CHAPTER II – Answer to Objections from Scripture
CHAPTER II – Answer to Objections from Scripture An introduction to the answer to particular arguments.
Now we come to consider the objections with which the doctrine we have undeniably confirmed from the word of God is usually assaulted, and with great noise and clamor. I must give you these three cautions before I come to lay them down:
The first is that, for my own part, I would rather they were all buried than brought to light. They are in opposition to the truth of God, which they seem to deface. Therefore, were it left to my choice, I would not produce any of them. It is not that there is any difficulty or weight in them which would make their removal laborious or burdensome. It is only that I am not willing to be instrumental in giving any breath or light to what opposes the truth of God. But because, in these times of liberty and error, I suppose the reader has already heard or is likely to hear most of them from men lying in wait to deceive, I will therefore show you the poison. Thus I may furnish you with an antidote against the venom of such self-seekers who abound in our days.
Secondly, I must desire that when you hear an objection, you would not be carried away with the sound of its words, nor allow it to make an impression on your spirits. Remember how many demonstrations and countless passages of Scripture have confirmed the truth opposed by them.
Rest yourselves until the passages are well-weighed, the arguments pondered, and the answers set down. Then the Lord direct you to "prove all things, and hold fast what is good" 1Thes. 5:21.
Thirdly, I ask that you diligently observe what comes near the crux of the controversy, the thing in which the difference lies. Leave behind all other flourishes and swelling words of vanity as of no weight, and no importance.
Now, the objections laid against the truth maintained are of two sorts. The first sort is taken from scripture that is perverted; the other is taken from reason that is abused.
We begin with the first, the OBJECTIONS TAKEN FROM SCRIPTURE; all the passages which may in any way seem to contradict our assertion are
offered by our strongest adversaries in their great strength (Remon. Scripta Synod).
212 They are referred to in three parts:
First, those passages that affirm that Christ died for the world, or that otherwise make mention of the word "world" in redemption.
Secondly, those which 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, those who perish.
Hence they draw out three principal arguments or sophisms on which they greatly insist. All of which we will, by the Lord's assistance, consider in their respective order, with the passages of Scripture brought to confirm and strengthen them.
I. Passages that affirm Christ died for the "world"- John 3:16
The first of these passages is taken from the "world," passages to whom our poor pretenders are indeed like children. It is thus proposed by them:
"The one who is given out of the love with which God loved the world, such as John 3:16; that gave for the life of the world, such as John 6:51; and was a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, as 1Jn. 2:2" (to which add, John 1:29, 4:42; 2Cor. 5:19, cited by Arminius pp. 530, 531, and Corv. 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 passages before alleged: therefore he died for everyone,"
Remon. Act. Synod. p. 300.
To this they say their adversaries have no color of an answer. But granting them the liberty of boasting, and without seeking for colors, we flatly deny the consequence of the first proposition. We will at any time, by the Lord's help, put it to the test whether we have a just cause to deny it. There are two ways by which they go about proving this consequence from "the world" to everyone; first, by the reason and the sense of the word; secondly, from considering the particular passages of Scripture they have urged. We will test them in both.
First, alleged proof by reason If they will make it out by 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 Christ died for all and every man in the world.
213 which arise from the ambiguity of the word "world;" and so there is no true medium on which the weight of the conclusion should hang. In the first proposition,
"the world" is taken for the world containing; in the second, it is taken for the world contained, or men in the world; this is too apparent to need proving. So that unless you 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 madness), this syllogism is sophistically false. If then, you will take any proof from the word "world," it must not be from the thing itself, but from the meaning of the word in the Scripture; as thus:
ANSWER: Here are four terms manifested in this syllogism This word "world" in the Scripture signifies all and every man in the world; but Christ is said to die for the world: ergo, etc.
