Only Some are Elect, not All and Every:
Whether, א. this Universalism be urged Conditionally, and that in a twofold manner:
1. Either on Condition of Faith and Obedience, to be fulfilled by man and uncertain, which it is evident that all the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians of the former ages maintained: see this Chapter, § 11. With respect to the Socinians, see Volkelius, de Vera Religione, book V, chapter XVII, pages 538, 529, compared with MARESIUS’ Hydram Socinianismi expugnatam, tome 3, pages 525, 526. Among the Jesuits, look into Petavius, de Theologicis Dogmatibus, book X, chapter III, tome I. Among the more recent Pelagianizers are also the Remonstrants, whose opinion is learned, for example, out of their Apologia, chapter IX, page 101: “The prior decree barely conceived is not a decree concerning the destining of certain persons to eternal life by name; but only a decree of the condition, whereby God will to destine to salvation persons, that is, men, in which consequently is included the destining to salvation of those persons that are going to believe. Now, this Decree is ordinarily set forth in this expression: I will to save believers, that is, to destine to salvation men upon no other condition, than if they believe, in opposition to those working and whatever others.” To which they add, page 102: “Then, although a Predestination of this sort is not a predestination of certain persons, it is nevertheless a predestination of all men, if only they believe, and virtually a predestination of certain persons that believe, and when they do.” Now, how they suspend Faith upon the Free and mutable Choice of that man, is to be seen, both in this Chapter, § 11, and especially in Chapter XXIII, § 13, and Chapter XXIII, § 12. Conversant in the same opinion with the Remonstrants here are the Mennonites of Waterland in their Confessione, Article VII, which see in Herman Schijn’s Historia Mennonitarum, chapter VII, pages 178-180, and in the Confessione Waterlandorum, pages 5-7: compare the Confession of the United Frisians and Germans, article III, page 47. Concerning the opinion of the Mennonites on this matter, see also DE STOPPELAAR, ad Stapferi Theologiam polemicam, chapter XVIII, § 26, pages 82-84. The opinion of most Lutherans abide too nearly to that of the Remonstrants, as it is set forth from their writings by HEINRICH ALTING, Scriptorum Heidelbergensium, tome I, part II, pages 388, 389, and by TURRETIN, Theologiæ Elencticæ, locus IV, question XVII, § 2. They maintain that Predestination is God’s eternal Will or Counsel and Good Pleasure concerning the saving of men through the apprehension of Christ by faith, which Will is distinguished into antecedent and consequent. They maintain that the Antecedent Will is God’s eternal Counsel and Decree concerning the salvation of all men universally, ruined by sin, through the apprehension of Christ by faith, according to God’s universal Mercy. But, that the Consequent Will is the eternal Counsel of God concerning the salvation of believers and the damnation of unbelievers; and that the cause of that particularity does not arise from God, who earnestly, constantly, and ardently will that all men believe, and be saved through faith in Christ; but from the men themselves, who do not yield to nor believe God’s benign and universal good pleasure: compare Eckhardus’ Fasciculum Controversiarum cum Calvino, chapter XV, question II, page 304-313; WENDELIN’S Exercitationes theologicas XII-XV; STAPFER’S Theologicæ polemicæ, tome V, chapter XX, § 31-33, pages 136-145, § 48-64, pages 164-169; Acta Colloquii Montibelligartensis, pages 418, 419, 423, 440-448, 453, 454. BUDDEUS, Institutionibus Theologiæ dogmaticæ, tome 2, book IV, chapter I, § 2, pages 906-912, contends that God according to His antecedent Will earnestly wills that absolutely all men that have ever lived, or are living, or are going to live, having been purged of filth of sin, be made partakers of eternal blessedness: and that he attempts to prove from the Passages that are set forth by our AUTHOR in the Objections of this §, and to which he at the same time responds, namely, 1 Timothy 2:4, pages 907-910; 2 Peter 3:9, compared with Ezekiel 18:23, 32; 33:11, page 910; Romans 11:32, page 911; John 3:16, pages 911, 912; with arguments added from the Goodness of God, and His Righteousness, which does not admit προσωποληψίαν, respect of persons, page 906. The same, § 19, pages 988-991, relating that there are among the Reformed patrons of Universal and Particular Grace, and explaining the opinions of both, yet desires that the opinion of the Universalists among the Reformed be completely distinguished from that of the Lutherans, advising on page 990, “Now, although those (Amyraut with his followers) appear to assert universal Grace, yet one that would persuade himself that they completely agree with our men would great err. For verily, if one should say that God earnestly wills the salvation of all men, yet does not will to bestow faith on all, but only on those that from eternity He chose for salvation, it is just as if he said that God did not will the salvation of all. Certainly JEAN DAILLÈ appears brilliantly to argue the cause of Universal Grace, in the Apologia previously cited, page 99 and following; yet he repeatedly sprinkles in such things sufficiently showing that he is no stranger to the decrees of the Synod of Dort, etc.” No less, on the other hand, does Buddeus inculcate, that the Lutherans on this point stand apart from the Arminians and Socinians, in the same place, pages 991, 992, “What we previously said about the Arminians, that they assert Universal Grace, etc., that in the same manner is not thus to be taken, as if completely, and in all things, they agree with us. Certainly the absolute Decrees of God, from which particular Grace derives its origin, they reject; and they confess with us that God determined within Himself to save certain ones, and to damn others, and that in consideration of Faith. But, as they conceive in mind a far different notion of Faith than we do, as we will show in its place; so they by no means admit that that Faith is to be looked for only from God, who nevertheless would deny it to no one rightly making use of the means of grace. And since they think that condition, in consideration of which God chose certain men to salvation, to be established in such a way that it has been placed in the power of men, they are not able not to approach to the things pleaded by the Pelagians. That is to be supposed much more in the case of the Socinians: …Therefore, although they teach and confess that God wills, that all that believe and obey the Gospel be saved, but those that live and die in sins be damned; nevertheless, they do not admit special Decrees, made from eternity, that have regard to certain individuals, but contend that those are made in time according to the condition of each one. But they, thus denying special Election from eternity, made with regard to Faith, no less than the internal operation of divine Grace, greatly differ from us, even if they appear similarly to establish Universal Grace.” See in addition the same Buddeus, Institutionibus Theologiæ dogmaticæ, tome 2, book V, chapter II, § 4, 5, pages 1599-1602, in which, discoursing