controversie with all clearness and brevity And the substance of it will be reduced to these two debates 1. Whether the sufferings of Christ in general are to be considered as a punishment of sin or as a meer act of dominion 2. Whether the death of Christ in particular were a proper expiatory sacrifice for sin or only an antecedent condition to his exercise of the Office of Priesthood in Heaven 1. Whether the sufferings of Christ in general are to be considered as a punishment of sin or as a meer act of dominion for that it must be one or the other of these two cannot be denyed by our Adversaries for the inflicting those sufferings upon Christ must either proceed from an antecedent meritorious cause or not If they do they are then punishments if not they are meer exercises of power and dominion whatever ends they are intended for and whatever recompence be made for them So Crellius asserts that God as absolute Lord of all had a right of absolute dominion upon the life and body of Christ and therefore might justly deliver him up to death and give his body to the Cross and although Christ by the ordinary force of the Law of Moses had a right to escape so painful and accursed death yet God by the right of dominion had the power of disposal of him because he intended to compensate his torments with a reward infinitely greater than they were but because he saith for great ends the consent of Christ was necessary therefore God did not use his utmost dominion in delivering him up by force as he might have done but he dealt with him by way of command and rewards proposed for obedience and in this sence he did act as a righteous Governor and indulgent Father who encouraged his Son to undergo hard but great things In which we see that he makes the sufferings of Christ an act of meer dominion in God without any antecedent cause as the reason of them only he qualifies this act of dominion with the proposal of a reward for it But we must yet further enquire into their meaning for though here Crellius attributes the sufferings of Christ meerly to Gods dominion without any respect to sin yet elsewhere he will allow a respect that was had to sin antecedently to the sufferings of Christ and that the sins of men were the impulsive cause of them And although Socinus in one place utterly denies any lawful-antecedent cause of the death of Christ besides the will of God and Christ yet Crellius in his Vindication saith by lawful cause he meant meritorius or such upon supposition of which he ought to dye for elsewhere he makes Christ to dye for the cause or by the occasion of our sins which is the same that Crellius means by an impulsive or procatartick cause Which he thus explains we are now to suppose a decree of God not only to give salvation to Mankind but to give us a firm hope of it in this present state now our sins by deserving eternal punishment do hinder the effect of that decree upon us and therefore they were an impulsive cause of the death of Christ by which it was effected that this decree should obtain notwithstanding our sins But we are not to understand as though this were done by any expiation of the guilt of sin by the death of Christ but this effect is hindred by three things by taking away their sins by assuring men that their former sins and present infirmities upon their sincere obedience shall not be imputed to them and that the effect of that decree shall obtain all which saith he is effected morte Christi interveniente the death of Christ intervening but not as the procuring cause So that after all these words he means no more by making our sins an impulsive cause of the death of Christ but that the death of Christ was an argument to confirm to us the truth of his Doctrine which doctrine of his doth give us assurance of these things and that our sins when they are said to be the impulsive cause are not to be considered with a respect to their guilt but to that distrust of God which our sins do raise in us which distrust is in truth according to this sense of Crellius the impulsive cause and not the sins which were the cause or occasion of it For that was it which the doctrine was designed to remove and our sins only as the causes of that But if it be said that he speaks not only of the distrust but of the punishment of sin as an impediment which must be removed too and therefore may be called an impulsive cause we are to consider that the removal of this is not attributed to the death of Christ but to the leaving of our sins by the belief of his Doctrine therefore the punishment of our sins cannot unless in a very remote sense be said to be an impulsive cause of that which for all that we can observe by Crellius might as well have been done without it if any other way could be thought sufficient to confirm his Doctrine and Christ without dying might have had power to save all them that obey him But we understand not an impulsive cause in so remote a sense as though our sins were a meer occasion of Christs dying because the death of Christ was one argument among many others to believe his Doctrine the belief of which would make men leave their sins but we contend for a neerer and more proper sense viz. that the death of Christ was primarily intended for the expiation of our sins with a respect to God and not to us and therefore our sins as an impulsive cause are to be considered as they are so displeasing to God that it was necessary for the Vindication of Gods Honour and the deterring the world from sin that no less a Sacrifice of Attonement should be offered than the blood of the Son of God So that we understand an impulsive cause here in the sense that the sins of the people were under the Law the cause of the offering up those Sacrifices which were appointed for the expiation of them And as in those Sacrifices there were two things to be considered viz. the mactation and the oblation of them the former as a punishment by a substitution of them in place of the persons who had offended the latter as the proper Sacrifice of attonement although the mactation it self considered with the design of it was a Sacrificial act too So we consider the sufferings of Christ with a twofold respect either as to our sins as the impulsive cause of them so they are to be considered as a punishment or as to God with a design to expiate the guilt of them so they are a Sacrifice of Attonement The first consideration is that we are now upon and upon which the present debate
expiation of sins to have been performed there which they utterly deny and say that Christ only took the Cross in his way to his Ascension to Heaven that there he might expiate sins But doth not St. Peter say that what was done by him here was in his body on the tree and they will not say he carryed that with him to Heaven too Well but what then was the taking away of sin which belonged to Christ upon the Cross is it only to perswade men to live vertuously and leave off their sins This Socinus would have and Crellius is contented that it should be understood barely of taking away sins and not of the punishment of them but only by way of accession and consequence but if it be taken which he inclines more to for the punishment then he saith it is to be understood not of the vertue and efficacy of the death of Christ but of the effect and yet a little after he saith those words of Christs bearing our sins are to be understood of the force and efficacy of Christs death to do it not including the effect of it in us not as though Christ did deliver us from sins by his death but that he did that by dying upon which the taking away of sin would follow or which had a great power for the doing it So uncertain are our Adversaries in affixing any sense upon these words which may attribute any effect at all to the death of Christ upon the Cross. For if they be understood of taking away sins then they are only to be meant of the power that was in the death of Christ to perswade men to leave their sins which we must have a care of understanding so as to attribute any effect to the death of Christ in order to it but only that the death of Christ was an argument for us to believe what he said and the believing what he said would incline us to obey him and if we obey him we shall leave off our sins whether Christ had died or no supposing his miracles had the same effect on us which those of Moses had upon the Iews which were sufficient to perswade them to believe and obey without his death But if this be all that was meant by Christs bearing our sins in his body on the tree why might not St. Peter himself be said to bear them upon his cross too for his death was an excellent example of patience and a great argument to perswade men he spake truth and that doctrine which he preached was repentance and remission of sins So that by this sense there is nothing peculiar attributed to the death of Christ But taking the other sense for the taking away the punishment of sins we must see how this belongs to the death of Christ Do they then attribute our delivery from the punishment of sin to the death of Christ on the Cross yes just as we may attribute Coesars subduing Rome to his passing over Rubicon because he took that in his way to the doing of it so they make the death of Christ only as a passage in order to expiation of sins by taking away the punishment of them For that shall not be actually perfected they say till his full deliverance of all those that obey him from hell and the grave which will not be till his second coming So that if we only take the body of Christ for his second coming and the Cross of Christ or the tree for his Throne of Glory then they will acknowledge that Christ may very well be said to take away sins in his own body on the tree but if you take it in any sense that doth imply any peculiar efficacy to the death of Christ for all the plainness of St. Peters words they by no means will admit of it But because Crellius urgeth Grotius with the sense of that place Isa. 53. 11. out of which he contends these words are taken and Crellius conceives he can prove there that bearing is the same with taking away sin We now come to consider what force he can find from thence fâ—r the justifying his assertion That the bearing of sins when attributed to Christ doth not imply the punishment of them but the taking them away The words are for he shall bear their iniquities As to which Grotius observes that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies iniquity is sometimes taken for the punishment of sin 2 Kings 7. 9. and the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to bear and when ever it is joyned with sin or iniquity in all languages and especially the Hebrew it signifies to suffer punishment for although 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may sometimes signifie to take away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never does so that this phrase can receive no other interpretation Notwithstanding all which Crellius attempts to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here must be taken in a sense contrary to the natural and perpetual use of the word for which his first argument is very infirm viz. because it is mentioned after the death of Christ and is therefore to be considered as the the reward of the other Whereas it appears 1. By the Prophets discourse that he doth not insist on an exact methodical order but dilates and amplifies things as he sees occasion for Verse 9. he saith He made his grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death and Verse 10. he saith Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him he hath put him to grief Will Crellius therefore say that this must be consequent to his death and burial 2. The particle 〈◊〉 may be here taken causally as we render it very agreeably to the sense and so it gives an account of the fore-going clause By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justifie many for he shall bear their iniquities And that this is no unusual acception of that particle might be easily cleared from many places of Scripture if it were necessary and from this very Prophet as Isa. 39. 1. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 King 20. 12. and Isa. 64. 5. Thou art wroth for we have sinned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the same particle is made the causal of what went before But we need not insist upon this to answer Crellius who elsewhere makes use of it himself and says They must be very ignorant of the Hebrew Tongue who do not know that the conjunction copulative is often taken causally and so much is confessed by Socinus also where he explains that particle in one sense in the beginning and causally in the middle of the verse And the Lords anger was kindled against Israel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he moved c. but if this will not do he attempts to prove That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this very Chapter hath the signification of taking away
