is no reasonable way of interpreting Scripture Do they deny that Christ suffered what we say he did No that they dare not do But they say What he underwent was only Labour and Suffering but not the Punishment of our Iniquities Then I say it could be no Expiatory Sacrifice which implies a Substitution and the contrary appears by the many places of Scripture already mentioned wherein our Sins and the Sufferings of Christ are joined together Thus we see the true Rise of this Controversie was from the many places of Scripture which seem very plain and clear in this matter and therefore I shall now give an account of the Progress of it F. Socinus seeing the bent of the Scripture so much against him sets himself to the finding out ways to avoid the force of them 1. To those which speak of Christ's being a Ransom or Price of Redemption for us he answers That these Expressions are to be understood only Metaphorically and Christ's Death being an Intervening Condition in order to our Deliverance it is therefore called a Price of Redemption And to the same purpose the Correct Racovian Catechism only there it is added That God did accept of the Death of Christ as a most Acceptable Sacrifice But not by way of Satisfaction or Payment of our Debts because he as a Sacrifice was given by God himself but that he might give us the greater Assurance of Pardon and Eternal Life So that here we have the true state of this matter before us viz. Whether the Death of Christ when it is said to be a Ransom or Price of Redemption for us is only to be looked on as a hard Condition on his side Intervening or as a proper Sacrifice of Atonement which God had appointed for the Expiation of Sins The Question is not Whether God appointed or accepted him for that we have allowed in all Sacrifices of Atonement by the Law of Moses but whether his Sufferings were not required in order to the Satisfaction of Divine Iustice for the Sins of Mankind not by way of strict Payment as in case of Debts but by a Legal Satisfaction to the Justice of God as it is concerned in the Honour of his Laws Our Unitarians grant That Christ was a Ransom and Price of Redemption for us but they deny That he was an Adequate Price or a Sacrifice to the Justice of God But still they run upon the Notion of Debts and Payments as though there were no other Notion of Justice and Satisfaction but between Creditors and Debtors or as if their Notions of these things were rather taken from the Shops than the Schools And the monstrous Contradiction they conclude the charge of our Doctrine with is That God freely Pardons the whole Debt of Sin and yet hath been infinitely over-paid for both in the Death and other Sufferings of the Lord Christ. But in the following Discourse I have endeavoured to lay open this Mistake by shewing That Debts and Punishments are of a different Nature and therefore the Satisfaction in one Case is not to be measured by the other But I shall not here anticipate the Reader as to what follows but I shall take notice of what they say which seems to relate to this matter Almighty God say they as King and Proprietor of all Persons and things can forgive any Offence or all Offences even without Repentance or Amendment nor is it contrary to his Justice so to do This is a very strange Assertion For then there is no Obligation on God's part in point of Iustice to punish the most Impenitent and Incorrigible Offenders But there is a great deal of difference between making the Exercise of Punitive or Vindictive Justice necessary upon every Offence and saying that the Iustice of God doth not require that any Offences should be punished The former makes Iustice in God to proceed by a natural Necessity which would leave no place for Mercy nor any Satisfaction by a Mediator for that must suppose Liberty and Relaxation as to the Executive Part of Iustice. And if God must punish Sinners as they deserve there can be no stop to the Execution of Iustice short of Annihilation for our very Beings are the Gift of God which we have deserved to be deprived of But on the other side to say that the Justice of God doth not require the Punishment of any Offences without Repentance or Amendement is to overthrow any such thing as Punitive Justice in God by which I do not mean the actual execution of it and the due measures which belong to it but the Will to punish Obstinate and Impenitent Sinners And that results from his Hatred and Abhorrency of Evil and his just Government of the World For how can any Men who believe that God is really displeased with the Wickedness of Men and that he is a Iust and Righteous Governour ever think that it is not Repugnant to his Iustice to forgive all Offences without Repentance or Amendment How can his Hatred of Sin and the Iustice of his Government be reconciled with the Impunity of the most Obstinate Offenders Is there no such thing as Iustice to himself and to his Laws which lies in a just Vindication of his Honour and of his Laws from Contempt And who can be guilty of greater Contempt of him than those who persist in their Wickedness without Repentance or Amendment And after all Is it not contrary to his Justice to forgive such as these because he is absolute Lord and Proprietor of all Persons and Things This might signifie something if we could imagine God to be nothing but Almighty Power without Justice but if his Justice be as Essential an Attribute as his Omnipotency we must not so much as suppose the Exercise of one without the other But they do not deny That it is inconsistent with the Wisdom and Holiness of God to let the Incorrigible and Impenitent escape unpunished or to forgive Sin without Repentance or Amendment But if the Wisdom and Holiness of God will not permit the Impunity of Impenitent Sinners is it not just in God to punish them Not barely as to the Degree and Desert of Punishment but as to the Will of Punishing them according to their merits Whence doth their Punishment come Is it not from the Will of God Is that Will just or not If the Will to punish be just whence comes it to be so From the Wisdom and Holiness of God Then Punitive Justice when it is agreeable to God's Wisdom and Holiness is a proper Divine Attribute as well as they And they must have strange Notions of Punitive Justice who would separate it from them But Justice they say hath no other share or interest in Punishment but only to see that Punishment be not misplac'd and that it do not exceed the Offence We are far from denying these things to belong to the Measures in the Exercise of Punitive Justice But whence comes Punitive
what makes him attribute so much to the death of Christ if all the benefits we enjoy depend upon the consequences of it and no otherwise upon that than meerly as a preparation for it what peculiar emphasis were there in Christ's dying for sinners and for the ungodly unless his death had a particular relation to the expiation of their sins Why are men said to be justified by his blood and not much rather by his glorious Resurrection if the blood of Christ be only considered as antecedent to the other And that would have been the great demonstration of the love of God which had the most immediate influence upon our advantage which could not have been the death in this sense but the life and glory of Christ. But nothing can be more absurd than what Crellius would have to be the meaning of this place viz. that the Apostle doth not speak of the proper force of the death of Christ distinct from his life but that two things are opposed to each other for the effecting of one of which the death of Christ did intervene but it should not intervene for the other viz. it did intervene for our reconciliation but it should not for our life For did not the death of Christ equally intervene for our life as for our reconciliation was not our eternal deliverance the great thing designed by Christ and our reconciliation in order to that end what opposition