Читать книгу Redemption Redeemed - John Goodwin - Страница 7

THE premise considered, is one of the strangest and most troublesome sayings that, to my remembrance, I have ever met from the pen of a learned and considerate man. I find it in the writings of a late opposer of universal atonement. “I know,” saith he, “no article of the gospel which this new and wicked religion of universal atonement doth not contradict.” That which he called a “new and wicked religion,” the doctrine of universal atonement, I shall, God assisting and granting life and health for the finishing of this present discourse, evince both from the main and clear current of the Scriptures themselves, as likewise by many impregnable and undeniable demonstrations and grounds of reason, to be a most ancient and divine truth. Yea, it is none other but the heart and soul, the spirit and life, the strength and substance, and very sum of the glorious gospel itself.

Yea, I shall make it appear from ancient records of best credit, and from the confessions of modern divines themselves, of best account, adversaries in the point, that universal atonement by Christ was a doctrine generally taught and held in the churches of Christ for three hundred years together after the apostles. And if I conceived it worth the undertaking, or were minded to turn the stream of my discourse that way, I question not but I could make it as clear as the sun shining in his might, that there is “no article of the gospel,” as this man’s dialect is, I mean, no great or weighty point of the Christian faith, that can stand with a rational consistency unless the doctrine of universal atonement be admitted for a truth.

Yea, upon a diligent and strict inquiry it will be found, that if any man holds such a limited redemption as is commonly taught and believed amongst us, and yet withal lives holily and like a Christian, he acts in full contradiction to such a principle, and happily denies that in practice which erroneously he holds in judgment. God, in such cases as these, makes grapes to grow on thorns, and figs on thistles: nor doth there want anything by sense and visibility of the disproportion between the cause and the effect, to make the lives and ways of such persons miraculous. Neither doth anything nor all things that I could ever yet meet with, either from the tongues or pens of the greatest patrons of particular redemption, deliver me from under much admiration, that conscientious and learned men, professing subjection of judgment to the Scriptures, should either deny universal or assert particular redemption; considering that the Scriptures, in particularly, plainness and expressness of words and phase, do more that ten times over deliver the former.

Whereas the latter is no where asserted by them, but only stands upon certain venturous consequences and deductions, which the weak judgments of men, so much accustomed to error and mistake, presume to levy from them; together with such arguments and grounds, which, upon examination, will be found either to have no consistency with the sound principles either of reason or religion, or else no legitimate coherence with the cause which they pretend unto.

Let us first hearken unto the Scriptures lifting up their voices together for the redemption of all men by Christ without exception. We shall afterwards, in due process of discourse, give a fair consideration to those inferences and consequences of men wherein the strength of their Scripture proofs standeth for the support of the contrary opinion.

And first it is considerable, that the Scriptures not only speak to the heart of the doctrine asserted in great variety of texts and places, but also in great veins and correspondences, or consorts of texts, each consort consisting of several particulars of like notion and phrase. I shall recommend only four of these companies unto the reader; which when we shall have pondered in some or all the particulars respectively relating unto them, we shall add, to make full measure, the contributions of some single texts besides.

The first division or squadron of Scriptures which speak aloud the universality of redemption by Christ, are such which present the gift and sacrifice of Christ as relating indifferently unto the world. The name of this kind of Scriptures, for the number of them, may be Legion for they are many. Some of the principal and best known of them are these: “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten,” &c., John iii. 16; “that the world through him might be saved,” ver. 17. “Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world,” John i. 29. “My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world,” John vi. 51. “And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world, 1 John ii. 2. “And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world, 1 John iv. 14. “For I came not to judge the world, but to save the world,” John xii. 48. “For God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself,” &c., 2 Cor. v. 19. To omit many others.

The second post of Scriptures standing up to maintain the same doctrine with uniformity of expressions amongst themselves, are such which insure the ransom of Christ, and the will or desire of God for matters of salvation, unto all men and every man. Some of these are – “Who gave himself a ransom for all,” 1 Tim. ii. 6. “Because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead; and that he died for all, that they who live,” &c. 2 Cor. v. 14, 15. “That he, by the grace of God, should taste of death for every man,” Heb. ii. 9; “who will have all men to be saved,” &c., 1 Tim. ii. 4; “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance,” 2 Pet. iii. 9. “Therefore, as by the offence of one the judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men to the justification of life,” Rom. v. 18; with some others.

A third sort of party of Scriptures, confederate with the former, (for substance of import, between themselves for matter of expression) are such which hold forth and promise salvation indifferently to him, and to whosoever will or shall believe. Of this sort are these, with their fellows: “And him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise case out,” John vi. 37; “He that believeth in me shall never thirst,” ver. 35; “He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved,” Mark xvi. 16; “That whosoever believeth in him should not perish,” John iii. 16; “That through his name, whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins,” Acts x. 43; “Even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all that believe:… for all have sinned,” Rom. iii. 22, 23. It were easy to make this pile also much greater.

A fourth association of Scriptures, all pregnant with the doctrine we assert, consists of such places where Christ is said to have died for those who yet may perish, yea, and actually do perish: and again, where such men are said to have been bought by him, and to have been “sanctified by his blood,” who yet through their own negligence and wilfulness in sinning, bring destruction upon themselves, and perish everlastingly. Places of this kind are famously known. “Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died,” Rom. xiv. 15; “And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?” 1 Cor. viii. 11; “Even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction,” 2 Pet. ii. 1; “For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning,” 2 Pet. ii. 20; “Of how much sorer punishment, supposed ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of Grace?” Heb. x. 29; “Then his lord, after he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt because thou desiredst me. Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellow-servant? And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due to him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your heart forgive not every one his brother their trespasses?” Matt. xviii. 32, 33 &c.

Let us begin with the texts of the first of the four orders mentioned, where the death of Christ is presented as relating unto the world. From the tenor and import of all the Scriptures of this denomination and tribe, it will be made evident that Christ died for all men, without exception of any, the word world in these places being necessarily to be understood in the proper and comprehensive signification of it, (I mean for all men and women in the world, in and according to their successive generation) and not for those that shall believe, or the like. We shall, for brevity’s sake, argue only some of these places, and leave the light of their interpretations for a discovery of the sense and meaning of the rest.

The first proposed of these, was that place of renown, “God so loved the world, that he gave,” &c. John iii. 16. Evident it is from hence, that Christ was given, viz. unto death for them, or for their sakes, whoever they be that are here meant by the world. There are but three significations of the world, that to my remembrance I ever heard of as competitors in this place. First, some by the world, here understand the elect dispersed up and down the world. By the elect, they mean all those, and those only, who shall in time actually be saved, whom they call the elect, because they judge them to have been chosen by God from eternity out of the generality of mankind, with an intent by him in time, with a strong hand and power irresistible, to be: 1. Brought to believe; 2. Caused, or made to persevere, believing unto the end; and, 3. Hereupon eternally saved, the residue of men being absolutely rejected and left to that unavoidable and heavy doom of perishing everlastingly. But that this is not the sense of the word world in the Scripture in hand, will appear by the light of these considerations.

1. The word kosmos, here translated world, was never known to have any such sense or signification in the Greek tongue; nor was it, nor is it to be found in any author who wrote in this language, before, or about the time, when John wrote his gospel, in such a signification, nor yet in anywhere near to it. Now the gospel, as is generally acknowledged, and that upon sufficient grounds, was written in the Greek tongue chiefly for the gentiles’ sake, amongst whom this language was known and understood far and near, that they might be brought to believe, and so be saved by it. It is no way likely that the evangelist should use words, especially in such master veins and main passages of it, as this is, in an uncouth, unknown, and unheard of signification.

2. Nor can it be proved, that it is to be taken in the sense now opposed, in any other place of the Scriptures themselves; but in very many places it signifies the universal system, body, or generality of men in the world, (we shall not need to instance for the proof of this, places being so frequent and obvious) as also for that part of the generality of men which is opposite, and contra-distinguished to the saints, i.e. to the elect, in their sense of the word elect, who yet would have these signified by the world. This latter signification of the word world, is evident in these Scriptures: - “We know that we are born of God, and that the whole world lieth in wickedness,” 1 John v. 19. “Even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, “&c. John xiv. 17; “If ye were of the world, the world would love her own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you,” John xv. 19; to omit many others.

