to God by propitiation and attonement will receive further strength and light if we observe that this was the great truth and mystery which was signified and intended in the Aarenical Priesthood and Levitical Sacrifices That these did in their institution and end typifie the sacrifice of the Son of God the Holy Ghost puts out of question by calling them shadows Col. 2. 17. Heb. 8 5. Heb. 10. 1. figures Heb. 9. 9. patterns ibid. ver 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now attonement and reconciliation is every where ascribed to these Levit. 4. 20. and 5. 6. and 6. 7. and 10. 11. Num. 5. 8. and 28. 22. and 31. 50. alibi And that not only in reference to some sins or to lesser sins but in reference to all sins to the veâ—y greatest Levit. 16. 21 22. Levit. 5. 1 2 3. 4 5 6 7 14. c. Num. 5. 6 Object If it should be objecteâ— that there were some sins froâ— which by the law of Moses theâ— could not be justified Acts 13. 39 and therefore that their sacrificeâ— did not serve to make attonement for all sins I Answer 1. All that the Apostle intends is that the sacrifices of the law could expiate no sin further than typically and that it was Christ whom they typified who could alone absolutely justifie from any sin The sacrifices of the law could not of themselves so much as attone for one sin Gal. 3. 13. but typically they serâ—ed to make attonement for every â—â—n The Jews in reference to whom â—he Apostle discourseth trustâ—d solely to sacrifices for righteâ—usness and life and in this he â—firms that they were mistaken â—â—d that it was only the blood â—â—d sacrifice of Christ which they â—gnified and shadowed that could â—ally free the conscience from the â—ilt of the least sin 2. It may be Answered that â—der the law there was a twofold â—ilt a Ceremonial and a Moral one external binding over the transgressour unto temporal punishment another spiritual binding over the offendor unto eternaâ— wrath Now sacrifices as theâ— were incorporated into their policy as well as a part of their worship were in many cases appointed anâ— accordingly served to deliver froâ— temporal guilt Heb. 9. 15. bâ— there were other cases whereiâ— they were not at all allowed to deliver from the temporal punishment Psal 51. 16. but accordinâ— to their political constitutions death was without mercy to â— inflicted on the offendor Noâ— says the Apostle these sins froâ— the temporal guilt of which aâ— your sacrifies could not dischanâ— you the blood of Christ is suâ—cient to acquite you from the eteâ—nal guilt even of those This objection being dischaâ—ed it stands established that â— tonement and reconciliation ascribed to sacrifices and that not only in reference to some sins but to every sin Now this expiation was not real but only typical all their sacrifices were not able to acquit them from the moral guilt of one sin Heb. 9. 9. and 7. 19. and 10. 4. For it is not possible that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away sins But the sole intendment of all their sacrifices was to shaddow forth the great sacrifice of the Messiah and the atâ—onement and expiation which were to be made by it This will arrive with more light to the Reader if we present it in these three â—eads 1. Christ is our true Priest in â—atters pertaining to God whom all he other Priests did but shaddow All others were only called Priests â—ecause they represented him and â—utwardly by type expressed what â—e was really to accomplish and â—o and never one could do the proper work of a Priest namely make reconciliation for the sins of the people but he That he should be a Priest then only in a metaphorical sense is such a contradiction to Law and Gospel as it could not possibly receive the entertainment of any who had not first set themselves in opposition to the whole mystery of God but that Christ was properly a Priest may be many ways rendred evident 1. From the definition of a Priest properly so called Heb. 5. 1. Every high Priest taken from among men is ordained for men in thingâ— pertaining to God that he may offeâ— both gifts and sacrifices for sin That this is the definition of â— Priest properly so called is botâ— clear in the thing it self for if sucâ— a one as is here described be noâ— properly a Priest there was neveâ— a Priest properly so called in thâ— world as also in the Apostles aâ—commodating it ver 4. to Aaroâ— who was unquestionably a Priest in a proper and not in metaphorical sense Now that Jesus Christ is such a Priest as is here described is manifest in that all the parts of this description do admirably appertain to him he was taken from among men To this very end principally and none other did he partake of the humane nature Heb. 10. 5. He was also ordained for men see ver 5 6. and herein he excelled all other Priests that he was constituted only for others and not for himself Heb. 7. 27. Lastly he was ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices yea herein he transcended all other Priests that he had something of his own to offer other Priests had indeed something to offer but nothing of their own they only offered the bodies of beasts which the people brought them but Christ had a body given him to be at this own disposal to this purpose That this description of a Priest belongs properly to Christ yea that it is he whom the Holy Ghost principally describes may be put out of question by observing that the Apostle applies it ver 5. particularly to him 2. That Christ was properly a Priest may be further established from Heb. 8. 3. Every high Priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer Now if Christ be not truly a Priest this way of arguing is altogether impertinent for it might be easily replyed that though it be needful that a Priest properly so called should have somewhat to offer yet it is not necessary that he who is only metaphorically a Priest should have any thing to to offer for it is no ways needful that whatever appertains to that which is true and real should also appertain to that which is figurative and improper Though a man be a rational creature yet it doth not follow that the picture of a man should be so And therefore the Apostle by concluding that Christ behoved to have somewhat to offer because he was a Priest mvst needs intend that he was a Priest in a proper and not in a metaphorical sense 3. It appears further that Christ was truly and properly a Priest in that he was a Priest of a true and proper order namely of the order of Melchisedeck Psal 110. 4. Heb. 5. 10. and 7. 17. 21. I do not now dispute who Melch sedeck was all that I affirm is that
of it actual punishing with the principle whence it ariseth and proceeds actual punishing depends upon the divine decree but the inclination to punish is founded in the divine nature He adds that we men have a P. 12. natural right to our Limbs and he that maims us deserves to be punished yet notwithstanding we may forgive the offence Answ 1. There be cases wherein being wronged we cannot without injustice forgive but are bound to prosecute revenge upon the offender see pag. 53. of the former discourse 2. He argues from what a private person may do â—o what God who is the suâ—ream Rector and Governour â—ught to do whereas even â—mong men that which is lawâ—ull for a private person is not â—awfull for a Magistrate vid. â—bi supra 3. The Gentleman â—n this whole affair confounds â—us justitia power and equiâ—y We may have a physical â—ower to do that which we â—ave not a moral right to do â— Father may if we speak as â—o power connive at rebelliâ—n in his Son but it is moâ—ally wicked and destructive â—f Paternal Government to do â—o so here we do not argue â—bout the unlimited power of God what in a way of absoâ—uteness he may do but what in agreeableness to his â—ustice wisdom and holiness is â—it for him to do Whereas he adds that sins give P. 12. â—od a right to punish but that he may dispense with his right if hâ— please or else he were more impoâ—tent than we contemptible wormâ— are Answ 1. If this prove anâ— thing it will prove more thaâ— the Adversary desires namely that God may forgive thâ— obstinate and impenitent seeing we not only can but in somâ— cases are bound so to do buâ— the contrary hereof both Socâ—nus and Crellius affirm and I suppose the Disciple will not varâ— from his Masters 2. It is truâ— that he who sins gives God â— right to punish him and thaâ— God may remit his right buâ— then it must be upon term which may secure his honour now it is against his honouâ— to do it otherwise than upoâ— the conditions we alledge anâ— upon these we affirm that iâ— demonstration of his grace hâ— doth it Neither is it througâ— impotency that God cannot otherwayes act but through infiniteness of perfection His next assault is upon my P. 13. Argument from the nature of God and the account that the Scriptures give us of it in reference to sin â—nd sinners to which purpose I â—ited 2 Thes 1. 6 7. upon which â—e replyes that God is said to be â—ighteous in recompencing rest to â—hem who are troubled as well as â—ribulation to them who trouble â—ut forasmuch as that is not from â—he necessity of Gods nature but â—rom his merciful determination â—o neither is this from the incliâ—ation of his nature but the pleaâ—ure of his will Answ 1. God having proâ—ised to reward obedience â—annot without faileur in his veâ—acity and truth but perform â—t for though his promise was â—n act of grace yet the keeping â—f it is an act of justice and therefore the Scripture asserts that God cannot otherwise do without being false and unrighteous Heb. 6. 10. 2 Tim. 4. 8. and by consequence God having threatned to punish sin is obliged by his veracity to do no less his truth is as prevalent with him in the one case as iâ— the other so that this exception is so far from prejudicing us that it clearly overthrows his cause who brought it 2. God being infinitely good is enclined by his nature to love vertue and though it were noâ— against his justice not to rewarâ— it forasmuch as it is impossiblâ— that a creature should lay an obligation upon its maker yet iâ— is that which his wisdom and goodness will not admit him to do How much more then is iâ— contrary to his nature not to punish sin that being formally against his justice as well as unbecoming his wisdom 3. We affirm that there is a difference betwixt obedience and sin as to the point of ones being punished and the other rewarded for â—e owe the utmost of Service â—o God as we are his creatures â—nd withall there is that in the â—ature of duty which deserves â—hat it should be pursued but â—n the contrary sin is so far from â—eing a debt which we owe to God that he commands us on the â—ighest perill to avoid it and â—here is nothing in the nature â—f sin that should invite us to â—ommission of it and withall â— is contrary both to Gods naâ—re and government and â—erefore though God be obliâ—d by his nature to punish sin â—t he is under no such obligaâ—on to reward obedience obeâ—ence being a debt we owe to â—od as our maker and ruler â—ereas sin is both an opposing his nature and a rebelling against his Rectorship The Apostle asserts the same distinction Rom. 6. 23. for the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. The next attempt is upon my P. 13. arguing for the necessity of sins punishment from the sense and notion which the Heathens without revelation have of it Against which he excepts that the same light taughâ— them that God was merciful pardoning sin without a satisfaction Answ If we consider in thiâ— affair the sentiments of the Heathen our Adversaries havâ— clearly the disadvantage for iâ— is most certain that they believed God to be offended anâ— therefore sought by costly offerings lustrations c. to appeasâ— him 2. We readily granâ— that the Heathens had somâ— light of Gods being mercifulâ— herein he left himself nowhere without a witness Act. 14. 17. and the common discoveries which he made of his goodness were intended in a kind of objective way and had a great tendency and usefulness to that purpose to lead us to Repentance Rom. 1. 19 20. Rom. 2. 4. but that they had any notion of Gods pardoning sin without satisfaction we deny and challenge him to prove it if he can yea their whole Worship implyed the contrary to what end were all their Sacrifices but upon a steady belief of Gods being angry to attone him It is very remarkable that of all the parts and principles of justified Worship-Priesthood and Sacrifice made the largest spread there being scarce any People or Nation which hath arrived to our knowledge among whom we do not find some Prints and footsteps of them And though the Heathens mistook the right end of Sacrifices yet the first Rise of them among them was some traditional conveyance from the Church to whom God enjoyned them as Types of the great Sacrifice of the Messiah As to what the Gentleman alledgeth in reference to the Ninivites it is altogether impertinent 1. In that it was but Gods withholding of a temporal judgment and that also but for a time for about forty years after they were destroyed and their City taken and overthrown 2. All the mercy they could suppose in God was