use words sometimes out of their proper and natural sense thence he tells us The sufferings of Christ are called chastisements though they have nothing of the nature of chastisements in them And from this liberty of interpreting they make words without any other reason than that they serve for their purpose be taken in several senses in the same verse For Socinus in one verse of St. Iohns Gospel makes the World be taken in three several senses He was in the World there it is taken saith he for the men of the world in general The world was made by him there it must be understood only of the reformation of things by the Gospel and the world knew him not there it must be taken in neither of the former senses but for the wicked of the world What may not one make of the Scripture by such a way of interpreting it But by this we have the less reason to wonder that Socinus should put such an Interpretation upon Gal. 3. 13. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us for it is written Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree In which he doth acknowledge by the curse in the first clause to be meant the punishment of sin but not in the second And the reason he gives for it is amavit enim Paulus in execrationis verbo argutus esse St. Paul affected playing with the word curse understanding it first in a proper and then a Metaphorical sense But it is plain that the design of S. Paul and Socinus are very different in these words Socinus thinks he speaks only Metaphorically when he saith that Christ was made a curse for us i. e. by a bare allusion of the name without a correspondency in the thing it self and so that the death of Christ might be called a curse but was not so but St. Paul speaks of this not by way of extenuation but to set forth the greatness and weight of the punishment he underwent for us He therefore tells us what it was which Christ did redeem us from The curse of the Law and how he did it by being not only made a curse but a curse for us i. e. not by being hateful to God or undergoing the very same curse which we should have done which are the two things objected by Crellius against our sense but that the death of Christ was to be considered not as a bare separation of soul and body but as properly poenal being such a kind of death which none but Malefactors by the Law were to suffer by the undergoing of which punishment in our stead he redeemed us from that curse which we were liable to by the violation of the Law of God And there can be no reason to appropriate this only to the Iews unless the death of Christ did extend only to the deliverance of them from the punishment of their sins or because the curse of the Law did make that death poenal therefore the intention of the punishment could reach no further than the Law did but the Apostle in the very next words speaks of the farther extension of the great blessing promised to Abraham That it should come upon the Gentils also and withall those whom the Apostle speaks to were not Iews but such as thought they ought to joyn the Law and Gospel together that St. Paul doth not mean as Crellius would have it that Christ by his death did confirm the New Covenant and so take away the obligation of the Law for to what end was the curse mentioned for that What did the accursedness of his death add to the confirmation of the truth of his Doctrine and when was ever the curse taken for the continuance of the Law of Moses but that Christ by the efficacy of his death as a punishment for sin hath redeemed all that believe and obey him from the curse deserved by their sins whether inforced by the Law of Moses or the Law written in their hearts which tells the consciences of sinners that such who violate the Laws of God are worthy of death and therefore under the curse of the Law We come now to the force of the particles which being joyned with our sins as referring to the death of Christ do imply that his death is to be considered as a punishment of sin Not that we insist on the force of those particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though of themselves they did imply this for we know they are of various significations according to the nature of the matter they are joyned with but that these being joyned with sins and sufferings together do signifie that those sufferings are the punishment of those sins Thus it is said of Christ that he dyed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for our sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he suffered once 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he gave himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he offered a Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which Crellius replies That if the force of these particles not being joyned with sufferings may be taken for the final and not for the impulsive cause they may retain the same sense when joyned with sufferings if those sufferings may be designed in order to an end but if it should be granted that those phrases being joyned with sufferings do always imply a meritorious cause yet it doth not follow it should be here so understood because the matter will not bear it To this a short answer will at present serve for It is not possible a meritorious cause can be expressed more emphatically than by these words being joyned to sufferings so that we have as clear a testimony from these expressions as words can give and by the same arts by which these may be avoided any other might so that it had not been possible for our Doctrine to have been expressed in such a manner but such kind of answers might have been given as our Adversaries now give If it had been said in the plainest terms that Christs death was a punishment for our sins they would as easily have avoided the force of them as they do of these they would have told us the Apostles delighted in an Antanaclasis and had expressed things different from the natural use of the words by them and though punishment were sometimes used properly yet here it must be used only metaphorically because the matter would bear no other sense And therefore I commend the ingenuity of Socinus after all the pains he had taken to enervate the force of those places which are brought against his Doctrine he tells us plainly That if our Doctrine were not only once but frequently mentioned in Scripture yet he would not therefore believe the thing to be so as we suppose For saith he seeing the thing it self cannot be I take the least inconvenient
punishments of the future state So that the ends of punishment here are quite of another kind from those of another life for those are inflicted because persons have been unreclaimable by either the mercies or punishments of this life but these are intended that men should so far take notice of this severity of God as to avoid the sins which will expose them to the wrath to come And from hence it follows That whatsoever sufferings do answer all these ends of Divine punishments and are inflicted on the account of sin have the proper notion of punishments in them and God may accept of the undergoing them as a full satisfaction to his Law if they be such as tend to break men off from sin and assert Gods right and vindicate his honor to the world which are the ends assigned by Crellius and will be of great consequence to us in the following Discourse CHAP. II. The particular state of the Controversie concerning the sufferings of Christ. The Concessions of our Adversaries The debate reduced to two heads The first concerning Christs sufferings being a punishment for sin entred upon In what sense Crellius acknowledgeth the sins of men to have been the impulsive cause of the death of Christ. The sufferings of Christ proved to be a punishment from Scripture The importance of the phrase of bearing sins Of the Scape-Goats bearing the sins of the people into the Wilderness Grotius his sense of 1 Pet. 2. 24. vindicated against Crellius and himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never used for the taking away a thing by the destruction of it Crellius his sense examined Isa. 53. 11. vindicated The argument from Mat. 8. 17. answered Grotius constant to himself in his notes on that place Isa. 53. 5 6 7. cleared Whether Christs death be a proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and whether that doth imply that it was a punishment of sin How far the punishments of Children for their Fathers faults are exemplary among men The distinction of calamities and punishments holds not here That Gods hatred of sin could not be seen in the sufferings of Christ unless they were a punishment of sin proved against Crellius Grotius his Arguments from Christ being made sin and a curse for us defended The liberty our Adversaries take in Changing the sense of words The particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being joyned to sins and relating to sufferings do imply those sufferings to be a punishment for sin According to their way of interpreting Scripture it had been impossible for our doctrine to be clearly expressed therein THese things being thus far cleared concerning the nature and ends of punishments and how far they are of the nature of debts and consequently what kind of satisfaction is due for them the resolution of the grand Question concerning the sufferings of Christ will appear much more easie but that we may proceed with all possible clearness in a debate of this consequence we must yet a little more narrowly examine the difference between our Adversaries and us in this matter for their concessions are in teâ—ms sometimes so fair as though the difference were meerly about words without any considerable difference in the thing it self If we charge them with denying satisfaction Crellius answers in the name of them that we do it unjustly for they do acknowledge a satisfaction worthy of God and agreeable to the Scriptures If we charge them with denying that our salvation is obtained by the death of Christ they assert the contrary as appears by the same Author Nay Ruarus attributes merit to the death of Christ too They acknowledge that Christ dyed for us nay that there was a commutation between Christ and us both of one person for another and of a price for a person and that the death of Christ may be said to move God to redeem us they acknowledge reconciliation and expiation of sins to be by the death of Christ. Nay they assert that Christs death was by reason of our sins and that God designed by that to shew his severity against sin And what could we desire more if they meant the same thing by these words which we do They assert a satisfaction but it is such a one as is meerly fulfilling the desire of another in which sense all that obey God may be said to satisfie him They attribute our salvation to the death of Christ but only as a condition intervening upon the performance of which the Covenant was confirmed and himself taken into Glory that he might free men from the punishment of their sins They attribute merit to Christs death but in the same sense that we may merit too when we do what is pleasing to God They acknowledge that Christ died for us but not in our stead but for our advantage that there was a commutation but not such a one as that the Son of God did lay down his blood as a proper price in order to our redemption as the purchase of it when they speak of a moving cause they tell us they mean no more than the performance of any condition may be said to move or as our prayers and repentance do The reconciliation they speak of doth not at all respect God but us they assert an expiation of sins consequent upon the death of Christ but not depending upon it any otherwise than as a condition necessary for his admission to the office of a High Priest in Heaven there to expiate our sins by his power and not by his blood but they utterly deny that the death of Christ is to be considered as a pròper expiatory sacrifice for sin or that it hath any further influence upon it than as it is considered as a means of the confirmation of the truth of his Doctrine and particularly the promise of remission of sins on which and not on the death of Christ they say our remission depends but so far as the death of Christ may be an argument to us to believe his Doctrine and that faith may incline us to obedience and that obedience being the condition in order to pardon at so many removes they make the death of Christ to have influence on the remission of our sins They assert that God took occasion by the sins of men to ex ercise an act of dominion upon Christ in his sufferings and that the sufferings of Christ were intended for the taking away the sins of men but they utterly deny that the sufferings of Christ were to be considered as a punishment for sin or that Christ did suffer in our place and stead nay they contend with great vehemency that it is wholly inconsistent with the justice of God to make one mans sins the meritorious cause of anothers punishment especially one wholly innocent and so that the guilty shall be freed on the account of his sufferings Thus I have endeavoured to give the true state of the
