Chapter 2

Now we come to the consideration of the objections with which the doctrine we have undeniably confirmed from the word of God is usually assaulted with great noise and clamor. Concerning these I must give you three cautions before I come to lay them down.

The first is this: for my own part I had rather they were all buried than once brought to light in opposition to the truth of God, which they seem to deface. Therefore were it left to my choice, I would not produce any one of them — not that there is any difficulty or weight in them that their removal would be burdensome, but only that I am not willing to be in any way instrumental in giving breath or light to what opposes the truth of God. But because in these times of liberty and error most of them have been already objected to the reader by men lying in wait to deceive, or are likely to be, I shall therefore show you the poison and also furnish you with an antidote against the venom of such self-seekers as our days abound with.

Second, I must ask you: when you hear an objection, do not be carried away by the sound of words, nor allow it to take impression upon your spirits. Remember with how many demonstrations and innumerable places of scripture the truth opposed by them has been confirmed. Rest yourselves until the places be well weighed, the arguments pondered, the answers set down — and then may the Lord direct you to try all things and hold fast that which is good.

Third, that you would diligently observe what comes near the stress of the controversy and the thing in which the difference lies, leaving all other flourishes and swelling words of vanity as of no weight and no importance.

Now the objections laid against the truth we maintain are of two sorts: the first taken from scripture perverted, the other from reason abused. We begin with the first. All the passages of scripture that may in any way seem to contradict our assertion are referred by our strongest adversaries to three heads: first, those passages that affirm that Christ died for the world, or otherwise mention the word 'world' in the business of redemption; second, those that mention 'all' and 'every man' either in the work of Christ's dying for them or where God is said to will their salvation; third, those which affirm that Christ bought or died for some who perish. From these they draw out three principal arguments on which they much insist, all of which we will consider in their several order. The first is taken from the word 'world' and is proposed by them thus.

He who was given out of the love with which God loved the world (John 3:16), who gave himself for the life of the world (John 6:51), and who was a propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2) — to which add John 1:29; John 4:42; 2 Corinthians 5:19 — he was given and died for every man in the world. But the first is true of Christ as appears by the passages alleged. Therefore he died for all and every one.

But granting them the liberty of boasting, we flatly deny the consequence of the first proposition and will by the Lord's help at any time put it to the trial whether we have good cause to do so or not. There are two ways by which they attempt to prove this consequence from 'the world' to 'all and every one': first by reason and the meaning of the word, and second from the consideration of the particular passages urged. We will try them in both.

First, 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.

There are manifestly four terms in this syllogism, arising from the ambiguity of the word 'world,' and so no true middle term on which the weight of the conclusion should hang. The word 'world' in the first proposition is taken for the world as container, in the second for the world as contained — or men in the world — as is too apparent to need proof. So unless you render the conclusion as 'therefore Christ died for that which contains all the men in the world' and assert in the assumption that Christ died for the world as container (which is absurd), this syllogism is most sophistically false. If then any proof will be taken from the word 'world,' it must not be from the thing itself but from the meaning of the word in scripture, argued thus:

This word 'world' in scripture means all and every man in the world. But Christ is said to die for the world. Therefore he died for all and every one.

The first proposition concerning the meaning of the word 'world' is either universal — comprehending all places where it is used — or particular, intending only some. If the first, the proposition is apparently false as was shown before. If the second, then the argument must be formed thus:

In some places in scripture the word 'world' means all and every man in the world of all ages, times, and conditions.

But Christ is said to die for the world. Therefore he died for all and every man.

That this syllogism is no better than the former is most evident — a universal conclusion being inferred from a particular premise. But now the first premise being rightly formed, I have one question about the second or assumption: 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 you say in every place, that is apparently false as has been already shown by the many texts of scripture that restrict the death of Christ to his elect, his sheep, his church, in comparison with which these are but few. If the second, then the argument must run thus:

In some few places of scripture the word 'world' signifies all and every man in the world. But in some few places Christ is said to die for the world. Therefore he died for all and every man.

This argument is so weak, ridiculous, and sophistically false that it cannot but be evident to any one. And yet from the word 'world' itself it cannot be made any better. It concludes a universal from particular affirmatives, and besides contains four terms apparently in the syllogism, unless the 'some places' in the first premise are proved to be the very 'some places' in the assumption — which is precisely the thing in question. So if any strength is to be taken from this word, it must be argued in this form:

If the word 'world' signifies all and every man in those places where Christ is said to die for the world, then Christ died for all and every man. But the word 'world' in all those places where Christ is said to die for the world does signify all and every man in the world. Therefore Christ died for them all.

First, it is in but one place said that Christ gave his life for the world or died for it in a way that holds out the intention of our Savior. All the other places seem only to hold out the sufficiency of his offering for all — which we also maintain. Second, we absolutely deny the assumption and appeal for trial to a consideration of all those particular passages in which such mention is made.

Thus I have called this argument to rule and measure, that it might be evident where its great strength lies — which is indeed great weakness. Those who having caught hold of the word 'world' run presently away with it as though all were clear for universal redemption, when if you ask them to set out and manifest the strength of their reason, they know not what to say but 'the world' and 'the whole world,' understanding neither what they say nor what they affirm. A weaker argument, I dare say, was never produced by rational men in so weighty a cause. This will be further shown by considering the several particular passages brought to support it, which we will take in order.

The first passage we address is that which our adversaries first propose and not a little rest upon. And yet, notwithstanding their clamorous claim, there are not a few who think that very text is as fit and ready to overthrow their whole opinion as Goliath's sword to cut off his own head — many unanswerable arguments against the universality of redemption being easily drawn from the words of that text. May the great peaceable King of his church guide us to make good the interest of truth to the passage in controversy. The passage is John 3:16: 'God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.'

This passage the universalists greatly boast in, for which we are persuaded they have so little cause that we do not doubt with the Lord's assistance to demonstrate that it is destructive to their whole defense. To this end I will give you briefly a double paraphrase of the words: the first containing their meaning, the latter ours. Our adversaries explain the words thus: 'God so loved' — had such a natural inclination and propensity toward the good of — 'the world' — Adam with all and every one of his posterity of all ages, times, and conditions — 'that he sent his only begotten Son,' causing him to be incarnate in the fullness of time, 'to die' — not with a purpose and resolution to save any, but 'that whoever' — whatever persons of those toward whom he had this propensity — 'believes on him, should not perish but have life everlasting,' should have this fruit and issue: to escape death and hell and live eternally. In this explanation of the sense of the passage these things are to be observed.

