Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
death_n apostle_n sin_n world_n 6,776 5 5.1990 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A61628 Six sermons with a discourse annexed, concerning the true reason of the suffering of Christ, wherein Crellius his answer to Grotius is considered / by Edward Stillingfleet ... Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699. 1669 (1669) Wing S5669; ESTC R19950 271,983 606

There are 19 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

condition gave him an immediate right to the benefit of the promise If it be said That his own act was not only necessary in bringing the Sacrifice but the Priests also in offering up the blood This will not make it at all the more reasonable because the pardon of sin should not only depend upon a● 〈◊〉 mans own act but upon the act of another which he could not in reason be accountable for if he miscarried in it If the Priest should refuse to do his part or be unfit to do it or break some Law in the doing of it how hard would it seem that a mans sins could not be expiated when he had done all that lay in his own power in order to the expiation of them but that another person whose actions he had no command over neglected the doing his duty So that if the Sacrifice had no other influence on expiation but as a part of obedience in all reason the expiation ●hould have depended on no other conditions but such as were under the power of him whose sins were to be expiated by 〈◊〉 But Crellius urgeth against our sense of Expiation That if it were by Substitution ●hen the Expiation would be most properly attri●●ted to the Sacrifices themselves whereas it is ●…ly said that by the Sacrifices the Expiation is ●btained but that God or the Priest do expiate ●…d to God it belongs properly because he takes ●ay the guilt and punishment of sin which is ●aith he all meant by expiation to the Priest ●…ly consequently as doing what God requires 〈◊〉 order to it and to the Sacrifices only as the ●●nditions by which it was obtained But if the Expiation doth properly belong to God and implies no more than bare pardon it is hard to conceive that it should have any necessary relation to the blood of the Sacrifice but the Apostle to the Hebrews tells us that Remission had a necessary respect to the shedding of blood so that without that there was no remission How improperly doth the Apostle discourse throughout that Chapter wherein he speaks so much concerning the blood of the Sacrifices purifying and in correspondency to that the blood of Christ purging our Consciences and that all things under the Law were purified with blood Had all this no other signification but that this was a bare condition that had no other importance but as a meer act of obedience when God had required it why doth not the Apostle rather say without Gods favour there is no remission than without the sheding of blood if all the expiation did properly belong to that and only very remotely to the blood of the Sacrifice What imaginable necessity was there that Christ must shed his blood in order to the expiation of our sins if all that blood of the Legal Sacrifices did signifie no more than a bare condition of pardon though a slight part of obedience in it self Why must Christ lay down his life in correspondency to these Levitical Sacrifices for that was surely no slight part of his obedience Why might not this condition have been dispensed with in him since our Adversaries say that in it self it hath no proper efficacy on the expiation of sin And doth not this speak the greatest repugnancy to the kindness and Grace of God in the Gospel that he would not dispense with the ignominious death of his Son although he knew it could have no influence of it self on the expiation of the sins of the world But upon this supposition that the blood of Sacrifices under the Law had no proper influence upon Expiation the Apostles discourse proceeds upon weak and insufficient grounds For what necessity in the thing was there because the blood of the Sacrifices was made a condition of pardon under the Law therefore the blood of Christ must be so now although in it self it hath no proper efficacy for that end But the Apostles words and way of Argumentation doth imply that there was a peculiar efficacy both in the one and the other in order to Expiation although a far greater in the blood of Christ than could be in the other as the thing typified ought to exceed that which was the representation of it From hence we see that the Apostle attributes what Expiation there was under the Law not immediately to God as belonging properly to him but to the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean Which he had very great reason to do since God expresly saith to the Jews that the blood was given them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad expiandum to expiate for their souls for the blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall expiate the soul. Than which words nothing could have been more plainly said to overthrow Crellius his assertion that Expiation is not properly or chiefly attributed to the Sacrifices but primarily to God and consequentially to the Priest who is never said to expiate but by the Sacrifice which he offered so that his Office was barely Ministerial in it But from this we may easily understand in what sense God is said to expiate sins where it hath respect to a Sacrifice which is that we are now discoursing of and not in any larger or more improper use of the word for since God himself hath declared that the blood was given for Expiation the Expiation which belongs to God must imply his acceptance of it for that end for which it was offered For the execution or discharge of the punishment belonging to him he may be said in that sense to expiate because it is only in his power to discharge the sinner from that obligation to punishment he lies under by his sins And we do not say that where expiating is attributed to him that accepts the Atonement that it doth imply his undergoing any punishment which is impossible to suppose but that where it is attributed to a Sacrifice as the means of Atonement there we say it doth not imply a bare condition but such a Substitution of one in the place of another that on the account of that the fault of the offender himself is expiated thereby And to this sense the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth very well agree for Socinus and Crellius cannot deny but that Gen. 31. 39. it properly signifies Luere or to bear punishment although they say it no where else signifies so and the reason is because it is applied to the Altar and such other things which are not capable of it but doth it hence follow that it should not retain that signification where the matter will bear it as in the case of Sacrifices And although it be frequently rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet that will be no prejudice to the sense we plead for in respect of Sacrifices because those words when used concerning them do signifie Expiation too Grotius proves that they do from their own nature and constant use in Greek
the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And that those places wherein Christ is said to be a propitiation for our sins are capable of no other sense will appear from the consideration of Christ as a middle person between God and us and therefore his being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be parallel with that phrase where God himself is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Christ is here considered as interposing between God and us as Moses and the Priests under the Law did between God and the people in order to the averting his wrath from them And when one doth thus interpose in order to the Atonement of the offended party something is always supposed to be done or suffered by him as the means of that Atonement As Jacob supposed the present he made to his Brother would propitiate him and David appeased the Gibeonites by the death of Sauls Sons both which are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So the shedding of the blood of Sacrifices before and under the Law was the means of atoning God for the sins they committed What reason can there be then why so receiv'd a sense of Atonement both among the Jews and all other Nations at that time when these words were written must be forsaken and any other sense be embraced which neither agrees with the propriety of the expression nor with so many other places of Scripture which make the blood of Christ to be a Sacrifice for the Expiation of sin Neither is it only our Atonement but our Reconciliation is attributed to Christ too with a respect to his Death and Sufferings As in the place before insisted on For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son and more largely in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians And all things are of God who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ and hath given to us the ministery of reconciliation To wit that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them and hath committed to us the word of reconciliation For he hath made him to be sin for 〈◊〉 who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him And to the Ephesians And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by his Cross having slain the enmity thereby To the same purpose to the Colossians And having made peace through the blood of his Cross by him to reconcile all things to himself by him I say whether they be things in Heaven or in Earth and you that were sometimes ●lienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death Two things the substance of Crellius his answer may be reduced to concerning these places 1. That it is no where said that God was reconciled to us but that we are reconciled to God and therefore this reconciliation doth not imply any averting of the anger of God 2. That none of these places do assert any reconciliation with God antecedent to our conversion and so that the Reconciliation mention'd implies only the laying aside our enmity to God by our sins I begin with the first of these concerning which we are to consider not barely the phrases used in Scripture but what the nature of the thing implyes as to which a difference being supposed between God and Man on the account of sin no reconciliation can be imagined but what is mutual For did man only fall out with God and had not God just reason to be displeased with men for their Apostasie from him If not what made him so severely punish the first sin that ever was committed by man what made him punish the old World for their impieties by a deluge what made him leave such Monuments of his anger against the sins of the World in succeeding Ages what made him adde such severe sanctions to the Laws he made to the people of the Jews what made the most upright among them so vehemently to deprecate his wrath and displeasure upon the sense of their sins what makes him declare not only his hatred of the sins of men but of the persons of those who commit them so far as to express the greatest abhorrency of them Nay what makes our Adversaries themselves to say that impiety is in its own nature hatefull to God and stirrs him up to anger against all who commit it what means I say all this if God be not angry with men on the account of sin Well then supposing God to be averse from men by reason of their sins shall this displeasure alwayes continue or not if it alwayes continues men must certainly suffer the desert of their sins if it doth not alwayes continue then God may be said to be reconciled in the same sense that an offended party is capable of being reconciled to him who hath provoked him Now there are two wayes whereby a party justly offended may be said to be reconciled to him that hath offended him First when he is not only willing to admit of terms of agreement but doth declare his acceptance of the mediation of a third person and that he is so well satisfied with what he hath done in order to it that he appoints this to be published to the World to assure the offender that if the breach continues the fault wholly lyes upon himself The second is when the offender doth accept of the terms of agreement offer'd and submits himself to him whom he hath provoked and is upon that received into favour And these two we assert must necessarily be distinguished in the reconciliation between God and us For upon the death and sufferings of Christ God declares to the World he is so well satisfied with what Christ hath done and suffer'd in order to the reconciliation between himself and us that he now publishes remission of sins to the World upon those terms which the Mediator hath declared by his own doctrine and the Apostles he sent to preach it But because remission of sins doth not immediately follow upon the death of Christ without supposition of any act on our part therefore the state of favour doth commence from the performance of the conditions which are required from us So that upon the death of Christ God declaring his acceptance of Christs mediation and that the obstacle did not lye upon his part therefore those Messengers who were sent abroad into the world to perswade men to accept of these terms of agreement do insist most upon that which was the remaining obstacle viz. the sins of Mankind that men by laying aside them would be now reconciled to God since there was nothing to hinder this reconciliation their obstinacy in sin excepted Which may be a very reasonable account why we read more frequently in the writings of the Apostles of mens duty in being reconciled to God the other being supposed by them as the
