but too much will unfit them for greater business But do men believe these things to be true or not when they say thus if they be true why need they fear their uncertainty if they be certain what pains and care can be too great about them since a little will never serve to obtain them Let but the care and diligence be proportionable to the greatness of the end and the weight of the things and you never need fear the want of a recompence for all your labour But suppose you say if you were fully convinced of their certainty you would look more after them What hinders you from being so convinced Is it not a bad disposition of mind which makes you unwilling to enquire into them examine things with a mind as free as you would have it judge seriously according to the reason of things and you will easily find the interests of a life to come are far more certain as well as more desireable than those of this present life And yet the great uncertainty of all the honours and riches of this world never hinder the covetous or ambitious person from their great earnestness in pursuit of them And shall not then all the mighty arguments which God himself hath made use of to confirm to us the certainty of a life to come prevail upon us to look more seriously after it Shâ—ll the unexpressible love of the Father the unconceiveable sufferings of the Son of God and the miraculous descent and powerful assistance of the Holy Ghost have no more impression on our minds than to leave us uncertain of a future state What mighty doubts 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 Iapan 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 concerned 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 fearful 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 only 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 â—elight 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 only 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 merciful 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 flâ—sh 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 minds 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 plentiful 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 implies in it a mighty contempt not only of the things offered 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 find one very serious in the pursuit of his Designs in the World thoughtful and busie subtle in contriving them careful in managing them but very formal remiss and negligent in all affairs
use words sometimes out of their proper and natural sense thence he tells us The sufferings of Christ are called chastisements though they have nothing of the nature of chastisements in them And from this liberty of interpreting they make words without any other reason than that they serve for their purpose be taken in several senses in the same verse For Socinus in one verse of St. Iohns Gospel makes the World be taken in three several senses He was in the World there it is taken saith he for the men of the world in general The world was made by him there it must be understood only of the reformation of things by the Gospel and the world knew him not there it must be taken in neither of the former senses but for the wicked of the world What may not one make of the Scripture by such a way of interpreting it But by this we have the less reason to wonder that Socinus should put such an Interpretation upon Gal. 3. 13. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us for it is written Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree In which he doth acknowledge by the curse in the first clause to be meant the punishment of sin but not in the second And the reason he gives for it is amavit enim Paulus in execrationis verbo argutus esse St. Paul affected playing with the word curse understanding it first in a proper and then a Metaphorical sense But it is plain that the design of S. Paul and Socinus are very different in these words Socinus thinks he speaks only Metaphorically when he saith that Christ was made a curse for us i. e. by a bare allusion of the name without a correspondency in the thing it self and so that the death of Christ might be called a curse but was not so but St. Paul speaks of this not by way of extenuation but to set forth the greatness and weight of the punishment he underwent for us He therefore tells us what it was which Christ did redeem us from The curse of the Law and how he did it by being not only made a curse but a curse for us i. e. not by being hateful to God or undergoing the very same curse which we should have done which are the two things objected by Crellius against our sense but that the death of Christ was to be considered not as a bare separation of soul and body but as properly poenal being such a kind of death which none but Malefactors by the Law were to suffer by the undergoing of which punishment in our stead he redeemed us from that curse which we were liable to by the violation of the Law of God And there can be no reason to appropriate this only to the Iews unless the death of Christ did extend only to the deliverance of them from the punishment of their sins or because the curse of the Law did make that death poenal therefore the intention of the punishment could reach no further than the Law did but the Apostle in the very next words speaks of the farther extension of the great blessing promised to Abraham That it should come upon the Gentils also and withall those whom the Apostle speaks to were not Iews but such as thought they ought to joyn the Law and Gospel together that St. Paul doth not mean as Crellius would have it that Christ by his death did confirm the New Covenant and so take away the obligation of the Law for to what end was the curse mentioned for that What did the accursedness of his death add to the confirmation of the truth of his Doctrine and when was ever the curse taken for the continuance of the Law of Moses but that Christ by the efficacy of his death as a punishment for sin hath redeemed all that believe and obey him from the curse deserved by their sins whether inforced by the Law of Moses or the Law written in their hearts which tells the consciences of sinners that such who violate the Laws of God are worthy of death and therefore under the curse of the Law We come now to the force of the particles which being joyned with our sins as referring to the death of Christ do imply that his death is to be considered as a punishment of sin Not that we insist on the force of those particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though of themselves they did imply this for we know they are of various significations according to the nature of the matter they are joyned with but that these being joyned with sins and sufferings together do signifie that those sufferings are the punishment of those sins Thus it is said of Christ that he dyed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for our sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he suffered once 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he gave himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he offered a Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which Crellius replies That if the force of these particles not being joyned with sufferings may be taken for the final and not for the impulsive cause they may retain the same sense when joyned with sufferings if those sufferings may be designed in order to an end but if it should be granted that those phrases being joyned with sufferings do always imply a meritorious cause yet it doth not follow it should be here so understood because the matter will not bear it To this a short answer will at present serve for It is not possible a meritorious cause can be expressed more emphatically than by these words being joyned to sufferings so that we have as clear a testimony from these expressions as words can give and by the same arts by which these may be avoided any other might so that it had not been possible for our Doctrine to have been expressed in such a manner but such kind of answers might have been given as our Adversaries now give If it had been said in the plainest terms that Christs death was a punishment for our sins they would as easily have avoided the force of them as they do of these they would have told us the Apostles delighted in an Antanaclasis and had expressed things different from the natural use of the words by them and though punishment were sometimes used properly yet here it must be used only metaphorically because the matter would bear no other sense And therefore I commend the ingenuity of Socinus after all the pains he had taken to enervate the force of those places which are brought against his Doctrine he tells us plainly That if our Doctrine were not only once but frequently mentioned in Scripture yet he would not therefore believe the thing to be so as we suppose For saith he seeing the thing it self cannot be I take the least inconvenient
unjust in the Magistrate to admit it is it because the thing is in it self unjust if so there can be no obligation to do it and it would be as great a sin to undergo it as in the Magistrate to permit it but if it be just in it self we have obtained what we contend for viz. that it may be just for a man to suffer beyond the desert of his own actions for he that lays down his life for his Brethren doth not deserve by his own actions that very punishment which he undergoes And if the thing be in it self just how comes it to be unjust in him that permits it 5. The reason why among men the offenders themselves are punished is because those were not the terms upon which the persons suffered For if they had suffered upon these terms that the other might be freed and their suffering was admitted of by the Magistrate on that consideration then in all reason and justice the offenders ought to be freed on the account of the others suffering for them But among men the chief reason of the obligation to punishment of one man for another is not that the other might be freed but that there may be security given to the publick that the offenders shall be punished and the reason of the sureties suffering is not to deliver the offender but to satisfie the Law by declaring that all care is taken that the offender should be punished when in case of his escape the surety suffers for him But it is quite another thing when the person suffers purposely that others might be freed by his suffering for then in case the suffering be admitted the release of the other is not only not unjust but becomes due to him that suffered on his own terms Not as though it followed ipso facto as Crellius fancies but the manner of release doth depend upon the terms which he who suffered for them shall make in order to it For upon this suffering of one for another upon such terms the immediate consequent of the suffering is not the actual discharge but the right to it which he hath purchased and which he may dispense upon what tèrms he shall judge most for his honour 6. Although one persons sufferings cannot become anothers so as one mans Money may yet one mans sufferings may be a sufficient consideration on which a benefit may accure to another For to that end a donation or such a transferring right from one to another as is in Money is not necessary but the acceptation which it hath from him who hath the power to pardon If he declare that he is so well pleased with the sufferings of one for another that in consideration of them he will pardon those from whom he suffered where lies the impossibility or unreasonableness of the thing For Crellius grants that rewards may be given to others than the persons who did the actions in consideration of those actions and why may not the sufferings of one for others being purposely undertaken for this end be available for the pardon of those whom he suffered for For a man can no more transfer the right of his good actions than of his sufferings From all which it follows that one person may by his own consent and being admitted thereto by him to whom the right of punishing belongs suffer justly though it be beyond the desert of his own actions and the guilty may be pardoned on the account of his sufferings Which was the first thing we designed to prove from Crellius in order to the overthrowing his own hypothesis For it being confessed by him that such sufferings have all that belongs to the nature of punishments and since God hath justly punished some for the sins which they have not committed since all Nations have allowed it just for one man by his own consent to suffer for another since it cannot be unjust for the offender to be released by anothers sufferings if he were admitted to suffer for that end it evidently follows contrary to Crellius his main Principle that a person may be justly punished beyond the desert of his own actions And so that first argument of Crellius cannot hold that one man cannot by his own consent suffer for another because no man can deserve anothers punishment and no punishment is just but what is deserved His second argument from the nature of anger and revenge hath been already answered in the first Discourse about the nature and ends of punishments and â—…s third argument that one mans punishment cannot become anothers immediately before And so we have finished our first consideration of the sufferings of Christ in general as a punishment of our sins which we have shewed to be agreeable both to Scripture and Reason CHAP. IV. e Death of Christ considered as an Expiatory Sacrifice for sin What the expiation of sin was by the Sacrifices under the Law twofold Civil and Ritual The Promises made to the Iews under the Law of Moses respected them as a People and therefore must be temporal The typical nature of Sacrifices asserted A substitution in the Expiatory Sacrifices under the Law proved from Lev. 17. 11. and the Concession of Crellius about the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lev. 10. 17. explained The expiation of uncertain murther proves a substitution A substitution of Christ in our room proved from Christ being said to dye for us the importance of that phrase considered In what sense a Surrogation of Christ in our room is asserted by us Our Redemption by Christ proves a substitution Of the true notion of Redemption that explained and proved against Socinus and Crellius No necessity of paying the price to him that detains captive where the captivity is not by force but by sentence of Law Christs death a proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 attributed to it cannot be taken for meer deliverance WE come now to consider the death of Christ as an Expiatory Sacrifice for the sins of mankind Which is as much denied by our Adversaries as that it was a punishment for our sins For though they do not deny That Christ as a Priest did offer up a Sacrifice of Expiation for the sins of men yet they utterly deny That this was performed on earth or that the Expiation of sins did respect God but only us or that the death of Christ had any proper efficacy towards the expiation of sin any further than as it comprehends in it all the consequences of his death by a strange Catechresis I shall now therefore prove that all things which do belong to a proper Expiatory Sacrifice do agree to the death of Christ. There are three things especially considerable in it 1. A Substitution in the place of the Offenders 2. An Oblation of it to God 3. An Expiation of sin consequent
