to widen our differences or increase our animosities they are too large and too great already nor to condemn any humble and modest dissenters from us but I despair ever to see our divisions healed till Religion be brought from the Fancies to the hearts of men and till men instead of mystical notions and unacccountable experiences in stead of mis-applying promises and misunderstanding the spirit of prayer instead of judging of themselves by mistaken signs of Grace set themselves to the practice of humility selfdenial meekness patience charity obedience and a holy life and look on these as the greatest duties and most distinguishing characters of true Christianity And in doing of these there shall not only be a great reward in the life to come but in spight of all opposition from Atheism profaneness or superstition we may see our divisions cured and the Kingdom of God which is a Kingdom of peace and holiness to abide and flourish among us SERMON IX Preached at WHITE HALL WHITSUNDAY 1669. JOHN VII XXXIX But this spake he of the Spirit which they that believe on him should receive For the Holy Ghost was not yet given because that Iesus was not yet glorified WHat was said of old concerning the first creation of the world that in order to the accomplishment of it the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters is in a sense agreeable to the nature of it as true of the renovation of the world by the doctrine of Christ. For whether by that we understand a great and vehement mind as the Jews generally do or rather the Divine power manifesting it self in giving motion to the otherwise dull and unactive parts of matter we have it fully represented to us in the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles on the day of Pentecost For that came upon them as a rushing mighty wind and inspired them with a new life and motion whereby they became the most active instruments of bringing the world out of that state of confusion and darkness it lay in before by causing the glorious light of the Gospel to shine upon it And left any part should be wanting to make up the parallel in the verse before the text we read of the Waters too which the Spirit of God did move upon and therefore called not a dark Abyss but flowing rivers of living water He that believeth on me as the Scripture hath said out of his bellie shall flow rivers of living water Not as though the Apostles like some in the ancient Fables were to be turned into fountains and pleasant Springs but the great and constant benefit which the Church of God enjoys by the plentiful effusion of the Holy Spirit upon them could not be better set fotth than by rivers of living water flowing from them And this the Evangelist in these words to prevent all cavils and mistakes tells us was our Saviours meaning But this spake he of the Spirit which they that believe on him should receive And lest any should think that our Blessed Saviour purposely affected to speak in strange metaphors we shall find a very just occasion given him for using this way of expression from a custom practised among the Jews at that time For in the solemnity of the feast of Tabernacles especially in the last and great day of the Feast mentioned v. 37. after the sacrifices were offered upon the Altar one of the Priests was to go with a large Golden Tankard to the fountain of Siloam and having filled it with water he brings it up to the water-gate over against the altar where it was received with a great deal of pomp and ceremony with the sounding of the Trumpets and rejoycing of the people which continued during the libation or pouring it out before the Altar after which followed the highest expressions of joy that were ever used among that people insomuch that they have a saying among them that he that never saw the rejoycing of the drawing of water never saw rejoycing in all his life Of which several accounts are given by the Jews some say it had a respect to the later rain which God gave them about this time others to the keeping of the Law but that which is most to our purpose is that the reason assigned by one of the Rabbies in the Ierusalem Talmud is because of the drawing or pouring out of the Holy Ghost according to what is said with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of Salvation By which we see that no fairer advantage could be given to our Saviour to discourse concerning the effusion of the Holy Ghost and the mighty joy which should be in the Christian Church by reason of that than in the time of this solemnity and so lets them know that the Holy Ghost represented by their pouring out of water was not to be expected by their rites and ceremonies but by believing the doctrine which he preached and that this should not be in so scant and narrow a measure as that which was taken out of Siloam which was soon poured out and carried away but out of them on whom the Holy Ghost should come rivers of living waters should flow whose effect and benefit should never cease as long as the world it self should continue So that in the words of the text we have these particulars offered to our consideration 1. The effusion of the Spirit under the times of the Gospel but this spake he of the spirit which they that believe on him should receive 2. The nature of that effusion represented to us by rivers of living waters flowing out of them 3. The time that was reserved for it which was after the glorious ascension of Christ to Heaven For the Holy Ghost was not yet given because that Iesus was not yet glorified 1. The effusion of the spirit under the times of the Gospel by which we mean those extraordinary gifts and abilities which the Apostles had after the Holy Ghost is said to descend upon them Which are therefore called signs and wonders and divers gifts of the Holy Ghost and the operations of the Spirit of which we have a large enumeration given us in that place The two most remarkable which I shall insist upon and do comprehend under them most of the rest are the power of working miracles whether in Healing diseases or any other way and the gift of tongues either in speaking or interpreting they who will acknowledge that the Apostles had these will not have reason to question any of the rest And concerning these I shall endeavour to prove 1. That the things attributed to the Apostles concerning them could not arise from any ordinary or natural causes 2. That they could not be the effects of an evil but of a holy and divine spirit and therefore that there was really such a pouring out of the spirit
