powerful into favour And those words of Paul express the Ministry of Reconciliation which Reconciliation he had just now described by the Non-imputation of sins So Christ himself said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was sent to proclaim liberty to Captives Luke 4.18 and commanded the Apostles to preach in his name the remission of sins Luke 24.47 So Paul himself said he declared the remission of sins Acts 13.38 Eph. 2.16 It is written concerning Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he may reconcile both Jews and Gentiles in one Body unto God This Dative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be governed but by the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the Interpretation of Socinus that Deo here may stand by it self or that reconciliare Deo should be to reconcile them amongst themselves that they may serve God is wrested hard and without example Neither is the Argument drawn thence of any force that in that place Paul treats of the Peace made between the Jews and the Gentiles for it doth not follow that mention of Peace is unsutable to this Argument which is purchased unto them both with God for the two divers things that are joyned are so joyned with one another that they are first and more eminently joyned to the Bond it self for they are not joyned with one another but by and for the Bond. Therefore the Gentiles and Jews are made Friends with one another through their Friendship with God And it is wonderful that Socinus doth not acknowledge this when he says himself Col. 1.20,21,22 That the Apostle having raised a Discourse concerning the Agreement procured between Creatures presently and immediately subjoyns mention of that Reconciliation by which men are made friends to God and that by the interposition of the word and which useth not to joyn things that have no manner of coherence Whence it is manifest that these things are joyned with one another so that Paul in that place to the Ephesians whereof we treat did rightly refer the Reconciliation of men with men unto the Reconciliation of men with God as an effect to its Cause That must be added that in that same place the blood of Christ is named as by which reconciliation was made But the Scripture in many places subjoyns remission of sins to the blood of Christ as its most proper effect Matth. 26.28 Ephes 1.7 Coloss 1.14 Hebr. 9.22 Rom. 3.25 and 5.9 1 John 1.7 1 Pet. 1.2 Apoc. 1.5 to wit by a Propitiatory Virtue 1 John 2.2 and 4.10 Like unto that place to the Ephesiâ—…s seems that of which already mention hath been made to the Coloss 1.20 so that for the explication of that I think that this rather should be brought then that Eph. 1.9,10 for very many things agree what there is said separately by Blood and by Cross is here said joyntly by the Blood of the Cross There is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 making peace here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having made peace there that he might reconcile both to God here to reconcile all unto himself that is God This is the difference that there only mention is made of men reconciled with one another because they were reconciled unto God but here of men reconciled both with one another and with Angels therefore because they were reconciled unto God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is verily unto himself as also the Syrian interprets for if this were the sense of these words into one as Socinus would have it it should have been written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or at least 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but should not have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is necessarily referred to a certain person Neither is it a new thing that the Preposition in with an Accusative is put for a Dative because amongst the Hebrews there is a very frequent change of the Particles b and l for by the confession of Socinus himself it is an usual Phrase amongst the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that a man is reconciled to another But no man can deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Apostolick Speech is put in the place of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who hath looked into a few places diligently such as Matth. 15.24 Acts 16.40 Eph. 3.19 and the exchange of the same words may be also frequently observed in profane Writers Wherefore that is not likely that Socinus would have that in this Sentence only the Reconciliation of Creatures with one another is mentioned but in the following Sentence the Reconciliation of men with God for contrariways what is said in the general vers 20. that is specially applied to the Colossians v. 21. which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and you signifies that is yea you also or you your selves But in this Sentence that is not said which Socinus says That Reconciliation was made by making us unblameable but that we were reconciled that we might be made unblameable Socinus made the way of the end verily very licentiously The Scripture in many places declares that sins are forgiven to us that in time to come we may live holily being obliged by so great a benefit Luke 1.17 And it is to be observed that in this Sentence also there is made mention of the body of Christ which was broken for us for the remission of sins 1 Cor. 11.24 Matth. 26.28 and of death to which likewise already before we shewed that remission as an effect is attributed But that which the Apostle adds That we were reconciled when we were estranged and enemies in our mind is like that which he said elsewhere that Christ died for us when we were sinners and wicked Rom. 5.6,8 and that it is God that justifies the ungodly Rom. 4.5 Wherefore it is so much the more justly believed that here also the same benefit is treated of for this was the beginning whereby the Apostle came in to this speech that we have in Christ redemption to wit the remission of sins and verily it cannot be better understood how much God and Christ loved us and how much we are Debtors to God and Christ than if we consider that the remission of sins was first obtained and afterwards applied to us being under the wrath of God and guilty of sins which two things the Scripture for the most part joyns together But that which Socinus saith in another place That it behoved God to be throughly appeased towards us and not angry at all before Christ was sent to make a Covenant How disagreeable unto truth this is he seems himself elsewhere to have acknowledged when he said That at that very moment when God offered Conditions to renew Friendship with us he was of a mind not reconciled but reconcilable And verily Reason it self teacheth this very thing for in all conditional things the conditional are before the absolute Neither should the Condition only be offered but also fulfilled before an absolute Act followeth Wherefore the Scripture saith We have peace with God