of kindness it must be there fore out of enmity and with a design to destroy him and so our sins cannot be understood as Socinus and Crellius would have them as the meer occasions of Christs death but as the proper impulsive cause of it Whether the following word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be taken with a respect to sin and so it properly signifies It is required or with a respect to the person and so it may signifie he was oppressed is not a matter of that consequence which we ought to contend about if it be proved that Christs oppression had only a respect to sin as the punishment of it Which will yet further appear from another expression in the same Chapter vers 5. The chastisement of our peace was upon him and by his stripes we are healed In which Grotius saith the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie any kind of affliction but such as hath the nature of punishment either for example or instruction but since the latter cannot be intended in Christ the former must Crellius thinks to escape from this by acknowledging that the sufferings of Christ have some respect to sin but if it be such a respect to sin which makes what Christ underwent a punishment which is only proper in this case it is as much as we contend for This therefore he is loth to abide by and saith that chastisement imports no more than bare affliction without any respect to sin which he thinks to prove from St. Pauls words 2 Cor. 6. 9. We are chastised but not given over to death but how far this is from proving his purpose will easily appear 1. Because those by whom they were said to be chastened did not think they did it without any respect to a fault but they supposed them to be justly punished and this is that we plead for that the chastisement considered with a respect to him that inflicts it doth suppose some fault as the reason of inflicting it 2. This is far from the present purpose for the chastisement there mentioned is oposed to death as chastened but not killed whereas Grotius expresly speaks of such chastisements as include death that these cannot be supposed to be meerly designed for instruction and therefore must be conceived under the notion of punishment The other place Psal. 73. 14. is yet more remote from the business for though the Psalmist accounts himself innocent in respect of the great enormities of others yet he could not account himself so innocent with a respect to God as not to deserve chastisement from him But Crellius offers further to prove that Christs death must be considered as a bare affliction and not as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or exemplary punishment because in such a punishment the guilty themselves are to be punished and the benefit comes to those who were not guilty but in Christs sufferings it was quite contrary for the innocent was punished and the guilty have the benefit of it and yet he saith if we should grant that Christs sufferings were a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that will not prove that his death was a proper punishment To which I answer That whatever answers to the ends of an exemplary punishment may properly be called so but supposing that Christ suffered the punishment of our sins those sufferings will answer to all the ends of an exemplary punishment For the ends of such a punishment assigned by Crellius himself are That others observing such a punishment may abstain from those sins which have brought it upon the person who suffers Now the question is whether supposing Christ did suffer on the account of our sins these sufferings of his may deter us from the practice of sin or no And therefore in opposition to Crellius I shall prove these two things 1. That supposing Christ suffered for our sins there was a sufficient argument to deter us from the practice of sin 2. Supposing that his sufferings had no respect to our sins they could not have that force to deter men from the practice of it for he after asserts That Christs sufferings might be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to us though they were no punishment of sin 1. That the death of Christ considered as a punishment of sin is a proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or hath a great force to deter men from the practice of sin and that because the same reason of punishment is supposed in Christ and in our selves and because the example is much more considerable than if we had suffered our selves 1. The same reason of punishment is supposed For why are men deterred from sin by seeing others punished but because they look upon the sin as the reason of the punishment and therefore where the same reason holds the same ends may be as properly obtained If we said that Christ suffered death meerly as an innocent person out of Gods dominion over his life what imaginable force could this have to deter men from sin which is asserted to have no relation to it as the cause of it But when we say that God laid our iniquities upon him that he suffered not upon his own account but ours that the sins we commit against God were the cause of all those bitter Agonies which the Son of God underwent what argument can be more proper to deter men from sin than this is For hereby they see the great abhorrency of sin which is in God that he will not pardon the sins of men without a compensation made to his Honor and a demonstration to the world of his hatred of it Hereby they see what a value God hath for his Laws which he will not relax as to the punishment of offenders without so valuable a consideration as the blood of his own Son Hereby they see that the punishment of sin is no meer arbitrary thing depending barely upon the will of God but that there is such a connexion between sin and punishment as to the ends of Government that unless the Honor and Majesty of God as to his Laws and Government may be preserved the violation of his Laws must expect a just recompence of reward Hereby they see what those are to expect who neglect or despise these sufferings of the Son of God for them for nothing can then remain but a certain fearful looking for of judgement and fiery indignation which shall devour the Adversaries So that here all the weighty arguments concur which may be most apt to prevail upon men to deter them from their sins For if God did thus by the green tree what will be do by the dry If he who was so innocent in himself so perfectly holy suffered so much on the account of our sins what then may those expect to suffer who have no innocency at all to plead and add wilfulness and impenitency to their sins But if it be replied by Crellius that it is otherwise
brethren a substitution is implied therein and supposing that dying for another doth signifie dying for some benefit to come to him yet what doth this hinder substitution unless it be proved that one cannot obtain any benefit for another by being substituted in his room Nay it is observable that although we produce so many places of Scripture implying such a substitution they do not offer to produce one that is inconsistent with Christs suffering in our stead all that they say is That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not always signifie so which we never said it did who say that Christ suffered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not instead of our sins but by reason of them but we assert that when one person is said to dye for others as in the places mentioned no other sense can be so proper and agreeable as dying in the stead of the other 2. Socinus himself grants That there is a peculiarity implied in those phrases when attributed to Christ above what they have when attributed to any other And therefore he saith It cannot be properly said That one Brother dies for another or that Paul suffered for the Colossians or for the Church as Christ may truly and properly be said to suffer and to dye for us And from hence saith he St. Paul saith was Paul crucified for you implying thereby that there never was or could be any who truly and properly could be said to dye for men but Christ alone How unreasonable then is it from the use of a particle as applied to others to infer that it ought to be so understood when applied to Christ when a peculiarity is acknowledged in the death of Christ for us more than ever was or could be in one mans dying for another 3. It is not the bare force of the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we insist upon but that a substitution could not be more properly expressed than it is in Scripture by this and other particles for not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too which Socinus saith Although it may signifie something else besides in the stead of another yet in such places where it is spoken of a ransom or price it signifies the payment of something which was owing before as Mat. 17. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so he acknowledges that where redemption is spoken of there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth imply a commutation because the price is given and the person received which he saith holds in Christ only metaphorically for the redemption according to him being only Metaphoricall the commutation must be supposed to be so too And this now leads us to the larger Answer of Crellius upon this argument Wherein we shall consider what he yields what he denies and upon what reasons 1. He yields and so he saith doth Socinus very freely a commutation but it is necessary that we should throughly understand what he means by it to that end he tells us That they acknowledge a twofold commutation one of the person suffering the kind of suffering being changed not actually but intentionally because we are not actually freed by Christ dying for us but only Christ dyed for that end that we might be freed And this commutation he saith that Socinus doth not deny to be implied in the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the places where Christ is said to dye for us Another commutation which he acknowledges is that which is between a price and the thing or person which is bought or redeemed by it where the price is paid and the thing or person is received upon it And this kind of commutation he saith is to be understood in the places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is mentioned which price he saith by accident may be a person and because the person is not presently delivered he therefore saith that the commutation is rather imperfect than metaphorical and although he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not of it self imply a commutation yet he grants that the circumstances of the places do imply it 2. He denies that there is any proper surrogation in Christs dying for us which he saith is such a commutation of persons that the substituted person is in all respects to be in the same place and state wherein the other was and if it refers to sufferings then it is when one suffers the very same which the other was to suffer he being immediately delivered by the others sufferings And against this kind of surrogation Crellius needed not to have produced any reasons for Grotius never asserted it neither do we say that Christ suffered eternal death for us or that we were immediately freed by his sufferings But that which Grotius asserts that he meant by substitution was this that unless Christ had died for us we must have died our selves and because Christ hath died we shall not die eternally But if this be all saith Crellius he meant by it we grant the whole thing and he complains of it as an injury for any to think otherwise of them If so they cannot deny but that there was a sufficient capacity in the death of Christ to be made an expiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the world But notwithstanding all these fair words Crellius means no more than Socinus did and though he would allow the words which Grotius used yet not in the sense he understood them in for Crellius means no more by all this but that the death of Christ was an antecedent condition to the expiation of sins in Heaven Grotius understands by them that Christ did expiate sins by becoming a Sacrifice for them in his death However from hence it appears that our Adversaries can have no plea against the death of Christs being an expiatory Sacrifice from want of a substitution in our room since they profess themselves so willing to own such a substitution But if they say that there could be no proper substitution because the death of Christ was a bare condition and no punishment they then express their minds more freely and if these places be allowed to prove a substitution I hope the former discourse will prove that it was by way of punishment Neither is it necessary that the very same kind of punishment be undergone in order to surrogation but that it be sufficient in order to the accomplishing the end for which it was designed For this kind of substitution being in order to the delivery of another by it whatever is sufficient for that end doth make a proper surrogation For no more is necessary to the delivery of another person than the satisfying the ends of the Law and Government and if that may be done by an aequivalent suffering though not the same in all respects then it may be a proper surrogation If David had obtained his wish that he had died for his Son Absolom