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 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 praeterperfect 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 praeterperfect 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 praeterperfect 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 Christs expiation of sin it was yet to come after Christs 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 sound by Christs Oblation of himself in Heaven he would have compared Christs 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 are 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 Christs entrance into Heaven but of his dying v. 16 17 18. But granting that he doth allude to the High-Priests 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 sácrifice 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 could be no need of his entrance into Heaven since we do not make the Priesthood of Christ to expire at his death but that he is in Heaven a merciful High-Priest in negotiating the affairs of his People with God and there ever lives to make intercession for them Crellius answers That granting the Aorist being put before the Ver 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should imply such an action which was antecedent to Christs sitting at the right hand of God yet it is not there said that the expiation of sins was made before Christs entrance into Heaven for those saith he are to be considered as two different things for a Prince first enters into his Palace before he sits upon his throne And therefore saith he Christ may be said to have made expiation of sins before he sate down at the right hand of his Father not that it was done by his death but by his entrance into Heaven and offering himself to God there by which means he obtained his sitting on the right hand of the Majesty on high and thereby the full Power of remission of sins and giving eternal life To which I answer 1. That the Sripture never makes such a distinction between Christs entrance into Heaven and sitting at the right hand of God which latter implying no more but the glorious state of Christ in Heaven his entrance into Heaven doth imply it For therefore God exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour and the reason of the power and authority given him in Heaven is no where attributed to his entrance into it as the means of it but our Saviour before that tells us that all power and authority was committed to him and his very entrance into Heaven was a part of his glory and given him in consideration of his sufferings as the Apostle plainly asserts and he became obedient to death even the death of the Cross wherefore God hath highly exalted him c. There can be then no imaginable reason to make the entrance of Christ into Heaven and presenting himself to God there a condition or means of obtaining that power and authority which is implyed in his sitting at the right hand of God 2. Supposing we should look on these as distinct there is
they found this so gainful and withall so easie a trade among the people when with a demure look and a sowre countenance they could cheat and defraud their Brethren and under a specious shew of devotion could break their fasts by devouring Widows houses and end their long Prayers to God with acts of the highest injustice to their Neighbours As though all that while they had been only begging leave of God to do all the mischief they could to their Brethren It is true such as these were our Saviour upon all occasions speaks against with the greatest sharpness as being the most dangerous enemies to true Religion and that which made men whose passion was too strong for their reason abhor the very name of Religion when such baseness was practised under the profession of it When they saw men offer to compound with Heaven for all their injustice and oppression with not a twentieth part of what God challenges as his due they either thought Religion to be a meer device of men or that these mens hypocrisie ought to be discovered to the World And therefore our Blessed Saviour who came with a design to retrieve a true spirit of Religion among men finds it first of all necessary to unmask those notorious hypocrites that their deformities being discovered their ways as well as their persons might be the better understood and avoided And when he saw by the mighty opinion they had of themselves and their uncharitableness towards all others how little good was to be done upon them he seldom vouchsafes them his presence but rather converses with those who being more openly wicked were more easily convinced of their wickedness and perswaded to reform For which end alone it was that he so freely conversed with them to let them see there were none so bad but his kindness was so great to them that he was willing to do them all the good he could And therefore this could be no more just a reproach to Christ that he kept company sometimes with these than it is to a Chyrurgion to visit Hospitals or to a Physician to converse with the sick 2. But when they saw that his Greatness did appear in another way by the authority of his Doctrine and the power of his Miracles then these wise and subtle men apprehend a further reach and design in all his actions Viz. That his low condition was a piece of Popularity and a meer disguise to ensnare the people the better to make them in love with his Doctrine and so by degrees to season them with Principles of Rebellion and disobedience Hence came all the clamours of his being an Enemy to Caesar and calling himself the King of the Iews and of his design to erect a Kingdom of his own all which they interpret in the most malicious though