sins the meritorious cause of anothers punishment especially one wholly innocent and so that the guilty shall be freeâ—â— on the account of his sufferings Thus I have endeavoured to give the true state of the controversie with all clearness and brevity And the substance of it will be reduced to these two debates 1. Whether the sufferings of Christ in general are to be considered as a punishment of sin or as a meer act of dominion 2. Whether the death of Christ in particular were a proper expiatory sacrifice for sin or only an antecedent condition to his exercise of the Office of Priesthood in Heaven 1. Whether the sufferings of Christ in general are to be consider'd as a punishment of sin or as a meer act of dominion for that it must be one or the other of these two cannot be denyed by our Adversaries for the inflicting those sufferings upon Christ must either proceed from an antecedent meritorious cause or not If they doe they are then punishments if not they are meer exercises of power and dominion whatever ends they are intended for and whatever recomâ—…ce be made for them So Crellius asserts that God as absolute Lord of all had a right of absolute dominion upon the life and body of Christ and therefore might justly deliver him up to death and give his body to the Crosse and although Christ by the ordinary force of the Law of Moses had a right to escape so painfull and accursed death yet God by the right of dominion had the power of disposal of him because he intended to compensate his torments with a reward infinitely greater than they were but because he saith for great ends the consent of Christ was necessary therefore God did not use his utmost dominion in delivering him up by force as he might have done but he dealt with him by way of command and rewards proposed for obedience and in this sense he did act as a righteous Governour and indulgent Father who encouraged his Son to undergoe hard but great things In which we see that he makes the sufferings of Christ an act of meer dominion in God without any antecedent cause as the reason of them only he qualifies this act of dominion with the proposal of a reward for it But we must yet fuâ—ther enquire into their meaning for though here Crellius attributes the sufferings of Christ meerly to Gods dominion without any respect to sin yet elsewhere he will allow a respect that was had to 〈◊〉 antecedently to the sufferings of Christ and that the sins of men were the impulsive cause of them And although Socinus in one place utterly denyes any lawfull antecedent cause of the death of Christ besides the will of God and Christ yet Crellius in his Vindication saith by lawfull cause he meant meritorious or such upon supposition of which he ought to dye for elsewhere he makes Christ to dye for the cause or by the occasion of our sins which is the same that Crellius means by an impulsive or procatartick cause Which he thus explains We are now to suppose a decree of God not only to give salvation to Mankinde but to give us a firm hope of it in this present state now our sins by deserving eternal punishment do hinder the effect of that decree upon us and therefore they were an impulsive cause of the death of Christ by which it was effected that this decree should obtain notwithstanding our sins But we are not to understand as though this were done by any expiation of the guilt of sin by the death of Christ but this effect is hindred by three things by taking away their sins by assuring men that their former sins and present infirmities upon their sincere obedience shall not be imputed to them and that the effect of that decree shall obtain all which saith he is effected morte Christi interveniente the death of Christ interventing but not as the procuring cause So that after all these words he means no more by making our sins an impulsive cause of the death of Christ but that the death of Christ was an argument to confirm to us the truth of his Doctrine which doctrine of his doth give us assurance of these things and that our sins when they are said to be the impulsive cause are not to be considered with a respect to their guilt but to that distrust of God which our sins do raise in us which distrust is in truth according to this sense of Crellius the impulsive cause and not the sins which were the cause or occasion of it For that was it which the doctrine was designed to remove and our sins only as the causes of that But if it be said that he speaks not only of the distrust but of the punishment of sin as an impediment which must be removed too and therefore may be call'd an impulsive cause we are to consider that the removal of this is not attributed to the death of Christ but to the leaving of our sins by the belief of his Doctrine therefore the punishment of our sins cannot unless in a very remote sense be said to be an impulsive cause of that which for all that we can observe by Crellius might as well have been done without it if any other way could be thought sufficient to confirm his doctrine and Christ without dying might have had power to save all them that obey him But we understand not an impulsive cause in so remote a sense as though our sins were a meer occasion of Christs dying because the death of Christ was one argument among many others to believe his Doctrine the belief of which would make men leave their sins but we contend for a neerer and more proper sense viz. that the death of Christ was primarily intended for the expiation of our sins with a respect to God and not to us and therefore our sins as an impulsive cause are to be considered as they are so displeasing to God that it was necessary for the Vindication of Gods Honour and the deterring the world from sin that no less a Sacrifice of Attonement should be offered than the blood of the Son of God So that we understand an impulsive cause here in the same sense that the sins of the people were under the Law the cause of the offering up those Sacrifices which were appointed for the expiation of them And as in those Sacrifices there were two things to be considered viz. the mactation and the oblation of them the former as a punishment by a substitution of them in place of the persons who had offended the latter as the proper Sacrifice of attonement although the mactation it self considered with the design of it was a Sacrificial act too So we consider the sufferings of Christ with a twofold respect either as to our sins as the impulsive cause of them so they are to be considered as a punishment or as to God
but supposing that he had a divine as well as humane nature there may not be so great a proportion of the sins of the world to the sufferings of Christ as of the sins of a particular person to his own sufferings and therefore the argument from one to the other doth still hold For the measure of punishments must be taken with a proportion to the dignity of the person who suffers them And Crellius himself confesseth elsewhere that the dignity of the person is to be considered in exemplary punishment and that a lesser punishment of one that is very great may do much more to deterre men from sin than a greater punishment of one much less But he yet further urgeth that the severity of God against sinners may be discovered in the sufferings of Christ because Gods hatred against sin is discovered therein But if we ask how Gods hatred against sin is seen in the sufferings of one perfectly innocent and free from sin and not rather his hatred of innocency if no respect to sin were had therein he answers that Gods hatred against sin was manifested in that he would not spare his only Son to draw men off from sin For answer to which we are to consider the sufferings of Christ as an innocent person designed as an exemplary cause to draw men off from sin and let any one tell me what hatred of sin can possibly be discover'd in proposing the sufferings of a most innocent person to them without any consideration of sin as the cause of those sufferings If it be said that the doctrine of Christ was designed to draw men off from sin and that God suffered his Son to dye to confirm this doctrine and thereby shewed his hatred to sin I answer 1. This is carrying the dispute off from the present business for we are not now arguing about the design of Christs doctrine nor the death of Christ as a means to confirm that but as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what power that hath without respect to our sins as the cause of them to draw us from sin by discovering Gods hatred to it 2. The doctrine of Christ according to their hypothesis discovers much less of Gods hatred to sin than ours doth For if God may pardon sin without any compensation made to his Laws or Honour if repentance be in its own nature a sufficient satisfaction for all the sins past of our Lives if there be no such thing as such a Justice in God which requires punishment of sin committed if the punishment of sin depend barely upon Gods will and the most innocent person may suffer as much from God without respect to sin as the cause of suffering as the most guilty let any rational man judge whether this Doctrine discovers as much Gods abhorrency of sin as asserting the necessity of vindicating Gods honour to the World by the breach of his Laws if not by the suffering of the offenders themselves yet of the Son of God as a Sacrifice for the expiation of sin by undergoing the punishment of our iniquities so as upon consideration of his sufferings he is pleased to accept of repentance and sincere obedience as the conditions upon which he will grant remission of sins and eternal life So that if the discovery of Gods hatred to sin be the means to reclaim men from it we assert upon the former reasons that much more is done upon our Doctrine concerning the sufferings of Christ than can be upon theirs So much shall suffice to manifest in what sense Christs death may be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that this doth imply that his sufferings are to be considered as a punishment of sin The next Series of places which makes Christs sufferings to be a punishment for sin are those which assert Christ to be made sin and a curse for us which we now design to make clear ought to be understood in no other sense for as Grotius saith As the Jews sometimes use sin for the punishment of sin as appears besides other places by Zach. 14. 19. Gen. 4. 13. so they call him that suffers the punishment of sin by the name of sin as the Latins use the word Piaculum both for the fault and for him that suffers for it Thence under the Law an expiatory Sacrifice for sin was called sin Levit. 4. 3 29 5. 6. Psal. 40. 7. Which way of speaking Esaias followed speaking of Christ Esai 53. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he made his soul sin i. e. liable to the punishment of it To the same purpose S. Paul 2 Cor. 5. 21. He made him to be sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him To which Crellius replies That as there is no necessity that by the name of sin when applied to sufferings any more should be implied than that those sufferings were occasioned by sin no more is there when it is applied to the person nay much less for he saith No more is required to this but that he should be handled as sinners use to be and undergo the matter of punishment without any respect to sin either as the cause or occasion of it So he saith The name Sinner is used 1 King 1. 21. and in S. Paul the name of sin in the first clause is to be understood as of righteousness in the latter and as we are said to be righteousness in him when God deals with us as with righteous persons so Christ was said to be sin for us when he was dealt with as a sinner And the Sacrifices for sin under the Law were so call'd not with a respect to the punishment of sin but because they were offered upon the account of sin and were used for taking away the guilt of it or because men were bound to offer them so that they sinned if they neglected it So that all that is meant by Esaias and S. Paul is That Christ was made an expiatory Sacrifice or that he exposed himself for those afflictions which sinners onely by right undergo But let Crellius or any others of them tell me if the Scripture had intended to express that the sufferings of Christ were a punishment of our sins how was it possible to do it more Emphatically than it is done by these expressions the custom of the Hebrew Language being considered not onely by saying that Christ did bear our sins but that himself was made sin for us those phrases being so commonly used for the punishment of sin Let them produce any one instance in Scripture where those expressions are applied to any without the consideration of sin that place 1 King 1. 21. is very far from it for in all probability the design of Bathsheba in making Solomon King was already discovered which was the reason that Adonijah his elder Brother declaring himself King invited not him with the rest of the Kings sons All that she had for
have been the impulsive cause of the death of Christ. The sufferings of Christ proved to be a punishment from Scripture The importance of the phrase of bearing sins Of the Scape-Goats bearing the sins of the people into the Wilderness Grotius his sense of 1 Pet. 2. 24. vindicated against Crellius and himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never used for the taking away a thing by the destruction of it Crellius his sense examined Isa. 53. 11. vindicated The Argument from Mat. 8. 17. answered Grotius constant to himself in his notes on that place Isa. 53. 5 6 7. cleared Whether Christs death be a proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and whether that doth imply that it was a punishment of sin How far the punishments of Children for their Fathers faults are exemplary among men The distinction of calamities and punishments holds not here That Gods hatred of sin could not be seen in the sufferings of Christ unless they were a punishment of sin proved against Crellius Grotius his Arguments from Christ being made sin and a curse for us defended The liberty our Adversaries take in changing the sense of words The particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being joyned to sins and relating to sufferings do imply those sufferings to be a punishment for sin According to their way of interpreting Scripture it had been impossible for our Doctrine to be clearly expressed therein p. 314 CHAP. III. The words of Scripture being at last acknowledged by our Adversaries to make for us the only pretence remaining is that our Doctrine is repugnant to reason The debate managed upon point of reason The grand difficulty enquired into and manifested by our Adversaries concessions not to lye in the greatness of Christs sufferings or that our sins were the impulsive cause of them or that it is impossible that one should be punished for anothers faults or in all cases unjust the cases wherein Crellius allows it instanced From whence it is proved that he yields the main cause The Arguments propounded whereby he attempts to prove it unjust for Christ to be punished for our sins Crellius his principles of the justice of punishments examined Of the relation between desert and punishment That a person by his own consent may be punished beyond the desert of his own actions An answer to Crellius his Objections What it is to suffer undeservedly Crellius his mistake in the state of the question The instances of Scripture considered In what sense Children are punished for their Parents sins Ezek. 18. 20. explained at large Whether the guilty being freed by the sufferings of an innocent person makes that punishment unjust or no Crellins his shifts and evasions in this matter discovered Why among men the offenders are not freed in criminal matters though the sureties be punished The release of the party depends on the terms of the Sureties suffering therefore deliverance not ipso facto No necessity of such a translation in criminal as is in pecuniary matters p. 378 CHAP. IV. The 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 Jews 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Levitic 10. 17. explained The expiation of uncertain murther proves a substitution A substitution of Christ in our room proved from Christs 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 p. 419 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 oâ— Atonement from whence it is proved thaâ— Christs Priesthood did not begin from his entrance into Heaven The mactation in Expiatory Sacrifices no bare preparation to a sacrifice proved by the Jewish 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 p. 450 CHAP. VI. That the effects of proper Expiatory Sacrifices â—elong to the death of Christ which either â—espect the sin or the person Of the true â—otion of expiation of sin as attributed to Sacrifices Of the importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as applied to them Socinus his proper sense of it examined Crellius his Objections answered The Jews notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Sacrifices not bare conditions of pardon nor expiated meerly as a slight part of obedience Gods expiating sin destroys not expiation by Sacrifice The importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relating to Sacrifices Expiation attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ in the same sense that it was to other Sacrifices and from thence and the places of Scripture which mention it proved not to be meerly declarative If it had been so it
that we might have time to amend them but no sooner did our fears abate but our devotion did so too we had soon forgotten the promises we made in the day of our distress and I am afraid it is at this day too true of us which is said in the Revelations of those who had escaped the several plagues which so many had been destroyed by And the rest of the men which were not killed by these Plagues yet repented not of the work of their hands For if we had not greedily suckt in again the poyson we had only laid down while we were begging for our lives if we had not returned with as great fury and violence as ever to our former lusts the removing of one judgement had not been as it were only to make way for the coming on of another For the grave seemed to close up her mouth and death by degrees to withdraw himself that the Fire might come upon the Stage to act its part too in the Tragoedy our sins have made among us and I pray God this may be the last Act of it Let us not then provoke God to finde out new methods of vengeance and make experiments upon us of what other unheard of severities may do for our cure But let us rather meet God now by our repentance and returning to him by our serious humiliation for our former sins and our stedfast resolutions to return no more to the practice of them That that much more dangerous infection of our souls may be cured as well as that of our bodies that the impure flames which burn within may be extinguished that all our luxuries may be retrenched our debaucheries punished our vanities taken away our careless indifferency in Religion turned into a greater seriousness both in the profession and the practice of it So will God make us a happy and prosperous when he finds us a more righteous and holy Nation So will God succeed all your endeavours for the honour and interest of that people whom you represent So may he add that other Title to the rest of those you have deserved for your Countreys good to make you Repairers of the breaches of the City as well as of the Nation and Restorers of paths to dwell in So may that City which now sits solitary like a Widow have her tears wiped off and her beauty and comeliness restored unto her Yea so may her present ruines in which she now lyes buried be only the fore-runners of a more joyfull resurrection In which though the body may remain the same the qualities may be so altered that its present desolation may be only the putting off its former inconveniencies weakness and deformities that it may rise with greater glory strength and proportion and to all her other qualities may that of incorruption be added too at least till the general Conflagration And I know your great Wisdom and Justice will take care that those who have suffered by the ruines may not likewise suffer by the rising of it that the glory of the City may not be laid upon the tears of the Orphans and Widows but that its foundations may be setled upon Justice and Piety That there be no complaining in the Streets for want of Righteousness nor in the City for want of Churches nor in the Churches for want of a settled maintenance That those who attend upon the service of God in them may never be tempted to betray their Consciences to gain a livelihood nor to comply with the factious humours of men that they may be able to live among them And thus when the City through the blessing of Heaven shall be built again may it be a Habitation of Holiness towards God of Loyalty towards our Gracious King and his Successors of Justice and Righteousness towards Men of Sobriety and Peace and Unity among all the Inhabitants till not Cities and Countries only but the World and Time it self shall be no more Which God of his infinite mercy grant through the merits and mediation of his Son to whom with the Father and Eternal Spirit be all Honour and Glory for evermore FINIS A SERMON Preached before the KING MARCH 13. 1666 7. By Edward Stillingfleet B. D. Chaplain in Ordinary to his Majesty Printed by His Majesties special Command The Fourth Edition LONDON Printed by R. White for Henry Mortlock and are to be sold at his Shop at the Sign of the White Hart in Westminster Hall 1669. Proverbs 14. 9. Fools make a mock at Sin WHEN God by his infinite Wisdom had contrived and by a power and goodness as infinite as his Wisdom had perfected the creation of the visible world there seemed to be nothing wanting to the glory of it but a creature endued with reason and understanding which might comprehend the design of his wisdom enjoy the benefits of his goodness and employ it self in the celebration of his power The Beings purely intellectuall were too highly raised by their own order and creation to be the Lords of this inferiour world and those whose natures could reach no higher than the objects of sense were not capable of discovering the glorious perfections of the great Creator and therefore could not be the fit Instruments of his praise and service But a conjunction of both these together was thought necessary to make up such a sort of beings which might at once command this lower world and be the servants of him who made it Not as though this great fabrick of the world were meerly raised for man to please his fancy in the contemplation of it or to exercise his dominion over the creatures designed for his use and service but that by frequent reflections on the author of his being and the effects of his power and goodness he might be brought to the greatest love and admiration of him So that the most natural part of Religion lyes in the grateful acknowledgments we owe to that excellent and supream Being who hath shewed so particular a kindness to man in the creation and Government of the world Which was so great and unexpressible that some have thought it was not so much pride and affectation of a greater height as envy at the felicity and power of mankind which was the occasion of the fall of the Apostate Spirits But whether or no the state of man were occasion enough for the envy of the Spirits above we are sure the kindness of Heaven was so great in it as could not but lay an indispensable obligation on all mankind to perpetual gratitude and obedience For it is as easie to suppose that affronts and injuries are the most suitable returns for the most obliging favours that the first duty of a Child should be to destroy his Parents that to be thankful for kindnesses received were to commit the unpardonable sin as that man should receive his being and all the blessings which attend it from God and not be bound to the most universal obedience to
