Chapter 6

Reconciliation is the renewing of friendship between parties previously at variance — both parties being properly said to be reconciled: both the one who offended and the one who was offended. God and man were set at distance, at enmity and variance by sin. Man was the offending party; God the offended. The alienation was mutual on either side, but with this difference: man was alienated in respect of his affections — the ground and cause of anger and enmity; God in respect of the effects and issue of anger and enmity. The word in the new testament means 'reconciliation' and 'to reconcile,' derived from a root meaning to change or to turn from one thing or one mind to another. Hence the first native meaning of those words is 'exchange' and 'to exchange.' For most commonly those who are reconciled are changed in respect of their affections, and always in respect of the distance and variance and in respect of the effects. The word may not be applied to any matter or to any persons until both parties are actually reconciled and all differences removed in respect of any former grudge and ill will. If one is pleased with the other and that other remains unappeased and implacable, there is no reconciliation. When our Savior gives the command that whoever brings his gift to the altar and there remembers that his brother has something against him — being offended for any cause — should go and be reconciled to him, he fully intends a mutual returning of minds to one another, especially in respect of appeasing and reconciling the one who was offended. Nor are these words used among people in any other sense — but always denote, even in common speech, a full restoration of friendship between dissenting parties, with reference most often to some compensation made to the offended party. The reconciling of the one party and of the other may be distinguished, but both are required to make up an entire reconciliation. Therefore the folly of Socinus and his followers is remarkable, who would have the reconciliation mentioned in scripture to be nothing but our conversion to God without the appeasing of his anger and turning away his wrath from us — which is a reconciliation hopping on one leg. And the distinction drawn by some between the reconciliation of God to man, making that universal toward all, and the reconciliation of man to God, making that only for a small number of those to whom God is reconciled, is an equally monstrous invention. Mutual alienation must have mutual reconciliation, being correlatives. The state between God and man before the reconciliation made by Christ was a state of enmity. Man was at enmity with God — 'we were his enemies' (Colossians 1:20-21; Romans 5:10) — hating him and opposing ourselves to him in the highest rebellion to the utmost of our power. God also was thus far at enmity toward us: his wrath was on us (Ephesians 2:3), which remains on us until we believe (John 3:36). To make perfect reconciliation — which Christ is said in many places to accomplish — it is required: first, that the wrath of God be turned away, his anger removed, and all the effects of enmity on his part toward us; and second, that we be turned away from our opposition to him and brought into voluntary obedience. Until both of these are effected, reconciliation is not perfected. Now both of these are in scripture assigned to our Savior as the effects of his death and sacrifice. First, he turned away the wrath of God from us and so appeased him toward us — that was the reconciling of God by his death. 'When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son' (Romans 5:10). That this means the reconciling of God as that part of reconciliation which consists in turning away his wrath from us is most apparent — it being that whereby God chiefly commends his love to us, which certainly is in the forgiveness of sin by the turning away of his anger due to it. It is also set over against 'being saved from the wrath to come' in the latter end of the verse, which comprises our conversion and whole reconciliation to God. Besides, in verse 11 we are said to 'receive this reconciliation' (which for unknown reasons our translation renders 'atonement') — which cannot mean our reconciliation to God or our conversion, which we cannot properly be said to accept or receive, but rather his reconciliation to us, which we receive when it is apprehended by faith. Second, he turns us away from our enmity toward God, redeeming and reconciling us to God by the blood of his cross (Colossians 1:21) — that is, meritoriously and satisfactorily, by the way of acquisition and purchase, accomplishing it in due time actually and efficiently by his Spirit. Both of these are jointly mentioned in 2 Corinthians 5:18-20, where we see: first, God being reconciled to us in Christ, which consists in a non-imputation of iniquities and is the subject matter of the ministry (verses 18-19); second, the reconciling of us to God by accepting the pardon of our sins, which is the end of the ministry (verse 20). The same is also at length declared in Ephesians 2:13-15. The actual and effectual accomplishment of both of these together — in respect of procurement by the one offering, and in process of time through the ordinances of the gospel in respect of final accomplishment on the part of individuals — makes up that reconciliation which is the effect of the death of Christ. So it is assigned to be in many places: 'We are reconciled to God by