most unreasonable sense For nothing is so politick as malice and ill will is for that finds designs in every thing and the more contrary they are to all the Protestations of the persons concerned the deeper that suggests presently they are laid and that there is the more cause to be afraid of them Thus it was in our Blessed Saviours case it was not the greatest care used by him to shew his obedience to the Authority he lived under it was not his most solemn disavowing having any thing to do with their civil Interests not the severe checks he gave his own Disciples for any ambitious thoughts among them not the recommending the doctrine of Obedience to them nor the rebuke he gave one of his most forward Disciples for offering to draw his sword in the rescue of himself could abate the fury and rage of his enemies but at last they condemn the greatest Teacher of the duty of Obedience as a Traytor and the most unparallel'd example of innocency as a Malesactor But though there could be nothing objected against the life and actions of our Blessed Saviour as tending to sedition and disturbance of the Civil Peace yet that these men who were inspired by malice and prophesied according to their own interest would say was because he was taken away in time before his designs could be ripe for action but if his doctrine tended that way it was enough to justifie their proceedings against him So then it was not what he did but what he might have done not Treason but Convenience which made them take away the life of the most innocent person but if there had been any taint in his doctrine that way there had been reason enough in such an Age of faction and sedition to have used the utmost care to prevent the spreading it But so far is this from the least ground of probability that it is not possible to imagine a Religion which aims less at the present particular interests of the embracers of it and more at the publick interests of Princes than Christianity doth as it was both preached and practised by our Saviour and his Apostles And here we have cause to lament the unhappy fate of Religion when it falls under the censure of such who think themselves the Masters of all the little arts whereby this world is governed If it teaches the duty of Subjects and the authority of Princes if it requires obedience to Laws and makes mens happiness or misery in another life in any measure to depend upon it then Religion is suspected to be a meer trick of State and an invention to keep the world in awe whereby men might the better be moulded into Societies and preserved in them But if it appear to inforce any thing indispensably on the Consciences of men though humane Laws require the contrary if they must not forswear their Religion and deny him whom they hope to be saved by when the Magistrate calls them to it then such half-witted men think that Religion is nothing but a pretence to Rebellion and Conscience only an obstinate plea for Disobedience But this is to take it for granted that there is no such thing as Religion in the World for if there be there must be some inviolable Rights of Divine Soveraignty acknowledged which must not vary according to the diversity of the Edicts and Laws of men But supposing the profession and practice of the Christian Religion to be allowed inviolable there was never any Religion nay never any inventions of the greatest Politicians which might compare with that for the preservation of civil Societies For this in plain and express words tells all the owners of it that they must live in subjection and obedience not only for wrath but for Conscience sake that they who do resist receive unto themselves damnation and that because whosoever resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God Than which it is impossible to conceive arguments of greater force to keep men in obedience to Authority for he that only obeys because it is his interest to do so will have the same
of the doctrine he hoped to preach among them Had Christ come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a great deal of pomp and state into the World subduing Kingdoms and Nations under him had St. Paul been a General for the Gospel instead of being an Apostle of it the great men of the World would then allow he had no cause to be ashamed either of his Master or of his employment But to preach a crucified Saviour among the glories and triumphs of Rome and a Doctrine of so much simplicity and contempt of the world among those who were the Masters of it and managed it with so much art and cunning to perswade them to be followers of Christ in a holy life who could not be like the gods they worshiped unless they were guilty of the greatest debaucheries seems to be an employment so lyable to the greatest scorn and contempt that none but a great and resolved spirit would ever undertake it For when we consider after so many hundred years profession of Christianity how apt the greatness of the world is to make men ashamed of the practice of it and that men aim at a reputation for wit by being able to abuse the Religion they own what entertainment might we then think our Religion met with among the great men of the Age it was first preached in when it not only encountered those weaker weapons of scoffs and raillery but the strong holds of interest and education If our Religion now can hardly escape the bitter scoffs and profane jests of men who pawn their souls to be accounted witty what may we think it suffered then when it was accounted a part of their own Religion to dispise and reproach ours If in the Age we live in a man may be reproached for his piety and virtue that is for being really a Christian when all profess themselves to be so what contempt did they undergo in the first Ages of the Christian World when the very name of Christian was thought a sufficient brand of infamy And yet such was the courage and magnanimity of the Primitive Christians that what was accounted most mean and contemptible in their Religion viz. their believing in a crucified Saviour was by them accounted the matter of their greatest honour and glory For though St. Paul only saith here that he was not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ yet elsewere he explains that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is contained in these words when he saith God forbid that I should glory in any thing save in the Cross of Christ by whom the World is crucified to me and I unto the World Gal. 6. 