in a state of friendship 2. In the constituting and proclaiming in the Gospel that whoever believes is justified As a person is condemned by a law and said to be condemned when the law condemns him so we are justified by the Gospel patent and may be said to be so when that Charter declares us justified which it doth if we believe Now the effects of this are a non-imputation of sin and a donation of a right to life our obligation to punishment is dissolved and we are vested with a title to life 1. Sin shall never be charged upon us in the legal guilt of it Rom. 8. 1 33 34. The legal guilt of all sins past is removed formally and the legal guilt of all sins to come is removed virtually That is thus justification takes of legal guilt where once it was and keeps it of where else it would be And 1. It is no more harsh that sins should be legally disimputed to us before committed than that they should be legally imputed to Christ before committed which all the sins of the elect who have lived and are yet to live since the death of Christ were 2. Because the guilt of sin may be as well disimputed to believers before committed by them as the satisfaction of Christ was imputed to believers before made by him which it was to all the Old Testament Saints 2. Being constituted righteous by having the righteousness of Christ accounted ours 〈◊〉 only our obligation to punishment is â—issolved but there also emergeth â—nd ariseth a new title to life Christ purchased not only redemâ—tion from wrath but a right to â—he heavenly inheritance And this â—hall suffice at least at present to â—ave been discoursed upon this whole affair AN APPENDIX In vindication of the Satisfaction of Christ from thâ— frivolous Objections of â— late Socinian Pamphletâ— made against a Sermon oâ— mine preached at thâ— Morning Lecture SECT I. The Title examined The Scripturâ— prefixed proved destructive of thâ— which they were brought to establish IT is not needful to give aâ— further account of the inducâ—ments and grounds of â— Preaching upon that subject sâ— what the Preface to the foregoing discourse intimates The cost of that exercise was before hand considered and whatever may be the consequences of it I hope to have satisfaction and peace in the bearing and encountring of them The party who hath appeared in opposition to the doctrine then held forth hath from what motives himself best knows been pleased to conceal his name and therefore seeing it may be omitted without prejudice to the cause â— manage I shall not concern my self about him though I could particularly declare him and assign his character Only it had been â—ut ingenuous when he had published the name of another and in â—hat exposed him to the law to â—ave given a more particular account of himself than what can meerly be gathered from two nuâ—erical letters wherein he hath eiâ—her endeavoured or may be able to wrong me I pardon him but what he hath attemped in opposition to the truth cannot in consistency to conscience and duty be overlookt The Title of his Book is very specious for what can more invite a Reader than the Freeness of God's grace in the forgiveness of sins by Jesus Christ But all is not gold which glisters a Box of poison may have a fair inscription the Prince of Darkness transforms himself into and desires to pass for an Angel of Light Error loves to appear in the garb oâ— truth I need not to tell whose character that is deceiving and being deceived 2 Tim. 3. 13. But we shall endeavour to unmaskâ— them here by animadverting these three things 1. That it is the great endeavouâ— of these men to present us as enemies to the grace of God Whereas 1. There is nothing we desirâ— more to exalt and admire and whatever doctrine of ours either directly or indirectly reflects upon the Freeness of God's Grace we disclaime and renounce it but we boldly affirme the Grace of God to be as free in the forgiveness of sin upon a satisfaction as it would have been if it had been possible to have forgiven sin without a satisfaction and how it is so you may see opened at large from page 23. to page 30. of the preceeding discourse 2. We aâ—sert our adversaries to be in this particular the only men who are tardy in that they establish justification by works which the Apostle every where excludes as opposite to and in this business utterly destructive of grace Eph. 2. 8 9. Rom. 11 6. 2. We would have observed that it is the method of these Gentlemen â—o cry up the grace of God to the â—verthrow of his holiness and righteâ—usness We acknowledge God to be infinitely gracious but withal we affirme to be infinitely pure and just We dare not exalt one perfection of God to the diminution of another We know God cannot be gracious if at the same time he may not be righteous also God can as soon cease to be God as that one property of his nature should be exalted to the dishonour of the rest Having therefore in the foregoing discourse from page 38. to 51. demonstrated the inconsistency of forgiveness without a satisfaction with the truth justice and holiness of God it necessarily follows that there can be no such grace in God He cannot be kind to us so as to be cruel to himself 3. We take notice that according to the Socinian Divinity they might have as well stiled their Book the Freeness of God's Grace in the forgiveness of sins by Paul or some other of the Apostles as by Christ For that which they assign as the ground of God's forgiuing sins by Christ being only that he preached the doctrine of forgiveness and afterwards sealed the truth of it with his blood accords to Paul and other of the Apostles as well as to Christ for they Preached the same doctrine and that by immediate revelation and also confirmed the truth of it by martyrdome and death so that according to the opinion of these Gentlemen I see no cause but that they might have given their Book the title I alledge as well as that which they have given it The next thing which comes under consideration is the examination of the Scriptures which he prefixes And he could have quoted few in the whole Bible which are more destructive of his cause and herein God displays his wisdom that that whereof his adversaries hope most to serve their design proves utterly subversive of it The first is Rom. 3. 24. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ Now the opening of this Verse together with the two following will without any more ado sufficiently evidence how disserviceable it is to the design it was brought for We have in these three verses justification set sorth in all its parts and causes First the efficient impulsive cause of it in God Causa impulsiva
deum se adhibere testem idestut arbitror mentem suam Cic. charged us with guilt Rom. 7. 7. And that the charge is true our own consciences come in for witnesses Rom. 2. 15. we need none else to prove the Inditement our own hearts giving testimony against us 2. Being thus charged we must Plead he that refuseth to Plead abandoneth himself to the Law Now there are but two Pleas that of guilty and not guilty 1. As I said before we cannot plead not guilty being under the â—mpeachment of our own consciâ—nces Utut alios latere possis tute tibi conscim eris Mens quoque namen habet as well as of the Law Illo â—ocens se damnat quo peccat die This might have been the Plea of Adam before he fell but of none â—se 1 King 8. 46. There is no man â—hat sinneth not Eccles 7. 20. â—here is not a just man upon earth â—â—at doth good and sinneth not â—ome understand it that sinneth â—t in doing good 1 Joh. 1. 8. If we say we have no sin we deceivâ— our selves and the truth is not in us Prov. 20. 9. Who can say I have made my heart clean I am pure from my sin James 3. 2. In many things we offend all In a word all have sinned Rom. 3. 23. All though not all a like see Rom. 3. 9 19. Whatever be the Plea of the Sons of Men that cannot 2. Our Plea then must be Guilty and in this Case we must either Plead mercy for the sake of mercy or mercy for the sake of a satisfaction There is no third 1. There is no being justified upon the Plea of mercy for the sake of mercy For as one well observes it were not to plead but to beg Nor were it at all to be justified but meerly to be pardoned it were to be dealt with alone upon the score of grace not at all upon the score of righteousness and we have already proved that justification is an act of justice and not of mercy It is true in the salvation of sinners both grace and justice meet we are both pardoned and justified God is as merciful as we can desire and yet as righteous as himself can desire There is the freest Grace and the fullest Justice As God pardons sin he displays his mercy as he justifieth us from sin he manifesteth his righteousness The ignorance of this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a late Socinian Pamphlet written in oppositian to a Sermon which was lateâ—y Preached in behalf of the satisâ—action of Christ That because there is forgiveness that therefore there is no justification and because God acts towards us in a way of mercy that therefore he doth not also act towards us in a way of justice As if God for the advancing the honour of one â—roperly and perfection of his Naâ—ure must Impeach and Eclipse all the rest But if the Author of that discourse be as teachable as he is ignorant he may once for all take notice that the freeness of remission doth not consist in the want of a satisfaction or in any defect in the satisfaction that is made but in these four other things 1. In that though he exact a satisfaction he doth not exact it at the hand of the delinquent In the rigour of the Law the Criminal himself should bear the punishment and here si alius solvit aliud solvitur Now is not this grace that though he will have his justice satisfied yet he will dispense so far with the offendor Solvere dicitur qui per se pretium numerat satisfacere qui quod alius debet selvit as not to demand solution from himself but he will allow the substitution of a Surety to make the satisfaction and take satisfaction for solution 2. In that he both contrived the satisfaction and gave his own Son to make it Supposing that he would have accepted a satisfaction yet he might haue left it to the offendor to have found out the way and the means to have made it whatever diminitive thoughts the Sociniaus may have of this I am sure the Scripture every where delivers it as a fruit and result of inexpressible love Joh. 2. 