all, had not all died or been dead.” In which words he clearly supposeth, that Christ died for as many as were dead, and consequently for all, without exception, inasmuch as all, without exception or difference, were dead. A little after, thus: “for it argueth an excess of much love, both to die for so great a world, and to die for it being so affected or disposed as it was.”

      Amongst our later divines, Musculus is not the least, if not equal to the greatest. Yet he also gives the right hand of fellowship to the interpretation given upon the place. “But Christ,” saith he, “died not only for his friends, but for his enemies also; not for some men only, but for all, without exception. This is the unmeasurable or vast extent of the love of God.” But the cause we plead needs no such advocates as these, being potent enough with its own evidence and equity, and therefore we shall retain no more of them.

      A third text of Scripture presented upon the same account with the former, was, “that he by the grace of God should taste death huper pantos for every man.” Heb. ii. 9. This clause importeth that universality of atonement made by the death of Christ, which we maintain more significantly, if more may be, and with less liableness to any evasion or shift, than any of the former places engaged in the warfare. To show that the Lord Christ, though clothed with a body of flesh, wherein he was capable of dying as well as other men, yet did not suffer death simply through the malice or power of his enemies, but upon an account far superior to these. The inspired writer attributes his death to the grace of God, i.e. the love and gracious affections of God, not towards some, or a few, no, nor yet towards all men collectively taken or in the lump, but towards all men distributively taken, i.e. towards every particular and individual man. “Huper pantos,” saith the Holy Ghost, “for every man;” i. e. to procure eternal redemption and salvation for every man, without the exclusion of any. I cannot apprehend what can reasonably be said to alienate the mind or import of this Scripture from our present cause.

      Evident it is, and you shall find our best interpreters of the place affirming the same, that the author in these words, “that through the grace of God he might taste death,” &c., assigns a reason, or two rather, of what he had said a little before concerning the incarnation and humiliation of Jesus Christ, whom he had in the former chapter asserted to be the Son of God, to prevent or heal any scandal or offence that either had already, or might afterwards arise in the minds of these Hebrews, through the unlikelihood, strangeness, or incredibleness of such a thing. It is a saying among philosophers, and many men have experienced the truth in it that knowledge of reasons or causes of things causeth admiration, and prompts all troublesomeness of thoughts about them to cease.

      So then, the author’s drift and intent in these words mentioned, being to satisfy the Hebrews concerning such a strange, wonderful, and unheard of thing, as, 1. That the Son of God should be made man; and, 2. That being made man, he should suffer death; it is no ways credible but that he should, (a.) Assign such a cause as would carry the greatest weight of satisfaction in it; and (b.) Express himself in such perspicuity and plainness of words, that they might not lightly mistake his meaning, lest if by occasion of his words they should first apprehend the reason or cause assigned by him, to be more weighty or considerable than he intended it, and afterwards should come to understand that it was far lighter and less considerable. Their scandal and offence, instead of being healed or prevented, would be more strengthened and increased, as usually it comes to pass in such cases.

      Now, evident it is, 1. That the author’s words in this place, “That He, through the grace of God, should taste death for every man,” in the plainest, the most obvious and direct sense and signification of them, hold forth the doctrine which we maintain for truth, here being no restraint at all, nor the least whispering of any limitation to be put upon that term of universality, pantos, every man; and 2. As evident it is, that the death of Christ for all men, without the exception of any, which is the doctrine we assert, and the grace of God so intending it, amount to a far more weighty consideration and satisfaction, touching those great dispensations spoken of, (the incarnation and humiliation of the Son of God) than his dying only for a few, or for a select number of men, and the grace of God commensurable hereunto.

      Therefore there is not the least question to be made, but that the large, and not the limited sense, was the author’s sense in the words now under debate. And when the Holy Ghost expresseth himself, as we have heard, “That he, through the grace of God, should taste death for every man;” for any man to come and interpret thus, for every man, i. e. for some men, or for a few men, which, if not for form, yet for matter and substance must be their interpretation who oppose the exposition given, is not to interpret, but to correct, and to exercise a magisterial authority over the Scriptures.

      Nor had Pareus himself the heart to decline the interpretation asserted, though he seems somewhat desirous by some expressions, to hide this his ingenuity from his fellows, to avoid their offence, “Whereas,” saith he, the author “saith, for every man, it respects the amplification, or extent, of the death of Christ. He died not for some few; the efficacy, or virtue, of it appertains unto ALL. Therefore there is life prepared,” (or made ready) “in the death of Christ, for ALL afflicted consciences,” &c. The truth is, that there can he no solid ground of peace or comfort to any afflicted conscience whatsoever, without the supposal of Christ’s death for every man, without exception, as hath been argued in part in Chapter 1, and might be further evicted above all contradiction.

      Amongst the orthodox fathers, Chrysostom, who, as we heard, avouched the exposition given of the former Scripture, stands by his own judgment and mine, in his explication of this. “That he, through the grace of God, should taste death for every man; not only,” saith he, “for the faithful, or those that believe, but for all the world. He indeed died for ALL men. For what if all men do not believe? yet he hath done his part,” or fully performed that which was proper for him to do.

      The Scripture next advancing in the fore-mentioned troop was, “Who will have all men to be saved,” (speaking of God) “and to come unto the knowledge of the truth,” 1 Tim. ii. 4. Whereunto (for conformity in import) we shall join the last there specified, which is this: “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise as some men count slackness; but is long suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” 2 Pet. iii. 9. Concerning the former of these places, we clearly evinced, earlier in this chapter, from the unquestionable tenor and carriage of the whole context, that by “all men,” cannot possibly be understood, either some of all sorts of men, or Jews and Gentiles, or all the elect, or the like; but of necessity, all of all sorts of men, simply and universally, without the exception of any, whether Jews or Gentiles. Any other interpretation or sense of the words, pantas anthrōpous, all men (1 Tim. 2:4), but this, renders the apostle palpably impertinent and weak (that I say not ridiculous) in his arguing in this place.

      This I plainly demonstrate in the place above cited: I now add, that if it be said that God will have all men to be saved, because he will have some of all sorts of men to he saved; it may more properly and truly be said of him, that he will have all men to be destroyed, at least in their sense, who hold an irreversible reprobation of persons personally considered, from eternity, because not simply some, but a very great part of all sorts of men, now extant in the world, will in time perish, and that according to the decree or will of God; the tenor whereof is, that all persons dying in impenitency and unbelief shall perish. Yet the Scriptures do no where say upon any such account as this, either in terminis, or in substance, that God will have all men to perish, and not to come to the knowledge of the truth. Which is somewhat more than a topic argument, that God is not therefore said to will that all men should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, only because he will have some, some few of all sorts of men to be saved, and come to this knowledge: but