after we are justified by Faith Rom. 5.1 Before we are sons o wrath Eph. 2.3 for our sins are the cause of separtion that is they make God averse from us Isai 59.2 This Anger excludes Peace or Friendship but not any kind of Love generally so called as appears John 3.16 and 1 John 4.10 And verily Socinus himself supposeth That sins are not forgiven to men before repentance But he cannot be said to be reconciled or as Socinus expresseth it throughly reconciled who yet imputes sins Which thing that it may be more clearly understood there are verily three moments that I may so say of Divine Will to be distinguished The first is before the coming to pass of the Death of Christ either really or in the decree and foreknowledge of God In this moment God is angry at a sinner but so as he doth not abhor all ways and reasons of laying down his wrath The second moment is when Christ's Death is now come to pass In which God doth not only appoint but also promise that he will lay down his wrath The third is when a man believes with a true faith in Christ and Christ according to the form of the Covenant commends the Believer to God Here now God lays down his anger and receives a man into favour But because Verbs Active and Passive answering to the same use to have a twofold signification either that they are confined within Vertue and Efficacy or that they include Effect also it follows that in the first moment neither of these have place and therefore in respect thereof God may be called only reconcileable In the second and third he is rightly said to be reconciled the two Senses that I mentioned being distinguished In the former sense God is said to have reconciled the world to himself and we reconciled to God when we were Enemies In the latter is that Be ye reconciled to God and we received Reconciliation and the same is the signification of the words Redemption and Expiation and that expression whereby Christ is said sometimes to have died for all sometimes for some Moreover that must be observed that the word Reconciliation doth not exclude Satisfaction or all Performance and Expence For in Livius there is That by that gift he might reconcile unto himself the minds of his Country men and elsewhere in many places the like may be seen so that upon that account Christ should no less be called our Reconciler which very thing the Scripture also shews when it adds to Reconciliation the mention of Blood CHAP. VIII Concerning our Redemption purchased by the Death of Christ THat we may come to the second Class of Testimonies which is of Redemption before all things it must be put beyond Controversie that Redemption and the like words in holy Scripture are applied to our deliverance from deserved Punishment which appears to be so Gal. 3.13 Rom. 3.24 and especially Eph. 1.7 and Coloss 1.14 neither doth Socinus deny it Yea also those places which say that we were redeemed from iniquity and vain conversation as Tit. 2.14 and 1 Pet. 1.18 belong to the same for it is a very frequent thing for sin to be put for the punishment of sin And in that place to Titus the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being added that is to expiate which we shall afterwards explain and after that in the place of Peter the mention of a Lamb that is a Sacrifice make this evident because the Scripture in many places bears witness that this Redemption is ascribed to the Death of Christ as the cause as Eph. 1.7 Rom. 3.24 Hebr. 10.12 Socinus could not deny it But how the Death of Christ is the cause of Redemption this is it that is in Controversie For we say That the Death of Christ is therefore the cause of Redemption because thereby he moved God to deliver us from punishment but Socinus denies this thing But though there were something ambiguous in these Testimonies in which mention of Redemption is made it would be sufficient to bring other places of the same Argument for interpreting them of which sort we have cited many which signifie not obscurely that Christ died for our sins suffered punishment for us and so obtained us the remission of sins to wit God being reconciled by his Death yet we hope that the same Opinion may be proved clearly enough by these places which use the word Redemption and other like it Now there is a twofold phrase in Scripture one which names the Redemption of sins another which names our Redemption by a divers kind of speaking but with the same signification That former phrase Hebr. 9.15 where the Death of Christ is said to have been caused 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the redemption of transgressions but that by this kind of speaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Latine culpas delicta crimina redimere to redeem faults offences crimes there is not only signified the Cause moving to deliver but such also as includes Compensation or Satisfaction it is so manifest that Socinus ought to have confessed that also Therefore sith this is the most usual signification of that word it is not allowed us to recede from it except two things be proved that sometimes though less frequently another thing is signified by that expression and that there is here just cause why the less usual signification should be preferred before the more usual Neither of these is proved by Socinus For he brings no place of Sacred or Profane Writer where to redeem transgression sins faults offences signifies any other thing but that which we said In the Sentence of Solomon Prov. 16.6 there is a Hebrew word Chaphar which doth not properly answer the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which very thing Socinus also acknowledgeth when he saith Expiation rather than Redemption is signified by that word It may be added that the most native signification of that word is to cover and thence it is drawn to other things by a certain resemblance Neither doth it follow because the word Chaphar which among the Hebrews as many others because of the penury of primitive words in that tongue is of many significations so that it may signifie both other things and also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to redeem that therefore likewise the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should have all the significations that Chaphar hath because the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is simple among the Greeks answering its own Original but other words of the Greeks express other significations of the word Chaphar In Dan. 4.24 there is a Hebrew word Pharak which is not of equal force with the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but both properly and frequently it signifies to tear to break to pluck up and for this also to deliver Howbeit though we should interpret redimere in this place with the Ancients nothing compels to take this word out of the signification that we defend