these things would bring them to repentance but yet the method God hath used with us seems to bode very ill in case we do not at last return to the Lord. For it is not only agreeable to what is here delivered as the course God used to reclaim the Israelites but to what is reported by the most faithfull Historian of those times of the degrees and steps that God made before the ruines of the British Nation For Gildas tells us the decay of it began by Civil Wars among themselves and high discontents remaining as the consequents of them after this an universal decay and poverty among them after that nay during the continuance of it Wars with the Picts and Scots their inveterate enemies but no sooner had they a little breathing space but they return to their luxury and other sins again then God sends among them a consuming Pestilence which destroyed an incredible number of people When all this would not do those whom they trusted most to betrayed them and rebelled against them by whose means not only the Cities were burnt with Fire but the whole Island was turned almost into one continued flame The issue of all which at last was that their Countrey was turned to a desolation the ancient Inhabitants driven out or destroyed and their former servants but now their bitter enemies possessing their habitations May God avert the Omen from us at this day We have smarted by Civil Wars and the dreadful effects of them we yet complain of great discontents and poverty as great as them we have inveterate enemies combined abroad against us we have very lately suffered under a Pestilence as great almost as any we read of and now the great City of our Nation burnt down by a dreadful Fire And what do all these things mean and what will the issue of them be though that be lockt up in the Councils of Heaven yet we have just cause to fear if it be not our speedy amendment it may be our ruine And they who think that incredible let them tell me whether two years since they did not think it altogether as improbable that in the compass of the two succeeding years above a hundred thousand persons should be destroyed by the Plague in London and other places and the City it self should be burnt to the Ground And if our fears do not I am sure our sins may tell us that these are but the fore-runners of greater calamities in case there be not a timely reformation of our selves And although God may give us some intermissions of punishments yet at last he may as the Roman Consul expressed it pay us intercalatae poenae usuram that which may make amends for all his abatements and give us full measure according to that of our sins pressed down shaken together and running over Which leads to the third particular 3. The Causes moving God to so much severity in his Judgements which are the greatness of the sins committed against him So this Prophet tells us that the true account of all Gods punishments is to be fetched from the sins of the people Amos 1. 3. For three transgressions of Damascus and for four I will not turn away the punishment thereof so it is said of Gaza v. 6. of Tyrus v. 9. of Edom v. 11. of Ammon v. 13. Moab ch 2. 1. Judah v. 4. and at last Israel v. 6. And it is observable of every one of these that when God threatens to punish them for the greatness of their iniquities and the multitude of their transgressions which is generally supposed to be meant by the three transgressions and the four he doth particularly threaten to send a fire among them to consume the Houses and the Palaces of their Cities So to Damascus chap. 1. 4. to Gaza v. 7. to Tyrus v. 10. to Edom v. 12. to Ammon v. 14. to Moab ch 2. v. 2. to Judah v. 5. I will send a fire upon Judah and it shall devour the Palaces of Jerusalem and Israel in the words of the text This is a judgement then which when it comes in its fury gives us notice to how great a height our sins are risen especially when it hath so many dreadfull fore-runners as it had in Israel and hath had among our selves When the red horse hath marched furiously before it all bloody with the effects of a Civil War and the pale horse hath followed after the other with Death upon his back and the Grave at his heels and after both these those come out of whose mouth issues fire andsmoak and brimstone it is then time for the inhabitants of the earth to repent of the work of their hands But it is our great unhappiness that we are apt to impute these great calamities to any thing rather than to our sins and thereby we hinder our selves from the true remedy because we will not understand the cause of our distemper Though God hath not sent Prophets among us to tell us for such and such sins I will send such and such judgements upon you yet where â—…e observe the parallel between the sinsâ—…d â—…d the punishments agreeable with what â—…e find recorded in Scripture we have reaâ—…n to say that those sins were not only the â—…tecedents but the causes of those punishâ—…ents which followed after them And â—…at because the reason of punishment was â—…ot built upon any particular relation beâ—ween God and the people of Israel but â—pon reasons common to all mankind yet with this difference that the greater the mercies were which any people enjoyed the sooner was the measure of their iniquities filled up and the severer were the judgements when they came upon them This our Prophet gives an account of Chap. 3. 2. You only have I known of all the Nations of the earth therefore will I punish you for your iniquities So did God punish Tyre and Damascus as well as Israel and Judah but his meaning is he would punish them sooner he would punish them more severely I wish we could be brought once to consider what influence piety and vertue hath upon the good of a Nation if we did we should not only live better our selves but our Kingdom and Nation might flourish more than otherwise we are like to see it do Which is a truth hath been so universally received among the wise Men of 〈◊〉 ages that one of the Roman Historian though of no very severe life himself yâ—… imputes the decay of the Roman State nâ—… to Chance or Fortune or some unhiddâ—… causes which the Atheism of our Agâ—… would presently do but to the geneâ—… loosness of mens lives and corruption 〈◊〉 their manners And it was the grave Observation of one of the bravest Captain ever the Roman State had that it was iâ—… possible for any State to be happy stantibâ—… moenibus ruentibus moribus though their walâ—… were firm if their manners were decayed Buâ— it is our misery that our walls and ouâ— manners are fallen
things we are to consider concerning the contradiction of sinners which Christ endured against himself Nothing now remains but the influence that ought to have upon us lest we be weary and faint in our minds For which end I shall suggest two things 1. The vast disproportion between Christs sufferings and ours 2. The great encouragement we have from his sufferings to bear our own the better 1. The vast Disproportion between Christs sufferings and our own Our lot is fallen into suffering times and we are apt enough to complain of it I will not say it is wholly true of us what the Moralist saith generally of the complaints of men Non quia dura sed quia molles patimur that it is not the hardness of our conditions so much as the softness of our spirits which makes us complain of them For I must needs say this City hath smarted by such a series and succession of judgements which few Cities in the world could parallel in so short a time The Plague hath emptied its houses and the fire consumed them the War exhausted our spirits and it were well if Peace recovered them But still these are but the common calamities of humane nature things that we ought to make account of in the World and to grow the better by them And it were happy for this City if our thankfulness and obedience were but answerable to the mercies we yet enjoy let us not make our condition worse by our fears nor our fears greater than they need to be for no enemy can be so bad as they Thanks be to God our condition is much better at present than it hath been let us not make it worse by fearing it may be so Complaints will never end till the World does and we may imagine that will not last much longer when the City thinks it hath trade enough and the Countrey riches enough But I will not