3. If by the world in the Scripture in hand be meant the elect, in the sense of the assertors of this signification, then it will follow, that God out of his great love gave Christ unto those, or for those, who stood in no need of him, at least either to preserve them from perishing, or to invest them with a right or title to eternal life, which yet are here laid down as the two only, or at least as two main ends of that great gift. For if exemption from perishing, or salvation, be absolutely, and without all consideration, awarded or decreed by God unto men before, or from eternity, they have a full right and title unto them, or unto the possession and enjoyment of them, by virtue of this award or decree, without the intervening of anything else whatsoever. For what better right or title can there be to the enjoyment of anything than a decree of heaven? Or the award of him who hath an unquestionable right and power to dispose of all enjoyments whatsoever, as, and to whom he pleaseth? But more of this consequence hereafter.

4. The structure itself of the sentence, and tenor of these words, riseth up against this sense of the word in question. For (a.) If by the word world we understand the elect, we destroy the very grammar of the place, and make it an uncouth and harsh sentence, such, doubtless, as cannot be paralleled in any author, nor yet in the Scriptures themselves. Read we then the place thus, “So God loved his elect, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever . . .” – I demand how, or in what regular sense, that universal distributive particle, whosoever, pas ho, everyone that, shall be understood? It is a thing generally known to those that understand anything in the rules of grammar, yea, the vulgar dialect of those that speak reason or common sense confirmeth it, that partitive or distributive particles of speech always suppose a difference, at least in possibility, between the things parted or distributed, and this in reference to what occasioneth the distribution. As for example, suppose a great king having many sons, should express himself thus: “I so love my children, that whosoever of them shall be dutiful unto me; I will bestow principalities, dukedoms, or other great matters upon them.” Should he not plainly imply a possibility, at least, that some of them might not prove dutiful unto him? In like manner, if the word world, in the Scripture in hand, should signify the elect, the distributive, whosoever, must needs imply that some of these elect might possibly not believe, and so perish; because believing, and not perishing thereupon, occasions the distribution here made.

(b.) Though our Saviour, in this period of Scripture, mentioneth only the benefit intended by God in the gift of his Son, to those that shall believe, viz., non-perishing and the obtaining of everlasting life; yet he plainly implies, and supposeth withal, the misery and loss which they should certainly suffer who shall not believe. Except this be supposed, we shall altogether misfigure our Saviour’s mind and scope in the place, and make him speak more like a man void of understanding than himself. For then the taste and savour of his words would be this: “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth or not believeth in him should not perish but,” &c. Therefore, certain it is, that he in the place in hand insinuates that condemnation or perishing of those who shall not believe, as he asserts the salvation or nonperishing of those who shall believe. And besides, it is contrary to reason, especially in seriousness of discourse, in a positive and strict manner to suspend that upon the performance of such or such a condition which may be had without any such performance. This then being granted, that our Saviour here supposeth the certain perishing of those who shall not believe, the place, according to their sense, who by the world will need understand the elect, must run thus: “So God loved the elect, that whosoever of them believed should not perish;” but on the contrary, that whosoever of them should not believe, should perish. Which, according to their principles, against whom we now argue, is as if a man should say, whichsoever of my sheep is no sheep, but a goat, shall have no pasture with his fellows.

(c.) They who by the world here understand the elect, must, if they will not baulk with their principles, suppose that Christ speaks at no better rate of wisdom or sense in this Scripture than thus: “So God loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever did that which was not possible for them to decline or not to do, should not perish, but,” &c. Whoever, being serious and in his wits, required that in the nature of a condition from any man, especially in order to the obtaining of some great important thing which he, of whom it was required upon such terms, was necessitated or had no liberty or power but to perform? What father ever promised his son his estate, either in whole or in part upon condition that whilst he rode upon a horse he should not go on foot? Or upon condition that he would do that, which a force greater than he was able to resist should necessitate him to do? So that the whole tenor and carriage of the verse renders the interpretation of the word world, hitherto encountered, a mere nullity in sense, reason, and truth.

5. The context and words immediately preceding, will at no hand endure that sense of the word world, against which we have declared hitherto. This little word for, “For God so loved,” &c., being casual, importeth not only a connexion of these words with what went before, but such a connexion or relation as that which intercedes between the cause and the effect. So that the words in hand must be looked upon as assigning or exhibiting the cause or reason of that effect, which was immediately before mentioned. This being granted, as without breach of conscience it can hardly be denied, it will appear as clear as the light of the sun, that by world, in the place under contest, cannot be meant the elect only. The tenor of the two next foregoing verses, for together they make but one entire sentence, is this: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him, or every one believing in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John iii. 14, 15. So that the effect here mentioned and expressed is the salvation and everlasting happiness of what person or persons soever of men, or of mankind, shall believe in Christ. The reason or cause hereof our Saviour discovers and asserts in the words in hand: “For God so loved the world, that he gave,” &c. If now by the world we shall understand only the elect, the reason or cause here assigned of the pre-mentioned effect will be found inadequate to it, and insufficient to produce it. For God’s love to the elect, and his giving his Son for their salvation only, is no sufficient cause to procure or produce the salvation of whosoever shall or should believe on him. For certain it is, that there is salvation in Christ for no more than for whom God intended there should be salvation in him. If there be salvation in him for none but the elect only, then is it not true that whosoever believes in him shall be saved. For certain it is, that no man’s believing puts any salvation into Christ for him; therefore if it were not there for him before he believed, yea, or, whether he believed or not, neither would it be there for him, though or in case he should believe.

6. Lastly, by the word world, in the Scripture in hand, is not meant the elect, nor any thing equivalent hereunto, is evident also from the context in the verse and words immediately following, where our Saviour goeth forward in his doctrine, thus: “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.” John iii. 17. This particle, for, being, as we lately noted, casual or ratiocinative, plainly showeth that he useth the world, or speaks of the world in this verse, where he speaks of the condemnation of it, in the same sense, wherein he spake of it in the former, and the means of the salvation of it; otherwise he should not argue ad idem, i.e. to the point in hand. Now then to make him here to say, that God sent not his Son into the world, i.e. to take the nature or to live in the condition of the elect, to condemn the elect, but that the elect &c. is to make him speak as no man, I suppose spake, but not for excellency of wisdom or gracefulness of expression, but for weakness in both. To say that God sent not his son into the world to condemn his elect, were but to beat the air, or to fight against a shadow; I mean, solemnly to deny that, which no man was ever likely to imagine of affirm. For how, or by what way of apprehension, should it ever enter into any man’s thought that God should send his Son into the world to condemn those, whom out of his infinite love he had from eternity decreed to save with strong hand, out-stretched arm, and power omnipotent and invincible? Or are not these the elect, in their notion of election, with whom we have now to do? Therefore cerntainly, the world, in the Scripture before us, doth not signify the elect.

A second interpretation of this word asserted by some, is, that by the world is meant genus humanum, for mankind indefinitely considered. If I rightly understand the mind of those who thus interpret, as neither importing all, nor any of the individuums or persons contained in or under this species or kind, but only the specifical nature of man common to them all; as when the Jews said of the Centurion, that he loved their nation, Luke vii. 5, their meaning was not either that he loved all that were Jews without exception of any; nor yet that he loved any particular person of them more than another; but only that he was lovingly disposed towards them as they were such a particular nation, as viz., Jews. But that this interpretation either falls in, in substance, with the former, and so is already condemned with the condemnation thereof; or else, with the third and last, which, as we shall hear presently, findeth in this Scripture a love in God towards all the individual persons of mankind, without exception of any; or else, that it vanisheth into nothing, and hath no substance at all in it, may be thus demonstrated.