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Crellius acknowledgeth do frequently signifie deliverance from guilt and punishment but he saith they may likewise signifie a declaration of that deliverance as decreed by God or a purging from the sins themselves or from the custom of sinning So that by Crellius his own confession the sense we contend for is most proper and usual the other are more remote and only possible why then should we forsake the former sense which doth most perfectly agree to the nature of a Sacrifice which the other senses have no such relation to as that hath For these being the words made use of in the New Testament to imply the force and efficacy of a Sacrifice why should they not be understood in the same sense which the Hebrew words were taken in when they are applied to the Sacrifices under the Law We are not enquiring into all possible senses of words but into the most natural and agreeable to the scope of them that use them and that we shall make it appear to be the same we plead for in the places in dispute between us as 1 John 1. 7. The blood of Iesus Christ his Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 purgeth us from all sin Heb. 9. 13 14. If the blood of bulls and of goats and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh How much more shall the blood of Christ purge your consciences from dead works 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 1. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he had by himself purged our sins So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used with a respect to the blood of Christ Heb. 10. 22. Apocalip 1. 5. And because remission of sin was looked on as the consequent of expiation by Sacrifice under the Law therefore that is likewise attributed to the blood of Christ Matth. 26. 28 This is the blood of the New Testament which was shed for many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the remission of sins Eph. 1. 7. In whom we have redemption through his blood the remission of sins and to the same purpose Coloss. 1. 14. And from hence we are said to be justified by his blood Rom. 5. 9. and Christ is said to be a propitiation through faith in his blood Rom. 3. 25. The substance of all that Crellius replies to these places is That those words which do properly signifie the thing it self may very conveniently be taken only for the declaration of it when the performance of the thing doth follow by vertue of that declartaion which then happens when the declaration is made of the thing decreed by another and that in the name and by the command of him who did decree it And in this sense Christ by his blood may be said to deliver us from the punishment of our sins by declaring or testifying to us the will and decree of God for that purpose But this answer is by no means sufficient upon these considerations 1. Because it doth not reach the proper and natural sense of the words as Crellius himself confesseth and yet he assigns no reason at all why we ought to depart from it unless the bare possibility of another meaning be sufficient But how had it been possible for the efficacy of the blood of Christ for purging away the guilt of our sins to have been expressed in clearer and plainer terms than these which are acknowledged of themselves to signifie as much as we assert If the most proper expressions for this purpose are not of force enough to perswade our Adversaries none else could ever do it so that it had been impossible for our Doctrine to have been delivered in such terms but they would have found out ways to evade the meaning of them It seems very strange that so great an efficacy should not only once or twice but so frequently be attributed to the blood of Christ for expiation of sin if nothing else were meant by it but that Christ by his death did only declare that God was willing to pardon sin If there were danger in understanding the words in their proper sense why are they so frequently used to this purpose why are there no other places of Scripture that might help to undeceive us and tell us plainly that Christ dyed only to declare his Fathers will but what ever other words might signifie this was the only true meaning of them But what miserable shifts are these when men are forced to put off such Texts which are confessed to express our Doctrine only by saying that they may be otherwise understood which destroys all kind of certainty in words which by reason of the various use of them may be interpreted to so many several senses that if this liberty be allowed upon no other pretence but that another meaning is possible men will never agree about the intention of any person in speaking For upon the same reason if it had been said That Christ declared by his death Gods readiness to pardon it might have been interpreted That the blood of Christ was therefore the declaration of Gods readiness to pardon because it was the consideration upon which God would do it So that if the words had been as express for them as they are now against them according to their way of answering places they would have been reconcileable to our opinion 2. The Scripture in these expressionÅ› doth attribute something peculiar to the blood of Christ but if all that were meant by it were no more than the declaring Gods will to pardon this could in no sense be said to be peculiar to it For this was the design of the Doctrine of Christ and all his miracles were wrought to confirm the truth of that part of his Doctrine which concerned remission of sins as well as any other but how absurd would it have been to say that the miracles of Christ purge us from all sin that through Christ healing the sick raising the dead c. we have redemption even the forgiveness of sins which are attributed to the blood of Christ but if in no other respect than as a testimony to the truth of the Doctrine of Remission of sins they were equally applicable to one as to the other Besides if this had been all intended in these expressions they were the most incongruously applied to the blood of Christ nothing seeming more repugnant to the Doctrine of the Remission of sins which was declared by it than that very thing by which it was declared if no more were intended by it For how unsuitableâ—a way was it to declare the pardon of the guilty persons by such severities used towards the most Innocent Who could believe that God should declare his willingness to pardon others by the death of his own Son unless that death of his be considered as the Meritorious cause for
with removing these and such like prejudices against all the Discourses of Religion which are spoken and published by us But in these matters which we conceive to be of so high concernment to Mankind we desire nothing may be considered besides the force of reason and weight of argument and surely none that own themselves to be men will despise that by whomsoever it is brought It is not every ridiculous story or vulgar prejudice or common infirmities or different opinions in smaller things which ought to render Religion ridiculous or make the Practice of it be thought mean and contemptible But however they are resolved to think of Us let not Religion suffer for our sakes Indeed if they did as truly love Religion as they despise us we might then have reason to suspect our selves but when we suffer meerly upon her account we have cause to rejoyce in our dishonour and ought to suspect our selves if such persons did speak well of Us. Madam The main design of these following Discourses is to recommend the great matters of Religion from their Truth and Certainty their Power and Efficacy the Benefit and Advantage which comes by them and to disswade from the Practice of Sin from the folly and reproach the present dissatisfaction and suture punishment which attends it If they may be of Use to the World and any wayes serviceable to Your Ladiship in Your retirements I have the end I aimed at And I have therefore presumed to dedicate them to Your Ladiship not only because of the great Obligations which I have to Your Self and Family which were first laid upon me by that Excellent Person the late Lord Treasurer Your Father but likewise because You have so well followed so worthy an Example in joyning Greatness and Goodness together Were it my design to publish Your just and due Character I should not need to find fault with the Age to give the greater advantage to Your Vertue All the harm I wish the Age is that there were many more Persons of Your Condition that did as little need and as much despise the meanness of Flattery I am Madam Your Ladiships most obliged and humble Servant ED. STILLINGFLEET SERMON I. At S t. Margarets Westminster before the Honourable House of COMMONS Octo. 10. 1666. AMOS IV. XI I have overthrown some of you as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah and ye were as a firebrand pluckt out of the burning yet have ye not returned unto me saith the Lord. IT is but a very little time since you met together in this place to lament the remainders of a raging pestilence which the last year destroyed so many thousand inhabitants of the late great and famous City and now God hath given us another sad occasion for our faâ—â—â—ng and humiliation by suffering a devouring fire to break forth and consume so many of her habitations As though the infected air had been too kind and partial and like Saul to the Amalekites had only destroyed the vile and refuse and spared the greatest of the people as though the grave had surfeited with the bodies of the dead and were loth to go on in the execution of Gods displeasure he hath imployed a more furious Element which by its merciless and devouring flames might in a more lively manner represent unto us the kindling of his wrath against us And that by a Fire which began with that violence and spread with that horror and raged with that sury and continued for so long a time with that irresistible force that it might justly fill the beholders with confusion the hearers of it with amasement and all of us with a deep and humble sense of those sins which have brought down the judgements of God in so severe a manner in the midst of us For whatever arguments or reasons we can imagine that should compose the minds of men to a sense of their own or others calamities or excite them to an apprehension of the wrath of God as the cause of them or quicken them to an earnest supplication to him for mercy they do all eminently concurr in the sad occasion of this daies solemnity For if either compassion would move or fear awaken or interest engage us to any of these it is hard to conceive there should be an instance of a more efficacious nature than that is which we this day bewail For who can behold the ruines of so great a City and not have his bowels of compassion moved towards it Who can have any sense of the anger of God discovered in it and not have his fear awakened by it Who can as we ought all look upon it as a judgement of universal influence on the whole Nation and not think himself concerned to implore the mercy of Heaven towards us For certainly howsoever we may vainly flatter and deceive our selves these are no common indications of the frowns of Heaven nor are they meeâ—ly intended as the expressions of Gods severity towards that City which hath suffered so much by them but the stroaks which fall upon the head though they light upon that only are designed for the punishment of the whole body Were there nothing else but a bare permission of Divine Providence as to these things we could not reasonably think but that God must needs be very angry with us when he suffers two such dreadful calamities to tread almost upon each others heels that no sooner had death taken away such multitudes of our Inhabitants but a Fire follows it to consume our habitations A Fire so dreadful in its appearance in its rage and fury and in all the dismal consequences of it which we cannot yet be sufficiently apprehensive of that on that very account we may justly lie down in our shame and our confusion cover us because God hath Covered the daughter of Sion with a cloud in his anger and cast down from Heaven to earth the beauty of Israel and remembred not his footstool in the day of his anger For such was the violence and fury of the flames that they have not only defaced the beauty of the City and humbled the pride and grandeur of it not only stained its glory and consumed its Palaces but have made the Houses of God themselves a heap of ruines and a spectacle of desolation And what then can we propose to our selves as arguments of Gods severe displeasure against us which we have not either already felt or have just cause to fear are coming upon us without a speedy and sincere amendment If a Sword abroad and Pestilence at home if Fire in our Houses and Death in our Streets if Foreign Wars and Domestick Factions if a languishing State and a discontented People if the ruines of the City and poverty of the Country may make us sensible how sad our condition at present is how much worse it may be if God in his mercy prevent it not we shall all