14. i. e. Although he could not but be sensible how much the world despised him and his Religion together yet that was the great satisfaction of his mind that his Religion had enabled him to despise the World as much For neither the pomp and grandeur of the World nor the smiles and flatteries of it no nor its frowns and severities could abate any thing of that mighty esteem and value which he had for the Christian Religion For in his own expression he accounted all things else but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Iesus his Lord Phil. 3. 8. Which words are not spoken by one who was in despair of being taken notice of for any thing else and therefore magnifies the Profession he was engaged in but by a person as considerable as most of the time and Nation he lived in both for his birth and education So that his contempt of the World was no sullen and affected severity but the issue of a sober and impartial judgement and the high esteem he professed of Christianity was no fanatick whimsey but the effect of a diligent enquiry and the most serious consideration And that will appear 2. By the grounds and reasons which St. Paul here gives why he was not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ 1. From the excellent end it was designed for and that is no less than salvation 2. From the effectualness of it in order to that end it is the Power of God to Salvation 3. From the necessity of believing the Gospel by all who would attain that end to every one that believes the Iew first and also to the Greek 1. From the excellent End it was designed for the recovery and happiness of the souls of men both which are implyed in the term salvation For considering the present condition of humane Nature as it is so far sunk beneath it self and kept under the power of unruly passions whatever tends to make it happy must do it by delivering it from all those things which are the occasions of its misery So that whatever Religion should promise to make men happy without first making them vertuous and good might on that very account be justly suspected of imposture For the same reasons which make the acts of any Religion necessary viz. that we may please that God who commands and governs the World must make it necessary for men to do it in those things which are far more acceptable to him than all our sacrifices of what kind soever which are the actions of true vertue and goodness If then that accusation had been true which Celsus and Iulian charged Christianity with viz. that it indulged men in the practice of vice with the promise of a future happiness notwithstanding I know nothing could have rendred it more suspicious to be a design to deceive Mankind But so far is it from having the least foundation of truth in it that as there never was any Religion which gave men such certain hopes of a future felicity and consequently more encouragement to be good so there was none ever required it on those strict and severe terms which Christianity doth For there being two grand duties of men in this world either towards God in the holiness of their hearts and lives or towards their Brethren in a peaceable carriage among men which cannot be without justice and sobriety both these are enforced upon all Christians upon no meaner terms than the unavoidable loss of all the happiness our Religion promises Follow peace with all men and holiness without which no man shall see the Lord. Heb. 12. 14. This is then the grand design of Christianity to make men happy in another world by making them good and vertuous in this It came to reform this world that it might people another so to purifie the souls of men as to make them meet to enjoy the happiness designed for them This is that great Salvation which the Gospel brings to the world Heb. 2. 3. and thence it is called the Word of Salvation Acts 13. 26. the way of salvation Acts 16. 17. the Gospel of salvation Ephes. 1. 13. So that though Christianity be of unspeakable advantage to this world there being no Religion that tends so much to the peace of mens minds and
as is here mentioned 1. That the things attributed to the Apostles could not arise from any meerly natural causes It is not my present business to prove the truth of the matters of fact viz. that the Apostles did those things which were accounted miracles by those who saw them or heard of them and that on the day of Pentecost they did speak with strange tongues for these things are so universally attested by the most competent witnesses viz. persons of the same age whose testimony we can have no reason to suspect and not only by those who were the friends to this Religion but the greatest enemies Jews and Heathens and by all the utmost endeavors of Atheistical men who have not set themselves to disprove the testimony but the consequence of it by saying that granting them true they do not infer the concurrence of a divine spirit that on the same grounds any person would Question the truth of these things he must question the truth of some other things which himself believes on the same or weaker grounds than these are Supposing then the matters of fact to be true we now enquire whether these things might proceed from any meerly natural causes which will be the best done by examining the most plausible accounts which are pretended to be given of them And thus some have had the confidence to say that whatever is said to be done by the power of miracles in the Apostles might be effected by a natural temperament of body or the great power of imagination and that their speaking with strange tongues might be the effect only of a natural Enthusiasm or some distemper of brain 1. That the power of miracles might be nothing but a natural temperament or the strength of