then can be imagined that it should be necessary for the death of Christ to intervene in order to the one than in order to the other But he means that the death of Christ should not intervene any more what need that when it is acknowledged by themselves that Christ died only for this end before that he might have power to bestow eternal life on them that obey him But the main force of the Apostles argument lies in the comparison between the death of Christ having respect to us as enemies in order to reconciliation and the life of Christ to us considered as reconciled so that if he had so much kindness for enemies to die for their reconciliation we may much more presume that he now living in Heaven will accomplish the end of that reconciliation in the eternal salvation of them that obey him By which it is apparent that he speaks of the death of Christ in a notion proper to it self having influence upon our reconciliation and doth not consider it Metonymically as comprehending in it the consequents of it IX 2. Because the expiation of sins is attributed to Christ antecedently to the great consequents of his death viz. his sitting at the right hand of God Heb. 1.3 When he had by himself purged our sins sate down on the right hand of his Majesty on high Heb. 9.12 But by his own blood he entred in once into the Holy Place having obtained eternal redemption for us To these places Crellius gives a double answer 1. That indefinite particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being joyned with Verbs of the preterperfect tense do not always require that the action expressed by them should precede that which is designed in the Verbs to which they are joyned but they have sometimes the force of particles of the present or imperfect tense which sometimes happens in particles of the preterperfect tense as Matth. 10.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and several other instances produced by him according to which manner of interpretation the sense he puts upon those words Heb. 9.12 is Christ by the shedding of his blood entred into the Holy of Holies and in so doing he found eternal redemption or the expiation of sins But not to dispute with Crellius concerning the importance of the Aorist being joyned with a Verb of the preterperfect tense which in all reason and common acceptation doth imply the action past by him who writes the words antecedent to his writing of it as is plain in the instances produced by Crellius but according to his sense of Christ's expiation of sin it was yet to come after Christ's entrance into Heaven and so it should have been more properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not I say to insist upon that the Apostle manifests that he had a respect to the death of Christ in the obtaining this eternal redemption by his following discourse for v. 14. he compares the blood of Christ in point of efficacy for expiation of sin with the blood of the Legal Sacrifices whereas if the expiation meant by him had been found by Christ's Oblation of himself in Heaven he would have compared Christ's entrance into Heaven in order to it with the entrance of the High-Priest into the Holy of Holies and his argument had run thus For if the High-Priest under the Law did expiate sins by entring into the Holy of Holies How much more shall the Son of God entring into Heaven expiate the sins of Mankind but we see the Apostle had no sooner mention'd the redemption obtained for us but he presently speaks of the efficacy of the blood of Christ in order to it and as plainly asserts the same v. 15. And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament that by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions which were under the first Testament they which were called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance Why doth the Apostle here speak of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the expiation of sins by the means of death if he had so lately asserted before that the redemption or expiation was found not by his death but by his entrance into Heaven and withal the Apostle here doth not speak of such a kind of expiation as wholly respects the future but of sins that were under the first Testament not barely such as could not be expiated by vertue of it but such as were committed during the time of it although the Levitical Law allowed no expiation for them And to confirm this sense the Apostle doth not go on to prove the necessity of Christ's entrance into Heaven but of his dying v. 16 17 18. But granting that he doth allude to the High Priest's entring into the Holy of Holies yet that was but the representation of a Sacrifice already offer'd and he could not be said to find expiation by his entrance but that was already found by the blood of the Sacrifice and his entrance was only to accomplish the end for which the blood was offer'd up in Sacrifice And the benefit which came to men is attributed to the Sacrifice and not to the sprinkling of blood before the Mercy-seat and whatever effect was consequent upon his entrance into the Sanctuary was by vertue of the blood which he carried in with him and was before shed at the Altar Neither can it with any reason be said that if the redemption were obtained by the blood of Christ there
were for meer shame thought fit to be inserted In this Correct Edition the Question is put Why was it necessary for Christ to suffer as he did And the Answer is twofold 1. That Christ suffered for our Sins by God's appointment and underwent a cruel Death as a Sacrifice of Expiation Who could imagine this to be the Racovian Catechism still 2. Because those who are to be saved by him are subject to the like Sufferings This is somewhat a dark Reason but the former is that which we are to consider Christ say they suffer'd for the sins of Mankind and was a Sacrifice of Expiation by his Death What can we desire more shall we always maintain disputes about Words when we agree in Sense No that is not the Case but we may seem to agree in Words and differ in Sense That therefore must be more strictly examined But because they sometimes seem to be displeased that we take their Opinion from foreign Writers since they here set up for themselves and are so able to express their own Sense and because they refer me to their own late Prints in the English Tongue therefore I shall apply my self to them to find out what their true Sense in this matter is And they seem freely to tell us what they deny and what they affirm 1. They deny that this Sacrifice was by way of true and proper Satisfaction or full and adequate Payment to the Justice of God 2. They affirm that this Sacrifice was only an Oblation or Application to the Mercy of God In another place they complain that very few of their Adversaries have really understood what they affirm or deny concerning the Causes or Effects of our Saviour's death And they say the Question is only this Whether the Lord Christ offer'd himself as such a Sacrifice Oblation or Price as might be made to the Justice of God by way of Equivalent for what we should have suffer'd or was an Oblation or Satisfaction as all former Sacrifices under the Law were to the Mercy of God by way of Humble Suit and Deprecation So that they will no longer Dispute with us about the Death of Christ being an Expiatory Sacrifice for the sins of Mankind and so this Point seems wholly gained But we must have a Care of being deceived by them For the Scripture was too clear and full to be born down by the Authority or Evasions of Socinus and therefore they found it necessary to comply in Terms as long as they could keep to their own Notions under them But what is the true Meaning of an Expiatory Sacrifice to the Mercy of God If it be no more but as a Condition intervening Socinus would not allow that to make an Expiatory Sacrifice and therein he was in the Right The main Point then between us seems to be whether