16 Rom. 5. 8. 1 Joh. 4. 9 10. In this was manifested the love of God towards us because God sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him Herein is love that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins Was there no grace in Christ his Interposing for us and not for Angels was God under any obligation to fallen man that he behoved to recover him more than fallen Angels Might not God have honoured his justice in the damnation of both alike and that without the least derogation to his mercy was there no grace in translating oâ—r sins from us to Christ Isa 53. 6. and exacting full payment at his hand in our room Isa 53. 5 10 11 In a word however these Socinian Gentlemen stile themselves Vindicaters of the Grace of God as they wholly subvert his justice and darken his holiness they will also be found to any sober enquirer greater eclipsers of his mercy and derogators from his love and grace than any of their adversaries 3. It consists in a gracious acceptation of that satisfaction in our steads for so many and no more for such and not for others he might have refused it for all or accepted it for others not for such That the death and blood of Christ is of infinite wortâ— proceeds from the dignity of his person and greatness of his sufferings yet that it is a ransâ—mâ— or satisfaction for many and particularly for such doth not immediately arise from its sufficiency and worth but from the intention and agreement of the Father and Son using and accepting it to that end and in behalf of such There is a value in the blood and satisfaction of Christ to have purchased both grace and pardon for all mankind if the Father and Son had so intended and pleased Now that grace and life should be bought by it to some and not others as it is solely to be ascribed to the pleasure of the Father and Son designing and using it to that purpose so it is the effect and issue of high mercy and distinguishing love at leasure see Joh. 17. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significat se Deo in Sanctam victimam consecrare vid. Heb. 2. 10. Heb. 5. 9. Eph. 5 2 25. Heb. 10. 14. Tit. 2. 14. Is there no grace in this that the death of Christ should be intended and accepted as a satisfaction in behalf of some so that in due time the Father because of that should bestow grace upon and be reconciled to such others in the meane time being left under the power of their lusts and sins and obnoxious to God's wrath and enmity Whatever apprehensions that sort of men have of it there are others who desire to take notice
it clearly follows that the obligation of thâ— believer to them as they have respect to such an end dissolves anâ— ceaseth That which is God's intent by them being obtained without them the execution of them without the least derogation to thâ— This is that which Auâ—hors call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum paena adhibetur aniâ—o ulcisâ— endi Hoc interest inter castigationem â—oeâ—am poena vindictae rationem habei castigatio veâ—ò habei rationem â—mendationis Gamet truth of God or impeachment of hâ— other properties may be suspenâ—ed But legal threatnings being â— another nature and having anothâ— end namely the vindication â— God 's holiness and justice upon prâ—soners and rebels they are no wiâ— dissolvable but must necessariâ— be inflicted that the perfectioâ— and government of God may vindicated and sin may be â— venged All sin is a contempâ— God's authority and governmeâ— and casts dirt upon his glory aâ— punishment is the vindicating God's honour in the revenging â— evil which is committed Onâ— let this be noted that in case of Though I use these words in stead of better yet I would not be understood as if there were any mutatio abrogatio dispensatiâ— â—ut relâ—xatio legis ni hil tale hic locum hâ—bere cre do tantum per additionem legis fidei ad legâ—m operum divini juris latâ— legis exhibetur interpretaâ—io such a proportionable satisfaction by which the honour and equity of his law is vindicated his justice holiness and hatred of sin demonstrated the ends of government attained he may relax and dispense with his threatnings as to the party offending which is the case here for by executing the threatning upon Christ and receiving a valuable consideration and satisfaction from him he hath given as eminent demonstration of his righteousness purity and hatred of sin and as fully vindicated his law from contempt as â—f the offenders themselves had suffered and therefore by an admirable mixture of grace with â—is justice hath released us I do â—ot say he hath released his law â—or I think that is only interpreted â—ow interpretation doth not take off the obligation of the law only declares that in such a case it was not intended to oblige Having now premised these things I reassume the argument namely that the truth of God's threatning would not allow him to pardon sin and save sinners but upon the consideration of a satisfaction 1. God having denounced death and the curse against sin Gen. 2. 17. Deut. 27. 26. The veracity and faithfulness of his nature obliged him to see it inflicted Never any intertained a notion of God but they included in it that he spake truth could ever any threatning of God be of awe upon the conscience of a sinner should the first and great threatning be made so easily void should it be granted that notwithstanding God's solemn denunciation of wrath in case of sin that yet he hath taken the offendor into favour and pardoned the offence without any satisfaction or consideration at all what would creatures imagine but that God either intended his threatnings for meaâ— scarcrows or that he were subject to mutability which apprehensions being once recieved what boldness would men assume in sin believing that the comminations of the Gospel would be no more executed than those of the law But let God be true and every man a liar Rom. 3. 4. 2. To suppose that God hath abrogated his threatning is at once to overthrow the whole Scripture for that expresly tells us That not one jot of the Law was to perish Mat. 5. 18. That every disobedience received a just recomâ—ence of reward Heb. 2. 2. see Heb. 8. 28. Heb. 9. 22 23. That withâ—ut blood there was to be no remission 3. If the threatning annexed to the law be released it is either by virtue of the law it self or by virtue of the Gospel It is not by virrue of the law for that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significat inutilem otiosum inanem reddere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e â—â—are facimus firmam efficâ—câ—m reddâ—muâ— hâ—no â—m ei suum defendimus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significat abelâ—râ— aebrogare factis vel dictis legem oppugnare qâ—d coelum terroe miscebitur potius quam ut id fiat wholly inexorable requiring either perfect and constant obedience or denouncing unmixed and unallay'd wrath Gal. 3. 10. Not is it released by the Gospel this the Holy Ghost clearly informs us Rom. 3. 31. Do we then make void the law through faith God forbid yea we establish the law Beza his Paraphrase here is very good Christi satisfactio quid aliud quam legis minas ostendit minimè irritas esse quam illas luere Christum opportuerit Christi justitia quid aliud est quam legis praestatio See also Mat. 5. 17 18. Think not saith Christ that I come to destroy the Law or the Prophets I am not come to destroy but to fullfil For verily I say unto you till heaven and earth pass away one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the Law till all be fulfilled As all the predictions of the Prophets were fulfilled by him and in him so was the whole law in his keeping the precepts of it and teaching others to do the like and in his bearing the penalty of it and his fulfilling and answering the types of it The Gospel is so far from repealing the penalty of the law that the very Gospel is founded in Christ's undertaking to bear the penalty of it Heb. 9. 15 16. There could have been no Testament but in and through the death of the Testator There could have been no such thing as a Gospel or tender of glad tydings and mercy to us but through Christ's undertaking as our surety to bear the curse of the law Gal. 3. 13. And so much for the first argument from the truth of God's threatning 2. It was not possible for God upon the Plea of meer mercy without any consideration or satisfaction to forgive sin and release the sinner because the justice holiness and righteousness of his nature would not allow it The necessity of a satisfaction is Mirum quantum peâ—ileâ—tissime Socino gratificentur qui aliter sentiuns Amyr Thes Salm de neces satisf See this Text vindicated in the Appendix not only founded in the wisdome and soveraignty of God God thought it convenient and would have it so but it is founded in tâ—e holiness justice and righteousness of God His nature would not otherwise admit him to forgive sin and save sinners Heb. 2. 10. It became God this refers to God's nature not his meer will This will the better appear 1. If we consider the nature of sin which in it self abstracting from any constitution of God about it deserves to be punished I do not speak universally of all sins for there are somethings indifferent and become evil only by virtue of the Divine