imagination 1. An excellent natural temper of body they say may do strange and wonderful things so that such a one who hath an exact temperament may walk upon the waters stand in the air and quench the violence of the fire and by a strange kind of sanative contagion may communicate healthful spirits as persons that are infected do noisom and pestilential These are things spoken with as much ease and as little reason as any of the calumnies against Religion which are so boldly uttered by men who dare speak any thing as to these things but reason and do any thing but what is good 1. But can these men after all their confidence produce any one person in the world who by the exquisiteness of his natural temper hath ever walked upon the waters or poised himself in the air or kept himself from being singed in the fire If these things be natural how comes it to pass that no other instances can be given but such as we urge for miraculous We say indeed that Christ walked on the Sea but withal we say this was an argument of that divine power in him which as Iob saith alone spreadeth out the heavens and treadeth upon the waves of the Sea We say that Elijah was carried up into Heaven by a Chariot of fire and a whirlewind but it was only by his power who maketh the winds his messengers and flames of fire his Ministers as some render those words of the Psalmist We say that the three Children were preserved in the fiery fornace that they had no hurt and even Nebuchadnezzar was hereby convinced that he was the true God which was able to preserve his servants from the force of that devouring element which was therefore so much worshipped by those Eastern people because it destroyed not only the men but the Gods of other nations But is this enough to satisfie any reasonable men that these things were done by natural causes because they were done at all For that is to suppose it impossible there should be miracles which is to say it is impossible there should he a God which is an attempt somewhat beyond what the most impudent Atheists pretended But in this case nothing can be reasonably urged but common experience to the contrary if these were things which were usually done by other causes there would be no reason to pretend a miraculous power but we say it is impossible that such things should be produced by meer natural causes and in this case there can be no confutation but by contrary experience As we see the opinion of the Ancients concerning the uninhabitableness of the the torrid Zone and that there were no Antipodes are disproved by the manifest experience to the contrary of all modern discoverers Let such plain experience be produced and we shall then yield the possibility of the things by some natural causes although not by such an exact temperament of body which is only an instance of the strong power of imagination in those who think so whatever that may have on others Such a temperament of body as these persons imagine considering the great inequality of the mixture of the earthy and aërial parts in us being it may be as great a miracle it self as any they would disprove by it 2. But supposing such a temperament of body to be possible how comes it to be so beneficial to others as to propagate its vertue to the cure of diseased persons We may as well think that a great beauty may change a Black by osten viewing him or a skilful Musitian make another so by sitting near him as one man heal another because he is healthful himself Unless we can suppose it in the power of a man to send forth the best spirits of his own body and transfuse them into the body of another but by this means that which must cure another must destroy himself Besides the healthfulness of a person lies much in the freedom of perspiration of all the noxious vapours to the body by which it will appear incredible that a man should preserve his own health by sending out the worst vapors and at the same time cure another by sending out the best 3. Supposing we should grant that a vigorous heat and a strong arm may by a violent friction discuss some tumor of a distempered body yet what would all this signifie to the mighty cures which were wrought so easily and with a word speaking and at such great distance as were by Christ and his Apostles Supposing our Saviour had the most exact natural temper that ever any person in the world had yet what could this do to the cure of a person above twenty miles distance for so our Saviour cured the Son of a Nobleman who lay sick at Capernaum when himself was at Cana in Galilee So at Capernaum he cured the Centurions servant at his own house without going thither Thus we find the Apostles curing though they did not touch them and that not one or two but multitudes of diseased persons And nothing can be more absurd than to imagine that so many men should at the same time
controversie with all clearness and brevity And the substance of it will be reduced to these two debates 1. Whether the sufferings of Christ in general are to be considered as a punishment of sin or as a meer act of dominion 2. Whether the death of Christ in particular were a proper expiatory sacrifice for sin or only an antecedent condition to his exercise of the Office of Priesthood in Heaven 1. Whether the sufferings of Christ in general are to be considered as a punishment of sin or as a meer act of dominion for that it must be one or the other of these two cannot be denyed by our Adversaries for the inflicting those sufferings upon Christ must either proceed from an antecedent meritorious cause or not If they do they are then punishments if not they are meer exercises of power and dominion whatever ends they are intended for and whatever recompence be made for them So Crellius asserts that God as absolute Lord of all had a right of absolute dominion upon the life and body of Christ and therefore might justly deliver him up to death and give his body to the Cross and although Christ by the ordinary force of the Law of Moses had a right to escape so painful and accursed death yet God by the right of dominion had the power of disposal of him because he intended