fat but this All the fat is the Lords Which was enough to keep them from eating it but we see here in the case of blood somewhat further is assigned viz. that it was the life and therefore was most proper for expiation the life of the beast being substituted in the place of the offenders Which was therefore called anamalis hostia among the Romans as Grotius observes upon this place and was distinguished from those whose entrails were observed for in those Sacrifices as Servius saith sola anima Deo sacratur the main of the Sacrifice lay in shedding of the blood which was called the Soul and so it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place From whence it appears that such a sacrifice was properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used both relating to the blood and the soul that is expiated by it and the LXX do accordingly render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the last clause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From whence Eusebius calls these Sacrifices of living Creatures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and afterwards saith they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Crellius elsewhere grants that where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it doth imply that one doth undergo the punishment which another was to have undergone which is all we mean by substitution it being done in the place of another From whence it follows that the Sacrifices under the Law being said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth necessarily infer a substitution of them in the place of the offenders And from hence may be understood what is meant by the Goat of the Sin offering bearing the iniquity of the Congregation to make atonement for them before the Lord Levit. 10. 17. for Crellius his saying That bearing is as much as taking away or declaring that they are taken away hath been already disproved And his other answer hath as little weight in it viz. That it is not said that the sacrifice did bear their iniquities but the Priest For 1. The Chaldee Paraphrast and the Syriack Version understand it wholly of the Sacrifice 2. Socinus himself grants That if it were said the Priest did expiate by the sacrifices it were all one as if it were said that the sacrifices themselves did expiate because the expiation of the Priest was by the sacrifice Thus it is plain in the case of uncertain murther mentioned Deut 21. from the first to the tenth If a murther were committed in the Land and the person not known who did it a heifer was to have her head cut of by the Elders of the next City and by this means they were to put away the guilt of the innocent blood from among them The reason of which was because God had said before That blood defiled the Land and the Land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein but by the blood of him that shed it From whence it appears that upon the shedding of blood there was a guilt contracted upon the whole Land wherein it was shed and in case the Murtherer was not found to expiate that guilt by his own blood then it was to be done by the cutting off the head of a heifer instead of him In which case the death of the heiser was to do as much towards the expiating the Land as the death of the Murtherer if he had been found And we do not contend that this was designed to expiate the Murtherers guilt which is the Objection of Crellius against this instance but that a substitution here was appointed by God himself for the expiation of the peoâ—… For what Crellius adds That the people did not deserve punishment and therefore needed no expiation it is a flat contradiction to the Text For the prayer appointed in that case is Be merciful O Lord unto thy people Israel whom thou hast redeemed and lay not innocent blood unto thy people Israels Charge and the blood shall be expiated for the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used here which is in the other places where Expiation is spoken of So that here must be some guilt supposed where there was to be an expiation and this expiation was performed by the substitution of a sacrifice in the place of the offender Which may be enough at present to shew that a substitution was admitted by the Law of a sacrifice instead of the offender in order to the expiation of guilt but whether the offender himself was to be freed by that Sacrifice depends upon the terms on which the sacrifice was offered for we say still that so much guilt was expiated as the sacrifice was designed to expiate if the sacrifice was designed to expiate the guilt of the offender his sin was expiated by it if not his in case no sacrifice was allowed by the Law as in that of murther then the guilt which lay upon the Land was expiated although the offender himself were never discovered I now come to prove that in correspondency to such a substitution of the sacrifices for sin under the Law Christ was substituted in our room for the expiation of our guilt and that from his being said to dye for us and his death being called a price of Redemption for us 1. From Christs being said to dye for us By St. Peter For Christ hath also once suffered for sins the just for the unjust by whom he is also said to suffer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for us and for us in the flesh By St. Paul he is said to dye 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the ungodly and to give himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a ransom for all and to taste death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for every man By Caiaphas speaking by inspiration he is said to dye 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the people So Christ himself instituting his last Supper said This is my body which was given and my blood which was shed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for you and before he had said That the Son of man came to give his life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a ransom for many We are now to consider what arts our Adversaries have made use of to pervert the meaning of these places so as not to imply a substitution of Christ in our room 1. They say That all these phrases do imply no more than a final cause viz. That Christ died for the good of mankind for the Apostle tells us We are bound to lay down our lives for the Brethren and St. Paul is said to suffer for the Church To which I answer 1. This doth not at all destroy that which we now plead for viz. That these phrases do imply a substitution of Christ in our room For when we are bid to lay down our lives for our
person who detains because the reason of his detaining was the expectation of the price to be pald but in the latter the detainer is meerly the instrument for execution of the Law and the price of redemption is not to be paid to him but to those who are most concerned in the honour of the Law But Crellius objects that the price can never be said to be paid to God because our redemption is attributed to God as the author of it and because we are said to be redeemed for his use and service now saith he the price can never be paid to him for whose service the person is redeemed But all this depends upon the former mistake as though we spake all this while of such a redemption as that is of a Captive by force in whom the detainer is no further concerned than for the advantage to be made by him and in that case the price must be paid to him who detains because it would otherwise be unsuccessful for his deliverance but in case of captivity by Law as the effect of disobedience the Magistrate who is concerned in the life of the person and his future obedience may himself take care that satisfaction may be given to the Law for his redemption in order to his future serviceableness From hence we see both that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is proper in this case of our redemption and that it is not a meer commutation of a price for a person but a commutation of one persons suffering for others which suffering being a punishment in order to satisfaction is a valuable consideration and therefore a price for the redemption of others by it Which price in this sense doth imply a proper substitution which was the thing to be proved Which was the first thing to be made good concerning the death of Christ being a sacrifice for sin viz. that there was a substitution of Christ in our stead as of the sacrifices of old under the Law and in this sense the death of Christ was a proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or price of redemption for us Nothing then can be more vain than the way of our Adversaries to take away the force of all this because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes taken for a meet deliverance without any price which we deny not but the main force of our argument is from the importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is mentioned and then we say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when applied to sins signifies expiation as Heb. 9. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but when applied to persons it signifies the deliverance purchased by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not to be considered as a bare price or a thing given but as a thing undergone in order to that deliverance and is therefore not only called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too which Crellius confesseth doth imply a commutation and we have shewed doth prove a substitution of Christ in our place CHAP. V. The notion of a sacrifice belongs to the death of Christ because of the Oblation made therein to God Crellius his sense of Christs Oblation proposed Against him it is proved that the Priestly office of Christ had a primary respect to God and not to us Expiatory Sacrifices did divert the wrath of God Christ not a bare Metaphorical High-Priest Crellius destroys the Priesthood of Christ by confounding it with the exercise of his Regal Power No proper expiation of sin belongs to Christ in Heaven if Crellius his Doctrine be true Ephes. 5. 2. proves the death of Christ an Expiatory Sacrifice and an Oblation to God The Phrase of a sweet-smelling savour belongs to expiatory Sacrifices Crellius his gross notion of it His mistakes about the kinds of Sacrifices Burnt-offerings were Expiatory Sacrifices both before and under the Law A new distribution of sacrifices proposed What influence the mactation of the Sacrifice had on Expiation The High-Priest only to slay the Sin-offering on the day of Atonement from whence it is proved that Christs Priesthood did not begin from his entrance into Heaven The mactation in Expiatory Sacrifices no bare preparation to a Sacrifice proved by the Iewish Laws and the customs of other Nations Whether Christs Oblation of himself once to God were in Heaven or on Earth Of the proper notion of Oblations under the Levitical Law Several things observed from thence to our purpose All things necessary to a legal Oblation concur in the death of Christ His entrance into Heaven hath no correspondency with it if the blood of Christ were no sacrifice for sin In Sin-offerings for the People the whole was consumed no eating of the Sacrifices allowed the Priests but in those for private Persons Christs exercise of Power in Heaven in no sense an Oblation to God Crellius his sense repugnant to the circumstances of the places in dispute Objections answered THE Second thing to prove the death of Christ a Sacrifice for sin is the Oblation of it to God for that end Grotius towards the conclusion of his book makes a twofold oblation of Christ parallel to that of the Sacrifices under the Law the first of Mactation the second of Representation whereof the first was done in the Temple the second in the Holy of Holies so the first of Christ was on Earth the second in Heaven the first is not a bare preparation to a Sacrifice but a Sacrifice the latter not so much a Sacrifice as the commemoration of one already past Wherefore since appearing and interceding are not properly sacerdotal acts any further than they depend on the efficacy of a sacrifice already offered he that takes away that Sacrifice doth not leave to Christ any proper Priesthood against the plain authority of the Scripture which assigns to Christ the office of a Priest distinct from that of a Prophet and a King To which Crellius replies That the expiation of sin doth properly belong to what Christ doth in Heaven and may be applyed to the death of Christ only as the condition by which he was to enjoy that power in Heaven whereby he doth expiate sins but the Priest was never said to expiate sins when he killed the beast but when the blood was sprinkled or carried into the Holy of Holies to which the Oblation of Christ in Heaven doth answer but mactation saith he was not proper to the Priests but did belong to the Levites also And Christ was not truly a Priest while we was on Earth but only prepared by his sufferings to be one in Heaven where by the perpetual care he takes of his People and exercising his Power for them he is said to offer up himself and intercede for them and by that means he dischargeth the Office of a High-Priest for them For his Priestly Office he saith is