First, what that love is which was the cause of sending or giving of Christ, which they make to be a natural propensity to the good of all.

Second, who are the objects of this love — all and every man of all generations.

Third, wherein this giving consists — of which I cannot find whether they mean by it the appointment of Christ to be a recoverer or his actual exhibition in the flesh for the accomplishment of his ministry.

Fourth, 'whoever' — they make this distributive of the persons in the world and so not restrictive in its intention to some.

Fifth, that eternal life is the fruit obtained by believers, but not the end intended by God.

Now look in the second place at what we conceive to be the mind of God in those words, whose aim we take to be the advancement and setting forth of the free love of God to lost sinners in sending Christ to procure for them eternal redemption, as may appear in this following paraphrase.

'God' — the Father — 'so loved' — had such a peculiar and transcendent love, being an unchangeable purpose and act of his will concerning their salvation, toward — 'the world' — miserable, sinful, lost men of all sorts, not only Jews but Gentiles also, whom he peculiarly loved — 'that' — intending their salvation as in the last words for the praise of his glorious grace — 'he gave' — 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' — all believers whatsoever, and only they — 'should not perish but have everlasting life' — and so effectually be brought to the obtaining of those glorious things through him which the Lord in his free love had designed for them. In this enlargement of the words for setting forth what we conceive to be the mind of the Holy Spirit in them, these things are to be observed.

First, what we understand by the love of God here — even that act of his will which was the cause of sending his Son Jesus Christ, being the most eminent act of love and favor to the creature. For love is to will good to any, and never did God will greater good to the creature than in appointing his Son for their redemption. I would have it observed, however, 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 end of the other absolutely. Rather they are both coordinate to the same supreme end — the manifestation of God's glory by the way of mercy tempered with justice. But in respect of our understanding of the relation they stand in to one another: this love we say to be that, greater than which there is none.

Second, by the world we understand the elect of God only — though not considered in this place as such, but under a notion that, being true of them, serves for the further exaltation of God's love toward them, which is the end here designed. And this is as they are poor, miserable, lost creatures in the world, of the world, scattered abroad in all places of the world, not tied to Jews or Greeks, but dispersed among any nation, kindred, and language under heaven.

Third, 'that whoever believes' is for us a declaration of the intention of God in sending or giving his Son, containing no distribution of the beloved world, but a direction to the persons whose good was intended — that love being an unchangeable intention of the greatest good.

Fourth, 'should not perish but have everlasting life' 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. It will yield us various arguments, each sufficient to overthrow the general ransom. To make these more firmly grounded and clearly convincing, we will lay down and compare the several words and expressions of this passage about whose interpretation we differ, with the reason for rejecting one sense and embracing the other.

First, the first difference in the interpretation of this place is about the cause of sending Christ, here called 'love.' Second, the second is about the object of this love, here called 'the world.' Third, concerning the intention of God in sending his Son, said to be that believers might be saved.

For the first: by 'love' in this place all our adversaries agree that a natural affection and propensity in God toward the good of the creature lost under sin in general is intended — which moved him to take some way whereby it might possibly be remedied.

We on the contrary hold that by 'love' here is meant not an inclination or propensity of his 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, being the most transcendent and eminent act of God's love to the creature.

That both these interpretations may be weighed to see which is most agreeable to the mind of the Holy Spirit, I will give you first some of the reasons by which we oppose the former interpretation, and second those by which we confirm our own.

First, if no natural affection whereby he should necessarily be carried to anything outside himself can or ought to be ascribed to God, then no such thing is here intended by the word 'love' — for that cannot be here intended which is not in God at all. But that there neither is nor can be any such natural affection in God is most apparent, and may be evidenced by many demonstrations, of which I will briefly recount a few.

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 — being never completed nor perfected — carries along with it a great deal of imperfection and weakness. And not only so, but it must also be exceedingly prejudicial to the absolute blessedness and happiness of Almighty God. For however much anything falls short of fulfilling that toward which it is carried out with any natural or voluntary desire, so much does it fall short of blessedness and happiness. So without impairing the infinite blessedness of the ever-blessed God, no natural affection toward anything that is never to be accomplished can be ascribed to him — such as this general love to all is supposed to be.

Second, if the Lord has a natural affection to all — loving them so far as to send his Son to die for them — where does it come that this affection of his does not receive accomplishment? Why is it hindered and does not produce its effects? Why does the Lord not engage his power for the fulfilling of his desire? They say it does not seem good to his infinite wisdom to do so. Then there is an affection in God toward that which in his wisdom he cannot pursue — and among the sons of men, the worms of the earth, such a thing would be called a brutish affection.

Third, no affection or natural propensity to 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 whereby he should be naturally inclined toward the good of the creature — the passage to prove it clearly has yet to be produced. And that it is contrary to what the scripture assigns to him is apparent: for it describes him as free in showing mercy, every act of it being performed freely, even as he pleases — 'for he has mercy on whom he will have mercy.' Now if every act of mercy shown to any proceeds from the free and distinguishing will of God, as is apparent, then certainly there can be in him no such natural affection. And the truth is, if the Lord should not show mercy and be carried out toward the creature merely upon his own distinguishing will, but should be naturally moved to show mercy to the miserable: first, he should be no more merciful to men than to devils; nor, second, to those that are saved than to those that are damned — for that which is natural must be equal in all its operations, and that which is natural to God must be eternal. Many more effective reasons are produced by our divines for the denial of this natural affection in God, in the resolution of the Arminian distinction of God's antecedent and consequent will, to which the learned reader may turn for satisfaction. So the love mentioned in this place is not that natural affection toward all in general — which does not exist.