the death of his Son' (Romans 5:10); 'And you who were sometime alienated has he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death' (Colossians 1:21-22). This is in various places so evident in scripture that none can possibly deny reconciliation to be the immediate effect and product of the death of Christ. Now how this reconciliation can possibly be reconciled with universal redemption, I am in no way able to see. For if reconciliation is the proper effect of the death of Christ, as is conceded by all, then if he died for all, I ask: First, how is it that God is not reconciled to all? For he is not — his wrath abides on some (John 3:36), and reconciliation is the turning away of wrath. Second, how is it that all are not reconciled to God? For they are not — by nature all are children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3), and some throughout their lives do nothing but store up wrath against the day of wrath (Romans 2:5). Third, then how can it be that reconciliation should be worked between God and all people, and yet neither God reconciled to all nor all reconciled to God? Fourth, if God is reconciled to all, when does he become unreconciled toward those who perish? By what alteration — in his will or in his nature? Fifth, if all are reconciled by the death of Christ, when do those who perish become unreconciled, seeing they are born children of wrath? Sixth, seeing that reconciliation on God's part consists in the turning away of his wrath and the non-imputation of iniquity (2 Corinthians 5:18-19), which is justification rendering us blessed (Romans 4:6-8): why, if God is reconciled to all, are not all justified and made blessed through a non-imputation of their sin? Those who have found a redemption in which none are redeemed, and a reconciliation in which none are reconciled, may easily answer these and such other questions. To do so I leave them to their leisure. In the meantime, I conclude this part of the argument: that reconciliation — which is the renewing of lost friendship, the slaying of enmity, the making of peace, the appeasing of God and turning away of his wrath, attended with a non-imputation of iniquities, and on our part conversion to God by faith and repentance — this reconciliation being the effect of the death and blood of Christ, cannot be asserted in reference to any, nor Christ said to die for any other, but only those of whom all its properties and acts may truly be affirmed. Whether they may be affirmed of all people or not, let all people judge.

Reconciliation is the renewing of friendship between parties previously at variance — both parties being properly said to be reconciled, both the one who offended and the one who was offended. God and man were set at distance, at enmity and variance by sin; man was the offending party, God the offended, and the alienation was mutual on both sides, though with this difference: man was alienated in respect of his affections (the ground and cause of his enmity), while God was alienated in respect of the effects and issue of anger and enmity. The Greek word for reconciliation means a change or turning from one thing and one mind to another — its primary meaning is exchange or substitution — since those who are reconciled are always changed in respect of the distance and variance between them, and in respect of its effects. The word cannot be affirmed of any matter or any persons until both parties are actually reconciled and all differences removed; if one is well pleased with the other but the other remains unappeased and implacable, there is no reconciliation. When our Savior commands that one who brings his gift to the altar and remembers his brother has something against him should go and be reconciled to him, he fully intends a mutual returning of minds to one another, especially the appeasing and atoning of the one offended. As then the folly of Socinus is remarkable — who would have the reconciliation mentioned in scripture be nothing but our conversion to God without the appeasing of his anger and turning away of his wrath, which is a reconciliation limping on one leg — so, that distinction of some between the reconciliation of God to man (making it universal toward all) and the reconciliation of man to God (making it only for a small number of those to whom God is reconciled) is an equally monstrous invention. Mutual alienation must have mutual reconciliation, since they are correlates. The state between God and man before the reconciliation made by Christ was a state of enmity: man was at enmity with God (Colossians 1:20-21; Romans 5:10), hating him and opposing himself to God in the highest rebellion. God also was in this respect an enemy to us, in that his wrath was upon us (Ephesians 2:3), which remains on us until we believe (John 3:36). To make perfect reconciliation (which Christ is said in many places to accomplish) it is required: first, that the wrath of God be turned away, his anger removed, and all the effects of enmity on his part toward us; second, that we be turned away from our opposition to him and brought into voluntary obedience. Until both are effected, reconciliation is not perfected. Now both are assigned in scripture to our Savior as the effects of his death and sacrifice. First, he turned away the wrath of God from us and so appeased him toward us — that is the reconciling of God: 'When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son' (Romans 5:10). That this means