|
|
CHAPTER 3
MORE PARTICULARLY OF THE IMMEDIATE END OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST, WITH THE SEVERAL WAYS WHEREBY IT IS DESIGNED.
WHAT
the Scripture affirms in this particular we laid down 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 maketh
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 saith hereunto, the sundry places
whereof we shall range under these heads: — First, Those
that hold out the intention and counsel of God, with 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.
I.
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 is come to save that which
was lost;” which words he repeateth 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 Christs-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 bringeth home; so unless he findeth that
which he seeketh for, unless he recover that which he cometh to
save, he faileth of his purpose.
Secondly,
Matthew 1:21, where the angel declareth 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 doth not accomplish, he fails of the
end of his coming; and if that ought not to be alarmed, surely he
came for no more than towards 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 calleth
“ The children that God gave him,” Hebrews ii 18, 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 farther declareth, Hebrews 2:14, 15,
“Forasmuch 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 nigh 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
all for whom he then took flesh and blood.
Fifthly,
The same purpose and intention we have, Ephesians 5:25-27,
“Christ loved the 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 these two places; nor is it
possible for the wit of man to invent expressions so fully and
livelily to set out the thing we intend, as it is in both these
places by the Holy Ghost. What did Christ do? “He gave
himself,” say both these places alike: “For his
church,” saith one; “For us,” saith 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 glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle,”
saith he to the Ephesians; “To redeem us from all iniquity,
and to purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good
works,” saith he to Titus. I ask now, Are all men of this
church? Are all in that rank of men among whom Paul placeth
himself and Titus? Are all purged, purified, sanctified, made
glorious, brought nigh unto Christ? or doth Christ fail in his
aim towards the greatest part of men? I dare not close with any
of these.
Sixthly,
Will you hear 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 might be sanctified through the truth.”
“For their sakes.”
Whose,
I pray? “The men whom thou hast 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? “Ina kaiejn ajlhqei>a| — “That
they also may be truly sanctified.” “That they,”
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 hath accomplished (“for the
Deliverer that cometh out of Sion turneth away ungodliness from
Jacob,” Romans 11:26); — and that herein there was a
concurrence of the will of his Father, yea, that this his purpose
was to fulfill the will of his Father, which he come to do.
Seventhly,
And that this also was his counsel is apparent, Galatians 1:4;
for our Lord Jesus
“gave himself for our sins, 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 farther declares, Galatians
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 nigh unto God, are all of them in the
purpose of the Father giving his only Son for us.
Eighthly,
I shall add but one place more, of the very many more that might
be cited to this purpose, and that is 2 Corinthians 5:21,
“He hath made him to be sin for us,
who 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, yea, 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 atheistical 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
blood-shedding, 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 quit of all sin, to make righteousness in Christ, to
bring nigh 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 hath any knowledge in these things.
II.
The second rank contains those places which lay down the
actual accomplishment and effect of this oblation, or what it
doth 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, purge your consciences from
dead works to serve the living God.”
Two
things are here ascribed to the blood of Christ; — one
referring to God, “ It obtains eternal redemption;” the
other respecting us, “It purgeth 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, a “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 unto God. Yea, this meritorious purging of our sins is
peculiarly ascribed to his offering, as performed before his
ascension: Hebrews 1:3, “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 hath 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 an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the
purifying of the flesh,” Hebrews 9:13. Certain it is, that
whosoever was either polluted or guilty, for whom there was an
expiation and sacrifice allowed in those carnal ordinances,
“which had a shadow of good things to come,” 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 be 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 bare our
sins;” — where you have both what he did, “ Bare
our sins” (ajnh>negke, he carried them up with him upon
the cross); and what he intended, “That we being dead unto
sins, should live unto 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 53:5, 6, 10-12), 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. 1. Christ, then, so bare 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 a commutation in this point of suffering between Christ and
us: Galatians 3:13, “He delivered us from the curse of the
law, being made a curse for us;” with divers others which we
shall have occasion afterward 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 sometime
alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath
he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present
you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in his sight;”
as
also Ephesians 2:13-16,
“Ye who sometimes were far off are
made nigh 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 plenary 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 ye
have a farther 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. Whence all and every one for whom he died may truly
say, “Who shall lay any thing to our charge? It is God that
justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died,
yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of
God, who also maketh 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 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 kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
and made them unto our God kings and priests,” 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 giveth life to that world for which he gave his
life. It is the world of “ his sheep, for which he layeth
down his life,” John 10:15, even that he might “ give
unto them eternal life, that they might never perish,” John
10:28. So he appeared “to abolish death, and to bring life
and immortality to light,” 2 Timothy 1:10; as also Romans
5:6-10.
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 leisure will not serve for so large a
prosecution of the subject as that would require, and, therefore,
I shall take from the whole this general argument: — If the
death and oblation of Jesus Christ (as a sacrifice to his Father)
doth sanctify all them for whom it was a sacrifice; doth 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 died he 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 supposal was confirmed before; the inference is plain from
Scripture and experience, and the whole argument (if I mistake
not) solid.
III.
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; some of
which 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.” “By his knowledge
shall my righteous servant justify many, for he shall bear their
iniquities,” Isaiah 53:11. “The Son of man came not to
be ministered unto, but to minister, 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 sufferings,” 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 these many are the
“sheep” of Christ, John 10:15; the “children of
God that were scattered abroad,” John 11:52; those whom our
Savior calleth “brethren,” Hebrews 2:11; “the
children that God gave him,” which were “partakers of
flesh and blood,” Hebrews 2:13, 14; and frequently,
“those who were given unto him of his Father,” John
17:2, 6, 9, 11, who should certainly be preserved; the
“sheep” whereof he was the “Shepherd, through the
blood of the everlasting covenant,” Hebrews 13:20; his
“ elect,” Romans 8:33; and his “ people,”
Matthew 1:21; farther explained to be his “visited and
redeemed people, “ Luke 1:68; even the people which he
“foreknew,” Romans 11:2; even such a people as he is
said to have had at Corinth before their conversion; his people
by election, Acts 18:10; the people that he “ suffered for
without the gate, that he might sanctify them,” 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
9:27. 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 blood-shedding 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 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.”
Rep.
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. Resides, 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.”
Rep.
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 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 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.”
Rep.
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 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), 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.”
Rep.
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
x., 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 that I 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 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 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 and Gentiles uncalled.”
Rep.
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.”
Rep.
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.”
Rep.
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.”
Rep.
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.