concerning the order of the divine acts in the Decree of Predestination, as we in a human manner conceive of divine things, he wishes it to be observed how greatly Reformed Theologians differ in this from Lutherans; and, among other things, he has in § 5, “In the first place, God did indeed will all men, whom He foresaw as going to fall, to arrive again at eternal salvation:” on which words, for the sake of illustration, he observes: “This first act of the divine will, speaking accurately, is not a decree, but a simple act of will. That act of the divine will, whereby, with all circumstances considered, wills and intends to effect something, is indeed wont to be signified by the term decree; since this sort of consideration of the circumstances does not come into account, when God is said to will the salvation of all men, that act is more rightly called volition than decree. It is also elsewhere called the antecedent will.” And then, page 1601, “The universal Grace of God, or the earnest will of God, to save all men, is the foundation and principium of those things that God has done for the sake of men, and so has also decreed to do; from which also all the remaining things flow; hence it is also rightly put in the first place among those acts of Predestination.” Finally, page 1602, “To that Decree concerning the salvation of certain ones and the damnation of the rest, we assign the last place among the acts of Predestination; and for that reason we contend it was not absolute, but conditional, indeed, made in consideration of final faith.” And, since to this last act Buddeus particularly assigns the term Election, he teaches that particular Election is conditional, being unwilling that the general grace and favor of God, whereby He wills by an antecedent Will all men to come to salvation, be marked with the term Decree or Election, Institutionibus Theologiæ dogmaticæ, tome 2, book V, chapter II, § 10, pages 1614, 1615; in which manner quibbling arises concerning the term, with the error concerning God’s Will to save each and every man remaining, which our AUTHOR here opposes: consult also Jasper de Hartogh, Wegwyzer der Eenvuldigen, chapter III, pages 77-79; and what things have already been taught concerning the opinion of the Lutherans in the matter of Predestination, § 11.
2. Or the Condition of Faith to be supplied by God, to which the Patrons of Universal Grace among Our Men in Calling, Redemption, and Election, tend: who hold One general Decree concerning the salvation of believers through Christ, whereby God determined to have mercy on all and each, to give to all Christ as Mediator, and to call all to salvation: to which they subjoin Another Particular Decree, whereby God decreed effectually to call certain ones, and to bestow Faith upon them instead of the rest. As, with respect to the latter Decree, they are at variance with the Remonstrants; so, with respect to the former, they are in agreement with them: and they appear to have adopted that hypothesis concerning Universal Grace of the Remonstrants with a zeal for disputing more vigorously with the Remonstrants, although with dubitable success. That this controversy with the Univeralists among Us is not alleviated upon the pretext of mere varying Methods of teaching, asserts TURRETIN, Theologiæ Elencticæ, locus IV, question XVII, § 11; although he acknowledges that the salvific foundation of the doctrine of Grace remains on both sides, § 12. Compare the Helvetic Formula of Consensus, § IV-VI; the Historiam Formulæ Consensus Helveticæ, written by Pfaff, chapter I, § 1-5; RIVET’S Synopsin Doctrinæ Amyraldi et Testardi de Natura et Gratia, opera, tome 3, pages 828 and following; JOSUÉ DE LA PLACE’S de Ordine Decretorum Dei, § XLVI, opera, tome I, page 500; SPANHEIM the Younger’s Defensionem primam pro Parente adversus Dallæi Pseudo-Apologiam, chapter V, pages 59, 60, 62, 63, 67, 68.
In refuting these ἑτεροδιδασκαλίαις/heterodoxies, our AUTHOR makes a short work of it, since, from the things that were already proposed and proven above, they fall of themselves. For:
α. The Decrees of God are not Conditional, but Absolute, as was proven in Chapter VI, § 9, and with respect to the Decree of Predestination in particular in Chapter VII, § 10. Indeed, God ordains many things together with a Condition, with the Decree itself remaining absolute and certain; which Condition, as decreed, ought rather then be called a Means with respect to God and the matter, but is able to be called a Condition with respect to man being ignorant of the outcome, as our AUTHOR has it in Chapter VI, § 9: but the Independence of God and His will, upon the determination of which all things depend, does not in any way admit an uncertain Condition, upon which the Will of God depends, posited upon the choice of man.
β. And also there is actually no Condition, the contrary of which God Himself wills. That is, according to the Universalists, God wills the salvation of all under Condition of faith. At the same time, He wills to give faith only to a few, without which there is no salvation. Now, Faith does not belong to all; but only to those, to whom it has been granted by God to believe. And so God wills the salvation of the greater number under an altogether impossible Condition. But, if it is not consistent with the wisdom of men to will something under a Condition that he knows to be impossible: how much less will this be able to be attributed to the infinitely wise God?
Neither at this point ought the Approving Will of God, which is referred to Him giving instruction, to be confounded with the Determining Will.
γ. Thus God with one and the same determining Will would at one and the same time will and not will the Salvation of a great many: but thus there would be a manifest contradiction in the one, altogether simple act of the divine Will, which is absurd; neither is it able to be attributed to God, in whom is not Yea and Nay. But if they should object that without such a Universal Election the external Calling of Reprobates would be less earnest: would it not with greater right be able to be said that that Universal Will in God to save all is less earnest with respect to Reprobates; since He, who alone is able, is unwilling to grant Faith to them, without which they are not able to be saved? Is this Will to be called earnest, when I say, I will give to thee a daughter, if thou wilt touch the moon with thy finger?
δ. But if, nevertheless, God earnestly intends the Salvation of all, by His determining Will, as our Adversaries contend; this will of God with respect to many will be vain and ineffectual, which again is not able to be reconciled with God’s Independence, Power, and Wisdom, whose Decrees are all effectual, Isaiah 46:10; 14:27; compare Chapter VI, § 8, 10. Neither at this point ought the preceptive and approving Will to be confounded with the determining Will: in the former manner, many things are done that God does not will, and are not done that He does will; but not in the latter manner. Indeed, even those things that God does not will by His preceptive Will are not done, unless He should will to permit them by His determining Will; so that what is done contrary to His will is not done without His will, according to AUGUSTINE, Enchiridio ad Laurentium, chapter C.
