|
|
CHAPTER 2
AN
ENTRANCE TO THE ANSWER UNTO PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS.
NOW
we come to the consideration of the objections wherewith the
doctrine we have, from the word of God, undeniably confirmed is
usually, with great noise and clamor, assaulted; concerning which
I must give you these three cautions, before I come to lay them
down: —
The
first whereof is this, that for mine own part I had rather they
were all buried than once brought to light, in opposition to the
truth of God, which they seem to deface; and therefore, were it
left to my choice, I would not produce any one of them: not that
there is any difficulty or weight in them, that the removal
should be operose or burdensome, but only that I am not willing
to be any way instrumental to give breath or light to that which
opposeth the truth of God. But because, in these times of liberty
and error, I suppose the most of them have been objected to the
reader already by men lying in wait to deceive, or are likely to
be, I shall therefore show you the poison, and withal furnish you
with an antidote against the venom of such self-seekers as our
days abound withal.
Secondly, I must desire you, that when ye hear an objection, ye would not be carded away with the sound of words, nor suffer it to take impression on your spirits, remembering with how many demonstrations and innumerable places of Scripture the truth opposed by them hath been confirmed, but rest yourselves until the places be well weighed, the arguments pondered, the answers set down; and then the Lord direct you to “prove all things, and hold fast that which is good.”
Thirdly,
That you would diligently observe what comes near the stress of
the controversy, and the thing wherein the difference lieth,
leaving all other flourishes and swelling words of vanity, as of
no weight, of no importance.
Now,
the objections laid against the truth maintained are of two
sorts; the first, taken from Scripture perverted; the other, from
reason abused. We begin with the first, the OBJECTIONS TAKEN FROM
SCRIPTURE; all the places whereof that may any way seem to
contradict our assertion are, by our f266 strongest adversaries,
in their greatest strength, referred to three heads: —
First, Those places that affirm that Christ died for the world,
or that otherwise make mention of the word world in
the business of redemption. Secondly, Those that mention all and
every man, either in the work of Christ’s dying for
them, or where God is said to will their salvation. Thirdly,
Those which affirm Christ bought or died for them that
perish. Hence they draw out three principal arguments or
sophisms, on which they much insist. All which we shall, by the
Lord’s assistance, consider in their several order, with the
places of Scripture brought to confirm and strengthen them.
1.
The first whereof is taken from the word “world,”
and is thus proposed by them, to whom our poor pretenders are
indeed very children: — “He that is given out of the
love wherewith God loved the world, as John 3:16; that gave
himself for the life of the world, as John 6:51; and was a
propitiation for the sins of the whole world, as 1 John 2:2”
(to which add, John 1:29, 4:42; 2 Corinthians 5:19, cited by
Armin. pp. 530, 531, and Corr. ad Molin. p. 442, chap. 29);
“he was given and died for every man in the world; —
but the first is true of Christ, as appears by the places before
alleged: therefore he died for all and every one,” Remon.
Act. Synod. p. 300. And to this they say their adversaries have
not any color of answer.
But
granting them the liberty of boasting, we flatly deny, without
seeking for colors, the consequent of the first proposition, and
will, by the Lord’s help, at any time, put it to the trial
whether we have not just cause so to do. There be two ways
whereby they go about to prove this consequent from the world
to all and every one; — first, By reason and the
sense of the word; secondly, From the consideration of the
particular places of Scripture urged. We will try them in both.
First, If they will make it out by the way of reasoning, I
conceive they must argue thus: — The whole world contains
all and every man in the world; Christ died for the whole world:
therefore, etc.
Ans.
Here are manifestly four terms in this syllogism, arising
from the ambiguity of the word “world,” and so no true medium
on which the weight of the conclusion should hang; the world,
in the first proposition, being taken for the world
containing; in the second, for the world contained, or men in the
world, as is too apparent to be made a thing to be proved. So
that unless ye render the conclusion, Therefore Christ died
for that which contains all the men in the world, and assert
in the assumption that Christ died for the world
containing, or the fabric of the habitable earth (which is a
frenzy), this syllogism is most sophistically false. If, then, ye
will take any proof from the word “world,” it
must not be from the thing itself, but from the signification of
the word in the Scripture; as thus: — This word
“world” in the Scripture signifieth all and every man
in the world; but Christ is said to die for the world: ergo, etc.