ANSWER: The first proposition, concerning the significance and meaning of the word "world", is either universal, comprehending all passages where it is used, or it is particular, intending only some passages. If the proposition is universal, it is apparently false, as was manifested before; if it is particular, then the argument must be formed thus:
In some passages in Scripture the word "world" signifies all and every man in the world, of all ages, times, and conditions; but Christ is said to die for the world: ergo, etc.
ANSWER: This syllogism is no better than the former, as is evident; a universal conclusion cannot be inferred from a particular proposition.
Second, consideration of specific Scriptural passages But now that the first proposition is correctly formed, I have one question to demand concerning the second, or the assumption: namely, is Christ said to have died for the world in every place where his death is mentioned, or only in some places? If you say in every place, that is apparently false, as already revealed by those many texts of Scripture produced before. They restrain the death of Christ to his elect, his sheep, his church, in comparison to
which these general passages are only a few. If it is the second, then the argument must run thus:
In some few passages of Scripture the word "world" does signify all and every man in the world; but in some few passages Christ is said to die for the world (though not in express words, yet in equivalent words): ergo, etc.
ANSWER: This argument is so weak, ridiculous, and sophistically false, that it must be evident to anyone. And yet clearly, from the word "world" itself, the argument will not be made any better, and none desires it to be worse. It is again a universal conclusion based on particular affirmatives.
Besides that, it apparently has four terms in the syllogism, unless the same passages in the first can be proved to be the very same passages in the assumption; yet, this is the very thing in question.
214 So if any strength is to be taken from this word, it must be an argument made in this form:
If the word "world" does signify all and every man that ever were or will be, in those passages where Christ is said to die for the world, "then
Christ died for all and every man"; the word "world" in all those passages where Christ is said to die for the world does signify all and every man in the world: therefore Christ died for them.
ANSWER: First, There is only one place where it is said that Christ gave his life for the world, or died for it, which holds out the intention of our
Savior. All the other passages only seem to show the sufficiency of his oblation for all, which we also maintain. Secondly, we absolutely deny the assumption that the word "world" means all and every man in the world in that passage. We appeal for a test to consider all those particular passages in which such mention is made.
Thus have I called this argument to rule and measure, so that it might be evident where its great strength lies (which is indeed its very weakness).
Those who, having caught hold of the word "world", presently run away with the bait, as though all were clear in support of universal redemption.
Yet, if you desire them to lay out and manifest the strength of their reason, they do not know what to say. Instead, the world, and indeed the whole world, understands neither what they say nor what they affirm. And now, quid dignum tanto?
215 What is the cause of the great boast mentioned in the introduction? I dare say, a weaker argument was never produced by rational
men in so weighty a cause. This will be further manifested by considering the several particular passages produced to give it countenance, which we will do in order:
1. John 3:16
The first place we camp upon is what is first propounded by our adversaries, and on which they substantially rest. Yet, notwithstanding their clamorous claim, there are a number who think this very text is as fit and ready to overturn their entire opinion as Goliath's sword was ready to cut off his own head. There are many unanswerable arguments against the universality of redemption that are easily deduced from the words of that text. May the great peaceable King of his church guide us to make good the interest of truth in the passage at issue. We will attempt this through him by opening the word and secondly, by balancing reasonings and arguments from them. This place is John 3:16, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whomever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
The universalists exceedingly boast in this passage for which we are persuaded they have so little cause. We do not doubt that, with the Lord's assistance, we can demonstrate that it destroys their whole defense. To this end, I will briefly give you a double paraphrase of the words, the first containing their sense, and the latter our own. This then, is how our adversaries explain these words:
"'God so loved,' means that God had such a natural inclination, wish, and propensity toward the good of 'the world,' toward Adam, along with every one of his posterity, of all ages, times, and conditions (of which some were in heaven, and some long before in hell), 'that he gave his only-begotten Son,' causing him in the fullness of time to be incarnated and to die. He did this not with a purpose and resolve to save anyone, but 'that whoever' (meaning whatever persons of those toward whom he had a propensity) 'believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life;' that is, they should have this fruit and result: that they should escape death and hell, and live eternally."