usefull for governing the people which Numa and the great men at Rome are lyable to the suspicion of Here is no wrapping up Religion in strange figures and mysterious non-sense which the AEgyptians were so much given to Here is no inhumanity and cruelty in the sacrifices offer'd no looseness and profaneness allowed in the most solemn mysteries no worshipping of such for Gods who had not been fit to live if they had been men which were all things so commonly practised in the Idolatries of the Heathens But the nature of the Worship is such as the mindes of those who come to it ought to be and as becomes that God whom we profess to serve pure and holy grave and serious solemn and devout without the mixtures of superstition vanity or ostentation The precepts of our Religion are plain and easie to be known very suitable to the nature of Mankinde and highly tending to the advantage of those who practise them both in this and a better life The arguments to perswade men are the most weighty and powerfull and of as great importance as the love of God the death of his Son the hopes of happiness and the fears of eternal misery can be to men And wherein is the contrivance of our Religion defective when the end is so desireable the means so effectual for the obtaining of it 2. Which is the next thing to be considered There are two things which in this degenerate estate of man are necessary in order to the recovery of his happiness and those are Repentance for sins past and sincere Obedience for the future now both these the Gospel gives men the greatest encouragements to and therefore is the most likely to effect the design it was intended for 1. For Repentance for sins past What more powerfull motives can there be to perswade men to repent than for God to let men know that he is willing to pardon their sins upon the sincerity of their Repentance but without that there remains nothing but a fearfull expectation of judgement and fiery indignation that their sins are their follies and therefore to repent is to grow wise that he requires no more from men but what every considerative man knows is fitting to be done whenever he reflects upon his actions that there can be no greater ingratitude or disingenuity towards the Son of God than to stand at defiance with God when he hath shed his blood to reconcile God and Man to each other that every step of his humiliation every part of the Tragedy of his life every wound at his death every groan and sigh which he utter'd upon the Cross were designed by him as the most prevailing Rhetorick to perswade men to forsake their sins and be happy that there cannot be a more unaccountable folly than by impenitency to lose the hopes of a certain and eternal happiness for the sake of those pleasures which every wise man is ashamed to think of that to continue in sin with the hopes to repent is to stab a mans self with the hopes of a cure that the sooner men do it the sooner they will finde their minds at ease and that the pleasures they enjoy in forsaking their sins are far more noble and manly than ever they had in committing them but if none of these arguments will prevail with them perish they must and that unavoidably insupportably and irrecoverably And if such arguments as these will not prevail with men to leave their sins it is impossible that any should 2. For Holiness of Life For Christ did not come into the World and dye for us meerly that we should repent of what is past by denying ungodliness and worldly lusts but that we should live soberly righteously and godly in this present world And what he doth expect he hath given the greatest encouragements to perform by the clearness of his precepts the excellency of his own example the promise of his Grace and the proposition of eternal rewards and punishments whereby he takes off all the objections men are apt to make against obedience to the Commands of Christ the pretence of ignorance because his Laws are so clear the pretence of impossibility by his own example the pretence of infirmity by the assistance of his Grace the pretence of the unnecessariness of so great care of our actions by making eternal rewards and punishments to depend upon it Let us then reflect upon the whole design of the Gospel and see how admirably it is suited to the end it was intended for to the condition of those whose good was designed by it and to the honour of the great contriver and manager of it And let not us by our impenitency and the unholiness of our lives dishonour God and our Saviour reproach our Religion and condemn that by our lives which we justifie by our words For when we have said all we can the best and most effectual vindication of Christian Religion is to live according to it But oh then how unhappy are we that live in such an Age wherein it were hard to know that men were Christians unless we are bound to believe their words against the tenour and course of their actions What is become of the purity the innocency the candour the peaceableness the sincerity and devotion of the Primitive Christians What is become of their zeal for the honour of Christ and Christian Religion If it were the design of men to make our Religion a dishonour and reproach to the Jewes Mahumetans and Heathens could they do it by more effectual means than they have done Who is there that looks into the present state of the Christian World could ever think that the Christian Religion was so incomparably beyond all others in the world Is the now Christian Rome so much beyond what it was while it was Heathen Nay was it not then remarkable in its first times for justice sincerity contempt of riches and a kind of generous honesty and who does not though of the same Religion if he hath any ingenuity left lament the want of all those things there now Will not the sobriety of the very Turks upbraid our excesses and debaucheries and the obstinacy of the Jewes in defence and practice of their Religion condemn our coldness and indifferency in ours If we have then any tenderness for the honour of our Religion or any kindness for our own Souls let us not only have the Name but let us lead the Lives of Christians let us make amends for all the reproaches which our Religion hath suffer'd by the faction and disobedience of some by the Oaths and Blasphemies the impieties and profaneness of others by the too great negligence and carelesness of all that if it be possible Christianity may appear in its true glory which will then only be when those who name the Name of Christ depart from iniquity and live in all manner of holy conversation and godliness FINIS Rom. 1. 16. For I am not
themselves sought to make the world any thing the better for their being in it what infinitely greater esteem do those blessed Apostles deserve who accounted not their lives dear to them that they might make even their enemies happy If those mens memories be dear to us who sacrifice their lives and fortunes for the sake of the Countrey they belong to shall not those be much more so who have done it for the good of the whole world Such who chearfully suffer'd death while they were teaching men the way to an eternal life and who patiently endured the flames if they might but give the greater light to the world by them Such who did as far out-goe any of the admired Heroes of the Heathens as the purging the World from sin is of greater consequence than cleansing an Augaean Stable from the filth of it and rescuing men from eternal flames is a more noble design than clearing a Countrey from pyrats and robbers Nay most of the Heathen Gods who were so solemnly worshipped in Greece and at Rome owed their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to such slender benefits to mankinde that sure the world was very barbarous or hugely gratefull when they could think them no less than Gods who found out such things for men If a Smiths forge and a Womans distaffe if teaching men the noble arts of fighting and cheating one another were such rare inventions that they only became some of the most celebrated Deities which the grave and demure Romans thought fit to worship sure S. Paul had no cause to be ashamed of his Religion among them who had so much reason to be ashamed of their own since his design was to perswade them out of all the vanities and fooleries of their Idolatrous Worship and to bring them to the service of the true and ever living God who had discovered so much goodness to the world in making his Son a propitiation for the sins of it And was not this a discovery infinitely greater and more suitable to the nature of God than any which the subtilty of the Greeks or wisdom of the Romans could ever pretend to concerning any of their Deities Thus we see the excellent end of our Religion was that which made S. Paul so far from being ashamed of it and so it would do all us too if we did understand and value it as S. Paul did But it is the great dishonour of too many among us that they are more ashamed of their Religion than they are of their sins If to talk boldly against Heaven to affront God in calling him to witness their great impieties by frequent oaths to sin bravely and with the highest confidence to mock at such who are yet more modest in their debaucheries were not to be ashamed of the Gospel of Christ we might finde S. Pauls enough in the Age we live in and it would be a piece of gallantry to be Apostles But this is rather the utmost endeavour to put Religion out of countenance and make the Gospel it self blush and be ashamed that ever such bold-faced impieties should be committed by men under the profession of it as though they believed nothing so damnable as Repentance and a Holy life and no sin so unpardonable as Modesty in committing it But to use S. Pauls language when he had been describing such persons hâ—mself Heb. 6. 9. We are perswaded better things of you and things that accompany that salvation the Gospel was designed for though we thus speak For certainly nothing can argue a greater meanness of spirit than while wicked and profane persons are not ashamed of that which unavoidably tends to their ruine any should be shye of the profession and practice of that which conduces to their eternal happiness What is become of all that magnanimity and generous spirit which the Primitive Christians were so remarkable for if while some are impudent in sinning others are ashamed of being or doing good If we have that value for our immortal souls and a future life which we ought to have we shall not trouble our selves much with the Atheistical scoffs and drollery of prosane persons who while they deride and despise Religion do but laugh themselves into eternal misery And thus much for the first ground of S. Pauls confidence viz. The excellent end the Gospel was designed for 2. The effectualness of it in order to that end It is the Power of God to salvation Wherein two things are implyed 1. The inefficacy of any other doctrine for that end 2. The effectualness of the Gospel in order to it 1. The inefficacy of any other Doctrine for this end of promoting the eternal salvation of Mankinde If the world had been acquainted with any doctrine before which had been sufficient for the purposes the Gospel was designed for there would have been no such necessity of propagating it among men nor had there been reason enough to have justified the Apostles in exposing themselves to so great hazards for the preaching of it If the notion of an eternal God and Providence without the knowledge of a Saviour had been sufficient to reform the World and make men happy it had not been consistent with the wisdom or goodness of God to have imploy'd so many persons with the loss of their lives to declare the Doctrine of Christ to the World So that if Christianity be true it must be thought necessary to salvation for the necessity of it was declared by those who were the instruments of confirming the truth of it I meddle not with the case of those particular persons who had no means or opportunity to know Gods revealed will and yet from the Principles of Natural Religion did reform their lives in hopes of a future felicity if any such there were but whether there were not a necessity of such a Doctrine as the Gospel is to be discover'd to the world in order to the reformation of it For some very few persons either through the goodness of their natures the advantage of their education or some cause of a higher nature may have led more vertuous lives than others did but it is necessary that what aims at the general good of Mankinde must be suited to the capacities of all and enforced with arguments which may prevail on any but the most obstinate and wilfull persons But when we consider the state of the World at that time when Christianity was first made known to it we may easily see how insufficient the common Principles of Religion were from working a reformation in it when notwithstanding them mankinde was so generally lapsed into Idolatry and Vice that hardly any can be instanced in in the Heathen World who had escaped both of them And there was so near an affinity between both these that they who were ingaged in the rites of their Idolatry could hardly keep themselves free from the intanglements of vice not only because many of their villanies were practised as part of their Religion
and suspicions of God what distrusts of humane Nature what unspeakable ingratitude and unaccountable folly lies at the bottom of all this uncertainty O fools and slow of heart to believe not only what the Prophets have spoken but what our Lord hath declared God himself hath given testimony to and the Holy Ghost hath confirmed 3. But is not your Interest concerned in these things Is it all one to you whether your souls be immortal or no whether they live in eternal felicity or unchangeable misery Is it no more to you than to know what kind of Bables are in request at the Indies or whether the customs of China or Japan are the wiser i. e. than the most trifling things and the remotest from our knowledge But this is so absurd and unreasonable to suppose that men should not think themselves concern'd in their own eternal happiness and misery that I shall not shew so much distrust of their understandings to speak any longer to it 3. But if notwithstanding all these things our neglect still continues then there remains nothing but a fearfull looking for of judgement and the fiery indignation of God For there is no possibility of escaping if we continue to neglect so great salvation All hopes of escaping are taken away which are onely in that which men neglect and those who neglect their only way to salvation must needs be miserable How can that man ever hope to be saved by him whose blood he despises and tramples under foot What grace and favour can he expect from God who hath done despight unto the Spirit of Grace That hath cast away with reproach and contempt the greatest kindness and offers of Heaven What can save him that resolves to be damned and every one does so who knows he shall be damned if he lives in his sins and yet continues to do so God himself in whose only pity our hopes are hath irreversibly decreed that he will have no pity upon those who despise his goodness slight his threatnings abuse his patience and sin the more because he offers to pardon It is not any delight that God takes in the miseries of his Creatures which makes him punish them but shall not God vindicate his own honour against obstinate and impenitent sinners He declares before-hand that he is far from delighting in their ruine and that is the reason he hath made such large offers and used so many means to make them happy but if men resolve to despise his offers and slight the means of their salvation shall not God be just without being thought to be cruel And we may assure our selves none shall ever suffer beyond the just desert of their sins for punishment as the Apostle tells us in the words before the Text is nothing but a just recompence of reward And if there were such a one proportionable to the violation of the Law delivered by Angels how shall we think to escape who neglect a more excellent means of happiness which was delivered by our Lord himself If God did not hate sin and there were not a punishment belonging to it why did the Son of God die for the expiation of it and if his death were the onely means of expiation how is it possible that those who neglect that should escape the punishment not only of their other sins but of that great contempt of the means of our salvation by him Let us not then think to trifle with God as though it were impossible a Being so mercifull and kind should ever punish his Creatures with the miseries of another life For however we may deceive our selves God will not be mocked for whatsoever a man soweth that shall he reap for he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting I shall only propound some few Considerations to prevent so great a neglect as that of your salvation is 1. Consider what it is you neglect the offer of Eternal Happiness the greatest kindness that ever was expressed to the World the foundation of your present peace the end of your beings the stay of your mindes the great desire of your Souls the utmost felicity that humane Nature is capable of Is it nothing to neglect the favour of a Prince the kindness of Great Men the offers of a large and plentifull Estate but these are nothing to the neglect of the favour of God the love of his Son and that salvation which he hath purchased for you Nay it is not a bare neglect but it implyes in it a mighty contempt not only of the things offer'd but of the kindness of him who offers them If men had any due regard for God or themselves if they had any esteem for his love or their own welfare they would be much more serious in Religion than they are When I see a person wholly immersed in affairs of the World or spending his time in luxury and vanity can I possibly think that man hath any esteem of God or of his own Soul when I finde one very serious in the pursuit of his Designs in the World thoughtfull and busie subtle in contriving them carefull in managing them but very formal remiss and negligent in all affairs of Religion neither inquisitive about them nor serious in minding them what can we otherwise think but that such a one doth really think the things of the World better worth looking after than those which concern his eternal salvation But consider before it be too late and repent of so great folly Value an immortal Soul as you ought to doe think what Reconciliation with God and the Pardon of sin is worth slight not the dear Purchase which was bought at no meaner a rate than the Blood of the Son of God and then you cannot but minde the great salvation which God hath tender'd you 2. Consider on what terms you neglect it or what the things are for whose sake you are so great enemies to your own salvation Have you ever found that contentment in sin or the vanities of the World that for the sake of them you are willing to be for ever miserable What will you think of all your debaucheries and your neglects of God and your selves when you come to dye what would you give then if it were in your power to redeem your lost time that you had spent your time less to the satisfaction of your sensual desires and more in seeking to please God How uncomfortable will the remembrance be of all your excesses oaths injustice and profaneness when death approaches and judgement follows it What peace of mind will there then be to those who have served God with faithfulness and have endeavoured to work out their salvation though it hath been with fear and trembling But what would it then profit a man to have gained the whole World and to lose his own soul Nay what unspeakable losers must they
with what authority did he both speak and live such as commanded a reverence where it did not beget a love And yet after a life thus spent all the requital he met with was to be reproached despised and at last crucified O the dreadfull effects of malice and hypocrisie for these were the two great enemies which he alwayes proclaimed open war with and these at first contrived and at last effected his cruel death What baseness ingratitude cruelty injustice and what not will those two sins betray men to when they have once taken possession of the hearts of men for we can finde nothing else at the bottom of all that wretched conspiracy against our Saviour but that his doctrine and design was too pure and holy for them and therefore they study to take him away who was the author of them 3. We consider in what way and manner our Saviour underwent all these sufferings and this as much as any thing is here propounded to our consideration For it is not only who or what but in what manner he endured the contradiction of sinners that we ought to consider to prevent fainting and dejection of minde So another Apostle tells us that Christ suffered for us leaving us an example that we should follow his steps who did no sin neither was guile found in his mouth who when he was reviled reviled not again when he suffered be threatned not but committed himself to him that judged righteously He uses none of those ranting expressions which none of the patientest persons in the world were accustomed to of bidding them laugh in Phalaris his Bull and when they were racked with pains to cry out Nil agis dolor he tells them not that it is their duty to have no sense of torments and to be jocund and pleasant when their flesh is torn from them or nailed to a Cross if this be any kinde of fortitude it is rather that of a Gladiator than of a wise man or a Christian. The worst of men either through a natural temper of body or having hardned themselves by custom have born the greatest torments with the least expression of grief under them And Panaetius one of the wisest of the Stoicks is so far from making insensibleness of pain the property of a wise man that he makes it not the property of a man The inferiour Creatures are call'd Brutes from their dullness and insensibleness and not meerly from want of reason any further than that one follows from the other bruta existimantur animalium quibus cor durum riget saith Pliny those animals are call'd Brutes which have the hardest hearts and the nearer any of them approach to the nature of man the more apprehensive they are of danger and the more sensible of pain thence Scaliger saith of the Elephant that it is maxima bellua sed non maximè bruta though it be the greatest beast it is the least a Brute Stupidity then under sufferings can be no part of the excellency of a man which in its greatest height is in the Beings the most beneath him But when danger is understood and pain felt and Nature groans under it then with patience and submission to undergo it and to conquer all the strugglings of Nature against it that is the duty and excellency of a Christian. If to express the least sense of grief and pain be the highest excellency of suffering the Macedonian boy that suffer'd his flesh to be burnt by a Coal till it grew offensive to all about him without altering the posture of his arm lest he should disturb Alexanders sacrifice out-did the greatest Philosophers of them all Possidonius his pitifull rant over a fit of the Gout so highly commended by Pompey and Tully O pain it is to no purpose though thou beest troublesome I will never confess thou art evil falls extremely short of the resolution of the Macedonian boy or any of the Spartan Youths who would not in the midst of torments so much as confess them troublesome And what a mighty revenge was that that he would not confess it to be evil when his complaint that it was troublesome was a plain argument that he thought it so It is not then the example of Zeno or Cleanthes or the rules of Stoicisme which Dionysius Heracleotes in a fit of the Stone complained of the folly of that are to be the measures of patience and courage in bearing sufferings but the example and Precepts of our Lord and Saviour who expressed a great sense of his sufferings but withall the greatest submission under them When Lipsius lay a dying and one of the by-standers knowing how conversant he had been in the Stoicks writings began to suggest some of their Precepts to him Vana sunt ista said he I find all those but vain things and beholding the Picture of our Saviour near his bed he pointed to 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 minde to endure all the contradictions of sinners When he was spi◠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 Countrey 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 alwayes 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 ungratefull 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 for 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 than to dye a painfull 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 â—o 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 unreasonable 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 painfull and shamefull 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 Jews 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 Jews 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 sheding 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
them in this life And here we assert that Gods end in punishing is the advancing his honor not by the meer miseries of his creatures but that men by beholding his severity against sin should break off the practice of it that they may escape the punishments of the furture state So that the ends of punishment here are quite of another kinde from those of another life for those are inflicted because persons have been unreclaimable by either the mercies or punishments of this life but these are intended that men should so far take notice of this severity of God as to avoid the sins which will expose them to the wrath to come And from hence it follows That whatsoever sufferings do answer all these ends of Divine punishments and are inflicted on the account of sin have the proper notion of punishments in them and God may accept of the undergoing them as a full satisfaction to his Law if they be such as tend to break men off from sin and assert Gods right and vindicate his honor to the world which are the ends assigned by Crellius and will be of great consequence to us in the following Discourse CHAP. II. The particular state of the Controversie concerning the sufferings of Christ. The Concessions of our Adversaries The debate reduced to two heads The first concerning Christs sufferings being a punishment for sin entred upon In what sense Crellius acknowledgeth the sins of men to have been the impulsive cause of the death of Christ. The sufferings of Christ proved to be a punishment from Scripture The importance of the phrase of bearing sins Of the Scape-Goats bearing the sins of the people into the Wilderness Grotius his sense of 1 Pet. 2. 24. vindicated against Crellius and himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never used for the taking away a thing by the destruction of it Crellius his sense examin'd Isa. 53. 11. vindicated The Argument from Mat. 8. 17. answered Grotius constant to himself in his notes on that place Isa. 53. 5 6 7. cleared Whether Christs death be a proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and whether that doth imply that it was a punishment of sin How far the punishments of Children for their Fathers faults are exemplary among men The distinction of calamities and punishments holds not here That Gods hatred of sin could not be seen in the sufferings of Christ unless they were a punishment of sin proved against Crellius Grotius his Arguments from Christ being made sin and a curse for us defended The liberty our Adversaries take in changing the sense of words The particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being joyned to sins and relating to sufferings do imply those sufferings to be a punishment for sin According to their way of interpreting Scripture it had been impossible for our doctrine to be clearly expressed therein THese things being thus far cleared concerning the nature and ends of punishments and how far they are of the nature of debts and consequently what kind of satisfaction is due for them the resolution of the grand Question concerning the sufferings of Christ will appear much more easie but that we may proceed with all possible cleerness in a debate of this consequence we must yet a little more narrowly examine the difference between our Adversaries and us in this matter for their concessions are in terms sometimes so fair as though the difference were meerly about words without any considerable difference in the thing it self If we charge them with denying satisfaction Crellius answers in the name of them that we do it unjustly for they do acknowledge a satisfaction worthy of God and agreeable to the Scriptures If we charge them with denying that our salvation is obtained by the death of Christ they assert the contrary as appears by the same Authour Nay Ruarus attributes merit to the death of Christ too They acknowledge that Christ dyed for us nay that there was a commutation between Christ and us both of one person for another and of a price for a person and that the death of Christ may be said to move God to redeem us they acknowledge reconciliation and expiation of sins to be by the death of Christ. Nay they assert that Christs death was by reason of our sins and that God designed by that to shew his severity against sin And what could we desire more if they meant the same thing by these words which we do They assert a satisfaction but it is such a one as is meerly fulfilling the desire of another in which sense all that obey God may be said to satisfie him They attribute our salvation to the death of Christ but only as a condition intervening upon the performance of which the Covenant was confirmed and himself taken into Glory that he might free men from the punishment of their sins They attribute merit to Christs death but in the same sense that we may merit too when we do what is pleasing to God They acknowledge that Christ dyed for us but not in our stead but for our advantage that there was a commutation but not such a one as that the Son of God did lay down his blood as a proper price in order to our redemption as the purchase of it when they speak of a moving cause they tell us they mean no more than the performance of any condition may be said to move or as our prayers and repentance do The reconciliation they speak of doth not at all respect God but us they assert an expiation of sins consequent upon the death of Christ but not depending upon it any otherwise than as a condition necessary for his admission to the office of a High Priest in Heaven there to expiate our sins by his power and not by his blood but they utterly deny that the death of Christ is to be considered as a proper expiatory sacrifice for sin or that it hath any further influence upon it than as it is considered as a means of the confirmation of the truth of his Doctrine and particularly the promise of remission of sins on which and not on the death of Christ they say our remission depends but so far as the death of Christ may be an argument to us to believe his Doctrine and that faith may incline us to obedience and that obedience being the condition in order to pardon at so many removes they make the death of Christ to have influence on the remission of our sins They assert that God took occasion by the sins of men to exercise an act of dominion upon Christ in his sufferings and that the sufferings of Christ were intended for the taking away the sins of men but they utterly deny that the sufferings of Christ were to be considered as a punishment for sin or that Christ did suffer in our place and stead nay they contend with great vehemency that it is wholly inconsistent with the justice of God to make one mans