Ans.
The first proposition, concerning the signification and
meaning of the word world is either universal, comprehending
all places where it is used, or particular, intending only some.
If the first, the proposition is apparently false, as was
manifested before; if in the second way, then the argument must
be thus formed: — In some places in Scripture the word
“world” signifieth all and every man in the world, of
all ages, times, and conditions; but Christ is said to die for
the world: ergo, etc.
Ans.
That this syllogism is no better than the former is
most evident, a universal conclusion being inferred from a
particular proposition. But now the first proposition being
rightly formed, I have one question to demand concerning the
second, or the assumption, — namely, whether in every place
where there is mention made of the death of Christ, it is said he
died for the world, or only in some? If ye say in every place,
that is apparently false, as hath been already discovered by
those many texts of Scripture before produced, restraining the
death of Christ to his elect, his sheep, his church, in
comparison whereof these are but few. If the second, then the
argument must run thus: — In some few places of Scripture
the word “world” doth signify all and every man in the
world; but in some few places Christ is said to die for the world
(though not in express words, yet in terms equivalent): ergo,
etc.
Ans.
This argument is so weak, ridiculous, and sophistically
false, that it cannot but be evident to anyone; and yet clearly,
from the word world itself, it will not be made any
better, and none need desire that it should be worse. It
concludes a universal upon particular affirmatives, and, besides,
with four terms apparently in the syllogism; unless the some
places in the first be proved to be the very some
places in the assumption, which is the thing in
question. So that if any strength be taken from this word, it
must be an argument in this form: — If the word
“world” doth signify all and every man that ever were
or shall be, in those places where Christ is said to die for the
world, then Christ died for all and every man; but the word
“world,” in all those places where Christ is said to
die for the world, doth signify all and every man in the world:
therefore Christ died for them.
Ans.
First, That it is but in one place said that Christ
gave his life for the world, or died for it, which holds out the
intention of our Savior; all the other places seem only to hold
out the sufficiency of his oblation for all, which we also
maintain. Secondly, We absolutely deny the assumption, and appeal
for trial to a consideration of all those particular places
wherein such mention is made.
Thus
have I called this argument to rule and measure, that it might be
evident where the great strength of it lieth (which is indeed
very weakness), and that for their sakes who, having caught hold
of the word world, run presently away with the bait, as
though all were clear for universal redemption; when yet, if ye
desire them to lay out and manifest the strength of their reason,
they know not what to say but the world and the whole
world, understanding, indeed, neither what they say nor
whereof they do affirm. And now, quid dignum tanto? what
cause of the great boast mentioned in the entrance? A weaker
argument, I dare say, was never by rational men produced in so
weighty a cause; which will farther be manifested by the
consideration of the several particular places produced to give
it countenance, which we shall do in order: —
1.
The first place we pitch upon is that which by our
adversaries is first propounded, and not a little rested upon;
and yet, notwithstanding their clamorous claim, there are not a
few who think that very text as fit and ready to overthrow their
whole opinion as Goliath’s sword to cut off his own head,
many unanswerable arguments against the universality of
redemption being easily deduced from the words of that text. The
great peaceable King of his church guide us to make good the
interest of truth to the place in controversy which through him
we shall attempt; — first, by opening the words; and,
secondly, by balancing of reasonings and arguments from them. And
this place is John 3:16,
“God
so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting
life.”