fell to the share of the Priests and these were either sins particularly enumerated by God himself under the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or else generally comprehended under the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being allowed to be expiated because committed through inadvertency 3. Such whereof a less part was consumed as in the Peace-offerings of the Congregation mentioned Levit. 23. 19. whereof the blood was sprinkled only the inwards burnt and the flesh not eaten by the persons that offered them as it was in the Peace-offerings of particular persons of which as being private Sacrifices I have here no occasion to speak but only by the Priests in the Court and these had something of expiation in them For thence saith Vatablus the Peace offering was called by the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Expiatorium and the LXX commonly render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and several of the Iews think the reason of the name was That it made peace between God and him that offered it But the great reason I insist on is Because all the things which were used in an Expiatory Sacrifice were in this too the slaying of the Beast the sprinkling of the blood and the consumption of some part of it upon the Altar as an Oblation to God which are the three ingredients of an Expiatory Sacrifice for the shedding of the blood noted the bearing the punishment of our iniquity and the sprinkling of it on the Altar and the consuming of the part of the Sacrifice or the whole there that it was designed for the expiation of sin From whence it follows that the phrase of a sweet-smelling savour being applied under the Law to Expiatory Sacrifices is very properly used by St. Paul concerning Christs giving up himself for us so that from this phrase nothing can be inferred contrary to the Expiatory nature of the death of Christ but rather it is fully agreeable to it But Crellius hath yet a farther Argument to prove that Christs death cannot be here meant as the Expiatory Sacrifice viz. That the notion of a sacrifice doth consist in the oblation whereby the thing is consecrated to the honour and service of God to which the mactation is but a bare preparation which he proves Because the slaying the sacrifice might belong to others besides the Priests Ezek. 44. 10 11. but the oblation only to the Priests To this I answer 1. The mactation may be considered two ways either with a respect to the bare instrument of taking away the life or to the design of the Offerer of that which was to be sacrificed As the mactation hath a respect only to the instruments so it is no otherways to be considered than as a punishment but as it hath a respect to him that designs it for a Sacrifice so the shedding of the blood hath an immediate influence on the expiation of sin And that by this clear Argument The blood is said to make an Atonement for the soul and the reason given is because the life of the flesh is in the blood So that which was the life is the great thing which makes the Atonement and when the blood was shed the life was then given from whence it follows that the great efficacy of the sacrifice for Atonement lay in the shedding of the blood for that end Thence the Apostle attributes remission of sins to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the shedding of the blood and not to the bare Oblation of it on the Altar or the carrying it into the Holy of Holies both which seem to be nothing else but a more solemn representation of that blood before God which was already shed for the expiation of sins which was therefore necessary to be performed that the concurrence of the Priest might be seen with the sacrifice in order to expiation For if no more had been necessary but the bare slaying of the Beasts which was the meanest part of the service the people would never have thought the institution of the Priesthood necessary and least of all that of the High-Priest unless some solemn action of his had been performed such as the entring into the Holy of Holies on the day of expiation and carrying it and sprinkling the blood of the sin offering in order to the expiation of the sins of the people And it is observable that although the Levitical Law be silent in the common Sacrifices who were to kill them whether the Priests or the Levites yet on that day whereon the High-Priest was to appear himself for the expiation of sin it is expresly said that he should not only kill the bullock of the sin-offering which is for himself but the goaâ— of the sin-offering which is for the people And although the Talmudists dispute from their Traditions on both sides whether any one else might on the day of expiation slay the sin-offerings besides the High-Priest yet it is no news for them to dispute against the Text and the Talmud it self is clear that the High-Priest did it From whence it appears there was something peculiar on that day as to the slaying of the sin-offerings and if our Adversaries opinion hold good that the Sacrifices on the day of expiation did iâ— not aâ—one yet chiefly represent the Sacrifice of Christ no greater argument can be brought against themselves than this is for the office of the High-Priest did not begin at his carrying the blood into the Holy of Holies but the slaying the sacrifice did belong to him too from whence it will unavoidably followâ— that Christ did not enter upon his Office of High-Priest when he entred into Heaven but when the Sacrifice was to be be slain which was designed for the expiation of sins It is then to no purpose at all if Crellius could prove that sometimes in ordinary Sacrifices which he will not say the Sacrifice of Christ was represented by the Levites might kill the beasts for Sacrifice for it appears that in these Sacrifices wherein themselves contend that Christs was represented the office of the High-Priest did not begin with entring into the Sanctuary but with the mactation of that Sacrifice whose blood was to be carried in thither Therefore if we â—peak of the bare instruments of mactation in the death of Christ those were the Iews and we make not them Priests in it for they aimed at no more than taking away his life as the Popae among the Romans and those whose bare Office it was to kill the beasts for Sacrifice among the Iews did but if we consider it with a respect to him that offered up his life to God then we say that Christ was the High-Priest in doing it it being designed for the expiation of sin and by vertue of this bloodshed for that end he enters into Heaven as the Holy of Holies there ever living to make intercession for us But the vertue of the consequent acts depends upon the
e. as the Iews expound it at the entrance of the Court of the Priests and there he was to lay his hands upon the head of it and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him This Offering was made before the Beast was slain after the killing the beast then the Priests were to make an Offering of the blood by sprinkling it round about the Altar of Burnt-offerings the rest of the blood say the Iews was poured out by the Priests at the South-side of the Altar upon the foundation where the two holes were for the passage into the Channel which conveyed the blood into the valley of Kidron thus the blood being offered the parts of the beast were by the Priests to be laid upon the Altar and there they were all to be consumed by fire and then it was called an Offering made by fire of a sweet savour unto the Lord. The same rites were used in the Peace-offerings and Trespass-offerings as to the laying on of hands and the sprinkling the blood and consuming some part by fire and in the sin-offerings there was to be the same imposition of hands but concerning the sprinkling of the blood and the way of consuming the remainders of the Sacrifice there was this considerable difference that in the common sin-offerings for particular persons the blood was sprinkled upon the horns of the Altar of Burnt-offerings but in the sin-offerings for the High-Priest and the Congregation or all the People he was to carry the blood within the Sanctuary and to sprinkle of it seven times before the Vail of the Sanctuary and some of the blood was to be put upon the horns of the Altar of Incense but the remainder of the blood and the same things which were offered by fire in Peace-Offerings were to be disposed of accordingly on the Altar of Burnt-offerings And withal there was this great difference that in other sin-offerings the Priests were to eat the remainder of the sacrifice in the Holy place but in these there was nothing to be eaten by them for the whole Bullock was to be carried forth without the Camp and there he was to be burned till all were consumed For it was an express Law That no sin-offering whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tabernacle of the Congregation to reconcile withal in the Holy-place shall be eaten it shall be burnt in the fire All the difference that was on the great day of Atonement was this that the High Priest himself was to slay the Sin-offerings and then to carry the blood of them into the Holy of Holies and there was to sprinkle the blood with his finger towards the Mercy-seat seven times after which and the sending away the scape-goat the ceremonies were the same for the Atonement of the people which were at other solemn sin-offerings for the Priest or the people From all which being thus laid together we shall observe several things which are very material to our purpose 1. That in the oblations which were made for expiation of sins the difference between the mactation and the oblation did arise from the difference between the Priest and the Sacrifice For the Priests Office was to atone but he was to atone by the Sacrifice on which account although the Priest were to offer the Sacrifice for himself yet the oblation did not lie in the bare presenting himself before God but in the presenting the blood of that Sacrifice which was shed in order to expiation If we could have supposed that the High-Priest under the Law instead of offering a Goat for a Sin-offering for the people on the day of Atonement should have made an oblation of himself to God by dying for the expiation of their sins In this case his death being the Sacrifice and himself the Priest the mactation as it relates to his own act and his oblation had been one and the same thing For his death had been nothing else but the offering up himself to God in order to the expiation of the sins of the people and there can be no reason why the oblation must be of necessity something consequent to his death since all things necessary to a perfect oblation do concur in it For where there is something solemnly devoted to God and in order to the expiation of sins and by the hand of a Priest there are all things concurring to a legal oblation but in this case all these things do concur and therefore there can be no imaginable necessity of making the oblation of Christ only consequent to his Ascension since in his death all things concur to a proper oblation In the Law we grant that the oblation made by the Priest was consequent to the death of the beast for Sacrifice but the reason of that was because the beast could not offer up it self to God and God had made it necessary that the Priest should expiate sins not by himself but by those Sacrifices and therefore the oblation of the blood was after the Sacrifice was slain neither could this have been solved barely by the Priests slaying of the Sacrifices for this being an act of violence towards the beasts that were thus killed could not be a proper oblation which must suppose a consent antecedent to it All which shewed the great imperfection of the Levitical Law in which so many several things were to concur to make up a sacrifice for sin viz. The first offering made by the party concerned of what was under his dominion viz. The beast to be sacrificed at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation but the beast not being able to offer up it self it was necessary for the offering up its blood that it must be slain by others and for the better understanding not only of the efficacy of the blood but the concurrence of the Priest for expiation he was to take the blood and sprinkle some of it on the Altar and pour out the rest at the foundation of it But since we assert a far more noble and excellent Sacrifice by the Son of God freely offering up himself to be made a Sacrifice for the sins of the world why may not this be as proper an oblation made unto God as any was under the Law and far more excellent both in regard of the Priest and the Sacrifice why should his oblation of himself then be made only consequent to his death and resurrection Which â—latter being by our Adversaries made not his own act but Gods upon him and his entrance into Heaven being given him as they assert as a reward of his sufferings in what tolerable sense can that be called an oblation of himself which was conferâ—ed upon him as a reward of his former sufferings From whence it follows that upon our Adversaries own grounds the death of Christ may far more properly be called the oblation of himself than his entrance