to have been performed there which they utterly deny and say that Christ only took the Cross in his way to his Ascension to Heaven that there he might expiate sins But doth not S. Peter say that what was done by him here was in his body on the tree and they will not say he carryed that with him to Heaven too Well but what then was the taking away of sin which belong'd to Christ upon the Cross is it only to perswade men to live vertuously and leave off their sins This Socinus would have and Crellius is contented that it should be understood barely of taking away sins and not of the punishment of them but only by way of accession and consequence but if it be taken which he inclines more to for the punishment then he saith it is to be understood not of the vertue and efficacy of the death of Christ but of the effect and yet a little after he saith those words of Christs bearing our sins are to be understood of the force and efficacy of Christs death to do it not including the effect of it in us not as though Christ did deliver us from sins by his death but that he did that by dying upon which the taking away of sin would follow or which had a great power for the doing it So uncertain are our Adversaries in affixing any sense upon these words which may attribute any effect at all to the death of Christ upon the Cross. For if they be understood of taking away sins then they are onely to be meant of the power that was in the death of Christ to perswade men to leave their sins which we must have a care of understanding so as to attribute any effect to the death of Christ in order to it but onely that the death of Christ was an argument for us to believe what he said and the believing what he said would incline us to obey him and if we obey him we shall leave off our sins whether Christ had dyed or no supposing his miracles had the same effect on us which those of Moses had upon the Jews which were sufficient to perswade them to believe and obey without his death But if this be all that was meant by Christs bearing our sins in his body on the tree why might not S. Peter himself be said to bear them upon his cross too for his death was an excellent example of patience and a great argument to perswade men he spake truth and that doctrine which he preached was repentance and remission of sins So that by this sense there is nothing peculiar attributed to the death of Christ. But taking the other sense for the taking away the punishment of sins we must see how this belongs to the death of Christ Do they then attribute our delivery from the punishment to sin to the death of Christ on the Cross yes just as we may attribute Caesars subduing Rome to his passing over Rubicon because he took that in his way to the doing of it so they make the death of Christ onely as a passage in order to expiation of sins by taking away the punishment of them For that shall not be actually perfected they say till his full deliverance of all those that obey him from hell and the grave which will not be till his second coming So that if we onely take the body of Christ for his second coming and the cross of Christ or the tree for his Throne of Glory then they will acknowledge that Christ may very well be said to take away sins in his own body on the tree but if you take it in any sense that doth imply any peculiar efficacy to the death of Christ for all the plainness of S. Peters words they by no means will admit of it But because Crellius urgeth Grotius with the sense of that place Isa. 53. 11. out of which he contends these words are taken and Crellius conceives he can prove there that bearing is the same with taking away sin We now come to consider what force he can find from thence for the justifying his assertion That the bearing of sins when attributed to Christ doth not imply the punishment of them but the taking them away The words are for he shall bear their iniquities As to which Grotius observes that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies iniquity is sometimes taken for the punishment of sin 2 Kings 7. 9. and the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to bear and when ever it is joyned with sin or iniquity in all Languages and especially the Hebrew it signifies to suffer punishment for although 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may sometimes signifie to take away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never does so that this phrase can receive no other interpretation Notwithstanding all which Crellius attempts to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here must be taken in a sense contrary to the natural and perpetual use of the word for which his first argument is very infirm viz. because it is mentioned after the death of Christ and is therefore to be considered as the reward of the other Whereas it appears 1. By the Prophets discourse that he doth not insist on an exact methodical order but dilates and amplifies things as he sees occasion for Vers. 9. he saith He made his grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death and Vers. 10. he saith Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him he hath put him to grief Will Crellius therefore say that this must be consequent to his death and burial 2. The particle may be here taken causally as we render it very agreeably to the sense and so it gives an account of the fore-going clause By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justifie many for he shall bear their iniquities And that this is no unusual acception of that particle might be easily cleared from many places of Scripture if it were necessary and from this very Prophet as Isa. 39. 1. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 King 20. 12. and Isa. 64. 5. Thou art wroth for we have sinned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the same particle is made the causal of what went before But we need not insist upon this to answer Crellius who elsewhere makes use of it himself and says They must be very ignorant of the Hebrew Tongue who do not know that the conjunction copulative is often taken causally and so much is confessed by Socinus also where he explains that particle in one sensâ—… in the beginning and causally in the middlâ—… of the verse And the Lords anger was kindleâ—… against Israel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he moved c. But iâ—… this will not do he attempts to proveâ—… That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this very Chapter hath the signification of taking away v. 4. For he hath borâ—… our griefs and carried our sorrows which
Socinus and Crellius would have them as the meer occasions of Christs death but as the proper impulsive cause of it Whether the following word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be taken with a respect to sin and so it properly signifies It is required or with a respect to the person and so it may signifie he was oppressed is not a matter of that consequence which we ought to contend about if it be proved that Christs expression had only a respect to sin as the punishment of it Which will yet further appear from another expression in the same Chapter ver 5. The chastisement of our peace was upon him and by his stripes we are healed In which Grotius saith the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie any kind of affliction but such as hath the nature of punishment either for example or instruction but since the latter cannot be intended in Christ the former must Crellius thinks to escape from this by acknowledging that the sufferings of Christ have some respect to sin but if it be such a respect to sin which makes what Christ underwent a punishment which is only proper in this case it is as much as we contend for This therefore he is loth to abide by and saith that chastisement imports no more than bare affliction without any respect to sin which he thinks to prove from St. Pauls words 2 Cor. 6. 9. We are chastised but not given over to death but how far this is from proving his purpose will easily appear 1. Because those by whom they were said to be chastened did not think they did it without any respect to a fault but they supposed them to be justly punished and this is that we plead for that the chastisement considered with a respect to him that inflicts it doth suppose some fault as the reason of inflicting it 2. This is far from the present purpose for the chastisement there mentioned is opposed to death as chastened but not killed whereas Grotius expresly speaks of such chastisements as include death that these cannot be supposed to be meerly designed for instruction and therefore must be conceived under the notion of punishment The other place Psal. 73. 14. is yet more remote from the business for though the Psalmist accounts himself innocent in respect of the great enormities of others yet he could not account himself so innocent with a respect to God as not to deserve chastisement from him But Crellius offers further to prove that Christs death must be considered as a bare affliction and not as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or exemplary punishment because in such a punishment the guilty themselves are to be punished and the benefit comes to those who were not guilty but in Christs sufferings it was quite contrary for the innocent was punished and the guilty have the benefit of it and yet he saith if we should grant that Christs sufferings were a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that will not prove that his death was a proper punishment To which I answer That whatever answers to the ends of an exemplary punishment may properly be called so but supposing that Christ suffered the punishment of our sins those sufferings will answer to all the ends of an exemplary punishment For the ends of such a punishment assigned by Crellius himself are That others observing such a punishment may abstain from those sins which have brought it upon the person who suffers Now the question is whether supposing Christ did suffer on the account of our sins these sufferings of his may deterr us from the practice of sin or no And therefore in opposition to Crellius I shall prove these two things 1. That supposing Christ suffered for our sins there was a sufficient argument to deterr us from the practice of sin 2. Supposing that his sufferings had no respect to our sins they could not have that force to deterr men from the practice of it for he after asserts That Christs sufferings might be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to us though they were no punishment of sin 1. That the death of Christ considered as a punishment of sin is a proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or hath a great force to deterr men from the practice of sin and that because the same reason of punishment is supposed in Christ and in our selves and because the example is much more considerable than if we had suffered our selves 1. The same reason of punishment is supposed For why are men deterred from sin by seeing others punished but because they look upon the sin as the reason of the punishment and therefore where the same reason holds the same ends may be as properly obtained If we said that Christ suffered death meerly as an innocent person out of Gods dominion over his life what imaginable force could this have to deterr men from sin which is asserted to have no relation to it as the cause of it But when we say that God laid our iniquities upon him that he suffered not upon his own account but ours that the sins we commit against God were the cause of all those bitter Agonies which the Son of God underwent what argument can be more proper to deter men from sin than this is For hereby they see the great abhorrency of sin which is in God that he will not pardon the sins of men without a compensation made to his Honour and a demonstration to the world of his hatred of it Hereby they see what a value God hath for his Laws which he will not relax as to the punishment of offenders without so valuable a consideration as the blood of his own Son Hereby they see that the punishment of sin is no meer arbitrary thing depending barely upon the will of God but that there is such a connexion between sin and punishment as to the ends of Government that unless the Honor and Majesty of God as to his Laws and Government may be preserved the violation of his Laws must expect a just recompence of reward Hereby they see what those are to expect who neglect or despise these sufferings of the Son of God for them for nothing can then remain but a certain fearful looking for of judgement and fiery indignation which shall devour the Adversaries So that here all the weighty arguments concurr which may be most apt to prevail upon men to deterr them from their sins For if God did thus by the green tree what will he do by the dry If he who was so innocent in himself so perfectly holy suffered so much on the account of our sins what then may those expect to suffer who have no innocency at all to plead and add wilfulness and impenitency to their sins But if it be replyed by Crellius that it is otherwise among men I answer that we do not pretend in all things to parallel the sufferings of Christ for us with any sufferings of men for one another But yet we add that even
among men the punishments inflicted on those who were themselves innocent as to the cause of them may be as exemplary as any other And the greater appearance of severity there is in them the greater terror they strike into all offenders As Childrens losing their estates and honors or being banished for their Parents treasons in which they had no part themselves Which is a proper punishment on them of their Fathers faults whether they be guilty or no and if this may be just in men why not in God If any say that the Parents are only punished in the Children he speaks that which is contradictory to the common sense of mankind for punishment doth suppose sense or feeling of it and in this case the Parents are said to be punished who are supposed to be dead and past feeling of it and the Children who undergo the smart of it must not be said to be punished though all things are so like it that no person can imagine himself in that condition but would think himself punished and severely too If it be said that these are calamities indeed but they are no proper punishments it may easily be shewed that distinction will not hold here Because these punishments were within the design of the Law and were intended for all the ends of punishments and therefore must have the nature of them For therefore the Children are involved in the Fathers punishment on purpose to deterr others from the like actions There are some things indeed that Children may fall into by occasion of their Fathers guilt which may be only calamities to them because they are necessary consequents in the nature of the thing and not purposely designed as a punishment to them Thus being deprived of the comfort and assistance of their Parents when the Law hath taken them off by the hand of justice this was designed by the Law as a punishment to the Parents and as to the Children it is only a necessary consequent of their punishment For otherwise the Parents would have been punished for the Childrens faults and not the Children only involved in that which unavoidably follows upon the Parents punishment So that Crellius is very much mistaken either in the present case of our Saviours punishment or in the general reason of exemplary punishments as among men But the case of our Saviour is more exemplary when we consider the excellency of his person though appearing in our nature when no meaner sufferings would satisfie than of so transcendent a nature as he underwent though he were the Eternal Son of God this must make the punishment much more exemplary than if he were considered only as our Adversaries do as a meer man So that the dignity of his person under all his sufferings may justly add a greater consideration to deterr us from the practice of sin which was so severely punished in him when he was pleased to be a Sacrifice for our sins From whence we see that the ends of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are very agreeable with the sufferings of Christ considered as a punishment for sin We now consider whether as Crellius asserts supposing Christs death were no punishment it could have these effects upon mens minds or no Yes he saith it might because by his sufferings we might see how severely God would punish wicked and obstinate persons Which being a strange riddle at the first hearing it viz. that by the sufferings of an innocent person without any respect to sin as the cause of them we should discern Gods severity against those who are obstinate in sin we ought the more diligently to attend to what is said for the clearing of it First saith he If God spared not his own most innocent and holy and only Son than whom nothing was more dear to him in Heaven or Earth but exposed him to so cruel and ignominious a death how great and severe sufferings may we think God will inflict on wicked men who are at open defiance with him I confess my self not subtle enough to apprehend the force of this argument viz. If God dealt so severely with him who had no sin either of his own or others to answer for 〈◊〉 therefore he will deal much more severely with those that have For Gods severity consider'd without any respect tâ—… sin gives rather encouragement to sinners than any argument to deterre them from it For the natural consequence of it is that God doth act arbitrarily without any regard to the good or eviâ— of mens actions and therefore it is to no purpose to be sollicitous about them For upon the same account that the most innocent person suffers most severely from him for all that we know the more we strive to be innocent the more severely we may be dealt with and let men sin they can be but dealt severely with all the difference then is one shall be call'd punishments and the other calamities but the severity may be the same in both And who would leave off his sins meerly to change the name of punishments into that of calamities And from hence it will follow that the differences of good and evil and the respects of them to punishment and reward are but aiery and empty things but that God really in the dispensation of things to men hath no regard to what men are or do but acts therein according to his own Dominion whereby he may dispose of men how or which way he pleases If a Prince had many of his Subjects in open rebellion against him and he should at that time make his most obedient and beloved Son to be publickly exposed to all manner of indignities and be dishonoured and put to death by the hands of those rebells could any one imagine that this was designed as an exemplary punishment to all rebels to let them see the danger of rebellion No but would it not rather make them think him a cruel Prince one that would punish innocency as much as rebellion and that it was rather better to stand at defiance and become desperate for it was more dangerous to be beloved than hated by him to be his Son than his declared Enemy So that insisting on the death of Christ as it is considered as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for of that we speak now there is no comparison between our Adversaries hypothesis and ours but saith Crellius the consequence is not good on our side if Christ suffered the punishment of our sins therefore they shall suffer much more who continue in sin for Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world but they suffer only for their own and what they have deserved themselves To which I answer that the argument is of very good force upon our hypothesis though it would not be upon theirs For if we suppose him to be a meer man that suffer'd then there could be no argument drawn from his sufferings to ours but according to the exact proportion of sins and punishments
the same verse For Socinus in one verse of S. Johns Gospel makes the World be taken in three several senses He was in the world there it is taken saith he for the men of the world in general The world was made by him there it must be understood onely of the reformation of things by the Gospel and the world knew him not there it must be taken in neither of the former senses but for the wicked of the world What may not one make of the Scripture by such a way of interpreting it But by this we have the less reason to wonder that Socinus should put such an Interpretation upon Gal. 3. 13. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us for it is written Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree In which he doth acknowledge by the curse in the first clause to be meant the punishment of sin but not in the second And the reason he gives for it is amavit enim Paulus in execrationis verbo argutus esse S. Paul affected playing with the word curse understanding it first in a proper and then a Metaphorical sense But it is plain that the design of S. Paul and Socinus are very different in these words Socinus thinks he speaks onely Metaphorically when he saith that Christ was made a curse for us i. e. by a bare allusion of the name without a correspondency in the thing it self and so that the death of Christ might be called a curse but was not so but S. Paul speaks of this not by way of extenuation but to set forth the greatness and weight of the punishment he underwent for us He therefore tells us what it was which Christ did redeem us from The curse of the Law and how he did it by being not onely made a curse but a curse for us i. e. not by being hateful to God or undergoing the very same curse which we should have done which are the two things objected by Crellius against our sense but that the death of Christ was to be considered not as a bare separation of soul and body but as properly poenal being such a kind of death which none but Malefactors by the Law were to suffer by the undergoing of which punishment in our stead he redeemed us from that curse which we were liable to by the violation of the Law of God And there can be no reason to appropriate this onely to the Jews unless the death of Christ did extend onely to the deliverance of them from the punishment of their sins or because the curse of the Law did make that death poenal therefore the intention of the punishment could reach no further than the Law did but the Apostle in the very next words speaks of the farther extension of the great blessing promised to Abraham That it should come upon the Gentiles also and withall those whom the Apostle speaks to were not Jews but such as thought they ought to joyn the Law Gospel together that St. Paul doth not mean as Crellius would have it that Christ by his death did confirm the New Covenant and so take away the obligation of the Law for to what end was the curse mentioned for that What did the accursedness of his death add to the confirmation of the truth of his Doctrine and when was ever the curse taken for the continuance of the Law of Moses but that Christ by the efficacy of his death as a punishment for sin hat redeemed all that believe and obey him from the curse deserved by their sins whether inforced by the Law of Moses or the Law written in their hearts which tells the consciences of sinners that such who violate the Laws of God are worthy of death and therefore under the curse of the Law We come now to the force of the particles which being joyned with our sins as referring to the death of Christ do imply that his death is to be considered as a punishment of sin Not that we insist on the force of those particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though of themselves they did imply this for we know they are of various significations according to the nature of the matter they are joyned with but that these being joyned with sins and sufferings together do signifie that those sufferings are the punishment of those sins Thus it is said of Christ that he dyed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for our sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he suffered once 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he gave himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he offered a Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which Crellius replyes That if the force of these particles not being joyned with sufferings may be taken for the final and not for the impulsive cause they may retain the same sense when joyned with sufferings if those sufferings may be designed in order to an end but if it should be granted that those phrases being joyned with sufferings do alwayes imply a meritorious cause yet it doth not follow it should not be here so understood because the matter will not bear it To this a short answer will at present serve for It is not possible a meritorious cause can be expressed more emphatically than by these words being joyned to sufferings so that we have as clear a testimony from these expressions as words can give and by the same arts by which these may be avoided any other might so that it had not been possible for our Doctrine to have been expressed such a manner but such kind of answers might have been given as our Adversaries now give If it had been said in the plainest terms that Christs death was a punishment for our sins they would as easily have avoided the force of them as they do of these they would have told us the Apostles delighted in an Antanaclasis and had expressed things different from the natural use of the words by them and though punishment were sometimes used properly yet here it must be used only metaphorically because the matter would bear no other sense And therefore I commend the ingenuity of Socinus after all the pains he had taken to enervate the force of those places which are brought against his Doctrine he tells us plainly That if our Doctrine were not only once but frequently mentioned in Scripture yet he would not therefore believe the thing to be so as we suppose For saith he seeing the thing it self cannot be I take the least inconvenient interpretation of the words and draw forth such a sense from them as is most consistent with it self and the tenour of the Scripture But for all his talking of the tenour of the Scripture by the same reason he interprets one place upon these terms he will do many and so the tenour of the Scripture shall be never against him and