This
place, I say, the Universalists exceedingly boast in; for which
we are persuaded they have so little cause, that we doubt not
but, with the Lord’s assistance, to demonstrate that it is
destructive to their whole defense: to which end I will give you,
in brief, a double paraphrase of the words, the first containing
their sense, the latter ours. Thus, then, our adversaries explain
these words: — “ ‘God so loved,’ had
such a natural inclination, velleity, and propensity to the good
of ‘the world,’ Adam, with all and every one of
his posterity, of all ages, times, and conditions (whereof some
were in heaven, some in hell long before), ‘that he gave
his only-begotten Son,’ causing him to be incarnate in
the fullness of time, to die, not with a purpose and resolution
to save any, but ‘that whosoever,’ what persons
soever of those which he had propensity unto, ‘believeth
in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,’ should
have this fruit and issue, that he should escape death and hell,
and live eternally.” In which explication of the sense of
the place these things are to be observed: —
First,
What is that love which was the cause of the sending or
giving of Christ; which they make to be a natural propensity
to the good of all.
Secondly,
Who are the objects of this love; all and every man of all
generations. Thirdly, Wherein this giving consisteth; of
which I cannot find whether they mean by it the appointment of
Christ to be a recoverer, or his actual exhibition in the flesh
for the accomplishment of his ministration. Fourthly, Whosoever,
they make distributive of the persons in the world, and so
not restrictive in the intention to some. Fifthly, That life
eternal is the fruit obtained by believers, but not the
end intended by God.
Now,
look a little, in the second place, at what we conceive to be the
mind of God in those words; whose aim we take to be the
advancement and setting forth of the free love of God to lost
sinners, in sending Christ to procure for them eternal
redemption, as may appear in this following paraphrase: —
“‘God’
the Father ‘so loved,’ had such a peculiar,
transcendent love, being an unchangeable purpose and act of his
will concerning their salvation, towards ‘the
world,’ miserable, sinful, lost men of all sorts, not
only Jews but Gentiles also, which he peculiarly loved, ‘that,’
intending their salvation, as in the last words, for the
praise of his glorious grace, ‘he gave,’ he
prepared a way to prevent their everlasting destruction, by
appointing and sending ‘his only-begotten Son’ to
be an all-sufficient Savior to all that look up unto him, ‘that
whosoever believeth in him,’ all believers whatsoever,
and only they, ‘should not perish, but have everlasting
life,’ and so effectually be brought to the obtaining of
those glorious things through him which the Lord in his free love
had designed for them.”
In
which enlargement of the words, for the setting forth of what we
conceive to be the mind of the Holy Ghost in them, these things
are to be observed: —
First,
What we understand by the “love” of God, even
that act of his will which was the cause of sending his Son Jesus
Christ, being the most eminent act of love and favor to the
creature; for love is velle alicui bonum, “to will
good to any.” And never did God will greater good to the
creature than in appointing his Son for their redemption.
Notwithstanding, I would have it observed that I do not make the
purpose of sending or giving Christ to be absolutely subordinate
to God’s love to his elect, as though that were the end of
the other absolutely, but rather that they are both coordinate to
the same supreme end, or the manifestation of God’s glory by
the way of mercy tempered with justice; but in respect of our
apprehension, that is the relation wherein they stand one to
another. Now, this love we say to be that, greater than which
there is none.
Secondly,
By the “world,” we understand the elect of God
only, though not considered in this place as such, but under such
a notion as, being true of them, serves for the farther
exaltation of God’s love towards them, which is the end here
designed; and this is, as they are poor, miserable, lost
creatures in the world, of the world, scattered abroad in all
places of the world, not tied to Jews or Greeks, but dispersed in
any nation, kindred, and language under heaven.
Thirdly,
Ina pa~v oJ pisteu>wn, is to us, “that every
believer,” and is declarative of the intention of God in
sending or giving his Son, containing no distribution of the
world beloved, but a direction to the persons whose good was
intended, that love being an unchangeable intention of the
chiefest good.
Fourthly,
“Should not perish, but have life everlasting,” contains
an expression of the particular aim and intention of God in this
business; which is, the certain salvation of believers by Christ.