into Heaven and that there is no necessity of making the oblation of Christ consequent to his death there being so great a difference between the Sacrifice of Christ and that of the Sacrifices for sin under the Levitical Law 2. We observe That the oblation as performed by the Priest did not depend upon his presenting himself before God but upon the presenting the blood of a Sacrifice which had been already slain for the expiation of sins If the Priest had gone into the Holy of Holies and there only presented himself before the Mercy-seat and that had been all required in order to the expiation of sins there had been some pretence for our Adversaries making Christs presenting himself in Heaven to be the oblation of himself to God but under the Law the efficacy of the High-Priests entrance into the Holy of Holies did depend upon the blood which he carried in thither which was the blood of the Sin-offering which was already slain for the expiation of sins And in correspondency to this Christs efficacy in his entrance into Heaven as it respects our expiation must have a respect to that Sacrifice which was offered up to God antecedent to it And I wonder our Adversaries do so much insist on the High-Priests entring into the most holy place once a year as though all the expiation had depended upon that whereas all the promise of expiation was not upon his bare entrance into it but upon the blood which he carried along with him and sprinkled there In correspondency to which our Saviour is not barely said to enter into Heaven and present himself to God but that he did this by his own blood having obtained Eternal Redemption for us 3. We observe That there was something correspondent in the death of Christ to somewhat consequent to the oblation under the Law and therefore there can be no reason to suppose that the oblation of Christ must be consequent to his death for that destroys the correspondency between them Now this appears in this particular in the solemn Sacrifices for sin after the sprinkling of the blood which was carried into the Holy place to renconcile withal all the remainder of the Sacrifice was to be burnt without the Camp and this held on the day of Atonement as well as in other Sin-offerings for the Congregation Now the Author to the Hebrews tells us That in correspondency to this Iesus that he might sanctifie the people with his own blood suffered without the gate What force is there in this unless the blood of Christ did answer to the Sin-offerings for the people and his oblation was supposed to be made before and therefore that he might have all things agreeable to those Sin-offerings the last part was to be compleated too viz. That he was to suffer without the gate which after the peoples settlement in Ierusalem answered to the being burnt without the Camp in the Wilderness 4. We observe That the Oblation in Expiatory Sacrifices under the Law by the Priest had always relation to the consumption of what was offered Thus the offering of the blood in token of the destruction of the life of the beast whose blood was offered for no blood was to be offered of a living creature nor of one killed upon any other account but for that end to be a sacrifice for sin and after the sprinkling and pouring out of the blood the inwards of some and all of the other were to be consumed by fire And it is observable that the greater the Sacrifice for sin was always the more was consumed of it as appears plainly by the forementioned difference of the Sin-offerings for private persons and for the people of the former the Priests were allowed to eat but not at all of the latter And so it was observed among the Egyptians in the most solemn Sacrifices for expiation nothing was allowed to be eaten of that part which was designed for that end For Herodotus gives us an account why the Egyptians never eat the head of any living Creature which is That when they offer up a Sacrifice they make a solemn execration upon it that if any evil were to fall upon the persons who Sacrificed or upon all Egypt it might be turned upon the head of that beast And Plutarch adds that after this solemn execration They cut off the head and of old threw it into the River but then gave it to strangers From which custom we observe that in a solemn Sacrifice for expiation the guilt of the offenders was by this rite of execration supposed to be transferred upon the head of the Sacrifice as it was in the Sacrifices among the Jews by the laying on of hands and that nothing was to be eaten of what was supposed to have that guilt transferred upon it From hence all Expiatory Sacrifices were at first whole Burnt-offerings as appears by the Patriarchal Sacrifices and the customs of other Nations and among the Jews themselves as we have already proved in all solemn offerings for the people And although in the sacrifices of private persons some parts were allowed to be eaten by the Priests yet those which were designed for expiation were consumed So that the greater the offering was to God the more it implied the Consumption of the thing which was so offered How strangely improbable then is it That the Oblation of Christ should not as under the Law have respect to his death and sufferings but to his entrance into Heaven wherein nothing is supposed to be consumed but all things given him with far greater power as our Adversaries suppose than ever he had before But we see the Apostle parallels Christs suffering with the burning of the Sacrifices and his blood with the blood of them and consequently his offering up himself must relate not to his entrance into Heaven but to that act of his whereby he suffered for sins and offered up his blood as a Sacrifice for the sins of the world From all which it appears how far more agreeably to the Oblations under the Law Christ is said to offer up himself for the expiation of sins by his death and sufferings than by his entrance into Heaven For it is apparent that the Oblations in expiatory Sacrifices under the Law were such upon which the expiation of sin did chiefly depend but by our Adversaries own confession Christs oblation of himself by his entrance into Heaven hath no immediate respect at all to the expiation of sin only as the way whereby he was to enjoy that power by which he did expiate sins as Crellius saith now let us consider what more propriety there is in making this presenting of Christ in Heaven to have a correspondency with the legal Oblations than the offering up himself upon the Cross. For 1. on the very same reason that his entrance into Heaven is made an Oblation his death is so
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 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 should have depended on no other conditions but such as were under the power of him whose sins were to be expiated by it But Crellius urgeth against our sense of Expiation That if it were by Substitution then the Expiation would be most properly attributed to the Sacrifices themselves whereas it is only said that by the Sacrifices the Expiation is obtained but that God or the Priest do expiate and to God it belongs properly because he takes away the guilt and punishment of sin which is saith he all meant by expiation to the Priest only consequently as doing what God requires in order to it and to the Sacrifices only as the conditions 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 purisying 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 significatiâ—n 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 shedding of blood if all the expiation did prâ—perly 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 bloâ—d 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 Iews 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
from Lev. 17. 11. and the Concession of Crellius about the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lev. 10. 17. explained The expiation of uncertain murther proves a substitution A substitution of Christ in our room proved from Christ being said to dye for us the importance of that phrase considered In what sense a Surrogation of Christ in our room is asserted by us Our Redemption by Christ proves a substitution Of the true notion of Redemption that explained and proved against Socinus and Crellius No necessity of paying the price to him that detains captive where the captivity is not by force but by sentence of Law Christs death a proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 attributed to it cannot be taken for meer deliverance pag. 314 CHAP. V. The notion of a sacrifice belongs to the death of Christ because of the Oblation made therein to God Crellius his sense of Christs Oblation proposed Against him it is proved that the Priestly office of Christ had a primary respect to God and not to us Expiatory Sacrifices did divert the wrath of God Christ not a bare Metaphorical High-Priest Crellius destroys the Priesthood of Christ by confounding it with the exercise of his Regal Power No proper expiation of sin belongs to Christ in Heaven if Crellius his Doctrine be true Ephes. 5. 2. proves the death of Christ an Expiatory Sacrifice and an Oblation to God The Phrase of a sweet-smelling savour belongs to Expiatory Sacrifices Crellius his gross notion of it His mistakes about the kinds of Sacrifices Burnt-offerings were Expiatory Sacrifices both before and under the Law A new distribution of sacrifices proposed What influence the mactation of the Sacrifice had on Expiation The High-Priest only to slay the Sin-offering on the day of Atonement from whence it is proved that Christs Priesthood did not begin from his entrance into Heaven The mactation in Expiatory Sacrifices no bare preparation to a Sacrifice proved by the Iewish Laws and the customs of other Nations Whether Christs Oblation of himself once to God were in Heaven or on Earth Of the proper notion of Oblations under the Levitical Law Several things observed from thence to our purpose All things necessary to a legal Oblation concur in the death of Christ His entrance into Heaven hath no correspondency with it if the blood of Christ were no sacrifice for sin In Sin-offerings for the People the whole was consumed no eating of the Sacrifices allowed the Priests but in those for private Persons Christs exercise of Power in Heaven in no sense an Oblation to God Crellius his sense repugnant to the circumstances of the places in dispute Objections answered pag. 329 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 Iews 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 and Reconciliation Of the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 pag. 355 TO THE Right Honourable ELIZABETH COUNTESSE DOWAGER OF JOCELIN Late EARLE of Northumberland Madam AMONG the number of those who congratulate Your safe return into Your own Countrey wherein Your Ladiship is so justly beloved and esteemed by all that honour Vertue and Goodness Give me leave to express my Duty in an Address more agreeable to my own Profession than some perhaps will think it is to Your Quality and Condition Those I mean who measure their Greatness by their contempt of Religion and all that belong to it Who know nothing of Wit or Vertue beyond the Stage or think the Leviathan contains in it the Whole Duty of Man The utmost these Persons will allow us whose Honour and Imployment lyes in asserting the Truth of Religion and perswading to the practice of it is that we are men of a Profession and speak for the things we are to live by As though Reason and Religion were such contemptible Wares as scarce any would enquire after if it were not some mens Trade to put them off and were of less force in themselves because it is our Duty and Interest to maintain them Is it any disparagement to a Prince to have Subjects obliged to defend his Honour and Servants to attend his Person and must not what they say or do be at all minded because their own Interest is joyned with his Why then should Religion suffer in the esteem of any because she hath servants of her own to defend her Cause As if it had alwayes been a received Principle with mankind that no man is to be trusted in his own Profession According to this the Lawyers ought to preach and the Divines plead Causes because the one gets nothing by Divinity nor the other by Law the Merchant should visit Patients and the Physicians attend the Committees of Trade because it is dangerous trusting men in what they are most concerned to understand When once I see these persons for bear to consult the Lawyers about setling their Estates and Physicians for their health meerly because they get by their Professions I shall then think it is something else besides a Pique at Religion which makes them so ready to contemn whatever is said by us in behalf of it because forsooth it is our Trade to defend it I wish it were theirs as much to practise it and then we should not be troubled
