02.02.03. Chapter 3

CHAPTER 3 Contains Answers to an Argument taken from the Use of the Term ALL, about the Death of CHRIST

LIMBORCH in treating about the Extent of the Death of Christ, endeavours to prove it is universal, by various Arguments drawn from Scripture, and from some Absurdities, which in his Opinion necessarily attend the particular and limited Extent of his Death, all which I shall attempt to answer. The Arguments formed from Scripture, he ranges into four Classes or Heads. The first principal Argument, he takes from its being said, that Christ died for all. The second, that he died for the World. The third, that Christ is said to come into the World to save Sinners, etc. indefinitely; and therefore, as he thinks, all Sinners are included. His fourth Argument he draws from those Scriptures, wherein it is said, Christ died for those who perish. Then follow his Arguments taken from the Absurdities, which in his Apprehension, attend the Doctrine of the limited Extent of Christ’s Death. In this Chapter I shall consider his first principal Argument formed from its being said, that Christ died for allf36. Among the various Scriptures, which he produces, where the Term all is used with Relation to the Death of Christ: Those Words of the Prophet are introduced: Hath laid on him the Iniquities of us all (Isaiah 53:6); which Words can only be understood of the Church; for the Prophet is not speaking of Men in general, but of some in particular, who were healed with the Stripes of Christ, which all Men are not. He also produces there Words of the Apostle, delivered him up for us all (Romans 8:32.). Men universally cannot be intended in that Text is evident, for the Apostle is there speaking of God’s Elect, of Believers, and not of Men in general, the Term all therefore includes not the whole of human Race; but such of Mankind only, who are elected, and believe in Christ, in consequence of their Election in him to Holiness and eternal Life.

I. It is said indeed in several Places, that Christ died for all; but not in any one Place that he died for all MEN, or for every MAN, as was observed above: And since those for whom he is said to die or give himself, Land distinguished from others, by the Characters of Sheep, Children, Sons, and the Church, and the Church of the Firstborn, who are written in Heaven: And others are as plainly distinguished from them, by very different Titles, as The Rest, The World, and Goats, for whom it is no where said Christ died, there is great Reason to interpret those Texts, wherein he is declared to have died for all, of all the Sheep, all the Children, all the Sons, and of the whole Church of the First-born, who are written in Heaven. And no solid Reason can be offered, why we should extend those Places to other Persons described and distinguished from them, by very different Characters, and for whom it is not once affirmed Christ suffered Death.

II. If it had been said, which it is not, that Christ died for all MEN, that alone would have been insufficient to prove his Death, is of unlimited and universal Extent. For, that the Terms all Men are used in a restrictive Sense very frequently, cannot be denied, as for Instance, when it is said All Men held John for a Prophet. Multitudes of Men never heard of John, and a great many who did, entertained a contrary Opinion of him. Thus also when it is said, All Men came to Christ: A Limitation must be underwood, for he was rejected by far the greater Number of the Jews. Many more Instances of this Sort might be produced to prove, that the Terms all Men, are to be interpreted with Restriction; but these are sufficient to that Purpose. And therefore if even the Terms all MEN had been sed with Relation to the Death of Christ, (which they no where are) that would not have afforded an unexceptionable Proof, of the unlimited Extent of his Death.