If by mankind, indefinitely considered, be neither meant a special or determinate number of the persons of men (which the former interpretation asserteth) nor yet the universality, or entire body of men, consisting of all particular persons of men which either have been, now are, and shall be hereafter (which the third interpretation avoucheth) then is it only the nature of man abstractively considered, which we may with the schoolmen, call humanitas, humanity, or the specifical nature of man, not the persons of men, some, or all, which God precisely love with that love, out of which he gave his only begotten Son. If so, then it undeniably follows, that Christ was given out of as much love to one person of mankind as to another, or, which is the same, not out of any love to any at all. For certain it is, that humanitas, or the specifical nature of man, is not the person of any man. And so, according to this interpretation, God should love the reprobates as much as the elect, and consequently give his only begotten Son to death, as well for the one as the other.

Besides, if it were the human nature, indefinitely considered, (in the sense pre-declared) which God is here said to have loved with that love, out of which he gave his only begotten Son, from hence also it must needs follow, inasmuch as the reprobate (so called) partakes every whit as much in this nature as the elect, that Christ was given as much for the one as for the other. Again, if by the world, be meant the human nature, in the sense distinguished, the distributive particle, whosoever, with the following words, will be found incongruous, and no ways answering the former part of these verse, either in sense or regularity of construction. For the human nature is but simply one and the same nature or thing, nor doth it contain any plurality of species, or individual human natures under it; whereas a distribution cannot be but of some general, which containeth many particulars under it. And upon the supposal of such sense of the word world, to make the construction regular in the latter part of the verse, the tenor of the whole must run thus: For God loved the human nature, that he gave his only begotten Son, that what human nature soever believed in him should not perish, &c. If this construction be ridiculous, so must that interpretation needs be which produceth it. Lastly, (to answer the illustration of this interpretation of this interpretation from Luke vii.) the Jews, who said the Centurion loved their nation, did not suppose that he loved only a handful or small number of their nation, and hated all the rest with an irreconcilable hatred; nor did they say, that he so loved their nation, that whosoever of this nation should trust him, he would be a signal benefactor unto them, or the like: nor did they, by their nation, understand the Jewish race, lineage, or descent, abstractively considered, and without reference to any person or persons whatsoever of this nation (for their nation, in this sense, was wholly incapable of any fruit or expression of his love, or having a synagogue built to it or for it.)

So that this instance no way parallels or fits the interpretation of the word world, for the illustration or confirmation whereof it is brought. But the plain meaning of the Jews saying that the Centurion loved their nation, was this, that he was ready and willing to do any office or service of love to any person or persons of their nation, because of their national relation, rather than to any other, upon such a consideration, when he had opportunity. The two pretenders being nonsuited, a sufficient way, I presume, is made for the admission of the right heir. Therefore,

The third, and last interpretation of the world, in the Scripture under debate, is, that by it is signified universum genus humanum. The whole compass of mankind, or all and every individual person subsisting at any time in the human nature, without exception of any. This exposition stands with the ordinary and best known signification of the words, and withal gives smoothness and regularity of construction unto the period or sentence, which both the former (as upon examination hath been found) take from it, is of perfect accord with the context, and besides magnifies the love of God in the freeness, fullness, and extent of it incomparably above and beyond either of them; for,

1. The word world, kosmos, very frequently and familiarly both in the Scriptures themselves, and in other authors, signifieth the generality of mankind, or of men: in the Scriptures especially, when it relates unto persons, it seldom or never signifieth any thing else, but either the generality or men simply and absolutely, or else that generality of men which comparatively comprehendeth all men. I mean the whole number of wicked and unregenerate men, who, in respect of their vast multitudes, and inconsiderable number of the godly (in comparison of them) are by John termed the whole world, “And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.” 1 John v. 19. Or, lastly the promiscuous generality or persons, good and bad together, be they fewer or more, where a man converseth, or hath opportunity to come amongst, or speak unto. Several instances were lately given of the second signification of the word, from the Scriptures. Instances of the first signification, also, there any many. “Ye are the light of the world,” Matt. v.14. “And the world knew him not,” John i. 10. “And I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him,” John viii. 26. “But I have chosen you out of the world,” John xv. 19. “Which thou gavest me out of the world,” John xvii. 6. “God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?” Rom. iii. 6. “As by one man sin entered into the world,” Rom v. 12. “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world” and “the weak things of the world,” 1 Cor. i. 27. “There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world,” 1 Cor. xiv. 10.

The world is never used in Scripture for the elect or godly party in the world, considered by themselves, or apart by others. It is used either for the wicked of the world alone, or apart by themselves, or else for both godly and wicked taken together, and as mixed one with another. It would be very strange that our Saviour should use it in that by-sense, and unheard of elsewhere, in so eminent a place and passage of the gospel as that in hand, and not in the familiar and best known signification of it.

2. This interpretation of the word accommodates the whole verse or sentence with clearness of sense and regularity of construction, as is evident unto those who understand what the one and what the other of these mean. For by it the genuine and proper use and import of the distributive particle, whosoever, is fully salved, which is destroyed by either of the former, and such a distribution of a general made by it, which supposeth a possibility of a difference between the particulars contained under it, and into which the said general is distributed, according to the exigency of those things, in reference whereunto the distribution is made. As for example: here is a distribution made of this general, the world, i.e. of all mankind, by this distributive pronoun, whosoever. The occasion of this distribution is to show who, or what particulars contained under this general, i.e. what particular persons of mankind shall not perish, but have everlasting life; and withal, by a tacit antithesis or in consequential way, as hath been already noted, to show what other particulars contained under the same general shall perish, and not to have everlasting life. The former are said to be such as shall believe on the only begotten Son of God; the latter are clearly implied to be such who shall not so believe. Now, if it should be supposed that there was, or is, not possibility that any such difference should be found between the particulars, into which the general is here distributed, as believing, and not believing, the distribution would be altogether needless and vain; yea, and would dissense the whole sentence. These things are plain and sensible to every understanding that knows what belongs to common sense or regularity of syntaxis.

3. This exposition of the word world, makes a clean joint, a rational and pleasant coherence, between this verse and that which follows; as also between this and the two verses immediately precedent. The words of the two preceding verses are these, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Now, certain it is, that Moses did not lift up the serpent with an intent of healing to be conferred by it upon such or such a definite or determinate number of persons; nor with an intent, either on his part or on God’s part, that none should look upon it but only such a parcel or determinate number of men; but with an intent, not only that whosoever in the event did look upon it, and could not but look upon it, might look upon it; but that whosoever would, might look up unto it, and that whosoever, being stung with the fiery serpents, did look up unto it, should be healed thereby.

This is evident from the story. “Make thee,” saith God to Moses, “a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole; and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when He looketh upon it, shall live,” Numb. xxi. 8. Now, then, all men without exception being stung with that fiery serpent, sin, unless Christ should be lifted up upon the cross, with an intent on God’s part and in himself; (a.) That every man, without exception, might believe in him; and (b.) That every man that should believe in him, should be saved by him. He could not be said to be lifted up, as (i.e. upon the same terms of a universal accommodation on which) Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness. Therefore, our Saviour, to give the world a satisfying account how it comes to pass that the Son of man, meaning himself, should be lifted up upon such terms, viz. for the universal benefit of salvation unto all mankind, he assigns the love of God to the world, as the reason or productive cause of it. For God so loved the world that, &c. Therefore, by the world, he must needs mean all mankind, or the generality of men, that were bitten or stung with sin, unless we will say, that God gave his son for the salvation of those whom he loved not.

The tenor of the following verses is this, “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but,” &c. In these words our Saviour confirms his former assertion, touching the love of God to the world, in giving his Son for the salvation of it, by rejecting that reason or motive of his sending him into the world, which men might imagine did occasion this his sending by God, and besides which, there could none other well be imagined, but only that which he had asserted, viz. an intent or purpose in Him, in God, of condemning the world by Him. Now to make Christ to say, that God sent not his Son into the world to condemn mankind, or the generality of men, as having sinned against him, is to make him say that which is savoury and comfortable, and that which opposeth, or is apt to prevent such a sad imagination, as was very incident to the minds of men through a consciousness of the guilt of sin, viz. That if God ever did, or should, send his Son amongst them, it would be to judge or condemn them.