men as any thing else is But here men think they may justly plead with God and talk with him of his judgements what proportion say they is there between the sins of this short life and the eternal misery of another which objection is not so great in it self as it appears to be by the weak answers which have been made to it When to assign a proportion they have made a strange kind of infinity in sin either from the object which unavoidably makes all sins equal or from the wish of a sinner that he might have an eternity to sin in which is to make the justice of Gods punishments to be not according to their works but to their wishes But we need not strain things so much beyond what they will bear to vindicate Gods justice in this matter Is it not thought just and reasonable among men for a man to be confined to perpetual imprisonment for a fault he was not half an hour in committing Nay do not all the Laws of the world make death the punishment of some crimes which may be very suddenly done And what is death but the eternal depriving a man of all the comforts of life And shall a thing then so constantly practised and universally justified in the world be thought unreasonable when it is applyed to God It is true may some say if annihilation were all that was meant by eternal death there could be no exception against it but I ask whether it would be unjust for the Laws of men to take away the lives of offenders in case their souls â—urvive their bodies and they be for ever sensible of the loss of life if not why shall not God preserve the honour of his Laws and vindicate his Authority in governing the world by sentencing obstinate sinners to the greatest misery though their souls live for ever in the apprehension of it Especially since God hath declared these things so evidently before hand and made them part of his Laws and set everlasting life on the other side to ballance everlasting misery and proposed them to a sinners choice in such a manner that nothing but contempt of God and his grace and wilful impenitency can ever betray men into this dreadful State of eternal destruction 2. Thus much for the argument used by the Apostle the terrour of the Lord I now come to the assurance he expresseth of the truth of it Knowing therefore the terrour of the Lord we perswade men We have two ways of proving Articles of faith such as this concerning Christs coming to judgement is 1. By shewing that there is nothing unreasonable in the belief of them 2. That there is sufficient evidence of the truth and certainty of them In the former of these it is of excellent use to produce the common apprehensions of mankind as to a future judgement and the several arguments insisted on to that purpose for if this were an unreasonable thing to believe how come men without revelation to agree about it as a thing very just and reasonable If the conflagration of the world were an impossible thing how came it to be so anciently received by the eldest and wisest Philosophers How came it to be maintained by those two Sects which were St. Paul's enemies when he preached at Athens and always enemies to each other the Epicureans and the Stoicks It is true they made these conflagrations to be periodical and not final but we do not establish the belief of our doctrine upon their assertion but from thence shew that is a most unreasonable thing to reject that as impossible to be done which they assert hath been and may be often done But for the truth and certainty of our doctrine we build that upon no less a foundation than the word of God himself We may think a judgement to come reasonable in general upon the â—…sideration of the goodness and wisdom and justice of God but all that depends upon this supposition that God doth govern the world by Laws and not by Power but since God himself hath declared it who is the Suprem Judge of the world that he will bring every work into judgement whether it be good or evil since the Son of God made this so great a part of his doctrine with all the circumstances of his own coming for again this end since he opened the commission he received from the Father for this purpose when he was upon earth by declaring that the Father had committed all judgement to the Son and that the hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth they that have done good to the resurrection of life and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation Since this was so great a part of the Apostles doctrine to preach of this judgement to come and that God hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained whereof he hath given assurance to all men in that he hath raised him from the dead No wonder the Apostle speaks here with so great assurance of it knowing therefore c. And no persons can have the least ground to question it but such who wholly reject the Christian doctrine upon the pretences of infidelity which are so vain and trifling that were not their lusts stronger than their arguments men of wit would be ashamed to produce them and did not mens passions oversway their judgements it would be too much honour to them to confute them But every Sermon is not intended for the conversion of Turks and Infidels my design is to speak to those who acknowledge themselves to be Christians and to believe the truth of this doctrine upon the Authority of those divine persons who were particularly sent by God to reveal it to the world And so I come to the last particular by way of application of the former viz. 3. The efficacy of this argument for the perswading men to a reformation of heart and life knowing the terror of the Lord we perswade men For as another Apostle reasons from the same argument Seeing all these things shall be dissolved what manner of persons ought we to be in all holy conversation and godliness There is great variety of arguments in the Christian Religion to perswade men to holiness but none more sensible and moving to the generality of mankind than this Especially considering these two things 1. That if this argument doth not perswade men there is no reason to expect any other should 2. That the condition of such persons is desperate who cannot by any arguments be perswaded to leave off their sins 1. There is no reason to expect any other argument should perswade men if this of the terror of the Lord do it not If an almighty power cannot awaken us if infinite justice cannot affright us if a
much Ignorance which made him think he had conquered this And to put a check to such a troublesome ambition of disturbing the world in others how early was he taken away in the midst of his vast thoughts and designs What a small thing would the compass of the whole earth appear to one that should behold it at the distance of the fixed stars and yet the mighty Empires which have made the greatest noise in the world have taken up but an inconsiderable part of the whole earth What are then those mean designs which men continually hazard their souls for as much as if they aimed at the whole world For we are not to imagine that only Kings and Princes are in any hazard of losing their souls for the sake of this world for it is not the greatness of mens condition but their immoderate love to the world which ruins and destroys their souls And covetousness and ambition do not always raign in Courts and Palaces they can stoop to the meanness of a Cottage and ruin the souls of such as want the things of this world as well as those that enjoy them So that no state or condition of men is exempt from the hazard of losing the soul for the love of this world although but one person can be supposed at once to have the possession of the whole world 2. The gain of this world brings but an imaginary happiness but the loss of the soul a most real misery It is easie to suppose a person to have the whole world at his command and not himself and how can that man be happy that is not at his own command The cares of Government in a small part of the earth are so great and troublesome that by the consent of mankind the managers of it are invested with more than ordinary priviledges by way of recompence for them but what are these to the solicitous thoughts the continual fears the restless imployments the uninterrupted troubles which must attend the gain of the whole world So that after all the success of such a mans designs he may be farther off from any true contentment than he was at the beginning of them And in that respect mens conditions seem to be brought to a greater equality in the world because those who enjoy the most of the world do oft-times enjoy the least of themselves which hath made some great Emperours lay down their Crowns and Scepters to enjoy themselves in the retirements of a Cloyster or a Garden All the real happiness of this world lies in a contented mind and that we plainly see doth not depend upon mens outward circumstances for some men may be much farther from it in a higher condition in this world than others are or it may be themselves have been in a far lower But if mens happiness did arise from any thing without them that must be always agreeable to their outward condition but we find great difference as to mens contentment in equal circumtances and many times much greater in a private State of life than in the most publick capacity By which it appears that what ever looks like happiness in this world depends upon a mans soul and not upon the gain of the world nay it is only from thence that ever men are able to abuse themselves with false notions and Idea's of happiness here But none of those shall go into another world with them farewel then to all imaginary happiness to the pleasures of sin and the cheats of a deceitful world then nothing but the dreadful apprehensions of its own misery shall possess that soul which shall then too late descern its folly and lament it when it is past recovery Then the torments of the mind shall never be imputed to melancholy vapours or a disordered fancy There will be no drinking away sorrows no jesting with the sting of conscience no playing with the flames of another world God will then no longer be mocked by wicked men but they shall find to their own eternal horrour and confusion that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God He neither wants power to inflict nor justice to execute nor vengeance to pursue nor wrath to punish but his power is irresistible his justice inflexible and his wrath is insupportable Consider now O foolish sinner that hast hither to been ready to cast away thy soul upon the pleasures of sin for a season what a wise exchange thou wilt make of a poor imaginary happiness for a most real and intolerable misery What will all the gain of this world signify in that State whither we are all hastening a pace What contentment will it be to thee then to think of all those bewitching vanities which have betrayed thy soul into unspeakable misery Wouldst thou be willing to be treated with all the ceremonies of State and Greatness for an hour or two if thou wert sure that immediately after thou must undergo the most exquisite tortures and be racked and tormented to death When men neglect their souls and cast them away upon the sinful pleasures and gains of this world it is but such a kind of aiery and phantastical happiness but the miseries of a lost soul are infinitely beyond the racks and torments of the body It hath sometimes happened that the horrour of despair hath seized upon mens minds for some notorious crimes in this life which hath giyen no rest either to body or mind but the violence of the inward pains have forced them to put an end to this miserable life as in the case of Iudas But if the expectation of future misery be so dreadful what must the enduring of it be Of all the ways of dying we can hardly imagine any more painful or full of honour than that of sacrificing their Children to Moloch was among the Canaanites and Children of Ammon where the Children were put into the body of a brass Image and a fire made under it which by degrees with lamentable shricks and cryings roasted them to death yet this above all others in the New Testament is chosen as the fittest representation of the miseries of another world and thence the very name of Gehenna is taken But as the joys of heaven will far surpass all the pleasure which the mind of a good man hath in this life so will the torments of Hell as much exceed the greatest miseries of this world But in the most exquisite pains of the body there is that satisfaction still left that death will at last put an end to them but that is a farther discovery of the unspeakable folly of losing the soul for the sake of this world that 3. The happiness of this world can last but for a little time but the misery of the soul will have no end Suppose a man had all the world at his command and enjoyed as much satisfaction in it as it was possible for humane
managed it with greater zeal than judgement who have asserted more than they needed to have done and made our Adversaries assert much less than they do And by this means have shot over their Adversaries heads and laid their own more open to assaults It is easie to observe that most of Socinus his Arguments are levelled against an opinion which few who have considered these things do maintain and none need to think themselves obliged to do it which is That Christ paid a proper and rigid satisfaction for the sins of men considered under the notion of debts and that he paid the very same which we ought to have done which in the sense of the Law is never called Satisfaction but strict payment Against this Socinus disputes from the impossibility of Christs paying the very same that we were to have paid because our penalty was Eternal death and that as the consequent of inherent guilt which Christ neither did nor could undergo Neither is it enough to say That Christ had undergone Eternal death unless he had been able to free himself from it for the admission of one to pay for another who could discharge the debt in much less time than the offenders could was not the same which the Law required For that takes no notice of any other than the persons who had sinned and if a Mediator could have paid the same the Original Law must have been disjunctive viz. That either the Offender must suffer or another for him but then the Gospel had not been the bringing in of a better Covenant but a performance of the old But if there be a relaxation or dispensation of the first Law then it necessarily follows that what Christ paid was not the very same which the first Law required for what need of that when the very same was paid that was in the obligation But if it be said That the Dignity of the person makes up what wanted in the kind or degree of punishment This is a plain confession that it is not the same but something equivalent which answers the ends of the Sanction as much as the same would have done which is the thing we contend for Besides if the very same had been paid in the strict sense there would have followed a deliverance ipso facto for the release immediately follows the payment of the same and it had been injustice to have required any thing further in order to the discharge of the Offender when strict and full payment had been made of what was in the obligation But we see that Faith and Repentance and the consequences of those two are made conditions on our parts in order to the enjoying the benefit of what Christ hath procured So that the release is not immediate upon the payment but depends on a new contract made in consideration of what Christ hath done and suffered for us If it be said That by Christs payment we become his and he requires these conditions of us besides the contrariety of it to the Scriptures which make the conditions to be required by him to whom the payment was made we are to consider that these very persons