go about to perswade you that your condition is better than it is for I know it is to no purpose to do so all men will believe as they feel But suppose our condition were much worse than it is yet what were all our sufferings compared with those of our Saviour for us the sins that make us smart wounded him much deeper they pierced his side which only touch our skin we have no cause to complain of the bitterness of that Cup which he hath drunk off the dreggs of already We lament over the ruins of a City and are revived with any hopes of seeing it rise out of the dust but Christ saw the ruins that sin caused in all mankind he undertook the repairing them and putting men into a better condition than before And we may easily think what a difficult task he had of it when he came to restore them who were delighted in their ruins and thought themselves too good to be mended It is the comfort of our miseries if they be only in this life that we know they cannot last long but that is the great aggravation of our Saviours sufferings that the contradiction of sinners continues against him still Witness the Atheisme I cannot so properly call it as the Antichristianism of this present Age wherein so many profane persons act over again the part of the Scribes and Pharisees they slight his Doctrine despise his Person disparage his Miracles contemn his Precepts and undervalue his Sufferings Men live as if it were in defiance to his holy Laws as though they feared not what God can do so much as to need a Mediator between him and them If ever men tread under foot the Son of God it is when they think themselves to be above the need of him if ever they count the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing it is not only when they do not value it as they ought but when they exercise their profane wits upon it Blessed Saviour was it not enough for thee to bear the contradiction of sinners upon Earth but thou must still suffer so much at the hands of those whom thou dyedst for that thou mightest bring them to Heaven was it not enough for thee to be betrayed on Earth but thou must be defied in Heaven Was it not enough for thee to stoop so low for our sakes but that thou shouldest be trampled on because thou didst it was the ignominious death upon the Cross too small a thing for thee to suffer in thy Person unless thy Religion be contemned and exposed to as much shame and mockery as thy self was Unhappy we that live to hear of such things but much more unhappy if any of our sins have been the occasion of them If our unsuitable lives to the Gospel have open'd the mouths of any against so excellent a Religion If any malice and revenge any humour and peevishness any pride or hypocrisie any sensuality and voluptuousness any injustice or too much love of gain have made others despise that Religion which so many pretend to and so few practise If we have been in any measure guilty of this as we love our Religion and the honour of our Saviour let us endeavour by the holiness and meekness of our spirits the temperance and justice of our actions the patience and contentedness of our minds to recover the honour of that Religion which only can make us happy and our Posterity after us 2. What Encouragement we have from the sufferings of Christ to bear our own the better because we see by his example that God deals no more hardly with us than he did with his own Son if he layes heavy things upon us Why should we think to escape when his own Son underwent so much if we meet with reproaches and ill usage with hard measure and a mean condition with injuries and violence with mockings and affronts nay with a shamefull and a painfull death what cause have we to complain for did not the Son of God undergo all these things before us If any of your Habitations have been consumed that you have been put to your shifts where to lodge your selves or your Families consider that though the Foxes have holes and the Birds of the Air have nests yet the Son of Man had not whereon to lay his head If your condition be mean and low think of him who being in the form of God took upon him the form of a servant and though he was rich yet for your sakes he became poor that through his poverty ye might be made rich If you are unjustly defamed and reproached consider what contumelies and disgraces the Son of God underwent for you If you are in pain and trouble think of his Agony and bloody sweat the nailing of his hands and feet to the Cross to be a sacrifice for the expiation of your sins Never think much of undergoing any thing whereby you may be conformable to the Image of the Son of God knowing this that if ye suffer with him ye shall also be
sins the meritorious cause of anothers punishment especially one wholly innocent and so that the guilty shall be freeâ—â— on the account of his sufferings Thus I have endeavoured to give the true state of the 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 consider'd 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 doe they are then punishments if not they are meer exercises of power and dominion whatever ends they are intended for and whatever recomâ—…ce 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 Crosse and although Christ by the ordinary force of the Law of Moses had a right to escape so painfull 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 sense he did act as a righteous Governour and indulgent Father who encouraged his Son to undergoe 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 fuâ—ther 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 〈◊〉 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 denyes any lawfull antecedent cause of the death of Christ besides the will of God and Christ yet Crellius in his Vindication saith by lawfull cause he meant meritorious 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 Mankinde 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 interventing 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 call'd 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 same 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
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 expression had only a respect to sin as the punishment of it Which will yet further appear from another expression in the same Chapter ver 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 opposed 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 deterr 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 deterr us from the practice of sin 2. Supposing that his sufferings had no respect to our sins they could not have that force to deterr 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 deterr 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 deterr 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 Honour 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 concurr which may be most apt to prevail upon men to deterr them from their sins For if God did thus by the green tree what will he 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 replyed by Crellius that it is otherwise among men I answer that we do not pretend in all things to parallel the sufferings of Christ for us with any sufferings of men for one another But yet we add that even