But to make him say, that God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the elect, i.e. those few whom he infinitely loved, and to whom he had peremptorily, and without all possibility of reverse, decreed non-condemnation before this sending of him, is to make him speak at an extreme low rate of sense or reason, and to labour, as the proverb is, in lifting a feather. Inasmuch as no such thought or imagination as this was ever like to bear upon or trouble any man’s spirit; inasmuch then as no other interpretation of the world, in the former verse, but only that which hereby understandeth the generality of men-sinners, will accommodate this verse, in respect of the connexion between them, with any tolerable sense, evident it is, that that must needs be the true interpretation thereof.

By the way, when Christ saith, “For judgment I am come into the world,” &c. John ix. 39, He no ways opposeth what he here saith, viz. “That God sent him not into the world to condemn the world.” For in the former place, he speaks not of the intent, but of the event; in this, not of the event, but of the intent of his sending or coming into the world. Christ was not sent into the world with any intent on God’s part, nor came with any intention of his own, to make those which see to become blind, meaning either to augment or to discover to their shame the spiritual blindness and ignorance in such men, who being ignorant, presume of their knowledge by one means or other; but with an intent to heal the blindness of all, to their comfort, peace, and glory. Therefore, if any man through a foolish and proud conceit of his own knowledge and wisdom, shall stumble at, or reject the gospel and doctrine of Christ as foolishness, and so discover himself to be blind, ignorant, and foolish in the end; this is merely adventitious and accidental, in respect of the antecedent, primary, and direct intention of God in sending Christ into the world, as Calvin himself affirmeth.1

If it be demanded, but did not God intend that whosoever should stumble at or reject Christ, should in such a sense, be made blind? I answer, Yes, doubtless: God did intend to punish all manner of sins with judgments suitable to them. But his intention of making those blind, in the sense declared, who should reject Christ or his doctrine, was not that intent or purpose, out of which he sent Christ into the world, which was the genuine and natural product of his love, but such an intent which his perfect hatred of sin, especially of sin committed against the law of grace, formed in him.

4. The interpretation of the word world, now under assertion, magnifies that divine attribute, the love of God, incomparably more and above either of the former. They, who by the world understand the elect only, (which is the substance, also, of the second interpretation, unless it chooseth rather to resolve itself into this third, as was lately proved) allow a very small, narrow, and inconsiderable sphere, for so noble, active and diffusive a principle, as the love of God is, in comparison of those who extend it to the whole circumference of mankind. The whole element, and vast body of the air, in all the dimensions of it, height, depth, length, and breadth, make but a proportionable sphere for the sun, wherein to display the fulness of the glory, and to express the activity of his abundant light. Nor will the whole universe of creatures, take the whole number and entire host of them, a prima ad ultimam, et ab ultima ad primam, make a theatre any whit too large, capacious, or extensive, for the abundant riches and fullness of the love of God to act like themselves upon. They who present the love of God in the gift of his son Jesus Christ, as contracted to the narrow compass of the elect, i.e. of those only who shall in the end be saved, and preach this for the gospel unto the world, do by men, in respect of their spiritual accommodation, as God should do by the world in their temporal, in case he should keep his sun in a continual eclipse, suffer ten parts of the light of it to be perpetually obscured.

5. This interpretation, we now plead is of fair and dull consistency teach and affirm, concerning the nature of God, his mercy, sweetness, love, goodness towards all his creatures, his equal and impartial administration of rewards and punishments in the world, his non-exception of persons, his ardent, serious, and compassionate desires that none should perish. It means that even the vilest and wickedest of men should return from the evil of their ways, and be saved, his not delighting in the death of those who do perish, with much more of like consideration and import. There is an obvious and manifest agreement between the exposition we contend for, and all such veins of Scripture expression, as these: whereas the other interpretations are at an absolute and manifest defiance with them.

And, lastly, the sense now argued for is attested by Calvin himself upon the place, with several other Protestant divines. “Both,” saith he, “are here distinctly delivered unto us; namely, the faith in Christ is of saving nature unto all; and that Christ therefore brought life because his heavenly Father would not have mankind to perish, which he loveth.” And more plainly afterwards: “He useth a note of universality, both that he may invite all to the participation of life, and that he may cut off matter of excuse from unbelievers. The word world, which he useth before likewise, importeth as much. For though there will be nothing found in the world worthy the favour of God, yet he showeth himself propitious, or favourable, unto the whole world, in that he calls all men without exception to believe in Christ, which is nothing else but an entrance into life.”2 In the former of these passages, the interpretation we stand for, is largely enough asserted; but in the latter, we have it with measure heaped up, pressed down, and running over. For here, he doth not only say that God showeth himself propitious, or favourable unto the whole world, but further, that he calls all men to faith in Christ, and invites all men to participation of life.

Therefore, doubtless, his judgment was, at least whilst he had this Scripture before him for his steerage, that there was life and salvation in Christ for all men, and that upon such terms that all might partake of it. There was also one another: and, consequently, that he died for all men: inasmuch as there can be no life in him for those to partake, for whom he died not, no more than there is for the devils. Gualter, another Protestant author of approved learning and worth, avoucheth the same sense. “And this,” saith he, “he more clearly expresseth, when being to name those whom God so loved, he doth not mention Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, Moses, David, the prophets, the Virgin Mary, the apostles, or holy martyrs, but the world, which our evangelist in his epistle affirmeth to lie wholly in wickedness, and of which Christ himself more than once affirmeth the devil to be the prince.”3

So that this writer, by the world, doth not understand the elect only, or the world of the elect, whereof the devil is no where affirmeth by Christ to be the prince, nor which is any where affirmed by John to lie wholly in wickedness, but the world at large, and which comprehendeth reprobates as well as the elect. But of all our reformed divines, there is none speaks more expressly and professedly to the mind of the interpretation held forth, that learned Musculus. “By the world,” saith he, speaking of the Scripture in hand, “he understands the universe of mankind: so that here his love of the world, and his love of men, is the same.” And elsewhere, thus: “After the same manner it is in this redemption of mankind whereof we speak. That reprobates and desperately wicked men partake not of it, is not through any defect of the grace of God: nor is it meet that, for the sons of perdition’ sake, it should lose the glory and title of a universal redemption, since it is prepared (or procured) for all, and all are called to it.”4

Nor were there men wanting in the Synod of Dort itself, who, though anti-remonstrants by profession, yet frequently by expression did plainly close with that doctrine which they would be thought to oppose concerning the particular in hand. Our English divines lay down this thesis: “God, out of compassion to mankind being fallen, sent his Son, who gave himself a price of redemption for the sins of the whole world.” In the explication of this thesis they say, “That price which was paid for all, and which shall certainly benefit all that believe, yet shall not benefit all men.” And presently after, “So then Christ died for all men, that all and every one, by the mediation of faith, may through the virtue of this ransom, obtain remission of sins and eternal life.”5

Evident is that these men, by God’s love to the world, understand his love of compassion to all mankind, inasmuch as not a part or some, but the whole and all particulars of mankind, were fallen. Besides, saying, “that all and everyone” may “through the mediation of faith obtain forgiveness of sins and eternal life through the virtue of Christ’s ransom,” they clearly imply that remission of sins and salvation are purchased by Christ for all and every man upon the same terms and after the same manner, and with the same intention on God’s part, inasmuch as he intends the donation of remission of sins unto no man, not withstanding the virtue of the ransom of Christ, but through the mediation of faith. And through the mediation he intends, yea, promiseth, it unto all men without exception; yea, so say our countrymen, that all and everyone many through the said mediation obtain it. Nor were these men altogether without company in that Synod in such expressions. Immediately after the suffrage and sentence of the ministers of Geneva upon the second article, I find one (I suppose of those who were sent from Geneva) delivering himself thus: “There is certain common love of God towards all men, wherewith he loved all mankind, being fallen, and seriously willeth or desireth the salvation of all.” Afterwards, speaking of condemnation of unbelievers, “such an event as this,” saith he, “is not of itself intended by God, but accidentally follows through the fault of men.” Yet again, “If this redemption be not supposed as common benefit bestowed upon all men, that indifferent and promiscuous preaching of the gospel which was committed to the apostles to be performed in all nations will have no true foundation.” Doubtless, that which is bestowed upon all men by God, was by him intended for all men in the purchase of procurement of it, and this out of love to all those on whom it is bestowed and for whom it was purchased. It were easy to multiply quotations of like import with these from many convened in that Synod, who are supposed to have condemned that doctrine which holds forth universal redemption by Christ as error. But the certain truth is, that if this was their intention or attempt, the truth was at many turns too hard for them, and prevented them, and gained many a testimony from her adversaries.