ε. What then will be the reason that God, who effectually willed with respect to all what is far greater, namely, the giving of His Son; did not will effectually what is far less, namely, to bestow faith and repentance on each; since He would understand clearly enough that without this the rest would be in vain, and would not profit anyone?
ϛ. Finally, under the pretext of extolling divine Grace and Goodness, are they not rather greatly obscured and diminished; since they are established as vain and inefficacious, and as what obtain no other outcome than to enlarge the guilt of man and to render him more ἀναπολόγητον/inexcusable. Indeed, that Universal Grace, which they so magnificently proclaim, established by the Universal Decree, do they not remove it again and overthrow it by the Particular Decree: and at the same time gain little or nothing through this thin mask of Goodness? Pierre Chauvin himself also admits this, retreating farther, de Religione naturali, part I, chapter XII, pages 131-133; compare ARNOLDI’S Scopas dissolutas Eckhardi, chapter XV, question II, § 38-50, pages 270-277. The Most Illustrious VENEMA expounds and defends his opinion concerning the double decree of Predestination, one more general, concerning the salvation of all believers, the other more particular, concerning the giving of Efficacious Grace to certain ones, whereby they believe, in Korte Verdeediginge van zyne eere en Leere, § LXII-LXXXVII, which the Authors of van het Examen van het Ontwerp van Tolerantie, part 7, pages 455-493, have undertaken to refute.
Or this Universalism be urged, ב. Absolutely, Decreed not only without the antecedent Condition of Faith or Works as an Impulsive Cause; but also without the distinction of Faith or Unbelief, in the order of means following Election, and with respect to the Event/Outcome: which sort of Absolute Election of all is reported to have been urged by the Swiss Samuel Huber of the Lutherans, who left the side of the Reformed on account of the absolute Decree of Election, and for that reason was called to be Professor of Theology at Wittenberg, but fell to the other extreme, imitating the Threefold Way of salvation of the Pelagians (see SPANHEIM’S Historiam Ecclesiasticam, Century V, chapter VII, § 1, column 990), teaching: “All men are elected by God because of Christ, in such a way that they are actually in the grace of God, in the number of the justified, sanctified, sons and heirs of God, as if Election could be without consideration of faith:” as it is related by MICRÆLIUS in his Syntagmate Historiarum Ecclesiæ, page 896; and by LAMPE in his Historia Ecclesiastica, book II, chapter XIII, § 23, who adds yet further, according to the same Huber, that “the greatest part of the number of men are again cut off from the number of the sons and heirs of God by unbelief.” By this his opinion concerning Predestination, about the year 1580 Huber also excited great commotions among the Lutherans, until, being unwilling to the admonitions of his Colleagues, he was dismissed, and then wandered throughout Germany. Now, BUDDEUS thinks, Institutionibus Theologiæ dogmaticæ, tome 2, book V, chapter II, § 10, page 1615, “Either Samuel Huber by Election understood the grace of God itself, and His well-disposed favor towards all men, or the antecedent will, in which manner indeed everything is going to pass into λογομαχίαν/logomachy; or he did not know what he himself meant.” With Huber Francesco Pucci is wont to be joined, an Italian, who, as LAMPE narrates, Historia Ecclesiastica, book II, chapter XIII, § 43, in the year 1592 published a book, de Christi servatoris efficacitate in omnibus et singulis hominibus, quatenus homines sunt, wherein he establishes natural religion as saving. Now, according to MICRÆLIUS, Syntagmate Historiarum Ecclesiæ, page 885, Pucci asserted in his published writing, “By natural Faith, which is common to all men, and tends unto one Creator, all men are saved, neither is ignorance and unbelief of the Gospel, and the want of baptism, hurtful to anyone, provided that he be not extremely wicked. Hence neither the Turks, nor the pagans, nor the Jews, if they call upon the Creator of heaven and earth, and study purity of life, are able to be damned. Pucci, having been seized and sent to Rome by the Archbishop of Salzburg, perished on a pyre.” The opinion of Huber and Pucci just now mentioned, in Judiciis Theologorum Provincialium de V Articulo Remonstrantium, after the Acta Synodi Nationalis Dordracenæ, page 102, is related in the following manner by the Deputies of the Synod of Southern Holland, in Judicio de secondo Articulo: “They additionally establish that the Wise God did not deliver His Son to death with this intention, that through it He might acquire the remission of sins and reconciliation even for those that He did not choose by His eternal counsel, but passed over, and left to themselves, and justly determined to condemn because of their sins. Hence they reject the following: I. That all men and each, believing and unbelieving, are received unto grace, and actually obtain salvation in Christ; but that some remain in the salvation received by believing, and others are deprived of it again by not believing: Huber in his compendio Thesium and elsewhere. II. That all men and each, by the universal blessing and grace of the Most High Father, are saved through Christ, and no one perishes forever, except he that by his ongoing ingratitude and malice prepare for himself in this life eternal punishments; but that individuals are illuminated with common reason, and faith in God is natural, and concreated and innate in all: Francesco Pucci of Figline Valdarno, libro de Christi Servatoris efficacitate, printed at Gouda. III. Etc.” For the refutation of the errors just now mentioned make those things read in the Fragmento Orationis recited by a certain Student at Heidelberg in 1590, de Quæstione, Quomodo Christus pro omnibus sit mortuus? in DAVID PAREUS’ Miscellaneis catecheticis, number V, pages 96-102. While the CXX reasons of Francesco Pucci, set for in defense of his opinion in the book mentioned above, are painstakingly examined and refuted item by item by FRANCIS JUNIUS in his Collatione Catholicæ Doctrinæ de Natura et Gratia, in opposition to Pucci, which is found in the Opera Junii, tome 2, columns 301-404.