among men the punishments inflicted on those who were themselves innocent as to the cause of them may be as exemplary as any other And the greater appearance of severity there is in them the greater terror they strike into all offenders As Childrens losing their estates and honors or being banished for their Parents treasons in which they had no part themselves Which is a proper punishment on them of their Fathers faults whether they be guilty or no and if this may be just in men why not in God If any say that the Parents are only punished in the Children he speaks that which is contradictory to the common sense of mankind for punishment doth suppose sense or feeling of it and in this case the Parents are said to be punished who are supposed to be dead and past feeling of it and the Children who undergo the smart of it must not be said to be punished though all things are so like it that no person can imagine himself in that condition but would think himself punished and severely too If it be said that these are calamities indeed but they are no proper punishments it may easily be shewed that distinction will not hold here Because these punishments were within the design of the Law and were intended for all the ends of punishments and therefore must have the nature of them For therefore the Children are involved in the Fathers punishment on purpose to deterr others from the like actions There are some things indeed that Children may fall into by occasion of their Fathers guilt which may be only calamities to them because they are necessary consequents in the nature of the thing and not purposely designed as a punishment to them Thus being deprived of the comfort and assistance of their Parents when the Law hath taken them off by the hand of justice this was designed by the Law as a punishment to the Parents and as to the Children it is only a necessary consequent of their punishment For otherwise the Parents would have been punished for the Childrens faults and not the Children only involved in that which unavoidably follows upon the Parents punishment So that Crellius is very much mistaken either in the present case of our Saviours punishment or in the general reason of exemplary punishments as among men But the case of our Saviour is more exemplary when we consider the excellency of his person though appearing in our nature when no meaner sufferings would satisfie than of so transcendent a nature as he underwent though he were the Eternal Son of God this must make the punishment much more exemplary than if he were considered only as our Adversaries do as a meer man So that the dignity of his person under all his sufferings may justly add a greater consideration to deterr us from the practice of sin which was so severely punished in him when he was pleased to be a Sacrifice for our sins From whence we see that the ends of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are very agreeable with the sufferings of Christ considered as a punishment for sin We now consider whether as Crellius asserts supposing Christs death were no punishment it could have these effects upon mens minds or no Yes he saith it might because by his sufferings we might see how severely God would punish wicked and obstinate persons Which being a strange riddle at the first hearing it viz. that by the sufferings of an innocent person without any respect to sin as the cause of them we should discern Gods severity against those who are obstinate in sin we ought the more diligently to attend to what is said for the clearing of it First saith he If God spared not his own most innocent and holy and only Son than whom nothing was more dear to him in Heaven or Earth but exposed him to so cruel and ignominious a death how great and severe sufferings may we think God will inflict on wicked men who are at open defiance with him I confess my self not subtle enough to apprehend the force of this argument viz. If God dealt so severely with him who had no sin either of his own or others to answer for 〈◊〉 therefore he will deal much more severely with those that have For Gods severity consider'd without any respect tâ—… sin gives rather encouragement to sinners than any argument to deterre them from it For the natural consequence of it is that God doth act arbitrarily without any regard to the good or eviâ— of mens actions and therefore it is to no purpose to be sollicitous about them For upon the same account that the most innocent person suffers most severely from him for all that we know the more we strive to be innocent the more severely we may be dealt with and let men sin they can be but dealt severely with all the difference then is one shall be call'd punishments and the other calamities but the severity may be the same in both And who would leave off his sins meerly to change the name of punishments into that of calamities And from hence it will follow that the differences of good and evil and the respects of them to punishment and reward are but aiery and empty things but that God really in the dispensation of things to men hath no regard to what men are or do but acts therein according to his own Dominion whereby he may dispose of men how or which way he pleases If a Prince had many of his Subjects in open rebellion against him and he should at that time make his most obedient and beloved Son to be publickly exposed to all manner of indignities and be dishonoured and put to death by the hands of those rebells could any one imagine that this was designed as an exemplary punishment to all rebels to let them see the danger of rebellion No but would it not rather make them think him a cruel Prince one that would punish innocency as much as rebellion and that it was rather better to stand at defiance and become desperate for it was more dangerous to be beloved than hated by him to be his Son than his declared Enemy So that insisting on the death of Christ as it is considered as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for of that we speak now there is no comparison between our Adversaries hypothesis and ours but saith Crellius the consequence is not good on our side if Christ suffered the punishment of our sins therefore they shall suffer much more who continue in sin for Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world but they suffer only for their own and what they have deserved themselves To which I answer that the argument is of very good force upon our hypothesis though it would not be upon theirs For if we suppose him to be a meer man that suffer'd then there could be no argument drawn from his sufferings to ours but according to the exact proportion of sins and punishments
but supposing that he had a divine as well as humane nature there may not be so great a proportion of the sins of the world to the sufferings of Christ as of the sins of a particular person to his own sufferings and therefore the argument from one to the other doth still hold For the measure of punishments must be taken with a proportion to the dignity of the person who suffers them And Crellius himself confesseth elsewhere that the dignity of the person is to be considered in exemplary punishment and that a lesser punishment of one that is very great may do much more to deterre men from sin than a greater punishment of one much less But he yet further urgeth that the severity of God against sinners may be discovered in the sufferings of Christ because Gods hatred against sin is discovered therein But if we ask how Gods hatred against sin is seen in the sufferings of one perfectly innocent and free from sin and not rather his hatred of innocency if no respect to sin were had therein he answers that Gods hatred against sin was manifested in that he would not spare his only Son to draw men off from sin For answer to which we are to consider the sufferings of Christ as an innocent person designed as an exemplary cause to draw men off from sin and let any one tell me what hatred of sin can possibly be discover'd in proposing the sufferings of a most innocent person to them without any consideration of sin as the cause of those sufferings If it be said that the doctrine of Christ was designed to draw men off from sin and that God suffered his Son to dye to confirm this doctrine and thereby shewed his hatred to sin I answer 1. This is carrying the dispute off from the present business for we are not now arguing about the design of Christs doctrine nor the death of Christ as a means to confirm that but as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what power that hath without respect to our sins as the cause of them to draw us from sin by discovering Gods hatred to it 2. The doctrine of Christ according to their hypothesis discovers much less of Gods hatred to sin than ours doth For if God may pardon sin without any compensation made to his Laws or Honour if repentance be in its own nature a sufficient satisfaction for all the sins past of our Lives if there be no such thing as such a Justice in God which requires punishment of sin committed if the punishment of sin depend barely upon Gods will and the most innocent person may suffer as much from God without respect to sin as the cause of suffering as the most guilty let any rational man judge whether this Doctrine discovers as much Gods abhorrency of sin as asserting the necessity of vindicating Gods honour to the World by the breach of his Laws if not by the suffering of the offenders themselves yet of the Son of God as a Sacrifice for the expiation of sin by undergoing the punishment of our iniquities so as upon consideration of his sufferings he is pleased to accept of repentance and sincere obedience as the conditions upon which he will grant remission of sins and eternal life So that if the discovery of Gods hatred to sin be the means to reclaim men from it we assert upon the former reasons that much more is done upon our Doctrine concerning the sufferings of Christ than can be upon theirs So much shall suffice to manifest in what sense Christs death may be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that this doth imply that his sufferings are to be considered as a punishment of sin The next Series of places which makes Christs sufferings to be a punishment for sin are those which assert Christ to be made sin and a curse for us which we now design to make clear ought to be understood in no other sense for as Grotius saith As the Jews sometimes use sin for the punishment of sin as appears besides other places by Zach. 14. 