For the fathers, they who shall please to peruse and ponder the commentaries or exposition of Augustine, the chief of the Latin fathers, and of Chrysostom, the chief of the Greek, upon the place, will easily perceive that their sense of the word world was the same with that which hath been avouched. “Is not Christ life?” saith the former, “and yet Christ died; but death died in the death of Christ, because life, being dead, slew death: the fulness of life devoured death: death was swallowed up in the body of Christ.” In all these passages evident it is that the Father speaks of that death which had equally seized upon all men, or whereunto all men, without exception of any, were alike obnoxious: therefore, affirming this death to be dead by the death of Christ, to be devoured by the fullness of life, &c., he supposeth it equally dead, devoured, removed or taken away in respect of all men. Awhile, after, having rehearsed these words, “For God sent not his Son to judge the world, but that the world might be saved by him,” he infers thus: “Therefore, as much as lieth in the physician, he came to save or heal the sick. He slayeth himself who will not observe the precepts of the physician. He came a Saviour unto the world. Why is he called the Saviour of the world, but that he should save the world?”6 Doubtless, he that speaketh these things had not yet dreamt of any signification of the world in the Scripture in hand, but only that which we have asserted; nor did he imagine that Christ was given or sent into the world upon any other terms than those which equally and indifferently respected the healing of all that were sick, or the saving of all that were lost. Otherwise why should he insert this provisional cause, “as much as in the physician lieth,” meaning Christ? This plainly importeth that he came to heal such sick ones, who notwithstanding slew themselves by neglecting his precepts; yea, and that he could do no more than he did in or by his death to save those from perishing who do perish, and consequently that he died as much for these as for those who are saved.

Nor, doubtless, had the other (I mean Chrysostom) any other notion of the world in the said Scripture than the former. For, describing those whom God is here said to have loved, he gives no other description of them than which agreeth as well to the reprobate as elect, affirming them to be such “who come from the earth and ashes, who are full of an infinite number of sins, who injured or offended him without ceasing, very wicked,” or deserving nor pardon. And afterwards, “but we neglect” or despise “him, being naked and a stranger, who died for us. And who then shall deliver us from punishment” or judgment “which is to come?”7 clearly implying, that those for whom Christ died may notwithstanding suffer and undergo the wrath and punishment “which is to come.”

It were easy to levy many more quotations, both from the authors already mentioned, and from many others as well ancient as modern, of a full and clear concurrence with the interpretation given. But I take no pleasure in quotations from men, nor do I know any great use of them, unless it be to heal the offence which truth is always apt to give to prepossessed and prejudicated minds. The use which more commonly is made of them is grand abuse, being nothing else but the interposing or thrusting of the credits and authorities of men between the judgment of men and the truth, that so the one should not easily come at the other. However, we have, I trust, made it fully evident by many demonstrations, in full conjunction with the judgments of learned men, that the Scripture in hand casteth the light of that love of God, out of which he gave his only begotten Son to death, with an equal brightness upon all mankind; and consequently, that this death of his faceth the whole posterity of Adam with the same sweetness and graciousness of aspect.

The Scripture last opened, speaking so plainly and fully (as we have heard) the point in hand, might well be accepted as a sufficient security, that all its fellows mentioned with it, as in effect they speak, so likewise they intend and mean the same thing. Yet because prejudice is not easily controlled, and hard of satisfaction, let us impartially examine one or two more of the company. We shall find universal atonement as well at the bottom as at the top, as well in the heart as in the face of them. The former of the two shall be that of the apostle Paul, “To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation,” 2 Cor. v. 19. That by the world, which God is here said to have “been in Christ reconciling unto himself,” cannot be meant the elect only, but the universality of men, is clear upon this account: First, it is not here said, that God in Christ did actually, or in facto esse, reconcile the world unto himself, but that “he was reconciling the world,” &c. i.e. God was, and is, and ever will be (for the unchangeable perpetuation of the acts of God are usually expressed in the Scriptures by verbs signifying the time past, for the reason specified in the last chapter) in, i.e. by, or through Christ, following and prosecuting his great and gracious design of “reconciling the world unto himself.”

Participles of the present tense active, import the currency or carrying on, the consummation, or ending of an action, on endeavor. Secondly, by the “reconciling the world unto himself,” in, or through Christ, which is here ascribed unto God, must of necessity be meant, either such an act or endeavour in him, by which he gains, or rather seeks and attempts to gain the love and friendship of the world, which was and is full of hatred and enmity against him; or else such an act, by which he went about to reconcile himself, i.e. to render and make himself propitious and benevolous unto the world. Now, take either of these senses, it is impossible that by the word “world” should be signified only the elect, or indeed any thing by the generally of men.

If we take the act of God, he termed the “reconciling the world unto himself,” in the former sense (which doubtless is the true sense of it, as clearly appears from the next verse, and subsequent clause in this) by the world cannot be meant only the elect, because God doth not by Christ, or in Christ, held forth and preached in the ministry of the gospel, see to bring over these only unto him in love, or to make only these his friends. Neither doth he send the word of reconciliation (as the apostle calleth it) i.e. the gracious message of the gospel, by which this reconciliation is to be actually made only unto them, but promiscuously to the generality, or universality of men, without exception of any: “Go and preach the gospel to very creature under heaven,” Mark xvi. 15; and therefore, Paul did but keep to his commission, when, as he saith, he “preached Christ, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom, that he might present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.” Coloss. i. 28. Evident it is, that in the ministry and preaching of this word, God doth as well and as much, and after the same manner, persuade the obstinate and many of those who never come to believe, as he doth those who are overcome and persuaded hereunto. It is said concerning the ancient Jews, that “the Lord God of their fathers sent to them by his messengers, rising up betimes and sending, because he had compassion on his people, and on his dwelling place;” and yet it follows, “But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, til there was no remedy.” 2 Chron. xxxvi. 15, 16.

So that God is very whit as serious, as urgent and pressing in the ministry of his world and gospel, upon those who remain obdurate and impenitent to the last, as he is upon those who in time come to repent and to believe on him. And Paul (Acts xvii.) preached the same sermon, used the same addressment and application of the word to those who mocked which he did to those who believe, Acts xvii. 30–33. Evident therefore it is, that God as well seeks and attempts the reconciling of such unto himself by Christ, who in time perish, as he doth those who are saved; and that he doth vouchsafe as well the same inward as outward means, at least remotely unto both, shall be proved in due place.

If we shall take the latter sense of the phrase, wherein God is said to be “reconciling the world unto himself,” and understand hereby such an act, whereby he renders or seeks to render himself loving, gracious, and propitious unto the world, neither yet can the word “world” signify anything by the generality of universality of men, or howsoever, not the elect in particular. The reason is, because God cannot, in any tolerable sense or construction of words, be said to reconcile himself unto those with whom he is not angry or offended, or to render himself loving and propitious unto those to whom his love is so great already, that by reason of it he peremptorily resolves to give unto them absolutely the greatest and most desirable of all good things, even no less than eternal life itself, which includes in it the richest and fullest enjoyment of God himself, whereof the creature is capable. Now we know this is the posture, or relation, wherein the elect stand before and unto God (at least as is generally held and maintained by those that are contrary minded in the present controversy) viz. as persons with whom God is so far from being angry or displeased, that he is pleased by absolute purpose or decree to confer eternal life upon them. Therefore certainly God cannot be said by any act whatsoever to reconcile himself, or render himself propitious unto these.

But now, by the world, we understand the great bulk or body of men in the world, with whom God is, and may truly and properly enough be said to be displeased for their sins. So he may be said to reconcile himself unto them; at least if by a reconciling, we mean such an act, by which he takes a course, or useth means, to bring himself into a complacency, or love of friendship with them, as when a father useth means to recover his son of the phrensy, or plague. It is true, a father loves his son with a benevolous affection, or with a love of pity, as we commonly call it, even whilst he is under a phrensy, and hath the plague upon him.

