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