19. Gen. 4. 13. so they call him that suffers the punishment of sin by the name of sin as the Latins use the word Piaculum both for the fault and for him that suffers for it Thence under the Law an expiatory Sacrifice for sin was called sin Levit. 4. 3 29 5. 6. Psal. 40. 7. Which way of speaking Esaias followed speaking of Christ Esai 53. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he made his soul sin i. e. liable to the punishment of it To the same purpose S. Paul 2 Cor. 5. 21. He made him to be sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him To which Crellius replies That as there is no necessity that by the name of sin when applied to sufferings any more should be implied than that those sufferings were occasioned by sin no more is there when it is applied to the person nay much less for he saith No more is required to this but that he should be handled as sinners use to be and undergo the matter of punishment without any respect to sin either as the cause or occasion of it So he saith The name Sinner is used 1 King 1. 21. and in S. Paul the name of sin in the first clause is to be understood as of righteousness in the latter and as we are said to be righteousness in him when God deals with us as with righteous persons so Christ was said to be sin for us when he was dealt with as a sinner And the Sacrifices for sin under the Law were so call'd not with a respect to the punishment of sin but because they were offered upon the account of sin and were used for taking away the guilt of it or because men were bound to offer them so that they sinned if they neglected it So that all that is meant by Esaias and S. Paul is That Christ was made an expiatory Sacrifice or that he exposed himself for those afflictions which sinners onely by right undergo But let Crellius or any others of them tell me if the Scripture had intended to express that the sufferings of Christ were a punishment of our sins how was it possible to do it more Emphatically than it is done by these expressions the custom of the Hebrew Language being considered not onely by saying that Christ did bear our sins but that himself was made sin for us those phrases being so commonly used for the punishment of sin Let them produce any one instance in Scripture where those expressions are applied to any without the consideration of sin that place 1 King 1. 21. is very far from it for in all probability the design of Bathsheba in making Solomon King was already discovered which was the reason that Adonijah his elder Brother declaring himself King invited not him with the rest of the Kings sons All that she had for
Children should be punished but their own sins are the reason and their Fathers the bare occasion of being punished for them But in Scripture the reason of punishment is drawn from the Fathers sins and not from the Childrens For then the words would have run thus if the Children sin and deserve punishment by their own iniquities then I will take occasion from their Fathers sins to visit their own iniquities upon them Whereas the words referre to the fathers sins as the reason of the Childrens punishment So in the words of the Law wherein the reason of punishment ought to be most expresly assigned it is not I will certainly punish the children if they continue in the Idolatry of their Fathers but I will visit the sins of the Fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth Generation of them that hate me If it were onely because of imitation of the Fathers sins by the Children there could be no reason for the limitation to the third and fourth Generation for then the reason of punishment would be as long as the imitation continued whether to the fourth or tenth Generation And as Alphonsus à Castro observes If the reason of punishment were the imitation of their Fathers sins then the Children were not punished for their Fathers sins but for their own for that imitation was a sin of their own and not of their Fathers Besides if the proper reason of punishment were the sins of the children and the Fathers sins onely the occasion of it then where it is mentioned that children are punished for their Parents sins the childrens sins should have been particularly expressed as the proper cause of the punishment But no other reason is assigned in the Law but the sins of the Fathers no other cause mentioned of Canaans punishment but his Fathers sin nor of the punishment of the people in Davids time but his own sin Lo I have sinned and I have done wickedly but these sheep what have they done Which is no hyperbolical expression but the assigning the proper cause of that judgement to have been his own sin as the whole Chapter declares Nor of the hanging up of Sauls sons by the Gibeonites but that Saul their Father had plotted their destruction And in an instance more remarkable than any of those which Crellius answers viz. the punishment of the people of Judah for the sins of Manasses in the time of Josias when a through Reformation was designed among them the Prince being very good and all the places of Idolatry destroyed such a Passover kept as had not been kept before in the time of any King in Israel yet it then follows Notwithstanding the Lord turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah because of all the provocations wherewith Manasses had provoked him withal Who can say here that the sins of Manasseh were only the occasion of Gods punishing the people in the time of Josias for their own sins when their sins were much less in the time of Josias than in any time mentioned before after their lapse into Idolatry Nay it is expresly said That Josiah took away all the abominations out of all the countreys that pertained to the children of Israel and made all that were present in Israel to serve even to serve the Lord their God And all his days they departed not from following the Lord God of their Fathers To say that this was done in hypocrisie and bare outward compliance is to speak without book and if the reason of so severe punishments had been their hypocrisie that ought to have been mentioned but not onely here but afterwards it is said that the reason of Gods destroying Judah was for the sins of Manasseh viz. his Idolatries and Murther which it is said the Lord will not pardon And if he would not pardon then he did punish for those sins not barely as the occasion but as the meritorious cause of that punishment What shall we say then Did the people in Josiah's time deserve to be punished for the sins of Manasseh Grandfather to Josiah Or was God so highly provoked with those sins that although he did not punish Manasseh himself upon his repentance yet he would let the world see how much he abhorred them by punishing those sins upon the people afterwards although according to the usual proportion of sins and punishments the sins of the people in that age did not exceed the sins of other ages as much as the punishments they suffered did exceed the punishments of other ages which is necessary according to Crellius his Doctrine for if God never punisheth by occasion of their Fathers sins the children beyond the desert of their own sins then it is necessary that where judgements