But he takes no pleasure in his company, doth not delight to converse with him as with a friend, bestows nothing upon him at the present, but only in order to his recovery; and in the case by all that he doth for him in this kind, he cannot recover him, he never proceeds to settle his inheritance upon him. But when and whilst he doth that which is proper to recover him, out of such distempers, he may be said, in this sense, to do an act whereby to reconcile himself to his son, viz. to make way for himself to take pleasure in his company, and to converse with him and to deal further by him as a friend.

In like manner it is as true that God cannot properly or according to the usual sense or signification of the word, be said to do any act whereby to reconcile himself to the world in general, much less to his elect in particular, because he always bears a benevolous affection to it, as appears, John iii. 16, the Scripture lately opened. So again, Tit. iii. 4, and elsewhere, he was never so far angry or offended with the world, but that he seriously and affectionately sought the good of it; yet in such a sense or consideration wherein, notwithstanding his affection or benevolence or commiseration towards it, he is said to be angry with men for their sins, and to hate them for their wickedness, and to resolve to destroy them everlastingly if they repent not, he may be said to do such an act, whereby to reconcile himself unto it, as, viz., when he doth that by which he is like to take men off from their sins, and to bring them to repentance; and consequently to cause his own anger and hatred towards them for their sins to cease.

But however, this is not the primary or direct sense of the phrase in the Scripture in hand, as was formerly intimated, but only that which follows upon it. For God by seeking to reconcile the world unto himself, in the former sense, takes a course likewise to reconcile himself unto it, in the latter. But take either the one interpretation or the other, there is no colour or pretence, by the “world,” to understand the elect only.

If it be objected and said: Yea, but God is here said to be “in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing the trespasses unto them.” Doth not this imply that God reconciles none unto himself but those only, to whom he doth not impute their trespasses or sins? Now it is certain that God doth impute their sins unto all men, his elect only excepted; therefore he reconciles none unto himself in Christ but these only. To this I answer.

1. By concession, it is true, God doth actually, and in the event reconciles none unto himself by Christ, i.e. he brings no man to faith and repentance, but withal he forgives him his sins; or, which is the same, he imputes not his trespasses unto him. But,

By way of exception, I answer further, that it was no part of the apostle’s intent in this place to speak of any spiritual or inward act of God, by which particular men are actually, and de facto converted or reconciled unto him, and consequently obtain forgiveness, or a non-imputation of their sins; but only concerning that great and gracious dispensation or act of grace, together with his counsel or project therein, in which or whereby he did, as it were, posture himself, and take a standing with the best advantage to save the world. For this end and purpose, I mean for the saving of the world or of men, upon such terms as he was willing, and as only became him to save them, it was necessary, (a.) That he should reconcile them unto himself. It was no ways convenient for God, as neither consisting with his wisdom nor holiness, to take those into part and fellowship with himself in his own blessedness and glory, who should hate him and be full of enmity and hard thoughts against him, and would not admit of terms of reconciliation with him. (b.) To effect this reconciliation, and to bring men over unto him in love, who generally through a consciousness of guilt, contracted by their evil works, and because of that contrariety between his holy laws, and their lusts and vile dispositions, hated him, it was necessary that he should take a course, and have a means suitable and proper, and which every ways honored a God of infinite wisdom. Now this course or means the apostle here expesseth to be, the non-imputation of their sins unto them, i.e. the tender, offer, or promise of the forgiveness of all their sins, upon the reconcilement.

God, by the proposal and tender of such and incomparable grace, favour, and blessing as this unto men, upon such sweet and gracious terms, makes account to reconcile the world unto himself, to bring off his creature, man, from hatred and hard thoughts, to a love and honourable esteem of him. (c.) and lastly, to put himself into a way of capacity of making so rich and glorious a proposal as this of forgiveness of sins unto the world, he put himself, as it were, into his Christ; or, as our apostle’s expression is, he was in Christ; meaning, that that which God did, or intended to do, by his being in Christ, as mediator, was immediately and in reference unto a further end, that by means of his death he might offer free pardon and forgiveness of sins unto the world; mediately, and as more principally intended, that he might, by means of this offer, reconcile the world unto himself, i.e. prevail with men to repent of their sins, and turn in faith and love unto him.

Evident it is from the very letter of the context, that the apostle’s intent in this Scripture was only to express and declare the tenor or purport of the gospel, or, as he calls it, of that word of reconciliation, the ministry whereof, he saith, in the end of the verse, was committed unto him. Do but read in the former verse to this, and you will clearly see it: “And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given unto us the ministry of the reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling,” &c. As if he should say, he hath given unto us the ministry of that reconciliation, the tenor, substance, or purport whereof is this, viz., or to wit, “that God was in Christ reconciling,” &c. So that here is nothing at all affirmed, or intended to be spoken concerning men actually or effectually reconciled or brought home unto God, or what their privileges are, in one kind or other; but only to show how or by what means God hath projected or contrived the reconciling of men to himself, which is expressed to be, as hath been said, by the message or doctrine of forgiveness of sins, sent and preached unto them by Christ.

Nor are the best and most confessedly orthodox of our reformed divine, dissenters from the interpretation given of the Scripture in hand, especially as concerning the sense and import of the word world. “God,” saith Musculus upon the place, “inhabiting his Son Christ, and directing him in all things, reconciled unto himself not us only, but even the world, i.e., all mankind, which was, is, or shall be from the beginning of the world to the end thereof, by giving his Son unto death for all men.” And soon after: “It is most true which the apostle saith, that God reconciled the world unto himself in Christ, not imputing their sins unto them as concerning the work itself of reconciliation, being prepared or made ready for all mankind, and sufficient for them.” Calvin also, though altogether so expressly as the former, yet with clearness enough, secondeth the same interpretation, writing on the place thus: “But the fuller and richer sense is, that God was in Christ, and then, that he reconciled the world unto himself.” And a little after, “To what purpose then did God appear in Christ unto men? For reconciliation, that they who were strangers might be adopted for sons.” If this were the end of the reconciliation for which God appeared in Christ unto men, that they who were strangers might be adopted for sons, it must needs follow, that the end which God propounded unto himself in this reconciliation, was the adoption of all men without exception, inasmuch as all men were strangers unto him. Among the ancients, Chrysostom expounds the word kosmos, world, in the text in hand, by the word oikoumenēn, which properly signifies the inhabited part of the world, or the persons of men wheresoever inhabiting in all the world; in which sense it is used, Acts xvii. 31, and in very many places besides in the Scriptures.

A third text of that squadron of Scriptures yet in hand, and the last of this character that we shall insist upon, is that mentioned from 1 John ii. 2, “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” Some, to keep the light of that truth which we have now under assertion, from shining out of this Scripture in their eyes, and in the eyes of others, have essayed, amongst them, a three-fold deprivation of the sense and import of these words, “the whole world.” By the whole world, say some, John means the elect living in all parts of the world; others, men of all sorts and conditions; others, Jews and Gentiles. Some, to avoid the like danger, I mean of being convinced of the truth, and suspecting, as they have caused enough, the security of those interpretations, take sanctuary under the wing of this distinction. Christ, say they, is a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, i.e. of all men in the world in point of sufficiency, but not by way of intention on God’s part. Yet let us afford the honour of a trial to the three interpretations mentioned.

For the first, which, by the whole world, understands only the elect, this hath been resolved into smoke already, in this chapter; where, if the reader please to look back, he may see it smoking still. The other two being confederate with it, for both the one and the other are the same in substance of matter with it, and differ only in terms of explication, must needs fall with it. For both they, who by the whole world, in the Scripture in hand, understand men of all sorts and conditions, by these men of all sorts and conditions understand the elect only; and they also, who interpret Jews and Gentiles, understand no other, either Jews of Gentiles, but the elect only. So that all the three interpretations are interpretatively but one and the same. And, therefore, as in case Abraham’s son by Sarah had been sacrificed, Isaac could not have escaped; no more can any one of the three interpretations mentioned stand, if any one of them fall, there being but one and the same faint spirit of life in them all.