themselves sought to make the world any thing the better for their being in it what infinitely greater esteem do those blessed Apostles deserve who accounted not their lives dear to them that they might make even their enemies happy If those mens memories be dear to us who sacrifice their lives and fortunes for the sake of the Countrey they belong to shall not those be much more so who have done it for the good of the whole world Such who chearfully suffer'd death while they were teaching men the way to an eternal life and who patiently endured the flames if they might but give the greater light to the world by them Such who did as far out-goe any of the admired Heroes of the Heathens as the purging the World from sin is of greater consequence than cleansing an Augaean Stable from the filth of it and rescuing men from eternal flames is a more noble design than clearing a Countrey from pyrats and robbers Nay most of the Heathen Gods who were so solemnly worshipped in Greece and at Rome owed their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to such slender benefits to mankinde that sure the world was very barbarous or hugely gratefull when they could think them no less than Gods who found out such things for men If a Smiths forge and a Womans distaffe if teaching men the noble arts of fighting and cheating one another were such rare inventions that they only became some of the most celebrated Deities which the grave and demure Romans thought fit to worship sure S. Paul had no cause to be ashamed of his Religion among them who had so much reason to be ashamed of their own since his design was to perswade them out of all the vanities and fooleries of their Idolatrous Worship and to bring them to the service of the true and ever living God who had discovered so much goodness to the world in making his Son a propitiation for the sins of it And was not this a discovery infinitely greater and more suitable to the nature of God than any which the subtilty of the Greeks or wisdom of the Romans could ever pretend to concerning any of their Deities Thus we see the excellent end of our Religion was that which made S. Paul so far from being ashamed of it and so it would do all us too if we did understand and value it as S. Paul did But it is the great dishonour of too many among us that they are more ashamed of their Religion than they are of their sins If to talk boldly against Heaven to affront God in calling him to witness their great impieties by frequent oaths to sin bravely and with the highest confidence to mock at such who are yet more modest in their debaucheries were not to be ashamed of the Gospel of Christ we might finde S. Pauls enough in the Age we live in and it would be a piece of gallantry to be Apostles But this is rather the utmost endeavour to put Religion out of countenance and make the Gospel it self blush and be ashamed that ever such bold-faced impieties should be committed by men under the profession of it as though they believed nothing so damnable as Repentance and a Holy life and no sin so unpardonable as Modesty in committing it But to use S. Pauls language when he had been describing such persons h●mself Heb. 6. 9. We are perswaded better things of you and things that accompany that salvation the Gospel was designed for though we thus speak For certainly nothing can argue a greater meanness of spirit than while wicked and profane persons are not ashamed of that which unavoidably tends to their ruine any should be shye of the profession and practice of that which conduces to their eternal happiness What is become of all that magnanimity and generous spirit which the Primitive Christians were so remarkable for if while some are impudent in sinning others are ashamed of being or doing good If we have that value for our immortal souls and a future life which we ought to have we shall not trouble our selves much with the Atheistical scoffs and drollery of prosane persons who while they deride and despise Religion do but laugh themselves into eternal misery And thus much for the first ground of S. Pauls confidence viz. The excellent end the Gospel was designed for 2. The effectualness of it in order to that end It is the Power of God to salvation Wherein two things are implyed 1. The inefficacy of any other doctrine for that end 2. The effectualness of the Gospel in order to it 1. The inefficacy of any other Doctrine for this end of promoting the eternal salvation of Mankinde If the world had been acquainted with any doctrine before which had been sufficient for the purposes the Gospel was designed for there would have been no such necessity of propagating it among men nor had there been reason enough to have justified the Apostles in exposing themselves to so great hazards for the preaching of it If the notion of an eternal God and Providence without the knowledge of a Saviour had been sufficient to reform the World and make men happy it had not been consistent with the wisdom or goodness of God to have imploy'd so many persons with the loss of their lives to declare the Doctrine of Christ to the World So that if Christianity be true it must be thought necessary to salvation for the necessity of it was declared by those who were the instruments of confirming the truth of it I meddle not with the case of those particular persons who had no means or opportunity to know Gods revealed will and yet from the Principles of Natural Religion did reform their lives in hopes of a future felicity if any such there were but whether there were not a necessity of such a Doctrine as the Gospel is to be discover'd to the world in order to the reformation of it For some very few persons either through the goodness of their natures the advantage of their education or some cause of a higher nature may have led more vertuous lives than others did but it is necessary that what aims at the general good of Mankinde must be suited to the capacities of all and enforced with arguments which may prevail on any but the most obstinate and wilfull persons But when we consider the state of the World at that time when Christianity was first made known to it we may easily see how insufficient the common Principles of Religion were from working a reformation in it when notwithstanding them mankinde was so generally lapsed into Idolatry and Vice that hardly any can be instanced in in the Heathen World who had escaped both of them And there was so near an affinity between both these that they who were ingaged in the rites of their Idolatry could hardly keep themselves free from the intanglements of vice not only because many of their villanies were practised as part of their Religion
the blood of his Son to have it shed only in allusion to some ancient customs But if there were such a necessity of alluding to them why might not the blood of any other person have done it when yet all that custom was no more but that a sacrifice should be offer'd and upon the parts of the sacrifice divided they did solemnly swear and ratifie their Covenant And if this be yielded them it then follows from this custom that Christ must be consider'd as a sacrifice in his death and so the ratification of the Covenant must be consequent to that oblation which he made of himself upon the Cross. Besides how incongruous must this needs be that the death of Christ the most innocent person in the World without any respect to the guilt of sin should suffer so much on purpose to assure us that God will pardon those who are guilty of it May we not much rather infer the contrary considering the holiness and justice of Gods nature if he dealt so severely with the green tree how much more will he with the dry If one so innocent suffer'd so much what then may the guilty expect If a Prince should suffer the best subject he hath to be severely punished could ever any imagine that it was with a design to assure them that he would pardon the most rebellious No but would it not rather make men afraid of being too innocent for fear of suffering too much for it And those who seem very carefull to preserve the honour of Gods Justice in not punishing one for anothers faults ought likewise to maintain it in the punishing of one who had no fault at all to answer for And to think to escape this by saying that to such a person such things are calamities but no punishments is to revive the ancient exploded Stoicism which thought to reform the diseases of Mankind by meer changeing the names of things though never so contrary to the common sense of humane nature which judges of the nature of punishments by the evils men undergo and the ends they are designed for And by the very same reason that God might exercise his dominion on so innocent a person as our Saviour was without any respect to sin as the moving cause to it he might lay eternal torments on a most innocent Creature for degrees and continuance do not alter the reason of things and then escape with the same evasion that this was no act of injustice in God because it was a meer exercise of Dominion And when once a sinner comes to be perswaded by this that God will pardon him it must be by the hopes that God will shew kindness to the guilty because he shews so little to the innocent and if this be agreeable to the Justice and Holiness of Gods nature it is hard to say what is repugnant to it If to this it be said that Christs consent made it no unjust exercise of dominion in God towards him it is easily answer'd that the same consent will make it less injustice in God to lay the punishment of our sins upon Christ upon his undertaking to satisfie for us for then the consent supposes a meritorious cause of punishment but in this case the consent implyeth none at all And we are now enquiring into the reasons of such sufferings and consequently of such a consent which cannot be imagined but upon very weighty motives such as might make it just in him to consent as well as in God to inflict Neither can it be thought that all the design of the sufferings of Christ was to give us an example and an incouragement to suffer our selves though it does so in a very great measure as appears by the Text it self For the hopes of an eternal reward for these short and light afflictions ought to be encouragement enough to go through the miseries of this life in expectation of a better to come And the Cloud of Witnesses both under the Law and the Gospel of those who have suffer'd for righteousness sake ought to make no one think it strange if he must endure that which so many have done before him and been crowned for it And lastly to question whether Christ could have pity enough upon us in our sufferings unless he had suffer'd so deeply himself will lead men to distrust the pity and compassion of Almighty God because he was never capable of suffering as we do But the Scripture is very plain and full to all those who rack not their minds to pervert it in assigning a higher reason than all these of the sufferings of Christ viz. That Christ suffered for sins the just for the unjust that his soul was made an offering for sin and that the Lord therefore as on a sacrifice of atonement laid on him the iniquities of us all that through the eternal Spirit he offer'd himself without spot to God and did appear to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself that he was made a propitiation for our sins that he laid down his life as a price of Redemption for Mankinde that through his blood we obtain Redemption even the forgiveness of sins which in a more particular manner is attributed to the blood of Christ as the procuring cause of it That he dyed to reconcile God and us together and that the Ministery of Reconciliation is founded on Gods making him to be sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him and that we may not think that all this Reconciliation respects us and not God he is said to offer up himself to God and for this cause to be a Mediator of the New Testament and to be a faithfull high-Priest in things pertaining to God to make reconciliation for the sins of the people and every high-Priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God not appointed by God in things meerly tending to the good of men which is rather the Office of a Prophet than a Priest So that from all these places it may easily appear that the blood of Christ is to be looked on as a sacrifice of Atonement for the sins of the World Not as though Christ did suffer the very same which we should have suffer'd for that was eternal death as the consequent of guilt in the person of the Offender and then the discharge must have been immediately consequent upon the payment and no room had been left for the freeness of remission or for the conditions required on our parts But that God was pleased to accept of the death of his Son as a full perfect sufficient sacrifice oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the World as our Church expresseth it and in consideration of the sufferings of his Son is pleased to offer pardon of sin upon sincere repentance and eternal life upon a holy obedience to his will Thus much for the
implied in those phrases when attributed to Christ above what they have when attributed to any other And therefore he saith It cannot be properly said That one Brother dyes for another or that Paul suffer'd for the Colossians or for the Church as Christ may truly and properly be said to suffer and to dye for us And from hence saith he S. Paul saith was Paul crucified for you implying thereby that there never was or could be any who truely and properly could be said to dye for men but Christ alone How unreasonable then is it from the use of a particle as applyed to others to inferr that it ought to be so understood when applyed to Christ when a peculiarity is acknowledged in the death of Christ for us more than ever was or could be in one mans dying for another 3. It is not the bare force of the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we insist upon but that a substitution could not be more properly expressed than it is in Scripture by this and other particles for not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too which Socinus saith Although it may signifie something else besides in the stead of another yet in such places where it is spoken of a ransom or price it signifies the payment of something which was owing before as Mat. 17. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so he acknowledges that where redemption is spoken of there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth imply a commutation because the price is given and the person received which he saith holds in Christ only metaphorical y for the redemption according to him being only Metaphorical the commutation must be supposed to be so too And this mow leads us to the larger Answer of Crellius upon this argument Wherein we shall consider what he yields what he denyes and upon what reasons 1. He yields and so he saith doth Socinus very freely a commutation but it is necessary that we should throughly understand what he means by it to that end he tells us That they acknowledge a twofold commutation one of the person suffering the kind of suffering being changed not actually but intentionally because we were not actually freed by Christ dying for us but only Christ dyed for that end that we might be freed And this commutation he saith that Socinus doth not deny to be implyed in the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the places where Christ is said to dye for us Another commutation which he acknowledges is that which is between a price and the thing or person which is bought or redeemed by it where the price is paid and the thing or person is received upon it And this kind of commutation he saith is to be understood in the places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is mention'd which price he saith by accident may be a person and because the person is not presently delivered he therefore saith that the commutation is rather imperfect than metaphorical and although he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not of it self imply a commutation yet he grants that the circumstances of the places do imply it 2. He denyes that there is any proper surrogation in Christs dying for us which he saith is such a commutation of persons that the substituted person is in all respects to be in the same place and state wherein the other was and if it refers to sufferings then it is when one suffers the very same which the other was to suffer he being immediately delivered by the others sufferings And against this kind of surrogation Crellius needed not to have produced any reasons for Grotius never asserted it neither do we say that Christ suffer'd eternal death for us or that we were immediately freed by his sufferings But that which Grotius asserts that he meant by substitution was this that unless Christ had ayed for us we must have dyed our selves and because Christ hath dyed we shall not dye eternally But if this be all saith Crellius he meant by it we grant the whole thing and he complains of it as an injury for any to think otherwise of them If so they cannot deny but that there was a sufficient capacity in the death of Christ to be made an expiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the world But notwithstanding all these fair words Crellius means no more than Socinus did and though he would allow the words which Grotius used yet not in the sense he understood them in for Crellius means no more by all this but that the death of Christ was an antecedent condition to the expiation of sins in Heaven Grotius understands by them that Christ did expiate sins by becoming a Sacrifice for them in his death However from hence it appears that our Adversaries can have no plea against the death of Christs being an expiatory Sacrifice from want of a substitution in our room since they profess themselves so willing to own such a substitution But if they say that there could be no proper substitution because the death of Christ was a bare condition and no punishment they then express their minds more freely and if these places be allowed to prove a substitution I hope the former discourse will prove that it was by way of punishment Neither is it necessary that the very same kinde of punishment be undergone in order to surrogation but that it be sufficient in order to the accomplishing the end for which it was designed For this kind of substitution being in order to the delivery of another by it whatever is sufficient for that end doth make a proper surrogation For no more is necessary to the delivery of another person than the satisfying the ends of the Law and Government and if that may be done by an aequivalent suffering though not the same in all respects then it may be a proper surrogation If David had obtained his wish that he had dyed himself for his Son Absolom it had not been necessary in order to his Sons escape that he had hanged by the hair of his head as his Son did but his death though in other circumstances had been sufficient And therefore when the Lawyers say subrogatum sapit naturam ejus in cujus locum subrogatur Covarruvias tells us it is to be understood secundum primordialem naturam non secundum accidentalem from whence it appears that all circumstances are not necessary to be the same in surrogation but that the nature of the punishment remain the same Thus Christ dying for us to deliver us from death and the curse of the Law he underwent an accursed death for that end although not the very same which we were to have undergone yet sufficient to shew that he underwent the punishment of our iniquities in order to the delivering us from it And if our Adversaries will yield us this we shall not much contend with them about the name of a
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
of appeasing the anger of a person by something which may move him to shew favour And if Crellius will yield this to be the sense of expiation as applyed to the Sacrifice of Christ he need not quarrel with the word satisfaction But why should he rather attribute that sense of expiation to Christ which is alone given to God wherein the expiation is attributed to him that receives the Sacrifice rather than to him that offers the sacrifice in order to the atonement of another since it is acknowledged that Christ did offer a sacrifice and therefore there can be no reason why that sense of expiation should not belong to him which was most peculiar to that which we shall now shew to be of the same kind with what is here mentioned viz. an appeasing by a gift offered up to God So we find the word used to the same sense 2 Sam. 21. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and wherewith shall I make the Atonement i. e. wherewith shall I satisfie you for all the wrong which Saul hath done unto you and we see afterwards it was by the death of Sauls sons In which place it cannot be denyed but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only signifies to appease but such a kind of satisfaction as is by the death of some for the faults of others and so comes home not only to the importance of the expiation belonging to a Sacrifice in general but to such a kind of expiation as is by the suffering of some in the place of others Which though it be more clear and distinct where one man suffers for others yet this was sufficiently represented in the sacrifices under the Law in which we have already proved that there was a substitution of them in the place of the offenders And in this sense the Jews themselves do understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. such an expiation as is made by the substitution of one in the place of another Of which many instances are collected by Buxtorf wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken by the Rabbinical Writers for such an expiation whereby one was to undergo a punishment in the place of another So when in the title Sanhedrin the people say to the High-Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simus nos expiatio tua let us be for an expiation for you the Glosse explains it thus hoc est in nobis fiat expiatio tua nosque subeamus tuo loco quicquid tibi evenire debet And when they tell us how Children ought to honour their Parents after their death they say when they recite any memorable speech of their Fathers they are not barely to say My father said so but my Lord and Father said so would I had been the expiation of his death i. e. as they explain it themselves would I had undergone what he did and they give this general rule Where ever it is said behold I am for expiation it is to be understood behold I am in the place of another to bear his iniquities So that this signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a price of redemption for others Hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for a price of redemption of the life of another and rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exod. 21. 30. 30. 12. Numb 35. 31 32. where we render it satisfaction and by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal. 48. 7. and thereby we fully understand what our Saviour meant when he said that he gave his Soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a ransome for many and to this day the Jews call the Cock which they kill for Expiation on the day of Atonement by the name of Cappara and when they beat the Cock against their heads thrice they every time use words to this purpose Let this Cock be an exchange for me let him be in my room and be made an Expiation for me let death come to him but to me and all Israel life and happiness I insist on these things only to let us understand that the Jews never understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the sense our Adversaries contend for when applied to an Expiatory Sacrifice but as implying a Commutation and a Substitution of one in the place of another so as by the punishment of that the other in whose room he suffers may obtain deliverance Which is the sense we plead for But the utmost which Socinus and Crellius will allow to the Sacrifices in order to Expiation is barely this That the offering of them is to be considered as a meer condition that hath no other respect to the expiation of sins than the paring a mans nails would have had if God had required it upon which slight obedience the pardon of some light sins might be obtained But can any one imagine that this was all that was designed by the Sacrifices of old who considers the antiquity and universality of them in the world in those elder times before the Law the great severity by which they were required under the Law the punctual prescriptions that were made in all circumstances for them the vast and almost inestimable expence the people were at about them but above all the reason that God himself assigns in the Law That the blood was given for expiation because it was the life and the correspondency so clearly expressed in the New Testament between the Sacrifice of Christ and those Levitical Sacrifices Can any one I say imagine upon these considerations that the Sacrifices had no other respect to the expiation of sin than as they were a slight testimony of their obedience to God Why were not an inward sorrow for sin and tears and prayers rather made the only conditions of Expiation than such a burthensome and chargeable service imposed upon them which at last signified nothing but that a command being supposed they would have sinned if they had broken it But upon our supposition a reasonable account is given of all the expiatory Sacrifices viz. That God would have them see how highly he esteemed his Laws because an expiation was not to be made for the breach of them but by the sacrificing of the life of some Creature which he should appoint in stead of the death of the Offender and if the breach of those Laws which he had given them must require such an expiation what might they then think would the sins of the whole world do which must be expiated by a Sacrifice infinitely greater than all those put together were viz. The death and sufferings of the Son of God for the sins of men But if the offering Sacrifice had been a bare condition required of the person who committed the fault in order to expiation Why is it never said That the person who offered it did expiate his own fault thereby For that had been the most proper sense for if the expiation did depend on the offering the Sacrifice as on the condition of it then the performing the
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
their great art in seeking rather by any means to escape their enemies than to overcome them For being sensible that the main scope and design of the Scripture is against them they seldom and but very weakly assault but shew all their subtilty in avoiding by all imaginable arts the force of what is brought against them And the Scripture being so plain in attributing such great effects to the death of Christ when no other answer will serve turn then they tell us That the death of Christ is taken Metonymically for all the consequents of his death viz. His Resurrection Exaltation and the Power and Authority which he hath at the right hand of his Father But how is it possible to convince those who by death can understand life by sufferings can mean glory and by the shedding of blood sitting at the right hand of God And that the Scripture is very far from giving any countenance to these bold Interpretations will appear by these considerations 1. because the effect of Expiation of our sins is attributed to the death of Christ as distinct from his Resurrection viz. Our reconciliation with God Rom. 5. 10. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life To which Crellius answers That the Apostle doth not speak of the death of Christ alone or as it is considered distinct from the consequences of it but only that our Reconciliation was effected● by the death of Christ intervening But nothing can be more evident to any one who considers the design of the Apostles discourse than that he speaks of what was peculiar to the death of Christ for therefore it is said that Christ dyed for the ungodly For scarcely for a righteous man will one dye but God commendeth his love towards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ dyed for us Much more then being now justified by his blood we shall be saved through him upon which those words follow For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son c. The Reconciliation here mentioned is attributed to the death of Christ in the same sense that it is mentioned before but there it is not mentioned as a. bare condition intervening in order to some thing farther but as the great instance of the love both of God and Christ of God in sending his Son of Christ in laying down his life for sinners in order to their being justified by his blood But where is it that St. Paul saith that the death of Christ had no other influence on the expiation of our sins but as a bare condition intervening in order to that power and authority whereby he should expiate sins what makes him attribute so much to the death of Christ if all the benefits we enjoy depend upon the consequences of it and no otherwise upon that than meerly as a preparation for it what peculiar emphasis were there in Christs dying for sinners and for the ungodly unless his death had a particular relation to the expiation of their sins Why are men said to be justified by his blood and not much rather by his glorious resurrection if the blood of Christ be only considered as an antecedent to the other And that would have been the great demonstration of the love of God which had the most immediate influence upon our advantage which could not have been the death in this sense but the life and glory of Christ. But nothing can be more absurd than what Crellius would have to be the meaning of this place viz. that the Apostle doth not speak of the proper force of the death of Christ distinct from his life but that two things are opposed to each other for the effecting of one of which the death of Christ did intervene but it should not intervene for the other viz. it did intervene for our reconciliation but it should not for our life For did not the death of Christ equally intervene for our life as for our reconciliation was not our eternal deliverance the great thing designed by Christ and our reconciliation in order to that end what opposition then can be imagined that it should be necessary for the death of Christ to intervene in order to the one than in order to the other But he means that the death of Christ should not intervene any more what need that when it is acknowledged by themselves that Christ dyed only for this end before that he might have power to bestow eternal life on them that obey him But the main force of the Apostles argument lyes in the comparison between the death of Christ having respect to us as enemies in order to reconciliation and the life of Christ to us considered as reconciled so that if he had so much kindness for enemies to dye for their reconciliation we may much more presume that he now living in Heaven will accomplish the end of that reconciliation in the eternal salvation of them that obey him By which it is apparent that he speaks of the death of Christ in a notion proper to it self having influence upon our reconciliation and doth not consider it metonymically as comprehending in it the consequents of it 2. Because the expiation of sins is attributed to Christ antecedently to the great consequents of his death viz. his sitting at the right hand of God Heb. 1. 3. When he had by himself purged our sins sate down on the right hand of his Majesty on high Heb. 9. 12. But by his own blood he entred in once into the Holy Place having obtained eternal redemption for us To these places Crellius gives a double answer 1. That indefinite particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being joyned with Verbs of the praeterperfect tense do not alwayes require that the action expressed by them should precede that which is designed in the Verbs to which they are joyned but they have sometimes the force of particles of the present or imperfect tense which sometimes happens in particles of the praeter-perfect tense as Matth. 10. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and several other instances produced by him according to which manner of interpretation the sense he puts upon those words Heb. 9. 12. is Christ by the shedding of his blood entred into the Holy of Holies and in so doing he found eternal redemption or the expiation of sins But not to dispute with Crellius concerning the importance of the Aorist being joyned with a Verb of the praeterperfect tense which in all reason and common acceptation doth imply the action past by him who writes the words antecedent to his writing of it as is plain in the instances produced by Crellius but according to his sense of Christs expiation of sin it was yet to come after Christs entrance into Heaven and so