Thus these were indeed urging the Absolute Election of all; but at the same time they were acknowledging that many are cut off from Salvation in the event. While others maintain, that not only are all destined for Life, but also that Each and Every One is at last to be saved, of which sort among the Lutherans there are various, whose senior leader can be said to be Johann Wilhelm Petersen; they hold that at some point an end is to be put to infernal punishments, when ἀποκατάστασις/ apokatastasis, a restoration and renewal of the pristine state, as they believe, will obtain for all damned Men and Fallen Angels, in which there will be no more place for sins and their punishments, yet with the formerly immutable blessedness of the saved abiding; see BUDDEUS’ Theologiæ dogmaticæ, tome 1, book II, chapter III, § 17, pages 631-642; LAMPE’S Dissertationem, volume II, Disputation II, § 19-24, pages 70-75. Which error our AUTHOR observes to have taken its rise from the delirium of Origen; yet it differs from the opinion of ORIGEN in this, that he thinks the previously immutable blessedness of the saved to abide, and does not admit everlasting alteration of lots; that ORIGEN taught this sort together with the purgation and liberation of all, the devil himself and his angels, AUGUSTINE relates, de Hæresibus, chapter XLIII; whether truly, HALLOIX the Jesuit disputes: see our AUTHOR’S Expectationem Gloriæ futuræ Jesu Christi, book III, chapter XII, § 13; compare below, Chapter IX, § 26; and LAMPE’S Dissertationem, volume II, Disputation II, § 10-18, pages 64-70, in which he shows with sufficient clarity this error of Origen owes its rise to another concerning Free Choice: add WALCH’S Miscellanea Sacra, book III, Exercitation VIII, § 6, pages 737-739.
But our AUTHOR also refutes an Absolute Universal Election of this sort,
α. From this, that Faith, according to the revealed will of God, is Necessary for the Salvation of Fallen man, Mark 16:16; John 3:36, 18. Whom God has so chosen for Salvation, these He determined at the same time, with Faith in Christ serving as means, to lead to Salvation, and not without the distinction of Faith or Unbelief. Compare what things were said in Chapter I, § 19, 20, concerning the Insufficiency of Natural Theology to Salvation.
β. From the Event: since, a. all are not saved, but a great many are delivered to eternal and irrecoverable destruction, Matthew 7:13, 14; 25:34, 41, 46; Luke 16:25, 26: but, if all had been predestinated to Salvation, then all would also be saved, Romans 8:29, 30. b. Neither are the Means of Salvation granted to all: but, to whom the Means are denied, to those the end also is with good reason thought to be denied. But now, in accordance with the good pleasure of the predestinating God, the efficacious Means of supernatural Grace are denied to many externally called, whose Salvation God is so gratuitously and absurdly said to have intended, Matthew 11:25, 26; 13:11. Indeed, the external preaching of the Word itself is denied to innumerable, which nevertheless is the sole Means ordained by God for obtaining Faith and Salvation, Romans 10:14, 17. But is it plausible, that, if God were having that most ready Will of having mercy upon all and each unto Salvation, and had decreed to give and to send the Mediator Christ to all those; through so many ages He would have permitted all nations, with the Israelite people alone excepted, to go in their ways, and manifestated nothing to them of the Mediator, who was going to come into the world for them, and would have excluded them from the preaching of His Word? Where then did that good Will exercise itself, which God is said to have had unto these? And to what good is Christ destined for them, to whom He is never revealed? In which manner there are even now various peoples that yet lie in deepest darkness of Paganism. Which dispensation of God towards nations that are strangers to the covenants more than sufficiently evinces that the hypothesis concerning God’s Universal Will and Mercy is absurd.
γ. From the particularity of Election asserted in the Scriptures: for, where, a. Election and Predestination to Salvation are restricted to only Certain Ones; where, b. by Predestination some are read to have been ordained unto grace and glory, others unto disobedience and destruction: there particularity of Election is taught, and its Universality is at the same time overthrown. But the former is taught in Romans 8:29, 30; 11:2, 7; Matthew 11:16, 23; Luke 12:32; Acts 13:48: you have the latter in Romans 9:11-13, 18, 21-23; 1 Thessalonians 5:9; 1 Peter 2:8.
δ. From the term Election itself, which argues a separation and removal of certain ones: for to elect is to gather out of a greater number, to prefer one to another, to receive one with the other repudiated: on the other hand, one that accepts all elects none.
Neither is an opposition presented by, I. the Passages that they object; in which,
α. Either the Love of God is extended to the World, as in John 3:16. Response: α. Negatively, that by the World here is not able to be understood all men in general, as much Reprobate as Elect Men: for, 1. It is treated of the highest and most intense Love of God, than which there is no greater, nor is a greater able to be conceived; which is evident, both from the intense particle, οὕτως/so, used very emphatically here; and from the matter itself, because no greater love is able to be found than that whereby God, while men were yet enemies, delivered His own Son to death for them, comparing John 15:13 with Romans 5:8, 10. 2. The Love of God, whereby He gave His Son, draws after itself all other things necessary for salvation, Romans 8:32; but God does not bestow all things with Christ upon all and each, but upon the Elect alone. 3. God’s intended end for this Love is the Salvation of those that He escorts there with this Love, verse 17. But only the Elect are saved out of the World; therefore, to those alone does that Love of God also have regard: unless God be deprived of His End, which it is absurdity itself to think. β. Positively: that World, to which the Love of God is here extended, 1. Either is to be understood ἀορίστως/ indefinitely of Men, inhabitants of the lower World and earth in opposition to Angels, to whom, in a like sin, God did not grant like grace: whence it does not follow that this Love is referred to all and each; but only that the peculiar privilege was bestowed on mankind with respect to a certain part, lest the whole species completely perish: so that, if the Prince of two rebellious cities should indeed destroy one utterly, sparing none, but should spare the other to this extent, that he should pluck out certain ones from the common punishment determined for the rest; it will be said that he altogether loves the latter above the former, although he did not love all the inhabitants of that city equally. Thus Paul, in Romans 4:5, asserts indefinitely, that, because all men and each are impious, all men and each are also justified. 2. Or definitely of the Elect. For, if the term World, posited by metonymy of the container for men inhabiting the World, be not always used in its full latitude, but is restricted either synecdochically and διακριτικῶς/diacritically, to Gentiles in opposition to Jews, Romans 11:12, or διασυρτικῶς/disparagingly to men as corrupt and impious in opposition to men pious and believing, John 17:9; 1 John 5:19; it is certainly possible by no lesser right that World here synecdochically signifies here the World of the Elect: since, a. from what has been said previously it has been proven that these alone are the objects of the divine Love here declared. b. It is not able to be denied that elsewhere mention is made of the World in the same sense, for example, in verse 17; John 6:33, 51; 2 Corinthians 5:19. c. Apt reasons for this acceptation of the term are not wanting: for, a. if with good reason denomination is taken from the better part, the Elect, as the better part of the World are with good reason called the World, Proverbs 10:25; 12:26. b. By nature they are of the world, John 15:19; Galatians 1:4. c. They are dispersed everywhere, throughout the whole World, which is especially clear under the New Testament, Revelation 5:9. d. Although they are few in comparison to reprobates, yet in themselves they constitute a multitude, vast, indeed, innumerable, Revelation 7:4, 9, in comparison with John 12:19. But we return to the same sense, if we should say that the World does not indeed denote the Elect definitely and directly; but, on the contrary, World indefinitely denotes the whole Race of men, men of every sort, without distinction of Jews and Gentiles, while salvation was dispensed to the Jews alone under the Old Testament: they observe that in this sense is mention of the World more frequently made in the writings of John, John 1:29; 4:42; 1 John 2:2. Just as here God will also have been said to have loved Mankind, to that extent He was unwilling that that be totally destroyed, but decreed to save certain members of it, not only from one people, as was done under the Old Testament, but from all peoples indiscriminately; although the effects of that love are not extended to each individual, but only to some, namely, the Elect chosen out of the World.