That which their respective assertors plead for their legitimacy, is of no value at all. For their plea is, that the word “world,” and “the whole world,” do in several other places signify sometimes the elect only; sometimes, men of all sorts, ranks, and conditions; sometimes likewise, Jews and Gentiles; and hereupon they conclude, that they may admit of the same sense and signification, both in the Scripture in hand, and in all the other Scriptures usually brought upon the theatre of discourse, for the same end and purpose with it. But the mouth of this plea is easily stopped. For

1. The determinate signification of a world in one place, is no argument of the same sense or signification of it in another place. Elohim, Gen. i. 1, signifieth him who is by nature alēthinon theon, John xvii, 3, a true God subsisting in three persons; but this is a weak proof that it is to be taken, or that it may be taken in the same sense, Psal. 1xxxii. 6, where the prophet introduceth God speaking thus to, and concerning the rulers of the earth: I have said, “Ye are Elohim,” or gods. That the word kosmos signifieth, 1 Peter iii, 3 as it is translated, “adorning,” is no argument at all that it so signifieth John iii. 16, or in twenty places besides where it is used. Nay, in one and the same period or sentence, where the same word is twice used, it does not follow that because it is used, and must necessarily be taken in such or such a sense, determinately, in one of the places, therefore it must be taken in the same sense likewise in the other. As for example; where Christ saith to the scribe, “Let the dead bury their dead,” Matt. viii. 22, because in the first place, by dead, are meant persons spiritually dead, or dead in sins and trespasses; it no ways follows from hence, that therefore it signifieth such as are spiritually dead in the latter place.

So likewise in that passage of our Saviour, “Whosoever drinketh of this water, shall thirst again; but whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him, shall never thirst,” &c. John iv. 13, 14; by water, in the first place, he clearly meaneth that common and material element commonly known by the name of water. But in the latter, water analogically only, and spiritually so called, viz. the gift of the Spirit, as himself interpreteth, John vii. 39; iv. 14, compared. Therefore, to heap up a multitude of quotations from the Scriptures, wherein the word “world,” or “the whole world,” doth or may signify either a certain species, or determinate kind of persons living up and down the world, or men of all sorts and conditions, or Jews and Gentiles; and from either and evidence, or possibility of any, or all of these significations in these places, to infer either a necessity or possibility of a like signification of the words, either in the Scripture in hand, or in those other places argued in this chapter, is but to beat the air, or build upon the sand.

2. If the said words, either may be taken, or necessarily must be taken, in the places so multiplied, in any of the said significations, it is a sign that there is a sufficient ground of reason in the context respectively, to enforce either the necessity or possibility of such significations. Now then to infer or suppose, either a like necessity of the same signification, where there is no sufficient ground in the context to enforce either, which is the case in hand, but many sufficient grounds to overthrow such significations, as hath been in part already, and shall, God assisting, be out of hand further manifested, as concerning the texts insisted upon in this and the following chapter, is as if I should prove that such or such a man must needs be a prisoner at London, because he is a prisoner in York; or that he hath the liberty of the Tower of London, because he may walk where he pleaseth within the liberties of York Castle. The signification of words in one place, is not to be adjudged by their signification in another, unless both the contexts stand uniformly, and impartially affected towards this signification.

3. That neither of the two texts already opened, will at any hand endure any of the three significations of the world “world,” (mentioned on the previous page) as pretended unto, hath been argued into the clearest evidence. That the text in hand no whit better comports with any of them than they, appeareth thus:

(a.) If any of the said three significations of “the whole world,” should be here admitted, the apostle (or rather the Holy Ghost by the apostle) must be supposed to speak after no better rate of reason than this, “Christ is the propitiation not for our sins only, but also for the sins” of some few particular men besides, whom you know not, or of some few persons, as well of the Gentiles as of the Jews. For none of the three interpretations amounts to anything more than this, as is evident. They who interpret, that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of Jews and Gentiles, by Jews and Gentiles do not mean the two great divisions of men in the world commonly distinguished by these names, in all the particulars of either division, (for this is the sense and interpretation which we contend for) but that small and comparatively inconsiderable remnant of both, who in conclusion come to be actually saved. There is the same consideration of the two other interpretations. Now what weight, or worth of notion, or savour of sense there should be, in informing the Christians here written unto, that Christ was the propitiation for some few men’s sins besides theirs, or as well as theirs, I yet understand not.

(b.) The natural and plain inclination of the context, leads to the interpretation and sense of “the whole world” contended for. For the apostle doth not simply say, that “Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world,” but he saith it by way of an emphatical antithesis, or addition to this saying, that he was “the propitiation for their sins.” “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” This last clause, “but also for the sins of the whole world,” is clearly added by way of augmentation or further strengthening to the ground of their faith and comfort. Now evident it is, that there will be little or nothing found in it tending to any such end, as the further enlargement of their comfort, or strengthening to their faith, above what the former clause presented, but rather that which will be prejudicial and ensnaring unto both, unless these words, “of the whole world,” be taken in their comprehensive signification, I mean for all men in the world without exception. For to say thus unto a believer, or to a professor of the faith of Christ, who is doubtful about the grounds of his faith, and but weak in the comfort of it, (which was apparently the condition of those to whom John writes this epistle, and in consideration whereof that very clause we now speak of was added to the former) “Christ is the propitiation for the sins” of the elect, or of some few particular men, must needs rather add to their doubtings than their faith, and augment their fears rather than their comforts; yea, and would take from rather than add to that ground of consolidation, which he had administered in the former clause, “and he is the propitiation for our sins.” For when I am in suspense, and doubtful in my spirit whether Christ died for me, or be a “propitiation for my sins,” or no, how should it any ways tend or conduce to my establishment, for me to know or consider, that Christ died for his elect, or for some particular men, both of Jews and Gentiles, and for some only? Hath not such a doctrine, or consideration as this, fuel in it to increase the burnings of my fears within me, instead of water to quench or allay them? Or can I be ever a whit the more strengthened to believe that Christ died for me, by believing that he died for some particular men? Or must not my fears in this kind, I mean, whether Christ died for me, or no, needs be the more provoked and enraged within me, by considering, that Christ died for some particular men only?

Or doth such an assertion as this, that Christ died for some particular men, though never so substantially proved, though never so effectually believed, any ways enable, or dispose me to believe, that I am one of those particular men for whom he died? Nay, rather must not rumination or feeding upon such a notion, or conception as that, falling in conjunction with the weakness and doubtfulness of my faith, together with the sense and conscience of my many corruptions and infirmities otherwise, of necessity involve and perplex me with so much the more grievous and inextricable fears, that I am none of those particular men, none of those few for whom alone Christ died? Therefore any of those restrained interpretations of “the whole world,” which we have opposed, do most manifestly oppose the plain scope and drift of the Holy Ghost, which was, as hath been proved, the strengthening or encouragement of their faith upon rich and excellent terms; whereas the true interpretation of the words, and that which we plead, hath the fairest and fullest consistence with such an intent, which can lightly be imagined. For the consideration, that Christ by his death became a propitiation, or made a full atonement for the sins of men, without exception, as it tends to magnify “the unsearchable riches” of the grace “of Christ,” on the one hand, and so is proper to strengthen the hand of every man’s faith; so, on the other hand, it throws down every mountain, and fills every valley, removes all obstructions, takes away all impediments, clears all scruples, and so prepares a plain and smooth way for every man to come unto Christ by believing, yea, and cuts off all occasions of relapses, or faintings in faith afterwards.

How it comes to pass, and how it may well stand with the justice of God, that notwithstanding the death of Christ for the sins of all men, yet all men are not saved, shall be taken unto consideration in due time and place.

Concerning the distinction mentioned, of Christ’s dying sufficiently for all men, but not efficaciously or intentionally, on God’s part, as it was first hammered out by workmen of no great credit with us for spiritual building, (the schoolmen, I mean) so is it built upon a false foundation or supposition, as viz. the intentions are attributable unto God upon the same terms in every respect wherein they are competible unto men. The contrary position is that God is, and very properly may be, said to intend, whatsoever he vouchsafeth proper and sufficient means to effect especially with a command to improve or use them accordingly, whether the thing be effected or no.