it should have been more properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not I say to insist upon that the Apostle manifests that he had a respect to the death of Christ in the obtaining this eternal redemption by his following discourse for v. 14. he compares the blood of Christ in point of efficacy for expiation of sin with the blood of the Legal Sacrifices whereas if the expiation meant by him had been found by Christs Oblation of himself in Heaven he would have compared Christs entrance into Heaven in order to it with the entrance of the High-Priest into the Holy of Holies and his argument had run thus For if the High-Priest under the Law did expiate sins by entring into the Holy of Holies How much more shall the Son of God entring into Heaven expiate the sins of Mankind but we see the Apostle had no sooner mention'd the redemption obtained for us but he presently speaks of the efficacy of the blood of Christ in order to it and as plainly asserts the same v. 15. And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament that by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions which were under the first Testament they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance Why doth the Apostle here speak of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the expiation of sins by the means of death if he had so lately asserted before that the redemption or expiation was found not by his death but by his entrance into Heaven and withall the Apostle here doth not speak of such a kind of expiation as wholly respects the future but of sins that were under the first Testament not barely such as could not be expiated by vertue of it but such as were committed during the time of it although the Levitical Law allowed no expiation for them And to confirm this sense the Apostle doth not go on to prove the necessity of Christs entrance into Heaven but of his dying v. 16 17 18. But granting that he doth allude to the High-Priests entring into the Holy of holies yet that was but the representation of a Sacrifice already offer'd and he could not be said to find expiation by his entrance but that was already found by the blood of the Sacrifice and his entrance was only to accomplish the end for which the blood was offer'd up in sacrifice And the benefit which came to men is attributed to the Sacrifice and not to the sprinkling of the blood before the Mercy-seat and whatever effect was consequent upon his entrance into the Sanctuary was by vertue of the blood which he carried in with him and was before shed at the Altar Neither can it with any reason be said that if the redemption were obtained by the blood of Christ there could be no need of his entrance into Heaven since we do not make the Priesthood of Christ to expire at his death but that he is in Heaven a mercifull High-Priest in negotiating the affairs of his People with God and there ever lives to make intercession for them Crellius answers That granting the Aorist being put before the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should imply such an action which was antecedent to Christs sitting at the right hand of God yet it is not there said that the expiation of sins was made before Christs entrance into Heaven for those saith he are to be considered as two different things for a Prince first enters into his Palace before he sits upon his throne And therefore saith he Christ may be said to have made expiation of sins before he sate down at the right hand of his Father not that it was done by his death but by his entrance into Heaven and offering himself to God there by which means he obtained his sitting on the right hand of the Majesty on high and thereby the full power of remission of sins and giving eternal life To which I answer 1. That the Scripture never makes such a distinction between Christs entrance into Heaven and sitting at the right hand of God which latter implying no more but the glorious state of Christ in Heaven his entrance into Heaven doth imply it For therefore God exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour and the reason of the power and authority given him in Heaven is no where attributed to his entrance into it as the means of it but our Saviour before that tells us that all power and authority was committed to him and his very entrance into Heaven was a part of his glory and given him in consideration of his sufferings as the Apostle plainly asserts and he became obedient to death even the death of the Cross wherefore God hath highly exalted him c. There can be then no imaginable reason to make the entrance of Christ into Heaven and presenting himself to God there a condition or means of obtaining that power and authority which is implyed in his sitting at the right hand of God 2. Supposing we should look on these as distinct there is as little reason to attribute the expiation of sin to his entrance considered as distinct from the other For the expiation of sins in Heaven being by Crellius himself confessed to be by the exercise of Christs power and this being only the means to that power how could Christ expiate sins by that power which he had not But of this I have spoken before and shewed that in no sense allowed by themselves the expiation of sins can be attributed to the entrance of Christ into Heaven as distinct from his sitting at the right hand of God Thus much may suffice to prove that those effects of an Expiatory Sacrifice which do respect the sins committed do properly agree to the death of Christ. I now come to that which respects the person considered as obnoxious to the wrath of God by reason of his sins and so the effect of an Expiatory Sacrifice is Atonement and Reconciliation By the wrath of God I mean the reason which God hath from the holiness and justice of his nature to punish sin in those who commit it by the means of Atonement and Reconciliation I mean that in consideration of which God is willing to release the sinner from the obligation to punishment he lies under by the Law of God and to receive him into favour upon the terms which are declared by the Doctrine of Christ. And that the death of Christ was such a means of Atonement and Reconciliation for us I shall prove by those places of Scripture which speak of it But Crellius would seem to acknowledge That if Grotius seem to contend for no more than that Christ did avert that wrath of God which men had deserved by their sins they would willingly yield him all that he pleads for but then he adds That this deliverance from the wrath to come is not by the death but by the power
reconciled then there was no need for Christ to dye to reconcile God and us but withal actual Reconciliation implies pardon of sin and if sin were actually pardoned before Christ came there could be no need of his coming at all and sins would have been pardon'd before committed if they were not pardoned notwithstanding that love of God then it can imply no more but that God was willing to be reconciled If therefore the not-remission of sins were consistent with that love of God by which he sent Christ into the world then notwithstanding that he was yet capable of being reconciled by his death So that our Adversaries are bound to reconcile that love of God with not presently pardoning the sins of the world as we are to reconcile it with the ends of the death of Christ which are asserted by us To the other Objection Concerning the inconsistency of the Freeness of Gods Grace with the Doctrine of Satisfaction I answer Either Gods Grace is so free as to exclude all conditions or not If it be so free as to exclude all conditions than the highest Antinomianism is the truest Doctrine for that is the highest degree of the Freeness of Grace which admits of no conditions at all If our Adversaries say That the Freeness of Grace is consistent with Conditions required on our part Why shall it not admit of conditions on Gods part especially when the condition required tends so highly to the end of Gods governing the world in the manifestation of his hatred against sin and the vindication of the honour of his Laws by the Sufferings of the Son of God in our stead as an Expiatory Sacrifice for our sins There are two things to be considered in sin the dishonor done to God by the breach of his Laws and the injury men do to themselves by it now remission of sins that respects the injury which men bring upon themselves by it and that is Free when the penalty is wholly forgiven as we assert it is by the Gospell to all penitent sinners but shall not God be free to vindicate his own Honor and to declare his righteousness to the world while he is the Justifier of them that believe Shall men in case of Defamation be bound to vindicate themselves though they freely forgive the Authors of the slander by our Adversaries own Doctrine and must it be repugnant to Gods Grace to admit of a Propitiatory Sacrifice that the world may understand that it is no such easie thing to obtain pardon of sin committed against God but that as often as they consider the bitter Sufferings of Christ in order to the obtaining the forgiveness of our sins that should be the greatest Argument to disswade them from the practice of them But why should it be more inconsistent with the Sacrifice of Christ for God freely to pardon sin than it was ever presumed to be in all the Sacrifices of either Jews of Gentiles who all supposed Sacrifices necessary in order to Atonement and yet thought themselves obliged to the goodness of God in the Remission of their sins Nay we find that God himself in the case of Abimelech appointed Abraham to pray for him in order to his pardon And will any one say this was a derogation to the grace of God in his pardon Or to the pardon of Jobs Friends because Job was appointed to sacrifice for them Or to the pardon of the Israelites because God out of his kindness to them directed them by the Prophets and appointed the means in order to it But although God appointed our High-Priest for us and out of his great love sent him into the world yet his Sacrifice was not what was given him but what he freely underwent himself he gave us Christ but Christ offered up himself a full perfect and sufficient Sacrifice Oblation and Satisfaction for the sins of the world Thus Sir I have now given you a larger account of what I then more briefly discoursed of concerning the true Reason of the Sufferings of Christ and heartily wishing you a right understanding in all things and requesting from you an impartial consideration of what I have written I am SIR Your c. E. S. Jan. 6. 1668 9 FINIS Books printed for Henry Mortlock at the White-Hart in Westminster-Hall A Rational account of the grounds of Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterburies relation of a Conference and from the pretended Answer by T. C. wherein the true grounds of Faith are cleared and the false discovered the Church of England Vindicated from the Imputation of the Schism and the most important Controversies between us and the Church of Rome throughly examined Origines Sacrae or a Rational account of the grounds of Christian Faith as to the Truth and Divine Authority of the Scriptures and the matters therein contained Irenicum A Weapon-Salve for the Churches wounds All three by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Knowledge and Practice or a plain Discourse of the chief things necessary to be known believed and practiced in order to Salvation By S. Cradoc● The Being and Well-being of a Christian in three Treatises The first setting forth the property of the Righteous The second the Excellency of Grace The third the Nature and Sweetness of Fellowship with Christ. By Edward Reyner The Moral Philosophy of the Stoicks Translated out of French into English By Charles Cotton Esq. Jam. 2. 1. Luke 17. 28 29. Hv 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de bell Jud. l. 7. c. 14. Jude 7. Tacit. An. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Xiphil in Epit. Dion in Tito p. 227. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Herodian in Com●od hist. l. 1. p. 22. v. Xiphil ad fin Commodi Niceph. l. 15. c. 21. Evagr. l. 2. cap. 13. 〈◊〉 Baron Tom. 5. A. 465. 1. Hieron in loc Gildas de Excid Brit. Scipio apud Aug. de Civ D. l. 1. c. 33. Cicer. pro Flacco Hab. 2. 11. Isa. 47. 7 8. 11. Zeph 1. 13 14 15. Amos 3. 6. Lact. l. 2. c. 11. Rev. 9. 20. 1 King 4. 29 30 31. 1 Joh. 4. 4 Nicol. Damascen de moribus gent. p. 9. Ed. Cragii Geta in Appiano Herod Thal. v. Synes de laude Calvitii p. 77. Tit. 2. 12. Tacit. de moribus German Gal. 6. 7. Eph. 5. 6. Luke 3. 5 6. Rom. 13. 1 2 3 4 5. Titus 2. 12. Rom 5. 1. Rom. 10. 3. Rom. 3. 27. Gal. 3. 10. Rom. 3. 29. Mat. 11. 23. Heb. 10. 28 29. Mark 4. 19. Matth. 5. 3. V. 4. V. 5. V. 6. V. 7. V. 8. V. 9. V. 10 11 12. V. Lud. Viv. ad S. Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 19. c. 1. Mat. 25. 41. Mark 9 44. 1 Thess. 1. 10. 2 Thess. 1. 9. Matth. 10. 28. 2 Cor. 4. 17. Rev. 7. 14. Heb. 10. 27. Gal. 6. 7 8. Heb. 2. 10. 1 John 11. Matth. 13. 55 56. John 3. 2. Mat. 11. 21. Luk. 22. 44. Mat. 26. 39. Isa. 53. 4. 5. Mat. 26. 38.