to compensate his torments with a reward infinitely greater than they were but because he saith for great ends the consent of Christ was necessary therefore God did not use his utmost dominion in delivering him up by force as he might have done but he dealt with him by way of command and rewards proposed for obedience and in this sence he did act as a righteous Governor and indulgent Father who encouraged his Son to undergo hard but great things In which we see that he makes the sufferings of Christ an act of meer dominion in God without any antecedent cause as the reason of them only he qualifies this act of dominion with the proposal of a reward for it But we must yet further enquire into their meaning for though here Crellius attributes the sufferings of Christ meerly to Gods dominion without any respect to sin yet elsewhere he will allow a respect that was had to sin antecedently to the sufferings of Christ and that the sins of men were the impulsive cause of them And although Socinus in one place utterly denies any lawful-antecedent cause of the death of Christ besides the will of God and Christ yet Crellius in his Vindication saith by lawful cause he meant meritorius or such upon supposition of which he ought to dye for elsewhere he makes Christ to dye for the cause or by the occasion of our sins which is the same that Crellius means by an impulsive or procatartick cause Which he thus explains we are now to suppose a decree of God not only to give salvation to Mankind but to give us a firm hope of it in this present state now our sins by deserving eternal punishment do hinder the effect of that decree upon us and therefore they were an impulsive cause of the death of Christ by which it was effected that this decree should obtain notwithstanding our sins But we are not to understand as though this were done by any expiation of the guilt of sin by the death of Christ but this effect is hindred by three things by taking away their sins by assuring men that their former sins and present infirmities upon their sincere obedience shall not be imputed to them and that the effect of that decree shall obtain all which saith he is effected morte Christi interveniente the death of Christ intervening but not as the procuring cause So that after all these words he means no more by making our sins an impulsive cause of the death of Christ but that the death of Christ was an argument to confirm to us the truth of his Doctrine which doctrine of his doth give us assurance of these things and that our sins when they are said to be the impulsive cause are not to be considered with a respect to their guilt but to that distrust of God which our sins do raise in us which distrust is in truth according to this sense of Crellius the impulsive cause and not the sins which were the cause or occasion of it For that was it which the doctrine was designed to remove and our sins only as the causes of that But if it be said that he speaks not only of the distrust but of the punishment of sin as an impediment which must be removed too and therefore may be called an impulsive cause we are to consider that the removal of this is not attributed to the death of Christ but to the leaving of our sins by the belief of his Doctrine therefore the punishment of our sins cannot unless in a very remote sense be said to be an impulsive cause of that which for all that we can observe by Crellius might as well have been done without it if any other way could be thought sufficient to confirm his Doctrine and Christ without dying might have had power to save all them that obey him But we understand not an impulsive cause in so remote a sense as though our sins were a meer occasion of Christs dying because the death of Christ was one argument among many others to believe his Doctrine the belief of which would make men leave their sins but we contend for a neerer and more proper sense viz. that the death of Christ was primarily intended for the expiation of our sins with a respect to God and not to us and therefore our sins as an impulsive cause are to be considered as they are so displeasing to God that it was necessary for the Vindication of Gods Honour and the deterring the world from sin that no less a Sacrifice of Attonement should be offered than the blood of the Son of God So that we understand an impulsive cause here in the sense that the sins of the people were under the Law the cause of the offering up those Sacrifices which were appointed for the expiation of them And as in those Sacrifices there were two things to be considered viz. the mactation and the oblation of them the former as a punishment by a substitution of them in place of the persons who had offended the latter as the proper Sacrifice of attonement although the mactation it self considered with the design of it was a Sacrificial act too So we consider the sufferings of Christ with a twofold respect either as to our sins as the impulsive cause of them so they are to be considered as a punishment or as to God with a design to expiate the guilt of them so they are a Sacrifice of Attonement The first consideration is that we are now upon and upon which the present debate
of kindness it must be there fore out of enmity and with a design to destroy him and so our sins cannot be understood as Socinus and Crellius would have them as the meer occasions of Christs death but as the proper impulsive cause of it Whether the following word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be taken with a respect to sin and so it properly signifies It is required or with a respect to the person and so it may signifie he was oppressed is not a matter of that consequence which we ought to contend about if it be proved that Christs oppression had only a respect to sin as the punishment of it Which will yet further appear from another expression in the same Chapter vers 5. The chastisement of our peace was upon him and by his stripes we are healed In which Grotius saith the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie any kind of affliction but such as hath the nature of punishment either for example or instruction but since the latter cannot be intended in Christ the former must Crellius thinks to escape from this by acknowledging that the sufferings of Christ have some respect to sin but if it be such a respect to sin which makes what Christ underwent a punishment which is only proper in this case it is as much as we contend for This therefore he is loth to abide by and saith that chastisement imports no more than bare affliction without any respect to sin which he thinks to prove from St. Pauls words 2 Cor. 6. 