those were not the terms upon which the persons suffered For if they had suffer'd 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 offender shall be punishâ—… 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 suffer'd on his own terms Not as though it follow'd ipso facto as Crellius fansies but the manner of release doth depend upon the terms which he who suffer'd 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 terms 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 accrue 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 suffer'd 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 suffer'd for For a man can no more transferre 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 his 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. The 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 Jews 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Levit. 10. 17. explained The expiation of uncertain murther proves a substitution A substitution of Christ in our room proved from Christs 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 mankinde 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 onely 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 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 Osfenders 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 onely of those Sacrifices which we are sure were appointed of old for the expiation of sin by God himself As to which the
God in Heaven or not No saith Crellius really and truly he doth not for all his Office doth respect us but the benefits we enjoy coming â—â—iginally from the kindness of God you may all it an Oblation to God if you please But how is it possible then say the Jews you can ever convince us that he is any High-Priest or Priest at all much less that he should ever exceed the Aaronical High-Priests in their Office for we are assured that they do offer Sacrifices for sin and that God is atoned by them but if your High-Priest make no atonement for sin he falls far short of ours and therefore we will still hold to our Levitical Priesthood and not forsake that for oâ—… barely Metaphorical and having nothinâ— really answering the name of a High Priest Thus the force of all the Apostlâ— Arguments is plainly taken away by whâ—â— Crellius and his Brethren assert concerninâ— the Priesthood of Christ. But Crelliâ—… thinks to make it good by saying Thâ—â— things that are improper and figurative maâ— be far more excellent than the things that arâ— proper to which they are opposed so 〈◊〉 Christs Priesthood may be far more excelleâ—â— than the Aaronical although his be onely figurative and the other proper But the questioâ—… is not Whether Christs Priesthood by any other adventitious considerations as oâ— greater Power and Authority than the Aaronical Priests had may be said to be far more excellent than theirs was but Whether in the notion of Priesthood it doth exceed theirs Which it is impossible to make good unless he had some proper oblation to make unto God which in it selâ— did far exceed all the Sacrifices and Offerings under the Law But what that oblation of Christ in Heaven was which had any correspondency with the Sacrifices under the Law our Adversaries can never assign nay when they go about it they speak of it in such a manner as makes it very evident they could heartily have wished the Epistle to the Hebrews had said as little of the Priesthood of Christ as they say any other part of the New Testament doth Thence Smalcius and Crellius insist so much upon the Priesthood of Christ being distinctly mentioned by none but the Author to the Hebrews which say they had surely been done if Christ had been a proper Priest or that Office in him distinct from his Kingly Which sufficiently discovers what they would be at viz. That the testimony of the Author to the Hebrews is but a single testimony in this matter and in truth they do as far as is consistent with not doing it in express words wholly take away the Priesthood of Christ For what is there which they say his Priesthood implies which he might not have had supposing he had never been call'd a Priest His being in Heaven doth not imply that he is a Priest unless it be impossible for any but Priests ever to come there His Power and Authority over the Church doth not imply it for that power is by themselves confessed to be a Regal power his readiness to use that power cannot imply it which is the thing Smalcius insists on for his being a King of the Church doth necessarily imply his readiness to make use of his power for the good of his Church Hâ— receiving his power from God doth not iâ—ply that he was a Priest although Crelliâ—â— insists on that unless all the Kings of thâ— Earth are Priests by that means too anâ— Christ could not have had a subordinatâ— power as King as well as Priest But hiâ— death is more implied saith Crellius in thâ— name of a Priest than of a King true if his death be considered as a Sacrifice but not otherwise For what is there of a Priest in bare dying do not others so too But this represents greater tenderness and care in Christ than the meer title of a King What kind of King do they imagine Christ the mean while if his being so did not give the greatest encouragement to all his subjects nay it is plain the name of a King must yield greater comfort to his people because that implies his power to defend them which the bare name of a Priest doth not So that there could be no reason at all given why the name of a High-Priest should be at all given to Christ if no more were implied in it than the exercise of his power with respect to us without any proper oblation to God For here is no proper Sacerdotal act at all attributed to him so that upon their hypothesis the name of High-Priest is a meer insignificant title used by the author to the Hebrews without any foundation at all for it By no means saith Crellius for his expiation of sin is implyed by it which is not implyed in the name of King True if the expiation of sin were done by him in the way of a Priest by an oblation to God which they deny but though they call it Expiation they mean no more than the exercise of his divine power in the delivering his people But what parallel was there to this in the expiation of sins by the Levitical Priesthood that was certainly done by a Sacrifice offered to God by the Priest who was thereby said to expiate the sins of the people how comes it now to be taken quite in another sense and yet still call'd by the same name But this being the main thing insisted on by them I shall prove from their own Principles that no expiation of sin in their own sense can belong to Christ in Heaven by vertue of his Oblation of himself there and consequently that they must unavoidably overthrow the whole notion of the Priesthood of Christ. For this we are to consider what their notion of the expiation of sins is which is set down briefly by Crellius in the beginning of his discourse of Sacrifices There is a twofold power saith he of the sacrifice of Christ towards the expiation of sin one taking away the guilt and the punishment of sin and that partly by declaring that God will do it and giving us a right to it partly by actual deliverance from punishment the other is by begâ—tting Faith in us and so drawing us off from the practice of sin Now the first and last Crellius and Socinus attribute to the death of Christ as that was a confirmation of the Covenant God made for the remission of sin and as it was an argument to perswade us to believe the truth of his doctrine and the other viz. the actual deliverance from punishment is by themselves attributed to the second coming of Christ for then only they say the just shall be actually deliver'd from the punishment of sin viz. eternal death and what expiation is there now left to the Oblation of Christ in Heaven Doth Christ in Heaven declare the pardon of sin any other way than it was declared by him upon Earth What efficacy hath his
of appeasing the anger of a person by something which may move him to shew favour And if Crellius will yield this to be the sense of expiation as applyed to the Sacrifice of Christ he need not quarrel with the word satisfaction But why should he rather attribute that sense of expiation to Christ which is alone given to God wherein the expiation is attributed to him that receives the Sacrifice rather than to him that offers the sacrifice in order to the atonement of another since it is acknowledged that Christ did offer a sacrifice and therefore there can be no reason why that sense of expiation should not belong to him which was most peculiar to that which we shall now shew to be of the same kind with what is here mentioned viz. an appeasing by a gift offered up to God So we find the word used to the same sense 2 Sam. 21. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and wherewith shall I make the Atonement i. e. wherewith shall I satisfie you for all the wrong which Saul hath done unto you and we see afterwards it was by the death of Sauls sons In which place it cannot be denyed but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only signifies to appease but such a kind of satisfaction as is by the death of some for the faults of others and so comes home not only to the importance of the expiation belonging to a Sacrifice in general but to such a kind of expiation as is by the suffering of some in the place of others Which though it be more clear and distinct where one man suffers for others yet this was sufficiently represented in the sacrifices under the Law in which we have already proved that there was a substitution of them in the place of the offenders And in this sense the Jews themselves do understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. such an expiation as is made by the substitution of one in the place of another Of which many instances are collected by Buxtorf wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken by the Rabbinical Writers for such an expiation whereby one was to undergo a punishment in the place of another So when in the title Sanhedrin the people say to the High-Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simus nos expiatio tua let us be for an expiation for you the Glosse explains it thus hoc est in nobis fiat expiatio tua nosque subeamus tuo loco quicquid tibi evenire debet And when they tell us how Children ought to honour their Parents after their death they say when they recite any memorable speech of their Fathers they are not barely to say My father said so but my Lord and Father said so would I had been the expiation of his death i. e. as they explain it themselves would I had undergone what he did and they give this general rule Where ever it is said behold I am for expiation it is to be understood behold I am in the place of another to bear his iniquities So that this signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a price of redemption for others Hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for a price of redemption of the life of another and rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exod. 21. 30. 30. 12. Numb 35. 31 32. where we render it satisfaction and by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal. 48. 7. and thereby we fully understand what our Saviour meant when he said that he gave his Soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a ransome for many and to this day the Jews call the Cock which they kill for Expiation on the day of Atonement by the name of Cappara and when they beat the Cock against their heads thrice they every time use words to this purpose Let this Cock be an exchange for me let him be in my room and be made an Expiation for me let death come to him but to me and all Israel life and happiness I insist on these things only to let us understand that the Jews never understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the sense our Adversaries contend for when applied to an Expiatory Sacrifice but as implying a Commutation and a Substitution of one in the place of another so as by the punishment of that the other in whose room he suffers may obtain deliverance Which is the sense we plead for But the utmost which Socinus and Crellius will allow to the Sacrifices in order to Expiation is barely this That the offering of them is to be considered as a meer condition that hath no other respect to the expiation of sins than the paring a mans nails would have had if God had required it upon which slight obedience the pardon of some light sins might be obtained But can any one imagine that this was all that was designed by the Sacrifices of old who considers the antiquity and universality of them in the world in those elder times before the Law the great severity by which they were required under the Law the punctual prescriptions that were made in all circumstances for them the vast and almost inestimable expence the people were at about them but above all the reason that God himself assigns in the Law That the blood was given for expiation because it was the life and the correspondency so clearly expressed in the New Testament between the Sacrifice of Christ and those Levitical Sacrifices Can any one I say imagine upon these considerations that the Sacrifices had no other respect to the expiation of sin than as they were a slight testimony of their obedience to God Why were not an inward sorrow for sin and tears and prayers rather made the only conditions of Expiation than such a burthensome and chargeable service imposed upon them which at last signified nothing but that a command being supposed they would have sinned if they had broken it But upon our supposition a reasonable account is given of all the expiatory Sacrifices viz. That God would have them see how highly he esteemed his Laws because an expiation was not to be made for the breach of them but by the sacrificing of the life of some Creature which he should appoint in stead of the death of the Offender and if the breach of those Laws which he had given them must require such an expiation what might they then think would the sins of the whole world do which must be expiated by a Sacrifice infinitely greater than all those put together were viz. The death and sufferings of the Son of God for the sins of men But if the offering Sacrifice had been a bare condition required of the person who committed the fault in order to expiation Why is it never said That the person who offered it did expiate his own fault thereby For that had been the most proper sense for if the expiation did depend on the offering the Sacrifice as on the condition of it then the performing the
Authors not only signifie an antecedency of order but a peculiar efficacy in order to Expiation Thence expiatory Sacrifices among the Greeks were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frequently in Homer applied to Sacrifices 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Plutarch and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in the same sense an Expiatory Sacrifice in Herodotus is call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to the same purpose it is used in Hermogenes Plato and Plutarch as among the Latins placare purgare purificare conciliare lustrare in the same sense and piare when used in Sacrifices he proves to signifie Luere per successionem rei alterius in locum poenae debitae Thence piaculum used for an Expiatory Sacrifice and expiare is to appease by such a Sacrifice so Cereris numen expiare is used in Cicero filium expiare in Livy So that all these Sacrifices among them were supposed still to pertain to the atoning the Deity and obtaining a remission of sins committed by them And from hence because where there was a greater equality and neerness there might be the greater efficacy of the Sacrifice for expiation came the custom of sacrificing men which Grotius at large shews to have almost universally obtained before the coming of Christ. We are now to consider what Crellius answers to this the substance of which lies in these two things 1. He denies not but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do in their proper use in the Greek Tongue signifie the purging of guilt and the aversion of the wrath of God and punishment but that those and such other words are attributed to Sacrifices because those were supposed to be the effects of them among the Heathens but the attributing such effects to them did arise from their superstition whereby greater things were attributed to Sacrifices than God would have given to them either before or under the Law 2. He denies not but that those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being used by the Author to the Hebrews more than once with respect to the Sacrifices and Priesthood of Christ were taken in the same sense in which they are used in the Greek Tongue viz. For the purging of guilt and the aversion of the wrath of God and the punishment consequent upon it But all that he contends for is That there is a difference in the manner of effecting it which he acknowledges the words themselves do not imply and the reasons he gives for it are That the other were proper but Christs an improper Sacrifice and that the other Sacrifices were offered by men to God but the Sacrifice of Christ was given by God to men and therefore he must be supposed to be reconciled before From whence he would at least have other senses of these words joyned together with the former viz. Either for purging away the filth of sin or for a delaration of a deliverance from guilt and punishment in imitation of the Idiome of the Hebrew in which many words are used in the New Testament From hence it follows that Crellius doth yield the main cause if it appear that Christ did offer up an Expiatory Sacrifice to God in his death for then he grants that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being applied to the Sacrifice of Christ are to be taken for the purging away of guilt and the aversion of the wrath of God and the punishment of sin And it is to no purpose to say that it is not a proper Sacrifice for if the effects of a proper Sacrifice do belong to it that proves that it is so for these words being acknowledged to be applied to the Sacrifice of Christ by the Author to the Hebrews what could more evince that Christs was a proper Sacrifice then that those things are attributed to it which by the consent of all Nations are said to belong to proper Sacrifices and that in the very same sense in which they are used by those who understood them in the most proper sense And what reason could Crellius have to say that it was only the superstition of the Heathens which made them attribute such effects to sacrifices when himself acknowledges that the very same sense doth belong to the Sacrifice of Christ under that notion and as to the Jews we have already proved that the sense of expiation among them was by vertue of the Law to be taken in as proper a sense as among the Heathens for the purging of guilt and the aversion of the wrath of God And why should Crellius deny that effect of the Sacrifice of Christ as to the atonement of God because Gods love was seen in giving him who was to offer the sacrifice since that effect is attributed to those sacrifices under the Law which God himself appointed to be offer'd and shewed his great kindness to the people in the Institution of such a way whereby their sins might be expiated and they deliver'd from the punishment of them But of the consistency of these two I shall speak more afterwards in the effect of the Sacrifices as relating to Persons We now come to consider in what sense the expiation of sins is in Scripture attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ and therein I shall prove these two things 1. That the expiation is attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ in the same sense that is attributed to other Sacrifices and as the words in themselves do signifie 2. That what is so attributed doth belong to the Sacrifice of Christ in his death antecedent to his entrance into Heaven 1. That the expiation is to be taken in a proper sense when it is attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ. Crellius tells us the controversie is not about the thing viz. whether expiation in the sense we take it in for purging away guilt and aversion of the wrath of God doth belong to the Sacrifice of Christ for he acknowledges it doth but all the question is about the manner of it which in the next Section he thus explains There are three senses in which Christ may be said to expiate sins either by begetting Faith in us whereby we are drawn off from the practice of sin in which sense he saith it is a remoter antecedent to it or as it relates to the expiation by actual deliverance from punishment so he saith it is an immediate antecedent to it or as he declares that they are expiated but this he saith doth not so properly relate to Christ as a Sacrifice but as a Priest But never a one of these senses comes near to that which Crellius grants to be the proper importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as applyed to a Sacrifice viz. the purging away guilt and the aversion of the wrath of God and punishment not any way but by the means of the Sacrifice offer'd For in the Legal