prohibition but there are other things naturally evil without any enacting will of God about them As to love fear and reverence God are duties founded in our very natures to which we had stood obliged though there had never been any positive precept of God enjoining Dic ergo cur adulterium male steri putes an quia id facere lex vetat non sane ideo malum est quia vetatur lege sed ideo vetatur lege quia malum August li. 1. de libero Arbit them So to deny or hate God are essentially evil previously to any prohibition of God about them otherwise they might have been duties supposing God had commanded them which he might have done if they were in themselves things indifferent and became evil only from his free prohibition but that these could have heen duties I think no man dare say that knows whereof he affirms As there is an eternal comeliness that a reasonable creature should love and honour God so there is an everlasting indecency and horridness that a rational soul should hate or contemn him That these things are good and evil doth not depend so much on God's will as his nature and for God to will that the one should be bad and the other good were for him to change his holy and unchangeable nature which is impossible he cannot do it not through any defect but through infiniteness of perfection see 2 Tim. 2. 13. Tit. 1. 2. It being then obtained that there were somethings evil antecedently to any determination of God's will about them Si non reddit faciendo quod debet reddet patiendo quod debet August Nemo malus felix Juven it naturally follows that there belonged a dueness of punishment to those things there being an indispensable connexion betwixt moral evil and physical He that does ill deserves to suffer ill Neither divine wisdome nor righteousness can allow that sin and impunity should for ever dwell together It is the highest point of reason that he who provokes God should forfeit his favour and feel his anger and if so then without a satisfaction it cannot be otherwise for the justice of God requires that every thing should have its due though it be under the Freedome of God's will whether he will punish sin in the person of the sinner or the surety yet it is not under the freedom of his will whether he will punish sin or not Though the putting forth of justice in these or in other effects be under the liberty of the Divine will yet the punishing of sin in a way of vindictive justice is not but it results necessarily from the nature of sin to which punishment is indispensably due 2. It further appears if we consider the nature of God and the account Scripture gives us of it with reference to sin and sinners He is every where represented as hating them Psal 5. 4 6 7. Thou hast no pleasure in wickedness thou hatest the workers of iniquity Jer. 44. 4. Do not the abominable thing which I hate Psal 11. 5. The wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth See Deut. 12. 31. Mal. 2. 16. Zech. 11. 8. Levit. 16. 30. Levit. 20. 23. c. and why doth God abhort and loath sin and sinners is it only from the determination of his will he hath decreed and determined so No not only so but from the purity and justice of his nature because without ceasing to be a holy and righteous God he cannot do otherwise Hab. 1 13. Thou art of purâ—r eyes than to behold iniquity and canst not look on evil Josh 24. 19. Ye cannot serve the Lord for he is an holy God he is a jealous God he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins The principle in God by virtue of which he punisheth sin is not so much any free act of his will as the justice and purity of his nature See 2 Thes 1. 6. It is a righteous thing with God to recompence tribulation to them that trouble you Rom. 2. 5. Rev. 16. 5 7. Rev. 19. 11. Justice in God is a property of his nature See Heb. 10 30 31. Nahum 1 3. Deut 4. 24. Num. 14. 18. as well as his mercy and goodness are Exod. 34. 7. Exod. 20 5. It is a contradiction to suppose a God and not suppose him just there is no possibility of framing a notion of God without including justice in it And if it were not thus it is not imaginable how the heathens should come to have an ingraft notion of God's punishing sin for what depends meerly upon the will of God is no other ways to be known but by revelaâ—ion but that the Gentiles without revelation are under a knowâ—edge that God will punish sin â—he Apostle informs us Rom. 1. â—2 Knowing the judgments of God â—hat they which commit such things â—re worthy of death It was from â—ence that their accusations of â—onscience arose Rom. 2. 15. From â—ence also sprung their several enâ—eavours and attempts to appease God by lustrations hecatombs sacrifices c. From all which iâ— clearly follows that vindictive justice is an essential property oâ— God If justice be to give everâ— thing its due we must needs ascribâ— it to God unless we will supposâ— him to act contrary to the principles and measures of all equity If in man it be a virtue and perfection becoming a rational nature we must either give it to God or suppose him to be an unreasonable Being 3. This may be further strengthened if we consider God actinâ— towards us as Supream Governor Ruler and Judge God havinâ— created Man a rational creature behoved to give him a law It iâ— a contradiction for a man to be â— man and not obliedged to love fear and obey God These thingâ— man became obliedged to without any other constitution of God will about him save only his making him a man though God mighâ— â—ave chosen whether he would â—ave made such a creature as man â—r not yet on supposition that he â—akes such a creature it necesâ—arily results from his very nature â—hat he should reverence love â—nd serve God Now this being â—nce established that man beâ—oved to be under a law it as neâ—essarily follows that God as the â—oly and just Governour of the â—orld should make punishment â—ue to him in case he broke that â—w Duety being once constiâ—ted though there had been no â—enalty annexed to the law yet â—e dueness of punishment ariseth â—om the nature of sin Reatus â—lpae reatus poenae howsoâ—er they may be separable in some â—ses in humane laws they are not â— in divine In brief if there â—ere not penalties annexed to â—ws they would be contemptible â—ings and Government would be â—t an empty notion Now the dueness of punishment beiâ— granted in case of sin It followâ— by a like necessity that in case punishment become actually due God as righteous Judge and Gâ—vernour should execute it Geâ— 18. 25.
them alone foâ— expiation of guilt and right to life But that no satisfaction can bâ— made by sacrifices appears 1. In that Scripture expreslâ— Sacrificia considerantur vel quaâ—enus typi crant futurae satis facticnis Messia vel quatenus illis vis expiandi per se adscribebatur priori modo Deuâ— illa voluit posteriori carejecit Walth rejects all sacrifices when trusteâ— to for that end and purpose Psalâ— 40. 6. Sacrifice and offering thâ— didst not desire mine ears hast thâ— opened burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required i. e. hâ— did not desire them as means bâ— which sin could be expiated Sâ— Psal 50. 8. to 12. Micah 6. 6 7 Heb. 9. 9. and 10. 1 2 3 4. Goâ— in Scripture expresseth his disliâ— of sacrifices upon three occasionâ— 1. Because of the prophaness â— the Offerers Isa 1. 11 12. c. â— 18. Isa 66. 5. Jer. 6. 20. 2â— When they were preferred to moral obedience 1 Sam. 15. 22. Hos 6. 6. Jer. 7. 21 22. 3. When trusted to for justification and life as we have just before expressed 2. There is no worth in the blood of a Bull or Goat to make reparation for the dishonour done by sin to God he must have very mean thoughts both of sin and God that thinks his justice can be satisfied or the guilt of sin expiated by the bloud of a Calf or Lamb. The wrong done by sin being infinite justice requireth that the satisfaction should be proportionable 3. Nor was there any proporâ—ion nor relation either betwixt the sinner and the sacrificed beast that the blood and death of the one should pass for a satisfaction â—or the sin and offense of the other There should be a conjunction in Nature betwixt him that commits â—he offence and him that makes the satisfaction in what nature the sin is committed in that nature the reparation should be made there being therefore no communion in nature betwixt a beast and a man the blood of the one cannot pass for a satisfaction for the crime of the other 4. Because it is necessary that whoever makes satisfaction for another should consent and willingly submit to such an undertaking now a beast is altogether uncapable of stipulation or agreeing to such an exchange Psal 118. 27. and therefore can no wise make satisfaction The Heathen could say Quum sis ipse nocens moritur cuâ— victima prote Stultitia est morte alterius sperarâ— salutem So that upon the whole it is clear we cannot plead a satisfaction bâ— sacrifice 2. Others possibly may be ready to insist on moral obedience as if by that we could make God a valuable compensation for the wrong we have done him This was the the great refuge of the Jews of old Rom. 2. 17. They rested in the law Rom. 9. 31. They followed after the law i. e. they expected life and righteousness in and through the observance of the law not that they thought themselves able so universally to keep it as not at all to sin but they apprehended that they sufficiently kept the law to justification if they performed the outward acts of duety and forbore the outward acts of sin or if their good works were more than their evil Mat. 19. 18 19 20. Phil. 3. 6. but that there is no coming off on this Plea 1. The Scripture every where informs us in its disclaiming all possibility of being justified by works Rom. 3. 20. By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight Gal. 3. 21 22. If there had been a law given which could have given life verily righteousness should have been by the law but the Scripture hath concluded all under sin c. Rom. 8 3. what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh c. The law had we kept it by continuing in the sâ—ate wherein we were created was both appointed and able to have given life but man by sin becoming flesh the law stood by as altogether insufficient to help such an one and is therefore called the ministration of death 2 Cor. 3. 7. and of condemnation 2 Cor. 3. 9. and though it was afterward continued for other ends yet it was never intended that they should have life and righteousness by it 2. The obedience of the law is such as never any sinner did or can perform Psal 143. 2. In thy sight shall no man living be justified i. e. upon a personal righteousness of his own Psal 130. 3. If thou Lord shouldst mark iniquities O Lord who shall stand The law required not only a personal but an universal perfect and perpetual obedience and as to all the last three we are sadly defective and accordingly those Saints who had as much to plead this way as any yet constantly disclaim'd being justified on this score Psal 19. 12. Psal 40. 12. My sins are more than the hairs of my head As if he had sâ—id I may sooner tell my hairs than reckon my sins Job 9. 2 3 15 20 21 30. read it at leisure See also 2 Cor. 4 4. Though I know nothing by my self yet am I not hereby justified Phil. 3 8 9. 3 Were it possible that we coulâ— give God a perfect and universal obedience which we never can yet it were no more than a debt which we owe him as we are his Creatures and therefore could be no satisfaction from us as we are his delinquents Whatever we are or have it being from God we owe him the farthest improvement of all without rendring him beholding yea in the state wherein he created us he might have obliged us to the utmost obedience and after all that instead of any reward have reduced us into the state of nothing out of which he raised us being fallen more than we can yield is a debt we owe him as our Maker and therefore can be no satisfaction to him as an offended Judge One debt useth not to go in payment for another if a man commit one treasonable act and for a time make an escape but be afterwards apprehended it will be no Plea in Law to say he is Loyal now because he was bound to have been so before and therefore must satisfie for his former disloyalty 4. All the obedience we are â—er able to yield to God it is â—rough the alone strength and inâ—uence of his grace Joh. 15. 5. Cor. 3. 5. And therefore instead â— being a satisfaction to his juâ—ce we are made fresh debtors to â—s mercy 5. One sin dishonours God â—ore than an eternity of obedience â—n recompence all our service â—ings no accession to God to meâ— any thing at his hand Job 22. 3. Can a man be profitable to â—d is it pleasure to the Almighty â—at thou art righteous or is it â—in to him that thou makest thy â—ys perfect Job 35. 7. If thou â— righteous what givest thou unto â—m or what receiveth he at thine â—nd see also Psal 16. 2 3. Luc.