the reconciling of God in that part of reconciliation which consists in turning away his wrath from us is most apparent — it being that whereby God chiefly commends his love to us, which certainly consists in the forgiveness of sin by the aversion of his due anger. Moreover, we are said to receive this reconciliation (verse 11), which cannot mean our reconciliation to God or conversion — which we cannot properly be said to receive — but rather his reconciliation to us, which we receive when apprehended by faith. Second, he turns us away from our enmity toward God, redeeming and reconciling us to God by the blood of his cross (Colossians 1:21) — meritoriously and satisfactorily by way of acquisition and purchase, accomplishing it in due time actually and efficiently by his Spirit. Both are jointly mentioned in 2 Corinthians 5:18-20: first, God being reconciled to us in Christ, which consists in a non-imputation of iniquities and is the subject matter of the ministry (verses 18-19); second, our reconciliation to God by accepting the pardon of our sins, which is the end of the ministry (verse 20). The same is at large declared in Ephesians 2:13-15. Now how this reconciliation can possibly be reconciled with universal redemption, I am no way able to discern. For if reconciliation is the proper effect of the death of Christ — as all confess — then if he died for all, I ask: first, how is it that God is not reconciled to all, since his wrath abides on some (John 3:36) and reconciliation is the aversion of wrath? Second, how is it that all are not reconciled to God, since by nature all are children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3) and some all their lives do nothing but treasure up wrath against the day of wrath (Romans 2:5)? Third, how then can reconciliation have been wrought between God and all people, if neither God is reconciled to all nor all are reconciled to God? Fourth, if God is reconciled to all, when does he begin to be unreconciled toward those who perish, and by what alteration — in his will or nature? Fifth, if all are reconciled by the death of Christ, when do those who perish begin to be unreconciled, having been born children of wrath? Sixth, since reconciliation on God's part consists in the turning away of his wrath and the non-imputation of iniquity (2 Corinthians 5:18-19) — which is justification, rendering us blessed (Romans 4:6-8) — why, if God is reconciled to all, are not all justified and made blessed through a non-imputation of their sins? Those who have invented a redemption where none are redeemed and a reconciliation where none are reconciled may easily answer these questions. In the meantime I conclude: this reconciliation — the renewing of lost friendship, the slaying of enmity, the making of peace, the appeasing of God and turning away of his wrath with a non-imputation of iniquities, and on our part conversion to God by faith and repentance — being the effect of the death and blood of Christ, cannot be asserted of any, nor Christ said to have died for any, except only those of whom all its properties and constituent acts may be truly affirmed; which whether they may be affirmed of all people or not, let all judge.

Reconciliation is the renewing of friendship between parties who were previously at odds — both parties are properly said to be reconciled: both the one who offended and the one who was offended. God and man were separated, at enmity and at odds because of sin. Man was the offending party; God the offended. The alienation was mutual on both sides, but with this difference: man was alienated in his affections — the ground and cause of his anger and enmity toward God; God was alienated in terms of the effects and expressions of anger and enmity. The New Testament word for 'reconciliation' comes from a root meaning to change or turn from one thing or mindset to another. Hence the basic meaning of those words is 'exchange' and 'to exchange.' For those who are reconciled are usually changed in their affections, and always in terms of the distance and hostility between them. The word cannot be applied to any situation or persons until both parties are actually reconciled and all differences removed regarding any former grudge and ill will. If one party is pleased with the other but that other remains unappeased and implacable, there is no reconciliation. When our Savior commands that whoever brings his gift to the altar and there remembers that his brother has something against him — being offended for any reason — should go and be reconciled to him, He fully intends a mutual return of goodwill, especially in terms of appeasing and reconciling the one who was offended. Nor are these words used among people in any other sense — they always mean, even in ordinary speech, a full restoration of friendship between disagreeing parties, most often with reference to some compensation made to the offended party. The reconciling of one party and of the other may be distinguished, but both are required to make up a complete reconciliation. Therefore the error of Socinus and his followers is remarkable: they would have the reconciliation mentioned in Scripture be nothing but our conversion to God without the appeasing of His anger and turning away of His wrath — which is a reconciliation on only one side. And the distinction drawn by some between the reconciliation of God to man — making that universal toward all — and the reconciliation of man to God — making