the Death of Christ had Respect to the Justice or to the Mercy of God And here we must consider what they understand by the Justice of God 1. They say that Almighty God as King and Proprietor of all Persons and Things can forgive any Offence or all Offences even without Repentance or Amendment nor is it contrary to his Justice so to do 2. That it is not the Justice of God by which he is prompted to punish sinners but his Holiness and Wisdom and that Justice hath no other share or interest in Punishment but only to see that Punishment be not misplaced and that it do not exceed the Offence 3. That God could not justly or wisely substitute an innocent and well deserving Person to undergo Punishment properly so called in the Place of the unrighteous and worthless because it is of the Nature of Justice not to misplace Punishments 4. That Christ could not offer himself freely for us to undergo the Punishment due to us nor could God accept of it or allow it because it is of the very Essence of Justice not to misplace Punishment and not to exceed the Desert of the Offence which they say are the two things that constitute the Nature of Punitive Justice In another place they say That Christ made himself an Oblation an Expiatory Sacrifice on the Altar of the Cross for our Sins But his Sufferings were not as Trinitarians teach designed as a Punishment laid on him in our stead because Punishment is the evil of Suffering inflicted for the evil of Doing but Christ having done no sin what he underwent was only labour and suffering and no Punishment And again they say the Oblation was not made to the Justice but to the Mercy of God But the Sufferings of Christ being graciously accepted by God as an Intercession on our behalf God was satisfied with them and this they say is the proper Notion of Satisfaction The same they repeat in other places And if no more were to be regarded but meer words this Controversie were at an End for they own Christ's Death to be an Expiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of Mankind and that he made by his Sufferings Satisfaction to God But I shall now make it appear that whatever they pretend they do really own no such thing as the Death of Christ being an Expiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of Mankind However we have this Advantage by these Concessions that the Scriptures are yielded to be on our side and that they are forced to speak as we do whatsoever their meaning be But that they do not own any proper Expiatory Sacrifice in the Death of Christ will best appear by an Account of the Rise and Progress of this Controversie and of the true State of it The first Rise of it was from the Multitudes of Places of Scripture which Attribute all the proper Effects of an Expiatory Sacrifice to the Death of Christ. And that by those who best understood for what End it was that Christ suffer'd and had no Intention to deceive or to amuse Mankind I mean our Saviour and his Apostles Our Blessed Saviour himself saith That the Son of Man came to give his Life a Ransom for many A Ransom as to what Surely not as to the Mercy of God But Christ's Death was a Ransom as it was an Expiatory Sacrifice and if the one respects the Mercy of God the other must do so too They may say the Ransom is from the Punishment of Sin but this Ransom might be made as to the Mercy of God which delivers from it But a Ransom is something which is paid or laid down as a Price of Redemption and was very well understood in that Sense among the Jews who all knew that by their Law the Blood of the Sacrifices was appointed to be a Ransom for their Souls For it is the Blood that maketh an Atonement for the Soul To which the Apostle refers when he saith that without shedding of Blood there is no Remission So that hereby the Jews understood these things 1. That there was a Punishment due
Justice to belong to God Is it not because it is just in him to punish Offenders according to those measures And whence comes this but from that Universal Justice in God which is always joyned with his Wisdom and Holiness and implies an Universal Rectitude in all he doth And from thence it comes that all the Measures of Iustice are observed by him in the Punishment of the greatest Offenders Now this Universal Justice in God is that whereby he not only punishes Obstinate and Impenitent Sinners but he takes care of preserving the Honour of his Laws And therefore although Almighty God out of his great Mercy were willing that Penitent Sinners should be forgiven yet it was most agreeable thereto that it should be done in such a manner as to discourage Mankind from the practice of Sin by the same way by which he offers Forgiveness and for this end it pleased God in his Infinite Wisdom and Goodness to send his Son to become a Sacrifice of Propitiation for the Sins of Mankind which being freely undertaken by him there was no breach in the Measures of Punitive Justice with respect to him and so by his Death he offered up himself as a full perfect and sufficient Sacrifice Oblation and Satisfaction for the Sins of Mankind And this is that Doctrine of the Satisfaction of Christ which we own and defend But these bold Assertions That God as absolute Lord may forgive all Offences without Repentance and it is not contrary to his Justice so to do that it is not the Justice of God which prompts him to punish Sinners arise from too mean and narrow a Conception of Divine Justice as though it lay only in the manner of the Execution of it But that there is an Essential Attribute of Justice belonging to the Divine Nature appears from hence that there are some things which are so disagreeable to the Divine Nature that he cannot do them he cannot break his Promises nor deceive Mankind to their Destruction he cannot deny himself nor pervert that Order or due Respects of things to each other which he hath established in the World He cannot make it the Duty of Mankind to dishonour their Maker or to violate the Rules of Good and Evil so as to make Evil Good and Good Evil he cannot make Murder and Adultery to be Virtues nor Impiety and Wickedness not to deserve Punishment But whence comes all this Is it that God wants Almighty Power to do what he pleases No doubt he is supreme Lord over all and hath all things under his Will But there is an Essential Iustice in God which is a supreme Rule of Righteousness according to which he doth always exercise his Power and Will And so Moses saith of him All his ways are perfect a God of Truth and without Iniquity just and right is he and the Psalmist The Lord is righteous in all his ways and holy in all his works He not only is so but he can be no otherwise for this Vniversal Righteousness is as great a Perfection and Attribute of God as his Wisdom or Power It is not one Name which stands for all but it is a real and distinct Attribute of it self It is as a Rule and Measure to the Exercise of the rest And he particularly shews it in all the Acts of Punitive Iustice So Nehemiah Howbeit thou art just in all that is brought upon us for thou hast done right but we have done wickedly And Daniel Righteousness belongeth unto thee but unto us confusion of Face For the Lord our God is righteous in all his Works which he doth for we obey'd not his Voice And Zephaniah The just Lord is in the midst thereof he will not do Iniquity From whence it appears that the Exercise of Punitive Iustice is according to the Essential Iustice or Righteousness of the Divine Nature And so Abraham pleaded with God Shall not the Judge of all the Earth do right i. e. Will he not punish according to the Righteousness of his Nature And so Abimelech argues from the natural Notion he had of Godâ—s righteous Nature Lord wilt thou slay also a righteous Nation But here the main Difficulty which deserves to be cleared is this How far Punitive Justice is founded on that Universal Justice which is an Essential Attribute of God For the want of