Chapter 3

What the Scripture affirms in this particular, we laid down, section 1, in the entrance of the whole discourse; which, now having enlarged in explication of our sense and meaning therein, must be more particularly asserted by an application of the particular places (which are very many) to our Thesis as before declared, whereof this is the sum: Jesus Christ according to the counsel and will of his Father, did offer himself upon the Cross, to the procurement of those things before recounted, and makes continual intercession: with this intent and purpose; that all the good things so procured by his death, might be actually and infallibly bestowed on, and applied to, all and every one for whom he died, according to the will and counsel of God. Let us now see what the Scripture says hereunto, the sundry places whereof we shall range under these heads.

- First, those that hold out the intention and counsel of God, with, section 2, our Savior's own mind, whose will was one with his Father's in this business. - Secondly, those that lay down the actual accomplishment or effect of his oblation, what it did really procure, effect and produce. - Thirdly, those that point out the persons, for whom Christ died, as designed peculiarly to be the object of this work of redemption in the end and purpose of God.

For the first, or those which hold out the counsel, purpose, mind, intention, and will of God, and our Savior in this work. (Matthew 18:11): the Son of Man came to save that which was lost, which words he repeats again upon another occasion (Luke 19:10). In the first place they are in the front of the parable of seeking the lost sheep, in the other, they are in the close of the recovery of lost Zaccheus, and in both places set forth the end of Christ's coming, which was to do the will of his Father, by the recovery of lost sinners; and that as Zaccheus was recovered by conversion, by bringing into the free Covenant, making him a son of Abraham; or as the lost sheep, which he lays upon his shoulder, and brings home; so that unless he finds that which he seeks for, unless he recovers that which he comes to save, he fails of his purpose.

Second (Matthew 1:21), where the Angel declares the end of Christ's coming in the flesh, and consequently of all his sufferings therein, is to the same purpose, he was to save his people from their sins. Whatsoever is required for a complete and perfect saving of his peculiar people from their sins, was intended by his coming; to say that he did but in part, or in some regard effect the work of salvation, is of ill report to Christian ears.

Thirdly, the like expression is that also of Paul (1 Timothy 1:15), evidently declaring the end of our Savior's coming according to the will and Counsel of his Father, namely, to save sinners; not to open a door for them to come in, if they will or can; not to make a way passable, that they may be saved: not to purchase reconciliation and pardon of his Father, which perhaps they shall never enjoy; but actually to save them from all the guilt and power of sin, and from the wrath of God for sin, which if he does not accomplish, he fails of the end of his coming; and if that ought not to be affirmed, surely he came for no more than toward whom that effect is procured. The compact of his Father with him, and his promise made unto him, of seeing his seed, and carrying along the pleasure of the Lord prosperously (Isaiah 53:10-12), I before declared; from which it is apparent, that the decree and purpose of giving actually unto Christ a believing generation, whom he calls the children that God gave him (Hebrews 2:13), is inseparably annexed to the decree of Christ's making his soul an offering for sin, and is the end and aim thereof.

Fourthly, As the Apostle further declares (Hebrews 2:14-15): For as much as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the Devil, and deliver them who through fear of death, etc. Than which words nothing can more clearly set forth the entire end of that whole dispensation of the incarnation and offering of Jesus Christ, even a deliverance of the children whom God gave him from the power of death, Hell, and the Devil, so bringing them near unto God. Nothing at all of the purchasing of a possible deliverance for all and every one: Nay all are not those children which God gave him, all are not delivered from death, and him that had the power of it, and therefore it was not for all for whom he then took flesh and blood.

Fifthly, the same purpose and intention we have (Ephesians 5:25-26): Christ loved his Church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy, and without blemish. As also (Titus 2:14): He gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good works. I think nothing can be clearer than those two places, nor is it possible for the wit of man to invent expressions so fully, and lively to set out the thing we intend, as it is in both these places by the Holy Spirit.

Sixthly, what did Christ do? He gave himself say both these places alike; for whom? For his Church, said one; for us, said the other; both words of equal extent and force, as all men know. To what end did he this? To sanctify and cleanse it, to present it to himself a holy and glorious Church without spot or wrinkle, said he to the Ephesians; to redeem us from all iniquity, and to purify to himself a peculiar people zealous of good works, said he to Titus. I ask now, are all men of this Church? Are all in that rank of men, among whom Paul places himself and Titus? Are all purged, purified, sanctified, made glorious, brought near unto Christ? Or does Christ fail in his aim towards the greatest part of men? I dare not affirm any of these.

Seventhly, Will you have our Savior Christ himself expressing this more evidently, restraining the object, declaring his whole design, and purpose, and affirming the end of his death? (John 17:19): For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified through the truth: for their sakes? Whose I pray? The men whom you have given me out of the world (verse 6). Not the whole world, whom he prayed not for (verse 9). I sanctify myself; whereunto? To the work I am now going about, even to be an oblation; and to what end? That they also may be truly sanctified, that word 'that' there signifies the intent and purpose of Christ, it designs out the end he aimed at, which our hope is, and that is the hope of the Gospel, that he has accomplished, for the deliverer that comes out of Zion, turns away ungodliness from Jacob (Romans 11:26), and that herein there was a concurrence of the will of his Father, yes that this his purpose was to fulfill the will of his Father, which he came to do.

Eighthly, And that this also was his counsel, is apparent (Galatians 1:4): for our Lord Jesus gave himself for our sin, that he might deliver us from this present evil world according to the will of God, and our Father, which will and purpose of his, the Apostle further declares (chapter 4:4-6): God sent forth his Son made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of sons: and because sons, our deliverance from the Law, and thereby our freedom from the guilt of sin; our adoption to sons, receiving the Spirit, and drawing near unto God, are all of them in the purpose of the Father, giving his only Son for us.

Ninthly, I shall add but one place more, of the very many more that might be cited to this purpose, and that in (2 Corinthians 5:21): He has made him to be sin for us that knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. The purpose of God in making his Son to be sin is, that those for whom he was made sin might become righteousness: that was the end of God's sending Christ to be so, and Christ's willingness to become so; now if the Lord did not purpose what is not fulfilled, yes what he knew should never be fulfilled, and what he would not work at all, that it might be fulfilled, (either of which are most impious expressions) then he made Christ sin for no more, than do in the effect become actually righteousness in him, so that the counsel and will of God, with the purpose and intention of Christ by his oblation and bloodshedding, was to fulfill that will and counsel, is from these places made apparent. From all which we draw this argument: that which the Father and the Son intended to accomplish, in, and towards all those for whom Christ died by his death, that is most certainly effected; (if any shall deny this proposition, I will at any time by the Lord's assistance take up the assertion of it). But the Father and his Son intended by the death of Christ, to redeem, purge, sanctify, purify, deliver from death, Satan, the curse of the Law, to remove all sin, to make righteousness in Christ, to bring near unto God, all those for whom he died, as was above proved. Therefore Christ died for all, and only those in and towards whom, all these things recounted are effected: which whether they are all and every one, I leave to all and every one to judge that has any knowledge in these things.

