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