understanding this hath been the great occasion of so much Confusion in the Discourses about this matter And for the clearing of it these things must be considered 1. That there is a difference between that Iustice in God whereby he hates Sin and that whereby he punishes the Sinner The hatred of Sin doth necessarily follow the Perfection of his Nature Therefore God is said To hate the Wicked and Evil to be an Abomination to him to love Righteousness and to hate Wickedness But if the Punishment of the Offender were as necessarily consequent as his Hatred of Sin all Mankind must suffer as they offend and there would be no place for Mercy in God nor for Repentance in Men. But Sin in it self is perfectly hatefull to God there being nothing like God in it but Man was God's Creature and made after his Image and Likeness and however God be displeased with Mankind on the account of Sin yet the Workmanship of God still remains and we continually see that God doth not exercise his Punitive Iustice according to the Measures of their Iniquities And they who plead most for the necessity of Punitive Iustice are themselves a Demonstration to the contrary for they cannot deny that they are not punished as their Iniquities have deserved And if Punitive Iustice be necessary in it self it must reach the Persons that have deserved to be punished if there be no Relaxation of the Severity of it 2. That it is very agreeable to the Divine Justice to exercise the Severity of Punitive Iustice on obstinate and incorrigible Offenders And this is that whereon the Iustice of the Punishments of Sinners in another World is founded because God hath been so mercifull to them here and used so many ways to reclaim them and it is the Not exercising his Punitive Iustice upon them in this World which makes it so much more reasonable in another For thereby they have shewed their Contempt of God and his Laws of his offers of Mercy and their wilfull obstinacy in offending him And the reasonableness of the Punishment of such Offenders is not denyed by any of our more Learned Adversaries as I have shewed in the following Discourse from Socinus and Crellius and might do from several others But I need not mention any more since in the late Correct Edition of the Racovian Catechism there is this Note That they have always asserted that the Wicked shall be raised up at the great Day to undergo the Punishment of their Sins and to be cast into the Fire prepared for the Devil and his Angels And for this
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 of discretion and sound judgment 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 force 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 be answerable to his confidence if the account we give of the sufferings of Christ be 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 tend 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 Christ's death did immediately respect God as a sacrifice and was 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 II. 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 managed it with greater zeal than judgment who have asserted more than they needed to have done and made our Adversaries assert much less than they do And by this means have shot over their Adversaries heads and laid their own more open to assaults It is easie to observe that most of Socinus his Arguments are levelled against an opinion which few who have considered these things do maintain and none need to think themselves obliged to do it which is That Christ paid a proper and rigid satisfaction for the sins of men considered under the notion of debts and that he paid the very same which we ought to have done which in the sense of the Law is never called Satisfaction but strict Payment Against this Socinus disputes from the impossibility of Christ's paying the very same that we were to have paid because our penalty was eternal Death and that as the consequent of inherent guilt which Christ neither did nor could undergo Neither is it enough to say That Christ had undergone eternul Death unless he had been able to free himself from it for the admission of one to pay for another who could discharge the debt in much less time than the offenders could was not the same which the Law required For that takes no notice of any other than the persons who had sinned and if a Mediator could have paid the same the Original Law must have been disjunctive viz. That either the Offender must suffer or another for him but then the Gospel had not been the bringing in of a better Covenant but a performance of the old But if there be a relaxation or dispensation of the first Law then it necessarily follows that what Christ paid was not the very same which the first Law required for what need of that when the very same was paid that was in the obligation But if it be said That the dignity of the person makes up what wanted in the kind or degree of punishment this is a plain confession that it is not the same but something equivalent which answers the ends of the Sanction as much as the same would have done which is the thing we contend for Besides if the very same had been paid in the strict sense
meant meritorious or such upon supposition of which he ought to die for elsewhere he makes Christ to die 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 tho' 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 caâ—â—es 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 â—ny other way could be thought suffiâ—â—ent 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 nearer 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 God's Honour and the deterring the world from sin that no less a Sacrifice of Atonement 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 Atonement 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 two-fold 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 Atonement The first consideration is that we are now upon and upon which the present debate depends for if the sufferings of Christ be to be taken under the notion of punishment then our Adversaries grant that our sins must be an impulsive cause of them in another sense than they understand it For the clearing of this I shall prove these two things 1. That no other sense ought to be admitted of the places of Scripture which speak of the sufferings of Christ with a respect to sin but this 2. That this Account of the sufferings of Christ is no ways repugnant to the Iustice of God III. That no other sense ought to be admitted of the places of Scripture which speak of the sufferings of Christ with a respect to our sins but that they are to be considered as a punishment for them Such are those which speak of Christ bearing our sins of our iniquities being laid upon him of his making himself an offering for sin and being made sin and a curse for us and of his dying for our sins All which I shall so far consider as to vindicate them from all the exceptions which Socinus and Crellius have offered against them 1. Those which speak of Christ's bearing our sins As to which we shall consider First The importance of the phrase in general of bearing sin and then the circumstances of the particular places in dispute For the importance of the phrase Socinus acknowledges that it generally signifies bearing the punishment of sin in Scripture but that sometimes it signifies taking away The same is confessed by Crellius but he saith it doth not always signifie bearing proper punishment but it is enough says he that one bears something burdensome on the occasion of others sins and so Christ by undergoing his sufferings by occasion of sins may be said to bear our sins And for this sense he quotes Numb 14.33 And your Children shall wander in the Wilderness forty years and bear your whoredoms until your carcasses be wasted in the Wilderness Whereby saith he it is not meant that God would punish the Children of the Israelites but that by the occasion of their parents sins they should undergo that trouble in wandring in the Wilderness and being deprived of the possession of the promised Land But could Crellius think that any thing else could have been imagined setting aside a total destruction a greater instance of God's severity than that was to the Children of Israel all their circumstances being considered Is it not said that God did swear in his wrath they should not enter into his rest Surely then the debarring them so long of that rest was an instance of God's wrath and so according to his own principles must