Second, it is the special love of God to his elect, as we affirm. The love here intimated is absolutely the most eminent and transcendent love that God ever showed or bore toward any miserable creature. Indeed the intention of our Savior is so to set it forth, as is apparent by the emphatic expressions used in this place. The particles 'so' and 'that' declare no less, pointing out something especially remarkable in the thing affirmed 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 here mentioned. '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 needed them as partakers of his blessedness. 'Loved' — with such an earnest and intense affection consisting in an eternal, unchangeable act and purpose of his will, for the bestowing of the highest good — the choicest and most 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 make them commendable in his eyes. 'That he gave' — he did not, as when he made all the world at first, merely speak the word and it was done, but proceeded further to the performance of a great deal more and longer work. 'His Son' — not any favored or otherwise 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 approach and filial obedience to him, as the angels are called sons of God, for it was not an angel he gave, which yet would have been an expression of most intense love, nor any son by adoption as believers are sons of God, but his begotten Son, begotten of his own person from eternity. 'His only begotten Son' — not any one of his sons, but whereas he had but one only begotten Son, always in his bosom — his Isaac — he gave him. And how could the infinite wisdom of God make or give any higher testimony of his love? Especially adding what is here evidently included though the time was not yet come to express it openly — namely, whereunto he gave his Son, his only one: not to be a king and worshiped in the first place, but 'he spared him not but gave him up to death for us all' (Romans 8:34). And for a close of all, cast your eyes upon his design and purpose in this whole business, and you shall find that it was that believers — those whom he thus loved — might not perish, that is, undergo the utmost misery and wrath to eternity which they had 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. Now if the love here mentioned is the greatest, highest, and chief of all, certainly it cannot be that common affection toward all which we discussed before. For the love by which men are actually and eternally saved is greater than that which may exist with the perishing of men to eternity.

Second, the scripture positively asserts this very love as the chief act of the love of God and what he would have us take notice of in the first place. Romans 5:8: 'God commended his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.' And fully in 1 John 4:9-11: 'In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him. Herein 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 which places the eminence of this love is set forth exceedingly emphatically to believers, with such expressions as can in no way be accommodated to a natural inclination toward the good of all.

Third, seeing all love in God is but to will good to those who are beloved, they certainly are the objects of his love to whom he intends that good which is the issue and effect of that love. But now the issue of this love, or the good intended — not perishing and obtaining eternal life through Christ — happens to and is bestowed on only the elect, the believers. Therefore they certainly are the object of this love, and they alone — which was the thing we had to declare.

Fourth, that love which is the cause of giving Christ is also always the cause of the bestowing of all other good things. Romans 8: 'He that spared not his Son but gave him up to death for us all, how shall he not in him also freely give us all things?' Therefore, if the love there mentioned 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 toward none but those on whom those things are bestowed — who are only the elect, only believers. Who else has grace here or glory hereafter?

Fifth, the word here used means to love so as to rest in that love — which how it can stand with hatred and an eternal purpose of not bestowing effectual grace, as the Lord has toward some, will not easily be made apparent. Now let the Christian reader judge whether by the love of God mentioned in this place is to be understood a natural inclination in God toward the good of all — both elect and reprobate — or the peculiar love of God to his elect, being the fountain of the greatest good that was ever bestowed on the sons of men. This is the first difference about the interpretation of these words.

Second, the second thing in controversy is the object of this love, expressed by the word 'world.' Our adversaries would have it signify all and every man. We hold it to be the elect of God scattered abroad in the world, with a tacit opposition to the nation of the Jews, who alone — excluding all other nations (some few proselytes excepted) before the actual coming of Christ in the flesh — had all the benefits of the promises appropriated to them (Romans 9:4). In this privilege all nations were now to have an equal share. To confirm the universalist exposition of the word, nothing of weight that I could ever see is brought forth but the word itself. For neither the love mentioned at the beginning nor the design pointed at in the end will possibly agree with the meaning they impose on the word in the middle. Besides, how weak and infirm an inference from the word 'world' is — by reason of its ambiguous and wonderfully varied meanings — we have at large declared before.

Three poor shifts I find in the great champions of this cause to prove that the word 'world' does not signify the elect. We might justly have expected some reasons to prove that it signifies or implies all and every man in the world — which was their own assertion. But of this there is deep silence, being doubtless conscious of their inability for any such performance. Only as I said, three pretended arguments they bring to disprove what no one went about to prove — namely that by 'the world' is meant the elect as such. For though we conceive the persons directly designed here — men in and of the world — to be all and only God's elect, yet we do not say they are here so considered, but rather under another notion as men scattered over all the world, in themselves subject to misery and sin. So whoever will oppose our exposition of this place must either first prove that by 'the world' here must necessarily be understood all and every man in the world, or second that it cannot be taken indefinitely for men in the world who are materially elect, though not here considered under that description. All those vain flourishes that some men make with these words by putting the word 'elect' in the place of 'world' and then coining absurd consequences are quite beside the business at hand. Yet further we deny that by supplying the word 'elect' into the text any absurdity or untruth will justly follow. 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 follows? They say: that some of the elect, whom God so loved as to send his Son for, may perish. Why so? Because it is said that whoever of them believes on him should not perish, which implies that some of them might not believe. Very good! but where is any such implication? God designs the salvation of all those for whom he sends his Son — in express words — and certainly all who shall be saved shall believe. But they say it is in the word 'whoever,' which is distributive of the world into those who believe and those who do not. I answer: first, if this word 'whoever' is distributive, then it is also restrictive of the love of God to some and not to others — to one part of the distribution and not the other. And if it does not restrict the love of God intending the salvation of some, then it is not distributive of the foregoing object of it. And if it does restrict it, then all are not intended in the love which moved God to give his Son. Second, I deny that the word here is distributive of the object of God's love, but only declarative of 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 by him believers might be saved. And this is all that is objected from this place to disprove our interpretation — besides a few worthless cavils.

First, our first reason is taken from what was before proved concerning the nature of that love which is here said to have the world for its object, which cannot be extended to all and every one in the world, as all will confess. Now such is the world here as is beloved with that love which we have described and proved to be here intended — a love that is first the most transcendent and remarkable, second an eternal act of the will of God, third the cause of sending Christ, fourth of giving all good things in and with him, and fifth an assured fountain and spring of salvation to all beloved with it. So the world beloved with this love cannot possibly be all and every one in the world.