So that to affirm and grant, that Christ died sufficiently for all men, and yet deny that he died intentionally for all men, is to speak contradictions, and to pull down with the left hand what a man hath built up with his right. Certainly he that levyeth and employeth a proportion of means sufficient and proper for the bringing of any thing to pass, must needs, in one sense or other, in one degree or other; be supposed to intend the bringing to pass such a thing. Nor is it any dishonour at all unto God, nor in the least unworthy of him, that he doth not always attain his ends, or things intended by him, no more than it is that sin should be committed in the world, notwithstanding his opposing it by his authority, law, and threatenings, though in strictness and propriety of speech it is most true, that God never fails of his intentions or ends, if by intentions and ends we mean only such things which are absolutely and positively intended by him.

But in this sense the actual salvation of particular men, under any other consideration than as believers, is none of his intentions. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,” (not simply or absolutely that the world, i.e. every man, no nor yet that any man should be saved, or “have everlasting life,”) but that “whosoever believeth” should have it. So that the absolute and positive intentions of God concerning the salvation of men, are not concerning the salvation simply of men, or of any man as such, but of believers; and of such intentions as these he never faileth, of suffers disappointment.

Besides, if Christ died sufficiently for all men, either God intended this sufficiency of his death for or unto all men or not. If not, then was the glory or sovereign worth of this death of his, besides the intentions of God. God did not intend any such completeness of merit or satisfaction in his death as were in it. But this, I presume, tempteth no man’s thoughts or belief. If, then, God did intend the sufficiency of his death for or unto all men, why may it not be said, that he intended his death itself accordingly? And so, that Christ died intentionally, on God’s part, for all men? The word sufficiently is not terminus diminuens, no term of diminution. Therefore the argument follows roundly: if God intended the sufficiency of Christ’s death for all men, then he intended his death itself for all men; and, consequently, Christ died not sufficiently only, but intentionally also for all men. And so the distinction vanisheth.

1. How can he, who payeth nothing at all for a man, nor intends to pay anything, be notwithstanding said to pay that which is sufficient for him? Suppose a man be in debt, and in danger of imprisonment for it, can a sufficient payment be said to be maid for him, whether any thing at all be paid for him, or in order to the keeping of him from imprisonment or not? When nothing at all is paid for that man that is a great debtor, but that remains as much a debtor and in as great danger as before, can that which is sufficient or enough for him, or for his discharge, be said to be paid for him, unless, haply, it be in a sense very delusory and deriding, in which sense, doubtless, Christ did not pay any ransom for any man? Suppose a man should pay a great sum of money only for the redeeming of John and Peter, being captives, by which money he might if he had pleased have ransomed me also, and a thousand more, being in the same condition of captivity with them. Can this man, by reason of the payment of such a sum as this upon the terms specified, be said to have paid that which is sufficient to ransom me? Or is that sufficient to ransom me, which was only paid for the ransom of another?

2. If there were a sufficiency in the death of Christ for all men, or for the salvation of all men, and God did not intend it for all men, but for a few, a number inconsiderably only, then will the death of Christ be found rather a matter of dishonour or disparagement unto him, than of honour? Suppose a man were possessed of a very great estate in gold, silver, and other the good things of this life, whereby he is able to relieve the necessities of all his neighbours round about him, who are generally poor, and that to such an extremity that without relief from him they must inevitably perish; in case this man should resolve to relieve only two or three of these indigent persons with this his abundance, and rather throw the rest of it into the midst of the sea, than minister unto any more of them, though they be many thousands, and these every whit as necessitous and as well deserving as the other; would not this great estate, in such a case and upon such terms as these, be a blot rather, and reproach, than an honour or matter of repute to this man, and declare him to be of a very unnatural, ignoble, and inhuman spirit?

In like manner, if God shall have satisfaction, merit, and atonement before him, abundantly sufficient to save the whole world from perishing everlastingly, and shall purpose rather to let it be “like water spilt upon the ground, which cannot be gathered up,” than dispose of it towards the salvation of any more than only a small handful of men, comparatively, leaving innumerable souls to perish irrecoverably, and without mercy; would not this abundance of merit and satisfaction, upon such an account as this, be, in the eyes of all considerate men, an obscuring veil over the mercy, love, goodness, and bounty of God, and occasion the creature to judge of him, as a God rather envying than desiring the peace and welfare of men?

And if God so deeply abhorred the fact of Onan, “in spilling the seed upon the ground, lest he should give seed unto his (deceased) brother,” that he slew him for it, Gen. xxxviii. 9, 10, how dare men present him so near unto communion in such a fact, as the spilling, interverting, or non-consigning of the far greater part of the merit of the death of Christ unto men, lest they should be saved, would render him?

3. If Christ died sufficiently for all men, and not intentionally, as, viz. not for reprobates, so called, then he died as much for the devils themselves as he did for the greatest part of men. Because his death, in respect of the intrinsical value and worth of it, was sufficient to have redeemed the devils as well as men. Yea, if the sufficiency of the price paid by Christ, be a sufficient ground to bear such a saying as this, that he died sufficiently for all men, he may be said to have died, not only for reprobates as reprobates, and so for unbelievers as unbelievers, (viz. sufficiently) but for the devils also, quatenus devils: inasmuch as there is no defect imaginable in the price we speak of, in respect of the absolute and inherent dignity, value, or worth of it, but that all these, even under the considerations mentioned, might have been redeemed by it as well as the elect. But that Christ died for reprobates as reprobates, and for devils as devils, in one sense or other, were never yet, I conceive, the sayings or thoughts of any man, nor, I suppose, ever will be; certain I am, cannot reasonable be.

4. Lastly, as yet there hath no sufficient ground been shown, either from the Scriptures, or from principles of reason, for the distinction under contest, nor I believe, ever will be, or can be. Therefore they who distinguish between Christ’s dying for all men, sufficiently and intentionally, opposing the one to the other, affirming the former, and denying the latter, do not only go about to set lambs together by the ears, which will not fight, but also speak things most unworthy of God, and which render him a far greater deluder or derider of his poor creature, man, than a benefactor or well-willer to him, in all his declarations and professions of love unto him, in the gift of his Son Jesus Christ to make his atonement, and procure redemption for him.

Upon consultation had with the premises, with other considerations, haply, of like import, some of the greatest and most learned opposers of universal redemption, Piscator and Beza by name, have stigmatized the aforesaid distinction, (at least that member of it wherein Christ is said to have died sufficiently for all men) as harsh, barbarous, homonymous; yea, the former of the two as absolutely false. “That expression,” saith Beza, “Christ died for the sins of all men, sufficiently, but not efficaciously, though in a rectified sense it be true, yet is it extremely harsh, and no less ambiguous than barbarous. For the particle for imports either the counsel of the Father, according to which Christ suffered, or else the effect itself of his sufferings, or rather both; whereas neither of them belong to any but the elect.”8 Piscator to his antagonist, thus: “The proposition laid down is false, viz. that Christ died sufficiently for every particular or single man; this is thy assertion. For Christ died most sufficiently for the elect, paying the price of their redemption, I mean his precious blood, that blood of the Son of God. But for reprobates Christ died neither in one kind nor other, neither sufficiently nor efficaciously.”9

1. Calv. in Joh. iii. 17. (Unless indicated otherwise, quotes from Calvin are from his multi-volume commentary series on the Bible.—Editor)

2. Calv. in Joh. iii. 15, 16.

3. Gualter. Homil. 20, in Johan.

4. Musc. loc. de Philanthropia Dei; Idem. Loc., de Redempt. Gen. Humani.

5. Syn. Dord. Sentent. Theol. Mag. Brit. de artic.ii thes. 3.

6. Aug. in Johan. tractat. 12.

7. Chrys. Homil. xxvii in Johan.

8. Beza ad Acta Coloq. Monpelg. part ii. p. 217.

9. Pisc. contra Schaffman, p. 123.