To explicate the sense of the passage, these things are to be observed:
First, what is the love that caused Christ to be sent or given, which they suggest is a natural propensity toward the good of all?
Secondly, who are the objects of this love? Are they all and every man of all generations?
Thirdly, what does this giving consist in? I cannot find whether they mean the appointment of Christ to be a recoverer, or his actual exhibition in the flesh to accomplish his ministering.
Fourthly, by "whoever" they refer to all the persons in the world; it is not restricted in its intent toward some.
Fifthly, they suggest that life eternal is the fruit obtained by believers, but somehow it is not the end intended by God ["not with a purpose and resolve to save anyone"].
Now, in the second place, look a little at what we conceive to be the mind of God in those words. We take his aim to be the advancement and presentation of the free love of God to lost sinners in sending Christ to procure for them eternal redemption. This may be apparent in the following paraphrase:
"'God' the Father 'so loved,' means that he had such a special, transcendent love towards 'the world' which he specially loved (meaning miserable, sinful, lost men of all sorts, not only Jews but Gentiles also)
'that' this love was an unchangeable purpose and act of his will concerning their salvation. Intending their salvation for the praise of his glorious grace, 'he gave,' meaning 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 who look up to him, 'that whoever believes in him,' (referring to all believers whatever – and only them)
'should not perish, but have everlasting life,' and thus effectually obtain those glorious things through him which the Lord in his free love had designed for them."
In enlarging upon these words to set forth what we conceive to be the mind of the Holy Ghost in them, these things are to be observed:
First, we understand the "love" of God to mean that act of his will which causes him to send his Son Jesus Christ, which is the most eminent act of love and favor to the creature; for love is velle alicui bonum, "to will good to any." And God never willed 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 absolute end of the other. Rather, they are both co-ordinate to the same supreme end. They both manifest God's glory by the way of mercy tempered with justice; but with regard to our apprehension of it, that is the relation in which they stand one to another. And so we say there is no greater love than this.
Secondly, we understand "the world" to refer to the elect of God only, not considered as it is used in this place as such, but under the notion of what serves to further exalt God's love towards them, which is the end intended here. And this notion is that they are poor, miserable, lost creatures in the world, of the world, scattered abroad in all places of the world, not tied just to Jews or Greeks, but dispersed in every nation, kindred, and language under heaven.
Thirdly, that "every believer," declares God's intent in sending or giving his Son, not distributed to the world as the thing beloved, but directed to the persons whose good was intended, that love being an unchangeable intention of their greatest 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 to, and which will yield various arguments, each sufficient to gut the idea of a general ransom. That they may be better bottomed and more dearly convincing, we will lay down and compare the several words and expressions of this passage whose interpretation we differ about, for the purpose of rejecting the one sense of it and embracing the other:
The first difference in the interpretation of this place is about the cause of sending Christ; here it is called "love. "
The second is about the object of this love; here it is called "the world."
The third concerns the intention of God in sending his Son; it is said to be that believers might be saved.
FIRST, the cause for sending Christ is Love.
For the FIRST, by "love" – all our adversaries agree that what is intended here is a natural affection and propensity in God toward the good of the
creature that is generally lost under sin. This moved him to take some way by which the condition might possibly be remedied. We, on the contrary, say that love here does not mean an inclination or propensity of God's nature, but an act of his will (which is where we conceive his love to be seated), and an eternal purpose to do good to man, which is 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 will give you, first, some of the reasons by which we oppose the former interpretation; and, secondly, those by which we confirm our own.
First, if no natural affection can or ought to be ascribed to God, an affection by which he should necessarily be carried to anything outside himself, then no such thing is intended here by the word "love." For what is not in God at all cannot be intended here. But now, it is most apparent that there neither is nor can be any such natural affection in God, and this may be evidenced by many demonstrations. I will 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 toward the good and salvation of all, never being completed nor perfected, carries with it a great deal of imperfection and weakness; not only that, but by necessity it is exceedingly prejudicial to the absolute blessedness and happiness of Almighty God. Look, however much we want to see our desires fulfilled, whether our desires are natural or voluntary, is how much we want of blessedness and happiness. Thus, no natural affection for anything which is never to be accomplished can be ascribed to him, such as this general love for all is supposed to be, without impairing the infinite blessedness of the ever-blessed God.
