216 THE DEATH OF DEATH. [BOOK IT.
have been expressed. Neither are .such Hebraisms unusual. Besides, perha2:)S, it is not improbable that many are said to rise to life, be- cause, as the apostle says, " All shall not die/' The like, also, may be said of Kom. v. 1 9. Though the onany there seem to be all, yet cer- tainly 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 wa}^ and manner of communicating death and life from the one and the other; whereuuto any consideration of the number of the participators of those effects is not inserted. 3. 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 Armi- nians; but if he covdd, they would be no way material to infringe our argument, as appeareth by what was said before.
"Secondly, This reason," he adds, "is equivocal, svibtile, and fraudu- lent; 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 anyplace of Scripture, is said to be for " all men" or for " every man ;" which, with so much confidence, is supposed, and imj^osed on us as a thing acknowledged. 2. Tliat 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 joaid 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 tlie ransom and proj)itiation 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.) Dis- advantageous 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 inany, all are to be understood, are against
THE PKOPER END OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST ASSERTED. 217
the author's own light. (2.) It is frivolous; for it cauuot be proved that there are more ends of the death of Christ besides the fruit of his ransom. (8.) 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 wliere- ever there is mention of the redemption purchased by the oblation of Christ, there they for whom it is purchased are always sjjoken of in the third person, as by " all the world," or the like; when yet, in chap. i. 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 Pet. ii. 24, iii. 18; Isa. liii. 5, 6; 1 Cor. xv. 8; Gal. iii. 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 un- godliness 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 x. 26; which, if it be not equivalent to his sheep only, I know not what is. Thirdly, It were easy to recriminate; but, —