cannot deserve it For no meer Man can deserve to be made God But it is more agreeable to the Divine Nature and Will not to give his Honour to a Creature 3. But after all the Invectives of these Enemies to Mysteries we do not make that which we say is Incomprehensible to be a Necessary Article of Faith as it is Incomprehensible but we do assert that what is Incomprehensible as to the Manner may be a Necessary Article as far as it is plainly Revealed As in the Instances I have already mentioned of the Creation and Resurrection of the Dead would they in earnest have Men turn Infidels as to these things till they are able to comprehnd all the difficulties which relate to them If not why should this suggestion be allow'd as to the Mysteries which relate to our Redemption by Iesus Christ If it be said the Case is not alike for those are clearly Revealed and these are not this brings it to the true and proper Issue of this matter and if we do not prove a clear Revelation we do not assert their being Necessary Articles of Faith but my present business was only to take off this Objection That the Mysteries were Incomprehensible and therefore not to be received by us II. And so I come to the second Way by which we are to Examine the several Senses of Christ Iesus coming to save Sinners Which of them tends more to the Benefit and Advantage of Mankind or which is more worthy of all Acceptation And that will appear by considering these things 1. Which tends most to the raising our Esteem and Love of Christ Iesus 2. Which tends most to the begetting in us a greater Hatred of Sin 3. Which tends most to the strengthening our Hope of Salvation by Iesus Christ. 1. As to the raising in us a greater Esteem and Love of Christ. We are certain that the Infinite Love and Condescension of Christ Iesus in undertaking such a Work as the saving of Sinners makes it most worthy of all Acceptation Some Men may please themselves in thinking that by taking away all Mysteries they have made their Faith more easie but I am certain they have extremely lessen'd the Argument for our Love viz. the Apprehensions of the wonderfull Love and Condescension of Christ in coming into the World to save Sinners And yet this is the great Argument of the New Testament to perswade Mankind to the Love of God and of his Son God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son c. This is indeed a mighty Argument of Love if by the only begotten Son be meant the Eternal Son of God who came down from Heaven as S. Iohn speaks just before but if no more be meant but only that God made a meer Man to be his Son and after he had preached a while here on Earth and was ill used and crucified by his own People he Exalted him to be God and gave him Divine Attributes and Honours this were an Argument of great Love to the Person of Christ but not to the rest of Mankind But God's Love in Scripture is magnified with Respect to the World in the sending of his Son In this was manifested saith the Apostle the Love of God towards us because that God sent his only begotten Son into the World that we should live through him Herein is love not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be a Propitiation for our Sins The great Love we still see is towards us i. e. towards Mankind but according to the other Sense it must have been Herein was the Love of God manifested to his Son that for his Sufferings he exalted him above all Creatures He that spared not his own Son saith S. Paul but delivered him up for us all If he were the Eternal Son of God who came to suffer for us there is a mighty force and Emphasis in this Expression and very apt to raise our Admiration and our Love But what not sparing his own Son is there if nothing were meant but that he designed by Sufferings to Exalt him For not Sparing him supposes an Antecedent Relation of the highest Kindness but the other is only designing extraordinary Kindness for the sake of his Sufferings Therefore the Argument for the Love of God is taken from what his Son was when he deliver'd him up for us all he was his own Son not by Adoption as others are S. Iohn calls him his only begotten Son and God himself his beloved Son in the Voice from Heaven and this before his Sufferings immediately after his Baptism when as yet there was nothing extraordinary done by him as to the great Design of his coming Which shews that there was an Antecedent Relation between him and the Father and that therein the Love of God and of Christ was manifested that being the only begotten Son of the Father he should take our Nature upon him and for our sakes do and 〈◊〉 what he did This is indeed an Argument great enough to raise our Adâ—â—ration to excite our Devotion to inâ—â—â—me our Aâ—â—ections but how flat and low doth it appear when it comes to no more 〈◊〉 this that there was a Man wâ—om after his Sufferings God raised from the Dead and made him a God by Office Doth this carry any such Argument in it for our Esteem and Love and Devotion to him as the other doth upon the moâ—â— serious Consideration of it 2. Which tends most to beget in 〈◊〉 a greater Hatred of Sin For that is so contrary to the Way of our Salvation by Iesus Christ that what tends most to ouâ— Hatred of it must conduce most to our happiness and therefore