Secondly, if the Lord has such a natural affection for all, loving them enough to send his Son to die for them, then why is it that this affection of his is not accomplished? Why is it that it is hindered and does not produce its effects? Why does the Lord not engage his power to fulfill his desire? "It does not seem good to his infinite wisdom to do so," they say. Then there is an affection in God which, in his wisdom, he cannot
prosecute. Among the sons of men, the worms of the earth, this would be called a brutish affection.
Thirdly, No affection or natural propensity toward good is to be ascribed to God which the Scripture nowhere assigns to him, and which is contrary to what the Scripture does assign to him. Now, the Scripture nowhere assigns to God any natural affection by which he should be naturally inclined toward the good of the creature; the place to prove it clearly is yet to be produced. And it is apparent that it is contrary to what the Scripture does assign to him; for it describes him as being free in showing mercy, every act of it being performed freely by him, even as he pleases, for "he has mercy on whom he will have mercy." Now, if every act of mercy shown toward anyone proceeds from the free distinguishing will of God (as is apparent), certainly there can be no such natural affection in him.
216 And the truth is, if the Lord were not to show mercy, and this mercy were not extended to the creature merely upon his own distinguishing will, but instead the Lord were naturally moved to show mercy to the miserable, then he should, first, be no more merciful to men than to devils, and secondly, he should be no more merciful to those who are saved than to those who are damned:
217 for what is natural must be equal in all its operations; and what is natural to God must be eternal.
Many more effectual reasons are produced by our divines to deny this natural affection in God, as in the resolution of the Arminian distinction between God's antecedent and consequent will (I call it so, as now abused by them). The learned reader may repair to them for satisfaction.
So that the love mentioned in this passage is not that natural affection toward all in general. But, Secondly, It is the special love of God for his elect, as we affirm, and so, consequently, it is not any such thing as our adversaries suppose to be intended by it, namely, a velleity 218 or natural inclination toward the good of all. For, First, the love intimated here is absolutely the most eminent and transcendent love that God ever showed or bore towards any miserable creature; indeed, the intention of our Savior is to set it forth in just this way, as is apparent by its emphatic expression in this passage. The particles "so," "that," declare no less, pointing out an eximiousness
that is specifically remarkable in the thing of which the affirmation is made, above any other thing of the same kind. Expositors usually lay weight upon almost every particular word of the verse, for the exaltation and demonstration of the love mentioned here.
"So," that is, in such a degree, to such a remarkable and astonishing height:
"God," the glorious, all-sufficient God, who could have manifested his justice to eternity in the condemnation of all sinners, and in no way wanted them to partake of his blessedness:
"loved," with such an earnest intense affection, consisting in an eternal unchangeable act and purpose of his will to bestow 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;" he did not, as he at first made all the world, speak the word and it was done, but he proceeded higher, to perform a great deal more and longer work, in which he was to do more than exercise an act of his almighty power, as before; and therefore he 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, though that would have been an expression of most intense love; nor was it any son by adoption, as believers are the sons of God; but it was his begotten Son, begotten of his own person from eternity; and that son was "his only-begotten Son;" it was not any one of his sons, for he had or has but one only-begotten Son, always in his heart, his
Isaac, and he gave him: beside this gift, how could the infinite
wisdom of God make or give any higher testimony of his love? especially if you will add what is evidently included here, though the time was not as yet come that it should be openly expressed, namely the purpose for which he gave his Son, his only one; not to be a king, and worshipped in the first place, but he "did not spare him, but delivered him up" to death "for us all," Rom.
8:32.