Secondly, the second rank contains those places, which lay down the actual accomplishment, and effect of this oblation, or, section 4, what it does really produce and effect in and towards them, for whom it is an oblation. Such are (Hebrews 9:12, 14): By his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us — the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purges your consciences from dead works to serve the living God. Two things are here observed of the blood of Christ, one referring to God, it obtains eternal redemption, the other respecting us, it purges our consciences from dead works: so that justification with God by procuring for us an eternal redemption from the guilt of our sins, and his wrath due unto them, with sanctification in ourselves, (or as it is called Hebrews 1:3, purging our sins,) is the immediate product of that blood, by which he entered into the holy place, of that oblation which through the eternal Spirit he presented to God. Yes this meritorious purging of our sins is peculiarly ascribed to his offering, as performed before his ascension (Hebrews 1:3): for when he had by himself purged our sins, he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; and again most expressly (Hebrews 9:26): He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, which expiation or putting away of sin by the way of sacrifice, must needs be the actual sanctification of them for whom he was a sacrifice, even as the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifies to the purifying of the flesh (verse 13). Certain it is that whoever was either polluted or guilty, for whom there was an expiation or a sacrifice allowed in those carnal ordinances, which had a shadow of good things to come, that he had truly, first, a legal cleansing and sanctifying to the purifying of the flesh; and secondly, freedom from the punishment which was due to the breach of the law, as it was the rule of conversation to God's people, so much his sacrifice carnally accomplished for him that was admitted thereunto. Now these things being but shadows of good things to come, certainly the sacrifice of Christ did effect spiritually for all them for whom it was a sacrifice, whatever the other could typify out, that is spiritual cleansing by sanctification, and freedom from the guilt of sin, which the places produced do evidently prove. Now whether this is accomplished in all, and for them all, let all that are able judge. Again, Christ by his death and in it is said to bear our sins: so (1 Peter 2:24): His own self bore our sins; where you have, both what he did, bore our sins, he carried them up with him upon the cross, and what he intended, that we being dead unto sin, should live to righteousness, and what was the effect, by his stripes we are healed: which latter as it is taken from the same place of the Prophet, where our Savior is affirmed to bear our iniquities and to have them laid upon him (Isaiah 53:6, 11), so it is expository of the former, and will tell us what Christ did by bearing our sins, which phrase is more than once used in the Scripture to this purpose. Christ then so bore our iniquities by his death, that by virtue of the stripes and afflictions which he underwent in his offering himself for us; this is certainly procured and effected, that we should go free, and not suffer any of those things which he underwent for us. To which also you may refer all those places which evidently hold out an exchange in this point of suffering between Christ and us (Galatians 3:13): He delivered us from the curse, being made a curse for us, with diverse others which we shall have occasion afterwards to mention. Peace also and reconciliation with God, that is, actual peace by the removal of all enmity on both sides, with all the causes of it, is fully ascribed to this oblation (Colossians 1:21-22): and you that were sometimes alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now has he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and blameless and above reproach in his sight. As also (Ephesians 2:13-16): you who were sometimes far off, are made near by the blood of Christ, for he is our peace, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments, that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby. To which add all those places wherein full deliverances from anger, wrath, death, and him that had the power of it, is likewise asserted as the fruit thereof, as (Romans 5:8-10). And you have a further discovery made of the immediate effect of the death of Christ, peace and reconciliation, deliverance from wrath, enmity, and whatever lay against us to keep us from enjoying the love and favor of God; a redemption from all these he effected for his Church with his own blood (Acts 20:28), from which all and every one for whom he died may truly say, Who shall lay anything to our charge? It is God that justifies; who is he that condemns? It is Christ that died, yes, rather that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us (Romans 8:33-34). Which that they are procured for all and every one of the sons of Adam, that they all may use that rejoicing in full assurance, cannot be made to appear; and yet evident it is that so it is with all for whom he died, that these are the effects of his death in and towards them for whom he underwent it; for by his being slain he redeemed them to God by his blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and made them Kings and Priests unto our God (Revelation 5:9-10), for he made an end of their sins, he made reconciliation for their iniquity, and brought in everlasting righteousness (Daniel 9:24). Add also those other places, where our life is ascribed to the death of Christ, and then this enumeration will be perfect (John 6:33): he came down from heaven to give life to the world; sure enough he gives life to that world, for which he gave his life; it is the world of his sheep for which he lays down his life (John 10:15), even that he might give unto them eternal life that they might never perish (verse 28). So he appeared to abolish death to bring life and immortality to light (2 Timothy 1:10), as also (Romans 5:4-10). Now there is none of all these places but will afford a sufficient strength against the general ransom or the universality of the merit of Christ. My time will not serve for so large a prosecution of the subject as that would require, and therefore shall take from the whole this general argument. If the death and oblation of Jesus Christ (as a sacrifice to his Father) does sanctify all them for whom it was a sacrifice, does purge away their sin, redeem them from wrath, curse, and guilt, work for them peace and reconciliation with God, procure for them life and immortality, bearing their iniquities and healing all their diseases, then did he die only for those that are in the event sanctified, purged, redeemed, justified, freed from wrath and death, quickened, saved, etc. But that all are not thus sanctified, freed, etc. is most apparent: and therefore they cannot be said to be the proper object of the death of Christ. The assumption was confirmed before, the inference is plain from scripture experience, and the whole argument (if I mistake not) solid.

Thirdly, many places there are that point out the persons for whom Christ died, as designed peculiarly to be the object of this work of redemption, according to the aim and purpose of God; of which, some we will briefly recount: in some places they are called many. (Matthew 26:28): the blood of the new Testament is shed for many, for the remission of sins: and, by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities (Isaiah 53:11). For the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and give his life a ransom for many (Mark 10:45; Matthew 20:28). He was to bring many sons unto glory, and so was to be the captain of their salvation through suffering (Hebrews 2:10). And though perhaps the word Many itself be not sufficient to restrain the object of Christ's death unto Some, in opposition to All, because Many is sometimes placed absolutely for All, as (Romans 5:19), yet these Many being described in other places to be such, as it is most certain all are not, so it is a full and evident restriction of it; for those Many are the sheep of Christ (John 10:15), the children of God that were scattered abroad (John 11:52), those whom our Savior calls brothers (Hebrews 2:11), the children that God gave him, which were partakers of flesh and blood (verses 13-14), and frequently those who were given unto him of his Father (John 17), who should certainly be preserved. The sheep whereof he was the shepherd through the blood of the covenant (Hebrews 13:20), his elect (Romans 8:34), and his people (Matthew 1:21), further explained to be his visited and redeemed people (Luke 1:68-69), even the people which he did foreknow (Romans 11:2), even such a people as he is said to have at Corinth before their conversion; his people by election (Acts 18:10), the people that he suffered without the gate, that he might sanctify (Hebrews 13:12), his Church which he redeemed by his own blood (Acts 20:28), which he loved and gave himself for (Ephesians 5:25), the many, whose sins he took away (Hebrews 9:28), with whom he made a Covenant (Daniel 9:24). Those many being thus described, and set forth with such qualifications as by no means are common to all but proper only to the elect, do most evidently appear to be all and only those that are chosen of God, to obtain eternal life through the offering and bloodshedding of Jesus Christ. Many things are here excepted with much confidence and clamor, that may easily be removed. And so you see the end of the death of Christ, as it is set out in the Scripture.