â— 10. Rom. 11. 35. Acts 17. 25. â—t the least sin is a derogation â—m his honour and lays us under â— obnoxiousness to eternal wrath 6. Justification upon the pleâ— of obedience is that which the Apostle through the Epistles to thâ— Romans and Galatians so largelâ— disputes against and therefore wâ— must either make nonsense of aâ— his arguments or we must elsâ— confess that there is no being justified upon this plea. 3. It remains that if we maâ— satisfaction by our selves it muâ— be alone done by sufferings Thâ— Papists though they agree with â— about the truth of Christs satisfaction yet they greatly derogaâ— from it in the establishing the nâ—cessity of humane satisfactionâ— It is true their doctrine is a littâ— intricate in this affair they are nâ— accorded among themselves eithâ— as to the extent or the condignitâ— of such satisfactions yet they aâ— meet in this that Christ hath nâ— so satisfied as to remove the whoâ— punishment but that there is soâ— of the legal penalty still to be uâ—dergoâ— by our selves which is â—artly born in punishments in this â—fe and partly in purgatory torâ—ents in the future This they â—alliate by distinguishing betwixt â—moving of the fault and reâ—oving of the punishment The â—ult is the offence committed â—gainst God which is done away â— remission the punishment is â—e penalty which after the fault â— removed remains say they â—ll to be suffered and by the â—aring of which either in our own â—rsons or one for another we â—ake God formal satisfaction But 1. we have already provâ— that the bearing of the penalâ— doth constitute no man who is â—ce unjust just again The first â—ention of the law is obedience â—d nothing doth satisfie the priâ—ary design of the law but that â—grant that in humane laws in â—me cases it may be otherwise â—mely where the law is purely penal the intention of the laâ— giver being neither precisely â— command nor forbid any thingâ— but on a penalty to allow thâ— which otherwise he prohibiteâ— As for example that if a persoâ— be chosen Sheriff of Lonâ—on â— shall either hold or pay such fine The paying the fine doâ— here satisfie the law forasmuch â— the law did not precisely enjoyâ— the party to hold but only bounâ— him to the payment of such â— summ in case he would not Buâ— in Divine Laws the case is different the end of all God's Lawâ— being obedience and the penaltâ— being annexed only for other ends 2. The distinction upon whicâ— the Papists here proceed implieâ— one of the absurdest things imaginable namely that the fault should be remitted and not the punishment that the debt should be forgiven and yet payment exacted seeing the forgiving the â—ebt is nothing else but the disâ—olving the offenders obligation to â—unishment See Mat. 18. 17. 3. Sin being of an infinite deâ—erit requires an infinite penalâ—y â—ow a penalty can be infinite only â—ne of three ways 1. Through the infinite worth of the person sustaining the punishment and in this sense I suppose none will say that man is of â—uch value and dignity as that any suffering he undegoes should be accounted infinite 2. A penalty may be infinite from the infinite weight of what is inflicted and sustained and in this sense no man can undergo an infinite punishment forasmuch as no finite creature can bear any weight but what is finite 3. A punishment may be infinite as to length and duration but for to think that a person can satisfie by bearing a punishment which is infinite as to continuance involves 1. A plain contradiction being for ever to suffer and nevâ— to satisfie for ever to be damneâ— and never acquitted 2. Such kind of suffering doâ— not satisfie the primary intentioâ— of the law seeing law and justiâ— in their first intention require thâ— the punishment be commensuraâ— to the crime in the weight of iâ— rather than in the length Sâ— that upon the whole we cannot bâ— justified upon the plea of havinâ— made a satisfaction our selves If we plead justification then upon the account of a satisfaction it must be alone because of a satisfaction made by another anâ— this leads me to the next point thâ— ground and matter of our justification viz. the satisfaction oâ— Christ CHAP. IV. Other supream ends of the death of Christ disclaimed That he did not dye primarily to seal and confirm the covenant nor to give us an example of suffering with patience 2. THE second and only Plea of a guilty sinner is that Christ hath made satisfaction To this end he was incarnate and for this end he died That there were other subordinate ends of his Incarnation Obedience and Passion is not denied but that any thing else was either the supream or the only end must not be granted That which is first pleaded by thâ— Socinians is that all which Christ underwent was to ratifie and confirm his Doctrine having preached the freeness of remission to such as should repent And men finding a witness in themselves of their liableness to wrath and death being ready to suspect every proposal oâ— grace and favour tâ—erefore Chrisâ— by his death say they made faitâ— of and gave assurance of what hâ— had taught Now that what wâ— have to offer in opposition to this may be the better secured againsâ— all exceptions we premise thesâ— three things to be first taken notice of 1. That Christ answerable tâ— the threefold necessity that wâ— were in stood in a threefold office As we were ignorant of God hâ— was our Prophet Joh. 6. 14. Act 3. 22 23. As we were under thâ— guilt of sin he was our Priest Heb 2. 17. Heb. 7. 26 27. As weâ— were in bondage to sin and Satan he was constituted our Captaiâ— and King Isa 55. 4. Heb. 2. 10. Dan. 9. 25. Now as he is ouâ— Prophet he not only reveals and makes known the Father to us Joh. 1. 18. but hath also by his death sealed and confirmed his doctrinâ— Joh. 18. 37. As he is our â—riest he hath by his death exâ—iated sin Heb. 9. 15. 1 Joh. 2. â— purchased remission to us Mat. 26. 28. Eph. 1. 7. and â—ought grace for us Phil. 1. 29. â— Pet. 2. 1. And as he is our â—ing he hath by his death conqueâ—ed our enemies Col. 2. 15. Heb. â— 14. and left us an example of â—ffering and patience 1 Pet. 2. 21. â—ow one or more of these ends â—e not exclusive of the other beâ—ause some of these were the ends â— his death we must not say that â—hers are not But the Socinians â— they confound the Priesthood of â—hrist either with his Kingship â— with his Prophetical Office so â—ey confine the ends of his death â— what meerly was done as he â—od in these relations but as â—e shall God willing hereafter â—monstrate him to be properly Priest as well as a King or â—ophet So for the present we distinguish what were the ends of his death as Priest from those
which were the ends of it as he was King and Prophet 2. We would have it observed that there were some more primary and principal ends of Christ's death and others that were less principâ— and only secondary The more primary and principal end of his death was that he might give himself a ransome for sinners 1 Tim. 2. 6. be a propitiation for our offences 1 Joh. 2. 2. and become a sacrifice for sin Heb. 9. 26. and 10. 12. The secondary and less principal were that he might ratifie the truth of his doctrine and leave us an example of patience in suffering Now the adversaries insist only upon the subordinate and secondary ends of his death and altogether shut out the more principal and chief 3. We would distinguish betwixt the proper end of his death and those things which are the fruits and consequences of it through his having obtained that end The proper end of the death of Christ was the satisfying of God's justice and the vindicating his Law and Government Rom. 3. 25. and 4. 25. but the fruits and consequences of it through his having compassed that end are our deliverance from the curse and condemnation of the law Gal. 3. 13. Rom. 8. 34. The remission of our sins Col. 1. 14. justification at the Bar of God Rom. 5. 9. and a right and title to life 1 Pet. 3. 18. Rom. 5. 18. Having now premised these things we come to prove that the confirmation of the doctrine of the Gospel could not be the only not yet the principal end of the death of Christ 1. Because the truth of his doctrine was otherwise sufficiently established for being demonstrated to be from God there needed no further evidence of the truth of it and that it was from God was abundantly proved 1. By those motives of credibility and inbred evidence which it carried in it if we consider the Purity Majesty Plainness Fullness Method and Manner in which delivered it is not possible but that without further means of conviction we may be ascertained that God is the Author of it 2. God himself by the Testimony and Attestation of Miracles gave irrefragable evidence that it was true and from himself Heb. 2. 4. God bearing witness with signs and wonders and divers miracles c. Act. 2. 22. Jesus a man approved of God amongst you by miracles wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you c. and it was to these that Christ so often appealed for the truth of his doctrine Joh. 5. 36. I have a greater witness than that of John for the works which the Father hath given me to finish the same works that I do bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me Joh. 10. 25. The works that I do in my Fathers Name they bear witness of me So Joh 15. 24. and alibi And it was upon the conviction and evidence of these that the world received his doctrine Joh. 2. 23. Many believed in his Name when they saw the miracles which he did Joh. 3. 2. We know that â—hou art a Teacher come from God for no man can do these miracles â—hat thou dost except God be with â—im Joh. 7. 