which the admirers of the greatness of this world think mean and contemptible in our Saviours appearance here on earth But we are now to consider whether so great humility were not more agreeable with the design of his coming into the World than all that pomp and state would have been which the Son of God might have more easily commanded than we can imagine He came not upon so mean an errand as to dazzle the eyes of Mankinde with the brightness of his Glory to amaze them by the terribleness of his Majesty much less to make a shew of the riches and gallantry of the World to them But he came upon far more noble and excellent designs to bring life and immortality to light to give men the highest assurance of an eternal happiness and misery in the World to come and the most certain directions for obtaining the one and avoiding the other and in order to that nothing was judged more necessary by him than to bring the vanities of this World out of that credit and reputation they had gained among foolish men Which he could never have done if he had declaimed never so much against the vanity of worldly greatness riches and honours if in the mean time himself had lived in the greatest splendour and bravery For the enjoyning then the contempt of this world to his Disciples in hopes of a better would have looked like the commendation of the excellency of fasting at a full meal and of the conveniencies of Poverty by one who makes the greatest haste to be rich That he might not therefore seem to offer so great a contradiction to his Doctrine by his own example he makes choice of a life so remote from all suspicion of designs upon this world that though the foxes had holes and the birds of the air had nests yet the Son of Man who was the Lord and Heir of all things had not whereon to lay his head And as he shewed by his life how little he valued the great things of the World so he discovered by his death how little he feared the evil things of it all which he did with a purpose and i●tention to rectifie the great mistakes 〈◊〉 men as to these things That they mig●… no longer venture an eternal happiness f●… the splendid and glorious vanities of t●… present life nor expose themselves to t●… utmost miseries of another world to avo●… the frowns of this From hence procee●ed that generous contempt of the Worl● which not only our Saviour himself b● all his true Disciples of the first Ages 〈◊〉 Christianity were so remarkable for 〈◊〉 let others see they had greater things i●… their eye than any here the hopes of whi●● they would not part with for all that th● world thinks great or desirable So th●… considering the great danger most men ar● in by too passionate a love of these thing● and that universal and infinite kindne●… which our Saviour had to the Souls 〈◊〉 men there was nothing he could discover it more in as to his appearance in the world than by putting such an affro●… upon the greatness and honour of it as he did by so open a neglect of it in his life and despising it in his death and sufferings And who now upon any pretence of reason dare entertain the meaner apprehensious of our Blessed Saviour because he appeared without the pomp and greatness of the world when the reason of his doing so was that by his own humility and self-denyal he might shew us the way to an eternal happiness Which he well knew how very hard it would be for men to attain to who measure things not according to their inward worth and excellency but the splendour and appearance which they make to the world who think nothing great but what makes them gazed upon nothing desireable but what makes them flatter'd But if they could be once perswaded how incomparably valuable the glories of the life to come are above all the gayeties and shews of this they would think no condition mean or contemptible which led to so great an end none happy or honourable which must so soon end in the grave or be changed to eternal misery And that we might entertain such thoughts as these are not as the melancholy effects of discontent and disappointments but as the serious result of our most deliberate enquiry into the value of things was the design of our Saviour in the humility of his appearance and of that excellent Doctrine which he recommended to the World by it Were I to argue the case with Philosophers I might then at large shew from the free acknowledgements of the best and most experienced of them that nothing becomes so much one who designs to recommend Vertue to the World as a reall and hearty contempt of all the pomp of it and that the meanest condition proceeding from such a principle is truely and in it self more honourable than living in the greatest splendour imaginable Were I to deal with the Jews I might then prove that as the Prophecyes concerning the Messia● speak of great and wonderfull effects of his coming so that they should be accomplished in a way of suffering and humility But since I speak to Christians and therefore to those who are perswaded of the great kindness and love of our Saviour in coming into the World to reform it and that by convincing men of the truth and excellency of a future state no more need be said to vindicate the appearance of him from that meanness and contempt which the pride and ambition of vain men is apt to cast upon it 2. But not onely our Saviours manner of Appearance but the manner of his Conversation gave great offence to his enemies viz. That it was too free and familiar among persons who had the meanest reputation the Publicans and Sinners and in the mean time declaimed against the strictest observers of the greatest rigours and austerities of life And this no doubt was one great cause of the mortal hatred of the Pharisees against him though least pretended that even thereby they might make good that charge of hypocrisie which our Saviour so often draws up against them And no wonder if such severe rebukes did highly provoke them since they found this so gainfull and withall so easie a trade among the people when with a demure look and a sowre countenance they could cheat and defraud their Brethren and under a specious shew of devotion could break their fasts by devouring Widows houses and end their long Prayers to God with acts of the highest injustice to their Neighbours As though all that while they had been only begging leave of God to do all the mischief they could to their Brethren It is true such as these were our Saviour upon all occasions speaks against with the greatest sharpness as being the most dangerous enemies to true Religion and that which made men whose passion was too strong for their reason abhorr
Mankinde it was time for the Sun of righteousness to arise and with the softening and healing influence of his beams to bring the World to a more vertuous temper And that leads to the Second thing implyed which is the peculiar efficacy of the Gospel for promoting mens salvation for it is the Power of God to salvation and that will appear by considering how many wayes the power of God is engaged in it These three especially 1. In confirmation of the Truth of it 2. In the admirable Effects of it in the World 3. In the divine Assistance which is promised to those who embrace it 1. In confirmation of the Truth of it For the World was grown so uncertain as to the grand foundations of Religion that the same power was requisite now to settle the World which was at first for the framing of it For though the Precepts of Christian Religion be pure and easie holy and suitable to the sense of mankind though the Promises be great and excellent proportionable to our wants and the weight of our business though the reward be such that it is easier to desire than comprehend it yet all these would but seem to baffle the more the expectations of men unless they were built on some extraordinary evidence of divine power And such we assert there was in the confirmation of these things to us not only in the miraculous birth of our Saviour and that continual series of unparallel'd miracles in his life not only in the most obliging circumstances of his death nor only in the large effusion of divine gifts upon his Apostles and the strange propagation of Christian Religion by them against all humane power but that which I shall particularly instance in as the great effect of divine power and confirmation of our Religion was his Resurrection from the dead For as our Apostle saith Rom. 1. 4. Christ was declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of Holiness by the Resurrection from the dead No way of evidence could be more suitable to the capacities of all than this it being a plain matter of fact none ever better attested than this was not only by the unanimous consent of all the witnesses but by their constant adhering to the truth of it though it cost almost all of them their lives and no greater evidence could be given to the World of a divine power since both Jews and Gentiles agreed in this that such a thing could not be effected but by an immediate hand of God So far were they then from thinking a resurrection possible by the juyce of herbs or an infusion of warm blood into the veins or by the breath of living Creatures as the great martyr for Atheism would seem from Pliny to perswade us when yet certainly nothing can be of higher concernment to those who believe not another life than to have try'd this experiment long ere now and since nothing of that nature hath ever happened since our Saviours resurrection it only lets us know what credulous men in other things the greatest Infidels as to Religion are But so far were they at that time from so fond an imagination that they readily yielded that none but God could do it though they seem'd to question whether God himself could do it or no. As appears by the Apostles Interrogation Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead Acts 26. 8. This was therefore judged on both sides to be a matter of so great importance that all the disputes concerning Christian Religion were resolved into this Whether Christ were risen from the dead And this the Apostles urge and insist on upon all occasions as the great evidence of the truth of his Doctrine and this was the main part of their Commission for they were sent abroad to be witnesses of his Resurrection Which was not designed by God as a thing strange and incredible to puzzle mankinde with but to give the highest assurance imaginable to the World of the truth and importance of Christianity Since God was pleased to imploy his power in so high a manner to confirm the certainty of it 2. Gods power was seen in the admirable effects of Christian Religion upon the minds of men which was most discernable by the strange alteration it soon made in the state of the world In Judea soon after the death of Christ some of his Crucifyers become Christians 3000 Converts made at one Sermon of S. Peters and great accessions made afterwards both in Hierusalem and other places Yea in all parts of the Roman Empire where the Christians came they so increased and multiplyed that thereby it appeared that God had given a Benediction to his new Creation suitable to what he gave to the first So that within the compass of not a hundred years after our Saviours death the World might admire to see it self so strangely changed from what it was The Temple at Hierusalem destroy'd and the Jews under a sadder dispersion than ever and rendred uncapable of continuing their former Worship of God there The Heathen Temples unfrequented the Gods derided the Oracles ceased the Philosophers puzzled the Magistrates disheartned by their fruitless cruelties and all this done by a few Christians who came and preached to the World Righteousness Temperance and a Judgement to come whereof God had given assurance to the World by raising one Jesus from the dead And all this effected not by the power of Wit and Eloquence not by the force and violence of rebellious subjects not by men of hot and giddy brains but by men sober just humble and meek in all their carriages but withall such as might never have been heard of in the world had not this Doctrine made them famous What could this then be imputed to less than a Divine Power which by effectual and secret wayes carries on its own design against all the force and wit of men So that the wise Gamaliel at whose feet S. Paul was bred seem'd to have the truest apprehensions of these things at that time when he told the Sanhedrin If this counsel or this work be of men it will come to nought but if it be of God ye cannot overthrow it least haply ye be found to fight against God Acts 5. 38 39. 3. In the Divine Assistance which is promised to those who embrace it in which respect it is properly the power of God to salvation and therein far beyond what the Philosophers could promise to any who embraced their opinions For the Gospel doth not only discover the necessity of a Principle superiour to Nature which we call Grace in order to the fitting our Souls for their future happiness but likewise shews on what terms God is pleased to bestow it on men viz. on the consideration of the death and passion of our Lord and Saviour Not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he saved