That we may have the clearer passage, we must remove the hindrances that are laid in the way, by some pretended answers, section 6, and evasions used to escape the force of the argument, drawn from the Scripture, affirming Christ to have died for many, his sheep, his elect, and the like. Now to this it is replied, that this reason, as it is called, is weak and of no force, equivocal, subtle, fraudulent, false, ungodly, deceitful and erroneous; for all these several terms are accumulated to adorn it with (universality of free Grace, page 16). Now this variety of terms, (as I conceive) serves only to declare with what abundance of words the unlearned eloquence of the author is woven with; for such terrible names imposed on that, which we know not well how to contradict, is a strong argument of a weak cause. When the Pharisees were not able to resist the Spirit whereby our Savior spoke, they call him devil and Samaritan. Waters that make a noise are usually but shallow. It is a proverb among the Scythians, that the dogs which bark most, bite least. But let us see what this respondent worthy of such a great opening will bring forth, and hear him speak in his own language, he says then

First, this reason is weak and of no force, for the word 'many,' is often so used, that it both signifies all and every man, and also amplifies or sets forth the greatness of that number, as in (Daniel 12:2; Romans 5:19), and in other places where 'many' cannot, nor is by any Christian understood for less than all men.

Reply: First that if the proof and argument were taken merely from the word many, and not from the annexed description of those many, with the presupposed distinction of all men into several sorts by the purpose of God, this exception would bear some color, but for this see our arguments following: only by the way observe that he that shall divide the inhabitants of any place, as at London, into poor and rich, those that want, and those that abound, afterward affirming that he will bestow his bounty on many at London, on the poor, on those that want, will easily be understood to give it unto, and bestow it upon them only. Secondly, neither of the places quoted prove directly, that many must necessarily in them be taken for all, in (Daniel 12:2) a distribution of the word to the several parts of the affirmation must be allowed, and not an application of it to the whole, as such: and so the sense is, the dead shall arise, many to life, and many to shame: as in another language it would have been expressed: neither are such Hebraisms unusual, besides perhaps it is not improbable, that many are said to rise to life, because as the Apostle says all shall not die. The like also may be said of (Romans 5:19), though the many there seem to be all, yet certainly they are not called so, with any intent to denote all, with an amplification, (which that many should be to all, is not likely) for there is no comparison there instituted at all, between number, and number, of those that died by Adam's disobedience, and those that were made alive, by the righteousness of Christ, but only in the effects of the sin of Adam, and the righteousness of Christ, together with the way and manner of communicating death, and life from the one and the other, whereunto any consideration of the number of the participants of those effects, is not inserted. Thirdly the other places whereby this should be confirmed, I am confident our Author cannot produce, notwithstanding his free inclination of such a reserve, those being what are in this case commonly urged by Arminians, but if he could, they would be no way material to infringe our argument, as appears by what was said before.

Secondly, this reason (he adds) is equivocal, subtle and fraudulent, seeing where all men and every man is affirmed of, the death of Christ, as the ransom and propitiation, and the fruits thereof only is assumed for them; but where the word many is in any place used in this business, there are more ends of the death of Christ, than this one affirmed of.

Reply 1: It is denied that the death of Christ, in any place of Scripture is said to be for all men, or for every man, which with so much confidence is supposed and imposed on us, as a thing acknowledged. 2. That there is any other end of the death of Christ, besides the fruit of his ransom and propitiation, directly intended, and not by accident attending it, is utterly false; yes, what other end, the ransom paid by Christ, and the atonement made by him, can have but the fruits of them, is not imaginable; the end of any work, is the same with the fruit, effect, or product of it: so that this wild distinction, of the ransom and propitiation of Christ with the fruits of them to be for all, and other ends of his death to be only for many; is an assertion neither equivocal, subtle nor fraudulent. 3. The observation, that where the word many, is used, many ends are designed, but where all are spoken of, there only the ransom is intimated, is, first, disadvantageous to the Author's persuasion, yielding the whole argument in hand, by acknowledging that where many are mentioned, there all cannot be understood, because more ends of the death of Christ, than do belong to all are mentioned, and so confessedly all the other answers, to prove that by many, all, are to be understood, are against the Author's own light. Second, it is frivolous for it cannot be proved, that there are more ends of the death of Christ, besides the fruit of his ransom. Third, it is false, for where the death of Christ is spoken of as for many, he is said to give his life a ransom for them (Matthew 20:28), which are the very words where he is said to die for all (1 Timothy 2:6). What difference is there in these, what ground for this observation? Even such as these are diverse others of that Author's observations: as his whole chapter 10 is spent to prove, that wherever there is mention of the Redemption purchased by the oblation of Christ, there they for whom it is purchased are always spoken of in the third Person, as by all, the world, or the like, when yet chapter 1 of his book, himself produces many places to prove this general Redemption, where the persons for whom Christ is said to suffer, are mentioned in the first or second persons (1 Peter 2:24; 1 Peter 3:18; Isaiah 53:5-6; 1 Corinthians 15:4; Galatians 3:13, etc.)

Thirdly, He proceeds, this reason is false, and ungodly, for it is nowhere in scripture said, that Christ died or gave himself a ransom but for many, or only for many, or only for his sheep, and it is ungodliness to add to, or diminish from, the words of God in Scripture.

Reply: To pass by the loving terms of the Author, and allowing a grain to make the sense current. First, that Christ affirming that he gave his life for many, for his sheep, being said to die for his Church, and innumerable places of Scripture witnessing, that all men are not of his sheep, of his Church, we argue and conclude, by just and undeniable consequence, that he died not for those who are not so. If this be adding to the word of God, (being only an exposition and unfolding of his mind therein,) whoever spoke from the word of God and was guiltless.

Secondly, let it be observed, that in the very place where our Savior says, that he gave his life for his sheep, he presently adds, that some are not of his sheep (John 10:26), which if it is not equivalent, to his sheep only, I know not which is.

Thirdly, it were easy to recriminate, but

Fourthly, but said he, this reason is deceitful and erroneous, for the scripture does nowhere say that those many he died for are his sheep, (much less his elect as the reason intends it.) As for the place (John 10:15) usually instanced to this end, it is therein much abused, for our Savior (John 10) did not set forth the difference, between such as he died for, and such as he died not for; or such as he died for so and so, and not so and so, but the difference between those that believe on him, and those who believe not on him (verses 4-5, 14, 26-27). One hears his voice and follows him, the other not. Nor did our Savior here set forth the privileges of all he died for, or for whom he died for so and so, but of those that believe on him through the ministration of the Gospel, and so to know him, and approach to God, and enter the Kingdom by him (verses 3-4, 9, 27). Nor was our Savior here setting forth the excellence of those for whom he died, or died for so only, wherein they are preferred before others, but the excellence of his own love, with the fruits thereof, to those (not only that he died for, but also) that are brought in by his ministration to believe on him (verses 11, 27). Nor was our Savior here treating so much of his ransom giving and propitiation making, as of his ministration of the Gospel, and so of his love and faithfulness therein, wherein he laid down his life, for those ministered to, and therein gave us example, not to make propitiation for sin, but to testify love in suffering.