that only for a small number of those to whom God is reconciled — is an equally distorted invention. Mutual alienation must have mutual reconciliation, since they are directly correlated. The state between God and man before the reconciliation made by Christ was a state of enmity. Man was at enmity with God — 'we were His enemies' (Colossians 1:20-21; Romans 5:10) — hating Him and opposing ourselves to Him in the highest rebellion to the utmost of our power. God also was at enmity toward us in this sense: His wrath was on us (Ephesians 2:3), which remains on us until we believe (John 3:36). To bring about complete reconciliation — which Christ is said in many places to accomplish — two things are required: first, that God's wrath be turned away, His anger removed, and all the effects of enmity on His part toward us; and second, that we be turned away from our opposition to Him and brought into willing obedience. Until both of these happen, reconciliation is not complete. Now Scripture assigns both of these to our Savior as effects of His death and sacrifice. First, He turned away God's wrath from us and appeased Him toward us — that was the reconciling of God through His death. 'For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life' (Romans 5:10). That this means the reconciling of God — as the part of reconciliation that consists in turning away His wrath from us — is entirely clear. It is how God supremely demonstrates His love toward us, which is certainly shown in the forgiveness of sin through the turning away of His anger due to sin. It is also set in contrast with 'being saved from the wrath to come' later in the verse, which encompasses our conversion and full reconciliation to God. Besides, in verse 11 we are said to 'receive this reconciliation' — which we receive when it is grasped by faith, and which therefore cannot refer to our own conversion or reconciliation to God, which we do not properly accept or receive, but rather to His reconciliation to us. Second, He turns us from our enmity toward God, redeeming and reconciling us to God by the blood of His cross (Colossians 1:21) — that is, meritoriously and satisfactorily through His atoning work, then accomplishing it in due time actually and powerfully through His Spirit. Both of these are jointly mentioned in 2 Corinthians 5:18-20, where we see: first, God being reconciled to us in Christ, which consists in the non-imputation of our sins and is the content of the gospel ministry (verses 18-19); second, the reconciling of us to God by accepting the pardon of our sins, which is the goal of that ministry (verse 20). The same is also declared at length in Ephesians 2:13-15. The actual and effective accomplishment of both together — in terms of their procurement through the one offering, and in the course of time through the ordinances of the gospel in terms of final completion for each individual — makes up the reconciliation that is the effect of Christ's death. So it is stated in many places: 'We were reconciled to God through the death of His Son' (Romans 5:10); 'And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death' (Colossians 1:21-22). This is so clear throughout Scripture that no one can possibly deny that reconciliation is the direct effect and product of Christ's death. Now how this reconciliation can possibly be compatible with universal redemption, I cannot see. For if reconciliation is the proper effect of Christ's death, as everyone agrees, then if He died for all, I ask: First, how is it that God is not reconciled to all? For He is not — His wrath remains on some (John 3:36), and reconciliation is the turning away of that wrath. Second, how is it that all are not reconciled to God? For they are not — by nature all are children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3), and some throughout their lives do nothing but store up wrath against the day of wrath (Romans 2:5). Third, then how can reconciliation be said to exist between God and all people, when neither God is reconciled to all nor all are reconciled to God? Fourth, if God is reconciled to all, at what point does He become unreconciled toward those who perish? By what change — in His will or in His nature? Fifth, if all are reconciled by Christ's death, when do those who perish become unreconciled, given that they are born children of wrath? Sixth, since reconciliation on God's part consists in the turning away of His wrath and the non-imputation of sin (2 Corinthians 5:18-19), which is justification that renders us blessed (Romans 4:6-8): if God is reconciled to all, why are not all justified and made blessed through the non-imputation of their sin? Those who have found a redemption in which no one is redeemed, and a reconciliation in which no one is reconciled, may easily answer these and similar questions. I leave that task to their leisure. In the meantime, I conclude this part of the argument: that reconciliation — which is the renewing of lost friendship, the slaying of enmity, the making of peace, the appeasing of God and turning away of His wrath, accompanied by the non-imputation of sins, and on our part conversion to God through faith and repentance — this reconciliation, being the effect of Christ's death and blood, cannot be claimed for any, nor can Christ be said to have died for any, except those of whom all its properties and acts may truly be affirmed. Whether they may be affirmed of all people or not, let everyone judge.