their great art in seeking rather by any means to escape their enemies than to overcome them For being sensible that the main scope and design of the Scripture is against them they seldom and but very weakly assault but shew all their subtilty in avoiding by all imaginable arts the force of what is brought against them And the Scripture being so plain in attributing such great effects to the death of Christ when no other answer will serve turn then they tell us That the death of Christ is taken Metonymically for all the consequents of his death viz. His Resurrection Exaltation and the Power and Authority which he hath at the right hand of his Father But how is it possible to convince those who by death can understand life by sufferings can mean glory and by the shedding of blood sitting at the right hand of God And that the Scripture is very far from giving any countenance to these bold Interpretations will appear by these considerations 1. because the effect of Expiation of our sins is attributed to the death of Christ as distinct from his Resurrection viz. Our reconciliation with God Rom. 5. 10. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life To which Crellius answers That the Apostle doth not speak of the death of Christ alone or as it is considered distinct from the consequences of it but only that our Reconciliation was effected◠by the death of Christ intervening But nothing can be more evident to any one who considers the design of the Apostles discourse than that he speaks of what was peculiar to the death of Christ for therefore it is said that Christ dyed for the ungodly For scarcely for a righteous man will one dye but God commendeth his love towards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ dyed for us Much more then being now justified by his blood we shall be saved through him upon which those words follow For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son c. The Reconciliation here mentioned is attributed to the death of Christ in the same sense that it is mentioned before but there it is not mentioned as a. bare condition intervening in order to some thing farther but as the great instance of the love both of God and Christ of God in sending his Son of Christ in laying down his life for sinners in order to their being justified by his blood But where is it that St. Paul saith that the death of Christ had no other influence on the expiation of our sins but as a bare condition intervening in order to that power and authority whereby he should expiate sins what makes him attribute so much to the death of Christ if all the benefits we enjoy depend upon the consequences of it and no otherwise upon that than meerly as a preparation for it what peculiar emphasis were there in Christs dying for sinners and for the ungodly unless his death had a particular relation to the expiation of their sins Why are men said to be justified by his blood and not much rather by his glorious resurrection if the blood of Christ be only considered as an antecedent to the other And that would have been the great demonstration of the love of God which had the most immediate influence upon our advantage which could not have been the death in this sense but the life and glory of Christ. But nothing can be more absurd than what Crellius would have to be the meaning of this place viz. that the Apostle doth not speak of the proper force of the death of Christ distinct from his life but that two things are opposed to each other for the effecting of one of which the death of Christ did intervene but it should not intervene for the other viz. it did intervene for our reconciliation but it should not for our life For did not the death of Christ equally intervene for our life as for our reconciliation was not our eternal deliverance the great thing designed by Christ and our reconciliation in order to that end what opposition then can be imagined that it should be necessary for the death of Christ to intervene in order to the one than in order to the other But he means that the death of Christ should not intervene any more what need that when it is acknowledged by themselves that Christ dyed only for this end before that he might have power to bestow eternal life on them that obey him But the main force of the Apostles argument lyes in the comparison between the death of Christ having respect to us as enemies in order to reconciliation and the life of Christ to us considered as reconciled so that if he had so much kindness for enemies to dye for their reconciliation we may much more presume that he now living in Heaven will accomplish the end of that reconciliation in the eternal salvation of them that obey him By which it is apparent that he speaks of the death of Christ in a notion proper to it self having influence upon our reconciliation and doth not consider it metonymically as comprehending in it the consequents of it 2. Because the expiation of sins is attributed to Christ antecedently to the great consequents of his death viz. his sitting at the right hand of God Heb. 1. 3. When he had by himself purged our sins sate down on the right hand of his Majesty on high Heb. 9. 12. But by his own blood he entred in once into the Holy Place having obtained eternal redemption for us To these places Crellius gives a double answer 1. That indefinite particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being joyned with Verbs of the praeterperfect tense do not alwayes require that the action expressed by them should precede that which is designed in the Verbs to which they are joyned but they have sometimes the force of particles of the present or imperfect tense which sometimes happens in particles of the praeter-perfect tense as Matth. 10. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and several other instances produced by him according to which manner of interpretation the sense he puts upon those words Heb. 9. 12. is Christ by the shedding of his blood entred into the Holy of Holies and in so doing he found eternal redemption or the expiation of sins But not to dispute with Crellius concerning the importance of the Aorist being joyned with a Verb of the praeterperfect tense which in all reason and common acceptation doth imply the action past by him who writes the words antecedent to his writing of it as is plain in the instances produced by Crellius but according to his sense of Christs expiation of sin it was yet to come after Christs entrance into Heaven and so
Luk. 22 53. Mat. 26. 66 67. Luk. 23. 4. Mat. 27. 23. John 19. 34. Mat. 27. 4. Orig. c. Cels. l. 3. p. 123. August de Civit. Dei l. 19. c. 23. Cur ergo damnatus est respondit Dea corpus quidem debilitantibus tormentis sâ—mper oppositum est anima autâ— piorum coelesti sedi insidet John 10. 32 1 Pet. 2. 21 22 23. Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 11. 37. Scalig. hist. anim l. 2. §. 133. Tull. Tusculan l. 2. Aub. Miraeus in vita Lipsii p. 60. John 18. 6. Isa. 53. 7. 1 Cor. 1. 23. Quod caetera etiam foedera caeso animali aliquo saâ—ciri sanguinâ— ejus confirmari solerent Crâ—ll c. Grot. ad cap. 1. p. 29. V. Heins not ad Sil. p. 9 10. 1 Pet. 3. 18. Isa. 53. 10. V. 6. Heb. 9. 14. V. 27. 1 John 2. 2. 4. 10. 1 Tim. 2. 6. 1 Cor. 6. 20. Ephes. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14. Rom. 3. 24 25. Rom. 5. 10. 2 Cor. 5. 19 21. Heb. 9. 14 15. Heb. 2. 17. 5. 1. Mat. 8. 20. Phil. 2. 6 7. 2 Cor. 8 9. Rom. 8. 29. V. 17. V. 18. Heb. 9. 12. §. 1. The Introduction concerning the Socinian way of interpreting Scripture Joh. 1. 3. 10. Socin de Servat Part 2. Cap. 4 §. 2. The state of the Controversie in general §. 3. Of the difference of debts and punishments Non resipiscentibus veniam non concedere id dâ—mum naturae divinae decâ—etis ejus propterea rectitudini aequitati debitum est ac consentaneum Socin de Servat l. 1. c. 1. Non resipiscentes poenâ non liberare tum per se aequitati est admodum consentaneum positis quibusdam finibus quos Deus sibi in regendis hominibus praefixit facto necessarium Crell c. Grot. c. 2. §. 29. §. 4. The reason of humane punishment is the publick interest §. 5. The right of Divine punishment not meer Dominion Crell Respons ad Grot. cap. 2 sect 1. c. p. 144. Soc. de Servat l. 3. c. 3. Praelect c. 18. §. 6. 2. The end of punishments not bare compensation as it is in debts Crell c. Grot. cap. 2. Sect. 2. p. 147. Sect. 17. p. 162. Crell c. Grot. cap. 2. p. 174. Sect. 29. p. 198. §. 7. Of Câ—â—llius his great mâ—stake about the end of punishments Crell cap 2. sect 2. sect 28. P. 191. §. 8. Of the nature of anger and revenge in men and whether punishments are designed to satisfie them Crell c. 2. sect 22. p. 177. Exerc. 313. Seneca de Clem. l 1. c. 20. De Irâ l. 2. c 32. De Irâ l. 1. c. 6. De Irâ l. 1. c. 9. Cap. 12. Cap. 13. De Clem. l. 2. c. 4. De Clem. l. 1. c. 11 12. Salust in Catilin Cicero 7. v. Cicero de Invent. 2. De Irâ l. 1. c. 21. Non praeterita sed futura intuebitur nam ut Plato ait nemo prudens punit quia peccatum est sed ne peccetur Sen. de Irâ l. 1. c. 16. Lact. de ira Dei c. 17. Cap. 2. sect â—3 Cap. 2. sect 1. p. 143. Sect. 13. p. 161. Sen. de ira l. 1. c. 14. 15. Cap. 16. Quibus sc. solatio securitati addi possunt honoris ac dignitatis per injuriam violatae aliquâ ratione imminutae vindiciae assâ—rtioque juris nostri Crell cap. 2. sect 28. p. 191. §. 9. The Interest of the Magistrate in punishment distinct from that of private persons De morib German c. 12. Grot. de leg Goth. in Proleg ad hist. Goth. p. 67. Lindenbrog Gloss. ad Cod. Leo Antiq. v. Freda Spelman Gloss. v. Freda Bignon not in Marculphi form cap. 20. 〈◊〉 Varro de L. L. lib. 4. Jal Pollux l. 8. §. 10. Of the nature of Anger in God the satisfaction to be made to it Câ—… ll cap. 2. 〈◊〉 1. p. 145. 〈◊〉 177. Ciâ—r Tascâ—… l. 4. Arist. Kâ—… 〈◊〉 l. 2. c. 2. Crell c. 2. sect 22. p. 177. Crell de 〈◊〉 Relig. l. 1. c. 30. 〈◊〉 cap. â—…l 3. p. 350. §. 11. Of the ends of divine punishments Crell c. 2. sect 29. p. 129. P. 195. Ezek. 18. v. 23. 32. c. 33. 11. Grot. de satisfact c. 2. p. 43. Ed. 1617. Grot. de â—urâ— belli c. l. 2. c. 20. sect 4. §. 12. The ends of Divine punishments different in this and the future state §. 1. The particular state of the controversie concerning the sufferings of Christ for us Crell praes p. 7. Ruaâ—us in Epistol Crell cap. 9. sect 2. Cap. 10. sect 10. Cap. 7 8 c. Cap. 1. sect 57. §. 2. Whether the sufferings of Christ are to be considered as a punishment of sin Crell cap. 2. sect 1. p. 142. Crell cap. 1. sect 7. c. Socin de Christo servat l. 3. 〈◊〉 10. Crell cap. 1. sect 16. Socin l. 2. 〈◊〉 7. Crell c. 1. §. 11. §. 3. The sufferings of Christ proved to be a punishment from Scripture 1 Pet. 2. 24. Isa. 53. 4 5 6 7 10 11. 2 Cor. 5. 21. Gal. 3. 13. Rom. 4. 25. Soc. de servat l. 2. cap. 4. Crell cap. 1. Sect. 32. Psal. 95. 11. Heb. 3. 11. Doctissimè elegantissiâ—â— Vatablus ut fâ—rè soiâ—t Soâ— deserv l. 1. c. 8. Crell cap. 1. Sect. 31. Ezekiel 18. 20. Crell cap. 4. Sect. 15. §. 4. Of the Scape-Goats bearing away the sins of the people Soc. l. 2. c. 4. Lev. 16. 22. Grot. de sat c. 1. Crell c. 1. Sect. 56. Gen. 6. 12. Gen. 8. 21. Isa. 40. 5. Lev. 16 21. Cod. Joma tit 6. Lev. 16. 10. Heb. 9. 22. Lev. 16. 20. V. 15. V. 21. V. 22. Crell c. 1. Sect. 56. §. 5. Grotius his sense of 1 Pet. 2. 24. vindicated Crell c. 1. §. 35. §. 6. Crellius his seâ—… examâ—nâ—d Soc. deserv l. 2. c. 6. Crell c. 1. §. 39. Sect. â—4 §. 7. Isa. 53. 11. vindicated Crell c. 1. sect 35. Crell c. 1. sect 44. Crell c. 9. §. 7. p. 463. Soc. Prael c. 14. sect 6. 2 Sam. 24. 1. Mat. 8. 16. Mark 1. 32 33. Luke 4. 42. Epist. Ecclâ— p. 747 748 Discuss p. 16. 17. §. 8. Isa. 53. 5 6 7. vindicated Dâ— Servat l. 2. c. 5. Crell c. 1. sect 52. Crell c. 1. Sect. 57. §. 9. Whether Christs death be a proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and whether that doth imply that it was a punishment of sin §. 10. Gods hatred of sin could not be seen in the sufferings of Christ if they were no punishment of sin Crell c. 1. p. 69. Crell c. 8. Sect. 43. Crell c. 1. sect 57 70. §. 11. Grotius his arguments from Christs being made sin and a curse for us defined against Crellius Crel c. 1. §. 60. Soc. l. 1. c. 8. Gen. 18. 25. Crel c. 1. §. 57. Socin explicat 1. cap. Joh. v. 10. Socin de Christo servat l. 2. c. 1. Crâ—l Annot in loc §. 12. The particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being joyned to
they might seem to others to see when they know themselves they do not Nay there is nothing so plain and evident but the reason of some men is more apt to be imposed upon in it than their senses are as it appeared in him who could not otherwise confute the Philosophers argument against motion but by moving before him So that we see the most certain things in the world are lyable to the cavils of men who imploy their wits to do it and certainly those ought not to stagger mens faith in matters of the highest nature and consequence which would not at all move them in other things But at last it is acknowledged by the men who love to be called the men of wit in this Age of ours that there is a God and Providence a future state and the differences of good and evil but the Christian Religion they will see no further reason to embrace than as it is the Religion of the State they live in But if we demand what mighty reasons they are able to bring forth against a Religion so holy and innocent in its design so agreeable to the Nature of God and Man so well contrived for the advantages of this and another life so fully attested to come from God by the Miracles wrought in confirmation of it by the death of the Son of God and of such multitudes of Martyrs so certainly conveyed to us by the unquestionable Tradition of all Ages since the first delivery of it the utmost they can pretend against it is that it is built upon such an appearance of the Son of God which was too mean and contemptible that the Doctrine of it is incosistent with the Civil Interests of men and the design ineffectual for the Reformation of the World For the removal therefore of these cavils against our Religion I shall shew 1. That there were no circumstances in our Saviours appearance or course of life which were unbecoming the Son of God and the design he came upon 2. That the Doctrine delivered by him is so far from being contrary to the Civil Interests of the World that it tends highly to the preservation of them 3. That the design he came upon was very agreeable to the Infinite Wisdom of God and most effectual for the reformation of Mankinde For clearing the first of these I shall consider 1. The Manner of our Saviours appearance 2. The Course of his Life and what it was which his enemies did most object against him 1. The Manner of our Saviours Appearance which hath been alwayes the great offence to the admirers of the pomp and greatness of the World For when they heard of the Son of God coming down from Heaven and making his Progress into this lower world they could imagine nothing less than that an innumerable company of Angels must have been dispatched before to have prepared a place for his reception that all the Soveraigns and Princes of the World must have been summon'd to give their attendance and pay their homage to him that their Scepters must have been immediately laid at his feet and all the Kingdoms of the earth been united into one universal Monarchy under the Empire of the Son of God That the Heavens should how down at his presence to shew their obeysance to him the Earth tremble and shake for fear at the near approaches of his Majesty that all the Clouds should clap together into one universal Thunder to welcome his appearance and tell the Inhabitants of the World what cause they had to fear him whom the Powers of the Heavens obey that the Sea should run out of its wonted course with amazement and horror and if it were possible hide it self in the hollow places of the earth that the Mountains should shrink in their heads to fill up the vast places of the deep so that all that should be fulfilled in a literal sense which was foretold of the comeing of the Messias That every Valley should be filled and every Mountain and Hill brought low the crooked made straight and the rough wayes smooth and all flesh see the salvation of God Yea that the Sun for a time should be darken'd and the Moon withdraw her light to let the Nations of the Earth understand that a Glory infinitely greater than theirs did now appear to the World In a word they could not imagine the Son of God could be born without the pangs and throws of the whole Creation that it was as impossible for him to appear as for the Sun in the Firmament to disappear without the notice of the whole World But when instead of all this pomp and grandeur he comes incognito into the World instead of giving notice of his appearance to the Potentates of the Earth he is only discovered to a few silly Shepheards and three wise men of the East instead of choosing either Rome or Hierusalem for the place of his Nativity he is born at Bethleem a mean and obscure Village instead of the glorious and magnificent Palaces of the East or West which were at that time so famous he is brought forth in a Stable where the Manger was his Cradle and his Mother the only attendant about him who was her self none of the great persons of the Court nor of any fame in the Countrey but was only rich in her Genealogy and honourable in her Pedigree And according to the obscurity of his Birth was his Education too his youth was not spent in the Imperial Court at Rome nor in the Schools of Philosophers at Athens nor at the feet of the great Rabbies at Jerusalem but at Nazareth a place of mean esteem among the Jews where he was remarkable for nothing so much as the Vertues proper to his Age Modesty Humility and Obedience All which he exercises to so high a degree that his greatest Kindred and acquaintance were mightily surprized when at 30 years of age he began to discover himself by the Miracles which he wrought and the Authority which he spake with And although the rayes of his Divinity began to break forth through the Clouds he had hitherto disguised himself in yet he persisted still in the same course of humility and self-denyal taking care of others to the neglect of himself feeding others by a Miracle and fasting himself to one shewing his power in working miraculous Cures and his humility in concealing them Conversing with the meanest of the people and choosing such for his Apostles who brought nothing to recommend them but innocency and simplicity Who by their heats and ignorance were continual exercises of his Patience in bearing with them and of his care and tenderness in instructing them And after a life thus led with such unparallel'd humility when he could adde nothing more to it by his actions he doth it by his sufferings and compleats the sad Tragedy of his Life by a most shamefull and ignominious Death This is the short and true account of all those things
which the admirers of the greatness of this world think mean and contemptible in our Saviours appearance here on earth But we are now to consider whether so great humility were not more agreeable with the design of his coming into the World than all that pomp and state would have been which the Son of God might have more easily commanded than we can imagine He came not upon so mean an errand as to dazzle the eyes of Mankinde with the brightness of his Glory to amaze them by the terribleness of his Majesty much less to make a shew of the riches and gallantry of the World to them But he came upon far more noble and excellent designs to bring life and immortality to light to give men the highest assurance of an eternal happiness and misery in the World to come and the most certain directions for obtaining the one and avoiding the other and in order to that nothing was judged more necessary by him than to bring the vanities of this World out of that credit and reputation they had gained among foolish men Which he could never have done if he had declaimed never so much against the vanity of worldly greatness riches and honours if in the mean time himself had lived in the greatest splendour and bravery For the enjoyning then the contempt of this world to his Disciples in hopes of a better would have looked like the commendation of the excellency of fasting at a full meal and of the conveniencies of Poverty by one who makes the greatest haste to be rich That he might not therefore seem to offer so great a contradiction to his Doctrine by his own example he makes choice of a life so remote from all suspicion of designs upon this world that though the foxes had holes and the birds of the air had nests yet the Son of Man who was the Lord and Heir of all things had not whereon to lay his head And as he shewed by his life how little he valued the great things of the World so he discovered by his death how little he feared the evil things of it all which he did with a purpose and iâ—tention to rectifie the great mistakes 〈◊〉 men as to these things That they migâ—… no longer venture an eternal happiness fâ—… the splendid and glorious vanities of tâ—… present life nor expose themselves to tâ—… utmost miseries of another world to avoâ—… the frowns of this From hence proceeâ—ed that generous contempt of the Worlâ— which not only our Saviour himself bâ— all his true Disciples of the first Ages 〈◊〉 Christianity were so remarkable for 〈◊〉 let others see they had greater things iâ—… their eye than any here the hopes of whiâ—â— they would not part with for all that thâ— world thinks great or desirable So thâ—… considering the great danger most men arâ— in by too passionate a love of these thingâ— and that universal and infinite kindneâ—… which our Saviour had to the Souls 〈◊〉 men there was nothing he could discover it more in as to his appearance in the world than by putting such an affroâ—… upon the greatness and honour of it as he did by so open a neglect of it in his life and despising it in his death and sufferings And who now upon any pretence of reason dare entertain the meaner apprehensious of our Blessed Saviour because he appeared without the pomp and greatness of the world when the reason of his doing so was that by his own humility and self-denyal he might shew us the way to an eternal happiness Which he well knew how very hard it would be for men to attain to who measure things not according to their inward worth and excellency but the splendour and appearance which they make to the world who think nothing great but what makes them gazed upon nothing desireable but what makes them flatter'd But if they could be once perswaded how incomparably valuable the glories of the life to come are above all the gayeties and shews of this they would think no condition mean or contemptible which led to so great an end none happy or honourable which must so soon end in the grave or be changed to eternal misery And that we might entertain such thoughts as these are not as the melancholy effects of discontent and disappointments but as the serious result of our most deliberate enquiry into the value of things was the design of our Saviour in the humility of his appearance and of that excellent Doctrine which he recommended to the World by it Were I to argue the case with Philosophers I might then at large shew from the free acknowledgements of the best and most experienced of them that nothing becomes so much one who designs to recommend Vertue to the World as a reall and hearty contempt of all the pomp of it and that the meanest condition proceeding from such a principle is truely and in it self more honourable than living in the greatest splendour imaginable Were I to deal with the Jews I might then prove that as the Prophecyes concerning the Messiaâ— speak of great and wonderfull effects of his coming so that they should be accomplished in a way of suffering and humility But since I speak to Christians and therefore to those who are perswaded of the great kindness and love of our Saviour in coming into the World to reform it and that by convincing men of the truth and excellency of a future state no more need be said to vindicate the appearance of him from that meanness and contempt which the pride and ambition of vain men is apt to cast upon it 2. But not onely our Saviours manner of Appearance but the manner of his Conversation gave great offence to his enemies viz. That it was too free and familiar among persons who had the meanest reputation the Publicans and Sinners and in the mean time declaimed against the strictest observers of the greatest rigours and austerities of life And this no doubt was one great cause of the mortal hatred of the Pharisees against him though least pretended that even thereby they might make good that charge of hypocrisie which our Saviour so often draws up against them And no wonder if such severe rebukes did highly provoke them since they found this so gainfull and withall so easie a trade among the people when with a demure look and a sowre countenance they could cheat and defraud their Brethren and under a specious shew of devotion could break their fasts by devouring Widows houses and end their long Prayers to God with acts of the highest injustice to their Neighbours As though all that while they had been only begging leave of God to do all the mischief they could to their Brethren It is true such as these were our Saviour upon all occasions speaks against with the greatest sharpness as being the most dangerous enemies to true Religion and that which made men whose passion was too strong for their reason abhorr
Mankinde it was time for the Sun of righteousness to arise and with the softening and healing influence of his beams to bring the World to a more vertuous temper And that leads to the Second thing implyed which is the peculiar efficacy of the Gospel for promoting mens salvation for it is the Power of God to salvation and that will appear by considering how many wayes the power of God is engaged in it These three especially 1. In confirmation of the Truth of it 2. In the admirable Effects of it in the World 3. In the divine Assistance which is promised to those who embrace it 1. In confirmation of the Truth of it For the World was grown so uncertain as to the grand foundations of Religion that the same power was requisite now to settle the World which was at first for the framing of it For though the Precepts of Christian Religion be pure and easie holy and suitable to the sense of mankind though the Promises be great and excellent proportionable to our wants and the weight of our business though the reward be such that it is easier to desire than comprehend it yet all these would but seem to baffle the more the expectations of men unless they were built on some extraordinary evidence of divine power And such we assert there was in the confirmation of these things to us not only in the miraculous birth of our Saviour and that continual series of unparallel'd miracles in his life not only in the most obliging circumstances of his death nor only in the large effusion of divine gifts upon his Apostles and the strange propagation of Christian Religion by them against all humane power but that which I shall particularly instance in as the great effect of divine power and confirmation of our Religion was his Resurrection from the dead For as our Apostle saith Rom. 1. 4. Christ was declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of Holiness by the Resurrection from the dead No way of evidence could be more suitable to the capacities of all than this it being a plain matter of fact none ever better attested than this was not only by the unanimous consent of all the witnesses but by their constant adhering to the truth of it though it cost almost all of them their lives and no greater evidence could be given to the World of a divine power since both Jews and Gentiles agreed in this that such a thing could not be effected but by an immediate hand of God So far were they then from thinking a resurrection possible by the juyce of herbs or an infusion of warm blood into the veins or by the breath of living Creatures as the great martyr for Atheism would seem from Pliny to perswade us when yet certainly nothing can be of higher concernment to those who believe not another life than to have try'd this experiment long ere now and since nothing of that nature hath ever happened since our Saviours resurrection it only lets us know what credulous men in other things the greatest Infidels as to Religion are But so far were they at that time from so fond an imagination that they readily yielded that none but God could do it though they seem'd to question whether God himself could do it or no. As appears by the Apostles Interrogation Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead Acts 26. 8. This was therefore judged on both sides to be a matter of so great importance that all the disputes concerning Christian Religion were resolved into this Whether Christ were risen from the dead And this the Apostles urge and insist on upon all occasions as the great evidence of the truth of his Doctrine and this was the main part of their Commission for they were sent abroad to be witnesses of his Resurrection Which was not designed by God as a thing strange and incredible to puzzle mankinde with but to give the highest assurance imaginable to the World of the truth and importance of Christianity Since God was pleased to imploy his power in so high a manner to confirm the certainty of it 2. Gods power was seen in the admirable effects of Christian Religion upon the minds of men which was most discernable by the strange alteration it soon made in the state of the world In Judea soon after the death of Christ some of his Crucifyers become Christians 3000 Converts made at one Sermon of S. Peters and great accessions made afterwards both in Hierusalem and other places Yea in all parts of the Roman Empire where the Christians came they so increased and multiplyed that thereby it appeared that God had given a Benediction to his new Creation suitable to what he gave to the first So that within the compass of not a hundred years after our Saviours death the World might admire to see it self so strangely changed from what it was The Temple at Hierusalem destroy'd and the Jews under a sadder dispersion than ever and rendred uncapable of continuing their former Worship of God there The Heathen Temples unfrequented the Gods derided the Oracles ceased the Philosophers puzzled the Magistrates disheartned by their fruitless cruelties and all this done by a few Christians who came and preached to the World Righteousness Temperance and a Judgement to come whereof God had given assurance to the World by raising one Jesus from the dead And all this effected not by the power of Wit and Eloquence not by the force and violence of rebellious subjects not by men of hot and giddy brains but by men sober just humble and meek in all their carriages but withall such as might never have been heard of in the world had not this Doctrine made them famous What could this then be imputed to less than a Divine Power which by effectual and secret wayes carries on its own design against all the force and wit of men So that the wise Gamaliel at whose feet S. Paul was bred seem'd to have the truest apprehensions of these things at that time when he told the Sanhedrin If this counsel or this work be of men it will come to nought but if it be of God ye cannot overthrow it least haply ye be found to fight against God Acts 5. 38 39. 3. In the Divine Assistance which is promised to those who embrace it in which respect it is properly the power of God to salvation and therein far beyond what the Philosophers could promise to any who embraced their opinions For the Gospel doth not only discover the necessity of a Principle superiour to Nature which we call Grace in order to the fitting our Souls for their future happiness but likewise shews on what terms God is pleased to bestow it on men viz. on the consideration of the death and passion of our Lord and Saviour Not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he saved
