That we may have the clearer passage, we must remove the hindrances that are laid in the way by some pretended answers 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, subtile, fraudulent, false, ungodly, deceitful, and erroneous;” for all these several epithets are accumulated to adorn it withal, (“Universality of Free Grace” page 16.) Now, this variety of terms (as I conceive) serves only to declare with what copia verborum the unlearned eloquence of the author is woven withal; for such terrible names imposed on that which we know not well how to gainsay is a strong argument of a weak cause. When the Pharisees were not able to resist the spirit whereby our Savior spake, 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“quid dignum tanto feret hic responsor hiatu” 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 oft so used, that it both signifies "all" and "every" man, and also amplifieth or setteth 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. 1. 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.

2. Neither of the places quoted proves 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 participators of those effects is not inserted.

3. The other places whereby this should he confirmed, I am confident our author cannot produce, notwithstanding his free inclination of such a reserve, these being those which are in this case commonly urged by Arminians; but if he could, they would be no way material to infringe our argument, as appeareth by what was said before.

“Secondly, This reason” he adds, “is equivocal, subtile, 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. Yea, 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 the other ends of his death to be only for many, is an assertion neither equivocal, subtile, nor fraudulent! But I speak to what I conceive the meaning of the place; for the words themselves bear no tolerable sense.

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, —

(1.) 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.

(2.) It is frivolous; for it cannot be proved that there are more ends of the death of Christ besides the fruit of his ransom.

(3.) 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 thevery 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 divers others of that author’s observations, as his whole tenth chapter 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, in chap. 1 of his book, himself produceth many places to prove this general redemption where the persons for whom Christ is said to suffer are mentioned in the first or second person, 1 Peter 2:24, 3:18; Isaiah 53:6, 6; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 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 word of God in Scripture.”

Reply. To pass by the loving terms of the author, and allowing a grain to make the sense current, I say, — First, That Christ affirming that he gave his life for “many” for his “sheep” being said to die for his “ church” and in numerable 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), who ever spake 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 be not equivalent to his sheep only, I know not what is Thirdly, It were easy to recriminate; but, —

Fourthly,

“But” says he, “the reason is deceitful and erroneous, for the Scripture doth nowhere say, — 2. “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, John 10:4, 5, 14, 26, 27. One hear his voice and follow him, the other not. Nor did our Savior here set forth the privileges of all he died for, or for whom he died so and so, but of those that believe on him through the ministration of the gospel,and so do know him, and approach to God, and enter the kingdom by him, John 10:8, 4, 9, 27. Nor was our Savior here setting forth the excellency of those for whom he died, or died for so only, wherein they are preferred before others; but the excellency 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 canting 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, in 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 any thing like thereunto, is there to be picked out of this confused heap of words which we have recited? So thatI might safely pass the whole evasion by without farther observation on it,but only to desire the reader to observe how much this one argument presseth, and what a nothing is that heap of confusion which is opposed to it! But yet, lest any thing 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” John 10:15, —those to whom he would “give eternal life” John 10:28, — those “given him by his Father” John 17:9; 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 truth he reveals for the 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” doth neither express nor intimate any thing that maybe 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 conditions in respect of God’s purpose and Christ’s love, as is apparent from the antithesis and opposition which we have in John 10:26 and 27, “Ye believe not, because ye 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 expresseth; our question is, for whom he says he would give his life’s and that only. Secondly, This frequent repetition of that useless "so and so" serves for nothing but to puzzle the poor ignorant reader.Thirdly, 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“Not 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 dried, and those that come in to him, may receive different qualifications, but they are not several persons.

Fifthly, 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. Secondly, His intention is, to declare the giving of his life for a ransom, and that according to the “commandment received of his Father” John 10:18.

Sixthly, 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, — are seen in nothing more than in giving his life for a ransom, John 15:13. Secondly, 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 divers other evasions, which follow.

“Besides” saith he, “the opposition appears here to be not so much between elect and not elect, as between Jews called andGentiles uncalled.”

Reply. The opposition is between sheep and not sheep, and that with reference to their election, and not to their vocation. Now, whom 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, John 10:16. And who are the called’! the Jews? True, they were then outwardly called; yet many of them were not sheep, John 10:26. 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 speaketh, verses John 10:4, 6, 11, 15, 16.”

Reply. 1. This unrighteous distinction well explained must needs, no doubt(if any know how), give a great deal of light to the business in hand.

2. If there be a distinction to be allowed, it can be nothing but this, 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, John 10:16, 27,both making up the number of those sheep for whom he gave his life, and to whom he giveth life. But he proceeds: —“Besides, sheep, John 10:4, 5, 6, 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 ministereth and communicateth spirit.”

Reply. 1. The substance of this and other exceptions is, that by sheep is meant believers; which is contrary to John 10:16, calling them sheep who are not as yet gathered into his fold.

2. That his sheep are not mentioned as those for whom he died is in terms contradictory to John 10:15, “I lay down my life for my sheep.”

3. 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.

4. 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 are 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 there from.

2. 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.

3. 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 is only mentioned where it is not said for all; as Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45.And so, from these brief annotations, I hope any indifferent 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 this particular I have already intrenched 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 an obelisk; as also an observation of his great abilities to cast down a man of clouds, which himself had set up to manifest his skill in its direction. To the preceding discourse he adds another exception, which he imposeth 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 gaily 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 chargeth it with I know not how many errors, blasphemies, lies, set on — with exclamations and vehement outcries, until it tumble to the ground. Had he not sometimes answered an argument, he would have been thought a most unhappy disputant. Now, to make sure that for 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.

From Death of Death in the Death of Christ, Chapter 3 of Book 2.