yes just as we may attribute Caesar's 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. Peter's words they by no means will admit of it VII 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 for 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 King 7.9 and the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to bear and whenever 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 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 said 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 foregoing 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 2◠12 and Isa. 64.5 Thou art wroth for we have sinned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the same particle is made the casual 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 casually and so much is confessed by Socinus also where he explains that particle in one sense in the beginning and casually in the middle of the verse and the Lord's 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 v. 4. For he hath born our griefs and carried our sorrows which is applied by St. Matth. 8.17 to bodily diseases which our Saviour did not bear but took away as it is said in the foregoing Verse he healed all that were sick on which those words come in That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaias c. To which I answer 1. It is granted by our Adversaries that St. Matthew in those words doth not give the full sense of the Prophet but only applies that by way of accommodation to bodily diseases which was chiefly intended for the sins of men And in a way of accommodation it is not unusual to strain words beyond their genuine and natural signification or what was intended primarily by the person who spake them Would it be reasonable for any to say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to give because that place Psal. 68.18 where the word by all is acknowledged to signifie to receive is rendred to give Eph. 4.8 so that admitting another sense of the word here as applied to the cure of bodily diseases it doth not from thence follow that this should be the meaning of the word in the primary sense intended by the Prophet 2. The word as used by St. Matthew is very capable of the primary and natural sense for St. Matthew retains words of the same signification with that which we contend for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither of which doth signifie taking away by causing a thing not to be So that all that is implied hereby is the pains and trouble which our Saviour took in the healing of the sick For to that end as Grotius well observes upon that place the circumstances are mentioned That it was at even and multitudes were brought to him in St. Matthew that after Sun set all that were diseased were brought and all the City was gathered together at the door in St. Mark That he departed not till it was day in St. Luke that we might the better understand how our Saviour did bear our griefs because the pains he took in healing them were so great And here I cannot but observe that Grotius in his Notes on that place continued still in the same mind he was in when he writ against Socinus for he saith Those words may either refer to the diseases of the body and so they note the pains he took in the cure of them or to our sins and so they were fulfilled when Christ by suffering upon the Cross did obtain remission of sins for us as St. Peter saith 1 Pet. 2.24 But upon what reason the Annotations on that place come to be so different from his sense expressed here long after Crellius his answer I do not understand But we are sure he declared his mind as to the main of that Controversie to be the same that it was when he writ his Book which Crellius answered as appears by two Letters of his
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 Christ's 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 tho' 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 Christ's being an expiatory Sacrifice from want of a substitution in our room since they proâ—ess 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 equivalent 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 it had not been necessary in order to his Son's escape that he had hanged by the hair of his head as his Son did but his death though in other circumstances had been sufficient And therefore when the Lawyers say subrogatum sapit naturam ejus in cujus locum subrogatur Covarruvias tells us it is to be understood secundum primordialem naturam non secundum accidentalem from whence it appears that all circumstances are not necessary to be the same in surrogation but that the nature of the punishment remain the same Thus Christ dying for us to deliver us from death and the curse of the Law he underwent an accursed death for that end although not the very same which we were to have undergone yet sufficient to shew that he underwent the punishment of our iniquities in order to the delivering us from it And if our Adversaries will yield us this we shall not much contend with them about the name of a proper surrogation VI. But in the matter of Redemption or where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used Crellius will by no means yield that there was a commutation of persons between Christ and us but all the commutation he will allow here is only a commutation between a thing or a prince and a person Which he therefore asserts that so there may be no necessity of Christ's undergoing the punishment of sin in order to redemption because the price that is to be paid is not supposed to undergo the condition of the person delivered by it Which will evidently appear to have no force at all in case we can prove that a proper redemption may be obtained by the punishment of one in the room of another for that punishment then comes to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or price of redemption and he that pays this must be supposed to undergo punishment for it So that the commutation being between the punishment of one and the other redeemed by it here is a proper commutation of persons implied in the payment of the price But hereby we may see that the great subtilty of our Adversaries is designed on purpose to avoid the force of the places of Scripture which are so plain against them For when these places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are joyned together are so clear for a substitution that they cannot deny it then they say by it is meant only a commutation of a price for a person but when the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is urged to prove a redemption purchased by Christ by the payment of a price for it then they deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie a proper price but is only taken metaphorically and yet if it be so taken then there can be no force in what Crellius saith for a bare metaphorical price may be a real punishment Two things I shall then prove against Crellius 1. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as applied to Christ is to be taken in a proper sense 2. That although it be taken in a proper sense yet it doth not imply a bare commutation of a price and a person but a substitution of one person in the room of another VII Both these will be cleared from the right stating the notion of redemption between our Adversaries and us For they will not by any means have any other proper notion of redemption but from captivity and that by the payment of a price to him that did hold in captivity and therefore because Christ did not pay the price to the Devil there could be no proper sense either of the redemption or the price which was paid for it This is the main strength of all the arguments used by Socinus and Crellius to enervate the force of those places of Scripture which speak of our redemption by Christ and of the price which he paid in order to it But how weak