Reply: I am persuaded that nothing but an acquaintedness, with the condition of the times wherein we live can afford me sanctuary from the censure of the Reader to be lavish of precious hours, in considering and transcribing such confused lines, as these last repeated. But yet seeing better cannot be afforded: we must be content, to view such evasions as these, all whose strength, is in incongruous expressions, incoherent structure, cloudy, windy Phrases, all tending to raise such a mighty fog as that the business in hand might not be perceived, being lost in this smoke and vapor cast out to darken the eyes, and amuse the senses of poor seduced souls. The argument undertaken to be answered, being, that Christ is said to die for many, and those many are described, and designed to be his sheep, as (John 10). What answer I pray or anything like thereunto, is there to be picked out of this confused heap of words which we have recited, so that I might safely pass the whole evasion by, without further observation on it, but only to desire the Reader to observe, how much this one argument presses, and what a nothing, is that heap of confusion which is opposed to it. But yet lest anything should adhere, I will give a few annotations to the place answering the marks wherewith we have noted it; leaving the full vindication of the place, until I come to the pressing of our arguments. I say, then First, that the many Christ died for, were his sheep, was before declared, neither is the place of (John 10) at all abused, our Savior evidently setting forth a difference between them for whom he died, and those for whom he would not die, calling the first his sheep (verse 15), those to whom he would give eternal life (verse 28), those given him by his Father (chapter 17), evidently distinguishing them from others who were not so. Neither is it material what was the primary intention of our Savior in this place from which we do not argue, but from the intention and aim of the words he uses, and the truths he reveals, for that end aimed at, which was the consolation of believers.

Secondly, for the difference between them he died for, so and so, and those he died for so and so, we confess he puts none, for we suppose that this so and so, does neither express, nor intimate anything that may be suitable to any purpose of God, or intent of our Savior in this business, to us for whom he died he died in the same manner, and for the same end.

Thirdly, We deny, that the primary difference that here is made by our Savior, is between believers and not believers, but between elect and not elect, sheep and not sheep, the thing wherein they are thus differenced, being the believing of the one, called hearing of his voice and knowing him, and the not believing of the other: the foundation of these acts being their different condition, in respect of God's purpose, and Christ's love, as is apparent from the antithesis and opposition which you have in (verses 26-27): you believe not because you are not of my sheep, and my sheep hear my voice: first, there is a distinction put in the act, of believing, and hearing, (that is, therewithal to obey) and then is the foundation of this distinction asserted, from their distinguished state and condition, the one being not his sheep, the other being so, even them whom he loved, and gave his life for.

Fourthly, first it is nothing to the business before us, what privileges our Savior here expresses, our question is for whom he says he would give his life, and that only. Second, this frequent repetition of that useless, so and so, serves for nothing but to puzzle the poor ignorant Reader. Third, we deny that Christ died for any but those who shall certainly be brought unto him by the ministration of the Gospel. So that there is not a distinction between only those whom he died for, but also those that are brought in unto him, for he died for his sheep, and his sheep hear his voice, they for whom he died, and those that come into him, may receive different qualifications, but they are not several persons. Fifth, first the question is not at all, to what end our Savior here makes mention of his death, but for whom he died, who are expressly said to be his sheep, which all are not. Second, his intention is to declare the giving of his life for a ransom, and that according to the commandment received of his Father (verse 18). Sixth, first, the love and faithfulness of Jesus Christ, in the ministration of the Gospel, that is, his performing the office of the Mediator of the New Covenant, is seen in nothing more, than in giving his life for a ransom (John 15:13). Second, here is not one word of giving us an example, though in laying down his life he did that also, yet here it is not improved to that purpose. From these brief annotations I doubt not, but that it is apparent, that that long discourse before recited, is nothing but a miserable mistaking of the text and question, which the Author perhaps perceiving, he adds diverse other evasions which follow.

Besides, (said he) the opposition appears here to be, not so much between elect, and not elect, as between Jews called and Gentiles uncalled.

Reply: the opposition is between sheep and not sheep, and that with reference to their election, and not to their vocation: now who would he have signified by the not sheep? Those that were not called, the Gentiles, that is against the text, terming them sheep, that is in designation, though not as yet called (verse 9), and who are the called, the Jews? True they were then outwardly called, yet many of them were not sheep (verse 26). Now truly such evasions from the force of truth as this, by so foul corrupting of the word of God, is no small provocation of the eye of his glory. But he adds.

Besides, there is in Scripture, great difference between sheep, and sheep of his flock and pasture, of which he here speaks (verses 4-5, 11, 15-16).

Reply: First, this unrighteous distinction well explained must needs no doubt, (if any know how) give a great deal of light to the business in hand. Second, if there be a distance to be allowed, it can be nothing, but that the sheep who are simply so called, are those who are only so to Christ, from the donation of his Father, and the sheep of his pasture, those who by the effectual working of the Spirit are actually brought home to Christ, and then of both sorts we have mention in this chapter (verse 16; verse 27), both making up the number of those sheep for whom he gave his life, to whom he gives life. But he proceeds;

Besides, (said he) sheep (verses 4-5, 11, 15) are not mentioned, as all those for whom he died, but as those who by his Ministration are brought in to believe, and enjoy the benefit of his death, and to whom he ministers and communicates the Spirit.

Reply 1: the substance of this and the other exceptions is that by sheep is meant Believers, which is contrary to (verse 9, 16) calling them sheep who are not as yet gathered to his fold. Second, that his sheep are not mentioned as those for whom he died, is in terms contradictory to (verse 15): I lay down my life for my sheep. Third, between those for whom he died; and those whom he brings in, by the ministration of his Spirit, there is no more difference, than is between Peter, James and John, and the three Apostles that were in the Mount with our Savior at his Transfiguration. This is childish sophistry to beg the thing in question, and thrust in, the opinion controverted into the room of an answer. Fourth, that bringing in, which is here mentioned to believe and enjoy the benefit of the death of Christ, is a most special fruit and benefit of that death, certainly to be conferred on all them for whom he died, or else most certainly his death will do them no good at all. Once more and we have done.

Besides, here is more ends of his death mentioned, than ransom or propitiation only, and yet it is not said only for his sheep, and when the ransom or propitiation only is mentioned, it is said for all men. So that this reason appears weak, fraudulent, ungodly and erroneous.

