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 jDoor ignorant reader. Thirdly, We deny that Christ died for any but those who shall certainly be brought unto him by the minis- tration 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.
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 ex- pressly said to be his "sheep ;" which all are not. Secondly, His inten- tion is, to declare the giving of his life for a ransom, and that accord- ing to the " commandment received of his Father," verse 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 xv. 13. Secondly, Here is not one word of giving us an " example;" though in laying doAvn 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 dis- course 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.
220 THE DEATH OF DEATH. [BOOK II.
" Besides," saith he, " tlie opposition appears here to be not so much between elect and not elect, as between Jews called and Gen- tiles 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, — theGentiles? That is against the text terming them sheep that is in designation, though not as yet called, verse 16. 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 eva- sions 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 pastui'e, of which he here speaketh, verses 4, 5, 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 busi- ness 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, verses 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, 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 ministereth and communicateth spirit."
Rep. 1. The substance of this and other exceptions is, that by sheep is meant believers; which is contrary to verse 16, calling them sheep who are not as yet gatliered into his fold. 2. That his sheep are not mentioned as those for whom he died is in terms con- tradictory to verse 15, "I lay down my life for my sheep." 3. Be- tween those for whom ho died and those whom he brings in by the ministration of his Spirit, there is no more difference than is between Peter, James, and Johu, and the three apostles that were in the mount with our Saviour at his transfiguration. This is childish sophistry, to beg the thing in question, and thrust in the opinion con- troverted into the room of an answer. 4. 'J'hat bringing in which is here mentioned, to believe and enjoy the benefit of the death of Christ, is a most special fruit nnd benefit of that death, certain)}- 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: —
THE PROPER END OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST ASSERTED. 221
" 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 mentionedj it is said, 'For all men.' So that this reason appears weak, fraudulent, ungodly, and erroneous."