To which end, for a close of all, cast your eyes upon his design and purpose in this whole business, and you will find it was that believers, those whom he thus loved, "might not perish," – that is, they might not undergo the utmost misery and wrath unto eternity, which they deserved; "but have everlasting life," eternal glory with himself, which of themselves they could in no way attain; and you will easily grant that "greater love has no man than this." Jn 15:13
Now, if the love here mentioned is the greatest, highest, and chiefest of all, certainly it cannot be that common affection towards all that we discussed before; for the love by which men are actually and eternally saved is greater than what may consist with the perishing of men unto eternity.
Secondly, the Scripture positively asserts this very love is the chiefest act of the love of God, and what he would have us take notice of in the first place: Rom. 5:8, "God commends his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us;" and fully, 1Jn. 4:9-10, "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because God sent his onlybegotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. In this 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 passages, the eminency of this love is set forth exceedingly and emphatically toward believers, with such expressions that in no way accommodate a natural velleity toward the good of all.
Thirdly, seeing that all love in God is but velle alicui bonum, to will good to those who are beloved, then those to whom he intends the good which is the result and the effect of that love, are certainly the object of his love; but now the result of this love or the intended good (i.e. not
perishing and obtaining eternal life through Christ) only happens to and is only bestowed upon elect believers: therefore, they are certainly 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 always the cause of bestowing all other good things: Rom. 8:32, "The one who 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 mentioned there is the cause of sending Christ, as it is, it must also cause all other things to be given with him, and so it can be directed towards none but those who have those things bestowed on them; which are the elect only, believers only. Who else has grace here or glory hereafter?
Fifthly, the word here, which is agape, signifies, in its native importance, valde dilexit, 220 to love so as to rest in that love; how it can co-exist with hatred and an eternal purpose not to bestow effectual grace, which is in the Lord towards some, will not easily be made apparent. And now let the Christian reader judge whether the love of God in this passage mentioned is to be understood as a natural velleity or inclination in God toward the good of all, both elect and reprobate, or whether the special love of God toward his elect alone is the fountain of the chiefest good that was ever bestowed on the sons of men. This is the first difference about the interpretation of these words.
SECOND, the object of this love is the "world"
The second thing controverted is the object of this love, pressed by the word "world," which our adversaries would have mean all and every man.
We, the elect of God scattered abroad in the world, with the tacit exception of the Jewish nation before the actual exhibition of Christ in the flesh, and excluding all other nations (some few proselytes excepted), had all the benefits of the promises appropriated to them – Rom. 9:4.
221 Now all nations have an equal share in those privileges. To confirm the exposition of the word as used by the universalists, I have yet to see anything of weight presented except the word itself; for neither the love mentioned in the beginning, nor the design pointed to at the end of the verse, will possibly agree with the sense which they impose on that word in the middle.
Besides, we have declared at large before how weak and infirm an inference
they make from the word "world" by reason of its ambiguous and wonderfully various acceptances.
I find three poor shifts in the great champions of this course to prove that the word "world" does not signify the elect. We might have justly expected some reasons to prove that it signified or implied all and every man in the world, which was their own assertion; but instead we have a deep silence from them, being conscious, no doubt, of their inability to offer any such proof. Only, as I said, they bring three pretended arguments to disprove what no one set about to prove, namely, that "the world" means the elect as such; for though we conceive that the men in and of the world who are directly designed here are all God's elect, and only God's elect, yet we do not say that they are considered so here. Rather they are considered as men scattered over all the world, who in themselves are subject to misery and sin. So whoever would oppose our exposition of this passage must either prove first, that "the world" here must necessarily mean all and every man in the world; or secondly, that it cannot be taken indefinitely for men in the world who materially are elect, though not considered under that formal term. Thus, all those vain flourishes which some men make with these words by putting the word elect in place of the word world, and then coining absurd consequences, are quite beside the business in hand.