are remarkably greater the sins must be so too the contrary to which is plain in this instance By which we see that it is not contrary to the Justice of God in punishing to make the punishment of some on the account of others sins to exceed the desert of their own measuring that desert not in a way common to all sin but when the desert of some sins is compared with the desert of others For it is of this latter we speak of and of the method which God useth in punishing sin here for the demonstration of his hatred of it according to which the greatest punishments must suppose the greatest sins either of their own or others which they suffer for But hath not God declared That he will never punish the children for the Fathers sins for the soul that sinneth it shall dye the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father c. To which I answer These words are to be considered as an answer to a complaint made by the Jews soon after their going into Captivity which they imputed to Gods severity in punishing them for their Fathers sins Now the complaint was either true or false if it were true then though this was looked upon as great severity in God yet it was no injustice in him for though God may act severely he cannot act unjustly If it was false then the answer had been an absolute denial of it as a thing repugnant to the Justice of God Which we do not find here but that God saith unto them v. 3. Ye shall not have occasion any more to use this Proverb in Israel if the thing had been plainly unjust which they complained of he would have told them they never had occasion to use it But we finde the Prophets telling them before hand that they should suffer for their Fathers sins Jerem. 15. 3 4. where he threatens them with destruction and banishment because of the sins of Manasseh in Jerusalem and in the beginning of the captivity they complain of this Lam. 5. 7. Our Fathers have sinned and are not and we have born their iniquities And Jerem. 31. 28. God saith by
Spring but such who make righteousness and goodness their meat and drink that which they hunger and thirst after and take as much pleasure in as the most voluptuous Epicure in his greatest dainties Not those whose malice goes beyond their power and want only enough of that to make the whole World a Slaughter-house and account racks and torments among the necessary instruments of governing the World but such who when their enemies are in their power will not torment themselves by cruelty to them but have such a sense of common humanity as not only to commend pity and good nature to those above them but to use it to those who are under them Not those whose hearts are as full of dissimulation and hypocrisie as the others hands are of blood and violence that care not what they are so they may but seem to be good but such whose inward integrity and purity of heart far exceeds the outward shew and profession of it who honour Goodness for it self and not for the Glory which is about the head of it Not those who never think the breaches of the world wide enough till there be a door large enough for their own interests to go in at by them that would rather see the world burning than one peg be taken out of their Chariot-wheels but such who would sacrifice themselves like the brave Roman to fill up the wide gulf which mens contentions have made in the world and think no Legacy ought to be preserved more inviolable than that of Peace which our Saviour left to his Disciples Lastly not those who will do any thing rather than suffer or if they suffer it shall be for any thing rather than righteousness to uphold a party or maintain a discontented faction but such who never complain of the hardness of their way as long as they are sure it is that of Righteousness but if they meet with reproaches and persecutions in it they welcome them as the harbingers of their future reward the expectation of which makes the worst condition not only tolerable but easie to them Thus we see what kinde of happiness it is which the Gospel promises not such a one as rises out of the dust or is tost up and down with the motion of it but such whose never-failing fountain is above and whither those small rivulets return which fall down upon Earth to refresh the mindes of men in their passage thither but while they continue here as the Jews say of the water that came out of the rock it follows them while they travel through this wilderness below So that the foundation of a Christians happiness is the expectation of a life to come which expectation having so firm a bottom as the assurance which Christ hath given us by his death and sufferings it hath power and influence sufficient to bear up the mindes of men against all the vicissitudes of this present state 2. We have the most large and free offers of divine Goodness in order to it Were it as easie for Man to govern his own passions as to know that he ought to do it were the impressions of Reason and Religion as powerfull with Mankinde as those of Folly and Wickedness are we should never need complain much of the misery of our present state or have any cause to fear a worse to come There would then be no condition here but what might be born with satisfaction to ones own minde and the life of one day led according to the principles of vertue and goodness would be preferred before a sinning Immortality But we have lost the command of our selves and therefore our passions govern us and as long as such furies drive us no wonder if our ease be little When men began first to leave the uncertain speculations of Nature and found themselves so out of order that they thought the great care ought to be to regulate their own actions how soon did their passions discover themselves about the way to govern them And they all agreed in this that there was great need to do it and that it was impossible to do it without the principles of Vertue for never was there any Philosopher so bad as to think any man could be happy without Vertue even the Epicureans themselves acknowledged it for one of their established Maâ—… that no man could live a pleasant life wâ—…t being good and supposing the multiplication of Sects of Philosophers about these things as far as Varro thought it possible to 288. although there never were so many nor really could be upon his own grounds yet not one of all these but made it necessary to be vertuous in order to being happy and those who did not think vertue to be desired for it self yet made it a necessary means for the true pleasure and happiness of our lives But when they were agreed in this that it was impossible for a vitious man to enjoy any true contentment of minde they fell into nice and subtle disputes about the names and order of things to be chosen and so lost the great effect of all their common principles They pretended great cures for the disorders of mens lives and excellent remedies against the common distempers of humane nature but still the disease grew under the remedy and their applications were too weak to allay the fury of their passions It was neither the order and good of the Universe nor the necessity of events nor the things being out of our power nor the common condition of humanity no nor that comfort of ill natured men as Carneades call'd it the many companions â—…ave in misery that could keep their â—…ons from breaking out when a great occasion was presented them For he who had read all their discourses carefully and was a great man himself I mean Cicero upon the death of his beloved daughter was so far from being comforted by them that he was fain to write a consolation for himself in which the greatest cure it may be was the diversion he found in writing it But supposing these things had gone much farther and that all wise men could have governed their passions as to the troubles of this life and certainly the truest wisdom lies in that Yet what had all this been to a preparation for an eternal state which they knew little of and minded less All their discourses about a happy life here were vain and contradicted by themselves when after all their rants about their wise man being happy in the bull of Phalaris c. they yet allow'd him to dispatch himself if he saw cause which a wise man would never do if he thought himself happy when he did it So that unless God himself had given assurance of a life to come by the greatest demonstrations of it in the death and resurrection of his Son all the considerations whatever could never have made mankinde happy But by the Gospel he hath taken away all suspicions