And this, in general, is the interpretation of the words which we
adhere unto, which will yield us sundry arguments, sufficient
each of them to evert the general ransom; which, that they may be
the better bottomed, and the more clearly convincing, we will lay
down and compare the several words and expressions of this place,
about whose interpretation we differ, with the reason of our
rejecting the one sense and embracing the other: — The first
difference in the interpretation of this place is about the cause
of sending Christ; called here love. The second, about the
object of this love; called here the world. Thirdly,
Concerning the intention of God in sending his Son; said to be
that believers might be saved.
For
the First, By “love” in this place, all our
adversaries agree that a natural affection and propensity in
God to the good of the creature, lost under sin, in general,
which moved him to take some way whereby it might possibly be
remedied, is intended. We, on the contrary, say that by love
here is not meant an inclination or propensity of his nature,
but an act of his will (where we conceive his love to be
seated), and eternal purpose to do good to man, being the most
transcendent and eminent act of God’s love to the creature.
That
both these may be weighed, to see which is most agreeable to the
mind of the Holy Ghost, I shall give you, first, some of the
reasons whereby we oppose the former interpretation; and,
secondly, those whereby we confirm our own.
First,
If no natural affection, whereby he should necessarily be
carried to anything without himself, can or ought to be ascribed
unto God, then no such thing is here intended in the word love;
for that cannot be here intended which is not in God at all.
But now, that there neither is nor can be any such natural
affection in God is most apparent, and may be evidenced by many
demonstrations. I shall briefly recount a few of them: —
First,
Nothing that includes any imperfection is to be assigned to
Almighty God: he is God all-sufficient; he is our rock,
and his work is perfect. But a natural affection in God to
the good and salvation of all, being never completed nor
perfected, carrieth along with it a great deal of imperfection
and weakness; and not only so, but it must also needs be
exceedingly prejudicial to the absolute blessedness and happiness
of Almighty God. Look, how much anything wants of the fulfilling
of that whereunto it is carried out with any desire, natural or
voluntary, so much it wanteth of blessedness and happiness. So
that, without impairing of the infinite blessedness of the
ever-blessed God, no natural affection unto anything never to be
accomplished can be ascribed unto him, such as this general love
to all is supposed to be.
Secondly,
If the Lord hath such a natural affection to all, as to love
them so far as to send his Son to die for them, whence is it that
this affection of his doth not receive accomplishment? whence is
it that it is hindered, and doth not produce its effects? why
doth not the Lord engage his power for the fulfilling of his
desire? “It doth not seem good to his infinite wisdom,”
say they, “so to do.” Then is there an affection in God
to that which, in his wisdom, he cannot prosecute. This among the
sons of men, the worms of the earth, would be called a brutish
affection.
Thirdly,
No affection or natural propensity to good is to be ascribed
to God which the Scripture nowhere assigns to him, and is
contrary to what the Scripture doth assign unto him. Now, the
Scripture doth nowhere assign unto God any natural affection
whereby he should be naturally inclined to the good of the
creature; the place to prove it clearly is yet to be produced.
And that it is contrary to what the Scripture assigns him is
apparent; for it describes him to be free in showing mercy, every
act of it being by him performed freely, even as he pleaseth, for
“he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy.” Now, if
every act of mercy showed unto any do proceed from the free
distinguishing will of God (as is apparent), certainly there can
be in him no such natural affection. And the truth is, if the
Lord should not show mercy, and be carried out towards the
creature, merely upon his own distinguishing will, but should
naturally be moved to show mercy to the miserable, he should,
first, be no more merciful to men than to devils, nor, secondly,
to those that are saved than to those that are damned: for that
which is natural must be equal in all its operations; and that
which is natural to God must be eternal. Many more effectual
reasons are produced by our divines for the denial of this
natural affection in God, in the resolution of the Arminian
distinction (I call it so, as now by them abused) of God’s
antecedent and consequent will, to whom the learned reader may
repair for satisfaction. So that the love mentioned in this place
is not that natural affection to all in general, which is not.