to punish it he remits the sinner as he assures him by the death of Christ he will not punish upon his repentance but he fully remits both when he delivers the person upon the tryall of the great day from all the penalties which he hath deserved by his sins So that our compleat justification and salvation go both upon the same terms and the same Faith which is sufficient for one must be sufficient for the other also What care then ought men to take lest by mis-understanding the notion of Believing so much spoken of as the condition of our salvation they live in a neglect of that holy obedience which the Gospel requires and so believe themselves into eternal misery But as long as men make their obedience necessary though but as the fruit and effect of Faith it shall not want its reward for those whose hearts are purified by Faith shall never be condemned for mistaking the notion of it and they who live as those that are to be judged according to their works shall not miss their reward though they do not think they shall receive it for them But such who make no other condition of the Gospel but Believing and will scarce allow that to be call'd a Condition ought to have a great care to keep their hearts sounder than their heads for their only security will lye in this that they are good though they see no necessity of being so And such of all others I grant have reason to acknowledge the irresistible power of Divine Grace which enables them to obey the will of God against the dictates of their own judgements But thanks be to God who hath so abundantly provided for all the infirmities of humane Nature by the large offers of his Grace and assistance of his Spirit that though we meet with so much opposition without and so much weakness within and so many discouragements on every side of us yet if we sincerely apply our selves to do the will of God we have as great assurance as may be that we shall be kept by the power of God through Faith unto Salvation FINIS Hebr. 2. 3. How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation WHen the wise and eternal Counsels of Heaven concerning the salvation of Mankinde by the death of the Son of God were first declared to the World by his own appearance and preaching in it nothing could be more reasonably expected than that the dignity of his Person the authority of his Doctrine and the excellency of his Life should have perswaded those whom he appeared among to such an admiration of his Person and belief of his Doctrine as might have led them to an imitation of him in the holiness of his life and conversation For if either the worth of the Person or the importance of the Message might prevail any thing towards a kinde and honourable reception among men there was never any person appeared in any degree comparable to him never any Message declared which might challenge so welcome an entertainment from men as that was which he came upon If to give Mankinde the highest assurance of a state of life and immortality if to offer the pardon of sin and reconciliation with God upon the most easie and reasonable terms if to purge the degenerate World from all its impurities by a Doctrine as holy as the Author of it were things as becoming the Son of God to reveal as the Sons of men to receive nothing can be more unaccountable than that his Person should be despised his Authority slighted and his Doctrine contemned And that by those whose interest was more concerned in the consequence of these things than himself could be in all the affronts and injuries he underwent from men For the more the indignities the greater the shame the sharper the sufferings which he did undergo the higher was the honour and glory which he was advanced to but the more obliging the instances of his kindness were the greater the salvation that was tendered by him the more prevailing the motives were for the entertainment of his Doctrine the more exemplary and severe will the punishment be of all those who reject it For it is very agreeable to those eternal Laws of Justice by which God governs the world that the punishment should arise proportionably to the greatness of the mercies despised and therefore although the Scripture be very sparing in telling us what the state of those persons shall be in another life who never heard of the Gospel yet for those who do and despise it it tells us plainly that an eternal misery is the just desert of those to whom an eternal happiness was offered and yet neglected by them And we are the rather told of it that men may not think it a surprize in the life to come or that if they had known the danger they would have escaped it and therefore our Blessed Saviour who never mentioned punishment but with a design to keep men from it declares it frequently that the punishment of those persons and places would be most intolerable who have received but not improved the light of the Gospel and that it would be more tolerable for the persons who had offer'd violence to Nature and had Hell-fire burning in their hearts by their horrid impurities than for those who heard the Doctrine and saw the Miracles of Christ and were much the worse rather than any thing the better for it But lest we should think that all this black scene of misery was only designed for those who were the Actors in that dolefull Tragedy of our Saviours sufferings we are told by those who were best able to assure us of it that the same dismal consequences will attend all the affronts of his Doctrine as if they had been offer'd to his own person For it is nothing but the common flattery and self-deceit of humane nature which makes any imagine that though they do not now either believe or obey the Gospel they should have done both if they had heard our Saviour speak as never man spake and seen him do what never man did For the same disposition of minde which makes them now slight that Doctrine which is delivered to them by them that heard him would have made them slight the Person as well as the Doctrine if they had heard it from himself And therefore it is but reasonable that the same punishment should belong to both especially since God hath provided so abundantly for the assurance of our Faith by the miraculous and powerfull demonstration of that divine spirit which did accompany those who were the first publishers of this Doctrine to the world And therefore the Author of this Epistle after he hath in the words of the Text declared that it is impossible to escape if we neglect the great salvation offered us by the Gospel in the following words he gives us that account of it that at first it began to be spoken by the
Spring but such who make righteousness and goodness their meat and drink that which they hunger and thirst after and take as much pleasure in as the most voluptuous Epicure in his greatest dainties Not those whose malice goes beyond their power and want only enough of that to make the whole World a Slaughter-house and account racks and torments among the necessary instruments of governing the World but such who when their enemies are in their power will not torment themselves by cruelty to them but have such a sense of common humanity as not only to commend pity and good nature to those above them but to use it to those who are under them Not those whose hearts are as full of dissimulation and hypocrisie as the others hands are of blood and violence that care not what they are so they may but seem to be good but such whose inward integrity and purity of heart far exceeds the outward shew and profession of it who honour Goodness for it self and not for the Glory which is about the head of it Not those who never think the breaches of the world wide enough till there be a door large enough for their own interests to go in at by them that would rather see the world burning than one peg be taken out of their Chariot-wheels but such who would sacrifice themselves like the brave Roman to fill up the wide gulf which mens contentions have made in the world and think no Legacy ought to be preserved more inviolable than that of Peace which our Saviour left to his Disciples Lastly not those who will do any thing rather than suffer or if they suffer it shall be for any thing rather than righteousness to uphold a party or maintain a discontented faction but such who never complain of the hardness of their way as long as they are sure it is that of Righteousness but if they meet with reproaches and persecutions in it they welcome them as the harbingers of their future reward the expectation of which makes the worst condition not only tolerable but easie to them Thus we see what kinde of happiness it is which the Gospel promises not such a one as rises out of the dust or is tost up and down with the motion of it but such whose never-failing fountain is above and whither those small rivulets return which fall down upon Earth to refresh the mindes of men in their passage thither but while they continue here as the Jews say of the water that came out of the rock it follows them while they travel through this wilderness below So that the foundation of a Christians happiness is the expectation of a life to come which expectation having so firm a bottom as the assurance which Christ hath given us by his death and sufferings it hath power and influence sufficient to bear up the mindes of men against all the vicissitudes of this present state 2. We have the most large and free offers of divine Goodness in order to it Were it as easie for Man to govern his own passions as to know that he ought to do it were the impressions of Reason and Religion as powerfull with Mankinde as those of Folly and Wickedness are we should never need complain much of the misery of our present state or have any cause to fear a worse to come There would then be no condition here but what might be born with satisfaction to ones own minde and the life of one day led according to the principles of vertue and goodness would be preferred before a sinning Immortality But we have lost the command of our selves and therefore our passions govern us and as long as such furies drive us no wonder if our ease be little When men began first to leave the uncertain speculations of Nature and found themselves so out of order that they thought the great care ought to be to regulate their own actions how soon did their passions discover themselves about the way to govern them And they all agreed in this that there was great need to do it and that it was impossible to do it without the principles of Vertue for never was there any Philosopher so bad as to think any man could be happy without Vertue even the Epicureans themselves acknowledged it for one of their established Maâ—… that no man could live a pleasant life wâ—…t being good and supposing the multiplication of Sects of Philosophers about these things as far as Varro thought it possible to 288. although there never were so many nor really could be upon his own grounds yet not one of all these but made it necessary to be vertuous in order to being happy and those who did not think vertue to be desired for it self yet made it a necessary means for the true pleasure and happiness of our lives But when they were agreed in this that it was impossible for a vitious man to enjoy any true contentment of minde they fell into nice and subtle disputes about the names and order of things to be chosen and so lost the great effect of all their common principles They pretended great cures for the disorders of mens lives and excellent remedies against the common distempers of humane nature but still the disease grew under the remedy and their applications were too weak to allay the fury of their passions It was neither the order and good of the Universe nor the necessity of events nor the things being out of our power nor the common condition of humanity no nor that comfort of ill natured men as Carneades call'd it the many companions â—…ave in misery that could keep their â—…ons from breaking out when a great occasion was presented them For he who had read all their discourses carefully and was a great man himself I mean Cicero upon the death of his beloved daughter was so far from being comforted by them that he was fain to write a consolation for himself in which the greatest cure it may be was the diversion he found in writing it But supposing these things had gone much farther and that all wise men could have governed their passions as to the troubles of this life and certainly the truest wisdom lies in that Yet what had all this been to a preparation for an eternal state which they knew little of and minded less All their discourses about a happy life here were vain and contradicted by themselves when after all their rants about their wise man being happy in the bull of Phalaris c. they yet allow'd him to dispatch himself if he saw cause which a wise man would never do if he thought himself happy when he did it So that unless God himself had given assurance of a life to come by the greatest demonstrations of it in the death and resurrection of his Son all the considerations whatever could never have made mankinde happy But by the Gospel he hath taken away all suspicions
the blood of his Son to have it shed only in allusion to some ancient customs But if there were such a necessity of alluding to them why might not the blood of any other person have done it when yet all that custom was no more but that a sacrifice should be offer'd and upon the parts of the sacrifice divided they did solemnly swear and ratifie their Covenant And if this be yielded them it then follows from this custom that Christ must be consider'd as a sacrifice in his death and so the ratification of the Covenant must be consequent to that oblation which he made of himself upon the Cross. Besides how incongruous must this needs be that the death of Christ the most innocent person in the World without any respect to the guilt of sin should suffer so much on purpose to assure us that God will pardon those who are guilty of it May we not much rather infer the contrary considering the holiness and justice of Gods nature if he dealt so severely with the green tree how much more will he with the dry If one so innocent suffer'd so much what then may the guilty expect If a Prince should suffer the best subject he hath to be severely punished could ever any imagine that it was with a design to assure them that he would pardon the most rebellious No but would it not rather make men afraid of being too innocent for fear of suffering too much for it And those who seem very carefull to preserve the honour of Gods Justice in not punishing one for anothers faults ought likewise to maintain it in the punishing of one who had no fault at all to answer for And to think to escape this by saying that to such a person such things are calamities but no punishments is to revive the ancient exploded Stoicism which thought to reform the diseases of Mankind by meer changeing the names of things though never so contrary to the common sense of humane nature which judges of the nature of punishments by the evils men undergo and the ends they are designed for And by the very same reason that God might exercise his dominion on so innocent a person as our Saviour was without any respect to sin as the moving cause to it he might lay eternal torments on a most innocent Creature for degrees and continuance do not alter the reason of things and then escape with the same evasion that this was no act of injustice in God because it was a meer exercise of Dominion And when once a sinner comes to be perswaded by this that God will pardon him it must be by the hopes that God will shew kindness to the guilty because he shews so little to the innocent and if this be agreeable to the Justice and Holiness of Gods nature it is hard to say what is repugnant to it If to this it be said that Christs consent made it no unjust exercise of dominion in God towards him it is easily answer'd that the same consent will make it less injustice in God to lay the punishment of our sins upon Christ upon his undertaking to satisfie for us for then the consent supposes a meritorious cause of punishment but in this case the consent implyeth none at all And we are now enquiring into the reasons of such sufferings and consequently of such a consent which cannot be imagined but upon very weighty motives such as might make it just in him to consent as well as in God to inflict Neither can it be thought that all the design of the sufferings of Christ was to give us an example and an incouragement to suffer our selves though it does so in a very great measure as appears by the Text it self For the hopes of an eternal reward for these short and light afflictions ought to be encouragement enough to go through the miseries of this life in expectation of a better to come And the Cloud of Witnesses both under the Law and the Gospel of those who have suffer'd for righteousness sake ought to make no one think it strange if he must endure that which so many have done before him and been crowned for it And lastly to question whether Christ could have pity enough upon us in our sufferings unless he had suffer'd so deeply himself will lead men to distrust the pity and compassion of Almighty God because he was never capable of suffering as we do But the Scripture is very plain and full to all those who rack not their minds to pervert it in assigning a higher reason than all these of the sufferings of Christ viz. That Christ suffered for sins the just for the unjust that his soul was made an offering for sin and that the Lord therefore as on a sacrifice of atonement laid on him the iniquities of us all that through the eternal Spirit he offer'd himself without spot to God and did appear to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself that he was made a propitiation for our sins that he laid down his life as a price of Redemption for Mankinde that through his blood we obtain Redemption even the forgiveness of sins which in a more particular manner is attributed to the blood of Christ as the procuring cause of it That he dyed to reconcile God and us together and that the Ministery of Reconciliation is founded on Gods making him to be sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him and that we may not think that all this Reconciliation respects us and not God he is said to offer up himself to God and for this cause to be a Mediator of the New Testament and to be a faithfull high-Priest in things pertaining to God to make reconciliation for the sins of the people and every high-Priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God not appointed by God in things meerly tending to the good of men which is rather the Office of a Prophet than a Priest So that from all these places it may easily appear that the blood of Christ is to be looked on as a sacrifice of Atonement for the sins of the World Not as though Christ did suffer the very same which we should have suffer'd for that was eternal death as the consequent of guilt in the person of the Offender and then the discharge must have been immediately consequent upon the payment and no room had been left for the freeness of remission or for the conditions required on our parts But that God was pleased to accept of the death of his Son as a full perfect sufficient sacrifice oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the World as our Church expresseth it and in consideration of the sufferings of his Son is pleased to offer pardon of sin upon sincere repentance and eternal life upon a holy obedience to his will Thus much for the
things we are to consider concerning the contradiction of sinners which Christ endured against himself Nothing now remains but the influence that ought to have upon us lest we be weary and faint in our minds For which end I shall suggest two things 1. The vast disproportion between Christs sufferings and ours 2. The great encouragement we have from his sufferings to bear our own the better 1. The vast Disproportion between Christs sufferings and our own Our lot is fallen into suffering times and we are apt enough to complain of it I will not say it is wholly true of us what the Moralist saith generally of the complaints of men Non quia dura sed quia molles patimur that it is not the hardness of our conditions so much as the softness of our spirits which makes us complain of them For I must needs say this City hath smarted by such a series and succession of judgements which few Cities in the world could parallel in so short a time The Plague hath emptied its houses and the fire consumed them the War exhausted our spirits and it were well if Peace recovered them But still these are but the common calamities of humane nature things that we ought to make account of in the World and to grow the better by them And it were happy for this City if our thankfulness and obedience were but answerable to the mercies we yet enjoy let us not make our condition worse by our fears nor our fears greater than they need to be for no enemy can be so bad as they Thanks be to God our condition is much better at present than it hath been let us not make it worse by fearing it may be so Complaints will never end till the World does and we may imagine that will not last much longer when the City thinks it hath trade enough and the Countrey riches enough But I will not go about to perswade you that your condition is better than it is for I know it is to no purpose to do so all men will believe as they feel But suppose our condition were much worse than it is yet what were all our sufferings compared with those of our Saviour for us the sins that make us smart wounded him much deeper they pierced his side which only touch our skin we have no cause to complain of the bitterness of that Cup which he hath drunk off the dreggs of already We lament over the ruins of a City and are revived with any hopes of seeing it rise out of the dust but Christ saw the ruins that sin caused in all mankind he undertook the repairing them and putting men into a better condition than before And we may easily think what a difficult task he had of it when he came to restore them who were delighted in their ruins and thought themselves too good to be mended It is the comfort of our miseries if they be only in this life that we know they cannot last long but that is the great aggravation of our Saviours sufferings that the contradiction of sinners continues against him still Witness the Atheisme I cannot so properly call it as the Antichristianism of this present Age wherein so many profane persons act over again the part of the Scribes and Pharisees they slight his Doctrine despise his Person disparage his Miracles contemn his Precepts and undervalue his Sufferings Men live as if it were in defiance to his holy Laws as though they feared not what God can do so much as to need a Mediator between him and them If ever men tread under foot the Son of God it is when they think themselves to be above the need of him if ever they count the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing it is not only when they do not value it as they ought but when they exercise their profane wits upon it Blessed Saviour was it not enough for thee to bear the contradiction of sinners upon Earth but thou must still suffer so much at the hands of those whom thou dyedst for that thou mightest bring them to Heaven was it not enough for thee to be betrayed on Earth but thou must be defied in Heaven Was it not enough for thee to stoop so low for our sakes but that thou shouldest be trampled on because thou didst it was the ignominious death upon the Cross too small a thing for thee to suffer in thy Person unless thy Religion be contemned and exposed to as much shame and mockery as thy self was Unhappy we that live to hear of such things but much more unhappy if any of our sins have been the occasion of them If our unsuitable lives to the Gospel have open'd the mouths of any against so excellent a Religion If any malice and revenge any humour and peevishness any pride or hypocrisie any sensuality and voluptuousness any injustice or too much love of gain have made others despise that Religion which so many pretend to and so few practise If we have been in any measure guilty of this as we love our Religion and the honour of our Saviour let us endeavour by the holiness and meekness of our spirits the temperance and justice of our actions the patience and contentedness of our minds to recover the honour of that Religion which only can make us happy and our Posterity after us 2. What Encouragement we have from the sufferings of Christ to bear our own the better because we see by his example that God deals no more hardly with us than he did with his own Son if he layes heavy things upon us Why should we think to escape when his own Son underwent so much if we meet with reproaches and ill usage with hard measure and a mean condition with injuries and violence with mockings and affronts nay with a shamefull and a painfull death what cause have we to complain for did not the Son of God undergo all these things before us If any of your Habitations have been consumed that you have been put to your shifts where to lodge your selves or your Families consider that though the Foxes have holes and the Birds of the Air have nests yet the Son of Man had not whereon to lay his head If your condition be mean and low think of him who being in the form of God took upon him the form of a servant and though he was rich yet for your sakes he became poor that through his poverty ye might be made rich If you are unjustly defamed and reproached consider what contumelies and disgraces the Son of God underwent for you If you are in pain and trouble think of his Agony and bloody sweat the nailing of his hands and feet to the Cross to be a sacrifice for the expiation of your sins Never think much of undergoing any thing whereby you may be conformable to the Image of the Son of God knowing this that if ye suffer with him ye shall also be
