Redemption Redeemed. John Goodwin

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,