suspicion of it yet in the morning the door was open and they fast asleep For as the Orator saith no man can imagine that those who had broken all the Laws of God and nature by so great an act of wickedness could presently sleep upon it for they who do such things can neither rest withoutcare nor breath without fear We are not to believe saith he the fables of the Poets as though wicked men were haunted and terrified with the burning torches of the furies but every mans wickedness is the greatest terrour to himself and the evil thoughts which pursue wicked men are their constant and domestick furies It would be endless to repeat what force the more civil Heathens have given to conscience either way as to the peace which follows innocency and the disquiet which follows guilt Which they looked on as the great thing which governed the world quâ sublatâ jacent omnia as the orator speaks without which all things would be in great disorder for these punishments they are sure not to escape though they may do others and these they thought so great and weighty that upon this ground they vindicated divine providence as to the seeming prosperity of wicked men thinking it the most unreasonable thing in the world to call those persons happy who suffered under the severe lashes of their own consciences If there were such a force in the consciences of those who had nothing but the light of nature to direct them how much greater weight must there be when the terrours of the Lord are made known by himself and the wrath of God revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness of men I know that wicked men in the height of their debaucheries pretend to be above these things and are ready to laugh at them as the effects of a strong spleen and a weak brain but I appeal to their most sober thoughts when the steams of wine are evaporated and the intoxication of evil company is removed from them when in the deep and silent night they revolve in their minds the actions of the foregoing day what satisfaction they then take in all the sinful pleasures they have pursued so eagerly but especially when either their lusts have consumed their bodies or the vengeance of God hath overtaken them when death begins to seize upon their vitals and themselves not wholly stupified through the power of their sins or their disease let then if it were possible any represent the fears the horrour and astonishment which the consciences of wicked men labour under in remembrance of their evil actions How mean and poor would they leave themselves if with all their honours and riches they could purchase to themselves a reprieve from death and from the miseries which follow after it what would they then give for the comfort of a good conscience and the fruit of a holy righteous and sober life with what another sense of Religion do men whose minds are awakened speak then in comparison of what they did in the days of their mirth and jollity Neither is this to take them at the greatest disadvantage as some of them have been ready to say for I suppose their minds as clear then as at any time and so much the clearer because freed from the impediments of such freedom of their thoughts at another time for the same thoughts would have possessed them before only the pleasures and the hopes of life diverted their minds from them but now the nearness of the things they feared and the weight and consequence of them make them more diligently examine and impartially consider them But that demonstrates the great misery of a sinners State that what cures the other greatest troubles of our life doth the most increase his which is the exercise of reason and consideration that allays the power of griefs that easeth the mind of vain fears that prevents many troubles and cures others that governs other passions and keeps them in their due bounds but this is it which of all things doth the most increase the trouble of a wicked mans mind for the more he considers the worse he finds his condition and while he finds his condition so bad he can never enjoy any peace in his mind 2. The violence of his passions those a wicked man hath lost the command of or else he could never be a wicked man and whosoever is under the power of any unruly passion forseits all his peace by it For what peace can ever be expected in such a State of violence and usurpation where the calm government of reason is cast off as an unnecessary burden and every passion under the pretence of liberty sets up for an arbitrary power Nay what confusion and disorder must needs follow where the powers of the mind which ought to keep all in order are themselves in subjection to their own slaves and none ever govern so ill as those which ought to obey How serene and quiet is the mind of a man where the superiour faculties preserve their just authority How composed is his temper how moderate his desires how well governed his fears But where once that authority is lost how extravagant is the rage of men how unruly their lusts how predominant their fears What peace had Xerxes in his mind when in stead of conquering his foolish passion he challenged mount Athos into the field and no doubt would have run fast enough if he had seen it moving What pleasure was it to see that mighty Monarch whip the Sea in a rage as though the waves had been under his discipline and would run the faster for the fear of his rod What harm had the hair of his head done to that man who pulled it off with the violence of his passion as though as the Philosopher told him baldness would asswage his grief Was ever Varus the nearer to restoring his Legions for Augustus knocking his head against the wall in a rage about the loss of them What injury did Neptune suffer when he displaced his image in the Circenstan games because he had an ill Voyage at Sea What height of madness and folly did that modern Prince's rage betray him to who as the French Mora list saith having received a blow from heaven sware to be revenged on Almighty God and for 10. years space forbid all publick exercise of devotion towards him I instance in these things to let us see there is nothing so ridiculous nothing so absurd nothing so irreligious but a violent passion may betray men to And if such things ever break forth into actions what may we conceive the inward disturbance is where the outward shew which usually dissembles the inward passion betrayed so much rage and disorder for where such flames break out what combustion may we conceive within But it is not only this kind of passion which is so great an enemy to the peace of
much Ignorance which made him think he had conquered this And to put a check to such a troublesome ambition of disturbing the world in others how early was he taken away in the midst of his vast thoughts and designs What a small thing would the compass of the whole earth appear to one that should behold it at the distance of the fixed stars and yet the mighty Empires which have made the greatest noise in the world have taken up but an inconsiderable part of the whole earth What are then those mean designs which men continually hazard their souls for as much as if they aimed at the whole world For we are not to imagine that only Kings and Princes are in any hazard of losing their souls for the sake of this world for it is not the greatness of mens condition but their immoderate love to the world which ruins and destroys their souls And covetousness and ambition do not always raign in Courts and Palaces they can stoop to the meanness of a Cottage and ruin the souls of such as want the things of this world as well as those that enjoy them So that no state or condition of men is exempt from the hazard of losing the soul for the love of this world although but one person can be supposed at once to have the possession of the whole world 2. The gain of this world brings but an imaginary happiness but the loss of the soul a most real misery It is easie to suppose a person to have the whole world at his command and not himself and how can that man be happy that is not at his own command The cares of Government in a small part of the earth are so great and troublesome that by the consent of mankind the managers of it are invested with more than ordinary priviledges by way of recompence for them but what are these to the solicitous thoughts the continual fears the restless imployments the uninterrupted troubles which must attend the gain of the whole world So that after all the success of such a mans designs he may be farther off from any true contentment than he was at the beginning of them And in that respect mens conditions seem to be brought to a greater equality in the world because those who enjoy the most of the world do oft-times enjoy the least of themselves which hath made some great Emperours lay down their Crowns and Scepters to enjoy themselves in the retirements of a Cloyster or a Garden All the real happiness of this world lies in a contented mind and that we plainly see doth not depend upon mens outward circumstances for some men may be much farther from it in a higher condition in this world than others are or it may be themselves have been in a far lower But if mens happiness did arise from any thing without them that must be always agreeable to their outward condition but we find great difference as to mens contentment in equal circumtances and many times much greater in a private State of life than in the most publick capacity By which it appears that what ever looks like happiness in this world depends upon a mans soul and not upon the gain of the world nay it is only from thence that ever men are able to abuse themselves with false notions and Idea's of happiness here But none of those shall go into another world with them farewel then to all imaginary happiness to the pleasures of sin and the cheats of a deceitful world then nothing but the dreadful apprehensions of its own misery shall possess that soul which shall then too late descern its folly and lament it when it is past recovery Then the torments of the mind shall never be imputed to melancholy vapours or a disordered fancy There will be no drinking away sorrows no jesting with the sting of conscience no playing with the flames of another world God will then no longer be mocked by wicked men but they shall find to their own eternal horrour and confusion that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God He neither wants power to inflict nor justice to execute nor vengeance to pursue nor wrath to punish but his power is irresistible his justice inflexible and his wrath is insupportable Consider now O foolish sinner that hast hither to been ready to cast away thy soul upon the pleasures of sin for a season what a wise exchange thou wilt make of a poor imaginary happiness for a most real and intolerable misery What will all the gain of this world signify in that State whither we are all hastening a pace What contentment will it be to thee then to think of all those bewitching vanities which have betrayed thy soul into unspeakable misery Wouldst thou be willing to be treated with all the ceremonies of State and Greatness for an hour or two if thou wert sure that immediately after thou must undergo the most exquisite tortures and be racked and tormented to death When men neglect their souls and cast them away upon the sinful pleasures and gains of this world it is but such a kind of aiery and phantastical happiness but the miseries of a lost soul are infinitely beyond the racks and torments of the body It hath sometimes happened that the horrour of despair hath seized upon mens minds for some notorious crimes in this life which hath giyen no rest either to body or mind but the violence of the inward pains have forced them to put an end to this miserable life as in the case of Iudas But if the expectation of future misery be so dreadful what must the enduring of it be Of all the ways of dying we can hardly imagine any more painful or full of honour than that of sacrificing their Children to Moloch was among the Canaanites and Children of Ammon where the Children were put into the body of a brass Image and a fire made under it which by degrees with lamentable shricks and cryings roasted them to death yet this above all others in the New Testament is chosen as the fittest representation of the miseries of another world and thence the very name of Gehenna is taken But as the joys of heaven will far surpass all the pleasure which the mind of a good man hath in this life so will the torments of Hell as much exceed the greatest miseries of this world But in the most exquisite pains of the body there is that satisfaction still left that death will at last put an end to them but that is a farther discovery of the unspeakable folly of losing the soul for the sake of this world that 3. The happiness of this world can last but for a little time but the misery of the soul will have no end Suppose a man had all the world at his command and enjoyed as much satisfaction in it as it was possible for humane
