Testimonies 4–5 and the conglobated “for all” texts close Cap. 1’s scriptural proof

The fourth testimony is found in (2 Corinthians 5:19-20): God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their sins to them; and he placed in us the word of reconciliation. Therefore we discharge an embassy in Christ’s name, as though God were beseeching you through us: We pray in Christ’s name, be reconciled to God. First it is to be observed that the Apostle here sets down as a common benefit to the whole world this reconciliation which he says was procured by God himself through the mediation of Christ. But to have reconciled the world promiscuously denotes nothing other than to have ordained and granted to the world that universal remedy, or propitiatory sacrifice of Christ’s death, which is applicable to all. Second, we must observe in what sense God is said to have reconciled the world to himself by the very fact of the merit of Christ’s offering — namely, that this sacrifice of Christ being posited, he does not impute sins to them: that is, he does not require of any human being that he himself make satisfaction for his sins (which is impossible), nor does he any longer will to punish anyone for his sins who will use this propitiatory sacrifice. Finally it is also to be noted that this reconciliation, this non-imputation of sins of which the Apostle speaks, is considered as already accomplished on the part of God and of Christ as soon as Christ is understood to have laid down his life for the sins of the world; but on the part of sinful human beings there remains the ministry of the Gospel, by which it is testified to human beings, and there remains that the Gospel must be believed before human beings are brought, as it were, into actual possession of this grace. And for this reason the Apostle added, after saying that God had reconciled the world to himself in Christ, that ministers must nonetheless discharge their embassy and exhort any and all to be themselves reconciled to God. From all of which it is clear what we posited in our thesis: that the death of Christ was ordained by God and preached by the Apostles as a remedy applicable to all unto reconciliation and salvation by the will of God, even though, for human beings to be reconciled in actual fact, preceding repentance and faith are needed.

So Aquinas understood this place: “Be reconciled to God” — this seems, he says, contrary to what he said, “God reconciled us to himself”: for if he himself reconciled, what need is there that we be reconciled? We are already reconciled. To this it must be said that God reconciled us to himself as efficient cause, namely on his own part; but that it may be meritorious for us, reconciliation must also be made on our part. But Musculus explained this whole place most clearly, and his words it will not be tedious to set down: God, he says, reconciled to himself the whole human race, which from the beginning to the end of the world was, and is, and will be, when he gave the Son unto death for all. Then after a few words interposed: Yet God reconciled them to himself in Christ, not imputing their sins to them, so far as concerns the very work of reconciliation prepared and sufficient for reconciling the whole human race. But because reconciliation cannot take place between unwilling parties, God himself instituted the ministry of reconciliation, by which all are called and invited eagerly to embrace this grace. If the whole world embraced it, the whole world would certainly be reconciled to God and saved, with every imputation of sins rejected, and not one of mortals would perish. Those therefore who so wholly lean upon and cling to the secret of predestination that meanwhile they overwhelm and plainly overturn this reconciliation of the world, at the same time overturn the matter of our evangelical preaching, which consists chiefly in this: that we make any human being certain that God is so reconciled to him through the death of Christ that, if he believes in Christ, God will not impute sins to him but will adjudge eternal life to him. This work, established on the part of God and of Christ, is called the reconciliation and redemption of the world, even though unbelievers and the impenitent refuse to be reconciled and redeemed. So Prosper speaks, answering the Chapters of the Gauls, objection 9: The Redeemer of the world gave his blood for the world, and the world refused to be redeemed. So our Church of England speaks, Article 31: The offering of Christ once made is a perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is no other satisfaction besides that. So finally Paul speaks when he says that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself: that is, God, by giving his Son unto death, himself supplied to his enemies a refuge of reconciliation, to which whoever at length takes refuge has God, by its benefit, so pacified and reconciled that he will at once receive him into grace.

The fifth testimony is drawn from the Epistle to the Hebrews, (Hebrews 2:3) and (Hebrews 4:1-2) and following: How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? which began first to be declared by the Lord himself, and was confirmed to us by those who heard him, etc. Let us therefore fear lest, the promise of entering into his rest being left, any of you should seem to have come short. For the gospel was preached to you as well as to them; but the word heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard. From this whole discourse of the Apostle it is plain, first, that in the Gospel salvation is offered promiscuously to all those to whom it is preached; for on this very account it is called euangelion. Next it is clear that this salvation laid up in Christ and offered to human beings in the Gospel is neglected and thrust away by many — namely by all unbelievers who do not give faith to the evangelical promises. Finally this also is established: that this neglect and unbelief is the true cause that keeps the ungodly from the Lord’s rest — that is, that deprives them of the eternal life offered to them in Christ. But none of these things could truly and seriously be said unless it be presupposed that salvation through the death of Christ is, by God’s ordination, applicable to all human beings. For who can rightly be said to have neglected salvation — that is, a cause of salvation constituted and prepared by God — which was never prepared, constituted, or applicable to him? Or how does this neglect and unbelief exclude from participation in the salvation offered in Christ those who, for want of a divine ordination, were in every way most shut out from it? We must therefore concede some ordination of God according to which Christ, as a cause of salvation, was applicable even to those who by their own fault fell short of salvation.

The last testimony is drawn from those places gathered together in which the will of Christ in dying is declared to have been extended to procuring the salvation of all. Of this sort are (2 Corinthians 5:15): One died for all; (1 Timothy 2:6): He gave himself a ransom for all; (Hebrews 2:9): By the grace of God he tasted death for all; and (1 John 2:2): And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. I pass over the rest. These and similar places, although they do not avail to infer that conclusion of certain Remonstrants — namely, that by this death of Christ reconciliation and remission of sins have been acquired or obtained for each and every human being, or that each and every human being has by the very death of Christ been restored into a state of grace and salvation — yet they prove sufficiently effectively what we intend: that this death of Christ was constituted and ordained by God himself and by Christ as a universal cause of salvation, or a universal remedy applicable to all human beings unto obtaining reconciliation and remission. I do not therefore see by what right or necessity some theologians restrict places of this kind, in which Christ is expressly affirmed to have suffered for all, to the elect alone or to the mere university of the elect, when in the sense aforesaid they most truly extend to any others whatever. For nothing hinders that what by divine predestination is to be applied infallibly to the elect alone should, by some divine ordination, be applicable to all. The Collocutors of the Hague seem to me to have conceded this very thing under other forms of speech. For that Remonstrant dogma, that Christ died not for the elect alone but also for other human beings, they concede if it is understood of the mere sufficiency of Christ’s merits; but if it is understood of an efficacious, or actually wrought, reconciliation, they deny it. This is enough for me: for they will never rightly maintain that mere sufficiency of Christ’s death with respect to all, unless they also confess that by God’s ordination it is applicable to all unto salvation according to some way constituted by God. For he is absurdly and falsely asserted to have died sufficiently for all who is affirmed to have died for the elect alone; since that word “sufficiently” is not a diminishing term, nor does it destroy the truth of the thing affirmed. But more will be said of this matter when we reach our second thesis. Thus far we have contended by the testimonies of Scripture. Next we will weave certain reasons grounded, as it seems to us, solidly enough in the Scriptures.