be most worthy of all Acceptation It is agreed on all handâ— that Christ did suffer very much both in his Mind and in his Body In his Mind when it is said that he was troubled in Spirit that he began to be sorrowfull and very heavy and soon after My Soul is exceeding sorrowfull even unto death S. Luke saith that he was in an Agony wherein he not only prayed more earnestly but his sweat was as it were great Drops of Blood falling to the Ground What made this Amazement and dreadfull Agony in the mind of the most innocent Person in the World Was it meerly the Fear of the Pains of Death which he was to undergo That is impossible considering the Assurance which he had of so glorious a Reward so soon following after when so many Martyrs endured such exquisite Torments for his sake without any such Disturbance or Consternation But the Apostles give us another Account of it S. Peter saith he was to bear our Sins in his own body on the tree that Christ suffered for Sins the just for the unjust S. Paul that God made him to be Sin for us who knew no Sin that he might be made the righteousness
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 God's readiness to pardon it might have been interpreted That the blood of Christ was therefore the declaration of God's 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 expressions doth attribute something peculiar to the blood of Christ but if all that were meant by it were no more than the declaring God's 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 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 unsuitable 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 procuring it And in that sense we acknowledge That the death of Christ was a declaration of God's will and decree to pardon but not meerly as it gave testimony to the truth of his Doctrine for in that sense the blood of the Apostles and Martyrs might be said to purge us from sin as well as the blood of Christ but because it was the consideration upon which God had decreed to pardon And so as the acceptance of the condition required or the price paid may be said to declare or manifest the intention of a person to release or deliver a Captive So God's acceptance of what Christ did suffer for our sakes may be said to declare his readiness to pardon us upon his account But then this declaration doth not belong properly to the act of Christ in suffering but to the act of God in accepting and it can be no other ways known than God's acceptance is known which was not by the Sufferings but by the Resurrection of Christ. And therefore the declaring Gods will and decree to pardon doth properly belong to that and if that had been all which the Scripture had meant by purging of sin by the blood of Christ it had been very incongruously applied to that but most properly to his Resurrection But these phrases being never attributed to that which most properly might be said to declare the will of God and being peculiarly attributed to the death of Christ which cannot be said properly to do it nothing can be more plain than that these expressions ought to be taken in that which is confessed to be their proper sense viz. That Expiation of sin which doth belong to the death of Christ as a Sacrifice for the sins of the world VIII But yet Socinus and Crellius have another subterâ—uge for therein lies their great art in seeking rather by any means to escape their enemies than to overcome them For being sensible that the main scope and design of the Scripture is against them they seldom and but very weakly assault but shew all their subtlety in avoiding by all imaginable arts the force of what is brought against them And the Scripture being so plain in attributing such great effects to the death of Christ when no other answer will serve turn then they tell us That the death of Christ is taken Metonymically for all the consequents of his death viz. His Resurrection Exaltation and the Power and Authority which he hath at the right hand of his Father But how is it possible to convince those who by death can understand life by sufferings can mean glory and by the shedding of blood sitting at the right hand of God And that the Scripture is very far from giving any countenance to these bold Interpretations will appear by these considerations 1. Because the effect of Expiation of our sins is attributed to the death of Christ as distinct from his Resurrection viz. Our reconciliation with God Rom. 5.10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of hâ—â— Son much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life To which Crellius answers That the Apostle doth not speak of the death of Christ alone or as it is considered distinct from the consequences of it but only that our Reconciliation was effected by the death of Christ intervening But nothing can be more evident to any one who considers the design of the Apostles discourse than that he speaks of what was peculiar to the death of Christ for therefore it is said that Christ died for the ungodly For scarcely for a righteous man will one die but God commendeth his love towards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us Much more then being now justified by his blood we shall be saved through him upon which those words follow For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son c. The Reconciliation here mentioned is attributed to the death of Christ in the same sense that it is mentioned before but there it is not mentioned as a bare condition intervening in order to something farther but as the great instance of the love both of God and Christ of God in sending his Son of Christ in laying down his life for sinners in order to their being justified by his blood But where is it that St. Paul saith that the death of Christ had no other influence on the expiation of our sins but as a bare condition intervening in order to that power and authority whereby he would expiate sins