Second, the word 'world' in the next verse — which carries along the sense of this and is a continuation of the same matter, being a discovery of the intention of God in giving his Son — must needs signify the elect and believers, or at least only those who in the event are saved. Therefore so also in this verse. It is true, the word 'world' is used three times in that verse in a varied sense, by a device not unusual in scripture as was before declared. The latter occurrence is what this verse has reference to and is of the same meaning as 'the world' in verse 16: 'that the world through him might be saved' — that it should be saved, this shows the aim, purpose, and intention of God toward the world he so loved, even its salvation. Now if this is understood of any but believers, God fails of his aim and intention — which as yet we dare not grant.

Third, it is not unusual with the scripture to call God's chosen people by the name of 'the world,' as also 'all flesh,' 'all nations,' 'all families of the earth,' and the like general expressions. Therefore no wonder if they are so called here, the intention of the place being to exalt and magnify the love of God toward them. So they are called where Christ is said to be their Savior (John 4:42) — which he certainly is only of those who are saved. A Savior of men not saved is a strange thing. In John 6:51, where he is said to give himself for their life — and clearly in verse 33, he gives life to the world — whether this is any but his elect, let all men judge. For Christ himself affirms that he gives life only to his sheep and that those to whom he gives life shall never perish (John 10:27-28). So Romans 4:13: Abraham is said by faith to be heir of the world, who in verse 11 is called the father of the faithful. And Romans 11:12: the fall of the Jews is said to be the riches of the world, which world comprises only believers of all sorts in the world, as the apostle affirmed that the word bore fruit in all the world (Colossians 1:6). This is that world which God reconciles to himself, not imputing to them their trespasses (2 Corinthians 5:19), which is attended with blessedness in all those to whom that non-imputation belongs (Romans 4). And for evident reasons they have this appellation: first, to distinguish the object of this love of God from angelic nature which utterly perished in all the fallen individuals — which the scripture also carefully does in express terms (Hebrews 2:16); second, to overturn and reject the boasting of the Jews as though all the means of grace and all the benefits intended were appropriated to them; third, to denote that great distinction between the old administration of the covenant, when it was tied up to one people, family, and nation, and the new, when all boundaries being broken down, the fullness of the Gentiles and the corners of the world were to be made obedient to the scepter of Christ; fourth, to manifest the condition of the elect themselves who are thus beloved, for the declaration of the free grace of God toward them — they being stripped of all qualifications but only those that speak of them as earthly, lost, miserable, and corrupted. So this much at least may easily be obtained: that from the word itself, nothing can be justly opposed to our exposition of this place.

Fourth, if every one in the world is intended, why does the Lord not reveal Jesus Christ to every one whom he so loved? Strange, that the Lord should so love men as to give his only begotten Son for them, and yet not once by any means signify this his love to them — as to innumerable he does not. That he should love them and yet order things so in his wise dispensation that this love should be altogether vain and fruitless. Love them, and yet determine that they shall receive no good by his love, though his love is indeed a willing of the greatest good to them.

Fifth, unless you will grant: first, that some are both beloved and hated from eternity; second, that the love of God toward innumerable is fruitless and vain; third, that the Son of God is given for those who never hear a word of him and who have no power granted to believe in him; fourth, that God is mutable in his love, or else still loves those who are in hell; fifth, that he does not give all things to those to whom he gives his Son, contrary to Romans 8:32; sixth, that he does not certainly know beforehand who shall believe and be saved — unless all these blasphemies and absurdities are granted, it cannot be maintained that by 'the world' here is meant all and every one of mankind. It means only men in common scattered throughout the world — who are the elect.

Third, 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 is by believing: 'that whoever believes,' or 'that every believer.' The intention of these words we take to be the designating or manifesting of the way whereby the elect of God come to be partakers of the fruits of the love here set forth — namely, 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. Something was said before, having proved that the term 'whoever' is not distributive of the object of the love of God. To which we may add these following reasons.

If the object be here restrained, so that some only believe and are saved of them for whose sake Christ is sent, then this restriction and determination of the fruits of this love depends on the will of God, or on the persons themselves. If on the persons themselves, then they make themselves to differ from others, contrary to 1 Corinthians 4:7. If on the will of God, then you make the sense of the place to be: God so loved all, as that but some of them should partake of the fruits of his love.

Seeing that these words, 'that whosoever believes,' do peculiarly point out the aim and intention of God in this business; if it does restrain the object beloved, then the salvation of Believers is confessedly the aim of God in this business, and that distinguished from others; and if so, the general ransom is an empty sound, having no dependence on the purpose of God, his intention being carried out in the giving of his Son only to the salvation of believers.

These words then, 'whosoever believes,' containing a designation of the means whereby the Lord will bring us to a participation of life through his Son whom he gave for us; and the following words of having life everlasting, making out the whole Counsel of God in this matter subordinate to his own glory, it follows:

That God gave not his Son for those who never do believe; much less for those who never hear of him, and so invincibly want means of faith; nor for those on whom he has determined not to bestow effectual grace that they might believe.

Let the Reader weigh all, try all things, especially whether the love of God is only a general affection and a natural willingness to the good of all, which may stand with the perishing of all so beloved: or the peculiar transcendent love of the Father to his elect, as before laid down; and then determine, whether a general ransom, fruitless in respect of the most for whom it was paid, or the effectual Redemption of the elect only, has the firmest and strongest foundation in these words of our Savior.

We now come to the objections with which the doctrine we have clearly confirmed from God's Word is commonly attacked with great noise and argument. I must give three warnings about these before I present them.

The first is this: for my own part I would rather they were never brought to light in opposition to God's truth, which they appear to attack. If it were my choice, I would not raise a single one of them — not because there is any serious difficulty in them that would make answering them burdensome, but only because I have no desire to give any breath or visibility to what opposes God's truth. But because in these days of widespread error most of them have already been placed before readers by those lying in wait to deceive, or are likely to be, I will show you the poison and also equip you with an antidote against the venom of such false teachers as our times are full of.

