text in hand, by the word oikoumenēn, which properly signifies the inhabited part of the world, or the persons of men wheresoever inhabiting in all the world; in which sense it is used, Acts xvii. 31, and in very many places besides in the Scriptures.
A third text of that squadron of Scriptures yet in hand, and the last of this character that we shall insist upon, is that mentioned from 1 John ii. 2, “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” Some, to keep the light of that truth which we have now under assertion, from shining out of this Scripture in their eyes, and in the eyes of others, have essayed, amongst them, a three-fold deprivation of the sense and import of these words, “the whole world.” By the whole world, say some, John means the elect living in all parts of the world; others, men of all sorts and conditions; others, Jews and Gentiles. Some, to avoid the like danger, I mean of being convinced of the truth, and suspecting, as they have caused enough, the security of those interpretations, take sanctuary under the wing of this distinction. Christ, say they, is a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, i.e. of all men in the world in point of sufficiency, but not by way of intention on God’s part. Yet let us afford the honour of a trial to the three interpretations mentioned.
For the first, which, by the whole world, understands only the elect, this hath been resolved into smoke already, in this chapter; where, if the reader please to look back, he may see it smoking still. The other two being confederate with it, for both the one and the other are the same in substance of matter with it, and differ only in terms of explication, must needs fall with it. For both they, who by the whole world, in the Scripture in hand, understand men of all sorts and conditions, by these men of all sorts and conditions understand the elect only; and they also, who interpret Jews and Gentiles, understand no other, either Jews of Gentiles, but the elect only. So that all the three interpretations are interpretatively but one and the same. And, therefore, as in case Abraham’s son by Sarah had been sacrificed, Isaac could not have escaped; no more can any one of the three interpretations mentioned stand, if any one of them fall, there being but one and the same faint spirit of life in them all.
That which their respective assertors plead for their legitimacy, is of no value at all. For their plea is, that the word “world,” and “the whole world,” do in several other places signify sometimes the elect only; sometimes, men of all sorts, ranks, and conditions; sometimes likewise, Jews and Gentiles; and hereupon they conclude, that they may admit of the same sense and signification, both in the Scripture in hand, and in all the other Scriptures usually brought upon the theatre of discourse, for the same end and purpose with it. But the mouth of this plea is easily stopped. For
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,