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 Christ's 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 reconciliation 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 where-ever the Dative of the person following the Verb importing reconciliation did signifie any thing else but the party with whom the reconcilâ—ation was to be made As for that objâ—ction concerning things in Heaven being reconciled that phrase doth not import such a Reconciliation of the Angels as of Mâ—n â—uâ— 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 XIII 1. 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 die to reconcile God to us The second is That the Doctrine of Satisfaction asserted by us is inconsistent with the freeness of God's grace in the remission of sins Both which will 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 muâ—h 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 God's love in sending Christ into the world but we adore and magnifie the infiniteness and unexpressible greatness of his love that nothwithstanding all the contempt of the former kindness and mercies of Heaven he should be pleased to send his own Son to die for sinners that they might be reconciled to him And herein was the great love of God manifested that while we were enemies and sinners Christ died 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 die 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 Christ's 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 die 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 XIV To the other Obejction Concerning the inconsistency of the Freeness of God's Grace with the Doctrine of Satisfaction I answer Either God's 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 truâ—st 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 God's part especially when the condition required tends so highly to the end of God's 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 dishonour done to God by the breach of his Laws and the injury men do to themsâ—lves 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 Honour 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 God's 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
Examination of them I. Which is most agreeable to the Revealed Will of God II. Which doth offer fairest for the Benefit and Advantage of Mankind I. Which is most agreeable to the revealed Will of God For that we are sure is the most faithfull saying since Men of Wit and Reason may deceive us but God cannot When the Apostles first preached this Doctrine to the World they were not bound to believe what they affirmed to be a faithfull saying till they gave sufficient Evidence of their Authority from God by the wonderfull Assistance of the Holy Ghost But now this faithfull saying is contained in the Books of the New Testament by which we are to judge of the Truth of all Christian Doctrines And when two different Senses of Places of Scripture are offer'd we are to consider which is most Reasonable to be preferr'd And herein we are allow'd to Exercise our Reason as much as we please and the more we do so the sooner we shall come to Satisfaction in this matter Now according to Reason we may judge that Sense to be preferr'd 1. Which is most plain and easie and agreeable to the most receiv'd Sense of Words not that which is forced and intricate or which puts improper and metaphorical Senses upon Words which are commonly taken in other Senses especially when it is no Sacramental thing which in its own Nature is Figurative 2. That which suits most with the Scope and Design not only of the particular Places but of the whole New Testament which is to magnifie God and to depress Man to set forth the Infinite Love and Condescension of God in giving his Son to be a Propitiation for our Sins to set up the Worship of one true God in Opposition to Creatures to Represent and Declare the mighty Advantages Mankind receive by the Sufferings of Christ Iesus 3. That which hath been generally receiv'd in the Christian Church to be the Sense of those places For we are certain this was always look'd on as a matter of great Concernment to all Christians and they had as great Capacity of understanding the Sense of the Apostles and the Primitive Church had greater Helps for knowing it than others at so much greater Distance And therefore the Sense is not to be taken from modern Inventions or Criticisms or pretences to Revelation but that which was at first deliver'd to the Christian Church and hath been since received and embraced by it in the several Ages and hath been most strenuously