9. We are chastised but not given over to death but how far this is from proving his purpose will easily appear 1. Because those by whom they were said to be chastened did not think they did it without any respect to a fault but they supposed them to be justly punished and this is that we plead for that the chastisement considered with a respect to him that inflicts it doth suppose some fault as the reason of inflicting it 2. This is far from the present purpose for the chastisement there mentioned is oposed to death as chastened but not killed whereas Grotius expresly speaks of such chastisements as include death that these cannot be supposed to be meerly designed for instruction and therefore must be conceived under the notion of punishment The other place Psal. 73. 14. is yet more remote from the business for though the Psalmist accounts himself innocent in respect of the great enormities of others yet he could not account himself so innocent with a respect to God as not to deserve chastisement from him But Crellius offers further to prove that Christs death must be considered as a bare affliction and not as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or exemplary punishment because in such a punishment the guilty themselves are to be punished and the benefit comes to those who were not guilty but in Christs sufferings it was quite contrary for the innocent was punished and the guilty have the benefit of it and yet he saith if we should grant that Christs sufferings were a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that will not prove that his death was a proper punishment To which I answer That whatever answers to the ends of an exemplary punishment may properly be called so but supposing that Christ suffered the punishment of our sins those sufferings will answer to all the ends of an exemplary punishment For the ends of such a punishment assigned by Crellius himself are That others observing such a punishment may abstain from those sins which have brought it upon the person who suffers Now the question is whether supposing Christ did suffer on the account of our sins these sufferings of his may deter us from the practice of sin or no And therefore in opposition to Crellius I shall prove these two things 1. That supposing Christ suffered for our sins there was a sufficient argument to deter us from the practice of sin 2. Supposing that his sufferings had no respect to our sins they could not have that force to deter men from the practice of it for he after asserts That Christs sufferings might be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to us though they were no punishment of sin 1. That the death of Christ considered as a punishment of sin is a proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or hath a great force to deter men from the practice of sin and that because the same reason of punishment is supposed in Christ and in our selves and because the example is much more considerable than if we had suffered our selves 1. The same reason of punishment is supposed For why are men deterred from sin by seeing others punished but because they look upon the sin as the reason of the punishment and therefore where the same reason holds the same ends may be as properly obtained If we said that Christ suffered death meerly as an innocent person out of Gods dominion over his life what imaginable force could this have to deter men from sin which is asserted to have no relation to it as the cause of it But when we say that God laid our iniquities upon him that he suffered not upon his own account but ours that the sins we commit against God were the cause of all those bitter Agonies which the Son of God underwent what argument can be more proper to deter men from sin than this is For hereby they see the great abhorrency of sin which is in God that he will not pardon the sins of men without a compensation made to his Honor and a demonstration to the world of his hatred of it Hereby they see what a value God hath for his Laws which he will not relax as to the punishment of offenders without so valuable a consideration as the blood of his own Son Hereby they see that the punishment of sin is no meer arbitrary thing depending barely upon the will of God but that there is such a connexion between sin and punishment as to the ends of Government that unless the Honor and Majesty of God as to his Laws and Government may be preserved the violation of his Laws must expect a just recompence of reward Hereby they see what those are to expect who neglect or despise these sufferings of the Son of God for them for nothing can then remain but a certain fearful looking for of judgement and fiery indignation which shall devour the Adversaries So that here all the weighty arguments concur which may be most apt to prevail upon men to deter them from their sins For if God did thus by the green tree what will be do by the dry If he who was so innocent in himself so perfectly holy suffered so much on the account of our sins what then may those expect to suffer who have no innocency at all to plead and add wilfulness and impenitency to their sins But if it be replied by Crellius that it is otherwise