But, —
Secondly,
It is the special love of God to his elect, as we affirm,
and so, consequently, not any such thing as our adversaries
suppose to be intended by it, — namely, a velleity or
natural inclination to the good of all. For, —
First,
The love here intimated is absolutely the most eminent and
transcendent love that ever God showed or bare towards any
miserable creature; yea, the intention of our Savior is so to set
it forth, as is apparent by the emphatical expression of it used
in this place. The particles “so,” “that,”
declare no less, pointing out an eximiousness peculiarly
remarkable in the thing whereof the affirmation is [made], above
any other thing in the same kind. Expositors usually lay weight
upon almost every particular word of the verse, for the
exaltation and demonstration of the love here mentioned. “So,”
that is, in such a degree, to such a remarkable, astonishable
height: “God,” the glorious, all-sufficient God,
that could have manifested his justice to eternity in the
condemnation of all sinners, and no way wanted them to be
partakers of his blessedness: “loved,” with such
an earnest, intense affection, consisting in an eternal,
unchangeable act and purpose of his will, for the bestowing of
the chiefest good (the choicest effectual love): “the
world,” men in the world, of the world, subject to the
iniquities and miseries of the world, lying in their blood,
having nothing to render them commendable in his eyes, or before
him: “that he gave,” did not, as he made all the
world at first, speak the word and it was done, but proceeded
higher, to the performance of a great deal more and longer work,
wherein he was to do more than exercise an act of his almighty
power, as before; and therefore gave “his Son;” not
any favorite or other well-pleasing creature; not sun, moon, or
stars; not the rich treasure of his creation (all too mean, and
coming short of expressing this love); but his Son: “begotten
Son,” and that not so called by reason of some near
approaches to him, and filial, obediential reverence of
him, as the angels are called the sons of God; for it was not an
angel that he gave, which yet had been an expression of most
intense love; nor yet any son by adoption, as believers are the
sons of God; but his begotten Son, begotten of his own person
from eternity; and that “his only-begotten Son;” not
anyone of his sons, but whereas he had or hath but one
only-begotten Son, always in his bosom, his Isaac, he gave him:
— than which how could the infinite wisdom of God make or
give any higher testimony of his love? especially if ye will add
what is here evidently included, though the time was not as yet
come that it should be openly expressed, namely, whereunto he
gave his Son, his only one; not to be a king, and worshipped in
the first place, — but he “spared him not, but
delivered him up” to death “for us all,” Romans
8:32. Whereunto, for a close of all, cast your eyes upon his
design and purpose in this whole business, and ye shall find that
it was that believers, those whom he thus loved, “might
not perish,” — that is, undergo the utmost misery
and wrath to eternity, which they had deserved, — “but
have everlasting life,” eternal glory with himself,
which of themselves they could no way attain; and ye will easily
grant that “greater love hath no man than this.” Now,
if the love here mentioned be the greatest, highest, and chiefest
of all, certainly it cannot be that common affection towards all
that we discussed before; for the love whereby men are actually
and eternally saved is greater than that which may consist with
the perishing of men to eternity.
Secondly,
The Scripture positively asserts this very love as the
chiefest act of the love of God, and that which he would have us
take notice of in the first place: Romans 5:8, “God
commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet
sinners, Christ died for us;” and fully, 1 John 4:9, 10,
“In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because
that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world, that we might
live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that
he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our
sins.” In both which places the eminency of this love is set
forth exceeding emphatically to believers, with such expressions
as can no way be accommodated to a natural velleity to the good
of all.
Thirdly,
That seeing all love in God is but velle alicui bonum, to
will good to them that are beloved, they certainly are the
object of his love to whom he intends that good which is the
issue and effect of that love; but now the issue of this love or
good intended, being not perishing, and obtaining
eternal life through Christ, happens alone to, and is
bestowed on, only elect believers: therefore, they certainly are
the object of this love, and they alone; — which was the
thing we had to declare.