assert that Christ paid all for us and in our name and stead so that the payment by Christ was by a substitution in our room and if he paid the same which the Law required the benefit must immediately accrue to those in whose name the debt was paid For what was done in the name of another is all one to the Creditor as if it had been done by the Debtor himself But above all things it is impossible to reconcile the freeness of remission with the full payment of the very same which was in the obligation Neither will it serve to say That though it was not free to Christ yet it was to us For the satisfaction and remission must respect the same person for Christ did not pay for himself but for us neither could the remission be to him Christ therefore is not considered in his own name but as acting in our stead so that what was free to him must be to us what was exactly paid by him it is all one as if it had been done by us so that it is impossible the same debt should be fully paid and freely forgiven Much less will it avoid the difficulty in this case to say That it was a refusable payment for it being supposed to be the very same it was not in justice refusable and however not in equity if it answer the intention of the Law as much as the suffering of the offenders had done and the more it doth that the less refusable it is And although God himself found out the way that doth not make the pardon free but the designation of the person who was to pay the debt Thus when our Adversaries dispute against this opinion no wonder if they do it successfully but this whole opinion is built upon a mistake that satisfaction must be the payment of the very same which while they contend for they give our Adversaries too great an advantage and make them think they triumph over the Faith of the Church when they do it only over the mistake of some particular persons But the foundation of this mistake lies in the consideration of punishment under the notion of debts and that satisfaction therefore must be by strict payment in rigor of Law but how great that mistake is will appear in the subsequent discourse but it cannot but be wondred at that the very same persons who consider sins as debts which must be strictly satisfied for do withal contend for the absolute necessity of this satisfaction whereas Socinus his Arguments would hold good if sins were only considered as debts and God as the meer Creditor of punishment he might as freely part with his own right without satisfaction as any Creditor may forgive what summ he pleases to a person indebted to him and no reason can be brought to the contrary from that notion of sins why he may not do it But if they be considered with a respect to Gods Government of the world and the honour of his Laws then some further account may be given why it may not be consistent with that to pass by the sins of men without satisfaction made to them And because the mistake in this matter hath been the foundation of most of the subsequent mistakes on both sides and the discovery of the cause of errours doth far more to the cure of them than any Arguments brought against them and withal the true understanding of the whole Doctrine of satisfaction depends upon it I shall endeavour to make clear the notion under which our sins are considered for upon that depends the nature of the satisfaction which is to be made for them For while our Adversaries suppose that sins are to be looked on under the notion of debts in this debate they assert it
controversie with all clearness and brevity And the substance of it will be reduced to these two debates 1. Whether the sufferings of Christ in general are to be considered as a punishment of sin or as a meer act of dominion 2. Whether the death of Christ in particular were a proper expiatory sacrifice for sin or only an antecedent condition to his exercise of the Office of Priesthood in Heaven 1. Whether the sufferings of Christ in general are to be considered as a punishment of sin or as a meer act of dominion for that it must be one or the other of these two cannot be denyed by our Adversaries for the inflicting those sufferings upon Christ must either proceed from an antecedent meritorious cause or not If they do they are then punishments if not they are meer exercises of power and dominion whatever ends they are intended for and whatever recompence be made for them So Crellius asserts that God as absolute Lord of all had a right of absolute dominion upon the life and body of Christ and therefore might justly deliver him up to death and give his body to the Cross and although Christ by the ordinary force of the Law of Moses had a right to escape so painful and accursed death yet God by the right of dominion had the power of disposal of him because he intended to compensate his torments with a reward infinitely greater than they were but because he saith for great ends the consent of Christ was necessary therefore God did not use his utmost dominion in delivering him up by force as he might have done but he dealt with him by way of command and rewards proposed for obedience and in this sence he did act as a righteous Governor and indulgent Father who encouraged his Son to undergo hard but great things In which we see that he makes the sufferings of Christ an act of meer dominion in God without any antecedent cause as the reason of them only he qualifies this act of dominion with the proposal of a reward for it But we must yet further enquire into their meaning for though here Crellius attributes the sufferings of Christ meerly to Gods dominion without any respect to sin yet elsewhere he will allow a respect that was had to sin antecedently to the sufferings of Christ and that the sins of men were the impulsive cause of them And although Socinus in one place utterly denies any lawful-antecedent cause of the death of Christ besides the will of God and Christ yet Crellius in his Vindication saith by lawful cause he meant meritorius or such upon supposition of which he ought to dye for elsewhere he makes Christ to dye for the cause or by the occasion of our sins which is the same that Crellius means by an impulsive or procatartick cause Which he thus explains we are now to suppose a decree of God not only to give salvation to Mankind but to give us a firm hope of it in this present state now our sins by deserving eternal punishment do hinder the effect of that decree upon us and therefore they were an impulsive cause of the death of Christ by which it was effected that this decree should obtain notwithstanding our sins But we are not to understand as though this were done by any expiation of the guilt of sin by the death of Christ but this effect is hindred by three things by taking away their sins by assuring men that their former sins and present infirmities upon their sincere obedience shall not be imputed to them and that the effect of that decree shall obtain all which saith he is effected morte Christi interveniente the death of Christ intervening but not as the procuring cause So that after all these words he means no more by making our sins an impulsive cause of the death of Christ but that the death of Christ was an argument to confirm to us the truth of his Doctrine which doctrine of his doth give us assurance of these things and that our sins when they are said to be the impulsive cause are not to be considered with a respect to their guilt but to that distrust of God which our sins do raise in us which distrust is in truth according to this sense of Crellius the impulsive cause and not the sins which were the cause or occasion of it For that was it which the doctrine was designed to remove and our sins only as the causes of that But if it be said that he speaks not only of the distrust but of the punishment of sin as an impediment which must be removed too and therefore may be called an impulsive cause we are to consider that the removal of this is not attributed to the death of Christ but to the leaving of our sins by the belief of his Doctrine therefore the punishment of our sins cannot unless in a very remote sense be said to be an impulsive cause of that which for all that we can observe by Crellius might as well have been done without it if any other way could be thought sufficient to confirm his Doctrine and Christ without dying might have had power to save all them that obey him But we understand not an impulsive cause in so remote a sense as though our sins were a meer occasion of Christs dying because the death of Christ was one argument among many others to believe his Doctrine the belief of which would make men leave their sins but we contend for a neerer and more proper sense viz. that the death of Christ was primarily intended for the expiation of our sins with a respect to God and not to us and therefore our sins as an impulsive cause are to be considered as they are so displeasing to God that it was necessary for the Vindication of Gods Honour and the deterring the world from sin that no less a Sacrifice of Attonement should be offered than the blood of the Son of God So that we understand an impulsive cause here in the sense that the sins of the people were under the Law the cause of the offering up those Sacrifices which were appointed for the expiation of them And as in those Sacrifices there were two things to be considered viz. the mactation and the oblation of them the former as a punishment by a substitution of them in place of the persons who had offended the latter as the proper Sacrifice of attonement although the mactation it self considered with the design of it was a Sacrificial act too So we consider the sufferings of Christ with a twofold respect either as to our sins as the impulsive cause of them so they are to be considered as a punishment or as to God with a design to expiate the guilt of them so they are a Sacrifice of Attonement The first consideration is that we are now upon and upon which the present debate
upon it Now these three I shall make appear to agree fully to the death of Christ for us 1. A Substitution in the place of the Offenders That we are to prove was designed in the Expiatory Sacrifices under the Law and that Christ in his death for us was substituted in our place 1. That in the Expiatory Sacrifices under the Law there was a Substitution of them in the place of the Offenders This our Adversaries are not willing to yield us because of the correspondency which is so plain in the Epistle to the Hebrews between those Sacrifices and that which was offered up by Christ. We now speak only of those Sacrifices which we are sure were appointed of old for the expiation of sin by God himself As to which the great rule assigned by the Apostle was That without shedding of blood there was no remission If we yield Crellius what he so often urgeth viz. That these words are to be understood of what was done under the Law They will not be the less serviceable to our purpose for thereby it will appear that the means of Expiation lay in the shedding of blood Which shews that the very mactation of the beast to be sacrificed was designed in order to the expiation of sin To an inquisitive person the reason of the slaying such multitudes of beasts in the Sacrifices appointed by God himself among the Iews would have appeared far less evident than now it doth since the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews hath given us so full an account of them For it had been very unreasonable to have thought that they had been meerly instituted out of compliance with the customs of other Nations since the whole design of their Religion was to separate them from them and on such a supposition the great design of the Epistle to the Hebrews signifies very little which doth far more explain to us the nature and tendency of all the Sacrifices in use among them that had any respect to the expiation of sins than all the customs of the Egyptians or the Commentaries of the latter Iews But I intend not now to discourse at large upon this subject of Sacrifices either as to the nature and institution of them in general or with a particular respect to the Sacrifice of Christ since a learned person of our Church hath already undertaken Crellius upon this Argument and we hope ere long will oblige the world with the benefit of his pains I shall therefore only insist on those things which are necessary for our purpose in order to the clearing the Substitution of Christ in our stead for the expiation of our sins by his death and this we say was represented in the Expiatory Sacrifices which were instituted among the Iews If we yield Crellius what he after Socinus contends for viz. That the Sacrifice of Christ was only represented in the publick and solemn Expiatory Sacrifices for the people and especially those on the day of Atonement We may have enough from them to vindicate all that we assert concerning the Expiatory Sacrifice of the blood of Christ. For that those were designed by way of Substitution in the place of the offenders will appear from the circumstances and reason of their Institution But before we come to that it will be necessary to shew what that Expiation was which the Sacrifices under the Law were designed for the not understanding of which gives a greater force to our Adversaries Arguments than otherwise they would have For while men assert that the expiation was wholly typical and of the same nature with that expiation which is really obtained by the death of Christ they easily prove That all the expiation then was only declarative and did no more depend on the sacrifices offered than on a condition required by God the neglect of which would be an act of disobedience in them and by this means it could represent say they no more than such an expiation to be by Christ viz. Gods declaring that sins are expiated by him on the performance of such a condition required in order thereto as laying down his life was But we assert another kind of expiation of sin by vertue of the Sacrifice being slain and offered which was real and depended upon the Sacrifice And this was twofold a Civil and a Ritual expiation according to the double capacity in which the people of the Iews may be considered either as members of a Society subsisting by a body of Laws which according to the strictest Sanction of it makes death the penalty of disobedience Deut. 27. 