and doubts concerning another state and hath declared his own readiness to be reconciled to us upon our repentance to pardon what hath been done amiss and to give that divine assistance whereby our wills may be governed and our passions subdued and upon a submission of our selves to his wise Providence and a sincere obedience to his Laws he hath promised eternal salvation in the life to come 3. God hath given us the greatest assurance that these offers came from himself which the Apostle gives an account of here saying that this salvation began at first to be spoken by our Lord and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him God also bearing them witness by signs and wonders c. Wherein we have all the satisfaction which the mindes of reasonable men could desire as to these things It might be justly expected that the messenger of so great news to the World should be no mean and ordinary person neither was he for the honour was as great in the person who brought it as the importance was in the thing it self No less than the Eternal Son of God came down from the Bosom of his Father to rectifie the mistakes of Mankinde and not only to shew them the way to be happy but by the most powerfull arguments to perswade them to be so Nay we find all the three persons of the Trinity here engaged in the great work of mans salvation it was first spoken by our Lord God also bearing them witness and that with divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost So that not only the first revelation was from God but the testimony to confirm that it was so was from him too there being never so clear an attestation of any divine truths as was of the Doctrine of the Gospel From whence it follows that the foundation whereon our Faith stands is nothing short of a divine testimony which God gave to the truth of that revelation of his will so vain are the cavils of those who say we have nothing but meer probabilities for our Faith and do interpret that manner of proof which matters of fact are capable of in a sense derogatory to the firmness of our Christian Faith As though we made the Spirit of God a Paraclete or Advocate in the worst sense which might as well plead a bad as a good cause No we acknowledge that God himself did bear witness to that doctrine deliver'd by our Lord and that in a most signal and effectual manner for the conviction of the world by those demonstrations of a divine power which accompanyed the first Preachers of salvation by the Gospel of Christ. So that here the Apostle briefly and clearly resolves our Faith if you ask Why we believe that great salvation which the Gospel offers the answer is Because it was declared by our Lord who neither could nor would deceive us If it be asked How we know that this was delivered by our Lord he answers because this was the constant Doctrine of all his Disciples of those who constantly heard him and conversed with him But if you ask again how can we know that their testimony was infallible since they were but men he then resolves all into that that God bare witness to them by signs and wonders and divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost And those persons whom these arguments will not convince none other will Who are we that should not think that sufficient which God himself thought so who are we that dare question the certainty of that which hath had the Broad Seal of Heaven to attest it Can any thing make it surer than God himself hath done and can there be any other way more effectual for that end than those demonstrations of a divine power and presence which the Apostles were acted by Those that cavil at this way of proof would have done so at any other if God had made choice of it and those who will cavil at any thing are resolved to be convinced by nothing and such are not fit to be discoursed with 4. Here are the most prevailing motives to perswade them to accept of these offers of salvation There are two passions which are the great hinges of Government viz. mens Hopes and Fears and therefore all Laws have had their sanctions suitable to these two in Rewards and Punishments now there was never any reward which gave greater encouragement to hope never any punishment which made fear more reasonable than those are which the Gospel proposes Will ever that man be good whom the hopes of Heaven will not make so or will ever that man leave his sins whom the fears of Hell will not make to do it What other arguments can we imagine should ever have that power and influence on mankinde which these may be reasonably supposed to have Would you have God alter the methods of his Providence and give his rewards and punishments in this life but if so what exercise would there be of the patience forbearance and goodness of God towards wicked men must he do it as soon as ever men sin then he would never try whether they would repent and grow better or must he stay till they have come to such a height of sin then no persons would have cause to fear him but such who are arrived at that pitch of wickedness but how then should he punish them must it be by continuing their lives and making them miserable but let them live and they will sin yet further must it be by utterly destroying them that to persons who might have time to sin the mean while supposing annihilation were all to be fear'd would never have power enough to deterr men from the height of their wickedness So that nothing but the misery of a life to come can be of force enough to make men fear God and regard themselves and this is that which the Gospel threatens to those that neglect their salvation which it sometimes calls everlasting fire sometimes the Worm that never dies sometimes the wrath to come sometimes everlasting destruction all enough to fill the minds of men with horror at the apprehension and what then will the undergoing it doe Thence our Saviour reasonably bids men not fear them that can only kill the body but are not able to kill the soul but rather fear him which is able to destroy both body and soul in hell Thus the Gospel suggests the most proper object of fear to keep men from sin and as it doth that so it presents likewise the most desireable object of hope to encourage men to be good which is no less than a happiness that is easier to hope to enjoy than to comprehend a happiness infinitely above the most ambitious hopes and glories of this world wherein greatness is added to glory weight to greatness and eternity to them all therefore call'd a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory Wherein the Joyes shall be full and constant
that Christ did then begin the Office of a High-Priest and that he made no offering at all before No that they dare not assert at last but that there was no perfect sacrifice offered for sin otherwise Socinus contends That Christ did offer upon earth and that for himself too So that all kind of offering is not excluded by themselves before Christs entrance into Heaven But if they mean by perfect High-Priest in Heaven that his Office of High-Priest was not consummated by what he did on earth but that a very considerable part of the Priesthood of Christ was still remaining to be performed in Heaven it is no more than we do freely acknowledge and this is all we say is meant by those places For the Apostles design is to prove the excellency of the Priesthood of Christ above the Aaronical which he doth not onely from the excellency of the Sacrifice which he offered above the blood of Bulls and Goats but from the excellency of the Priest who did excel the Aaronical Priests both in regard of his calling from God which is all the Apostle designs Heb. 5. 