Neither, 1. are those things that follow, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων, etc., that whosoever believeth, etc., exceptive or restrictive of the Object, as if out of that whole World equally beloved, Believers alone are determined actually to be saved: but they are exegetical or designative of the Means and Condition, with the intervention of which Salvation is promised and will be conferred: so that it might be indicated, that no one is able to be a partaker of so great a benefit except by Faith; and so it pertains to all Believers and only to Believers, not in event but definitively, that is, to as many as were going to believe in accordance with the Decree of God. Nor, 2. is the World, loved by God, and for the salvation of which He sent His Son, separated, verse 18, into believers and unbelievers; but the necessity of Faith as the sole means, without which we are not able to enjoy Christ, is only more expressly confirmed: compare TURRETIN’S Theologiæ Elencticæ, chapter IV, question XVII, § 29-31; GOMARUS on John 3:16, opera, part I, page 361.
β. Or mention is made of All, 1. Upon whom God may have mercy, Romans 11:32. Response: α. It is not able to be imagined here of the Will of having mercy upon all men and each universally, lest the Apostle contradict himself, who in Romans 9 in the clearest expressions imaginable denied God’s Mercy to be universal, verses 15, 18, 22, 23. β. The universal particles in this verse signify, not so much all and each collectively, as the Jews and the Gentiles distributively, in such a way that ἀπείθεια/unbelief/disobedience does indeed have regard to all and each among those Nations; but Mercy only to all in those Nations, that God decreed to make participants in His grace: so that the Apostle means, that all that are saved, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, God has concluded under sin, so that He might have mercy upon all, that is, so that all those might be saved by His Mercy; but not the Gentiles peculiarly by the Mercy of God, and the Jews peculiarly by the merits of their own works. This is shown, 1. by the Connection with the entire antecedent context, especially with the verses immediately preceding, verses 30, 31, ὥσπερ γὰρ, etc., for as, etc., with which verse 32 is connected by a causal γὰρ/for. For, the truth of the things immediately preceding Paul demonstrates in verse 32 by the end of God in permitting the obstinacy of both, which is to save all, as many as are saved of each group, by Mercy. 2. The repeated article τοὺς πάντας—τοὺς πάντας, in verse 32, appears expressly to restrict that πάντας/all to those of whom mention had been made in what precedes: but they were those that God decreed to save of the Jews and Gentiles. Therefore, God has mercy on the whole Corporate Body of those to be saved of the Jews and Gentiles. WALÆUS, Responsione ad Censuram Corvini in Molinæi Anatomen Arminianismi, chapter IX, opera, tome 2, page 158: “In Romans 11:32, the Apostles does not treat of the first sin properly, but of the rejection of the Jews and the reception of the Gentiles, as is manifest from the scope of the whole antecedent treatment: he does not then treat there of the guilt of sin alone, but of the very defect and disobedience inhering in all, as much in the Jews as in the Gentiles, from which guilt at length follows. But, how God is said to have concluded all under that disobedience, whether by declaration alone, as some explain it, or also by judgment, as what precedes and follows appears to require, it is of no concern to the present matter.” See also GOMARUS, Opera, part II, pages 110b, 111.