26. but by the will of the Legislator did admit of a relaxation in many cases allowed by himself in which he declares That the death of the beast designed for a Sacrifice should be accepted instead of the death of the offender and so the offence should be fully expiated as to the execution of the penal Law upon him And thus far I freely admit what Grotius asserts upon this subject and do yield that no other offence could be expiated in this manner but such which God himself did particularly declare should be so And therefore no sin which was to be punished by cutting off was to be expiated by Sacrifice as wilful Idolatry Murther c. Which it is impossible for those to give an account of who make the expiation wholly typical for why then should not the greatest sins much rather have had sacrifices of expiation appointed for them because the Consciences of men would be more solicitous for the pardon of greater than lesser sins and the blood of Christ represented by them was designed for the expiation of all From whence it is evident that it was not a meer typical expiation but it did relate to the civil constitution among them But besides this we are to consider the people with a respect to that mode of Divine Worship which was among them by reason of which the people were to be purified from the legal impurities which they contracted which hindred them from joyning with others in the publick Worship of God and many Sacrifices were appointed purposely for the expiating this legal guilt as particularly the ashes of the red heifer Numb 19. 9. which is there called a purification for sin And the Apostle puts the blood of Bulls and of Goats and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean together and the effect of both of them he saith was to sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh which implies that there was some proper and immediate effect of these sacrifices upon the people at that time though infinitely short of the effect of the blood of Christ upon the Consciences of men By which it is plain the Apostle doth not speak of the same kind of expiation in those sacrifices which was in the Sacrifice of Christ and that the one was barely typical of the other but of a
different kind of expiation as far as purifying the flesh is from purging the Conscience But we do not deny that the whole dispensation was typical and that the Law had a shadow of good things to come and not the very image of the things i. e. a dark and obscure representation and not the perfect resemblance of them There are two things which the Apostle asserts concerning the Sacrifices of the Law First that they had an effect upon the Bodies of men which he calls purifying the flesh the other is that they had no power to expiate for the sins of the soul considered with a respect to the punishment of another life which he calls purging the Conscience from dead works and therefore he saith that all the gifts and sacrifices under the Law could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the Conscience and that it was impossible that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away sin So that the proper expiation which was made by them was civil and ritual relating either to corporal punishment or to legal uncleanness from whence the Apostle well proves the necessity of a higher Sacrifice to make expiation for sins as pertaining to the Conscience But that expiation among the Iews did relate to that Polity which was established among them as they were a people under the Government of a body of Laws distinct from the rest of the world And they being considered as such it is vain to enquire whether they had only temporal or eternal promises for it was impossible they should have any other than temporal unless we imagine that God would own them for a distinct people in another World as he did in this For what Promises relate to a People as such must consider them as a People and in that capacity they must be the blessings of a Society viz. peace plenty number of People length of days c. But we are far from denying that the general Principles of Religion did remain among them viz. that there is a God and a rewarder of them that seek him and all the Promises God made to the Patriarchs did continue in force as to another Country and were continually improved by the Prophetical instructions among them But we are now speaking of what did respect the people in general by vertue of that Law which was given them by Moses and in that respect the punishment of saults being either death or exclusion from the publick Worship the expiation of them was taking away the obligation to either of these which was the guilt of them in that consideration But doth not this take away the typical nature of these sacrifices No but it much rather establisheth it For as Socinus argues If the expiation was only typical there must be something in the type correspondent to that which is typified by it As the Brazen Serpent typified Christ and the benefit which was to come by him because as many as looked up to it were healed And Noahs Ark is said to be a type of Baptism because as many as entred into that were saved from the deluge So Corinth 10. the Apostle saith that those things happened to them in types v. 11. because the events which happened to them did represent those which would fall upon disobedient Christians So that to make good the true notion of a Type we must assert an expiation that was real then and agreeable to that dispensation which doth represent an expiation of a far higher nature which was to be by the Sacrifice of the Blood of Christ. Which being premised I now come to pâ—ove that there was a substitution designed of the Beast to be slain and sacrificed in stead of the offenders themselves Which will appear from Levitious 17. 11. For the life of the flesh is in the blood and I have given it you upon the Altar to make an Atonement for your Souls for it is the blood that maketh an Atonement for the Soul The utmost that Crellius would have meant by this place is that there is a double reason assigned of the prohibition of eating blood viz. that the life was in the blood and that the blood was designed for expiation but he makes these wholly independent upon each other But we say that the proper reason assigned against the eating of the blood is that which is elsewhere given when this Precept is mentioned viz. that the blood was the life as we may see Gen. 9. 4 Levit. 17. 14. but to confirm the reason given that the blood was the life he adds that God had given them that upon the Altar for an Atonement for their Souls So the Arabick Version renders it and therefore have I given it you upon the Altar viz. because the blood is the life And hereby a sufficient reason is given why God did make choice of the blood for atonement for that is expressed in the latter clause for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the Soul why should this be mentioned here if no more were intended but to give barely another reason why they should not eat the blood what force is there more in this clause to that end than in the soregoing for therein God had said that he had given it them for an Atonement If no more had been intended but the bare prohibition of common use of the blood on the account of its being consecrated to sacred use it had been enough to have said that the blood was holy unto the Lord as it is in the other instances mentioned by Crellius of the holy Oyntment and Perfume for no other reason is there given why it should not be profaned to common use but that it should be holy for the Lord if therefore the blood had been forbidden upon that account there had been no necessity at all of adding that the blood was it that made atonement for the Soul which gives no peculiar reason why they should not eat the blood beyond that of bare consecration of it to a sacred use but if we consider it as respecting the first clause viz. For the life of the flesh is in the blood then there is a particular reason why the blood should be for atonement viz. because the life was in that and therefore when the blood was offered the life of the Beast was supposed to be given instead of the life of the offender According to that of Ovid Hanc animam vobis pro meliore damus This will be yet made clearer by another instance produced by Crellius to explain this which is the forbidding the eating of fat which saith he is joyned with this of blood Levit. 3. 17. It shall be a perpetual Sâ—atute for your Generations throughout all your dwellings that ye eat neither fat nor blood To the same purpose Levit. 7. 23 25 26. Now no other reason is given of the prohibition of the
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 proper surrogation But in the matter of Redemption or where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used Crellius will by no means yield that there was a commutation of persons between Christ and us but all the commutation he will allow here is only a commutation between a thing or a price and a person Which he therefore asserts that so there may be no necessity of Christs undergoing the punishment of sin in order to redemption because the price that is to be paid is not supposed to undergo the condition of the person delivered by it Which will evidently appear to have no force at all in case we can prove that a proper redemption may be obtained by the punishment of one in the room of another for that punishment then comes to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or price of redemption and he that pays this must be supposed to undergo punishment for it So that the commutation being between the punishment of one and the other redeemed by it here is a proper commutation of persons implied in the payment of the price But hereby we may see that the great subtilty of our Adversaries is designed on purpose to avoid the force of the places of Scripture which are so plain against them For when these places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are joyned together are so clear for a substitution that they cannot deny it then they say by it is meant only a commutation of a price for a person but when the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is urged to prove a redemption purchased by Christ by the payment of a price for it then they deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie a proper price but is only taken metaphorically and yet if it be so taken then there can be no force in what Crellius saith for a bare metaphorical price may be a real punishment Two things I shall then prove against Crellius 1. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as applied to Christ is to be taken in a proper sense 2. That although it be taken in a proper sense yet it doth not imply a bare commutation of a price and a person but a substitution of one person in the room of another Both these will be cleared from the right stating the notion of redemption between our Adversaries and us For they will not by any means have any other proper notion of redemption but from captivity and that by the payment of a price to him that did hold in captivity and therefore because Christ did not pay the price to the Devil there could be no proper sense either of the redemption or the price which was paid for it This is the main strength of all the arguments used by Socinus and Crellius to enervate the force of those places of Scripture which speak of our redemption by Christ and of the price which he paid in order to it But how weak these exceptions are will appear upon a true examination of the proper notion of Redemption which in its primary importance signifies no more than the obtaining of one thing by another as a valuable consideration for it Thence redimere anciently among the Latins signified barely to purchase by a valuable price for the thing which they had a right to by it and sometimes to purchase that which a man hath sold before thence the pacâ—um redimendi in contracts still in whatever sense it was used by the Lawyers or others the main regard was to the consideration upon which the thing was obtained thence redimere delatorem pecunia h. e. eum à delatione deducere so redimere litem and redemptor litis was one that upon certain consideration took the whole charge of a suit upon himself and those who undertook the farming of customs at certain rates were called redemptores vectigalium quiredempturis auxissent vectigalia saith Livy And all those who undertook any publick work at a certain price redemptores antiquitus dicebantur saith Festus and Ulpian From hence it was applied to the delivery of any person from any inconvenience that he lay under by something which was supposed a valuable consideration for it And that it doth not only relate to captivity but to any other great calamity the freedom from which is obtained by what another suffers is apparent from these two remarkable expressions of Cicero to this purpose Quam quidem ego saith he speaking of the sharpness of the time a rep meis privatis domesticis incommodis libentissimè redemissem And more expresly elsewhere Ego vitam omnium civium statum orbis terrae urbem hanc denique c. quinque hominum amentium ac perditorum poena redemi Where it is plain that redemption is used for the delivery of some by the punishment of others not from meer captivity but from a great calamity which they might have fallen into without such a punishment of those persons So vain is that assertion of Socinus redimere nihil aliud propriè significat quam eum captivum e manibus illius qui eum detinet pretio illi dato liberare And yet supposing we should grant that redemption as used in sacred Authors doth properly relate to captivity there is no necessity at all of that which our Adversaries contend so earnestly for viz. That the price must be paid to him that detains captive For we may very easily conceive a double sort of captivity from whence a redemption may be obtained the one by force when a Captive is detained purposely for advantage to be made by his redemption and the other in a judicial manner when the Law condemns a person to captivity and the thing designed by the Law is not a meer price but satisfaction to be made to the Law upon which a redemption may be obtained now in the former case it is necessary that the price be paid to the