Reply 1: here is no word mentioned nor intimated of the death of Christ, but only that which was accomplished by his being a propitiation, and making his death a ransom for us, with the fruits which certainly and infallibly spring therefrom. Second, if more ends, than one of the death of Christ are here mentioned, and such as belong not unto all, why do you deny, that he speaks here of his Sheep only? Take heed, or you will see the truth. Third, where it is said of all men, I know not, but this I am sure that Christ is said to give his life a ransom, and that only mentioned where it is not said for all, as (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45), and so from those brief annotations I hope any impartial Reader will be able to judge, whether the reason opposed, or the exceptions against it devised, be to be accounted weak, fraudulent, ungodly and erroneous.

Although I fear that in the particular I have already encroached, section 7, upon the Reader's patience, yet I cannot let pass the Discourse immediately following in the same Author, to those exceptions which we last removed, laid by him against the arguments we had in hand without a note, as also an observation of his great abilities, to cast down a man of straw, which himself had set up to manifest his skill in its destruction. To the preceding discourse he adds another exception which he imposes on those that oppose universal redemption, as though it were laid by them against the understanding of the general expressions in the Scripture in that way and sense wherein he conceives them; and it is, that those words were fitted for the time of Christ and his Apostles, having another meaning in them than they seem to import. Now having thus neatly trimmed and set up this man of straw, to whose framing I dare boldly say, not one of his adversaries did ever contribute a penful of ink, to show his rare skill, he charges it with I know not how many errors, blasphemies, lies, set on with exclamations, and vehement outcries, until it tumbles to the ground. Had he not sometimes answered an argument, he would have been thought a most unhappy disputant. Now to make sure that once he would do it, I believe he was very careful that the objection of his own framing, should not be too strong for his own defacing. In the meantime, how blind are they, who admire him for a combatant, who is skillful, only at fencing with his own shadow, and yet with such empty janglings as these, proving what none denies, answering what none objects, is the greatest part of Mr. More's book stuffed.

What Scripture affirms on this point was laid out at the beginning of the whole discourse. Having now expanded on the explanation of our position, we must support it more specifically by applying to our thesis the particular passages that bear on it — and there are very many. Our thesis, in brief, is this: Jesus Christ, according to the counsel and will of His Father, offered Himself on the cross to secure the things described earlier and makes continual intercession — with this intent and purpose: that all the good things procured by His death might be actually and certainly bestowed on and applied to all and every one for whom He died, according to the will and counsel of God. Let us now see what Scripture says to this, organizing the relevant passages under these headings.

- First, those that express the intention and counsel of God and our Savior's own mind — whose will was one with His Father's in this matter. - Second, those that describe the actual accomplishment and effect of His oblation — what it truly procured, effected, and produced. - Third, those that identify the persons for whom Christ died — those specifically designed in God's purpose and end as the objects of this work of redemption.

Regarding the first — the passages that express the counsel, purpose, mind, intention, and will of God and our Savior in this work. Matthew 18:11: "The Son of Man has come to save that which was lost" — words He repeats on another occasion in Luke 19:10. In the first instance they open the parable of the lost sheep. In the second they close the account of the recovered Zaccheus. In both places they describe the end of Christ's coming — to do His Father's will by recovering lost sinners. Just as Zaccheus was recovered through conversion and brought into the free covenant as a son of Abraham, or as the lost sheep is laid on the shepherd's shoulder and brought home — so unless Christ finds what He seeks and recovers what He came to save, He falls short of His purpose.

Second: Matthew 1:21, where the angel declares the end of Christ's coming in the flesh — and consequently of all His sufferings — to the same effect: He was to save His people from their sins. Whatever is required for a complete and perfect saving of His peculiar people from their sins was intended by His coming. To say that He accomplished salvation only in part or in some limited sense does not sit well with Christian ears.

Third: the similar statement of Paul in 1 Timothy 1:15 clearly declares the end of our Savior's coming according to His Father's will and counsel — namely, to save sinners. Not to open a door for them to enter if they choose or are able. Not to make a path passable so that they might be saved. Not to purchase reconciliation and pardon from His Father which they might never enjoy — but actually to save them from all the guilt and power of sin and from God's wrath for sin. If He does not accomplish this, He fails the purpose of His coming. And if that must not be said, then surely He came for no more than those for whom that effect is actually secured. The Father's covenant with Him and the promise made to Him of seeing His offspring and seeing the Lord's pleasure prosper in His hand (Isaiah 53:10-12) — I described this earlier. It is clear from this that the decree and purpose of actually giving Christ a believing generation — whom He calls "the children God has given Me" (Hebrews 2:13) — is inseparably attached to the decree of Christ's making His soul an offering for sin. It is the end and goal of that offering.

Fourth: as the apostle states clearly in Hebrews 2:14-15: "Since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives." Nothing could more plainly set out the entire end of the incarnation and offering of Jesus Christ than these words — the deliverance of the children God gave Him from the power of death, hell, and the devil, bringing them near to God. There is nothing here about purchasing a possible deliverance for all and every person. In fact, not all are those children the Father gave Him. Not all are delivered from death and from the one who held its power. Therefore it was not for all that He took on flesh and blood.

Fifth: the same purpose and intention is found in Ephesians 5:25-26: "Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless." And also in Titus 2:14: "He gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds." I believe nothing could be clearer than these two passages. It would be impossible for human language to express more fully and vividly what we intend than the Holy Spirit has done in both of these places.

Sixth: what did Christ do? He gave Himself — both passages say so. For whom? For His church, says one. For us, says the other. Both expressions carry the same scope and force, as everyone knows. To what end did He do this? To sanctify and cleanse the church, to present her to Himself as a holy and glorious church without spot or wrinkle, says the Ephesians passage. To redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for Himself a special people eager for good works, says the Titus passage. Now I ask: are all people part of this church? Do all fall within the group Paul places himself and Titus in? Are all purged, purified, sanctified, made glorious, and brought near to Christ? Or does Christ fail in His aim toward the greater part of humanity? I dare not claim any of these.

Seventh: do you want our Savior Christ Himself expressing this even more plainly, narrowing the scope, declaring His entire design and purpose, and stating the end of His death? John 17:19: "For their sakes I consecrate Myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth." For whose sakes? The men the Father gave Him out of the world (verse 6). Not the whole world — the world He was not praying for (verse 9). "I consecrate Myself" — to what? To the work He was about to do — to become an offering. And to what end? So that they also might be truly sanctified. The word "that" there expresses the intent and purpose of Christ — it marks out the end He aimed at. This is our hope, the hope of the Gospel: that He has accomplished it. For the deliverer who comes from Zion turns away ungodliness from Jacob (Romans 11:26). And in this His purpose was to fulfill the will of His Father, which is why He came.

Eighth: that this was also His counsel is plain from Galatians 1:4: "Our Lord Jesus Christ gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father." The apostle further describes this will and purpose in Galatians 4:4-6: God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because we are sons, our deliverance from the law, our freedom from the guilt of sin, our adoption as sons, our receiving of the Spirit, and our drawing near to God — all of these are within the purpose of the Father in giving His only Son for us.