31. And many of the â—eople believed on him and said â—hen Christ cometh will he do more â—iracles then these which this man â—ath done So that there was no â—ecessity for Christ to have dyed in â—eference to this end his doctrine â—eing by other mediums sufficiâ—ntly confirmed had there never been any such thing as the death of Christ yet there wanted not sufficient grounds by which a Divine Revelation might be known Those that lived before the incarnation of Christ were not without sufficient evidence of the truth and divinity of the doctrine of Moses and the Prophets yet they had not this argument to establish and confirm them in the belief of it 3. The needlesseness of Christs dying in relation to the ascertaining the truth of his doctrine appears hence in that the highest argument and motive the Holy Ghost instanceth in in reference to the confirming any declaration oâ— God is God's Oath Heb. 6. 17 18. So that if this had been the supream end of the death of Christ I do not see how it was any wise necessary that Christ should havâ— dyed there having been other wayâ— and meâ—ns every way sufficient foâ— the attaining of that end yea â—annot understand how it is conâ—istent with the wisdome goodâ—ess and righteousness of God â—o have put an innocent person â—nd one so dear to him as his own Son to death when he might â—ave spared him and yet arrived â—t all he propounded by his sufâ—erings 2. If the confirming the truth of the Scripture had been the â—upream end of all the sufferings of Christ and if it be upon that â—ccount that he is so often said to â—ave dyed for us this is no more â—han what men are capable of doâ—ng yea than what the Martyrs â—ave actually done for they by sufferings blood and death have â—ealed and confirmed the truth of the Gospel and yet they are never said to have dyed for us or to have reconciled us to God by their blood yea instead of this it is expresly denied that they ever did or could dye for us in that sense and to that purpose thaâ— Christ did 1 Cor. 1. 13. Act. 4. 12. and by consequence there behoved to be other and greateâ— causes of the death and sufferingâ— of Christ then the sealing oâ— confirming the truth of his doctrine 3. It may from hence be further demonstrated that it was noâ— the supreame end of Christ's dying only to encourage us to believe the certainty of God's promise in reference to the free remission of sin because the Scripture every where assigns other ends namely that he might beaâ— our sins Rom. 4. 25. destroy thâ—e mity betwixt God and us Eph. 2. 16. save us from perishing anâ— give us a right to life Joh. 3. 16. So that the first Plea of the Sociniars remains confuted and overthrown 2. The second end instanced in and pleaded for as the impulsive cause of the sufferings and death of Christ is that he might give us an example of suffering with patience It is not denied but that the death of Christ is of singular import to these purposes 1 Pet. 2. 21. and 4. 1. Heb. 12. 2 3. but yet these were not the principal ends of his sufferings and death neither were they indispensably needful upon that score 1. Because the Old Testament Saints were patiently carried through suffering who though they lived in the faith of the death of Christ yet had not the lively example of the quality of his sufferings nor of his patience under them 2. Because upon these terms Christ should not be properly our Saviour but the act of saving us should be our own Christ should only chalk us the way to salvation whereas we should go in it and consequently the act of saving us should
surplusage he that was our creditor is become our debtor there is more honor ariseth to God from Christ's sufferings than he suffered dishonor by our sins 3ly For his wisdom how wonderfully is that display'd in the whole transaction the debt pay'd and yet the debtor forgiven sin punished and yet the sinner acquitted God at once infinitely righteous and withal gracious Death submitted to yet conquered c. See Eph. 1. 8. Eph. 3. 10. and as the Father is honoured through this transaction so is the Son hereby he gives demonstration of his love to mankind Rev. 1. 5. is rewarded for his sufferings with a numerous seed Isa 53. 10 11. And in recompence for his depression and humiliation he hath a name given him above every name Phil. 2. 7 8 9. Eph. 1. 21 22. and to overweigh his cross and shame he is crowned with dignity honour and glory Heb. 2. 9. Having thus far cleared our way by demonstrating that it is not against justice for one to be made suffer for anothers sin and having opened what conditions are necessary to render such a transaction righteous and that they all meet in the affair before us Before we come to the proof of Christ his having suffered what we should have suffered we desire further to premise these three things 1. We are to distinguish what is essential in the punishment from what only is accidental in it what it includes in its own nature from what ensueth through the weakness of the subject If we consider only what is absolutely included in the threatning we shall find no more but this namely that the sinner ought to undergo both as to sense and loss as much as it is possible for a creature to bear The law principally eyes the quality and the weight of the punishment not so much the duration and continuance The living and dying in Prison is no part of a man's debt neither is that the primary intention of the law towards any yet this comes justly to be his lot that will not or cannot pay his debt That which lyes then formally in the threatning is death Rom. 6. 23. wrath Rom. 2. 5. and the curse Gal. 3. 10. but that this is eternal ariseth meerly from the finiteness and weakness of the creature If a sinner could at once bear that which is proportionable and equal in justice to his crime and by so doing make satisfaction there might in time be an end of his punishment but this he cannot do â—nd therefore must suffer forever according to what he is capable of bearing Now Christ was to undergo only what was formally in the threatning to bear the weight of it and having by bearing of it made satlsfaction he was no ways concerned in the eternity and duration of the punishment justice it self discharging him the debt being pay'd 2. We must distinguish betwixt those effects which flow naturally from suffering and those which through the corruption of the party punished flow only accidentally from it If the Socinians would be pleased to take notice of this they would ease us the trouble of that thread-bare objection viz. that in case Christ underwent the punishment of the law he behoved to dispair and blaspheme forasmuch as these do not flow naturally from suffering but proceed meerly from the corruption and imbecillity of those that suffer A person may undergo punishment without either murmuring at the Judge who sentenceth him or reproaching the law by which he is condemned The blasphemy of a damned sinner ariseth in way of causation meerly from his own corruption his pains are at most but occasional of it and while he had mercies they issued in the like effects For the dispair of a damned person it proceeds hence that he knows he shall never make satisfaction nor extricate himself from under what he feels Now it was not possible that either of these should fall upon Christ not the first seeing he was perfectly holy in his nature without any principle of or inclination to sin Not the second in that he knew himself able to make God a satisfaction and foresaw and believed a glorious issue from all his pains 3. We must make a difference betwixt those sufferings which were directly in the threatning and those that were only consequentially â—in it Those that the humane nature may be made obnoxious to though it be holy and innocent and those that follow the humane nature as existing only in our sinful persons Christ assumed only the common nature of man and not the person of any man and therefore was neither subject to passionate disorders of mind nor painful sicknesses of body seeing these do not appertain to the essence of the humane nature but only attend it as it exists in our sinful persons These things being premised I come now to prove that Christ hath suffered what we should have suffered and that the same penalty which was due to us was inflicted on him the death and curse which the law denounced against the sinner Christ as the Surety bore The punishment which was due to us consisted of two parts death and the curse to be inflicted upon us and the favour of God to be suspended and withdrawn from us 1. That which was expresly denounced as the penalty of sin was death and the curse Gen. 2. 17. Deut. 27. 26. Rom 6. 23. Rom. 5. 12. Gal. 3. 10. And this and no less this very punishment and not an other did Christ undergo the same sentente of the law which should have been executed upon us was executed upon him There was a change of persons the Surety suffering for the Debtor the just for the unjust but no change of punishment at all Christ tasted death Heb. 2 9. was put to death Joh. 18. 31 32. became obedient unto death even the death of the Cross Phil. 2. 8. bore the curse Gal. 3. 13. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us The Apostle having asserted in the 10. verse that every person who continues â—ot in all things which are writâ—en in the Book of the Law to do â—hem is cursed He here opens â—ow believers notwithstanding â—hat commination come to be â—eed from the curse namely beâ—ause Christ hath born it and for â—he proof of this he refers them â—o Deut. 21. 23. where they were â—aught so much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Execraâ—o a Curse the abstract for the â—oncrete as is usual in Scripture 2 Câ—r 3. 9. and 5. 21 Eph. 5. 8. John 17 17. Rom. 3. 30. â—e the Texts in the Margin that is â—e underwent all the wrath which â—e law denounced particularly â—at death to which it only affixed â— curse By curse we may either â—nderstand the sentence of the law â—ecrating and condemning the sinâ—r which is called the curse â—tively or we may understand the execution of punishment according to that sentence which is the curse passively for in both respects Christ was made