the Gospel Why may not the confused Chaos import no more than the state of Ignorance and darkness under which the World was before the Law of Moses since it is confessed that it signifies in the New Testament such a state of the World before the Gospel appeared and consequently why may not the light which made the first day be the first tendencies to the Doctrine of Moses which being at first divided and scattered was united afterwards in one great Body of Laws which was call'd the Sun because it was the great Director of the Jewish Nation and therefore said to rule the day as the less considerable Laws of other Nations are called the Moon because they were to govern those who were yet under the night of Ignorance Why may not the Firmament being in the midst of the Waters imply the erection of the Jewish State in the midst of a great deal of trouble since it is confessed that Waters are often taken in Scripture in a Metaphorical sense for troubles and afflictions and the Earth appearing out of the Waters be no more but the settlement of that State after its troubles and particularly with great elegancy after their passage through the Red Sea And the production of Herbs and living Creatures be the great encrease of the People of all sorts as well those of a meaner rank and therefore call'd herbs as those of a higher that were to live upon the other and sometimes trample upon them and therefore by way of excellency call'd the living Creatures And when these were multiplyed and brought into order which being done by steps and degrees is said to be finished in several dayes then the State and the Church flourished and enjoy'd a great deal of pleasure which was the production of Man and Woman and their being placed in Paradise for a perfect Man notes a high degree of perfection and a Woman is taken for the Church in the Revelations But when they followed the Customs of other Nations which were as a forbidden tree to them than they lost all their happiness and pleasure and were expelled out of their own Countrey and lived in great slavery and misery which was the Curse pronounced against them for violating the rules of Policy established among them Thus you see how small a measure of wit by the advantage of those wayes of interpreting Scripture which the subtilest of our adversaries make use of will serve to pervert the clearest expressions of Scripture to quite another sense than was ever intended by the Writer of them And I assure you if that rule of interpreting Scripture be once allowed that where words are ever used in a Metaphorical sense there can be no necessity of understanding them in a proper there is scarce any thing which you look on as the most necessary to be believed in Scripture but it may be made appear not to be so upon those terms for by reason of the paucity and therefore the ambiguity of the Original words of the Hebrew language the strange Idioms of it the different senses of the same word in several Conjugations the want of several modes of expression which are used in other Languages and above all the lofty and Metaphorical way of speaking used in all Eastern Countreys and the imitation of the Hebrew Idioms in the Greek translation of the Old Testament and Original of the New you can hardly affix a sense upon any words used therein but a man who will be at the pains to search all possible significations and uses of those words will put you hard to it to make good that which you took to be the proper meaning of them Wherefore although I will not deny to our adversaries the praise of subtilty and diligence I cannot give them that which is much more praise worthy viz. of discretion and sound judgement For while they use their utmost industry to search all the most remote and Metaphorical senses of words with a design to take off the genuine and proper meaning of them they do not attend to the ill consequence that may be made of this to the overthrowing those things the belief of which themselves make necessary to salvation For by this way the whole Gospel may be made an Allegory and the Resurrection of Christ be thought as metaphorical as the Redemption by his Death and the force of all the Precepts of the Gospel avoided by some unusual signification of the words wherein they are delivered So that nothing can be more unreasonable than such a method of proceeding unless it be first sufficiently proved that the matter is not capable of the proper sense and therefore of necessity the improper only is to be allowed And this is that which Socinus seems after all his pains to pervert the meaning of the places in controversie to rely on most viz. That the Doctrine of satisfaction doth imply an impossibility in the thing it self and therefore must needs be false nay he saith the infallibility of the Revealer had not been enough in this Case supposing that Christ had said it and risen from the dead to declare his own Veracity unless he had declared it by its proper causes and effects and so shewed the possibility of the thing it self And the reason he saith why they believe their Doctrine true is not barely because God hath said it but they believe certainly that God hath said it because they know it to be true by knowing the contrary Doctrine to be impossible The controversie then concerning the meaning of the places in dispute is to be resolved from the nature and reasonableness of the matter contained in them for if Socinus his reason were answerable to his confidence if the account we give of the sufferings of Christ were repugnant not only to the Justice Goodness and Grace of God but to the nature of the thing if it appear impossible that mankinde should be redeemed in a proper sense or that God should be propitiated by the Death of his Son as a Sacrifice for sin if it enervate all the Precepts of Obedience and tends rather to justifie sins than those who do repent of them I shall then agree that no industry can be too great in searching Authors comparing places examining Versions to finde out such a sense as may be agreeable to the nature of things the Attributes of God and the design of Christian Religion But if on the contrary the Scripture doth plainly assert those things from whence our Doctrine follows and without which no reasonable account can be given either of the expressions used therein or of the sufferings of Christ if Christs death did immediately respect God as a sacrifice and were paid as a price for our Redemption if such a design of his death be so far from being repugnant to the nature of God that it highly manifests his Wisdom Justice and Mercy if it assert nothing but what is so far from being impossible that it is very
make it necessary to the nature but to the justice of punishment that it be inflicted upon none but the person who hath offended So by his own Confession it is not against the nature of punishment that one man suffer for anothers faults From whence it follows that all Socinus his arguments signifie nothing which are drawn from the impossibility of the thing that one man should be punished for anothers faults for Crellius grants the thing to be possible but denies it to be just yet not absolutely neither but with some restrictions and limitations For 6. It is not but that there may be sufficient causes assigned in some particular cases wherein it may be just for God to punish some for the sins of others For Crellius himself hath assigned divers When there is such a neer conjunction between them that one may be said to be punished in the punishment of another as Parents in their Children and Posterity Kings in their Subjects or the body of a State in its Members either in the most or the most principal though the fewest but we are to consider how far he doth extend this way of punishment of some in others 1. At the greatest distance of time if they have been of the same Nation for he extends it to the utmost degree of Gods patience towards a people For saith he God doth not presently punish as soon as they have sin'd but spares for a great while and forbears in expectation of their repentance in the mean while a great many guilty persons dye and seem to have escaped punishment But at last the time of Gods patience being past he punisheth their Posterity by exacting the full punishment of their sins upon them and by this means punisheth their Ancestors too and punisheth their sins in their punishment for saith he all that people are reckon'd for one man of several Ages and that punishment which is taken of the last may be for the sins of the first for the conjunction and succession of them of which we have an example saith he in the destruction of Hierusalem By which we see a very remote conjunction and a meer similitude in comparing a succession of Ages in a people with those in a man may when occasion serves be made use of to justifie Gods punishing one Generation of men for the sins of others that have been long before 2. When sins are more secret or less remarkable which God might not punish unless an occasion were given from others sins impelling him to it but because God would punish one very near them he therefore punisheth them that in their punishment he might punish the other Or in case sins spread through a Family or a people or they are committed by divers persons at sundry times which God doth not severally punish but sometimes then when the Head of a People or Family hath done something which remarkably deserves punishment whom he will punish in those he is related to and therefore generally punisheth the whole Family or people 3. That which may be a meer exercise of dominion as to some may be a proper punishment to others as in the case of Infants being taken away for their Parents sins For God as to the Children he saith useth only an act of dominion but the punishment only redounds to the Parents who loose them and though this be done for the very end of punishment yet he denyes that it hath the nature of Punishment in any but the Parents 4. That Punishment may be intended for those who can have no sense at all of it as Crellius asserts in the case of Sauls sons 2 Sam. 21. 8. 14. that the punishment was mainly intended for Saul who was already dead From these concessions of Crellius in this case we may take notice 1. That a remote conjunction may be sufficient for a translation of penalty viz. from one Generation to another 2. That sins may be truly said to be punished in others when the offenders themselves may escape punishment thus the sins of Parents in their Children and Princes in their Subjects 3. That an act of dominion in some may be designed as a proper punishment to others 4. That the nature of punishment is not to be measured by the sense of it Now upon these concessions though our Adversaries will not grant that Christ was properly punished for our sins yet they cannot deny but that we may very properly be said to be punished for our sins in Christ and if they will yield us this the other may be a strife about words For surely there may be easily imagined as great a conjunction between Christ and us as between the several Generations of the Jews and that last which was punished in the destruction of Hierusalem and though we escape that punishment which Christ did undergo yet we might have our sins punished in him as well as Princes theirs in their Subjects when they escape themselves or rather as Subjects in an innocent Prince who may suffer for the faults of his people if it be said that these are acts of meer dominion as to such a one that nothing hinders but granting it yet our sins may be said to be punished in him as well as Parents sins are punished properly in meer acts of dominion upon their Children if it be said that can be no punishment where there is no sense at all of it that is fully taken off by Crellius for surely we have as great a sense of the sufferings of Christ as the first Generation of the Jews had of the suffering of the last before the fatal destruction of the City or as Saul had of the punishment of his Sons after his death So that from Crellius his own concessions we have proved that our sins may very properly be said to be punished in Christ although he will not say that Christ could be properly punished for our sins nay he and the rest of our Adversaries not only deny it but earnestly contend that it is very unjust to suppose it and repugnant to the rectitude of Gods nature to do it And so we come to consider the mighty arguments that are insisted on for the proof of this which may be reduced to these three viz. 1. That there can be no punishment but what is deserved but no man can deserve that another should be punished 2. That punishment flows from revenge but there can be no revenge where there hath been no fault 3. That the punishment of one cannot any ways be made the punishment of another and in case it be supposed possible then those in whose stead the other is punished must be actually delivered upon the payment of that debt which was owing to God 1. That one man cannot deserve anothers punishment and therefore one cannot be punished for another for there is no just punishment but what is deserved This being the main Argument insisted on by Crellius must be more carefully
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 inferr 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 off by the Elders of the next City and by this means they were to put away the guilt of 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 heifer 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 people 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 call'd a price of Redemption for us 1. From Christs being said to dye for us By S. 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 S. Paul he is said to dye 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the ungodly and to give himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a ransome 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 ransome 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 S. 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 brethren a substitution is implied therein and supposing that dying for another doth signifie dying for some benefit to come to him yet what doth this hinder substitution unless it be proved that one cannot obtain any benefit for another by being substituted in his room Nay it is observable that although we produce so many places of Scripture implying such a substitution they do not offer to produce one that is inconsistent with Christs suffering in our stead all that they say is That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not always signifie so which we never said it did who say that Christ suffered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not instead of our sins but by reason of them but we assert that when one person is said to dye for others as in the places mentioned no other sense can be so proper and agreeable as dying in the stead of the other 2. Socinus himself grants That there is a peculiarity
implied in those phrases when attributed to Christ above what they have when attributed to any other And therefore he saith It cannot be properly said That one Brother dyes for another or that Paul suffer'd for the Colossians or for the Church as Christ may truly and properly be said to suffer and to dye for us And from hence saith he S. Paul saith was Paul crucified for you implying thereby that there never was or could be any who truely and properly could be said to dye for men but Christ alone How unreasonable then is it from the use of a particle as applyed to others to inferr that it ought to be so understood when applyed to Christ when a peculiarity is acknowledged in the death of Christ for us more than ever was or could be in one mans dying for another 3. It is not the bare force of the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we insist upon but that a substitution could not be more properly expressed than it is in Scripture by this and other particles for not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too which Socinus saith Although it may signifie something else besides in the stead of another yet in such places where it is spoken of a ransom or price it signifies the payment of something which was owing before as Mat. 17. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so he acknowledges that where redemption is spoken of there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth imply a commutation because the price is given and the person received which he saith holds in Christ only metaphorical y for the redemption according to him being only Metaphorical the commutation must be supposed to be so too And this mow leads us to the larger Answer of Crellius upon this argument Wherein we shall consider what he yields what he denyes and upon what reasons 1. He yields and so he saith doth Socinus very freely a commutation but it is necessary that we should throughly understand what he means by it to that end he tells us That they acknowledge a twofold commutation one of the person suffering the kind of suffering being changed not actually but intentionally because we were not actually freed by Christ dying for us but only Christ dyed for that end that we might be freed And this commutation he saith that Socinus doth not deny to be implyed in the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the places where Christ is said to dye for us Another commutation which he acknowledges is that which is between a price and the thing or person which is bought or redeemed by it where the price is paid and the thing or person is received upon it And this kind of commutation he saith is to be understood in the places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is mention'd which price he saith by accident may be a person and because the person is not presently delivered he therefore saith that the commutation is rather imperfect than metaphorical and although he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not of it self imply a commutation yet he grants that the circumstances of the places do imply it 2. He denyes that there is any proper surrogation in Christs dying for us which he saith is such a commutation of persons that the substituted person is in all respects to be in the same place and state wherein the other was and if it refers to sufferings then it is when one suffers the very same which the other was to suffer he being immediately delivered by the others sufferings And against this kind of surrogation Crellius needed not to have produced any reasons for Grotius never asserted it neither do we say that Christ suffer'd eternal death for us or that we were immediately freed by his sufferings But that which Grotius asserts that he meant by substitution was this that unless Christ had ayed for us we must have dyed our selves and because Christ hath dyed we shall not dye eternally But if this be all saith Crellius he meant by it we grant the whole thing and he complains of it as an injury for any to think otherwise of them If so they cannot deny but that there was a sufficient capacity in the death of Christ to be made an expiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the world But notwithstanding all these fair words Crellius means no more than Socinus did and though he would allow the words which Grotius used yet not in the sense he understood them in for Crellius means no more by all this but that the death of Christ was an antecedent condition to the expiation of sins in Heaven Grotius understands by them that Christ did expiate sins by becoming a Sacrifice for them in his death However from hence it appears that our Adversaries can have no plea against the death of Christs being an expiatory Sacrifice from want of a substitution in our room since they profess themselves so willing to own such a substitution But if they say that there could be no proper substitution because the death of Christ was a bare condition and no punishment they then express their minds more freely and if these places be allowed to prove a substitution I hope the former discourse will prove that it was by way of punishment Neither is it necessary that the very same kinde of punishment be undergone in order to surrogation but that it be sufficient in order to the accomplishing the end for which it was designed For this kind of substitution being in order to the delivery of another by it whatever is sufficient for that end doth make a proper surrogation For no more is necessary to the delivery of another person than the satisfying the ends of the Law and Government and if that may be done by an aequivalent suffering though not the same in all respects then it may be a proper surrogation If David had obtained his wish that he had dyed himself for his Son Absolom it had not been necessary in order to his Sons escape that he had hanged by the hair of his head as his Son did but his death though in other circumstances had been sufficient And therefore when the Lawyers say subrogatum sapit naturam ejus in cujus locum subrogatur Covarruvias tells us it is to be understood secundum primordialem naturam non secundum accidentalem from whence it appears that all circumstances are not necessary to be the same in surrogation but that the nature of the punishment remain the same Thus Christ dying for us to deliver us from death and the curse of the Law he underwent an accursed death for that end although not the very same which we were to have undergone yet sufficient to shew that he underwent the punishment of our iniquities in order to the delivering us from it And if our Adversaries will yield us this we shall not much contend with them about the name of a
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 service ableness 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 meer deliverance without any price which we deny not but the main force of our argument is from the importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is mention'd and then we say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when applyed to sins signifies expiation as Heb. 9. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but when applyed to persons it signifies the deliverance purchased by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not to be consider'd as a bare price or a thing given but as a thing undergone in order to that deliverance and is therefore not only call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 destroyes 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 Jewish 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 concurre 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 offer'd 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 replyes That the expiation of sin doth properly belong to what Christ doth in Heaven and may be applyed to the death of Christ onely 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 kill'd the beast but when the blood was sprinkled or carried into the Holy of Holyes to which the Oblation of Christ in Heaven doth answer but the mactation saith he was not proper to the Priests but did belong to the Levites also And Christ was not truly a Priest while he 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 never in Scripture mention'd as distinct from his Kingly but is comprehended under it and the great difference between them is that one is of a larger extension than the other is the Kingly Office extending to punishing and the Priestly only to expiation This is the substance of what Crellius more at large discourseth upon this subject Wherein he asserts these things 1. That the Priestly Office of Christ doth not in reference to the expiation of sins respect God but us his Intercession and Oblation wherein he makes the sacerdotal function of Christ to consist being the exercise of his power for the good of his People 2. That Christ did offer up no Sacrifice of expiation to God upon Earth because the mactation had no reference to expiation any other than as a preparation for it and Christ not yet being constituted a High-Priest till after his Resurrection from the dead Against these two assertions I shall direct my following discourse by proving 1. That the Priestly Office of Christ had a primary respect to God and not to us 2.