for any but Priests ever to come there His Power and Authority over the Church doth not imply it for that power is by themselves confessed to be a Regal power his readiness to use that power cannot imply it which is the thing Smalcius insists on for his being a King of the Church doth necessarily imply his readiness to make use of his power for the good of his Church His receiving his power from God doth not imply that he was a Priest although Crellius insist on that unless all the Kings of the Earth are Priests by that means too and Christ could not have had a subordinate power as King as well as Priest But his death is more implied saith Crellius in the name of a Priest than of a King true if his death be considered as a Sacrifice but not otherwise For what is there of a Priest in bare dying do not others so too But this represents greater tenderness and care in Christ than the meer title of a King What kind of King do they imagine Christ the mean while if his being so did not give the greatest encouragâ—ment to all his subjects nay it is plain the name of a King must yield greater comfort to his people because that implies his power to defend them which the bare name of a Priest doth not So that there could be no reason at all given why the name of a High-Priest should be at all given to Christ if no more were implied in it than the exercise of his power with respect to us without any proper oblation to God For here is no proper Sacerdotal act at all attributed to him so that upon their hypothesis the name of High-Priest is a meer insignificant title used by the Author to the Hebrews without any foundation at all for it By no means saith Crellius for his expiation of sin is implyed by it which is not implied in the name of King True if the expiation of sin were done by him in the way of a Priest by an oblation to God which they deny but though they call it Expiation they mean no more than the exercise of his divine power in the delivering his people But what parallel was there to this in the expiation of sins by the Levitical Priesthood that was certainly done by a Sacrifice offered to God by the Priest who was thereby said to expiate the sins of the people how comes it now to be taken quite in another sense and yet still called by the same name V. But this being the main thing insisted on by them I shall prove from their own Principles that no expiation of sin in their own sense can belong to Christ in Heaven by vertue of his Oblation of himself there and consequently that they must unavoidably overthrow the whole notion of the Priesthood of Christ. For this we are to consider what their notion of the expiation of sins is which 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 Christ's Priesthood 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 sence 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 Christ's being in Heaven in order to the expiation of sins is that he must continue there without doing any thing 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 Christ's 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 Christ's 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 Christ's 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 VI. 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
to a perfect oblation do concur in it For where there is something solemnly devoted to God and in order to the expiation of sins and by the hand of a Priest there are all things concurring to a legal oblation but in this case all these things do concur and therefore there can be no imaginable necessity of making the oblation of Christ only consequent to his Ascension since in his death all things concur to a proper oblation In the Law we grant that the oblation made by the Priest was consequent to the death of the beast for Sacrifice but the reason of that was because the beast could not offer up it self to God and God had made it necessary that the Priest should expiate sins not by himself but by those Sacrifices and therefore the oblation of the blood was after the Sacrifice was slain neither could this have been solved barely by the Priest's slaying of the Sacrifices for this being an act of violence towards the beasts that were thus killed could not be a proper oblation which must suppose a consent antecedent to it All which shewed the great imperfection of the Levitical Law in which so many several things were to concur to make up a sacrifice for sin viz. The first offering made by the party concerned of what was under his dominion viz. The beast to be sacrificed at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation but the beast not being able to offer up it self if was necessary for the offering up its blood that it must be slain by others and for the better understanding not only of the efficacy of the blood but the concurrence of the Priest for expiation he was to take the blood and sprinkle some of it on the Altar and pour out the rest at the foundation of it But since we assert a far more noble and excellent Sacrifice by the Son of God freely offering up himself to be made a Sacrifice for the sins of the world why may not this be as proper an oblation made unto God as any was under the Law and far more excellent both in regard of the Priest and the Sacrifice why should his oblation of himself then be made only consequent to his death and resurrection Which latter being by our Adversaries made not his own act but God's upon him and his entrance into Heaven being given him as they assert as a reward of his sufferings in what tolerable sense can that be called an oblation of himself which was conferred upon him as a reward of his former sufferings From whence it follows that upon our Adversaries own grounds the death of Christ may far more properly be called the oblation of himself than his entrance into Heaven and that there is no necessity of making the oblation of Christ consequent to his death there being so great a difference between the Sacrifice of Christ and that of the Sacrifices for sin under the Levitical Law 2. We observe That the oblation as performed by the Priest did not depend upon his presenting himself before God but upon the presenting the blood of a Sacrifice which had been already slain for the expiation of sins If the Priest had gone into the Holy of Holies and there only presented himself before the Mercy-seat and that had been all required in order to the expiation of sins there had been some pretence for our Adversaries making Christ's presenting himself in Heaven to be the oblation of himself to God but under the Law the efficacy of the High Priest's entrance into the Holy of Holies did depend upon the blood which he carried in thither which was the blood of the Sin-offering which was already slain for the expiation of sins And in correspondency to this Christ's efficacy in his entrance into Heaven as it respects our expiation must have a respect to that Sacrifice which was offered up to God antecedent to it And I wonder our Adversarâ—es do so much insist on the High Priest's entring into the most holy place once a year as though all the expiation had depended upon that whereas all the promise of expiation was not upon his bare entrance into it but upon the blood which he carried along with him and sprinkled there In correspondency to which our Saviour is not barely said to enter into Heaven and present himself to God but that