2. He wills whomever to be saved, 1 Timothy 2:4. Response: α. There are those that refer the verb θέλει, He wills, to the Will of Precept and εὐαρεστίας, what is pleasing, so that it might be shown that God esteems the salvation and conversion of men pleasing, and invites them to it through the preaching of the Word: to which they believe it to pertain or to be able to be referred, inasmuch as God is said to will them σωθῆναι, to be saved, not σώζειν, to save, them. Now, from the Revealed Will of Precept to the Hidden Will of Good Pleasure no valid consequence is drawn; so that He is able to command many, that they consent to be saved, whom nevertheless He has not decreed to save. Yet others understand the Will of εὐδοκίας, good pleasure, or the Decree. β. But, whatever the case may be, πάντας ἀνθρώπους, all men, is not here to be understood of the individuals of classes, but of classes of individuals, or whatever sorts; so that the sense might be, that God wills, not all men individually, but some of whatever classes or orders of men, to be saved. 1. In this sense the syncategorematic πᾶς/all not only often occurs elsewhere, Luke 3:6; Matthew 4:23; 9:35; Acts 2:17; 10:12; hence on a number of occasions it is translated by Our Men as allerley, all kinds of, as in Revelation 18:12; 21:19. 2. Scripture elsewhere speaks in such a way that it asserts that not all men and each are to be saved, that some are redeemed indiscriminately from all conditions and peoples, Revelation 5:9. 3. But the Scope of Paul also requires this, which is to prove that prayer is to be offered even for Heathen Magistrates; which follows from this, that God wills all men to be saved, that is, from every order and class of men, and so it is possible to assume certain ones even from Gentile Kings and Emperors. 4. In the very context itself πᾶς/all is used a number of times, in such a way that it comes to be explained, not of the individuals of classes, but of whomever indiscriminately. In verse 1, Paul wills prayers to be made ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων, for all men, that is, for men of every sort and condition, Gentiles as well as Christians, Princes as much as for men of a humbler condition, as what follows shows. In verse 6, Christ Jesus is said to have given Himself as ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων, a ransom for all: that is, not for all men and each, but for all that are saved of the Gentiles and Jews: for otherwise all ought to be saved, since God is not able without injustice to deprive men of salvation, for whom the ἀντίλυτρον/ransom was paid. In verse 8, Paul commands men to pray ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ, in every place, that is, indiscriminately in whatever place, in opposition to the Old Testament, in which worship was more restricted to the Jerusalem temple; but not in all places and each, in which we are not able to be. 5. Finally, in the same way God wills all to be saved and εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν, to come unto the knowledge of the truth. But here it is necessary to say again, that God wills whatever men, not each individual, to come unto the Knowledge of the truth: for innumerable men, both formerly and presently, neither have arrived, nor are arriving, at the Knowledge of the truth. But if with respect to all men and each God wills this, how comes it to pass, that it is not done; since God does whatever He wills, neither is anything able to resist His will? why does God not supply to all and to each means sufficient for arriving at this Knowledge? Either God wills absolutely, that all and each come to the Knowledge of the truth; and thus all would certainly come to it, which is false: Or conditionally: but what then is that? whether, if they hear the Truth? but God does not make provision for it to be preached to innumerable souls: or, if they believe? but to believe is now to come to the Knowledge of the truth. CALVIN, in his Response to Article I Calumniarum Nebulonis cujusdam (whom TURRETIN names as Castalio), opera, tome 7, page 737b: “How God wills all to be saved is not to be anxiously doubted: because these two things cohere, Salvation and the Knowledge of the truth. Now answer, if God willed to make His truth known to all, why to so many nations, after the Gospel began to be promulgated, did His pure truth never arrive? Then, why did He not open the eyes of all equally, when the inward illumination of the Spirit, which He condescended to bestow upon only a few, is necessary for faith? This knot is also to be loosed by thee: Since no one, unless drawn by the hidden instinct of the Spirit, approaches to God, why does He not draw all indifferently, if He wills them to be saved?”
Neither is it to be Excepted, 1. that, if All here in context is to be referred to classes of individuals, not to individuals of classes, then prayers are to be conceived only for classes or for ideas, but not for individuals. For I Respond, that particulars are to be distinguished from individuals. The Will of God indeed is not terminated upon classes, but upon particulars gathered from them; but it ought not, therefore, to be carried to individuals. Thus, when we say that prayer is to be offered for whomever, we do not maintain that prayer is to be offered for the states and conditions of men; but for particular men in each class, not definitely for individuals, but indefinitely for whomever: not so much positively, as if we always should include in our prayers all men and each; as negatively, because we exclude no one in particular from our prayers.
Nor is it to be Excepted, 2. that Man is the most special species, and so it is not possible to speak of classes of individual Men. I Respond, that he is indeed the most special species in the genus of Being, yet not in the genus of Manner; since men are able to be distributed into various orders with respect to origin, conditions, and manner of life. Compare the Epistle of UTENBOGARDUS to Vorstius concerning the sense of this passage, whose argument is related by JACOBUS LEYDEKKER, Eere van ’t Nationaal Synode verdedigt, part I, page 373; and by JACOBUS FRUYTIER, Zions Worstelingen, book 2, pages 328-330. Add what things are set forth out of REMIGIUS, Archbishop of Lyon in the Ninth Century, by TRIGLAND, Kerckelycke Geschiedenissen, volume 1, page 35. See also HOORNBEECK’S Socinianismum confutatum, tome I, book II, chapter VII, section III, pages 518-528; TURRETIN, Theologiæ Elencticæ, chapter IV, question XVII, § 34-38; SPANHEIM, Decadumtheologicarum VII, § 7, opera, tome 3, columns 1237, 1238; BOCHART, Epistola ad Tupinum after Phaleg et Canaan, columns 1042, 1043.
γ. Or God is said, 1. Not to will the death of the sinner, Ezekiel 33:11, whence our Adversaries conclude that God wills the Salvation of all sinful men. But We Respond, that it does not follow from this passage, that from eternity God willed and intended under some condition the conversion and life of all men and each: for, α. Conversion is not able to be intended under condition, because it is the condition itself. β. It is not treated here of the Will of εὐδοκίας, good pleasure, and Decree, but of the Will of εὐαρεστίας, what is pleasing, and Complacency, inasmuch as the verb חָפֵץ everywhere signifies to delight and to hold as pleasing. Therefore, it is indicated that God delights in the Conversion and Life of the sinner as a thing agreeable to Him, and agreeing with His consummately merciful nature, rather and more than his destruction; and that therefore He requires that from man, that he convert, as a duty owed. γ. But, although God does not will, that is, does not delight in, the death of the sinner, regarded in itself, as it indicates the destruction of the creature; nevertheless, He will and intends it as the execution of His Justice and an occasion for the manifestation of His glory, 1 Samuel 2:25-36; indeed, in this way God does delight even in the death of the sinner and takes pleasure in it, Proverbs 1:26; Isaiah 1:24. δ. Neither is it said in vain to the wicked, who are exhorted to repentance, Why will ye die? although God does not intend their repentance and salvation: for to them it is rightly shown in these words, what is to be done to avoid death, and that by their own voluntary impenitence they are the cause of their own destruction, not God: compare TURRETIN, Theologiæ Elencticæ, chapter IV, question XVII, § 33; SPANHEIM, Decadum theologicarum VII, § 7-9, opera, tome 3, columns 1238-1241.