use words sometimes out of their proper and natural sense thence he tells us The sufferings of Christ are called chastisements though they have nothing of the nature of chastisements in them And from this liberty of interpreting they make words without any other reason than that they serve for their purpose be taken in several senses in the same verse For Socinus in one verse of St. Iohns Gospel makes the World be taken in three several senses He was in the World there it is taken saith he for the men of the world in general The world was made by him there it must be understood only of the reformation of things by the Gospel and the world knew him not there it must be taken in neither of the former senses but for the wicked of the world What may not one make of the Scripture by such a way of interpreting it But by this we have the less reason to wonder that Socinus should put such an Interpretation upon Gal. 3. 13. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us for it is written Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree In which he doth acknowledge by the curse in the first clause to be meant the punishment of sin but not in the second And the reason he gives for it is amavit enim Paulus in execrationis verbo argutus esse St. Paul affected playing with the word curse understanding it first in a proper and then a Metaphorical sense But it is plain that the design of S. Paul and Socinus are very different in these words Socinus thinks he speaks only Metaphorically when he saith that Christ was made a curse for us i. e. by a bare allusion of the name without a correspondency in the thing it self and so that the death of Christ might be called a curse but was not so but St. Paul speaks of this not by way of extenuation but to set forth the greatness and weight of the punishment he underwent for us He therefore tells us what it was which Christ did redeem us from The curse of the Law and how he did it by being not only made a curse but a curse for us i. e. not by being hateful to God or undergoing the very same curse which we should have done which are the two things objected by Crellius against our sense but that the death of Christ was to be considered not as a bare separation of soul and body but as properly poenal being such a kind of death which none but Malefactors by the Law were to suffer by the undergoing of which punishment in our stead he redeemed us from that curse which we were liable to by the violation of the Law of God And there can be no reason to appropriate this only to the Iews unless the death of Christ did extend only to the deliverance of them from the punishment of their sins or because the curse of the Law did make that death poenal therefore the intention of the punishment could reach no further than the Law did but the Apostle in the very next words speaks of the farther extension of the great blessing promised to Abraham That it should come upon the Gentils also and withall those whom the Apostle speaks to were not Iews but such as thought they ought to joyn the Law and Gospel together that St. Paul doth not mean as Crellius would have it that Christ by his death did confirm the New Covenant and so take away the obligation of the Law for to what end was the curse mentioned for that What did the accursedness of his death add to the confirmation of the truth of his Doctrine and when was ever the curse taken for the continuance of the Law of Moses but that Christ by the efficacy of his death as a punishment for sin hath redeemed all that believe and obey him from the curse deserved by their sins whether inforced by the Law of Moses or the Law written in their hearts which tells the consciences of sinners that such who violate the Laws of God are worthy of death and therefore under the curse of the Law We come now to the force of the particles which being joyned with our sins as referring to the death of Christ do imply that his death is to be considered as a punishment of sin Not that we insist on the force of those particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though of themselves they did imply this for we know they are of various significations according to the nature of the matter they are joyned with but that these being joyned with sins and sufferings together do signifie that those sufferings are the punishment of those sins Thus it is said of Christ that he dyed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for our sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he suffered once 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he gave himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he offered a Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which Crellius replies That if the force of these particles not being joyned with sufferings may be taken for the final and not for the impulsive cause they may retain the same sense when joyned with sufferings if those sufferings may be designed in order to an end but if it should be granted that those phrases being joyned with sufferings do always imply a meritorious cause yet it doth not follow it should be here so understood because the matter will not bear it To this a short answer will at present serve for It is not possible a meritorious cause can be expressed more emphatically than by these words being joyned to sufferings so that we have as clear a testimony from these expressions as words can give and by the same arts by which these may be avoided any other might so that it had not been possible for our Doctrine to have been expressed in such a manner but such kind of answers might have been given as our Adversaries now give If it had been said in the plainest terms that Christs death was a punishment for our sins they would as easily have avoided the force of them as they do of these they would have told us the Apostles delighted in an Antanaclasis and had expressed things different from the natural use of the words by them and though punishment were sometimes used properly yet here it must be used only metaphorically because the matter would bear no other sense And therefore I commend the ingenuity of Socinus after all the pains he had taken to enervate the force of those places which are brought against his Doctrine he tells us plainly That if our Doctrine were not only once but frequently mentioned in Scripture yet he would not therefore believe the thing to be so as we suppose For saith he seeing the thing it self cannot be I take the least inconvenient