Second, I ask you: when you hear an objection, do not be swept away by the sound of words or allow it to make an impression on your mind. Remember how many demonstrations and countless Scripture passages have confirmed the truth these objections oppose. Hold your judgment until the passages have been carefully weighed, the arguments considered, and the answers set out — and then may the Lord guide you to test all things and hold fast what is good.

Third, observe carefully what actually touches the heart of the controversy and the real point of difference, setting aside all other rhetorical flourishes and empty words as having no weight or importance.

Now the objections raised against the truth we maintain are of two kinds: the first drawn from Scripture misused, the other from reason abused. We begin with the first. All the Scripture passages that might seem in any way to contradict our position are grouped by our strongest opponents under three headings: first, passages that say Christ died for the world, or otherwise mention the word 'world' in the context of redemption; second, those that mention 'all' and 'every man' either in the work of Christ's dying for them or where God is said to will their salvation; third, those that say Christ bought or died for some who perish. From these they construct three main arguments on which they heavily rely, all of which we will address in order. The first is taken from the word 'world' and is put forward by them as follows.

He who was given out of the love with which God loved the world (John 3:16), who gave Himself for the life of the world (John 6:51), and who was a propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2) — to which add John 1:29; John 4:42; 2 Corinthians 5:19 — was given and died for every person in the world. But the first is true of Christ as the cited passages show. Therefore He died for all and every one.

Granting them the freedom to make this claim, we flatly deny the step from 'the world' to 'all and every one' and are prepared to demonstrate why we are right to do so. They attempt to prove this step in two ways: first by reasoning about the meaning of the word, and second by examining the particular passages cited. We will test both.

First, if they wish to prove it by reasoning, the argument must take this form:

The whole world contains all and every person in the world. Christ died for the whole world. Therefore Christ died for all and every person.

This syllogism obviously contains four terms arising from the ambiguity of the word 'world,' and therefore has no valid middle term on which the conclusion can rest. The word 'world' in the first premise is taken to mean the world as a container, and in the second premise the world as what is contained — the people in the world — which is too obvious to need proof. So unless you make the conclusion 'therefore Christ died for the container of all people in the world' and claim in the premise that Christ died for the world as a physical container — which is absurd — this syllogism is logically false. If then any proof is to be drawn from the word 'world,' it must come not from the physical thing but from the meaning of the word in Scripture, argued as follows:

The word 'world' in Scripture means all and every person in the world. But Christ is said to die for the world. Therefore He died for all and every one.

The first premise about the meaning of the word 'world' is either universal — claiming this is its meaning in all places — or particular, claiming this is its meaning in only some places. If universal, the premise is plainly false as was shown earlier. If particular, then the argument must be constructed as follows:

In some places in Scripture the word 'world' means all and every person in the world of all ages, times, and conditions.

But Christ is said to die for the world. Therefore He died for all and every person.

That this syllogism is no better than the previous one is evident — a universal conclusion is being drawn from a particular premise. Now with the first premise rightly stated, I have one question about the second premise: is it claimed that Christ is said to have died for the world in every place where His death is mentioned, or only in some? If in every place, that is plainly false, as has already been shown by the many Scripture passages that restrict Christ's death to His elect, His sheep, His church — passages which far outnumber these. If only in some, then the argument must run as follows:

In some few places of Scripture the word 'world' means all and every person in the world. But in some few places Christ is said to die for the world. Therefore He died for all and every person.

This argument is so weak, confused, and logically invalid that it should be apparent to anyone. And yet from the word 'world' itself it cannot be made any stronger. It draws a universal conclusion from particular premises, and besides obviously contains four terms in the syllogism — unless the 'some places' in the first premise are proved to be the very same 'some places' in the second premise, which is precisely what is in question. So if any force is to be drawn from this word, it must be argued in this form:

If the word 'world' means all and every person in those places where Christ is said to die for the world, then Christ died for all and every person. But the word 'world' in all those places where Christ is said to die for the world does mean all and every person in the world. Therefore Christ died for them all.

First, there is only one place where it is said that Christ gave His life for the world or died for it in a way that holds out our Savior's intention. All the other passages seem only to set forth the sufficiency of His offering for all — which we also affirm. Second, we flatly deny the second premise and invite examination of all those particular passages in which such mention is made.

I have thus called this argument to account and measured it, so that its supposed great strength might be seen for what it is — which is in fact great weakness. Those who seize on the word 'world' and immediately run with it as though the case for universal redemption is settled — when pressed to articulate and demonstrate the strength of their reasoning, they know nothing to say but 'the world' and 'the whole world,' understanding neither what they are saying nor what they are affirming. A weaker argument, I dare say, was never produced by reasonable people in so serious a cause. This will be further shown by examining the specific passages brought forward in support of it, which we will take in order.

The first passage we address is the one our opponents put forward first and rely on heavily. And yet, despite their confident claims, there are many who think that very text is just as well suited to overturn their entire position as Goliath's own sword was suited to cut off his head — many unanswerable arguments against universal redemption being easily drawn from the words of the text itself. May the great and peaceable King of His church guide us to uphold the truth concerning this contested passage. The passage is John 3:16: 'For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.'

The universalists greatly boast in this passage, and yet we are persuaded they have so little justification for doing so that we do not doubt, with the Lord's help, to show that it is destructive to their entire case. To this end I will briefly give you two readings of the words: the first expressing their interpretation, the second ours. Our opponents explain the words as follows: 'God so loved' — had such a natural inclination and tendency toward the good of — 'the world' — Adam with all and every one of his descendants of all ages, times, and conditions — 'that He gave His only begotten Son,' causing Him to become incarnate in the fullness of time, 'to die' — not with a purpose to save anyone in particular, but 'that whoever' — whatever persons among those toward whom He had this inclination — 'believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life,' should receive this result: to escape death and hell and live forever. In this explanation of the passage, the following things are to be noted.

First, what that love is which was the cause of sending or giving Christ — which they make to be a natural inclination toward the good of all.

Second, who the objects of this love are — all and every person of all generations.

Third, what this giving consists of — on which I cannot determine whether they mean by it the appointment of Christ as a Savior or His actual coming in the flesh to accomplish His ministry.