Yet, further, we deny that by placing the word elect into the text, any absurdity or untruth will justly follow. Indeed, that flourish which is usually made is just 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 whoever believes in him should not perish;" what inconvenience will now follow? "Why," they say, "some of the elect whom God so loved as to send his Son for them, may perish." Why, I pray? Is it because he sent his Son that they might not perish? Or what other cause? "Because it is said that whoever of them believes on him should not perish; which intimates that some of them might not believe." Very good! But where is there any such intimation? In express words, God designs the salvation of all those for whom he sends his Son; and certainly all who believe shall be saved. But it is the word "whoever", they say, which divides the world into those who believe and those who do not.
ANSWER:
First, if this word "whoever" divides men, then it restricts the love of God to some and not to others, to one group and not another. And if it does not restrict the love of God, intending the salvation of only some, then it does not divide the afore-mentioned object of his love; and if it does restrict it, then all are not intended in the love which moved God to give his Son.
Secondly, I deny that the word "whoever" divides the object of God's love.
It only declares his end and aim in giving Christ in the pursuit of that love, namely, that all believers might be saved. So the sense is, "God so loved his elect throughout the world, that he gave his Son with this intention: that believers might be saved by him." And this is all that anyone objects to from this passage to disprove our interpretation (besides a few worthless quibblings); which we will now confirm both positively and negatively:
First, our first reason is taken from what was proved before concerning the nature of that love which is here said to have "the world" for its object.
This cannot be extended to everyone in the world, as will be confessed by all. Now, such is "the world" here, that it is beloved with that love which we described here, and proved is intended here; it is 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, an act of giving all good things in and with him; fifthly, an assured fountain and spring of salvation to all those beloved. So that the world beloved with this love cannot possibly be 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, reveals God's intention in giving his Son. The word must therefore signify the elect and believers, or at least only those who are saved. It is true, the word "world" is used three times in that verse in a dissonant sense, by an inversion which is not unusual in the Scripture, as was declared before. It is the latter passage that this refers to, and has the some meaning as "the world" in verse 16, "That the world might be saved through him," – hina sozo
[NT:2443 4982], "that it should be saved!"
223 It reveals the aim, purpose, and intention of God towards the world that he so loved, which is its salvation. Now, if this is understood to speak of any but believers, God fails in his aim and intention, which we dare not grant as yet.
Thirdly, It is not unusual with the Scripture to call God's chosen people by the name of "the world", just as it calls them all flesh, all nations, all families of the earth, and similar general expressions. Therefore it is not surprising if they are referred to as the world here. The intention of the passage is to exalt and magnify the love of God towards them, which receives no small advancement from their being in every way a world.
They are termed this way where Christ is said to be their Savior, John 4:42
224 which certainly he is, but only of those who are saved. A Savior of men who are not saved is strange. Also John 6:51,
225 when he is said to give himself for their life. Clearly, verse 33 226 of the same chapter, he "gives life to the world:" whether it is any but his elect let all men judge; for Christ himself affirms that he gives life only to his "sheep," and those to whom he gives life "shall never perish," chap. 10:27, 28. So Rom. 4:13,
Abraham is said by faith to be "heir of the world;" in verse 11 he is called the father of the faithful. And Rom. 11:12, the fall of the Jews is said to be
"the riches of the world;" that world is comprised only of believers of all sorts in the world, as when the apostle affirmed that the Gospel word bore fruit "in all the world," Col. 1:6. This is that "world" which "God reconciles to himself, not imputing their trespasses to them," 2Cor. 5:19; it is attended with blessedness in all those to whom that non-imputation belongs, Rom. 4:8. And it is for various and evident reasons that they have this appellation; such as, First, to distinguish the object of this love of God from the angelic nature, which utterly perished in all the fallen individuals, as the Scripture carefully and expressly distinguishes in Heb. 2:16,
227 and by calling this love of God philanthropia, 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 appropriated by them.
Thirdly, to denote that great difference and distinction between the old administration of the covenant, when it was tied 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, to declare the free grace of God towards them, since they are
divested of all qualifications except those which qualify them as terrene, earthly, lost, miserable, and corrupted.