III. Where the Term all is used in this Subject, a Limitation seems to be required; as in these Words: Who gave himself a Ransom for all (1 Timothy 2:6.) The Apostle before speaks of different Ranks of Men, of Governors supreme and subordinate, and directs us to pray for all Men, i.e. for Men of differing Conditions in Life, and then observes to enforce the Exhortation, that God will have all Men to be saved, and that Christ: gave himself a Ransom for all, in both which Men of every Condition and State in Life are intended: As for those Words: If one died for all, then were all dead: (2 Corinthians 5:14.) they afford no Countenance to the Opinion of the universal Extent of Christ’s Death, because all those for whom he died, are said to be dead, and his dying for them is offer’d as a Proof of their being dead; or there Persons are represented as dead in Consequence of Christ’s dying for them; and therefore a Death to Sin must be designed; when Christ died, he died unto Sin, and they died unto Sin in him as their Head and Representative.: All Men are naturally dead in Sin, but that is not a Fruit of Christ’s Death. The Apostle evidently designs a Death, that is the Effect of Christ’s dying, which can intend no other than a Death to Sin; and therefore all MEN are not designed in these Words, but some only. Thus this Text which is urged as a Proof of the unlimited Extent of Christ’s Death, contrary to the Intention of our Opponents, furnishes us with an Argument for it, and such an Argument it is, as will not admit of a very easy Answer. The latter Part of the Words leads not to a different Sense, inaoizwntev, i.e. that they, or all these living, or being made alive by divine Grace, should not live unto themselves, but unto him, that died for them. Christ’s dying for them and their spiritual Life, as a Fruit and Consequence of his Death, are represented as forcible and persuasive Motives, to live to Christ, and therefore he died not for all MEN, for all MEN are not dead to Sin, and do not live spiritually in Consequence of his dying, which the Apostle plainly supposes of all those for whom he died; and what farther establishes this Sense of the Words, is, Christ rose again for their Justification, which is not true of all MEN and therefore he died not for all Men.

Those Words, he tasted Death for every Man, require a Limitation, as has been above observed, its every Son, every Brother, every Child, that is designed, and not every individual of Mankind; Man is not in the Text, and the Scope of the Place directs us to understand it of every Son or Brother. So weak and inconclusive is the Argument taken from the Use of the Term all, in Favour of the Opinion of the universal Extent of Christ’s Death, that it might justly be expected to hear no more of it. Several Things are objected to the Interpretation of this Term all, to Men of all Sorts, and of every Condition, which it will be proper to consider, and give Answers to.

1. If this Exposition of these Places should be admitted, it must be said that there are no Sort of Men, of whom there are not any, but for them Christ died; but from whence may this be evident, if Christ died not for all and every one.f38 I answer, sure it may be evident, that he died for some Men of all Ranks and Conditions in Life, for Rulers and Subjects, for high and low, for learned and unlearned, for wise and unwise, for rich and poor, for bond and free, for old and young, without a Supposition of his dying for Men universally. It is clear that God saves some of every Sort, for though not many wise Men after the Flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called; some such are called, as well as others of different States; and therefore no doubt may he made of Christ’s dying for some of every Condition and State, tho’ he did not die for the whole Race of Mankind. The learned Man farther observes thus: Besides among all Sorts of Men, there are both ungodly, and impenitent even unto Death; for some of such Christ likewise died, and consequently according to their Opinion, some of them will be saved, which is absurd. (Ibid.) The Answer to this is: Either Christ in dying for Men had Respect to Faith and Repentance in them, or he had not; if he had, then he suffered for penitent and believing Persons only, which effectually destroys the Opinion of the universal Extent of his Death. If he had not Respect to Faith and Repentance in Men, when he died for them; then he suffered for them, considered as ungodly and without Strength, which he certainly did, and it is this that renders his Grace, Love and Compassion, so admirable, and conspicuous in dying for them. When therefore it is said, he died for Men of all Sorts, the Meaning is, he died for sinful Men of all Sorts; and not for such as believe, and for such as are finally impenitent. This Distribution of Men into penitent, and finally impenitent, in treating on the Death of Christ, is very impertinent: For it is all Sorts of Men as Sinners, that Respect is had to, and not to Men as Sinners and Saints, tho’ of Sinners, Men become Saints, in Consequence of Christ’s Death; and for such as are not sanctified by divine Truth, Christ did not sanctify himself, or let himself apart to Suffering and Death on their Account. Again, says he,

2. It may according to this Exposition be much more justly said of all, that Christ died not for them, or rather, that he died for none, because according to them (the Calvinists) there are in all States, a much greater Number, for whom Christ did not die: And thus all, that is Men of every Condition, are said to be excluded the Benefits of Christ’s Death. (Ibid.)