Fourth, 'whoever' — they take this as distributive of the persons in the world, and therefore not intended to restrict to some.

Fifth, that eternal life is the fruit obtained by believers, but not the end God intended.

Now look in the second place at what we believe to be the mind of God in these words, whose purpose we take to be the exaltation and declaration of God's free love to lost sinners in sending Christ to procure for them eternal redemption, as may be seen in the following reading.

'God' — the Father — 'so loved' — had such a special and surpassing love, being an unchangeable purpose and act of His will concerning their salvation, toward — 'the world' — miserable, sinful, lost people of all kinds, not only Jews but Gentiles also, whom He peculiarly loved — 'that' — intending their salvation as the last words show, for the praise of His glorious grace — 'He gave' — prepared a way to prevent their everlasting ruin by appointing and sending — 'His only begotten Son' — to be an all-sufficient Savior to all who look to Him — 'that whoever believes in Him' — all believers without distinction, and only they — 'should not perish but have eternal life' — and so be effectively brought to receive those glorious things through Him that the Lord in His free love had designed for them. In this expanded reading of the words, which we believe reflects the mind of the Holy Spirit, these things are to be noted.

First, what we understand by the love of God here — that act of His will which was the cause of sending His Son Jesus Christ, being the highest act of love and favor toward the creature. For love is willing good to another, and God never willed greater good to the creature than in appointing His Son for their redemption. I should note, however, that I do not make the purpose of sending or giving Christ absolutely subordinate to God's love to His elect, as though the one were the end of the other in an absolute sense. Rather, both are equally directed to the same supreme end — the manifestation of God's glory through mercy combined with justice. But in terms of our understanding of the relationship they bear to each other: this love is, we say, the greatest there is.

Second, by 'the world' we understand the elect of God only — though not considered in this place as such, but under a description that, being true of them, serves to further exalt God's love toward them, which is the purpose here. And this is as they are poor, miserable, lost creatures in the world, of the world, scattered throughout all places of the world, not restricted to Jews or Greeks, but dispersed among every nation, people, and language under heaven.

Third, 'that whoever believes' is for us a declaration of God's intention in sending or giving His Son, and does not distribute the objects of God's love but directs us to the persons whose good was intended — that love being an unchangeable purpose of the greatest good.

Fourth, 'should not perish but have eternal life' expresses the specific aim and intention of God in this matter, which is the certain salvation of believers through Christ. This, in general, is the interpretation of the words we hold. It yields several arguments, each sufficient on its own to overthrow the general ransom. To make these more clearly grounded and convincing, we will lay out and compare the several words and expressions in this passage about whose meaning we differ, with the reasons for rejecting one reading and accepting the other.

First, the first point of difference in interpreting this passage concerns the cause of sending Christ, here called 'love.' Second, the second concerns the object of this love, here called 'the world.' Third, the concern is about God's intention in sending His Son, said to be that believers might be saved.

On the first point: by 'love' in this passage our opponents agree that a natural affection and tendency in God toward the good of creatures lost in sin generally is meant — which moved Him to find some way by which it might possibly be remedied.

We on the contrary hold that 'love' here means not a natural inclination or tendency, but an act of His will — which is where we believe His love is grounded — and an eternal purpose to do good to humanity, being the most surpassing and excellent act of God's love toward the creature.

So that both interpretations may be weighed to see which is most consistent with the mind of the Holy Spirit, I will first give some of the reasons by which we reject the other interpretation, and then the reasons by which we confirm our own.

First, if no natural affection by which God would necessarily be drawn to anything outside Himself can or ought to be attributed to God, then no such thing is here meant by the word 'love' — for what is not in God at all cannot be intended here. But that there neither is nor can be any such natural affection in God is most clear, and can be shown by many demonstrations, of which I will briefly note a few.

First, nothing that involves any imperfection is to be attributed to Almighty God. He is the all-sufficient God; His work is perfect. But a natural affection in God toward the good and salvation of all — an affection that is never completed nor fulfilled — carries with it a great deal of imperfection and weakness. And not only that, but it must also be profoundly damaging to the absolute blessedness and happiness of Almighty God. For however much anything falls short of achieving that toward which it reaches with any natural or voluntary desire, so much does it fall short of blessedness and happiness. Therefore, without impairing the infinite blessedness of the ever-blessed God, no natural affection toward anything that will never be accomplished can be attributed to Him — such as this general love for all is supposed to be.

Second, if the Lord has a natural affection for all — loving them to the point of sending His Son to die for them — how is it that this affection never reaches its fulfillment? Why is it hindered and does not produce its effects? Why does the Lord not engage His power to fulfill His own desire? They say it does not seem good to His infinite wisdom to do so. Then there is an affection in God toward something which in His wisdom He cannot pursue — and among ordinary human beings, such a thing would be called a foolish and disordered affection.

Third, no affection or natural tendency toward good is to be attributed to God that Scripture nowhere assigns to Him and that is contrary to what Scripture does assign to Him. Now Scripture nowhere assigns to God any natural affection by which He would be naturally inclined toward the good of the creature — the passage clearly proving it has yet to be produced. And that it is contrary to what Scripture assigns to Him is evident: for Scripture describes Him as free in showing mercy, every act of it being performed freely, even as He pleases — 'for He has mercy on whom He desires to have mercy.' Now if every act of mercy shown to anyone proceeds from the free and distinguishing will of God, as is plain, then there can certainly be no such natural affection in Him. And truly, if the Lord were to show mercy and be moved toward the creature not merely by His own distinguishing will, but were naturally moved to show mercy to the miserable: first, He would be no more merciful to human beings than to demons; and second, no more so to those who are saved than to those who are condemned — for what is natural must operate equally in all cases, and what is natural to God must be eternal. Far more compelling reasons are offered by our theologians for the denial of this natural affection in God, in their response to the Arminian distinction of God's antecedent and consequent will, to which the scholarly reader may turn for fuller treatment. So the love mentioned in this passage is not a natural affection toward all in general — which does not exist.