he did this by his own blood having obtained eternal Redemption for us 3. We observe That there was something corresâ—ondent in the death of Christ to somewhat consequent to the oblation under the Law and therefore there can be no reason to suppose that the oblation of Christ must be consequent to his death for that destroys the correspondency between them Now this appears in this particular in the solemn Sacrifices for sin after the sprinkling of the blood which was carried into the Holy place to reconcile withall all the remainder of the Sacrifice was to be burnt without the Camp and this held on the day of Atonement as well as in other Sin-offerings for the Congregation Now the Author to the Hebrews tells us That in correspondency to this Iesus that he might sanctifie the people with his own blood suffered without the gate What force is there in this unless the blood of Christ did answer to the Sin-offerings for the people and his oblation was supposed to be made before and therefore that he might have all things agreeable to those Sin-offerings the last part was to be compleated too viz. That he was to suffer without the gate which after the peoples settlement in Ierusalem answered to the being burnt without the Camp in the Wilderness 4. We observe That the Oblation in Expiatory Sacrifices under the Law by the Priest had always relation to the consumption of what was offered Thus the offering of the blood in token of the destruction of the life of the beast whose blood was offered for no blood was to be offered of a living creature nor of one killed upon any other account but for that end to be a sacrifice for sin and after the sprinkling and pouring out of the blood the inwards of some and all of the other were to be consumed by fire And it is observable that the greater the Sacrifice for sin was always the more was consumed of it as appears plainly by the forementioned difference of the Sin-offerings for private persons and for the people of the former the Priests were allowed to eat but not at all of the latter And so it was observed among the Egyptians in the most solemn Sacrifices for expiation nothing was allowed to be eaten of that part which was designed for that end For Herodotus gives us an account why the Egyptians never eat the head of any living Creatuâ—e which is That when they offer up a Sacrifice they make a solemn execration upon it that if any evil were to fall upon the persons who Sacrificed or upon all Egypt it might be
it not to be or at least destroying all the power of it But supposing we should grant that it hath some allusion to the sense of covering why must it necessarily be supposed to be done by the meer Grace of God as excluding all antecedent causes which should move to it would not the propriety of the sense remain as well supposing a moving cause as excluding it What should hinder but that God may be said as well to cover sin upon a Sacrifice as to forgive it and this is very frequently used upon a Sacrifice That the sin shall be forgiven But yet themselves acknowledge that the Sacrifices were conditions required in order to expiation if then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath an immediate respect to God's immediate favour and benignity how comes it to be used where a condition is necessarily supposed in order to it Had it not been more agreeable to this benignity of God to have pardon'd sin without requiring any sacrifice for it than so strictly insisting upon the offering up Sacrifice in order to it and then declaring that the sin is expiated and it should be forgiven from hence we see that there is no necessity why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be use as applied to sacrifices in a sense most agreeable to that of covering with pitch nor that it is not possible it should have such a sense when applied to sins and withal that it is very consistent with an antecedent condition to it and therefore can by no means destroy satisfaction II. Yes saith Crellius it doth for expiation is explained in the Law by non imputation Deut. 21.8 Be merciful O Lord unto thy people Israel whom thou hast redeemed and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel's charge and the blood shall be forgiven them But not to impute saith he and to receive true and full satisfaction overthrow each other and so expiation being the same with that will overthrow it too To this I answer 1. I grant that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here used both as applied to God and to the sin and that the sense of it is used as to the people when the prayer is that God would not lay it to their charge which is the same with expiating of it 2. We are to consider what the foundation of this Prayer was viz. the slaying of the Heifer for expiation of the uncertain murder and when the Elders had washed their hands over the head of the Heifer then they were to protest their own innocency and to use this prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Expiate thy people Israel c. i. e. accept of this Sacrifice as an expiation for them and so charge not on them the innocent blood c. and upon doing of this it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the blood shall be expiated i. e. as the Vulgar Latin explains it the guilt of the blood shall be taken from them But how then should the expiating sin upon a Sacrifice slain in order thereto destroy that satisfaction which we assert by the blood of Christ being shed in order to the expiation of our sins Nay it much rather sheweth the consistency and agreeableness of these one with another For we have before proved that the Sacrifice here did expiate the sin by a substitution and bearing the guilt which could not have been expiated without it But Crellius further urgeth That God himself is here said to expiate and therefore to expiate cannot signifie to atone or satisfie in which sense Christ may be said to expiate too not by atoning or satisfying but by not imputing sins or taking away the punishment of them by his power To which we need no other answer than what Crellius himself elsewhere gives viz. That Socinus never denies but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie to appease or atone which is most evidently proved from the place mention'd by Grotius Gen. 32.20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Expiabo faciem ejus in munere saith the interlineary Version placabo illum muneribus the Vulg. Lat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the LXX and all the circumstances of the place make it appear to be meant in the proper sense of appeasing the anger of a person by something which may move him to shew favour And if Crellius will yield this to be the sense of expiation as applied to the sacrifice of Christ he need not quarrel with the word satisfaction But why should he rather attribute that sense of expiation to Christ which is alone given to God wherein the expiation is attributed to him that receives the Sacrifice rather than to him that offers the sacrifice in order to the atonement of another since it is acknowledged that Christ did offer a sacrifice and therefore there can be no reason why that sense of expiation should not belong to him which was most peculiar to that which we shall now shâ—w to be of the same kind with what is here mentioned viz. an appeasing by a gift offered up to God So we find the word used to the same sense 2 Sam. 21.