Answ. It is strange! That to assert Christ to die for many, for some Men of every State and Condition, and that they shall certainly enjoy the Benefits of his Death, should be thought to imply he died for no Man, and that all Men are excluded the Benefits of his Death. Besides, to say Christ died for some Men of all Sorts; but that he did not die for all Men of any Sort, are not contradictory, and therefore it is ridiculous to infer from his dying for some of every Sort; but not for all of any Sort, that he died for NONE.

3. The Term all, when it is taken of a most special and peculiar Species, cannot denote the Sorts of each; but only when it is expressed concerning a Thing of diverse Species: But Man is a most special and peculiar Species, having no inferior Species under himself. You will say, philosophical Kinds are not understood, but political, into which Mankind is distributed.

Answ. It is queried, whether it is the Usage of Scripture, that the Term all expressed of that Species, which by Logicians is called most special, should signify not every individual of it; but the political Sorts. (Ibid.) I reply, thus it plainly is: That ye may eat the Flesh of Kings, and the Flesh of Captains, and the Flesh of mighty Men, and the Flesh of Horses, and of them that fit on them, and the Flesh of ALL MEN, both bond and free, both small and great (Revelation 19:18.). All in this Text doth not design every one of the human Species; but the human Species of every Circumstance and Condition. So also is this Term all to be understood in there Words: For tho’ I am free from all Men, yet have I made myself a Servant to ALL (1 Corinthians 9:19.), i.e. to Men of every Nation, State, and Condition: Not every one of the human Species; but to the human Species of every Circumstance, as the Apostle himself explains it; Jew and Gentile and the weak, that he might gain some of every State; and therefore it is usual with the Scripture, to distribute the most special or peculiar Species into political Kinds, and the Term ALL is expressive of every one of those Kinds. Nor can I think the learned Man was unapprized of it, tho’ he was pleased to frame this Objection: However the Removal of it hath occasioned very little Difficulty.

4. The Circumstances of some Places, sometimes require the Restriction and Limitation of the Term all: But in Places where it is said Christ died for all, no Circumstances occur, which require a Restriction of this Kind: But in same, Circumstances are found which manifestly exclude all Restriction. (Ibid.)

Answ. 1. Tho’ no Circumstances occurred in the several Places, where the Term all is used with Relation to the Death of Christ; yet if understanding it in an unlimited Sense, cannot consist with what is delivered concerning his Death in other Places of Scripture, as is evident it cannot, from what has been observed in the first Part of this Undertaking: It ought to be interpreted with Limitation, and especially since it is very frequently used in a restrictive Sense, 2. It happens to prove a Mistake, that Circumstances do not occur which require a Limitation, when it is used about the Affair of Christ’s Death. That all Men like Sheep have gone astray (Isaiah 53:6.), is readily acknowledged; but it is not true that ALL Men confess it with Shame and evangelical Sorrow, as the Church does; and the Terms US ALL in the latter Part of the Text, intend not any others, or more than such, who have a spiritual Sense of their Sins, and humbly confess them unto God, which ALL MEN do not. Says this Author no Restriction can be admitted in 2 Corinthians 5:14, That the contrary of this is true is before proved: But, saith he, all denotes not all, who are dead to Sin and themselves, is plain, because the End of Christ’s Death is the same for all, that they should not live unto themselves; but to Christ who died for them: Therefore be died for them in that State, in which, as yet, they were not dead to sin. (Ibid.)

Answ. As when they were Enemies they were reconciled to God, by the Death of his Son (Romans 5:10.): So by the Death of Christ, their Head and Representative they really, tho’ not personally, became dead to Sin, when in themselves they were Enemies to God, and dead in Trespasses and sins, which is the Cause of their quickening, and dying unto Sin. It therefore is very evident, that Circumstances occur, even in these Words which require a Restriction in the Interpretation of the Term ALL, and so far are they from countenancing the Opinion of the unlimited Extent of Christ’s Death, that they are a clear Proof he died not for ALL MEN.