1. The determinate signification of a world in one place, is no argument of the same sense or signification of it in another place. Elohim, Gen. i. 1, signifieth him who is by nature alēthinon theon, John xvii, 3, a true God subsisting in three persons; but this is a weak proof that it is to be taken, or that it may be taken in the same sense, Psal. 1xxxii. 6, where the prophet introduceth God speaking thus to, and concerning the rulers of the earth: I have said, “Ye are Elohim,” or gods. That the word kosmos signifieth, 1 Peter iii, 3 as it is translated, “adorning,” is no argument at all that it so signifieth John iii. 16, or in twenty places besides where it is used. Nay, in one and the same period or sentence, where the same word is twice used, it does not follow that because it is used, and must necessarily be taken in such or such a sense, determinately, in one of the places, therefore it must be taken in the same sense likewise in the other. As for example; where Christ saith to the scribe, “Let the dead bury their dead,” Matt. viii. 22, because in the first place, by dead, are meant persons spiritually dead, or dead in sins and trespasses; it no ways follows from hence, that therefore it signifieth such as are spiritually dead in the latter place.
So likewise in that passage of our Saviour, “Whosoever drinketh of this water, shall thirst again; but whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him, shall never thirst,” &c. John iv. 13, 14; by water, in the first place, he clearly meaneth that common and material element commonly known by the name of water. But in the latter, water analogically only, and spiritually so called, viz. the gift of the Spirit, as himself interpreteth, John vii. 39; iv. 14, compared. Therefore, to heap up a multitude of quotations from the Scriptures, wherein the word “world,” or “the whole world,” doth or may signify either a certain species, or determinate kind of persons living up and down the world, or men of all sorts and conditions, or Jews and Gentiles; and from either and evidence, or possibility of any, or all of these significations in these places, to infer either a necessity or possibility of a like signification of the words, either in the Scripture in hand, or in those other places argued in this chapter, is but to beat the air, or build upon the sand.
2. If the said words, either may be taken, or necessarily must be taken, in the places so multiplied, in any of the said significations, it is a sign that there is a sufficient ground of reason in the context respectively, to enforce either the necessity or possibility of such significations. Now then to infer or suppose, either a like necessity of the same signification, where there is no sufficient ground in the context to enforce either, which is the case in hand, but many sufficient grounds to overthrow such significations, as hath been in part already, and shall, God assisting, be out of hand further manifested, as concerning the texts insisted upon in this and the following chapter, is as if I should prove that such or such a man must needs be a prisoner at London, because he is a prisoner in York; or that he hath the liberty of the Tower of London, because he may walk where he pleaseth within the liberties of York Castle. The signification of words in one place, is not to be adjudged by their signification in another, unless both the contexts stand uniformly, and impartially affected towards this signification.
3. That neither of the two texts already opened, will at any hand endure any of the three significations of the world “world,” (mentioned on the previous page) as pretended unto, hath been argued into the clearest evidence. That the text in hand no whit better comports with any of them than they, appeareth thus:
(a.) If any of the said three significations of “the whole world,” should be here admitted, the apostle (or rather the Holy Ghost by the apostle) must be supposed to speak after no better rate of reason than this, “Christ is the propitiation not for our sins only, but also for the sins” of some few particular men besides, whom you know not, or of some few persons, as well of the Gentiles as of the Jews. For none of the three interpretations amounts to anything more than this, as is evident. They who interpret, that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of Jews and Gentiles, by Jews and Gentiles do not mean the two great divisions of men in the world commonly distinguished by these names, in all the particulars of either division, (for this is the sense and interpretation which we contend for) but that small and comparatively inconsiderable remnant of both, who in conclusion come to be actually saved. There is the same consideration of the two other interpretations. Now what weight, or worth of notion, or savour of sense there should be, in informing the Christians here written unto, that Christ was the propitiation for some few men’s sins besides theirs, or as well as theirs, I yet understand not.
(b.) The natural and plain inclination of the context, leads to the interpretation and sense of “the whole world” contended for. For the apostle doth not simply say, that “Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world,” but he saith it by way of an emphatical antithesis, or addition to this saying, that he was “the propitiation for their sins.” “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” This last clause, “but also for the sins of the whole world,” is clearly added by way of augmentation or further strengthening to the ground of their faith and comfort. Now evident it is, that there will be little or nothing found in it tending to any such end, as the further enlargement of their comfort, or strengthening to their faith, above what the former clause presented, but rather that which will be prejudicial and ensnaring unto both, unless these words, “of the whole world,” be taken in their comprehensive signification, I mean for all men in the world without exception. For to say thus unto a believer, or to a professor of the faith of Christ, who is doubtful about the grounds of his faith, and but weak in the comfort of it, (which was apparently the condition of those to whom John writes this epistle, and in consideration whereof that very clause we now speak of was added to the former) “Christ is the propitiation for the sins” of the elect, or of some few particular men, must needs rather add to their doubtings than their faith, and augment their fears rather than their comforts; yea, and would take from rather than add to that ground of consolidation, which he had administered in the former clause, “and he is the propitiation for our sins.” For when I am in suspense, and doubtful in my spirit whether Christ died for me, or be a “propitiation for my sins,” or no, how should it any ways tend or conduce to my establishment, for me to know or consider, that Christ died for his elect, or for some particular men, both of Jews and Gentiles, and for some only? Hath not such a doctrine, or consideration as this, fuel in it to increase the burnings of my fears within me, instead of water to quench or allay them? Or can I be ever a whit the more strengthened to believe that Christ died for me, by believing that he died for some particular men? Or must not my fears in this kind, I mean, whether Christ died for me, or no, needs be the more provoked and enraged within me, by considering, that Christ died for some particular men only?
Or doth such an assertion as this, that Christ died for some particular men, though never so substantially proved, though never so effectually believed, any ways enable, or dispose me to believe, that I am one of those particular men for whom he died? Nay, rather must not rumination or feeding upon such a notion, or conception as that, falling in conjunction with the weakness and doubtfulness of my faith, together with the sense and conscience of my many corruptions and infirmities otherwise, of necessity involve and perplex me with so much the more grievous and inextricable fears, that I am none of those particular men, none of those few for whom alone Christ died? Therefore any of those restrained interpretations of “the whole world,” which we have opposed, do most manifestly oppose the plain scope and drift of the Holy Ghost, which was, as hath been proved, the strengthening or encouragement of their faith upon rich and excellent terms; whereas the true interpretation of the words, and that which we plead, hath the fairest and fullest consistence with such an intent, which can lightly be imagined. For the consideration, that Christ by his death became a propitiation, or made a full atonement for the sins of men, without exception, as it tends to magnify “the unsearchable riches” of the grace “of Christ,” on the one hand, and so is proper to strengthen the hand of every man’s faith; so, on the other hand, it throws down every mountain, and fills every valley, removes all obstructions, takes away all impediments, clears all scruples, and so prepares a plain and smooth way for every man to come unto Christ by believing, yea, and cuts off all occasions of relapses, or faintings in faith afterwards.
How it comes to pass, and how it may well stand with the justice