govern those who were yet under the night of Ignorance Why may not the Firmament being in the midst of the Waters imply the erection of the Jeâ—…ish State in the midst of a great deal of trouble since it is confeâ—â—ed that Waters are often taken in Scripture in a Metaphorical sense for troubles and afflictions and the Earth appearing out of the Waters be no more but the settlement of that state aftâ—â—â—tâ— troubles and particularly with great elegancy aâ—ter 〈◊〉 pâ—…age through the Red Sea And the production of Herbs and living Creatures be the great encrease of the People of all sorts as well those of a meaner rank and therefore called herbs as those of a higher that were to live upon the other and sometimes trample upon them and therefore by way of excellency called the Living Creatures And when these were multiplied and brought into order which being done by steps and degrees is said to be finished in several days then the State and the Church flourished and enjoyed a great deal of pleasure which was the production of Man and Woman and their being placed in Paradise for a perfect Man notes a high degree of perfection and a Woman is taken for the Church in the Revelations But when they followed the Customs of other Nations which were as a forbidden tree to them then they lost all their happiness and pleasure and were expelled out of their own Country and lived in great slavery and misery which was the Curse pronounced against them for violating the rules of Policy established among them Thus you see how small a measure of wit by the advantage of those ways of interpreting Scripture which the subtilest of our adversaries make use of will serve to pervert the clearest expressions of Scripture to quite another sense than was ever intended by the Writer of them And I assure you if that rule of interpreting Scripture be once allowed that where words are ever used in a Metaphorical sense there can be no necessity of understanding them in a proper there is scarce any thing which you look on as the most necessary to be believed in Scripture but it may be made appear not to be so upon those terms for by reason of the paucity and therefore the ambiguity of the Original words of the Hebrew language the strange Idioms of it the different senses of the same word in several Conjugations the want of several modes of expression which are used in other Languages and above all the lofty and Metaphorical way of speaking used in all Eastern Countries and the imitation of the Hebrew Idioms in the Greek translation of the Old Testament and Original of the New you can hardly affix a sense upon any words used therein but a man who will be at the pains to search all possible significations and uses of those words will put you hard to it to make good that which you took to be the proper meaning of them Wherefore although I will not deny to our adversaries the praise of subtilty and diligence I cannot give them that which is much more praise worthy viz. of discretion and sound judgement For while they use their utmost industry to search all the most remote and Metaphorical senses of words with a design to take off the genuine and proper meaning of them they do not attend to the ill consequence that may be made of this to the overthrowing those things the belief of which themselves make necessary to salvation For by this way the whole Gospel may be made an Allegory and the Resurrection of Christ be thought as metaphorical as the Redemption by his Death and the sorce of all the Precepts of the Gospel avoided by some unusual signification of the words wherein they are delivered So that nothing can be more unreasonable than such a method of proceeding unless it be first sufficiently proved that the matter is not capable of the proper sense and therefore of necessity the improper only is to be allowed And this is that which Socinus seems after all his pains to pervert the meaning of the places in controversie to rely on most viz. That the Doctrine of satisfaction doth imply an impossibility in the thing it self and therefore must needs be false nay he saith the infallibility of the Revealer had not been enough in this Case supposing that Christ had said it and risen from the dead to declare his own Veracity unless he had delivered it by its proper causes and effects and so shewed the possibility of the thing it self And the reason he saith why they believe their Doctrine true is not barely because God hath said it but they believe certainly that God hath said it because they know it to be true by knowing the contrary Doctrine to be impossible The controversie then concerning the meaning of the places in dispute is to be resolved from the nature and reasonableness of the matter contained in them for if Socinus his reason were answerable to his confidence if the account we give of the sufferings of Christ were repugnant not only to the Justice Goodness and Grace of God but to the nature of the thing if it appear impossible that mankind should be redeemed in a proper sense or that God should be propitiated by the Death of his Son as a Sacrifice for sin if it enervate all the Precepts of Obedience and tends rather to justifie sins than those who do repent of them I shall then agree that no industry can be too great in searching Authors comparing places examining Versions to find out such a sense as may be agreeable to the nature of things the Attributes of God and the design of Christian Religion But if on the contrary the Scripture doth plainly assert those things from whence our Doctrine follows and without which no reasonable account can be given either of the expressions used therein or of the sufferings of Christ if Christs death did immediately respect God as a sacrifice and were paid as a price for our Redemption if such a design of his death be so far from being repugnant to the nature of God that it highly manifests his Wisdom Justice and Mercy if it assert nothing but what is so far from being impossible that it is very reconcileable to the common principles of Reason as well as the Free-Grace of God in the pardon of sin if being truly understood it is so far from enervating that it advances highly all the purposes of Christian Religion then it can be no less than a betraying one of the grand Truths of the Christian Doctrine not to believe ours to be the true sense of the places in controversie And this is that which I now take upon me to maintain For our clearer proceeding herein nothing will be more necessary than to understand the true state of the Controversie which hath been rendred more obscure by the mistakes of some who have
upon it Now these three I shall make appear to agree fully to the death of Christ for us 1. A Substitution in the place of the Offenders That we are to prove was designed in the Expiatory Sacrifices under the Law and that Christ in his death for us was substituted in our place 1. That in the Expiatory Sacrifices under the Law there was a Substitution of them in the place of the Offenders This our Adversaries are not willing to yield us because of the correspondency which is so plain in the Epistle to the Hebrews between those Sacrifices and that which was offered up by Christ. We now speak only of those Sacrifices which we are sure were appointed of old for the expiation of sin by God himself As to which the great rule assigned by the Apostle was That without shedding of blood there was no remission If we yield Crellius what he so often urgeth viz. That these words are to be understood of what was done under the Law They will not be the less serviceable to our purpose for thereby it will appear that the means of Expiation lay in the shedding of blood Which shews that the very mactation of the beast to be sacrificed was designed in order to the expiation of sin To an inquisitive person the reason of the slaying such multitudes of beasts in the Sacrifices appointed by God himself among the Iews would have appeared far less evident than now it doth since the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews hath given us so full an account of them For it had been very unreasonable to have thought that they had been meerly instituted out of compliance with the customs of other Nations since the whole design of their Religion was to separate them from them and on such a supposition the great design of the Epistle to the Hebrews signifies very little which doth far more explain to us the nature and tendency of all the Sacrifices in use among them that had any respect to the expiation of sins than all the customs of the Egyptians or the Commentaries of the latter Iews But I intend not now to discourse at large upon this subject of Sacrifices either as to the nature and institution of them in general or with a particular respect to the Sacrifice of Christ since a learned person of our Church hath already undertaken Crellius upon this Argument and we hope ere long will oblige the world with the benefit of his pains I shall therefore only insist on those things which are necessary for our purpose in order to the clearing the Substitution of Christ in our stead for the expiation of our sins by his death and this we say was represented in the Expiatory Sacrifices which were instituted among the Iews If we yield Crellius what he after Socinus contends for viz. That the Sacrifice of Christ was only represented in the publick and solemn Expiatory Sacrifices for the people and especially those on the day of Atonement We may have enough from them to vindicate all that we assert concerning the Expiatory Sacrifice of the blood of Christ. For that those were designed by way of Substitution in the place of the offenders will appear from the circumstances and reason of their Institution But before we come to that it will be necessary to shew what that Expiation was which the Sacrifices under the Law were designed for the not understanding of which gives a greater force to our Adversaries Arguments than otherwise they would have For while men assert that the expiation was wholly typical and of the same nature with that expiation which is really obtained by the death of Christ they easily prove That all the expiation then was only declarative and did no more depend on the sacrifices offered than on a condition required by God the neglect of which would be an act of disobedience in them and by this means it could represent say they no more than such an expiation to be by Christ viz. Gods declaring that sins are expiated by him on the performance of such a condition required in order thereto as laying down his life was But we assert another kind of expiation of sin by vertue of the Sacrifice being slain and offered which was real and depended upon the Sacrifice And this was twofold a Civil and a Ritual expiation according to the double capacity in which the people of the Iews may be considered either as members of a Society subsisting by a body of Laws which according to the strictest Sanction of it makes death the penalty of disobedience Deut. 27. 26. but by the will of the Legislator did admit of a relaxation in many cases allowed by himself in which he declares That the death of the beast designed for a Sacrifice should be accepted instead of the death of the offender and so the offence should be fully expiated as to the execution of the penal Law upon him And thus far I freely admit what Grotius asserts upon this subject and do yield that no other offence could be expiated in this manner but such which God himself did particularly declare should be so And therefore no sin which was to be punished by cutting off was to be expiated by Sacrifice as wilful Idolatry Murther c. Which it is impossible for those to give an account of who make the expiation wholly typical for why then should not the greatest sins much rather have had sacrifices of expiation appointed for them because the Consciences of men would be more solicitous for the pardon of greater than lesser sins and the blood of Christ represented by them was designed for the expiation of all From whence it is evident that it was not a meer typical expiation but it did relate to the civil constitution among them But besides this we are to consider the people with a respect to that mode of Divine Worship which was among them by reason of which the people were to be purified from the legal impurities which they contracted which hindred them from joyning with others in the publick Worship of God and many Sacrifices were appointed purposely for the expiating this legal guilt as particularly the ashes of the red heifer Numb 19. 9. which is there called a purification for sin And the Apostle puts the blood of Bulls and of Goats and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean together and the effect of both of them he saith was to sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh which implies that there was some proper and immediate effect of these sacrifices upon the people at that time though infinitely short of the effect of the blood of Christ upon the Consciences of men By which it is plain the Apostle doth not speak of the same kind of expiation in those sacrifices which was in the Sacrifice of Christ and that the one was barely typical of the other but of a