5. not at all intending to determine the time when he was made but by whom he was made High-Priest even by him that had said Thou art my Son c. and in regard of the excellency of the Sanctuary which he entred into which was not an earthly but a heavenly Sanctuary and in regard of the perpetuity of his function there Not going in once a year as the High-Priests under the Law did but there ever living to make intercession for us Now this being the Apostles design we may easily understand why he saith That he was to be a heavenly High-Priest and if he had been on earth he could not have been a Priest The meaning of which is only this that if Christs Office had ended in what he did on earth he would not have had such an excellency as he was speaking of for then he had ceased to be at all such a High-Priest having no Holy of holies to go into which should as much transcend the earthly Sanctuary as his Sacrifice did the blood of Bulls and Goats Therefore in correspondency to that Priesthood which he did so far excell in all the parts of it he was not to end his Priesthood meerly with the blood which was shed for a Sacrifice but he was to carry it into Heaven and present it before God and to be a perpetual Intercessor in the behalf of his people And so was in regard of the perpetuity of his Office a Priest after the Law of an endless life But lest the people should imagine that so great and excellent a High-Priest being so far exalted above them should have no sense or compassion upon the infirmities of his people therefore to encourage them to adhere to him he tells them That he was made like to his Brethren and therefore they need not doubt but by the sense which he had of the infirmities of humane nature he will have pity on the weaknesses of his people which is all the Apostle means by those expressions So that none of these places do destroy the Priesthood of Christ on earth but only assert the excellency and the continuance of it in heaven Which latter we are as far from denying as our Adversaries are from granting the former And thus much may suffice for the second thing to prove the death of Christ a proper sacrifice for sin viz. The Oblation which Christ made of himself to God by it CHAP. VI. That the effects of proper Expiatory Sacrifices belong to the death of Christ which either respect the sin or the person Of the true notion of expiation of sin as attributed to Sacrifices Of the importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as applied to them Socinus his proper sense of it examined Crellius his Objections answered The Jews notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Sacrifices not bare conditions of pardon nor expiated meerly as a slight part of obedience Gods expiating sin destroys not expiation by Sacrifice The importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relating to Sacrifices Expiation attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ in the same sense that it was to other Sacrifices and from thence and the places of Scripture which mention it proved not to be meerly declarative If it had been so it had more properly belonged to his Resurrection than his death The Death of Christ not taken Metonymically for all the Consequents of it because of the peculiar effects of the death of Christ in Scripture and because Expiation is attributed to him antecedently to his entrance into Heaven No distinction in Scripture of the effects of Christs entrance into Heaven from his sitting at the right hand of God The effects of an Expiatory Sacrifice respecting the person belong to the death of Christ which are Atonement Reconciliation Of the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Reconciliation by Christs death doth not meerly respect us but God why the latter less used in the New Testament A twofold Reconciliation with God mentioned in Scripture Crellius his evasion answered The Objections from Gods being reconciled in the sending his Son and the inconsistency of the Freeness of Grace with the Doctrine of Satisfaction answered and the whole concluded THE last thing to prove the death of Christ a proper Expiatory Sacrifice is That the effects of a proper Sacrifice for sin are attributed to it Which do either respect the sins committed and are then call'd Expiation and Remission or the persons who were guilty of them as they stand obnoxious to the displeasure of God and so the effect of them is Atonement and Reconciliation Now these we shall prove do most properly and immediately refer to the death of Christ and are attributed to it as the procuring cause of them and not as a bare condition of Christs entrance into Heaven or as comprehending in it the consequents of it I begin with the Expiation and Remission of sins as to which Socinus doth acknowledge That the great correspondency doth lie between Christs and the Legal Sacrifices We are therefore to enquire 1. What respect the Expiation of sins had to the Sacrifices under the Law 2. In what sense the Expiation of sins is attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ For the due explication of the respect which Expiation of sins had to the Legal Sacrifices we are to consider in what sense Expiation is understood and in what respect it is attributed to them For this we are to enquire into the importance of the several phrases it is set forth by which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Old Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New all which are acknowledged by our Adversaries to have a peculiar respect to the Expiation made by a Sacrifice We shall begin with the former
because remission of sin was looked on as the consequent of expiation by Sacrifice under the Law therefore that is likewise attributed to the blood of Christ Matth. 26. 28. This is the blood of the New Testament which was shed for many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the remission of sins Eph. 1. 7. In whom we have redemption through his blood the remission of sins and to the same purpose Coloss. 1. 14. And from hence we are said to be justified by his blood Rom. 5. 9. and Christ is said to be a propitiation through faith in his blood Rom. 3. 25. The substance of all that Crellius replies to these places is That those words which do properly signifie the thing it self may very conveniently be taken only for the declaration of it when the performance of the thing doth follow by virtue of that declaration which then happens when the declaration is made of the thing decreed by another and that in the name and by the command of him who did decree it And in this sense Christ by his blood may be said to deliver us from the punishment of our sins by declaring or testifying to us the will and decree of God for that purpose But this answer is by no means sufficient upon these considerations 1. Because it doth not reach the proper and natural sense of the words as Crellius himself confesseth and yet he assigns no reason at all why we ought to depart from it unless the bare possibility of another meaning be sufficient But how had it been possible for the efficacy of the blood of Christ for purging away the guilt of our sins to have been expressed in clearer and plainer terms than these which are acknowledged of themselves to signifie as much as we assert If the most proper expressions for this purpose are not of force enough to perswade our Adversaries none else could ever do it so that it had been impossible for our Doctrine to have been delivered in such terms but they would have found out ways to evade the meaning of them It seems very strange that so great an efficacy should not only once or twice but so frequently be attributed to the blood of Christ for expiation of sin if nothing else were meant by it but that Christ by his death did only declare that God was willing to pardon sin If there were danger in understanding the words in their proper sense why are they so frequently used to this purpose why are there no other places of Scripture that might help to undeceive us and tell us plainly that Christ dyed only to declare his Fathers will but what ever other words might signifie this was the only true meaning of them But what miserable shifts are these when men are forced to put off such Texts which are confessed to express our Doctrine only by saying that they may be otherwise understood which destroys all kind of certainty in words which by reason of the various use of them may be interpreted to so many several senses that if this liberty be allowed upon no other pretence but that another meaning is possible men will never agree about the intention of any person in speaking For upon the same reason if it had been said That Christ declared by his death Gods readiness