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 lyes 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 of Christ. So that the question is Whether the death of Christ were the means of Atonement and Reconciliation between God and us and yet Crellius would seem willing to yield too that the death of Christ may be said to avert the wrath of God from us as it was a condition in order to it for in that sense it had no more influence upon it than his birth had but we have already seen that the Scripture attributes much more to the death and blood of Christ in order to the expiation of sin We do not deny that the death of Christ may be called a condition as the performance of any thing in order to an end may be called the condition upon which that thing is to be obtained but we say that it is not a bare condition but such a one as implies a consideration upon which the thing is obtained being such as answers the end of him that grants it by which means it doth propitiate or atone him who had before just reason to punish but is now willing to forgive and be reconciled to them who have so highly offended him And in this sense we assert that Christ is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a propitiation for our sins 1 John 2. 2. 4. 10. which we take in the same sense that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for the Sin-offering for Atonement Ezek. 44. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they shall offer a sin-offering for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies and in the same sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken Ezek. 45. 19 and the Ram for Atonement t s call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Numb 5. 8. And thence the High-Priest when he made an Atonement is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Maccab 3. 33. which is of the greater consequence to us because Crellius would not have the sense either of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be taken from the common use of the word in the Greek Tongue but from that which some call the Hellenistical use of it viz. That which is used in the Greek of the New Testament out of the LXX and the Apocryphal Greek in both which we have found the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a sense fully correspondent to what we plead for But he yet urges and takes a great deal of pains to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not alwayes signifie to be appeased by another but sometimes signifies to be propitious and merciful in pardoning and sometimes to expiate and then signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which if it be granted proves nothing against us having already proved that those words do signifie the aversion of the wrath of God by a Sacrifice and that there is no reason to recede from that signification when they are applyed to the blood of Christ. And we do not contend that when the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applyed to him that doth forgive it doth imply appeasing but the effect of it which is pardoning but that which we assert is that when it is applyed to a third person or a thing made use of in order to forgiveness then we say it signifies the propitiating him that was justly displeased so as by what was done or suffered for that end he is willing to pardon what he had just reason to punish So Moses is said to make Atonement for the people by his prayers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exod. 34. 14. and we may see Verse 11. how much God was displeased before And Moses besought the Lord his God and said Why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people and Verse 12. Turn from thy fierce wrath and repent of this evil against thy people and then it is said Verse 14. The Lord was atoned for the evil which he thought to do unto his people I would therefore willingly know why Moses might not here properly be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore since it is so very often said in the Levitical Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the accusative case scarce ever put but in two cases viz. When these words are applyed to inanimate things as the Altar c. or when to God himself implying forgiveness what reason can we assign more probable for this different construction than that when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used the verb hath a respect to the offended party as the accusative understood as Christ is said in the places mentioned to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which ought in reason to be understood as those words after Moses his intercession 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Crellius asks Why then do we never read once concerning the Priest that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but we read that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and
that and cryed haec vera est patientia there is the true pattern of Patience For notwithstanding that Agony he was in immediately before his being betray'd when he sees the Officers coming towards him he asks them whom they seek for and tells them I am he which words so astonished them that they went back and fell upon the ground thereby letting them understand how easie a matter it was for him to have escaped their hands and that it was his own free consent that he went to suffer for he knew certainly before hand the utmost that he was to undergo and therefore it was no unreasonable impetus but a settled resolution of his mind to endure all the contradictions of sinners When he was spit upon mocked reproached and scourged none of all these could draw one impatient expression from him The malice and rage of his enemies did not at all provoke him unless it were to pity and pray for them And that he did with great earnestness in the midst of all his pains and though he would not plead for himself to them yet he pleads for them to God Father forgive them for they know not what they do How much more divine was this than the admired Theramenes among the Greeks who being condemned to dye by the thirty Tyrants when he was drinking off his cup of Poyson said he drank that to Critias one of his most bitter enemies and hoped he would pledge it shortly Socrates seemed not to express seriousness enough at least when he bid one of his friends when he was dying offer up a Cock to Aesculapius for his deliverance Aristides and Phocion among the Greeks came the nearest to our Saviours temper when one pray'd that his Country might have no cause to remember him when he was gone and the other charged his Son to forget the injuries they had done him but yet by how much the greater the person and office was of our Blessed Saviour than of either of them by how much the cruelty and ignominy as well as pain was greater which they exposed him to by how much greater concernment there is to have such an offence pardon'd by one that can punish it with eternal misery than not revenged by those who though they may have will have not always power to execute so much greater was the kindness of our Saviour to his enemies in his Prayer upon the Cross than of either of the other in their concernment for that ungrateful City that had so ill requited their services to it Thus when the Son of God was oppressed and afflicted he opened not his mouth but only in Prayer for them who were his bitter enemies and though nothing had been more easie than for him to have cleared himself from all their accusations who had so often baffled them before yet he would not now give them that suspicion of his innocency as to make any Apology for himself but committed himself to God that judges righteously and was brought as a Lamb to the slaughter and as a sheep before her shearers was dumb so he opened not his mouth And the reason thereof was he knew what further design for the good of mankind was carrying on by the bitterness of his passion and that all the cruel usage he underwent was that he might be a sacrifice of atonement so the sins of the World Which leads to the last thing propounded to our consideration 4. Which is the causes why God was pleased to suffer his Son to endure such contradiction of sinners against himself I know it is an easie answer to say that God had determin'd it should be so and that we ought to enquire no further but sure such an answer can satisfie none who consider how much our salvation depends upon the knowledge of it and how clear and express the Scripture is in assigning the causes of the sufferings of Christ. Which though as far as the instruments were concerned in it we have given an account of already yet considering the particular management of this grand affair by the care of divine Providence a higher account must be given of it why so divine and excellent a person should be exposed to all the contempt and reproach imaginable and after being made a sacrifice to the tongues and rods of the people then to dye a painful and ignominious death So that allowing but that common care of divine Providence which all sober Heathens acknowledged so transcendent sufferings as these were of so holy and innocent a person ought to be accounted for in a more than ordinary manner when they thought themselves concerned to vindicate the Justice of Gods providence in the common calamities of those who are reputed to be better than the generality of Mankind But the reasons assigned in that common case will not hold here since this was a person immediately sent from God upon a particular message to the World and therefore might plead an exemption by vertue of his Ambassage from the common Arrests and troubles of humane nature But it was so far otherwise as though God had designed him on purpose to let us see how much misery humane nature can undergo Some think themselves to go as far as their reason will permit them when they tell us that he suffer'd all these things to confirm the truth of what he had said and particularly the Promise of Remission of sins and that he might be an example to others who should go to Heaven by suffering afterwards and that he might being touched with the feeling of our infirmities here have the greater pity upon us now he is in Heaven All these I grant to have been true and weighty reasons of the sufferings of Christ in subordination to greater ends but if there had been nothing beyond all this I can neither understand why he should suffer so deeply as he did nor why the Scripture should insist upon a far greater reason more than upon any of these I grant the death of Christ did confirm the truth of his Doctrine as far as it is unreasonble to believe that any one who knew his Doctrine to be false would make himself miserable to make others believe it but if this had been all intended why would not an easier and less ignominious death have served since he who would be willing to die to confirm a falshood would not be thought to confirm a truth by his death because it was painful and shameful Why if all his sufferings were designed as a testimony to others of the truth of what he spake were the greatest of his sufferings such as none could know the anguish of them but himself I mean his Agony in the Garden and that which made him cry out upon the Cross My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Why were not his Miracles enough to confirm the truth of his Doctrine since the Law of Moses was received without his
death by the evidence his Miracles gave that he was sent from God since the Doctrine of remission of sins had been already deliver'd by the Prophets and received by the People of the Iews since those who would not believe for his Miracles sake neither would they believe though they should have seen him rise from the Grave and therefore not surely because they saw him put into it But of all things the manner of our Saviours sufferings seems least designed to bring the World to the belief of his Doctrine which was the main obstacle to the entertainment of it among the men of greatest reputation for wisdom and knowledge For it was Christ crucified which was to the Iews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness Had the Apostles only preached that the Son of God had appeared from Heaven and discovered the only way to bring men thither that he assumed our Nature for a time to render himself capable of conversing with us and therein had wrought many strange and stupendious miracles but after he had sufficiently acquainted the World with the nature of his doctrine he was again assumed up into Heaven in all probability the doctrine might have been so easily received by the world as might have saved the lives of many thousand persons who dyed as Martyrs for it And if it had been necessary that some must have dyed to confirm it why must the Son of God himself do it when he had so many Disciples who willingly sacrificed their lives for him and whose death would on that account have been as great a confirmation of the truth of it as his own But if it be alledged further that God now entring into a Covenant with man for the pardon of sin the shedding of the blood of Christ was necessary as a federal rite to confirm it I answer if only as a federal rite why no cheaper blood would serve to confirm it but that of the Son of God We never read that any Covenant was confirmed by the death of one of the contracting parties and we cannot think that God was so prodigal of 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 devided 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 careful to preâ—erve 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 answered 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 as 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