a curse I would have well observed here that though hanging was reckoned always an ignominious kind of death yeâ— that it alone was an accursed death arose meerly from the constitution of the Law-maker and the declaration of the Law Whatever malefactors were hanged before the enacting and proclaiming of this Law we have no ground to believe that they were accursed and originally the curse was ceremonial being intended by God as a type of the moral curse which Christ was to bear Suspensus secundum legem ceremonialem est execrationi Deo nam alicqui neque secundum naturae legem nec secundum jura civilia neque per seipsum denique qui suspensus est Deo execrabilis Jun. Paralâ—ll l. 2. And here the providence of God is very observable that whereas suspension was not any oâ— the capital punishments prescribed by Moses neither was it the custome of the Jews to punish their malefactors with that kind of death Christ should dye by a Romane and not a Judaical law It is true that some after they were stoned to death were sometimes for the enormity of their fact put to the ignominy of Deut 21. 22. And he be to be put â—o death and thou hang him on a Tree oughâ— to be read and he be put to deâ—th and thou hang him on a Tree See Grot. and Fag on the place the Gibbet but otherwise it was no Judaick punishment and had Christ been executed according to a Mosaick law he could not have been Crucified But among the Romans it was a death to which they often used to put Traitors Thieves Murderers and Seditious persons Authores Seditionis aut tumultus pro qualitatis dâ—gnitate aut in crucem tolluntur aut besâ—tis objâ—câ—untur Paulus l. 5. tit 22. Now Christ being condemned by Pilate upon accusation of affecting the Soveraignty disturbing the Nation and being an enemy to Caesar Luc. 23. 2. Joh. 19. 12. underwent the death of the Cross which was the Roman punishment for these crimes Crucem autem irrogatam Christo tanquam seditionis auctori verissimè à multis notatum est eam enim pâ—nam ei crimini statuunt Romanae leges Grot. in Mat. 27. And as of all deaths it was the most painful and shameful summum supplicium Paul in Seâ—tent Extrema poena Apul. Servile supplicium Tacit. Pone crucem servo Juven So over all these there was in the death of Christ the curse of the law and the wrath of God And this together with the apprehension and sense of the withdrawment of his Fathers love of which more anone was the rise of that grief and horrour in the soul of Christ which the Holy Ghost by the several Evangelists so largely expresseth His soul was exceeding sorrowful Mat. 26. 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 undequaque tristis Bez. It signifies the soul surrounded and encompassed with an excess of sorrow beset with grief round about The soul depressed and bowed under dejection of mind the Holy Ghost seems to â—ave respect to Psal 116. 3. The â—orrows of death compassed me and â—he pains of hell got hold upon me â— found trouble and sorrow See â—lso Psal 22. 14. Mark expresseth â—t He began to be sore amazed and â—ery heavy Mar. 14. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â— signifies an high degree of horâ—our and amazement Medici voâ—ant horripilationem when the hair â—ands up through fear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—ravissimè angebatur Bez. It imâ—lies much fear attended with restâ—â—eness and anxiety of mind Prae â—oerore pene concidere animo John â—presseth it Now is my soul trouâ—ed Joh. 12. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it sigâ—fieth great trouble through fear or grief Hence tartarus hell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quia terret omnia Luke satth he was in an agony Luke 22. 44 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it signifieth fear and commotion of mind upon the feeling and foresight of evil and danger yet not so as to be dispirited or disheartned From hence also proceeded his bloody sweat ibid. his sweat was as it were great drops of blood Tears were not sufficient evidences of his inward sufferings nor could the sorrows of his heart be vented enough at his eyes but the innumerâ—ble pores of his body must represent and speak the bitter anguish of his soul There is no instance can parallel it That a person under no distemper of body who before hand had agreed to lay down his life and was now willing to do it A person perfectly innocent both in nature and life under no accusation of conscience as to personal â—uilt free from all solicitude in â—eference to the cares of the world and câ—â—tain of a Crown of Glory should be under such â—nguish and constâ—rnation which â—leaâ—ly argues that it did not proâ—eed from the consideration of meer natural death but from the â—ense of Divine wrath and the â—eeling of the curse I here are â—wo instances in Thuanus which â—hough very strange yet do infiâ—itely differ from this Dux quidam indigna mortis metu adeo conâ—ussus animo fuit ut sanguineum â—udorem toto corpore fudit Hist â— 11. Juvenis obâ—leâ—em causam à Sâ—xto 5. ad mortem damnatus prae doloris vehementia lachrymas crucnâ—as fudisse sanguinem pro suâ—dore toto corpore mittere visus est l. 80 I might also add That his strong crys and tears arose from the same spring Heb. 5. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It denoteth a most ardent kind of praying Aâ—dentior orandi â—oâ—ma cum lachrymis gemitu aliisque gestibus conjuncta Luke expresseth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he prayeâ— more earnestly To say that all this was only from a preapprehension of his bodily sufferings is a most irrational as well as a false suggestion for what were this but to abase the valour and courage of Christ below that of thousands of men who have undauntedly at least with less consternation encountred death in its most terrible shapes The ground then of all this anguish and agony which Christ was in was his conflicting with Divine wrath and the curse of the law in death There was not the least change of the punishment in reference to the Surety from what was denounced against the sinner The consideration of this overthrows First the Popish phansie of Christ his suffering formally only in his body and in his soul only by way of simpathy he suffered the very same that we should have suffered i. e. he suffered both in soul and body In neither did God spare him but both gave him up to death and made his soul an offering for sin Rom. 8. 32. Isa 53. 8 10. Secondly It overthrows the phansie of others that if God had so pleased one drop of the blood of Christ might have been a compensation for our sins whereas seeing it was death wrath and the curse which was in the threatning nothing less could have made a satisfaction for sin It is a note of Camero's
Dignitas personae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 satisfactionis detrahere nil potest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 potest ratio est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est satisfactionâ— essentialis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non est 2. The second part of the curse was separation from God and the sense of the loss of his favour and this also Christ underwent being for a time under the with drawment and loss of the feeling of God's love So much was before hand prophesied concerning him Psal 22. 1. and himself declareth that he bore it Mat. 27. 46. My God my God why hast thou forsaken mâ— It is true he was not left as to the dissolution of the personal union with the Divine Essence â—on 14. 11. and 10. 30. Heb. 9. 14. nâ—r as to the vertue and support of God's power and providence Psal 16. 8 9 Joh. 16. 32. nor as to grace and sanctification Col. 1. 19. It was needful that he should be always holy otherwise he had failed in the work which he came about but â—t was not needful that he should be always joyful yea considering his undertaking it was impossible that he should be so and therefore he was left only as to the communication of the effects of Divine love and favour which is that which the damned â—ye under in hell And this with what I delivered under the former head was the ground of his fear agony and bloody sweat c. Having proved that Christ suffered the very same which we should have suffered it naturally follows that he did it in way of a satisfaction for there is no other reason imaginable why God should thus punish a person who in himself was altogether innocent and one so dear to him as his own Son but that he stood charged as a Surety with our sins to make satisfaction to Divine Justice for them CHAP. VI. The satisfaction of Christ further established in that he suffered in our room He underwent death as a penalty our sins were laid on him He was made sin dyed for us bare our iniquities THE next thing which comes under consideration for the more full clearing that Christ hath satisfied for us is this that as he suffered the same which we should have suffered so he suffered it all in our room and stead It was before hand told that the Messiah should be cut off but not for himself Dan. 9. 26. He was to be penally cut off not upon his own account or for himself but for us This particular will be fully made out by considering these five things 1. In that he underwent death which God had constituted the punishment of sin and there being no â—use in himself why he should sufâ—r that penalty It unavoidably â—llows that it was because he stood â—arged with our offences I do not â—ow dispute whether God might â—ave made man obnoxious to â—ath in case he had never sinned â—e only question is what he hath â—one I will not deny but that â—od having given us our beings â—nd lives might without injuâ—ice have taken back what he â—ad given he might in way of doâ—inion and soveraignty have sent â— into the world to act our parts â—or a time and then remanded us â—to our state of not being again â—e only question is what he hath one and that in condecency to is wisdom goodness and righteâ—usness as governour of his creaâ—res and here we affirm that â—eath was appointed by God to be â—e wages of sin and that if man â—ad not sinned he should not have â—yed notwithstanding the possibility of dying which was in maâ— nature he should by the power â— God have been preserved froâ— actual dying Whatever he was obâ—noxious to in the constitution â— his nature he should for ever naâ— been free from death in the evenâ— And it was very consonant to Diâ—vine wisdom and goodness thâ— perfect righteousness and puriâ— should have been attended witâ— life and immortality and thâ— God should not take away thâ— being which he had bestowed but upon a faileur in reference tâ— the end for which it was given God appointed death to be thâ— punishment of sin Gen. 2. 