to pardon it might have been interpreted That the blood of Christ was therefore the declaration of Gods readiness to pardon because it was the consideration upon which God would do it So that if the words had been as express for them as they are now against them according to their way of answering places they would have been reconcileable to our opinion 2. The Scripture in these expressions doth attribute something peculiar to the blood of Christ but if all that were meant by it were no more than the declaring Gods will to pardon this could in no sense be said to be peculiar to it For this was the design of the Doctrine of Christ and all his miracles were wrought to confirm the truth of that part of his Doctrine which concerned remission of sins as well as any other but how absurd would it have been to say that the miracles of Christ purge us from all sin that through Christ healing the sick raising the dead c. we have redemption even the forgiveness of sins which are attributed to the blood of Christ but if in no other respect than as a testimony to the truth of the Doctrine of Remission of sins they were equally applicable to one as to the other Besides if this had been all intended in these expressions they were the most incongruously applied to the blood of Christ nothing seeming more repugnant to the Doctrine of the Remission of sins which was declared by it than that very thing by which it was declared if no more were intended by it For how 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 Gods 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 Gods 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 Gods 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 But yet Socinus and Crellius have another subterfuge For therein lies
iâ—… applied by S. Matth. 8. 17. to bodily diseases which our Saviour did not bear but took away as it is said in the foregoing verse he healed all that were sick on which those words come in That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias c. To which I answer 1. It is granted by our Adversaries that S. Matthew in those words doth not give the full sense of the Prophet but onely applies that by way of accommodation to bodily diseases which was chiefly intended for the sins of men And in a way of accommodation it is not unusual to strain words beyond their genuine and natural signification or what was intended primarily by the person who spake them Would it be reasonable for any to say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to give because that place Psal. 68. 18. where the word by all is acknowledged to signifie to receive is rendred to give Eph. 4. 8. so that admitting another sense of the word here as applied to the cure of bodily diseases it doth not from thence follow that this should be â—he meaning of the word in the primary â—ense intended by the Prophet 2. The word as used by S. Matthew is very capable of the primary and natural sense for S. Matthew retains words of the same signification with that which we contend for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither of which doth signifie taking away by causing a thing not to be So that all that is implied hereby is the pains and trouble which our Saviour took in the healing of the sick For to that end as Grotius well observes upon that place the circumstances are mentioned That it was at even and multitudes were brought to him in S. Matthew that after Sun-set all that were diseased were brought and all the City was gathered together at the door in S. Mark That he departed not till it was day in S. Luke that we might the better understand how our Saviour did bear our griefs because the pains he took in healing them were so great And here I cannot but observe that Grotius in his notes on that place continued still in the same minde he was in when he writ against Socinus for he saith Those words may either refer to the diseases of the body and so they note the pains he took in the cure of them or to our sins and so they were fulfilled when Christ by suffering upon tâ—… cross did obtain remission of sins for 〈◊〉 as S. Peter saith 1 Pet. 2. 24. But upon what reason the Annotations on that plaâ—… come to be so different from his sense eâ—… pressed here long after Crellius his answeâ—… I do not understand But we are sure 〈◊〉 declared his mind as to the main of thâ—… Controversie to be the same that it wâ—… when he writ his Book which Crellius answered as appears by two Letters of hâ—… to Vossius not long since published anâ— he utterly disowns the charge of Socinianisa as a calumny in his discussion the last book he ever writ But we are no further obliged to vindicate Grotius than he did the truth which we are sure he did in the vindication of the 53 of Isaiah from Socinus his interpretations notwithstanding what Crellius hath objected against him We therefore proceed to other Verses in the same Chapter insisted on by Grotius to prove That Christ did bear the punishment of our sins v. 6 7. The Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all It is required and he was afflicted as Grotius renders those words Socinus makes a twofold sense of the former clause the first is That God by or with Christ did meet with our iniquities the latter That God did make our iniquities to meet with Christ. The â—ords saith Grotius will not bear the forâ—er interpretation for the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beâ—…g in Hiphil must import a double action â—nd so it must not be That God by him did â—…eet with our sins but that God did make our â—…s to meet upon him To which Crelliusâ—…eplies â—…eplies That words in Hiphil are somtimes â—…sed intransitively but can he produce any â—…nstance in Scripture where this word â—…oyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so taken for in the last verse of the Chapter the construction is different And what an uncertain way of interpreting Scripture will this be if every Anomalous signification and rare use of a word shall be made use of to take away such a sense as is most agreeable to the design of the place For that sense we contend for is not onely enforced upon the most natural importance of these words but upon the agreeableness of them with so many other expressions of this Chapter that Christ did bear our iniquities and was wounded for our transgressions and that his soul was made an offering for sin to which it is very suitable that as the iniquities of the people were as it were laid upon the head of the Sacrifice so it should be said of Christ who was to offer up himself for the sins of the world And the Jews themselves by this phrase do understand the punishmeâ—… either for the sins of the people whâ—… Josias underwent or which the people theâ—… selves suffered by those who interpret 〈◊〉 prophecy of them To which purposâ—… Aben Ezra observes that iniquity is here 〈◊〉 for the punishment of it as 1 Sam. 28. 10. Lam. 4. 6. But Socinus mistrusting the iâ—… congruity of this Interpretation flies 〈◊〉 another viz. That God did make our iâ—… quities to meet with Christ and this we 〈◊〉 willing to admit of if by that they meâ—… That Christ underwent the punishment 〈◊〉 them as that phrase must naturally iâ—… port for what otherwise can our iniquiâ—… meeting with him signifie For the word 〈◊〉 taken properly as Socinus acknowledgâ—… it ought to be when he rejects Pagniâ—… Interpretation of making Christ to intâ—… cede for our iniquities signifies eithâ—… to meet with one by chance or out 〈◊〉 kindeness or else for an encounter wiâ—… an intention to destroy that which it meâ—… with So Judg. 8. 21. Rise thou 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LXX irrue in nos fall upon 〈◊〉 i. e. run upon us with thy sword and kiâ—… us Judg. 15. 12. Swear unto me that 〈◊〉 will not fall upon me your selves where thâ—… same word is used and they explain thâ—… meaning of it in the next words v. 1â—… we will not kill thee Amos 5. 19. as if a man â—…dia flee from a Lyon and a Bear met him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. with a design to kill him Now I suppose they will not say that our sins met with Christ by chance since it is said that God laid on him c. nor out of kindness it must be therefore out of enmity and with a design to destroy him and so our sins cannot be understood as