Ninth: I will add only one more passage, out of the many that could be cited — 2 Corinthians 5:21: "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." God's purpose in making His Son to be sin was that those for whom He was made sin might become righteousness. That was the end of God's sending Christ to be so, and Christ's willingness to become so. Now if the Lord did not purpose something He knew would never be fulfilled — and that He would not even work to bring about — then there are only two alternatives, both utterly impious. Rather, we conclude that He made Christ sin for no more than those who in effect actually become righteousness in Him. So it is apparent from these passages that the counsel and will of God, together with the purpose and intention of Christ in His oblation and bloodshedding, was to fulfill that will and counsel. From all this we draw the following argument: what the Father and Son intended to accomplish in and toward all those for whom Christ died is most certainly effected. (If anyone denies this premise, I will at any time, by the Lord's help, undertake to defend it.) But the Father and Son intended, through the death of Christ, to redeem, purify, sanctify, and cleanse — to deliver from death, Satan, and the curse of the law, to remove all sin, to make righteousness in Christ, and to bring near to God — all those for whom He died. This was shown above. Therefore Christ died for all and only those in and toward whom all these things are actually accomplished. Whether that is all and every person, I leave to every person with any knowledge of these matters to judge.

The second category contains those passages that describe the actual accomplishment and effect of the oblation — what it really produces and achieves in and toward those for whom it is an offering. Such as Hebrews 9:12, 14: "By His own blood He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption" — and: "The blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanses your conscience from dead works to serve the living God." Two things are here attributed to the blood of Christ: one directed toward God — it obtained eternal redemption — and one directed toward us — it cleanses our consciences from dead works. So justification before God, by securing for us eternal redemption from the guilt of our sins and the wrath due to them, along with sanctification within us (or, as Hebrews 1:3 calls it, the purging of our sins) — these are the immediate products of the blood by which He entered the holy place, the oblation He presented to God through the eternal Spirit. This meritorious purging of our sins is specifically attributed to His offering as accomplished before His ascension (Hebrews 1:3): "When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." And again, most expressly in Hebrews 9:26: "He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." This expiation — this putting away of sin by sacrifice — necessarily involves the actual sanctification of those for whom He was a sacrifice, just as "the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh" (verse 13). It is certain that whoever was either polluted or guilty, and for whom an expiation or sacrifice was offered under those ceremonial ordinances — which were shadows of good things to come — truly received, first, a legal cleansing and sanctifying for the purification of the flesh, and second, freedom from the punishment due for breach of the law as the rule of life for God's people. This much the sacrifice ceremonially accomplished for those to whom it applied. Since these were only shadows of good things to come, the sacrifice of Christ certainly accomplished spiritually for all those for whom it was a sacrifice whatever the other could prefigure — namely, spiritual cleansing through sanctification, and freedom from the guilt of sin. This is plainly proved by the passages cited. Whether this is accomplished in and for all people, let all who are able judge. Again, Christ is said in His death to bear our sins. In 1 Peter 2:24: "He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross" — giving both what He did (bore our sins, carrying them up to the cross), what He intended ("so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness"), and what was its effect ("by His wounds you were healed"). This last phrase is taken from the same passage of the prophet where the Savior is said to bear our iniquities and to have them laid on Him (Isaiah 53:6, 11). It therefore explains what the first phrase means — it tells us what Christ accomplished by bearing our sins. This expression is used more than once in Scripture to this purpose. By bearing our iniquities in His death, Christ secured and brought about — by virtue of the stripes and afflictions He underwent in offering Himself for us — that we should go free and not suffer any of the things He underwent on our behalf. To this you may also refer all those passages that clearly describe an exchange of suffering between Christ and us: Galatians 3:13, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us," along with several others we will have occasion to mention later. Peace and reconciliation with God — actual peace, by the removal of all enmity on both sides together with all its causes — is fully attributed to this oblation in Colossians 1:21-22: "Although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach." Likewise in Ephesians 2:13-16: "You who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity." Add to this all the passages where full deliverance from wrath, death, and the one who held the power of death is also declared to be the fruit of His oblation — as in Romans 5:8-10. In all of this you have a further picture of the immediate effects of Christ's death: peace and reconciliation, deliverance from wrath, enmity, and everything that stood between us and the love and favor of God. He secured this redemption for His church with His own blood (Acts 20:28). Therefore all and every one for whom He died may truly say: "Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us" (Romans 8:33-34). That all of this is secured for every last descendant of Adam — so that all may equally claim this triumphant assurance — cannot be shown. Yet it is certain that all of this belongs to every one for whom He died and that these are the effects of His death in and toward those for whom He bore it. By His being slain He ransomed people for God by His blood from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation, and made them a kingdom and priests to God (Revelation 5:9-10). For He made an end of sin, He made atonement for iniquity, and He brought in everlasting righteousness (Daniel 9:24). Add also those passages where life is attributed to the death of Christ — then the list will be complete. John 6:33: He came down from heaven to give life to the world. Certainly He gives life to the very world for which He gave His life — the world of His sheep, for which He lays down His life (John 10:15), so that He might give them eternal life and they might never perish (verse 28). So He appeared to abolish death and bring life and immortality to light (2 Timothy 1:10), as also in Romans 5:4-10. Every one of these passages provides ample evidence against the general ransom or the universality of Christ's merit. Time does not allow as full a treatment of the subject as it deserves, so I will draw from the whole this general argument: If the death and oblation of Jesus Christ — as a sacrifice to the Father — sanctifies all those for whom it is a sacrifice; purges away their sin; redeems them from wrath, curse, and guilt; works peace and reconciliation with God for them; secures life and immortality for them; bearing their iniquities and healing all their diseases — then He died only for those who in the outcome are sanctified, purged, redeemed, justified, freed from wrath and death, made alive, and saved. But that all are not sanctified, freed, and so on is plainly obvious. Therefore all people cannot be said to be the proper objects of Christ's death. The premise has been established above, the conclusion is plain from Scripture and experience, and the whole argument — if I am not mistaken — is sound.

Third, there are many passages that specifically identify the persons for whom Christ died — those specifically designated in God's purpose and aim as the objects of this work of redemption. We will briefly survey some of these. In several places they are called "many." Matthew 26:28: "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." And: "By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities" (Isaiah 53:11). "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45; Matthew 20:28). He was to bring many sons to glory, and was therefore appointed the captain of their salvation through suffering (Hebrews 2:10). Although perhaps the word "many" alone is not enough to restrict the object of Christ's death to some rather than all — since "many" is sometimes used for all, as in Romans 5:19 — these "many" are described elsewhere in ways that are clearly not true of all people, and this provides a full and evident restriction. For these many are: Christ's sheep (John 10:15); the children of God scattered abroad (John 11:52); those whom our Savior calls brothers (Hebrews 2:11); the children God gave Him who shared in flesh and blood (verses 13-14); and frequently, those given to Him by His Father (John 17), who will certainly be preserved. They are the sheep of whom He is shepherd through the blood of the covenant (Hebrews 13:20); His elect (Romans 8:34); His people (Matthew 1:21) — further described as His visited and redeemed people (Luke 1:68-69); the people He foreknew (Romans 11:2); the people He had at Corinth before their conversion — His people by election (Acts 18:10); the people He suffered outside the gate to sanctify (Hebrews 13:12); His church, which He redeemed with His own blood (Acts 20:28), which He loved and gave Himself for (Ephesians 5:25); the many whose sins He bore (Hebrews 9:28); and those with whom He made a covenant (Daniel 9:27). These many, described and characterized in ways that are by no means common to all but belong only to the elect, most clearly appear to be all and only those chosen by God to obtain eternal life through the offering and bloodshedding of Jesus Christ. Many objections are raised here with great confidence and loud protest, but they can be easily dismissed. And so you see the end of Christ's death as Scripture sets it out.