to punish it he remits the sinner as he assures him by the death of Christ he will not punish upon his repentance but he fully remits both when he delivers the person upon the tryall of the great day from all the penalties which he hath deserved by his sins So that our compleat justification and salvation go both upon the same terms and the same Faith which is sufficient for one must be sufficient for the other also What care then ought men to take lest by mis-understanding the notion of Believing so much spoken of as the condition of our salvation they live in a neglect of that holy obedience which the Gospel requires and so believe themselves into eternal misery But as long as men make their obedience necessary though but as the fruit and effect of Faith it shall not want its reward for those whose hearts are purified by Faith shall never be condemned for mistaking the notion of it and they who live as those that are to be judged according to their works shall not miss their reward though they do not think they shall receive it for them But such who make no other condition of the Gospel but Believing and will scarce allow that to be call'd a Condition ought to have a great care to keep their hearts sounder than their heads for their only security will lye in this that they are good though they see no necessity of being so And such of all others I grant have reason to acknowledge the irresistible power of Divine Grace which enables them to obey the will of God against the dictates of their own judgements But thanks be to God who hath so abundantly provided for all the infirmities of humane Nature by the large offers of his Grace and assistance of his Spirit that though we meet with so much opposition without and so much weakness within and so many discouragements on every side of us yet if we sincerely apply our selves to do the will of God we have as great assurance as may be that we shall be kept by the power of God through Faith unto Salvation FINIS Hebr. 2. 3. How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation WHen the wise and eternal Counsels of Heaven concerning the salvation of Mankinde by the death of the Son of God were first declared to the World by his own appearance and preaching in it nothing could be more reasonably expected than that the dignity of his Person the authority of his Doctrine and the excellency of his Life should have perswaded those whom he appeared among to such an admiration of his Person and belief of his Doctrine as might have led them to an imitation of him in the holiness of his life and conversation For if either the worth of the Person or the importance of the Message might prevail any thing towards a kinde and honourable reception among men there was never any person appeared in any degree comparable to him never any Message declared which might challenge so welcome an entertainment from men as that was which he came upon If to give Mankinde the highest assurance of a state of life and immortality if to offer the pardon of sin and reconciliation with God upon the most easie and reasonable terms if to purge the degenerate World from all its impurities by a Doctrine as holy as the Author of it were things as becoming the Son of God to reveal as the Sons of men to receive nothing can be more unaccountable than that his Person should be despised his Authority slighted and his Doctrine contemned And that by those whose interest was more concerned in the consequence of these things than himself could be in all the affronts and injuries he underwent from men For the more the indignities the greater the shame the sharper the sufferings which he did undergo the higher was the honour and glory which he was advanced to but the more obliging the instances of his kindness were the greater the salvation that was tendered by him the more prevailing the motives were for the entertainment of his Doctrine the more exemplary and severe will the punishment be of all those who reject it For it is very agreeable to those eternal Laws of Justice by which God governs the world that the punishment should arise proportionably to the greatness of the mercies despised and therefore although the Scripture be very sparing in telling us what the state of those persons shall be in another life who never heard of the Gospel yet for those who do and despise it it tells us plainly that an eternal misery is the just desert of those to whom an eternal happiness was offered and yet neglected by them And we are the rather told of it that men may not think it a surprize in the life to come or that if they had known the danger they would have escaped it and therefore our Blessed Saviour who never mentioned punishment but with a design to keep men from it declares it frequently that the punishment of those persons and places would be most intolerable who have received but not improved the light of the Gospel and that it would be more tolerable for the persons who had offer'd violence to Nature and had Hell-fire burning in their hearts by their horrid impurities than for those who heard the Doctrine and saw the Miracles of Christ and were much the worse rather than any thing the better for it But lest we should think that all this black scene of misery was only designed for those who were the Actors in that dolefull Tragedy of our Saviours sufferings we are told by those who were best able to assure us of it that the same dismal consequences will attend all the affronts of his Doctrine as if they had been offer'd to his own person For it is nothing but the common flattery and self-deceit of humane nature which makes any imagine that though they do not now either believe or obey the Gospel they should have done both if they had heard our Saviour speak as never man spake and seen him do what never man did For the same disposition of minde which makes them now slight that Doctrine which is delivered to them by them that heard him would have made them slight the Person as well as the Doctrine if they had heard it from himself And therefore it is but reasonable that the same punishment should belong to both especially since God hath provided so abundantly for the assurance of our Faith by the miraculous and powerfull demonstration of that divine spirit which did accompany those who were the first publishers of this Doctrine to the world And therefore the Author of this Epistle after he hath in the words of the Text declared that it is impossible to escape if we neglect the great salvation offered us by the Gospel in the following words he gives us that account of it that at first it began to be spoken by the
and suspicions of God what distrusts of humane Nature what unspeakable ingratitude and unaccountable folly lies at the bottom of all this uncertainty O fools and slow of heart to believe not only what the Prophets have spoken but what our Lord hath declared God himself hath given testimony to and the Holy Ghost hath confirmed 3. But is not your Interest concerned in these things Is it all one to you whether your souls be immortal or no whether they live in eternal felicity or unchangeable misery Is it no more to you than to know what kind of Bables are in request at the Indies or whether the customs of China or Japan are the wiser i. e. than the most trifling things and the remotest from our knowledge But this is so absurd and unreasonable to suppose that men should not think themselves concern'd in their own eternal happiness and misery that I shall not shew so much distrust of their understandings to speak any longer to it 3. But if notwithstanding all these things our neglect still continues then there remains nothing but a fearfull looking for of judgement and the fiery indignation of God For there is no possibility of escaping if we continue to neglect so great salvation All hopes of escaping are taken away which are onely in that which men neglect and those who neglect their only way to salvation must needs be miserable How can that man ever hope to be saved by him whose blood he despises and tramples under foot What grace and favour can he expect from God who hath done despight unto the Spirit of Grace That hath cast away with reproach and contempt the greatest kindness and offers of Heaven What can save him that resolves to be damned and every one does so who knows he shall be damned if he lives in his sins and yet continues to do so God himself in whose only pity our hopes are hath irreversibly decreed that he will have no pity upon those who despise his goodness slight his threatnings abuse his patience and sin the more because he offers to pardon It is not any delight that God takes in the miseries of his Creatures which makes him punish them but shall not God vindicate his own honour against obstinate and impenitent sinners He declares before-hand that he is far from delighting in their ruine and that is the reason he hath made such large offers and used so many means to make them happy but if men resolve to despise his offers and slight the means of their salvation shall not God be just without being thought to be cruel And we may assure our selves none shall ever suffer beyond the just desert of their sins for punishment as the Apostle tells us in the words before the Text is nothing but a just recompence of reward And if there were such a one proportionable to the violation of the Law delivered by Angels how shall we think to escape who neglect a more excellent means of happiness which was delivered by our Lord himself If God did not hate sin and there were not a punishment belonging to it why did the Son of God die for the expiation of it and if his death were the onely means of expiation how is it possible that those who neglect that should escape the punishment not only of their other sins but of that great contempt of the means of our salvation by him Let us not then think to trifle with God as though it were impossible a Being so mercifull and kind should ever punish his Creatures with the miseries of another life For however we may deceive our selves God will not be mocked for whatsoever a man soweth that shall he reap for he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting I shall only propound some few Considerations to prevent so great a neglect as that of your salvation is 1. Consider what it is you neglect the offer of Eternal Happiness the greatest kindness that ever was expressed to the World the foundation of your present peace the end of your beings the stay of your mindes the great desire of your Souls the utmost felicity that humane Nature is capable of Is it nothing to neglect the favour of a Prince the kindness of Great Men the offers of a large and plentifull Estate but these are nothing to the neglect of the favour of God the love of his Son and that salvation which he hath purchased for you Nay it is not a bare neglect but it implyes in it a mighty contempt not only of the things offer'd but of the kindness of him who offers them If men had any due regard for God or themselves if they had any esteem for his love or their own welfare they would be much more serious in Religion than they are When I see a person wholly immersed in affairs of the World or spending his time in luxury and vanity can I possibly think that man hath any esteem of God or of his own Soul when I finde one very serious in the pursuit of his Designs in the World thoughtfull and busie subtle in contriving them carefull in managing them but very formal remiss and negligent in all affairs of Religion neither inquisitive about them nor serious in minding them what can we otherwise think but that such a one doth really think the things of the World better worth looking after than those which concern his eternal salvation But consider before it be too late and repent of so great folly Value an immortal Soul as you ought to doe think what Reconciliation with God and the Pardon of sin is worth slight not the dear Purchase which was bought at no meaner a rate than the Blood of the Son of God and then you cannot but minde the great salvation which God hath tender'd you 2. Consider on what terms you neglect it or what the things are for whose sake you are so great enemies to your own salvation Have you ever found that contentment in sin or the vanities of the World that for the sake of them you are willing to be for ever miserable What will you think of all your debaucheries and your neglects of God and your selves when you come to dye what would you give then if it were in your power to redeem your lost time that you had spent your time less to the satisfaction of your sensual desires and more in seeking to please God How uncomfortable will the remembrance be of all your excesses oaths injustice and profaneness when death approaches and judgement follows it What peace of mind will there then be to those who have served God with faithfulness and have endeavoured to work out their salvation though it hath been with fear and trembling But what would it then profit a man to have gained the whole World and to lose his own soul Nay what unspeakable losers must they