is set down briefly by Crellius in the beginning of his discourse of Sacrifices There is a twofold power saith he of the sacrifice of Christ towards the expiation of sin one taking away the guilt and the punishment of sin and that partly by declaring that God will do it and giving us a right to it partly by actual deliverance from punishment the other is by begetting Faith in us and so drawing us off from the practice of sin Now the first and last Crellius and Socinus attribute to the death of Christ as that was a confirmation of the Covenant God made for the remission of sin and as it was an argument to perswade us to believe the truth of his Doctrine and the other viz. the actual deliverance from punishment is by themselves attributed to the second coming of Christ for then only they say the just shall be actually delivered from the punishment of sin viz. eternal death and what expiation is there now left to the Oblation of Christ in Heaven Doth Christ in Heaven declare the pardon of sin any other way than it was declared by him upon Earth What efficacy hath his Oblation in Heaven upon perswading men to believe or is his second coming when he shall sit as Judge the main part of his Priesthood for then the expiation of sins in our Adversaries sense is most proper And yet nothing can be more remote from the notion of Christs Pristhood than that is so that expiation of sins according to them can have no respect at all to the Oblation of Christ in Heaven or which is all one in their sense his continuance in Heaven to his second coming Yes saith Crellius his continuance there is a condition in order to the expiation by actual deliverance and therefore it may be said that God is as it were moved by it to expiate sins The utmost then that is attributed to Christs being in Heaven in order to the expiation of sins is that he must continue there without doing anything in order to it for if he does it must either respect God or us but they deny though contrary to the importance of the words and the design of the places where they are used that the terms of Christs interceding for us or being an Advocate with the Father for us do note any respect to God but only to us if he does any thing with respect to us in expiation of sin it must be either declaring perswading or actual deliverance but it is none of these by their own assertions and therefore that which they call Christs Oblation or his being in Heaven signifies nothing as to the expiation of sin and it is unreasonable to suppose that a thing which hath no influence at all upon it should be looked on as a condition in order to it From whence it appears that while our Adversaries do make the exercise of Christs Priesthood to respect us and not God they destroy the very nature of it and leave Christ only an empty name without any thing answering to it But if Christ be truly a High-Priest as the Apostle asserts that he is from thence it follows that he must have a respect to God in offering up gifts and sacrifices for sin which was the thing to be proved 2. That Christ did exercise this Priestly Office in the Oblation of himself to God upon the Cross. Which I shall prove by two things 1. Because the death of Christ is said in Scripture to be an Offering and a Sacrifice to God 2. Because Christ is said to offer up himself antecedently to his entrance into Heaven 1. Because the death of Christ is said to be an offering and a sacrifice to God which is plain from the words of St. Paul as Christ also hath loved us and given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour Our Adversaries do not deny that the death of Christ is here called an Oblation but they deny That it is meant of an Expiatory Sacrifice but of a free will offering and the reason Crellius gives is because that phrase of a sweet-smelling savour is generally and almost always used of sacrifices which are not expiatory but if ever they be used of an Expiatory Sacrifice they are not applyed to that which was properly expiatory in it viz. the offering up of the blood for no smell saith he went up from thence but to the burning of the fat and the kidneys which although required to perfect the expiation yet not being done till the High-Priest returned out of the Holy of Holies hath nothing correspondent to the expiatory Sacrifice of Christ where all things are persected before Christ the High-Priest goes forth of his Sanctuary How inconsistent these last words are with what they assert concerning the expiation of sin by actual deliverance at the great day the former discourse hath already discovered For what can be more absurd than to say that all things which pertain to the expiation of sin are perfected before Christ goes forth from his Sanctuary and yet to make the most proper expiation of sin to lye in that act of Christ which is consequent to his going forth of the Sanctuary viz. when he proceeds to judge the quick and the dead But of that already We now come to a punctual and direct answer as to which two things must be enquired into 1. What the importance of the phrase of a sweet-smelling savour is 2. What the Sacrifices are to which that phrase is applyed 1. For the importance of the phrase The first time we read it used in Scripture was upon the occasion of Noahs Sacrifice after the flood of which it is said that he offered burnt-offerings on the Altar and the Lord smelled a savour of rest or a sweet savour Which we are not to imagine in a gross corporeal manner as Crellius seems to understand it when he saith the blood could not make such a savour as the fat and the kidneys for surely none ever thought the smell of flesh burnt was a sweet-smelling savour of it self and we must least of all imagine that of God which Porphyry saith was the property only of the worst of Daemons to be pleased and as it were to grow fat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the smell and vapours of blood and flesh by which testimony it withal appears that the same steams in Sacrifices were supposed to arise from the blood as the flesh But we are to understand that phrase in a sense agreeable to the divine nature which we may easily do if we take it in the sense the Syriack Version takes it in when it calls it Odorem placabilitatis or the savour of rest as the word properly signifies for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word formed from the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used for the resting of the Ark v. 4. of the
God is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this I answer 1. That the reason why the person propitiated is not expressed is because it was so much taken for granted that the whole Institution of Sacrifices did immediately respect God and therefore there was no danger of mistaking concerning the person who was to be atoned 2. I wonder Crellius can himself produce no instance where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used with respect to the Sacrifices and the persons whose offences are remitted by the Atonement but where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath a relation to that it is still joyned with a Preposition relating either to the person or to the offences if no more were understood when it is so used than when God himself is said to do it why is not the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well said of the Priest as it is of God From whence Grotius his sense of Hebr. 2. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is far more agreeable to the use of the phrase in the Old Testament than that which Crellius would put upon it Therefore since the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is attributed to Christ we ought to take it in the sense proper to a Propitiatory Sacrifice so it is said by Moses where God is left out but is necessarily understood after the people had provoked God by their Idolatry Ye have sinned a great sin And now I will go up unto the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That I may make an Atonement for your sin What way could Moses be said to make this Atonement but by propitiating God yet his name is not there expressed but necessarily understood So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in the most proper sense for appeasing the anger of a person Gen 32. 20. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Sam. 21. 3. which places have been already insisted on in the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And that those places wherein Christ is said to be a propitiation for our sins are capable of no other sense will appear from the consideration of Christ as a middle person betwen God and us and therefore his being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be parallel with that phrase where God himself is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Christ is here considered as interposing between God and us as Moses and the Priests under the Law did between God and the people in order to the averting his wrath from them And when one doth thus interpose in order to the Atonement of the offended party something is alwayes supposed to be done or suffered by him as the means of that Atonement As Iacob supposed the present he made to his Brother would propitiate him and David appeased the Gibeonites by the death of Sauls Sons both which are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So the shedding of the blood of Sacrifices before and under the Law was the means of atoning God for the sins they committed What reason can there be then why so received a sense of Atonement both among the Iews and all other Nations at that time when these words were written must be forsaken and any other sense be embraced which neither agrees with the propriety of the expression nor with so many other places of Scripture which make the blood of Christ to be a Sacrifice for the Expiation of sin Neither is it only our Atonement but our Reconciliation is attributed to Christ too with a respect to his Death and Sufferings As in the place before insisted on For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son and more largely in the second Epistle to the Corinthians And all things are of God who hath reconciled us to himself by Iesus Christ and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation To wit that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them and hath committed to us the word of reconciliation For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him And to the Ephesians And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by his Cross having slain the enmity thereby To the same purpose to the Colossians And having made peace through the blood of his Cross by him to reconcile all things to himself by him I say whether they be things in Heaven or in Earth and you that were sometimes alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death Two things the substance of Crellius his answer may be reduced to concerning these places 1. That it is no where said that God was reconciled to us but that we are reconciled to God and therefore this reconciliation doth not imply any averting of the anger of God 2. That none of these places do assert any reconciliation with God antecedent to our conversion and so that the Reconciliation mention'd implyes only the laying aside our enmity to God by our sins I begin with the first of these concerning which we are to consider not barely the phrases used in Scripture but what the nature of the thing implyes as to which a difference being supposed between God and man on the account of sin no reconciliation can be imagined but what is mutual For did man only fall out with God and had not God just reason to be displeased with men for their Apostasie from him If not what made him so severely punish the first sin that ever was committed by man what made him punish the old World for their impieties by a deluge what made him leave such Monuments of his anger against the sins of the World in succeeding Ages what made him add such severe sanctions to the Laws he made to the people of the Iews what made the most upright among them so vehemently to deprecate his wrath and displeasure upon the sense of their sins what makes him declare not only his hatred of the sins of men but of the persons of those who commit them so far as to express the greatest abhorrency of them Nay what makes our Adversaries themselves to say that impiety is in its own nature hateful to God and stirrs him up to anger against all who commit it what means I say all this if God be not angry with men on the account of sin Well then supposing God to be averse from men by reason of their sins shall this displeasure always continue or not if it always continues men must certainly suffer the desert of their sins if it doth not always continue then God may be said to be reconciled in the same sense that an offended party is capable of being reconciled to him who hath provoked him Now there are two ways whereby a party justly offended may be