Fourthly,
That love which is the cause of giving Christ is also always
the cause of the bestowing of all other good things: Romans 8:32,
“He
that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how
shall he not with him also freely give us all things?”
Therefore,
if the love there mentioned be the cause of sending Christ, as it
is, it must also cause all other things to be given with him, and
so can be towards none but those who have those things bestowed
on them; which are only the elect, only believers, Who else have
grace here, or glory hereafter?
Fifthly,
The word here, which is hJga>phse, signifieth, in its
native importance, valde dilexit, — to love so as to
rest in that love; which how it can stand with hatred, and an
eternal purpose of not bestowing effectual grace, which is in the
Lord towards some, will not easily be made apparent. And now let
the Christian reader judge, whether by the love of God, in this
place mentioned, be to be understood a natural velleity or
inclination in God to the good of all, both elect and reprobate,
or the peculiar love of God to his elect, being the fountain of
the chiefest good that ever was bestowed on the sons of men. This
is the first difference about the interpretation of these words,
Secondly,
The second thing controverted is the object of this love, pressed
by the word “world;” which our adversaries would have
to signify all and every man; we, the elect of God scattered
abroad in the world, with a tacit Opposition to the nation of the
Jews, who alone, excluding all other nations (some few proselytes
excepted), before the actual exhibition of Christ in the flesh,
had all the benefits of the promises appropriated to them, Romans
9:4; in which privilege now all nations were to have an equal
share. To confirm the exposition of the word as used by the
Universalists, nothing of weight, that ever yet I could see, is
brought forth, but only the word itself; for neither the love
mentioned in the beginning, nor the design pointed at in the end
of the verse, will possibly agree with the sense which they
impose on that word in the middle. Besides, how weak and infirm
an inference from the word world, by reason of its
ambiguous and wonderful various acceptations, is, we have at
large declared before.
Three
poor shifts I find in the great champions of this course, to
prove that the word world doth not signify the elect. Justly
we might have expected some reasons to prove that it signified or
implied all and every man in the world, which was
their own assertion; but of this ye have a deep silence, being
conscious, no doubt, of their disability for any such
performance. Only, as I said, three pretended arguments they
bring to disprove that which none went about to prove, —
namely, that by the world is meant the elect as
such; for though we conceive the persons here designed directly
men in and of the world, to be all and only God’s elect, yet
we do not say that they are here so considered, but rather under
another notion, as men scattered over all the world, in
themselves subject to misery and sin. So that whosoever will
oppose our exposition of this place must either, first, prove
that by the world here must be necessarily understood all
and every man in the world; or, secondly, that it cannot be taken
indefinitely for men in the world which materially are elect, though
not considered under that formality. So that all those vain
flourishes which some men make with these words, by putting the
word elect into the room of the word world, and
then coining absurd consequences, are quite beside the business
in hand. Yet, farther, we deny that by a supply of the word elect
into the text any absurdity or untruth will justly follow.
Yea, and that flourish which is usually so made is but a bugbear
to frighten weak ones; for, suppose we should read it thus,
“God so loved the elect, that he gave his only-begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish,” what
inconvenience will now follow? “Why,” say they,
“that some of the elect, whom God so loved as to send his
Son for, may perish.” Why, I pray? Is it because he sent his
Son that they might not perish? or what other cause? “No;
but because it is said, that whosoever of them believeth on him
should not perish; which intimates that some of them might not
believe.” Very good! But where is any such intimation? God
designs the salvation of all them in express words for whom he
sends his Son; and certainly all that shall be saved shall
believe. But it is in the word whosoever, which is
distributive of the world into those that believe and those that
believe not. Ans. First, If this word whosoever be
distributive, then it is restrictive of the love of God to some,
and not to others, into one part of the distribution, and not to
the other. And if it do not restrain the love of God, intending
the salvation of some, then it is not distributive of the
fore-mentioned object of it; and if it do restrain it, then all
are not intended in the love which moved God to give his Son.
