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 Rom. v. 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. Thirdly, The other places whereby this should be 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, 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.'

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 other ends of his death to be only for many; is an assertion neither equivocal, subtle, 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; Matt. xx. 28. Which are the very words where he is said to die for all; 1 Tim. ii. 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, chapter one 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 persons; 1 Pet. ii. 24. iii. 18. Isa. liii. 5, 6. 1 Cor. xv. 4. Gal. iii. 13, &c.

Thirdly, He proceeds, 'This reason is false and ungodly, for it is no where 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 Saviour says, that he gave his life for his sheep; he presently adds, that some are not of his sheep; John xx. 26. which if it be not equivalent to his sheep only, I know not which is.

Thirdly, It were easy to recriminate; but,

Fourthly, 'But,' says he, the reason is deceitful and erroneous, for the Scripture doth no where say, 2. "Those many he died for, are his sheep (much less his elect as the reason intends it). As for the place, John x. 15. usually instanced to this end, it is therein much abused; for our Saviour, John x. 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; ver. 4, 5. 14. 26, 27. One hear his voice and follow him, the other not. Nor did our Saviour 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; ver. 3, 4. 9. 27. Nor was our Saviour 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; ver. 11. 27. Nor was our Saviour 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 of 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 colerent [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 vapour 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 x. at all abused; our Saviour evidently setting forth a difference between them for whom he died, and those for whom he would not die, calling the first his sheep; ver. 15. Those to whom he would give eternal life;' ver. 28. Those given him by his Father; chap. xvii. evidently distinguishing them from others who were not so. Neither is it material what was the primary intention of our Saviour 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 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, doth neither express nor intimate any thing that may be suitable to any purpose of God, or intent of our Saviour 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 Saviour, 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 ye have in ver. 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 Saviour here expresseth, our question is, for whom he says he would give his life, 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 died, and those that come in to him, may receive different qualifications, but they are not several persons.

e

Fifthly, First, The question is not at all, to what end our Saviour 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; ver. 18.

f

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, is seen in nothing more, than in giving his life for a ransom; John xv. 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 who would he have signified by the not sheep? Those that were not called, the Gentiles, that is against the