2. Or of any of us, 2 Peter 3:9. Response: α. Peter does not speak of all men and each; otherwise all men ought to be saved and to repent, in comparison with Psalm 115:3; Isaiah 46:10. β. But, as the Apostle says, μακροθυμεῖ εἰς ἡμᾶς, He is longsuffering to us-ward; so that pronoun comes to be repeated ἀπὸ κοινοῦ, in common, from the context in the immediately following words, μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι, not willing that any should perish, that is, ἐξ ἡμῶν, of us, that is, of our men; but of those that have been determined unto the same lot with us, that is, they have been Chosen, so that they might be partakers of salvation through faith, as he writes τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσι πίστιν, to those that have obtained like precious faith with us, 2 Peter 1:1. They are those in whom the promise of the saving Advent of the day of the Lord had to be fulfilled, 2 Peter 3:9, 13. And thus the Consummation of the age is said to be delayed for the sake of the Elect, just as elsewhere the day of affliction is said to be shorted for their sake, Matthew 24:22. If God is elsewhere said to be μακρόθυμος/longsuffering towards the impious by postponing punishments, it does not follow that the μακροθυμίαν/longsuffering is the same of which Peter speaks, whereby God delays His judgments against the world because of the Elect, and awaits the time in which their number will be complete: compare TURRETIN, Theologiæ Elencticæ, chapter IV, question XVII, § 39.
II. Nor is any greater opposition presented by Rational Arguments;
α. Both from God’s φιλανθρωπίᾳ/philanthropy, Titus 3:4. For, I Respond, that the φιλανθρωπία/philanthropy of God does not necessarily exercise itself equally towards all men. As God is said to be φιλάνθρωπος, a lover of man, it is not necessary that He low all men and each unto Salvation: it is sufficient, if He loves only some in that sense; as one is called φιλέλλην, a lover of the Hellenes, who loves the Greek nation, although not then every individual of it. Thus the φιλανθρωπία/philanthropy of God, which is mentioned once in the New Testament in Titus 3, a term indefinite in itself, from the context is to be restricted there to those that are in fact and actually saved through Regeneration and Justification, which pertains to the Elect alone; while this most special divine Love, which is known from its Effects, does not have regard to others.
β. And from Eternal Vocation through the Conditional Promise of Salvation, as if otherwise this were a mere show with respect to many. Indeed, I Respond, that External Vocation is never a mere show, since, α. it is always in service of either Conviction or Conversion. β. The external Call through the Gospel is not even Universal. γ. The tie between the duty set forth and the promise added under condition of the fulfillment of that duty is perfectly real and genuine. δ. Now, that Evangelical Proposition does not depend upon a conditional Decree of Universal Election; but the Decree concerning the tie between Faith and Salvation, and concerning the manifestation of this way of Salvation through the Gospel and the calling of many in this way to communion with God. ε. Neither ought this to be objected against us by those that assert that the universal Salvation of all men through Election is intended by God under condition of Faith; which He nevertheless knows that they do not have, are not able to have, of themselves, and which He decreed by His irrevocable counsel to give only to some, with others passed over: compare TURRETIN, Theologiæ Elencticæ, chapter IV, question XVII, § 45; SPANHEIM, Decadum theologicarum VII, § 7-9, opera, tome 3, columns 1238-1241.
All these Objections set forth by Jakob Andreæ at the Colloquio Montisbelligartensi, and how Beza responded to them, see in the Actis Colloquii Montisbelligartensis, pages 413, 414, 418-423, 441-448, 453-455. To the same Objections, see the response of ARNOLDI in his Scopis dissolutis Eckhardi, chapter XV, question II, pages 252-257, question V, pages 282-290, question VIII, pages 315-320. Yet other Objections of the Universalists out of Ernst Salomon Cyprian, a Lutheran Minister, against our doctrine concerning Predestination, STAPFER sets forth and resolves, Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 5, chapter XX, § 183-235, pages 264-303.
 Herman Schiyn (1662-1727) was a leader among the Zonist (conservative) Mennonites. He spent most of his adult life as an elder in the Zonist congregation in Amsterdam, but his enduring legacy is to be found in his historical works, setting forth the historical origins and doctrinal commitments of the Mennonites. When the Zonist congregation of Rotterdam merged with the Waterland congregation, resolving to admit all professing Christians, not just Mennonites, to communion, Schiyn set himself in opposition, writing Aenmerkingen op het formulier van benodiging.  A unified statement of Anabaptistic belief, issued in the Netherlands in 1664. Jean Daillé (1594-1670) was a Huguenot minister and Biblical scholar; theologically he was inclined to the tenets of Amyraldianism. Helvetic Formula of Consensus, Canons IV-VI: “IV. Before the creation of the world, God decreed in Christ Jesus our Lord according to His eternal purpose (Ephesians 3:11), in which, from the mere good pleasure of His own will, without any foresight of the merit of works or of faith, to the praise of his glorious grace, to elect some out of the human race, lying in the same mass of corruption and of common blood, and, therefore, corrupted by sin. He elected a certain and definite number to be led, in time, unto salvation in Christ, their Guarantor and sole Mediator. And on account of His merit, by the mighty power of the regenerating Holy Spirit, He decreed these elect to be effectually called, regenerated and gifted with faith and repentance. So, indeed, God, determining to illustrate his glory, decreed to create man perfect, in the first place, then to permit him to fall, and finally to pity some of the fallen, and therefore to elect those, but leave the rest in the corrupt mass, and finally give them over to eternal destruction. V. Christ Himself is also included in the gracious decree of divine election, not as the meritorious cause, or foundation prior to election itself, but as being himself also elect (1 Peter 2:4, 6). Indeed, He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, and accordingly, as the first requisite of the execution of the decree of election, chosen Mediator, and our first born Brother, whose precious merit God determined to use for the purpose of conferring, without detriment to His own justice, salvation upon us. For the Holy Scriptures not only declare that election was made according to the mere good pleasure of the divine counsel and will (Ephesians 1:5, 9; Matthew 11:26), but was also made that the appointment and giving of Christ, our Mediator, was to proceed from the zealous love of God the Father toward the world of the elect. VI. Wherefore, we can not agree with the opinion of those who teach: l. that God, moved by philanthropy, or a kind of special love for the fallen of the human race, did, in a kind