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and wherewith shall I make the atonement i. e. wherewith shall I satisfie you for all the wrong which Saul hath done unto you and we see afterwards it was by the death of Saul's sons In which place it cannot be denied but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only signifies to appease but such a kind of satisfaction as is by the death of some for the faults of others and so comes home not only to the importance of the expiation belonging to a Sacrifice in general but to such a kind of expiation as is by the suffering of some in the place of others Which though it be more clear and distinct where one man suffers for others yet this was sufficiently represented in the sacrifices under the Law in which we have already proved that there was a substitution of them in the place of the offenders III. And in this sense the Iews themselves do understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. such an expiation as is made by the substitution of one in the place of another Of which many instances are collected by Buxtorf wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken by the Rabbinical Writers for such an expiation whereby one was to undergo a punishment in the place of another So when in the title Sanhedrin the people say to the High-Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simus nos expiatio tua let us be for an expiation for you the Gloss explains it thus hoc est in nobis fiat expiatio tua nosque subeamus tuo loco quicquid tibi evenire debet And when they tell us how Children ought to honour their Parents after their death they say when they recite any memorable speech of their Fathers they are not barely to say My Father said so but my Lord and Father said so would I had been the expiation of
of God in him Hereby we understand how so innocent a Person came to suffer he stood in our stead he was made Sin for us and therefore was to be treated as a Sinner and to suffer that on our Account which he could not deserve on his own If he suffer'd on his own Account this were the way to fill our Minds with perplexity concerning the Justice of Providence with Respect to his dealings with the most innocent and holy Persons in this World If he suffer'd on our Account then we have the Benefit of his Sufferings and therein we see how displeasing to God sin is when even his own Son suffer'd so much by taking the guilt of our Sins upon him And what can tend more to the begetting in us a due hatred of sin than to consider what Christ himself suffer'd on the Account of it What can make us have more dreadful thoughts of it than that the great and merciful God when he designed to save sinners yet would have his own Son to become a Propitiation for the Sins of Mankind And unless we allow this we must put force upon the plainest Expressions of Scripture and make Christ to suffer meerly to shew God's Power over a most innocent Person and his Will and Pleasure to inflict the most severe Punishment without any Respect to Guilt And surely such a Notion of God cannot be worthy of all Acceptation 3. Which tends most to strengthen our Hope of Salvation by Christ Iesus If we believe that he suffer'd for our Sins then we have great Reason to hope for the Forgiveness of them although they have been many and great if we sincerely Repent because the most prevailing Argument for Despair will be removed which is taken from the Iustice of God and his declared Hatred of Sin and Displeasure against Sinners If God be so much in earnest displeased with the Sins of Mankind and his Justice be concerned in the Punishment of Sinners how can they ever hope to escape unless there be a way for his Displeasure to be removed and his Justice to be satisfied And this the Scripture tells us is done by Christ who died that he might be a Sacrifice of Atonement to Reconcile us to God by his Death as S. Paul expresly affirms And by this means we may have strong Consolation from the Hopes of Forgiveness of our Sins Whereas if this be taken away either Men must believe that God was not in earnest displeased with the Sins of Mankind which must exceedingly lessen our Esteem of the Holiness and Iustice of God or if he were so displeased that he laid aside his Displeasure without any Atonement or Sacrifice of Expiation And so as many as look on God's Iustice and Holiness as necessary and essential Attributes of God will be in danger of sinking into the Depths of Despair as often as they Reflect seriously on the Guilt of their Sins But on the other side if we believe that while we were Enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son then we may have Peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ and have reason to believe that there will be no Condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus by a lively Faith and sincere Repentance then they may with Comfort look up to God as a Reconciled Father through Iesus Christ our Mediator then they may with inward Satisfaction look beyond the Grave and stedfastly hope for that Salvation which Christ purchased on Earth and will at last bestow on all such as Love and Obey him To which God of his Infinite Mercy bring us all through Iesus Christ. For This is a faithfull Saying and worthy of all Acceptation that he came into the World to save Sinners FINIS Books Written by the Right Reverend Father in God Edw. L. Bishop of Worcester and sold by H. Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard A Rational account of the Grounds of the Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury's Relation of a Conference c. from the pretended Answer of T. G. 2d Edit Fol. Origines Britannica or the Antiquities of the British Churches with a Preface concerning some pretended Antiquities relating to Britain in Vindication of the Bishop of St. Asaph Folio Irenicum A Weapon-Salve for the Churches Wounds Quarto Origines Sacrae Or a Rational account of the Grounds of Christian Faith as to the Truth and Divine Authority of the Script and the matters therein contained 4 to A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it Octavo An Answer to several late Treatises occasioned by a Book entituled A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it Part I. Octavo A Second Discourse in Vindication of the Protestant Grounds of Faith against the pretence of Infallibility in the Roman Church in Answer to the Guide in Controversie by R. H. Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion or the certain Rule of Faith by E. W. with a particular enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church Octavo An Answer to Mr. Cressy's Epistle apologetical to a Person of Honour touching his Vindication of Dr. Stillingfleet Octavo A Defence of the Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome in answer to a Book entituled Catholicks no Idolaters Octavo Several Conferences between a Romish Priest a Fanatick Chaplain and a Divine of the Church of England being a full Answer to the late Dialogues of T. G. Octavo A Discourse concerning Bonds of Resignation of Benefices in point of Law and Conscience in Octavo A Discourse concerning the Illegality of the Ecclesiastical Commission in Answer to the Vindication and Defence of it wherein the true notion of the Legal Supremacy is cleared and an Account is given of the Nature Original and Mischief of the Dispensing Power The Council of Trent Examin'd and Disprov'd by Catholick Tradition in the main Points in Controversie between Us and the Church of Rome with a particular Account of the Times and Occasions of Introducing them The Unreasonableness of Separation or an Impartial account of the History Nature and Pleas of the present Separation from the Communion of the Ch. of England Quarto The Grand Question concerning the Bishops Right to vote in Parliament in Cases Capital stated and argued from the Parliament-Rolls and the History of former times with an Enquiry into their Peerage and the Tree Estates in Parliament Octavo Twelve Sermons preached upon several Occasions Vol. I. Octavo Ten Sermons preached upon several Occasions Vol. II. Octavo A Third Volume will be shortly published A Discourse in Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity with an Answer to the late Socinian Objections against it from Scripture Antiquity and Reason And a Preface concerning the different Explication of the Trinity and the Tendency of the present