asserted when it hath met with Opposition as founded on Scripture and the general Consent of the Christian Church 4. That which best agrees with the Characters of those Persons from whom we recive the Christian Faith and those are Christ Iesus and his holy Apostles For if their Authority be lost our Religion is gone and their Authority depends upon their Sincerity and Faithfulness and Care to inform the World aright in matters of so great Importance 1. I begin with the Character which the Apostles give of Christ Iesus himself which is that he was a Person of the greatest Humility and Condescension that he did not assume to himself that which he might justly have done For let the Words of S. Paul be understood either as to the Nature or Dignity of Christ it is certain that they must imply thus much that when Christ Iesus was here on Earth he was not of a vain assuming humour that he did not boast of himself nor magnifie his own Greatness but was contented to be look'd on as other Men although he had at that time far greater and Diviner Excellency in him than the World would believe Less than this cannot be made of those Words of the Apostle Who being in the form of God he thought it not robbery to be equal with God but made himself of no Reputation and took upon him the form of a Servant Now this being the Character given of him let us consider what he doth affirm concerning himself For although he was far from drawing the People after him by setting forth his own Perfections yet upon just Occasions when the Iews contested with him he did Assert such things which must savour of Vanity and Ostentation or else must imply that he was the Eternal Son of God For all Mankind are agreed that the highest degree of Ambition lies in Affecting Divine Honour or for a meer Man to be thought a God How severely did God punish Herod for being pleased with the Peoples folly in crying out the Voice of God and not of Man And therefore he could never have born with such positive Assertions and such repeated Defences of his being the Son of God in such a manner as implied his being so from Eternity This in his Disputes with the Iews he affirms several times that he came down from Heaven not in a Metaphorical but in a proper Sense as appears by those words What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before In another Conference he asserted that he was before Abraham Which the Iews so literally understood that without a Metaphor they went about to stone him little imagining that by Abraham the calling of the Gentiles was to be understood But above all is that Expression which he used to the Iews at another Conference I and my Father are one which they understood in such a manner that immediately they took up stones to have stoned him What means all this Rage of the Iews against him What for saying that he had Vnity of Consent with his Father No certainly But the Iews misunderstood him Let us suppose it would not our Saviour have immediately explained himself to prevent so dangerous a Misconstruction But he asked them what it was they stoned him for They answer him directly and plainly because that thou being a man makest thy self God This was home to the purpose And here was the time for him to have denied it if it had not been so But doth he deny it Doth he say it would be Blasphemy in him to own it No but he goes about to defend it and proves it to be no Blasphemy for him to say that he was the Son of God i. e. so as to be God as the Iews understood it Can we imagine that a meer Man knowing himself to be such should Assume this to himself and yet God to bear witness to him not only by Miracles but by a Voice from Heaven wherein he was called his beloved Son in whom he was well pleased Could God be pleased with a mortal finite despicable Creature as the Iews thought him that assumed to himself to be God and maintained and defended it among his own People in a solemn Conference at a very Publick Place in one of the Portico's of the Temple And this he persisted in to the last For when the High Priest adjured him by the living God to tell whether he
take our Nature upon him than that a man should be rapt up into Heaven that it might be said that he came down from thence For in the foâ—mer Supposition we have many other places of Scripture to support it which speak of his being with God and having Glory with him before the World was whereas there is nothing for the other but only that it is necessary to make some tolerable Sense of those words 4. It is more Reasonable to believe that God should become Man by taking our Nâ—ture upon him than that Man should become God For in the former there is nothing but the Difficulty of conceiving the Maâ—â—â—r of the Union which we all grant to be so between Soul and Body but in the other there is a Repugnancy in the very Conception of a Created God of an Eternal Son of Adam of Omnipotent Infirmity of an Infinite finite Being In the former Case an Infinite is united to a Finite but in the other a Finite becomes Infinite 5. It is more Reasonable to believe that Christ Iesus should suffer as he did for our sakes than for his own We are all agreed that the Sufferings of Christ were far beyond any thing he deserved at God's hands but what Account then is to be given