the same verse For Socinus in one verse of S. Johns Gospel makes the World be taken in three several senses He was in the world there it is taken saith he for the men of the world in general The world was made by him there it must be understood onely of the reformation of things by the Gospel and the world knew him not there it must be taken in neither of the former senses but for the wicked of the world What may not one make of the Scripture by such a way of interpreting it But by this we have the less reason to wonder that Socinus should put such an Interpretation upon Gal. 3. 13. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us for it is written Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree In which he doth acknowledge by the curse in the first clause to be meant the punishment of sin but not in the second And the reason he gives for it is amavit enim Paulus in execrationis verbo argutus esse S. Paul affected playing with the word curse understanding it first in a proper and then a Metaphorical sense But it is plain that the design of S. Paul and Socinus are very different in these words Socinus thinks he speaks onely Metaphorically when he saith that Christ was made a curse for us i. e. by a bare allusion of the name without a correspondency in the thing it self and so that the death of Christ might be called a curse but was not so but S. Paul speaks of this not by way of extenuation but to set forth the greatness and weight of the punishment he underwent for us He therefore tells us what it was which Christ did redeem us from The curse of the Law and how he did it by being not onely made a curse but a curse for us i. e. not by being hateful to God or undergoing the very same curse which we should have done which are the two things objected by Crellius against our sense but that the death of Christ was to be considered not as a bare separation of soul and body but as properly poenal being such a kind of death which none but Malefactors by the Law were to suffer by the undergoing of which punishment in our stead he redeemed us from that curse which we were liable to by the violation of the Law of God And there can be no reason to appropriate this onely to the Jews unless the death of Christ did extend onely to the deliverance of them from the punishment of their sins or because the curse of the Law did make that death poenal therefore the intention of the punishment could reach no further than the Law did but the Apostle in the very next words speaks of the farther extension of the great blessing promised to Abraham That it should come upon the Gentiles also and withall those whom the Apostle speaks to were not Jews but such as thought they ought to joyn the Law Gospel together that St. Paul doth not mean as Crellius would have it that Christ by his death did confirm the New Covenant and so take away the obligation of the Law for to what end was the curse mentioned for that What did the accursedness of his death add to the confirmation of the truth of his Doctrine and when was ever the curse taken for the continuance of the Law of Moses but that Christ by the efficacy of his death as a punishment for sin hat redeemed all that believe and obey him from the curse deserved by their sins whether inforced by the Law of Moses or the Law written in their hearts which tells the consciences of sinners that such who violate the Laws of God are worthy of death and therefore under the curse of the Law We come now to the force of the particles which being joyned with our sins as referring to the death of Christ do imply that his death is to be considered as a punishment of sin Not that we insist on the force of those particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though of themselves they did imply this for we know they are of various significations according to the nature of the matter they are joyned with but that these being joyned with sins and sufferings together do signifie that those sufferings are the punishment of those sins Thus it is said of Christ that he dyed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for our sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he suffered once 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he gave himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he offered a Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which Crellius replyes That if the force of these particles not being joyned with sufferings may be taken for the final and not for the impulsive cause they may retain the same sense when joyned with sufferings if those sufferings may be designed in order to an end but if it should be granted that those phrases being joyned with sufferings do alwayes imply a meritorious cause yet it doth not follow it should not be here so understood because the matter will not bear it To this a short answer will at present serve for It is not possible a meritorious cause can be expressed more emphatically than by these words being joyned to sufferings so that we have as clear a testimony from these expressions as words can give and by the same arts by which these may be avoided any other might so that it had not been possible for our Doctrine to have been expressed such a manner but such kind of answers might have been given as our Adversaries now give If it had been said in the plainest terms that Christs death was a punishment for our sins they would as easily have avoided the force of them as they do of these they would have told us the Apostles delighted in an Antanaclasis and had expressed things different from the natural use of the words by them and though punishment were sometimes used properly yet here it must be used only metaphorically because the matter would bear no other sense And therefore I commend the ingenuity of Socinus after all the pains he had taken to enervate the force of those places which are brought against his Doctrine he tells us plainly That if our Doctrine were not only once but frequently mentioned in Scripture yet he would not therefore believe the thing to be so as we suppose For saith he seeing the thing it self cannot be I take the least inconvenient interpretation of the words and draw forth such a sense from them as is most consistent with it self and the tenour of the Scripture But for all his talking of the tenour of the Scripture by the same reason he interprets one place upon these terms he will do many and so the tenour of the Scripture shall be never against him and
means of obtaining that power which was conferred before but the death of Christ is mention'd on that account in Scripture 5. If the death of Christ were no expiatory Sacrifice the entrance of Christ into Heaven could be no Oblation proper to a High-Priest for his entrance into the Holy of Holies was on the account of the blood of the ●●n-offering which he carried in with him ●f there were then no Expiatory Sacrifice before that was slain for the sins of men Christ could not be said to make any Obla●ion in Heaven for the Oblation had respect to a Sacrifice already slain so that ●f men deny that Christs death was a pro●er Sacrifice for sin he could make no Oblation at all in Heaven and Christ ●ould not be said to enter thither as ●he High-Priest entred into the Holy of Holies with the blood of the Sacri●●ce which is the thing which the Author to the Hebrews asserts concerning Christ. 2. There is as great an inconsistency i● making the exercise of Christs power i● Heaven an Oblation in any sense as in making Christs entrance into Heaven to 〈◊〉 the Oblation which had corresponde●●● with the Oblations of the Law For what is there which hath the least resemblance with an Oblation in it Hath it any respect to God as all the legal Oblations had no● for his intercession and power Crellius saith respects us and not God Was there any Sacrifice at all in it for expiation how is it possible that the meer exercise of power should be call'd a sacrifice What analogy is there at all between them And how could he be then said most perfectly to exercise his Priesthood when there was no consideration at all of any sacrifice offer'd up to God so that upon these suppositions the Author to the Hebrews must argu●… upon strange similitudes and fancy resemblances to himself which it was impossible for the Jews to understand him in who were to judge of the nature of Priesthoo● and Oblations in a way agreeable to t●● Institutions among themselves But was●… possible for them to understand such Obl●tions and a Priesthood which had no respec● at all to God but wholly to the People and such an Holies●ithout ●ithout the blood of an Sacrifice●or ●or the sins of the people But such abs●●dities do men betray themselves into when they are forced to strain express pla●es of Scripture to serve an hypothesis which they think themselves obliged to ●●intain We now come to shew that this interpretation of Crellius doth not agree with the circumstances of the places before mention'd which will easily appear by these brief considerations 1. That the apostle alwayes speaks of the offering of Christ as a thing past and once done so as not 〈◊〉 be done again which had been very improper if by the Oblation of Christ he had meant the continual appearance of Christ in Heaven for us which yet is and will never cease to be till all his enemies be made his foot-stool 2. That he ●…ill speaks in allusion to the Sacrifices which were in use among the Jews and ●herefore the Oblation of Christ must be 〈◊〉 such a way as was agreeable to what ●as used in the Levitical Sacrifices which ●e have already at large proved he could ●ot do in our Adversaries sense 3. That ●●e Apostle speaks of such a sacrifice for sins to which the sitting at the right hand of God was consequent so that the Oblation antecedent to it must be properly that Sacrifice for sins which he offer'd to God and therefore the exercise of his power for expiation of sins which they say is meant by sitting at the right hand of God cannot be that Sacrifice for sins Neither can his entrance into Heaven be it which in what sense it can be call'd a Sacrifice for sins since themselves acknowledge it had no immediate relation to the expiation of them I cannot understand 4. The Apostle speaks of such an Offering of Christ once which if it had been repeated doth imply that Christs sufferings must have been repeated too For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the World but the repeated exercise of Christs power in Heaven doth imply no necessity at all of Christs frequent suffering nor his frequent entrance into Heaven which might have been done without suffering therefore it must be meant of such an offering up himself as was implyed in his death and sufferings 5. He speaks of the offering up of that body which God gave him wh●● he came into the World but our Adversaries deny that he carried the same Body into Heaven and therefore he must speak not of an offering of Christ in Heaven but what was performed here on Earth But here our Adversaries have shewn us a tryal of their skill when they tell us with much confidence that the World into which Christ is here said to come is not to be understood of this World but of that to come which is not only contrary to the general acceptation of the word when taken absolutely as it is here but to the whole scope and design of the place For he speaks of that World wherein Sacrifices and Burnt-offerings were ●…ed and the Levitical Law was observed although not sufficient for perfect expiation and so rejected for that end and withall he speaks of that World wherein the chearfull obedience of Christ to the will of his Father was seen for he saith Lo I come to do thy will O God which is repeated afterwards but will they say that this World was not the place into which Christ came to obey the Will of his Father and how could it he so properly said of the future World Lo I come to do thy will when they make the design of his ascension to be the receiving the reward of his doing and suffering the will of God upon Earth But yet they attempt to prove from the same Author to the Hebrews that Christs entrance into Heaven was necessary to his being a perfect High-Priest for he was to be made higher then the heavens and if he were on earth he should not be a Priest but he was a Priest after the power of an e●●lless life Neither could he say they be a perfect High-Priest till those words were spoken to him Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee which as appears by other places was after the Resurrection But all the sufferings he underwent in the world were onely to qualifie him for this Office in Heaven therefore it is said That in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren that he might be a merciful and faithful High-Priest c. This is the substance of what is produced by Crellius and his Brethren to prove that Christ did not become a perfect High-Priest till he entred into heaven But it were worth the knowing what they mean by a perfect High-Priest Is it