Second, the love here is the special love of God to His elect, as we affirm. The love here described is absolutely the most outstanding and surpassing love God ever showed or bore toward any miserable creature. Our Savior's clear intention is to set it forth in this way, as is evident from the emphatic expressions used. The words 'so' and 'that' indicate nothing less, pointing to something especially remarkable in what is being affirmed beyond anything else of its kind. Commentators commonly lay emphasis on almost every individual word of the verse in exalting and displaying the love described here. 'So' — that is, to such a degree, to such a remarkable and astonishing height. 'God' — the glorious, all-sufficient God who could have displayed His justice for eternity in the condemnation of all sinners and had no need of them as participants in His blessedness. 'Loved' — with such an earnest and intense affection consisting in an eternal, unchangeable act and purpose of His will for the bestowal of the highest good — the choicest and most powerful love. 'The world' — people in the world, of the world, exposed to the sins and miseries of the world, lying in their own blood, having nothing to commend them in His eyes. 'That He gave' — He did not, as when He first made the whole world, merely speak the word and have it done, but went further and undertook a far greater and longer work. 'His Son' — not some favored or pleasing creature, not sun, moon, or stars, not the rich treasure of His creation — all too inadequate to express this love — but His Son. 'Begotten Son' — and not Son merely by virtue of some close relationship and filial obedience, as angels are called sons of God, for it was not an angel He gave — which would still have been an expression of intense love — nor any son by adoption as believers are sons of God, but His begotten Son, begotten of His own person from eternity. 'His only begotten Son' — not one of many sons, but the One who was His only begotten Son, always in His bosom — His Isaac — He gave Him. And how could the infinite wisdom of God make or give any higher testimony of His love? Especially when we add what is clearly implied here though the time had not yet come to state it openly — that is, to what He gave His Son, His only one: not first to be a king and worshiped, but 'He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all' (Romans 8:32). And as a final point, look at His design and purpose in the whole matter, and you will find that it was so that believers — those He thus loved — might not perish, that is, not undergo the utmost misery and wrath for eternity that they had deserved, but have eternal life, eternal glory with Himself, which they could in no way attain on their own. You will easily grant that greater love has no one than this. Now if the love here described is the greatest, highest, and chief of all, it certainly cannot be that common affection toward all that we discussed earlier. For the love by which people are actually and eternally saved is greater than any love that may coexist with those same people perishing for eternity.

Second, Scripture positively presents this very love as the chief act of God's love and what He most wants us to take notice of. Romans 5:8: 'But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.' And fully in 1 John 4:9-11: 'By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so 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 places the supremacy of this love is described in deeply emphatic terms to believers — terms that cannot in any way be applied to a natural inclination toward the good of all.

Third, since all love in God is nothing but willing good to those who are loved, those are certainly the objects of His love to whom He intends the good that is the fruit and effect of that love. But the fruit of this love — not perishing and obtaining eternal life through Christ — comes to and is given to only the elect, the believers. Therefore they are certainly the object of this love, and they alone — which was the point we had to establish.

Fourth, the love that is the cause of giving Christ is also always the cause of bestowing all other good things. Romans 8: 'He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him 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 along with Him. And so it can only be toward those on whom those things are bestowed — who are only the elect, only believers. Who else receives grace here or glory hereafter?

Fifth, the word used here means to love in such a way as to rest in that love — which is difficult to reconcile with hatred and an eternal purpose of not bestowing effectual grace, as the Lord has toward some. Now let the Christian reader judge whether the love of God mentioned in this passage means a natural inclination in God toward the good of all — both elect and reprobate — or the particular love of God to His elect, being the source of the greatest good ever bestowed on human beings. This is the first point of difference in the interpretation of these words.

Second, the second point of controversy is the object of this love, expressed by the word 'world.' Our opponents would have it mean all and every person. We hold it to mean the elect of God scattered throughout the world, with an implicit contrast to the nation of the Jews, who alone — excluding all other nations, apart from a few converts, before Christ's actual coming in the flesh — had all the benefits of the promises granted to them (Romans 9:4). Now all nations were to have an equal share in this privilege. To support the universalist reading of the word, nothing of real weight that I could ever find is brought forward except the word itself. For neither the love described at the beginning nor the goal pointed to at the end can possibly agree with the meaning they impose on the middle word. Besides, we have already explained at length how weak an inference from the word 'world' is — given its ambiguous and remarkably varied meanings in Scripture.

I find three weak attempts in the leading advocates of this position to prove that the word 'world' does not mean the elect. We might rightly have expected some reasons to prove that it means all and every person in the world — which was their own assertion. But of this there is complete silence, since they are doubtless aware of their inability to make that case. Instead, as I said, they bring three supposed arguments to disprove something no one set out to prove — namely, that 'the world' here means the elect considered as such. For though we believe the persons directly in view here — people in and of the world — are all and only God's elect, we do not say they are considered as such in this passage, but rather under another description, as people scattered over all the world who are in themselves subject to misery and sin. So anyone who wishes to oppose our reading of this passage must either first prove that 'the world' here necessarily means all and every person in the world, or second that it cannot be taken as referring broadly to people in the world who happen to be those God has elected, though they are not here described in those terms. All the empty arguments some people make with these words — substituting the word 'elect' for 'world' and then manufacturing absurd conclusions — are entirely beside the point. We further deny that substituting the word 'elect' into the text leads to any absurdity or untruth. Suppose we were to read it as: 'God so loved the elect that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish' — what problem follows? They say: that some of the elect, whom God so loved as to send His Son for, might perish. Why so? Because it says that whoever of them believes in Him should not perish — implying, they claim, that some might not believe. But where is any such implication? God designs the salvation of all those for whom He sends His Son — He says so in plain words — and certainly all who will be saved will believe. But they say the word 'whoever' distributes the world into those who believe and those who do not. First: if 'whoever' is distributive, then it is also restrictive — it limits God's love as intending salvation to some and not others, to one part of the distribution and not the other. And if it does not restrict God's love intending the salvation of some, then it does not distribute the object of that love. And if it does restrict it, then not everyone is included in the love that moved God to give His Son. Second: I deny that 'whoever' here distributes the object of God's love; it only declares His end and aim in giving Christ in pursuit of that love — namely, that all believers might be saved. So the meaning is: God so loved His elect throughout the world that He gave His Son with this intention, that through Him believers might be saved. And this is all that is objected from this passage to disprove our interpretation — along with a few trivial quibbles.