This much at least may easily be obtained, that nothing can be justly opposed to our exposition of this passage from the word "world" itself, as has been declared already, and which will further be made manifest.
Fourthly, if everyone in the world is intended, why does the Lord not, 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 onlybegotten Son for them, and yet not once by any means indicate his love to them, as he does not indicate it to countless people! – that he should love them, and yet order things in such a way, in his wise dispensation, that this love should be altogether vain and fruitless! – love them, and yet determine that they will receive no good by his love, though his love indeed wills the great good to them!
Fifthly, unless you will grant, First, some are beloved and also hated from eternity;
Secondly, the love of God towards countless people is vain and fruitless; Thirdly, The Son of God is given for those who never hear a word of him and have no power granted to them to believe in him;
Fourthly, that God is mutable in his love, or else he still loves those in hell; Fifthly, that he does not give all things to those to whom he gives his
Son, contrary to Rom. 8:32;
Sixthly, that he does not certainly know beforehand who will believe and be saved; Unless, I say, all these blasphemies and absurdities are granted, it cannot be maintained that "the world" here means every one of mankind, but it means only men in common scattered throughout the world, who are the elect.
THIRD, the intent of God in sending his Son is to save believers The THIRD difference about these words concerns the means by which this love of the Father, whose object is said to be the world, is made out to them.
Now, this love of the Father is made out to them by believing: "that
whoever believes," or "that every believer." We take the intention of these words to be the designing or manifesting of the way by which the elect of God come to partake of the fruits of the love set forth here. That way is by faith in Christ, God having appointed that as the only way by which he will communicate to us the life that is in his Son. To this something was said before, having proved that the term "whoever" does not divide the object of the love of God; to which, also, we may add these following reasons:
First, if the object is restricted here, so that only some of those for whose sake Christ is sent will believe and be saved, then this restriction and the determination of the fruits of this love depends either on the will of God, or on the persons themselves. If it depends on the persons themselves, then they are the ones who make themselves differ from others, contrary to 1Cor. 4:7.
230 If it depends on the will of God, then you make the sense of the passage to be, "God so loved all in a such a way that only some of them should partake of the fruits of his Love." To what end, then, I pray, did he love those others? Is it not this: "Out with the sword, and run the dragon through with the spear?"
Secondly, seeing that these words, "that whoever believes", specifically point out the aim and intention of God in this business, if it restricts the object that is beloved, then the salvation of believers is confessedly the aim of God in this business, and that salvation distinguishes believers from others; and if this is so, then the general ransom is an empty sound, because it has no dependence on the purpose of God. His intention is carried out in giving his Son only for the salvation of believers, and that is done determinately, unless you think God is ignorant of those who will believe.
These words, then, "whoever believes", designate the means by which the Lord will bring us to participate in life through his Son whom he gave for us; and the following words about having life everlasting, make out the whole counsel of God in this matter, subordinate to his own glory; it follows from these, That God did not give his Son, 1. for those who never believe; 2. much less for those who never hear of him, and so evidently lack the means of faith;
3. for those on whom he has determined not to bestow effectual grace so that they might believe.
Now, let the reader take up the several parts of these opposite expositions, weigh them all, try all things, with a special consideration of the love of God, and inquire seriously whether a general affection and a natural velleity toward the good of all is consistent with the perishing of anyone who is so beloved. Or is it rather the special, transcendent love of the Father toward his elect, as asserted before, that is consistent with the salvation of every one of his beloved; and then determine whether it is a general ransom, fruitless with regard to most for whom it was paid, or the effectual redemption of the elect only, which has the firmest and strongest foundation in these words of our Savior. Remember that these passages are produced as the strongest support of the adverse cause. And yet it is most apparent that both the cause of sending Christ and the end intended by the Lord in doing so, as expressed in these very passages, are altogether inconsistent with a general ransom or a general affection toward all men.