said to be reconciled to him that hath offended him First when he is not only willing to admit of terms of agreement but doth declare his acceptance of the mediation of a third person and that he is so well satisfied with what he hath done in order to it that he appoints this to be published to the World to assure the offender that if the breach continues the fault wholly lies upon himself The second is when the offender doth accept of the terms of agreement offered and submits himself to him whom he hath provoked and is upon that received into favour And these two we assert must necessarily be distinguished in the reconciliation between God and us For upon the death and sufferings of Christ God declares to the World he is so well satisfied with what Christ hath done and suffered in order to the reconciliation between himself and us that he now publishes remission of sins to the World upon those terms which the Mediator hath declared by his own doctrine and the Apostles he sent to preach it But because remission of fins doth not immediately follow upon the death of Christ without supposition of any act on our part therefore the state of favour doth commence from the performance of the conditions which are required from us So that upon the death of Christ God declaring his acceptance of Christs mediation and that the obstacle did not lye upon his part therefore those Messengers who were sent abroad into the world to perswade men to accept of these terms of agreement do insist most upon that which was the remaining obstacle viz. the sins of Mankind that men by laying aside them would be now reconciled to God since there was nothing to hinder this reconciliation their obstinacy in sin excepted Which may be a very reasonable account why we read more frequently in the writings of the Apostles of mens duty in being reconciled to God the other being supposed by them as the foundation of their preaching to the world and is insisted on by them upon that account as is clear in that place to the Corinthians That God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself not imputing unto men their trespasses and hath committed to us the Word of Reconciliation and therefore adds Now then we are Ambassadors for Christ as though God did beseech you by us we pray you in Christs stead be ye reconciled to God And least these words should seem dubious he declares that the reconciliation in Christ was distinct from that reconciliation he perswades them to for the reconciliation in Christ he supposeth past v. 18. All things are of God who hath reconciled us to himself by Iesus Christ and v. 21. he shews us how this Reconciliation was wrought For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him Crellius here finds it necessary to acknowledge a twofold Reconciliation but hopes to escape the force of this place by a rare distinction of the Reconciliation as preached by Christ and by his Apostles and so Gods having reconciled the World to himself by Iesus Christ is nothing else but Christs preaching the Gospel himself who afterwards committed that Office to his Apostles But if such shifts as these will serve to baffle mens understandings both they were made and the Scripture were written to very little purpose for if this had been all the Apostle had meant that Christ preached the same Doctrine of Reconciliation before them what mighty matter had this been to have solemnly told the World that Christs Apostles preached no other Doctrine but what their Master had preached before especially if no more were meant by it but that men should leave their sins and be reconciled to God But besides why is the Ministery of Reconciliation then attributed only to the Apostles and not to Christ which ought in the first place to have been given to him since the Apostles did only receive it from him Why is that Ministery of Reconciliation said to be viz. that God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself was this all the subject of the Apostles preaching to tell the World that Christ perswaded men to leave off their sins how comes God to reconcile the World to himself by the preaching of Christ since Christ himself saith he was not sent to preach to the world but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel Was the World reconciled to God by the preaching of Christ before they had ever heard of him Why is God said not to impute to men their trespasses by the preaching of Christ rather than his Apostles if the not imputing were no more than declaring Gods readiness to pardon which was equally done by the Apostles as by Christ himself Lastly what force or dependance is there in the last words For he made him to be sin for us who knew no sin c. if all he had been speaking of before had only related to Christs preaching How was he made sin more than the Apostles if he were only treated as a sinner upon the account of the same Doctrine which they preached equally with him and might not men be said to be made the righteousness of God in the Apostles as well as in Christ if no more be meant but being perswaded to be righteous by the Doctrine delivered to them In the two latter places Eph. 2. 16. Coloss. 1. 20. c. it is plain that a twofold reconcilation is likewise mentioned the one of the Iews and Gentiles to one another the other of both of them to God For nothing can be more ridiculous than the Exposition of Socinus who would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to be joyned with the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to stand by it self and to signifie that this reconciliation of the Iews and Gentiles did tend to the glory of God And Crellius who stands out at nothing hopes to bring off Socinus here too by saying that it is very common for the end to which a thing was appointed to be expressed by a Dative case following the Verb but he might have spared his pains in proving a thing no one questions the shorter answer had been to have produced one place where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ever signifies any thing but to be reconciled to God as the offended party or whereever the Dative of the person following the Verb importing reconciliation did signifie any thing else but the party with whom the reconciliation was to be made As for that objection concerning things in Heaven being reconciled that phrase doth not import such a Reconciliation of the Angels as of Men but that Men and Angels upon the reconciliation of men to God become one body under Christ and are gathered together in him as the Apostle expresseth it Eph. 1. 10. Having thus far proved that the effects of
an Expiatory Sacrifice do belong to the death of Christ nothing now remains but an answer to be made to two Objections which are commonly insisted on by our Adversaries The first is That God was reconciled before he sent his Son and therefore Christ could not dye to reconcile God to us The second is That the Doctrine of Satisfaction asserted by us is inconsistent with the freeness of Gods grace in the remission of sins Both which 〈◊〉 admit of an easie Solution upon the principles of the foregoing discourse To the first I answer That we assert nothing inconsistent with that love of God which was discovered in sending his Son into the world we do not say That God hated mankind so much on the account of sin that it was impossible he should ever admit of any terms of Reconciliation with them which is the only thing inconsistent with the greatness of Gods love in sending Christ into the world but we adore and magnifie the infiniteness and unexpressible greatness of his love that notwithstanding all the contempt of the former kindness and mercies of Heaven he should be pleased to send his own Son to dye for sinners that they might be reconciled to him And herein was the great love of God manifested that while we were enemies and sinâ—ers Christ dyed for us and that for this end that we might be reconciled to God by his death And therefore surely not in the state of favour or Reconciliation with God then But it were worth the while to understand what it is our Adversaries mean when they say God was reconciled when he sent his Son and therefore he could not dye to reconcile God to us Either they mean that God had decreed to be reconciled upon the sending his son or that he was actually reconciled when he sent him if he only decreed to be reconciled that was not at all inconsistent with Christs dying to reconcile God and us in pursuance of that decree if they mean he was actually reconciled then there was no need for Christ to dye to reconcile God and us but withal actual Reconciliation implies pardon of sin and if sin were actually pardoned before Christ came there could be no need of his coming at all and sins would have been pardoned before committed if they were not pardoned notwithstanding that love of God then it can imply no more but that God was willing to be reconciled If therefore the not remission of sins were consistent with that love of God by which he sent Christ into the world then notwithstanding that he was yet capable of being reconciled by his death So that our Adversaries are bound to reconcile that love of God with not presently pardoning the sins of the world as we are to reconcile it with the ends of the death of Christ which are asserted by us To the other Objection Concerning the inconsistency of the Freeness of Gods Grace with the Doctrine of Satisfaction I answer Either Gods Grace is so free as to exclude all conditions or not If it be so free as to exclude all conditions then the highest Antinomianism is the truest Doctrine for that is the highest degree of the Freeness of Grace which admits of no conditions at all If our Adversaries say That the Freeness of Grace is consistent with conditions required on our part Why shall it not admit of conditions on Gods part especially when the condition required tends so highly to the end of Gods governing the world in the manifestation of his hatred against sin and the vindication of the honour of his Laws by the Sufferings of the Son of God in our stead as an Expiatory Sacrifice for our sins There are two things to be considered in sin the dishonor done to God by the breach of his Laws and the injury men do to themselves by it now remission of sins that respects the injury which men bring upon themselves by it and that is Free when the penalty is wholly forgiven as we assert it is by the Gospel to all penitent sinners but shall not God be free to vindicate his own Honor and to declare his righteousness to the world while he is the Iustifier of them that believe Shall men in case of Defamation be bound to vindicate themselves though they freely forgive the Authors of the slander by our Adversaries own Doctrine and must it be repugnant to Gods Grace to admit of a Propitiatory Sacrifice that the world may understand that it is no such easie thing to obtain pardon of sin committed against God but that as often as they consider the bitter Sufferings of Christ in order to the obtaining the forgiveness of our sins that should be the greatest Argument to disswade them from the practice of them But why should it be more inconsistent with the Sacrifice of Christ for God freely to pardon sin than it was ever presumed to be in all the Sacrifices of either Jews or Gentiles who all supposed Sacrifices necessary in order to Atonement and yet thought themselves obliged to the goodness of God in the Remission of their sins Nay we find that God himself in the case of Abimelâ—ch appointed Abraham to pray for him in order to his pardon And will any one say this was a derogation to the grace of God in his pardon Or to the pardon of Iobs Friends because Iob was appointed to Sacrifice fâ—r them Or to the pardon of the Israelites because God out of kindness to them directed them by the Prophets and appointed the means in order to it But although God appointed our High-Priest for us and out of his great love sent him into the world yet his Sacrifice was not what was given him but what he freely underwent himself he gave us Christ but Christ offered up himself a full perfect and sufficient Sacrifice Oblation and Satisfaction for the sins of the world Thus Sir I have now given you a larger account of what I then more briefly discoursed of concerning the true Reason of the Sufferings of Christ and heartily wishing you a right understanding in all things and requesting from you an impartial consideration of what I have written I am SIR Your c. E. S. Ian. 6. 166â— FINIS Serm. I. A B C D E A B C D a Lam. 2. 1. E A B C D E A B C D E A a Luk. 17. 28 29. B 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de beil Jud. l. 7. c. 14. C D E A B C D a Jude 7. E A a Tacit. Aâ— 15. B 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Xiphil in Epit. Dion in Tito p. 227. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Herodian in Commod hist. l. 1. p. 22. v. Xiphil ad fin Commodi C b Niceph. l. 15. c. 21. c Eâ—â—gr l. 2. cap 13. d Baâ—â—â— Tom. 5. A. 465. 1. D E A B C D E A B C D E A B a Hieron in loc C D b Gildas