First, our first reason comes from what was proved earlier about the nature of the love which is here said to have the world as its object — love which cannot extend to all and every person in the world, as everyone will admit. Now 'the world' here is beloved with that love which we have described and shown to be intended here — a love that is first the most surpassing and remarkable, second an eternal act of God's will, third the cause of sending Christ, fourth the cause of giving all good things in and with Him, and fifth an assured source and spring of salvation to all who are loved with it. So the world beloved with this love cannot possibly be all and every person in the world.

Second, the word 'world' in the next verse — which carries the sense of this one forward and is a continuation of the same matter, being a disclosure of God's intention in giving His Son — must mean the elect and believers, or at least only those who in the end are saved. Therefore it means the same in this verse. It is true that the word 'world' appears three times in that verse with varying meanings, which is a device not unusual in Scripture as was explained earlier. The last occurrence is what connects back to this verse and carries the same meaning as 'the world' in verse 16: 'that the world through Him might be saved' — that it should be saved. This shows the aim, purpose, and intention of God toward the world He so loved — namely, its salvation. Now if this is understood of anyone besides believers, God fails to accomplish His aim and intention — which we dare not grant.

Third, it is not unusual in Scripture to call God's chosen people 'the world,' as well as 'all flesh,' 'all nations,' 'all families of the earth,' and similar broad expressions. There is no surprise, then, if they are so called here, the intention of the passage being to exalt and magnify God's love toward them. So they are called where Christ is said to be their Savior (John 4:42) — which He certainly is only of those who are actually saved. A Savior of people who are not saved is a strange concept. In John 6:51, where He is said to give Himself for their life — and clearly in verse 33, He gives life to the world — whether this is anyone other than His elect, let everyone judge. For Christ Himself affirms that He gives life only to His sheep and that those to whom He gives life shall never perish (John 10:27-28). So Romans 4:13: Abraham is said by faith to be heir of the world, and in verse 11 he is called the father of all who believe. And Romans 11:12: the fall of the Jews is said to be the riches of the world — a world comprising only believers of all kinds throughout the world, as the apostle affirmed that the Gospel bore fruit in all the world (Colossians 1:6). This is that world which God reconciles to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them (2 Corinthians 5:19) — an act attended with blessedness for all those to whom that non-imputation belongs (Romans 4). There are clear reasons why they receive this designation: first, to distinguish the objects of God's love from angelic nature, which utterly perished in every fallen individual — as Scripture also carefully specifies in so many words (Hebrews 2:16); second, to overthrow and reject the boasting of the Jews, as though all the means of grace and all intended benefits were reserved for them; third, to mark the great contrast between the old administration of the covenant — restricted to one people, family, and nation — and the new, in which all boundaries having been broken down, the fullness of the Gentiles and the remotest parts of the earth were to be brought under the scepter of Christ; fourth, to reveal the condition of the elect themselves who are so loved, for a declaration of God's free grace toward them — they being stripped of every qualification except those that describe them as earthly, lost, miserable, and corrupted. So at the very least this much may easily be established: that from the word itself, nothing can justly be raised against our reading of this passage.

Fourth, if every individual in the world is intended, why does the Lord not reveal Jesus Christ to every one He so loved? It is a strange thing that the Lord should so love people as to give His only begotten Son for them, and yet not once by any means communicate this love to them — as He does not to countless millions. That He should love them and yet so order things in His wise providence that this love should be entirely vain and fruitless. Love them, and yet determine that they shall receive no benefit from His love — even though His love is a willing of the greatest good to them.

Fifth, unless you are willing to grant: first, that some are both loved and hated by God from eternity; second, that God's love toward countless millions is fruitless and vain; third, that the Son of God is given for those who never hear a word of Him and who are given no power to believe in Him; fourth, that God is changeable in His love, or else still loves those who are in hell; fifth, that He does not give all things to those to whom He gives His Son, contrary to Romans 8:32; sixth, that He does not certainly foreknow who will believe and be saved — unless all these blasphemies and absurdities are conceded, it cannot be maintained that 'the world' here means every single individual of humanity. It means only people in general scattered throughout the world — who are the elect.

Third, the third point of difference about these words concerns the means by which the Father's love — whose object is said to be the world — is brought to them. This means is believing: 'that whoever believes,' or 'that every believer.' We take the intention of these words to be the designating and manifesting of the way by which God's elect come to participate in the fruits of the love here described — namely, by faith in Christ, God having appointed faith as the only way by which He will communicate to us the life that is in His Son. Something was said before, having shown that the term 'whoever' does not distribute the object of God's love among all individuals. To that we may add the following reasons.

If the object is restricted here, so that only some of those for whose sake Christ was sent actually believe and are saved, then this restriction depends either on God's will or on the persons themselves. If it depends on the persons themselves, then they make themselves to differ from others — contrary to 1 Corinthians 4:7. If it depends on God's will, then you make the sense of the passage to be: God so loved all, that only some of them should share in the fruits of His love.

Since the words 'that whoever believes' expressly point to God's aim and intention in this matter: if they do restrict the objects of His love, then the salvation of believers is admittedly God's aim — distinguished from others. And if so, the general ransom is an empty phrase with no grounding in God's purpose, His intention in giving His Son being directed only to the salvation of believers.

These words then — 'whoever believes' — contain a designation of the means by which the Lord will bring us to share in life through His Son whom He gave for us; and the following words about having eternal life set out the whole counsel of God in this matter, directed toward His own glory. From this it follows:

That God did not give His Son for those who never believe; much less for those who never hear of Him, and are therefore unavoidably without the means of faith; nor for those on whom He has determined not to bestow the effectual grace by which they might believe.

Let the reader weigh everything, test everything — especially whether the love of God is only a general affection and a natural goodwill toward all, which can stand alongside the perishing of all who are so loved; or whether it is the particular and transcendent love of the Father toward His elect, as set out before. Then determine which has the firmer and stronger foundation in these words of our Savior: a general ransom, fruitless in respect of most for whom it was paid, or the effectual redemption of the elect alone.