The whole world contains all and every man in the world; Christ died for the whole ivorld: 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
> Remon. Scripta Synod.
318 THE DEATH OF DEATH. [BOOK IV.
second, for the world contained, or men in the world, as is too ap- parent to be made a thing to be proved. So that unless ye render the conclusion, Therefore Christ died for that vjhich contains all the men in the tuorld, 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 bo from the thing itself, but from the signification of the word in the Scripture ; as thus : —
This word ^' world" in the Scripture signifieih all and every man in the world; hut Christ is said to die for the world: ergo, etc.
Ans. The first proposition, concerning the signification and meaning of the word ivorld is either universal, comprehending all places where it is used, or particular, intending only some. If the first, the pro- position 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 "ivorld" signifieth all and every man in the world, of all ages, times, and conditions; hut 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 pro- position. 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 ar- gument must run thus: —
In some few places of Scripture the luord "luorld" doth signify all and every man in the tuorld; but in some few places Christ is said to die for the ivorld {though not in express tvords, yet in terms equivalent): ergo, etc.
Ans. This argument is so weak, ridiculous, and sophistically false, that it cannot but be evident to any one ; 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 par- ticular 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 argu- ment in this form : —
If the word "ivorld" doth signify all and every man that ever were or sJiali he, in those places where Christ is said to die for the
OBJECTIONS AND TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE CONSIDERED. 319
luorld, then Christ died for all and every man; hut 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 Saviour; all the other places seem only to hold out the suffi- ciency of his oblation for all, which we also maintain. Secondly, We absolutely deny the assumption, and appeal for trial to a consi- deration 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 in- deed very weakness), and that for their sakes who, having caught hold of the word ivorld, 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 ivorld, 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 pro- duced 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, notwith- standing 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 o^vn head, many unanswerable argu- ments against the uDiversality 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 argu- ments from them. And this place is John iii. 1 6, " God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."