Reconciliation is the renewal of friendship between parties who were previously at odds — both parties being properly said to be reconciled, both the one who offended and the one who was offended. God and humanity were placed at a distance, in enmity and conflict, by sin. Humanity was the offending party, God the offended, and the alienation was mutual on both sides — though with this difference: humanity was alienated in regard to affections (the basis and cause of their enmity), while God was alienated in regard to the effects and expression of anger and enmity. The Greek word for reconciliation means a change or turning from one thing and one mind to another — its primary sense is exchange or substitution — since those who are reconciled always change with respect to the distance and conflict between them, and with respect to its effects. The word cannot be applied to any matter or persons until both parties are actually reconciled and all differences removed. If one is pleased with the other but the other remains unappeased and implacable, there is no reconciliation. When our Savior commands that someone bringing his gift to the altar, who remembers that his brother has something against him, should go and be reconciled to him, He fully intends a mutual returning of hearts to one another — especially the appeasing of the one who was offended. As then the error of Socinus is notable — who would have the reconciliation mentioned in Scripture be nothing but our conversion to God without the appeasing of His anger and turning away of His wrath, which is a reconciliation that limps on one leg — so likewise the distinction some draw between the reconciliation of God to humanity (making it universal toward all) and the reconciliation of humanity to God (making it only for a small number of those to whom God is reconciled) is an equally distorted invention. Mutual alienation requires mutual reconciliation, since the two are related. The state between God and humanity before the reconciliation made by Christ was a state of enmity: humanity was at enmity with God (Colossians 1:20-21; Romans 5:10), hating Him and opposing God in open rebellion. God also was in this respect an enemy to us, in that His wrath rested on us (Ephesians 2:3), which remains on us until we believe (John 3:36). To make complete reconciliation — which Christ is said in many places to accomplish — two things are required: first, that God's wrath be turned away, His anger removed, and all the effects of enmity on His part toward us; second, that we be turned from our opposition to Him and brought into willing obedience. Until both are accomplished, reconciliation is not complete. Both are assigned in Scripture to our Savior as the effects of His death and sacrifice. First, He turned away God's wrath from us and so appeased Him toward us — that is the reconciling of God: 'When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son' (Romans 5:10). That this refers to the reconciling of God — that part of reconciliation which consists in turning away His wrath from us — is clear: it is the means by which God chiefly demonstrates His love to us, which certainly consists in the forgiveness of sin through the turning away of His deserved anger. Moreover, we are said to receive this reconciliation (verse 11), which cannot mean our reconciliation to God or our conversion — which we cannot properly be said to receive — but rather His reconciliation to us, which we receive when we apprehend it by faith. Second, He turns us from our enmity toward God, redeeming and reconciling us to God by the blood of His cross (Colossians 1:21) — meritoriously and satisfactorily by way of acquisition and purchase, and accomplishing it in due time actually and effectively by His Spirit. Both are jointly described in 2 Corinthians 5:18-20: first, God being reconciled to us in Christ, consisting in a non-imputation of sins, which is the content of the ministry (verses 18-19); second, our reconciliation to God through accepting the pardon of our sins, which is the goal of the ministry (verse 20). The same is declared at length in Ephesians 2:13-15. Now how this reconciliation can possibly be harmonized with universal redemption I am completely unable to see. For if reconciliation is the proper effect of the death of Christ — as all agree — then if He died for all, I ask: first, how is it that God is not reconciled to all, since His wrath remains on some (John 3:36) and reconciliation is the turning away of wrath? Second, how is it that all are not reconciled to God, since by nature all are children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3) and some spend their entire lives treasuring up wrath for the day of wrath (Romans 2:5)? Third, how then can reconciliation have been accomplished between God and all people, if neither God is reconciled to all nor all are reconciled to God? Fourth, if God is reconciled to all, when does He begin to be unreconciled toward those who perish, and by what change — in His will or His nature? Fifth, if all are reconciled by the death of Christ, when do those who perish become unreconciled, having been born as children of wrath? Sixth, since reconciliation on God's part consists in the turning away of His wrath and the non-imputation of sin (2 Corinthians 5:18-19) — which is justification, making us blessed (Romans 4:6-8) — why, if God is reconciled to all, are not all justified and made blessed through the non-imputation of their sins? Those who have devised a redemption in which none are redeemed and a reconciliation in which none are reconciled may easily answer these questions. In the meantime I conclude: this reconciliation — the renewal of lost friendship, the destruction of enmity, the making of peace, the appeasing of God and turning away of His wrath through a non-imputation of sins, and on our part conversion to God through faith and repentance — being the effect of the death and blood of Christ, cannot be affirmed of any, nor Christ said to have died for any, except only those of whom all its properties and essential components may be truly affirmed. Whether those properties may be affirmed of all people or not, let everyone judge.