Secondly, I deny that the word here is distributive of the object
of God’s love, but only declarative of his end and aim in
giving Christ in the pursuit of that love, — to wit, that
all believers might be saved. So that the sense is, “God so
loved his elect throughout the world, that he gave his Son with
this intention, that by him believers might be saved.” And
this is all that is by any (besides a few worthless cavils)
objected from this place to disprove our interpretation; which we
shall now confirm both positively and negatively: —
First, Our first reason is taken from what was before proved concerning the nature of that love which is here said to have the world for its object, which cannot be extended to all and everyone in the world, as will be confessed by all. Now, such is the world, here, as is beloved with that love which we have here described, and proved to be here intended; — even such a love as is, first, the most transcendent and remarkable; secondly, an eternal act of the will of God; thirdly, the cause of sending Christ; fourthly, of giving all good things in and with him; fifthly, an assured fountain and spring of salvation to all beloved with it. So that the world beloved with this love cannot possibly be all and everyone in the world.
Secondly,
The word world in the next verse, which carries along the
sense of this, and is a continuation of the same matter, being a
discovery of the intention of God in giving his Son, must needs
signify the elect and believers, at least only those who in the
event are saved; therefore so also in this. It is true, the word world
is three times used in that verse in a dissonant sense, by an
inversion not unusual in the Scripture, as was before declared.
It is the latter place that this hath reference to, and is of the
same signification with the world in verse 16, “That
the world through him might be saved,” — i[na swqh|~,
“that it should be saved.” It discovers the aim,
purpose, and intention of God, what it was towards the world that
he so loved, even its salvation. Now, if this be understood of
any but believers, God fails of his aim and intention, which as
yet we dare not grant.
Thirdly,
It is not unusual with the Scripture to call God’s chosen
people by the name of the world, as also of all flesh,
all nations, all families of the earth, and the like general
expressions; and therefore no wonder if here they are so called,
the intention of the place being to exalt and magnify the love of
God towards them, which receives no small advancement from their
being every way a world. So are they termed where Christ is said
to be their Savior, John 4:42; which certainly he is only of them
who are saved. A Savior of men not saved is strange. Also John
6:51, where he is said to give himself for their life. Clearly,
John 6:33 of the same chapter, he “giveth life unto the
world:” which whether it be any but his elect let all men
judge; for Christ himself affirms that he gives life only to his
“sheep,” and that those to whom he gives life
“shall never perish,” John 10:27, 28. So Romans 4:13,
Abraham is said by faith to be “heir of the world;”
who, Romans 4:11, is called to be father of the faithful. And
Romans 11:12, the fall of the Jews is said to be “the riches
of the world;” which world compriseth only believers of all
sorts in the world, as the apostle affirmed that the word bare
fruit “in all the world,” Colossians 1:6. This is that
“world” which “God reconcileth to himself, not
imputing their trespasses unto them,” 2 Corinthians 5:19;
which is attended with blessedness in all them to whom that
non-imputation belongeth, Romans 4:8. And for divers evident
reasons is it that they have this appellation; as, — First,
to distinguish the object of this love of God from the nature
angelical, which utterly perished in all the fallen individuals;
which the Scripture also carefully doth in express terms, Hebrews
2:16, and by calling this love of God filanqrwpi>a, Titus 3:4.
Secondly, To evert and reject the boasting of the Jews, as though
all the means of grace and all the benefits intended were to them
appropriated. Thirdly, To denote that great difference and
distinction between the old administration of the covenant, when
it was tied up to one people, family, and nation, and the new,
when all boundaries being broken up, the fullness of the Gentiles
and the corners of the world were to be made obedient to the
scepter of Christ. Fourthly, To manifest the condition of the
elect themselves, who are thus beloved, for the declaration of
the free grace of God towards them, they being divested of all
qualifications but only those that bespeak them terrene, earthly,
lost, miserable, corrupted. So that thus much at least may easily
be obtained, that from the word itself nothing can be opposed
justly to our exposition of this place, as hath been already
declared, and shall be farther made manifest.
