without breach of conscience it can hardly be denied, it will appear as clear as the light of the sun, that by world, in the place under contest, cannot be meant the elect only. The tenor of the two next foregoing verses, for together they make but one entire sentence, is this: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him, or every one believing in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John iii. 14, 15. So that the effect here mentioned and expressed is the salvation and everlasting happiness of what person or persons soever of men, or of mankind, shall believe in Christ. The reason or cause hereof our Saviour discovers and asserts in the words in hand: “For God so loved the world, that he gave,” &c. If now by the world we shall understand only the elect, the reason or cause here assigned of the pre-mentioned effect will be found inadequate to it, and insufficient to produce it. For God’s love to the elect, and his giving his Son for their salvation only, is no sufficient cause to procure or produce the salvation of whosoever shall or should believe on him. For certain it is, that there is salvation in Christ for no more than for whom God intended there should be salvation in him. If there be salvation in him for none but the elect only, then is it not true that whosoever believes in him shall be saved. For certain it is, that no man’s believing puts any salvation into Christ for him; therefore if it were not there for him before he believed, yea, or, whether he believed or not, neither would it be there for him, though or in case he should believe.
6. Lastly, by the word world, in the Scripture in hand, is not meant the elect, nor any thing equivalent hereunto, is evident also from the context in the verse and words immediately following, where our Saviour goeth forward in his doctrine, thus: “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.” John iii. 17. This particle, for, being, as we lately noted, casual or ratiocinative, plainly showeth that he useth the world, or speaks of the world in this verse, where he speaks of the condemnation of it, in the same sense, wherein he spake of it in the former, and the means of the salvation of it; otherwise he should not argue ad idem, i.e. to the point in hand. Now then to make him here to say, that God sent not his Son into the world, i.e. to take the nature or to live in the condition of the elect, to condemn the elect, but that the elect &c. is to make him speak as no man, I suppose spake, but not for excellency of wisdom or gracefulness of expression, but for weakness in both. To say that God sent not his son into the world to condemn his elect, were but to beat the air, or to fight against a shadow; I mean, solemnly to deny that, which no man was ever likely to imagine of affirm. For how, or by what way of apprehension, should it ever enter into any man’s thought that God should send his Son into the world to condemn those, whom out of his infinite love he had from eternity decreed to save with strong hand, out-stretched arm, and power omnipotent and invincible? Or are not these the elect, in their notion of election, with whom we have now to do? Therefore cerntainly, the world, in the Scripture before us, doth not signify the elect.
A second interpretation of this word asserted by some, is, that by the world is meant genus humanum, for mankind indefinitely considered. If I rightly understand the mind of those who thus interpret, as neither importing all, nor any of the individuums or persons contained in or under this species or kind, but only the specifical nature of man common to them all; as when the Jews said of the Centurion, that he loved their nation, Luke vii. 5, their meaning was not either that he loved all that were Jews without exception of any; nor yet that he loved any particular person of them more than another; but only that he was lovingly disposed towards them as they were such a particular nation, as viz., Jews. But that this interpretation either falls in, in substance, with the former, and so is already condemned with the condemnation thereof; or else, with the third and last, which, as we shall hear presently, findeth in this Scripture a love in God towards all the individual persons of mankind, without exception of any; or else, that it vanisheth into nothing, and hath no substance at all in it, may be thus demonstrated.
If by mankind, indefinitely considered, be neither meant a special or determinate number of the persons of men (which the former interpretation asserteth) nor yet the universality, or entire body of men, consisting of all particular persons of men which either have been, now are, and shall be hereafter (which the third interpretation avoucheth) then is it only the nature of man abstractively considered, which we may with the schoolmen, call humanitas, humanity, or the specifical nature of man, not the persons of men, some, or all, which God precisely love with that love, out of which he gave his only begotten Son. If so, then it undeniably follows, that Christ was given out of as much love to one person of mankind as to another, or, which is the same, not out of any love to any at all. For certain it is, that humanitas, or the specifical nature of man, is not the person of any man. And so, according to this interpretation, God should love the reprobates as much as the elect, and consequently give his only begotten Son to death, as well for the one as the other.
Besides, if it were the human nature, indefinitely considered, (in the sense pre-declared) which God is here said to have loved with that love, out of which he gave his only begotten Son, from hence also it must needs follow, inasmuch as the reprobate (so called) partakes every whit as much in this nature as the elect, that Christ was given as much for the one as for the other. Again, if by the world, be meant the human nature, in the sense distinguished, the distributive particle, whosoever, with the following words, will be found incongruous, and no ways answering the former part of these verse, either in sense or regularity of construction. For the human nature is but simply one and the same nature or thing, nor doth it contain any plurality of species, or individual human natures under it; whereas a distribution cannot be but of some general, which containeth many particulars under it. And upon the supposal of such sense of the word world, to make the construction regular in the latter part of the verse, the tenor of the whole must run thus: For God loved the human nature, that he gave his only begotten Son, that what human nature soever believed in him should not perish, &c. If this construction be ridiculous, so must that interpretation needs be which produceth it. Lastly, (to answer the illustration of this interpretation of this interpretation from Luke vii.) the Jews, who said the Centurion loved their nation, did not suppose that he loved only a handful or small number of their nation, and hated all the rest with an irreconcilable hatred; nor did they say, that he so loved their nation, that whosoever of this nation should trust him, he would be a signal benefactor unto them, or the like: nor did they, by their nation, understand the Jewish race, lineage, or descent, abstractively considered, and without reference to any person or persons whatsoever of this nation (for their nation, in this sense, was wholly incapable of any fruit or expression of his love, or having a synagogue built to it or for it.)
So that this instance no way parallels or fits the interpretation of the word world, for the illustration or confirmation whereof it is brought. But the plain meaning of the Jews saying that the Centurion loved their nation, was this, that he was ready and willing to do any office or service of love to any person or persons of their nation, because of their national relation, rather than to any other, upon such a consideration, when he had opportunity. The two pretenders being nonsuited, a sufficient way, I presume, is made for the admission of the right heir. Therefore,
The third, and last interpretation of the world, in the Scripture under debate, is, that by it is signified universum genus humanum. The whole compass of mankind, or all and every individual person subsisting at any time in the human nature, without exception of any. This exposition stands with the ordinary and best known signification of the words, and withal gives smoothness and regularity of construction unto the period or sentence, which both the former (as upon examination hath been found) take from it, is of perfect accord with the context, and besides magnifies the love of God in the freeness, fullness, and extent of it incomparably above and beyond either of them; for,
1. The word world, kosmos, very frequently and familiarly both in the Scriptures themselves, and in other authors, signifieth the generality of mankind, or of men: in the Scriptures especially, when it relates unto persons, it seldom or never signifieth any thing else, but either the generality or men simply and absolutely, or else that generality of men which comparatively comprehendeth all men. I mean the whole number of wicked and