To clear the path forward, we must remove the obstacles placed in it by certain supposed replies and evasions used to escape the force of the argument drawn from Scripture's description of Christ as dying for many, for His sheep, for His elect, and the like. In response, our argument is called weak and without force, equivocal, subtle, fraudulent, false, ungodly, deceitful, and erroneous — all these labels heaped together to decorate it (as found in a work on the universality of free grace, page 16). This variety of accusations, in my view, serves only to demonstrate the author's abundance of words in place of arguments. Slapping frightening names on what one cannot clearly refute is strong evidence of a weak case. When the Pharisees could not resist the Spirit by which our Savior spoke, they called Him a devil and a Samaritan. Water that makes the most noise is usually the shallowest. The Scythians had a proverb: the dogs that bark the most bite the least. But let us see what this respondent will actually produce after such a grand introduction, and hear him in his own words.

He says first: this argument is weak and without force, because the word "many" is often used to mean all and every person, and also to amplify or describe a great number — as in Daniel 12:2 and Romans 5:19, and in other places where "many" cannot be understood by any Christian as meaning less than all people.

Reply: first, if the argument rested only on the word "many" and not on the descriptions attached to those many — along with the presupposed distinction between people by God's purpose — this exception might have some appearance of force. But for that, see our following arguments. Only note in passing: if someone were to divide the residents of a city — London, say — into rich and poor, those who are in need and those who have plenty, and then said he would bestow his charity on "many" in London, on the poor, on those in need, everyone would easily understand he means to give it to them only. Second, neither of the passages cited directly proves that "many" must necessarily mean all. In Daniel 12:2, the word must be distributed across the separate parts of the statement rather than applied to the whole — so the sense is: the dead shall arise, many to life and many to shame. This is the natural reading, and such Hebrew idioms are not uncommon. It is also not unlikely that "many" are said to rise to life because, as the apostle says, not all will die. Regarding Romans 5:19: although the "many" there may seem to mean all, they are certainly not called "many" with any intent to denote all through amplification — since calling all "many" would be unlikely. Nor is any comparison being made between the number of those who died through Adam's disobedience and the number made righteous through Christ. The comparison is between the effects of Adam's sin and Christ's righteousness, and the manner in which death and life are communicated from each — with no consideration of the number of those who share in those effects. Third, I am confident our author cannot produce the additional passages he implies he is reserving for this point. The passages typically urged by Arminians in such cases would not in any way weaken our argument, as is clear from what was said above.

He adds a second claim: this argument is equivocal, subtle, and fraudulent, because when all men and every man are spoken of in connection with the death of Christ — as ransom and propitiation — only the fruits of His death are assumed to apply to them. But where the word "many" is used, more than just this one end of Christ's death is asserted.

Reply: First, it is denied that the death of Christ is anywhere in Scripture said to be for all men or for every man — which is assumed and pressed on us with great confidence as though it were an acknowledged fact. Second, that there is any end of Christ's death besides the fruit of His ransom and propitiation — an end that is directly intended rather than incidentally accompanying it — is utterly false. What other end could a ransom paid and an atonement made have beyond their fruits? The end of any work is the same as its fruit, effect, and product. So this strange distinction — that the ransom and propitiation of Christ along with their fruits are for all, while other ends of His death are only for many — is neither equivocal nor subtle nor fraudulent. Third, the observation that where "many" is used, multiple ends are in view, but where "all" is used only the ransom is in view — is, first, self-defeating for the author's own position. By acknowledging that where "many" is mentioned, "all" cannot be understood (because more ends of Christ's death are mentioned than belong to all), he concedes the entire argument at hand. All his other answers attempting to show that "many" means "all" are thus against his own position. Second, it is pointless, because it cannot be proved that there are any additional ends of Christ's death beyond the fruit of His ransom. Third, it is false. For where Christ's death is spoken of as for many, He is said to give His life as a ransom for them (Matthew 20:28) — the very same language used where He is said to die for all (1 Timothy 2:6). What difference is there between these? What grounds for this observation? Such observations are typical of this author. For instance, his entire tenth chapter is spent proving that wherever the redemption purchased by Christ's oblation is mentioned, those for whom it was purchased are always spoken of in the third person — as "all," "the world," or the like. Yet in his own first chapter, he cites numerous passages to prove this general redemption where the persons for whom Christ suffered are mentioned in the first or second person (1 Peter 2:24; 1 Peter 3:18; Isaiah 53:5-6; 1 Corinthians 15:4; Galatians 3:13, and others).

Third, he continues: this argument is false and ungodly, because nowhere in Scripture is it said that Christ died or gave Himself as a ransom but for many — or only for many — or only for His sheep. And it is ungodliness to add to or take away from the words of God in Scripture.

Reply: Setting aside the author's friendly language and granting a small concession to make the meaning workable. First: Christ affirmed that He gave His life for many and for His sheep. He is said to have died for His church. Countless Scripture passages testify that not all people are His sheep or His church. From this we conclude by sound and undeniable reasoning that He did not die for those who are not His sheep or church. If drawing this conclusion — which is simply an explanation and unfolding of Scripture's own meaning — is adding to the word of God, then no one who ever spoke from the word of God can be considered innocent.

Second, note that in the very passage where our Savior says He lays down His life for His sheep, He immediately adds that some are not His sheep (John 10:26). If that is not equivalent to saying "for His sheep only," I do not know what would be.

Third, it would be easy to turn the charge around, but let us proceed.

Fourth, the author goes on: this argument is deceitful and erroneous, because Scripture nowhere says that the many He died for are His sheep — much less His elect, as the argument intends. As for the passage in John 10:15 commonly cited for this point, it is badly misread. Our Savior in John 10 was not setting out the difference between those for whom He died and those for whom He did not die — or between those for whom He died in one way versus another. He was setting out the difference between those who believe in Him and those who do not (verses 4-5, 14, 26-27). One hears His voice and follows Him; the other does not. Nor was our Savior there laying out the privileges of all He died for — or died for in one specific way — but the privileges of those who believe in Him through the ministry of the Gospel, and so come to know Him, draw near to God, and enter the kingdom through Him (verses 3-4, 9, 27). Nor was our Savior there showing the excellence of those for whom He died or died for in one particular way — in contrast to others — but the excellence of His own love and its fruits toward those who are brought in by His ministry to believe in Him (verses 11, 27). Nor was our Savior speaking primarily about paying a ransom or making propitiation, but about His ministry of the Gospel — and so about His love and faithfulness in that ministry, in which He laid down His life for those He ministered to. In this He gave us an example — not of making propitiation for sin, but of testifying love through suffering.