Fourthly, If everyone in the world be intended, why doth not the Lord, in the pursuit of this love, reveal Jesus Christ to everyone whom he so loved? Strange! that the Lord should so love men as to give his only-begotten Son for them, and yet not once by any means signify this his love to them, as to innumerable he doth not! — that he should love them, and yet order things so, in his wise dispensation, that this love should be altogether in vain and fruitless! — love them, and yet determine that they shall receive no good by his love, though his love indeed be a willing of the greatest good to them!
Fifthly,
Unless ye will grant, — first, Some to be beloved and hated
also from eternity; secondly, The love of God towards innumerable
to be fruitless and vain; thirdly, The Son of God to be given to
them who, first, never hear word of him; secondly, have
no power granted to believe in him; fourthly, That God is mutable
in his love, or else still loveth those that be in hell; fifthly,
That he doth not give all things to them to whom he gives his
Son, contrary to Romans 8:32; sixthly, That he knows not
certainly beforehand who shall believe and be saved; —
unless, I say, all these blasphemies and absurdities be granted,
it cannot be maintained that by the world here is meant
all and everyone of mankind, but only men in common scattered
throughout the world, which are the elect.
The
Third difference about these words is, concerning the means
whereby this love of the Father, whose object is said to be
the world is made out unto them. Now, this is by
believing, i[na pa~v oJ pisteu>wn, — “that
whosoever believeth,” or “that every believer.”
The intention of these words we take to be, the designing or
manifesting of the way whereby the elect of God come to be
partakers of the fruits of the love here set forth, —
namely, by faith in Christ, God having appointed that for the
only way whereby he will communicate unto us the life that is in
his Son. To this something was said before, having proved that
the term whosoever is not distributive of the object of
the love of God; to which, also, we may add these following
reasons: —
First,
If the object be here restrained, so that some only believe and
are saved of them for whose sake Christ is sent, then this
restriction and determination of the fruits of this love
dependeth on the will of God, or on the persons themselves. If on
the persons themselves, then make they themselves to differ from
others; contrary to 1 Corinthians 4:7. If on the will of God,
then you make the sense of the place, as to this particular, to
be, “God so loved all as that but some of them should
partake of the fruits of his love.” To what end, then, I
pray, did he love those other some? Is not this, “Out with
the sword, and run the dragon through with the spear?”
Secondly,
Seeing that these words, that whosoever believeth, do
peculiarly point out the aim and intention of God in this
business, if it do restrain the object beloved, then the
salvation of believers is confessedly the aim of God in this
business, and that distinguished from others; and if so, the
general ransom is an empty sound, having no dependence on the
purpose of God, his intention being carried out in the giving of
his Son only to the salvation of believers, and that
determinately, unless you will assign unto him a nescience of
them that should believe.
These
words, then, whosoever believeth, containing a designation
of the means whereby the Lord will bring us to a
participation of life through his Son, whom he gave for us; and
the following words, of having life everlasting, making
out the whole counsel of God in this matter, subordinate to his
own glory; it followeth, — That God gave not his Son, —
1.
For them who never do believe;
2.
Much less for them who never hear of him, and so evidently
want means of faith;
3.
For them on whom he hath determined not to bestow effectual
grace, that they might believe.
Let
now the reader take up the several parts of these opposite
expositions, weigh all, try all things, especially that which is
especially to be considered, the love of God, and so
inquire seriously whether it be only a general affection, and a
natural velleity to the good of all, which may stand with the
perishing of all and everyone so beloved, or the peculiar,
transcendent love of the Father to his elect, as before laid
down; and then determine whether a general ransom, fruitless in
respect of the most for whom it was paid, or the effectual
redemption of the elect only, have the firmest and strongest
foundation in these words of our Savior; withal remembering that
they are produced as the strongest supportment of the adverse
cause, with which, it is most apparent, both the cause of sending
Christ and the end intended by the Lord in so doing, as they are
here expressed, are altogether inconsistent.