foundation of their preaching to the world and is insisted on by them upon that account as is clear in that place to the Corinthians That God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself not imputing unto men their trespasses and hath committed to us the Word of Reconciliation and therefore addes Now then we are Ambassadors for Christ as though God did beseech you by us me pray you in Christs stead be ye reconciled to God And least these words should seem dubious he declares that the reconciliation in Christ was distinct from that reconciliation he perswades them to ' for the reconciliation in Christ he supposeth past v. 18. All things are of God who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ and v. 21. he shews us how this Reconciliation was wrought For he hath made him to be sin for us who know no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him Crellius here finds it necessary to acknowledge a twofold Reconciliation but hopes to escape the force of this place by a rare distinction of the Reconciliation as preached by Christ and by his Apostles and so Gods having reconciled the World to himself by Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thing else but Christs preaching the Gospel himself who afterwards 〈◊〉 that Office to his Apostles But if such shifts as these will serve to baffle mens understandings both they were made and the Scriptures were written to very little purpose for if this had been all the Apostle had meant that Christ preached the same Doctrine of Reconciliation before them what mighty matter had this been to have solemnly told the World that Christs Apostles preached no other Doctrine but what their Master had preached before especially if no more were meant by it but that men should leave their sins and be reconciled to God But besides why is the Ministery of Reconciliation then attributed only to the Apostles and not to Christ which ought in the first place have been given to him since the Apostles did only receive it from him Why is that Ministery of Reconciliation said to be viz. that God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself was this all the subject of the Apostles preaching to tell the World that Christ perswaded men to leave off their sins how comes God to reconcile the World to himself by the preaching of Christ since Christ himself saith he was not sent to preach to the world but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel Was the World reconciled to God by the preaching of Christ before they had ever heard of him Why is God said not to impute to men their trespasses by the preaching of Christ rather than his Apostles if the not imputing were no more than declaring Gods readiness to pardon which was equally done by the Apostles as by Christ himself Lastly what force or dependance is there in the last words For he made him to be sin for us who knew no sin c. if all he had been speaking of before had only related to Christs preaching How was he made sin more than the Apostles if he were only treated as a sinner upon the account of the same Doctrine which they preached equally with him and might not men be said to be made the righteousness of God in the Apostles as well as in Christ if no more be meant but being perswaded to be righteous by the Doctrine delivered to them In the two latter places Eph. 2. 16. Coloss. 1. 20. c. it is plain that a twofold reconciliation is likewise mention'd the one of the Jews and Gentiles to one another the other of both of them to God For nothing can be more ridiculous than the Exposition of Socinus who would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to be joyned with the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to stand by it self and to signifie that this reconciliation of the Jews and Gentiles did tend to the glory of God And Crellius who stands out at nothing hopes to bring off Socinus here too by saying that it is very common for the end to which a thing was appointed to be expressed by a Dative case following the Verb but he might have spared his pains in proving a thing no one questions the shorter answer had been to have produced but one place where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ever signifies any thing but to be reconciled to God as the offended party or where-ever the Dative of the person following the Verb importing reconciliation did signifie any thing else but the party with whom the reconciliation was to be made As for that objection concerning things in Heaven being reconciled that phrase doth not import such a Reconciliation of the Angels as of Men but that Men and Angels upon the reconciliation of men to God become one body under Christ and are gathered together in him as the Apostle expresseth it Eph. 1. 10. Having thus far proved that the effects of an Expiatory Sacrifice do belong to the death of Christ nothing now remains but an answer to be made to two Objections which are commonly insisted on by our Adversaries The first is That God was reconciled before he sent his Son and therefore Christ could not dye to reconcile God to us The second is That the Doctrine of Satisfaction asserted by us is inconsistent with the freeness of Gods grace in the remission of sins Both which will admit of an easie Solution upon the principles of the foregoing discourse To the first I answer That we assert nothing inconsistent with that love of God which was discovered in sending his Son into the world we do not say That God hated mankind so much on the account of sin that it was impossible he should ever admit of any terms of Reconciliation with them which is the only thing inconsistent with the greatness of Gods love in sending Christ into the world but we adore and magnifie the infiniteness and unexpressible greatness of his love that notwithstanding all the contempt of the former kindness and mercies of Heaven he should be pleased to send his own Son to dye for sinners that they might be reconciled to him And herein was the great love of God manifested that while we were enemies and sinners Christ dyed for us and that for this end that we might be reconciled to God by his death And therefore surely not in the state of favour or Reconciliation with God then But it were worth the while to understand what it is our Adversaries mean when they say God was reconciled when he sent his son and therefore he could not dye to reconcile God to us Either they mean that God had decreed to be reconciled upon the sending his son or that he was actually reconciled when he sent him if he only decreed to be reconciled that was not at all inconsistent with Christs dying to reconcile God and us in pursuance of that decree if they mean he was actually
they might seem to others to see when they know themselves they do not Nay there is nothing so plain and evident but the reason of some men is more apt to be imposed upon in it than their senses are as it appeared in him who could not otherwise confute the Philosophers argument against motion but by moving before him So that we see the most certain things in the world are lyable to the cavils of men who imploy their wits to do it and certainly those ought not to stagger mens faith in matters of the highest nature and consequence which would not at all move them in other things But at last it is acknowledged by the men who love to be called the men of wit in this Age of ours that there is a God and Providence a future state and the differences of good and evil but the Christian Religion they will see no further reason to embrace than as it is the Religion of the State they live in But if we demand what mighty reasons they are able to bring forth against a Religion so holy and innocent in its design so agreeable to the Nature of God and Man so well contrived for the advantages of this and another life so fully attested to come from God by the Miracles wrought in confirmation of it by the death of the Son of God and of such multitudes of Martyrs so certainly conveyed to us by the unquestionable Tradition of all Ages since the first delivery of it the utmost they can pretend against it is that it is built upon such an appearance of the Son of God which was too mean and contemptible that the Doctrine of it is incosistent with the Civil Interests of men and the design ineffectual for the Reformation of the World For the removal therefore of these cavils against our Religion I shall shew 1. That there were no circumstances in our Saviours appearance or course of life which were unbecoming the Son of God and the design he came upon 2. That the Doctrine delivered by him is so far from being contrary to the Civil Interests of the World that it tends highly to the preservation of them 3. That the design he came upon was very agreeable to the Infinite Wisdom of God and most effectual for the reformation of Mankinde For clearing the first of these I shall consider 1. The Manner of our Saviours appearance 2. The Course of his Life and what it was which his enemies did most object against him 1. The Manner of our Saviours Appearance which hath been alwayes the great offence to the admirers of the pomp and greatness of the World For when they heard of the Son of God coming down from Heaven and making his Progress into this lower world they could imagine nothing less than that an innumerable company of Angels must have been dispatched before to have prepared a place for his reception that all the Soveraigns and Princes of the World must have been summon'd to give their attendance and pay their homage to him that their Scepters must have been immediately laid at his feet and all the Kingdoms of the earth been united into one universal Monarchy under the Empire of the Son of God That the Heavens should how down at his presence to shew their obeysance to him the Earth tremble and shake for fear at the near approaches of his Majesty that all the Clouds should clap together into one universal Thunder to welcome his appearance and tell the Inhabitants of the World what cause they had to fear him whom the Powers of the Heavens obey that the Sea should run out of its wonted course with amazement and horror and if it were possible hide it self in the hollow places of the earth that the Mountains should shrink in their heads to fill up the vast places of the deep so that all that should be fulfilled in a literal sense which was foretold of the comeing of the Messias That every Valley should be filled and every Mountain and Hill brought low the crooked made straight and the rough wayes smooth and all flesh see the salvation of God Yea that the Sun for a time should be darken'd and the Moon withdraw her light to let the Nations of the Earth understand that a Glory infinitely greater than theirs did now appear to the World In a word they could not imagine the Son of God could be born without the pangs and throws of the whole Creation that it was as impossible for him to appear as for the Sun in the Firmament to disappear without the notice of the whole World But when instead of all this pomp and grandeur he comes incognito into the World instead of giving notice of his appearance to the Potentates of the Earth he is only discovered to a few silly Shepheards and three wise men of the East instead of choosing either Rome or Hierusalem for the place of his Nativity he is born at Bethleem a mean and obscure Village instead of the glorious and magnificent Palaces of the East or West which were at that time so famous he is brought forth in a Stable where the Manger was his Cradle and his Mother the only attendant about him who was her self none of the great persons of the Court nor of any fame in the Countrey but was only rich in her Genealogy and honourable in her Pedigree And according to the obscurity of his Birth was his Education too his youth was not spent in the Imperial Court at Rome nor in the Schools of Philosophers at Athens nor at the feet of the great Rabbies at Jerusalem but at Nazareth a place of mean esteem among the Jews where he was remarkable for nothing so much as the Vertues proper to his Age Modesty Humility and Obedience All which he exercises to so high a degree that his greatest Kindred and acquaintance were mightily surprized when at 30 years of age he began to discover himself by the Miracles which he wrought and the Authority which he spake with And although the rayes of his Divinity began to break forth through the Clouds he had hitherto disguised himself in yet he persisted still in the same course of humility and self-denyal taking care of others to the neglect of himself feeding others by a Miracle and fasting himself to one shewing his power in working miraculous Cures and his humility in concealing them Conversing with the meanest of the people and choosing such for his Apostles who brought nothing to recommend them but innocency and simplicity Who by their heats and ignorance were continual exercises of his Patience in bearing with them and of his care and tenderness in instructing them And after a life thus led with such unparallel'd humility when he could adde nothing more to it by his actions he doth it by his sufferings and compleats the sad Tragedy of his Life by a most shamefull and ignominious Death This is the short and true account of all those things