17. Iâ— the day that thou eatest thereof thâ— shalt surely dye This being denounced only in case of sin wâ— are thence fully informed that iâ— man had not sinned he should noâ— have dyed To this it were â—asiâ— to subjoyn many other places oâ— Scripture Rom. 6. 23. The wagâ—â— of sin is death Rom. 5. 12. Death entred into the world by sin It came not in as a consequent of the frailty of humane nature but as the demeâ—it of the fall Hence death is called an enemy 1 Cor. 15. 26. God made not death saith â—he Apocryphal writer Now Jesus Christ having suffered death which was the punishment of sin and having had no sin of his own for which he could be punished it results by a necessary consequence that he suffered death as the penalty of our sins â—nd as he stood in our room Object Object But possibly it may be â—bjected that this interferes with our own doctrine For if death be the â—enalty of sin then for asmuch as Christ by bearing the penalty hath deâ—ivered us from every thing that is â—enal he should have delivered us from death too but not having delivered us from death we contradict â—ur selves in calling death the puâ—ishment of sin Answ I Answer All those for whoâ— Christ hath satisfied are delivered by him from death so far as it is penal So that though it be continued yet it is not as it is a punishment but in order to other ends sin and the curse being separate from it it is no more poisonous but medicinal Instead of a punishment it is become a priviledge Christ having unstung it and swallowed up the curse which was in it 1 Cor. 15. 54 55. it cannot hurt them though it seise them Instead of being an inlet to wrath it is an entrance to glory 2. Christ his suffering in our room will be made further out if we consider that our sins were laid on him Isa 53 6 7. The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all he was oppressed and he was afflicted That it is the Messiah and none other who is intended throughout that whole Chapter hath been abundantly justified against the Jews and it is utterly impossible with any congruity and sense to apply it to any other And several testimonies taken hence are in the New Testament expresly applyed to Christ ver 1. Joh. 12 â—7 38. ver 4. Mat. 8. 17. ver 7 8. Act. 8. 28. ad 36. ver 12. Luke 22. 37. The attempts of Grotius in accommodating the whole to Jeremiah have been aâ—undantly refuted by Hoornbeck Alex. Morus and the learned Dr. Owen to whose writings I profess my self more beholding for a clear understanding of some things in â—he mystery of the Gospel than to â—ny mans besides Taking then at present for granted that it is to be understood of
93. to 107. 2. I affirm that these words which the Adversary seeks relief to his cause from do utterly disserve it For if he that condemneth the just be an abomination to the Lord how will they salve the righteousness of God in condemning Christ who was an innocent person to pain and death which is the punishment of the nocent who as he had no sin of his own so according to them he stood charged with no sin of ours Death being constituted the penalty of sin could noâ— without unrighteousness have been inflicted upon Christ forasmuch as he had become answerable for ours see this proved pag. 124. to 127. And therefore our adversaries by denying the last and not daring to assâ—rt the first â—re the only men who fasten that â—pon God which the Text stiles â—bominable and now we hope â—hat we have not only wrested â—hese weapons out of the enemies â—and but also wounded himself â—y them SECT II. â—t guilty of any of the three faults â— inexcusable in a Preacher The doctrine momentous Heb. 2. 10. opened and the necessity of a satisfaction justified to be the truth of that Scripture â—HE three faults proposed as inexcusable in a Preacher â— too confessedly so to be apoâ—gized for but whatever other â—aknesses I may have been guilâ— of yet that I am innocent from the whole of that chargâ— comes now to be justified 1. That the Doctrine I discoursâ— is of the highest import and thaâ— to mistake in it is to erre in a matteâ— of the greatest concernment readily acknowledge and do fuâ—ther add that it is of such weigâ— in the matter of a Christians bâ—lief that not to be sound there â— to erre in a main fundamental aâ— consequently to be unavoidabâ— obnoxious to damnation Wheâ— as their are some truths whiâ— we are only bound to believâ— in case we know them to be â—vealed this is a truth we â— bound to know and believe â— be revealed in order to beâ— saved If there be any funâ—mentals of faith at all these â—ctrines wherein we and the Sâ—nians differ are maximes of tâ— nature As to that exceptioâ— have heard of a certain persâ— whose name out of respect I â— â—eaâ— that they cannot be fundamentals because controverted by learned men if it concludes any â—hing it concludes that there is â—o fundamental at all there being â—o one truth so evident which â—ome have not denied yea it will not be a fundamental that â—here is God forasmuch as there â—ave been some and still are who â—are gainsay it The matter then â—herein my Adversary and I differ â—eing of this moment I would â—eset it to the Reader to arbitrate â—n whose side the truth lies wheâ—er with them who can demonâ—rate their Opinion to have been â—e belief of all the faithful down â—om the Apostles to the present â—ge not one dissenting who hath â—ot been by all the Churches of Christ branded for a Heretick or â—ith those who in some whole â—ges can instance none of the same â—ntiments with them and those â—hom in other times they produce are such as the Catholick Church hath from time to time voted unworthy the name oâ— Christians 2. Whether the Doctrine I theâ— insistâ—d on be the truth of any Scripture the former tract hath accounted for where I hope it is noâ— only made evident to be a truth but one of the most considerablâ— truths of the Gospel the very bâ—siâ— of our Religion the foundatioâ— of our present comforts and futuâ— hopâ—â— 3. The third and at present maâ— particular and that which â—aâ— now under consideration is whethâ— it be the truth of that Text froâ— which in my Sermon I deduced iâ— And here I must complain of tâ— unworthiness and disingenuity â— my Adversaries that when I hâ— endeavoured at some length â— prove that the point then insistâ— on arose not only naturally froâ— the place but was one of â— main doctrines intended in the words they have been so far from refuting what was alledged to that purpose that they have not mentioned one word of what was offered in that matter Was ever such tergiversation known as publickly to reproach a person for a conclusion without examining either the premises whence it is drawn or the method of inferring â—t The least I could have expectâ—d was either the overthrowing â—he principles upon which I raised â—t or else the evidencing some misâ—ake in the way of deduction At â—his rate of procedure there is no â—ruth deducible from any Text of â—he Bible but by saying it is not â—ightly drawn they may with the â—ame facility refute The Reader â—ad been spared this labour if my â—dversaries had been but so just â—s in common honesty they ought â—amely if when they declaimed â—gainst my doctrine they had taken notice of the foundations upon which I raised it but seeing they have put me upon this task the speediest way to bring it to anâ— issue will be to open the Text I then discoursed on viz. Heb. 2. 10. For it became him for whom are all things and by whom are all things in bringing many sons unto glory to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings The Apostle in the preceding Chapteâ— having largely treated of Christ as supream Prophet and having advanced him above all other ministerial revealers of God's will so far as a Son is preferable to a servant after some improvemenâ— made in the beginning of thiâ— Chapter of what he had delivereâ— to that purpose in the foregoing by an admirable thread and line oâ— wisdom he slides from the Propheâ—tical office of Christ to his Sacerâ—dotal and having affirmed thaâ— Christ through the benignity anâ— grace of God was given to taste and suffer death for men he here assigns the impulsive reason or procuring cause of Christ's suffering It became God c. i. e. if God would save sinners his essential justice and righteousness could not allow that it should be otherways That this is the intendment of the words a little further opening of them will confirm We have first then a design of God towards fallen rebellious mankind and that is the bringing many of them as sons to glory The making a company of enemies who lay obnoxious to hell and wrath to be God's Sons and the bringing them to life 2ly We have the method and means pitched on for the compassing of that design and that is the dedicating and consecrating Christ by suffering to be a Captain of salvation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we render it to make perfect and that sense sometimes it hath but it signifieth here to consecrate or dedicate unto an office and in this sense the Septuagint use it Exod. 29. 35. and Lev. 21. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the same Apostle several times in this Epistle see Chap. 5. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consecratus Bez. being consecrate or set apart he became the author of eternal salvation c. And chap. 7. 28. 〈◊〉