of them We say that he made himself a voluntary Sacrifice for Expiation of the Sins of Mankind and so there was a great and noble End designed and no Injury done to a willing Mind and the Scripture as plainly expresses this as it can do in Words But others deny this and make him to suffer as one wholly Innocent for what Cause To make the most Innocent Persons as apprehensive of Suffering as the most Guilty and the most righteous God to put no difference between them with Respect to Suffering 6. It is more Reasonable to suppose such a Condescension in the Son of God to take upon him the Form of a Servant for our Advantage than that a meer Man should be Exalted to the Honour and Worship which belongs only to God For on the one side there is nothing but what is agreeable to the Divine Nature viz. Infinite Love and Condescension and Pity to Mankind on the other there is the greatest Design of Self-Exaltation that ever was in Humane Nature viz. for a meer Man to have the most Essential Attributes and Incommunicable Honour which belongs to God And whether of these two is more agreeable to the Spirit and Design of the New Testament let any man of understanding judge For as it is evident that the great Intention of it is to magnifie the wonderful Love of God in the sending of his Son so it is as plain that one great End of the Christian Doctrine was to take Mankind off from giving Divine Worship to Creatures and can we then suppose that at the same time it should set up the Worship of a meer Man with all the Honour and Adoration which belongs to God This is to me an incomprehensible Mystery indeed and far beyond all that is implied in the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation For it subverts the very Foundation of the Design of Christianity as to the Reforming Idolatry then in being it lays the Foundation for introducing it into the Woâ—ld again for since the Distance between God and his Creatures is taken away in the matter of Worship there is nothing left but the Declaration of his Will which doth not exclude more Mediators of Intercession but upon this Ground that the Mediation of Redemption is the Foundation of that of Intercession And it is far more easie for us to suppose there may be some things too hard for us to understand in the Mystery of our Redemption by Iesus Christ than that at the same time it should be both a Duty and a Sin to worship any but the true God with proper Divine Worship For if it be Idolatry to give it to a Creature then it is a great Sin for so the Scripture still accounts it but if we are bound to give it to Christ who is but a Creature then that which in it self is a Sin is now become a Necessary Duty which overthrows the Natural Differences of Good and Evil and makes Idolatry to be a meer Arbitrary thing And I take it for granted that in Matters of Religion Moral Difficulties are more to be regarded than Intellectual because Religion was far more designed for a Rule of our Actions than for the Satisfaction of our Curiosity And upon due Examination we shall find that there is no such frightfull Appearances of Difficulties in the Mystery of the Incarnation as there is in giving Divine Worship to a Creature And it ought to be observed that those very Places which are supposed to exclude Christ from being the true God must if they have any force exclude him from Divine Worship For they are spoken of God as the Object of our Worship but if he be not excluded from Divine Worship then neither is he from being the true God which they grant he is by Office but not by Nature But a God by Office who is not so by Nature is a new and incomprehensible Mystery A Mystery hidden from Ages and Generations as to the Church of God but not made known by the Gospel of his Son This is such a kind of Mystery as the Heathen Priests had who had Gods many and Lords many as the Apostle saith i. e. many by Office although but one by Nature But if the Christian Religion had owned one God by Nature and only one by Office the Heathens had been to blame chiefly in the Number of their Gods by Office and not in the Divine Worship which they gave to them But S. Paul blames the Heathens for doing Service to them which by Nature are no Gods not for doing it without Divine Authority nor for mistaking the Person who was God by Office but in giving Divine Worship to them who by Nature were no Gods which he would never have said if by the Christian Doctrine Divine Worship were to be given to one who was not God by Nature But these are indeed incomprehensible Mysteries how a Man by Nature can be a God really and truly by Office how the Incommunicable Perfections of the Divine Nature can be communicated to a Creature how God should give his Glory to another and by his own Command require that to be given to a Creature which himself had absolutely forbidden to be given to any besides himself It is said by a famous Iesuit I will not say how agreeably to their own Doctrines and Practices about Divine Worship that the Command of God cannot make him worthy of Divine Worship who without such a Command is not worthy of it And it is very absurd to say that he that is unworthy of it without a Command can become worthy by it for it makes God to command Divine Honour to be given to one who