of conditioned willing, first moving of pity, as they call it, or inefficacious desire, determine the salvation of all, conditionally, that is, if they would believe; 2. that He appointed Christ Mediator for all and each of the fallen; and 3. that, at length, certain ones whom He regarded, not simply as sinners in the first Adam, but as redeemed in the second Adam, He elected, that is, He determined graciously to bestow on these, in time, the saving gift of faith; and in this sole act election properly so called is complete. For these and all other similar teachings are in no way insignificant deviations from the proper teaching concerning divine election; because the Scriptures do not extend unto all and each God’s purpose of showing mercy to man, but restrict it to the elect alone, the reprobate being excluded even by name, as Esau, whom God hated with an eternal hatred (Romans 9:11). The same Holy Scriptures testify that the counsel and will of God do not change, but stand immovable, and God in the, heavens does whatsoever he will (Psalm 115:3; Isaiah 47:10); for God is in finitely removed from all that human imperfection which characterizes inefficacious affections and desires, rashness repentance and change of purpose. The appointment, also, of Christ, as Mediator, equally with the salvation of those who were given to him for a possession and an inheritance that can not be taken away, proceeds from one and the same election, and does not form the basis of election.”  Josué de la Place (c. 1596-1665) was a French theologian, and colleague of Amyraut and Cappel at Saumur. He is remembered for his doctrine of the mediate imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity.  See 2 Corinthians 1:18, 19.  See Romans 1:20.  Herman Venema (1697-1787) was a student of Campegius Vitringa, specializing in Old Testament exegesis and Church History. He served as Professor of Theology at Franeker (1723-1774).  Samuel Huber (1547-1624) served as Professor of Theology at Wittenberg from 1592-1595.  Johann Micrælius (1597-1658) was a German Lutheran historian, theologian, and educator.  Frederic Adolphus Lampe (1683-1729) studied under Campegius Vitringa, and held various ministerial posts. At Utrecht he was appointed Professor of Theology (1720), then of Church History (1726). He departed to teach at Bremen in 1727, and died there in 1729. He was especially learned in ecclesiastical history and antiquities.  Francesco Pucci (1543-1597) was an Italian humanist and philosopher. Although born in the Roman Catholic Church, he sought a home among Protestants; but his Pelagianism kept him embroiled in controversy on every side. Eventually he returned to the Roman communion.  In Tuscany.  In South Holland.  David Pareus (1548-1622) was a German Calvinist, serving the Reformed Church as a minister, churchman, and professor. He wrote a commentary on the whole Bible, and it was held in high estimation among the Reformed. His Commentarius in Epistolam ad Romanos was burned publicly at Oxford and Cambridge in 1622 by order of the Privy Council of James I because of his comments on Romans 13, in which he upholds the right of resistance to tyranny.  Johann Wilhelm Petersen (1647-1727) was a German Lutheran churchman, theologian, and pietistic mystic. He embraced Origen’s doctrine of Apokatastasis.  Pierre Halloix (1572-1656) was a Belgian Jesuit and Patrologist.  See Ephesians 2:12.  Romans 11:32: “For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all (συνέκλεισε γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς τοὺς πάντας εἰς ἀπείθειαν, ἵνα τοὺς πάντας ἐλεήσῃ).”  Johannes Arnoldi Corvinus (c. 1582-1650) was a Dutch Remonstrant pastor and theologian. Having been a student of Arminius, he adopted his views, and in 1610 he signed the Five Articles of Remonstrance. He was deposed in 1619.  1 Timothy 2:4: “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth (ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν).”  That is, a word lacking its own denotation, but can affect the denotation of the larger expression in which it is found.  Luke 3:6: “And all flesh (πᾶσα σὰρξ) shall see the salvation of God.”  Matthew 4:23: “And Jesus went about all Galilee (ὅλην τὴν Γαλιλαίαν), teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness (πᾶσαν νόσον, all sickness) and all manner of disease (πᾶσαν μαλακίαν, all disease) among the people.”  Matthew 9:35: “And Jesus went about all the cities and villages (τὰς πόλεις πάσας καὶ τὰς κώμας), teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness (πᾶσαν νόσον) and every disease (πᾶσαν μαλακίαν) among the people.”  Acts 2:17: “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh (πᾶσαν σάρκα): and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams…”  Acts 10:12: “Wherein were all fourfooted beasts (πάντα τὰ τετράποδα) of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.”  Revelation 18:12: “The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood (πᾶν ξύλον θύϊνον), and all manner vessels of ivory (πᾶν σκεῦος ἐλεφάντινον), and all manner vessels of most precious wood (πᾶν σκεῦος ἐκ ξύλου τιμιωτάτου), and of brass, and iron, and marble…”  Revelation 21:19: “And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones (παντὶ λίθῳ τιμίῳ). The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald…”  Sebastian Castalio (1515-1563) distinguished himself as a scholar by means of his linguistic talents, evident in his Annotationes in Vetus et Novum Testamentum. After a period of working closely with Calvin, the two fell into controversy. Castalio was inclined towards Pelagianism, and his views were influential in the development of Socinianism. As a translator of the Bible, he takes great liberty with the text, molding the speech of the prophets to conform to the standards of classical Latin.  Johannes Utenbogardus (1557-1644) was a Dutch minister, a follower of Arminius, and a leader of the Remonstrants after Arminius’ death.  Conradus Vorstius (1569-1622) was a Dutch Arminian, condemned by the Synod of Dort and banished. It is reported that he openly embraced Socinianism at the end of his life.  Jacobus Leydekker (1656-1729), brother of Melchior Leydekker, was a Dutch Reformed pastor and controversialist.  Jacobus Fruytier (1659-1731) was a Dutch Reformed pastor and theologian.  Remigius (died 875), archbishop of Lyon, sided with and defended Gottshalk in the controversy over predestination.  Samuel Bochart (1599-1667) was a French Protestant pastor and scholar with a wide variety of interests, including philology, theology, geography, and zoology. Indeed his works on Biblical geography (Geographia Sacra) and zoology (Hierozoicon, sive Bipertitum Opus de Animalibus Scripturæ) became standard reference works for generations. He was on familiar terms with many of the greatest men of his age.  Ezekiel 33:11: “Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure (אִם־אֶחְפֹּץ) in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?”  Titus 3:4: “But after that the kindness and philanthropy (φιλανθρωπία, love of man) of God our Saviour appeared…”  Ernst Salomon Cyprian (1673-1745) was a German Lutheran minister, theologian, historian, and librarian.