Reply: I am persuaded that only familiarity with the character of our times can excuse me in the reader's eyes for spending precious hours examining and transcribing such confused lines as those just quoted. But since nothing better is offered, we must be content to examine such evasions as these — evasions whose only strength lies in incoherent expressions, disjointed structure, and cloudy, windy phrases, all designed to raise such a thick fog that the matter at hand cannot be seen, lost in the smoke and vapor thrown up to cloud the eyes and confuse the minds of poor, misled souls. The argument being answered is this: Christ is said to die for many, and those many are described and identified as His sheep, as in John 10. I ask: what answer — or anything resembling an answer — can be extracted from the confused heap of words just quoted? I could safely set aside the entire evasion without further comment, and only invite the reader to note how much force this one argument carries — and what a heap of nothing is thrown up against it. But lest anything should stick, I will make a few annotations on the passage, responding to the specific points that were marked — leaving the full vindication of the passage for when I press our arguments directly.

I say first: that the many Christ died for are His sheep was established above. Nor is John 10 misread at all. Our Savior clearly sets out a difference between those for whom He died and those for whom He would not die, calling the first His sheep (verse 15) — those to whom He would give eternal life (verse 28), those given to Him by His Father (chapter 17) — evidently distinguishing them from others who were not so. Nor does it matter what the primary intention of our Savior in this passage was — we do not argue from His primary intention but from the meaning of the words He uses and the truths He reveals, aimed at the consolation of believers.

Second, as for the distinction between those He died for in one way versus those He died for in another way — we acknowledge no such distinction, since this supposed distinction neither expresses nor implies anything that fits God's purpose or our Savior's intention in this matter. For all those for whom He died, He died in the same manner and for the same end.

Third, we deny that the primary distinction our Savior draws here is between believers and non-believers. The distinction is between the elect and the non-elect, between sheep and non-sheep. What distinguishes them in practice is the believing of the one — called "hearing His voice and knowing Him" — and the not believing of the other. The foundation of this difference lies in their distinct condition with respect to God's purpose and Christ's love, as is clear from the contrast in verses 26-27: "You do not believe because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice." First the distinction in the act is stated — believing versus not believing — and then the foundation of that distinction is given: their different standing, one group not being His sheep and the other being so, even those whom He loved and gave His life for.

He also says: the opposition here appears to be not so much between elect and non-elect as between Jews who are called and Gentiles who are not yet called.

Reply: the opposition is between sheep and non-sheep, with reference to election, not calling. Now who would the non-sheep represent? Those not yet called — the Gentiles? That contradicts the text itself, which calls certain ones sheep in designation even though they have not yet been called (verse 16). And who are the called — the Jews? True, they were outwardly called at that time, yet many of them were not sheep (verse 26). Truly, such evasions from the force of truth — achieved by so blatantly corrupting the word of God — are no small provocation to the One whose eye sees all things. But he adds:

He says: there is in Scripture a significant difference between sheep in general and the sheep of His flock and pasture, which is what He speaks of here (verses 4-5, 11, 15-16).

Reply: first, this supposed distinction, properly explained, will no doubt — if anyone can explain it — shed great light on the matter at hand. Second, if any distance is to be allowed, it can only be this: the sheep who are simply called sheep are those who are Christ's solely by the Father's gift, and the sheep of His pasture are those who by the effective working of the Spirit have been actually brought home to Christ. Both groups are mentioned in this chapter (verse 16; verse 27), and together they make up the full number of those sheep for whom He laid down His life and to whom He gives life. But he continues:

He adds: "sheep" in verses 4-5, 11, and 15 are not mentioned as all those for whom He died, but as those who through His ministry have been brought in to believe and enjoy the benefit of His death, and to whom He ministers and imparts the Spirit.

Reply: first, the substance of this and the other objections is that by "sheep" is meant believers — but this contradicts verses 9 and 16, which call those who have not yet been gathered into His fold "sheep." Second, the claim that His sheep are not mentioned as those for whom He died directly contradicts verse 15: "I lay down My life for the sheep." Third, between those for whom He died and those He brings in by the ministry of His Spirit, there is no more difference than there is between Peter, James, and John and the three apostles who were with our Savior at the transfiguration — they are the same people. This is childish sophistry: simply assuming the very thing in question and inserting the disputed opinion in place of an actual answer. Fourth, the bringing in described here — being brought to believe and enjoy the benefit of Christ's death — is itself one of the most special fruits and benefits of that death. It will certainly be conferred on all for whom He died, or else His death will certainly do them no good at all. One more and we are done.

He says further: more ends of Christ's death are mentioned here than only ransom or propitiation, and yet it is not said "only for His sheep." But when only the ransom or propitiation is mentioned, it is said to be for all men. Therefore, this argument appears weak, fraudulent, ungodly, and erroneous.

Reply: first, nothing is mentioned or implied here concerning the death of Christ except what was accomplished by His being a propitiation and making His death a ransom for us — along with the fruits that certainly and infallibly flow from this. Second, if more ends of Christ's death than one are mentioned here, and such as do not belong to all — why do you deny that He speaks here of His sheep only? Be careful, or you will find yourself seeing the truth. Third, as for where it is said "for all men" — I do not know, but this I am certain of: Christ is said to give His life as a ransom, and this is mentioned precisely in those places where it is not said to be for all, as in Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45. From these brief annotations, I trust any fair-minded reader will be able to judge whether it is the argument being opposed or the objections raised against it that deserve to be called weak, fraudulent, ungodly, and erroneous.

Although I fear I have already stretched the reader's patience on this particular, I cannot pass over the discourse immediately following in the same author without a note — both for what it adds against the arguments we just cleared, and as an illustration of his remarkable skill at knocking down straw men he has built himself. To the preceding discussion he adds another objection, which he attributes to the opponents of universal redemption as though they had actually raised it against his reading of the general scriptural expressions. The supposed objection is that those words were fitted for the time of Christ and His apostles and carry a different meaning than they appear to carry. Having neatly assembled and set up this straw man — to whose construction, I dare say boldly, not one of his opponents contributed so much as a drop of ink — he then proceeds to demolish it with I know not how many charges of error, blasphemy, and falsehood, accompanied by loud exclamations and passionate outcries, until the thing collapses to the ground. Had he not occasionally answered a real argument, one would think him a perfectly hopeless debater. As it is, to make sure he could succeed at least once, I believe he was very careful to make his self-constructed objection not too strong to be refuted by himself. In the meantime, how blind are those who admire him as a capable combatant — a man skilled only at sparring with his own shadow. Yet with empty performances like these, proving what no one denies and answering what no one objects, the greater part of Mr. More's book is stuffed.