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 withall 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 exâ—ress Law That no sin-offering whereof any 〈◊〉 the blood is brought into the tabernacle of â—he Congregation to reconcile withall in the Holy-place shall be eaten it shall be burnt in â—â—e 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 â—he blood with his finger towards the Mercyâ—â—at 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 coulâ— have supposed that the High-Priest undeâ— the Law instead of offering a Goat for 〈◊〉 Sin-offering for the people on the day oâ—… Atonement should have made an oblatioâ—… 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 onely 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 〈◊〉 self to God and God had made it necesâ—ry that the Priest should expiate sins â—ot by himself but by those Sacrifices â—nd therefore the oblation of the blood â—as after the Sacrifice was slain neither â—ould this have been solved barely by the â—riests slaying of the Sacrifices for this being 〈◊〉 act of violence towards the beasts that â—…ere thus kill'd could not be a proper obâ—ation which must suppose a consent anteâ—edent 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 onely 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 bâ—… as proper an oblation made unto God 〈◊〉 any was under the Law and far more excellent both in regard of the Priest and thâ—… Sacrifice why should his oblation of himself then be made onely consequent to hiâ—… death and resurrection Which 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 call'd an oblation of himself which was conferred 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 call'd 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 onely â—esented himself before the Mercy-seat â—…d that had been all required in order 〈◊〉 the expiation of sins there had been â—…me pretence for our Adversaries makâ—g Christs presenting himself in Heaven 〈◊〉 be the oblation of himself to God but â—…nder the Law the efficacy of the High-â—iests entrance into the Holy of Holies did â—epend upon the blood which he carried in â—…ither which was the blood of the Sinâ—…ring which was already slain for the expiation of sins And in correspondency â—…o this Christs efficacy in his entrance inâ—… Heaven as it respects our expiation must â—ave a respect to that Sacrifice which was â—ffered up to God antecedent to it And 〈◊〉 wonder our Adversaries do so much insist on the High Priests entring into the most â—…oly place once a year as though all the exâ—iation 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 〈◊〉 3. We observe That there was somâ—thing correspondent in the death of Chrisâ—… to somewhat consequent to the oblatioâ—… under the Law and therefore there câ—… be no reason to suppose that the oblatioâ—… of Christ must be consequent to his death for that destroys the correspondency between them Now this appears in thiâ— particular in the solemn sacrifices for sinâ—… after the sprinkling of the blood which waâ— carried into the Holy place to reconcile with all all the remainder of the Sacrifice waâ— 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 Jesus that hâ—… might sanctifie the people with his own blood suffered without the gate What force iâ— 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 Jerusalem answered to the being burnt without the Camp in the Wilderness 4. We observe That the Oblation in Exâ—iatory Sacrifices under the Law by the Priest had always relation to the consumption of what was offered Thus the offering of â—he blood in token of the destruction of the â—…ife of the beast whose blood was offered for no blood was to be offered of a living creature nor of one kill'd 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 the persons who sacrificed or upon all Egypt it might be turned upon the head of that beast And Plutarch addes that after this soleâ—… execration They cut off thâ— head and of old threw it iâ—to the River but then gâ—… 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 suffer'd for sins and offer'd 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 too viz. Because it was the way whereby he obtained the power of expiation and far more properly so than the other since they make Christs entrance and power the reward of his sufferings but they never make his sitting at the right hand of God the reward of his entrance into Heaven 2. His offering up himself to God upon the Cross was his own act but his entrance into Heaven was Gods as themselves acknowledge and therefore could not in any propriety of speech be call'd Christs offering up himself 3. If it were his own act it could not have that respect to the expiation of sins which his death had for our Adversaries say that his death was by reason of our sins and that he suffer'd to purge us from sin but his entrance into Heaven was upon his own account to enjoy that power and authority which he was to have at the right hand of God 4. How could Christs entrance into Heaven be the way for his enjoying that power which was necessary for the expiation of sin when Christ before his entrance into Heaven saith that all power was given to him in Heaven and Earth and the reason assigned in Scripture of that power and authority which God gave him is because he humbled himself and became obedient to death even the death of 〈◊〉 Cross So that the entrance of Christ inâ—â— Heaven could not be the
means of obtaining that power which was conferred before but the death of Christ is mention'd on that account in Scripture 5. If the death of Christ were no expiatory Sacrifice the entrance of Christ into Heaven could be no Oblation proper to a High-Priest for his entrance into the Holy of Holies was on the account of the blood of the â—â—n-offering which he carried in with him â—f there were then no Expiatory Sacrifice before that was slain for the sins of men Christ could not be said to make any Oblaâ—ion in Heaven for the Oblation had respect to a Sacrifice already slain so that â—f men deny that Christs death was a proâ—er Sacrifice for sin he could make no Oblation at all in Heaven and Christ â—ould not be said to enter thither as â—he High-Priest entred into the Holy of Holies with the blood of the Sacriâ—â—ce which is the thing which the Author to the Hebrews asserts concerning Christ. 2. There is as great an inconsistency iâ— making the exercise of Christs power iâ— Heaven an Oblation in any sense as in making Christs entrance into Heaven to 〈◊〉 the Oblation which had correspondeâ—â—â— with the Oblations of the Law For what is there which hath the least resemblance with an Oblation in it Hath it any respect to God as all the legal Oblations had noâ— for his intercession and power Crellius saith respects us and not God Was there any Sacrifice at all in it for expiation how is it possible that the meer exercise of power should be call'd a sacrifice What analogy is there at all between them And how could he be then said most perfectly to exercise his Priesthood when there was no consideration at all of any sacrifice offer'd up to God so that upon these suppositions the Author to the Hebrews must arguâ—… upon strange similitudes and fancy resemblances to himself which it was impossible for the Jews to understand him in who were to judge of the nature of Priesthooâ— and Oblations in a way agreeable to tâ—â— Institutions among themselves But wasâ—… possible for them to understand such Oblâ—tions and a Priesthood which had no respecâ— at all to God but wholly to the People and such an Holiesâ—ithout â—ithout the blood of an Sacrificeâ—or â—or the sins of the people But such absâ—â—dities do men betray themselves into when they are forced to strain express plaâ—es of Scripture to serve an hypothesis which they think themselves obliged to â—â—intain We now come to shew that this interpretation of Crellius doth not agree with the circumstances of the places before mention'd which will easily appear by these brief considerations 1. That the apostle alwayes speaks of the offering of Christ as a thing past and once done so as not 〈◊〉 be done again which had been very improper if by the Oblation of Christ he had meant the continual appearance of Christ in Heaven for us which yet is and will never cease to be till all his enemies be made his foot-stool 2. That he â—…ill speaks in allusion to the Sacrifices which were in use among the Jews and â—herefore the Oblation of Christ must be 〈◊〉 such a way as was agreeable to what â—as used in the Levitical Sacrifices which â—e have already at large proved he could â—ot do in our Adversaries sense 3. That â—â—e Apostle speaks of such a sacrifice for sins to which the sitting at the right hand of God was consequent so that the Oblation antecedent to it must be properly that Sacrifice for sins which he offer'd to God and therefore the exercise of his power for expiation of sins which they say is meant by sitting at the right hand of God cannot be that Sacrifice for sins Neither can his entrance into Heaven be it which in what sense it can be call'd a Sacrifice for sins since themselves acknowledge it had no immediate relation to the expiation of them I cannot understand 4. The Apostle speaks of such an Offering of Christ once which if it had been repeated doth imply that Christs sufferings must have been repeated too For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the World but the repeated exercise of Christs power in Heaven doth imply no necessity at all of Christs frequent suffering nor his frequent entrance into Heaven which might have been done without suffering therefore it must be meant of such an offering up himself as was implyed in his death and sufferings 5. He speaks of the offering up of that body which God gave him whâ—â— he came into the World but our Adversaries deny that he carried the same Body into Heaven and therefore he must speak not of an offering of Christ in Heaven but what was performed here on Earth But here our Adversaries have shewn us a tryal of their skill when they tell us with much confidence that the World into which Christ is here said to come is not to be understood of this World but of that to come which is not only contrary to the general acceptation of the word when taken absolutely as it is here but to the whole scope and design of the place For he speaks of that World wherein Sacrifices and Burnt-offerings were â—…ed and the Levitical Law was observed although not sufficient for perfect expiation and so rejected for that end and withall he speaks of that World wherein the chearfull obedience of Christ to the will of his Father was seen for he saith Lo I come to do thy will O God which is repeated afterwards but will they say that this World was not the place into which Christ came to obey the Will of his Father and how could it he so properly said of the future World Lo I come to do thy will when they make the design of his ascension to be the receiving the reward of his doing and suffering the will of God upon Earth But yet they attempt to prove from the same Author to the Hebrews that Christs entrance into Heaven was necessary to his being a perfect High-Priest for he was to be made higher then the heavens and if he were on earth he should not be a Priest but he was a Priest after the power of an eâ—â—lless life Neither could he say they be a perfect High-Priest till those words were spoken to him Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee which as appears by other places was after the Resurrection But all the sufferings he underwent in the world were onely to qualifie him for this Office in Heaven therefore it is said That in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren that he might be a merciful and faithful High-Priest c. This is the substance of what is produced by Crellius and his Brethren to prove that Christ did not become a perfect High-Priest till he entred into heaven But it were worth the knowing what they mean by a perfect High-Priest Is it
that Christ did then begin the Office of a High-Priest and that he made no offering at all before No that they dare not assert at last but that there was no perfect sacrifice offered for sin otherwise Socinus contends That Christ did offer upon earth and that for himself too So that all kind of offering is not excluded by themselves before Christs entrance into Heaven But if they mean by perfect High-Priest in Heaven that his Office of High-Priest was not consummated by what he did on earth but that a very considerable part of the Priesthood of Christ was still remaining to be performed in Heaven it is no more than we do freely acknowledge and this is all we say is meant by those places For the Apostles design is to prove the excellency of the Priesthood of Christ above the Aaronical which he doth not onely from the excellency of the Sacrifice which he offered above the blood of Bulls and Goats but from the excellency of the Priest who did excel the Aaronical Priests both in regard of his calling from God which is all the Apostle designs Heb. 5. 5. not at all intending to determine the time when he was made but by whom he was made High-Priest even by him that had said Thou art my Son c. and in regard of the excellency of the Sanctuary which he entred into which was not an earthly but a heavenly Sanctuary and in regard of the perpetuity of his function there Not going in once a year as the High-Priests under the Law did but there ever living to make intercession for us Now this being the Apostles design we may easily understand why he saith That he was to be a heavenly High-Priest and if he had been on earth he could not have been a Priest The meaning of which is only this that if Christs Office had ended in what he did on earth he would not have had such an excellency as he was speaking of for then he had ceased to be at all such a High-Priest having no Holy of holies to go into which should as much transcend the earthly Sanctuary as his Sacrifice did the blood of Bulls and Goats Therefore in correspondency to that Priesthood which he did so far excell in all the parts of it he was not to end his Priesthood meerly with the blood which was shed for a Sacrifice but he was to carry it into Heaven and present it before God and to be a perpetual Intercessor in the behalf of his people And so was in regard of the perpetuity of his Office a Priest after the Law of an endless life But lest the people should imagine that so great and excellent a High-Priest being so far exalted above them should have no sense or compassion upon the infirmities of his people therefore to encourage them to adhere to him he tells them That he was made like to his Brethren and therefore they need not doubt but by the sense which he had of the infirmities of humane nature he will have pity on the weaknesses of his people which is all the Apostle means by those expressions So that none of these places do destroy the Priesthood of Christ on earth but only assert the excellency and the continuance of it in heaven Which latter we are as far from denying as our Adversaries are from granting the former And thus much may suffice for the second thing to prove the death of Christ a proper sacrifice for sin viz. The Oblation which Christ made of himself to God by it CHAP. VI. That the effects of proper Expiatory Sacrifices belong to the death of Christ which either respect the sin or the person Of the true notion of expiation of sin as attributed to Sacrifices Of the importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as applied to them Socinus his proper sense of it examined Crellius his Objections answered The Jews notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Sacrifices not bare conditions of pardon nor expiated meerly as a slight part of obedience Gods expiating sin destroys not expiation by Sacrifice The importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relating to Sacrifices Expiation attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ in the same sense that it was to other Sacrifices and from thence and the places of Scripture which mention it proved not to be meerly declarative If it had been so it had more properly belonged to his Resurrection than his death The Death of Christ not taken Metonymically for all the Consequents of it because of the peculiar effects of the death of Christ in Scripture and because Expiation is attributed to him antecedently to his entrance into Heaven No distinction in Scripture of the effects of Christs entrance into Heaven from his sitting at the right hand of God The effects of an Expiatory Sacrifice respecting the person belong to the death of Christ which are Atonement Reconciliation Of the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Reconciliation by Christs death doth not meerly respect us but God why the latter less used in the New Testament A twofold Reconciliation with God mentioned in Scripture Crellius his evasion answered The Objections from Gods being reconciled in the sending his Son and the inconsistency of the Freeness of Grace with the Doctrine of Satisfaction answered and the whole concluded THE last thing to prove the death of Christ a proper Expiatory Sacrifice is That the effects of a proper Sacrifice for sin are attributed to it Which do either respect the sins committed and are then call'd Expiation and Remission or the persons who were guilty of them as they stand obnoxious to the displeasure of God and so the effect of them is Atonement and Reconciliation Now these we shall prove do most properly and immediately refer to the death of Christ and are attributed to it as the procuring cause of them and not as a bare condition of Christs entrance into Heaven or as comprehending in it the consequents of it I begin with the Expiation and Remission of sins as to which Socinus doth acknowledge That the great correspondency doth lie between Christs and the Legal Sacrifices We are therefore to enquire 1. What respect the Expiation of sins had to the Sacrifices under the Law 2. In what sense the Expiation of sins is attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ For the due explication of the respect which Expiation of sins had to the Legal Sacrifices we are to consider in what sense Expiation is understood and in what respect it is attributed to them For this we are to enquire into the importance of the several phrases it is set forth by which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Old Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New all which are acknowledged by our Adversaries to have a peculiar respect to the Expiation made by a Sacrifice We shall begin with the former
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 â—hould have depended on no other conditions but such as were under the power of him whose sins were to be expiated by 〈◊〉 But Crellius urgeth against our sense of Expiation That if it were by Substitution â—hen the Expiation would be most properly attriâ—â—ted to the Sacrifices themselves whereas it is â—…ly said that by the Sacrifices the Expiation is â—btained but that God or the Priest do expiate â—…d to God it belongs properly because he takes â—ay the guilt and punishment of sin which is â—aith he all meant by expiation to the Priest â—…ly consequently as doing what God requires 〈◊〉 order to it and to the Sacrifices only as the â—â—nditions by which it was obtained But if the Expiation doth properly belong to God and implies no more than bare pardon it is hard to conceive that it should have any necessary relation to the blood of the Sacrifice but the Apostle to the Hebrews tells us that Remission had a necessary respect to the shedding of blood so that without that there was no remission How improperly doth the Apostle discourse throughout that Chapter wherein he speaks so much concerning the blood of the Sacrifices purifying and in correspondency to that the blood of Christ purging our Consciences and that all things under the Law were purified with blood Had all this no other signification but that this was a bare condition that had no other importance but as a meer act of obedience when God had required it why doth not the Apostle rather say without Gods favour there is no remission than without the sheding of blood if all the expiation did properly belong to that and only very remotely to the blood of the Sacrifice What imaginable necessity was there that Christ must shed his blood in order to the expiation of our sins if all that blood of the Legal Sacrifices did signifie no more than a bare condition of pardon though a slight part of obedience in it self Why must Christ lay down his life in correspondency to these Levitical Sacrifices for that was surely no slight part of his obedience Why might not this condition have been dispensed with in him since our Adversaries say that in it self it hath no proper efficacy on the expiation of sin And doth not this speak the greatest repugnancy to the kindness and Grace of God in the Gospel that he would not dispense with the ignominious death of his Son although he knew it could have no influence of it self on the expiation of the sins of the world But upon this supposition that the blood of Sacrifices under the Law had no proper influence upon Expiation the Apostles discourse proceeds upon weak and insufficient grounds For what necessity in the thing was there because the blood of the Sacrifices was made a condition of pardon under the Law therefore the blood of Christ must be so now although in it self it hath no proper efficacy for that end But the Apostles words and way of Argumentation doth imply that there was a peculiar efficacy both in the one and the other in order to Expiation although a far greater in the blood of Christ than could be in the other as the thing typified ought to exceed that which was the representation of it From hence we see that the Apostle attributes what Expiation there was under the Law not immediately to God as belonging properly to him but to the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean Which he had very great reason to do since God expresly saith to the Jews that the blood was given them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad expiandum to expiate for their souls for the blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall expiate the soul. Than which words nothing could have been more plainly said to overthrow Crellius his assertion that Expiation is not properly or chiefly attributed to the Sacrifices but primarily to God and consequentially to the Priest who is never said to expiate but by the Sacrifice which he offered so that his Office was barely Ministerial in it But from this we may easily understand in what sense God is said to expiate sins where it hath respect to a Sacrifice which is that we are now discoursing of and not in any larger or more improper use of the word for since God himself hath declared that the blood was given for Expiation the Expiation which belongs to God must imply his acceptance of it for that end for which it was offered For the execution or discharge of the punishment belonging to him he may be said in that sense to expiate because it is only in his power to discharge the sinner from that obligation to punishment he lies under by his sins And we do not say that where expiating is attributed to him that accepts the Atonement that it doth imply his undergoing any punishment which is impossible to suppose but that where it is attributed to a Sacrifice as the means of Atonement there we say it doth not imply a bare condition but such a Substitution of one in the place of another that on the account of that the fault of the offender himself is expiated thereby And to this sense the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth very well agree for Socinus and Crellius cannot deny but that Gen. 31. 39. it properly signifies Luere or to bear punishment although they say it no where else signifies so and the reason is because it is applied to the Altar and such other things which are not capable of it but doth it hence follow that it should not retain that signification where the matter will bear it as in the case of Sacrifices And although it be frequently rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet that will be no prejudice to the sense we plead for in respect of Sacrifices because those words when used concerning them do signifie Expiation too Grotius proves that they do from their own nature and constant use in Greek
because remission of sin was looked on as the consequent of expiation by Sacrifice under the Law therefore that is likewise attributed to the blood of Christ Matth. 26. 28. This is the blood of the New Testament which was shed for many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the remission of sins Eph. 1. 7. In whom we have redemption through his blood the remission of sins and to the same purpose Coloss. 1. 14. And from hence we are said to be justified by his blood Rom. 5. 9. and Christ is said to be a propitiation through faith in his blood Rom. 3. 25. The substance of all that Crellius replies to these places is That those words which do properly signifie the thing it self may very conveniently be taken only for the declaration of it when the performance of the thing doth follow by virtue of that declaration which then happens when the declaration is made of the thing decreed by another and that in the name and by the command of him who did decree it And in this sense Christ by his blood may be said to deliver us from the punishment of our sins by declaring or testifying to us the will and decree of God for that purpose But this answer is by no means sufficient upon these considerations 1. Because it doth not reach the proper and natural sense of the words as Crellius himself confesseth and yet he assigns no reason at all why we ought to depart from it unless the bare possibility of another meaning be sufficient But how had it been possible for the efficacy of the blood of Christ for purging away the guilt of our sins to have been expressed in clearer and plainer terms than these which are acknowledged of themselves to signifie as much as we assert If the most proper expressions for this purpose are not of force enough to perswade our Adversaries none else could ever do it so that it had been impossible for our Doctrine to have been delivered in such terms but they would have found out ways to evade the meaning of them It seems very strange that so great an efficacy should not only once or twice but so frequently be attributed to the blood of Christ for expiation of sin if nothing else were meant by it but that Christ by his death did only declare that God was willing to pardon sin If there were danger in understanding the words in their proper sense why are they so frequently used to this purpose why are there no other places of Scripture that might help to undeceive us and tell us plainly that Christ dyed only to declare his Fathers will but what ever other words might signifie this was the only true meaning of them But what miserable shifts are these when men are forced to put off such Texts which are confessed to express our Doctrine only by saying that they may be otherwise understood which destroys all kind of certainty in words which by reason of the various use of them may be interpreted to so many several senses that if this liberty be allowed upon no other pretence but that another meaning is possible men will never agree about the intention of any person in speaking For upon the same reason if it had been said That Christ declared by his death Gods readiness to pardon it might have been interpreted That the blood of Christ was therefore the declaration of Gods readiness to pardon because it was the consideration upon which God would do it So that if the words had been as express for them as they are now against them according to their way of answering places they would have been reconcileable to our opinion 2. The Scripture in these expressions doth attribute something peculiar to the blood of Christ but if all that were meant by it were no more than the declaring Gods will to pardon this could in no sense be said to be peculiar to it For this was the design of the Doctrine of Christ and all his miracles were wrought to confirm the truth of that part of his Doctrine which concerned remission of sins as well as any other but how absurd would it have been to say that the miracles of Christ purge us from all sin that through Christ healing the sick raising the dead c. we have redemption even the forgiveness of sins which are attributed to the blood of Christ but if in no other respect than as a testimony to the truth of the Doctrine of Remission of sins they were equally applicable to one as to the other Besides if this had been all intended in these expressions they were the most incongruously applied to the blood of Christ nothing seeming more repugnant to the Doctrine of the Remission of sins which was declared by it than that very thing by which it was declared if no more were intended by it For how unsuitable a way was it to declare the pardon of the guilty persons by such severities used towards the most Innocent Who could believe that God should declare his willingness to pardon others by the death of his own Son unless that death of his be considered as the Meritorious cause for procuring it And in that sense we acknowledge That the death of Christ was a declaration of Gods will and decree to pardon but not meerly as it gave testimony to the truth of his Doctrine for in that sense the blood of the Apostles and Martyrs might be said to purge us from sin as well as the blood of Christ but because it was the consideration upon which God had decreed to pardon And so as the acceptance of the condition required or the price paid may be said to declare or manifest the intention of a person to release or deliver a Captive So Gods acceptance of what Christ did suffer for our sakes may be said to declare his readiness to pardon us upon his account But then this declaration doth not belong properly to the act of Christ in suffering but to the act of God in accepting and it can be no other ways known than Gods acceptance is known which was not by the Sufferings but by the Resurrection of Christ. And therefore the declaring Gods will and decree to pardon doth properly belong to that and if that had been all which the Scripture had meant by purging of sin by the blood of Christ it had been very incongruously applied to that but most properly to his Resurrection But these phrases being never attributed to that which most properly might be said to declare the will of God and being peculiarly attributed to the death of Christ which cannot be said properly to do it nothing can be more plain than that these expressions ought to be taken in that which is confessed to be their proper sense viz. That Expiation of sin which doth belong to the death of Christ as a Sacrifice for the sins of the world But yet Socinus and Crellius have another subterfuge For therein lies
it should have been more properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not I say to insist upon that the Apostle manifests that he had a respect to the death of Christ in the obtaining this eternal redemption by his following discourse for v. 14. he compares the blood of Christ in point of efficacy for expiation of sin with the blood of the Legal Sacrifices whereas if the expiation meant by him had been found by Christs Oblation of himself in Heaven he would have compared Christs entrance into Heaven in order to it with the entrance of the High-Priest into the Holy of Holies and his argument had run thus For if the High-Priest under the Law did expiate sins by entring into the Holy of Holies How much more shall the Son of God entring into Heaven expiate the sins of Mankind but we see the Apostle had no sooner mention'd the redemption obtained for us but he presently speaks of the efficacy of the blood of Christ in order to it and as plainly asserts the same v. 15. And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament that by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions which were under the first Testament they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance Why doth the Apostle here speak of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the expiation of sins by the means of death if he had so lately asserted before that the redemption or expiation was found not by his death but by his entrance into Heaven and withall the Apostle here doth not speak of such a kind of expiation as wholly respects the future but of sins that were under the first Testament not barely such as could not be expiated by vertue of it but such as were committed during the time of it although the Levitical Law allowed no expiation for them And to confirm this sense the Apostle doth not go on to prove the necessity of Christs entrance into Heaven but of his dying v. 16 17 18. But granting that he doth allude to the High-Priests entring into the Holy of holies yet that was but the representation of a Sacrifice already offer'd and he could not be said to find expiation by his entrance but that was already found by the blood of the Sacrifice and his entrance was only to accomplish the end for which the blood was offer'd up in sacrifice And the benefit which came to men is attributed to the Sacrifice and not to the sprinkling of the blood before the Mercy-seat and whatever effect was consequent upon his entrance into the Sanctuary was by vertue of the blood which he carried in with him and was before shed at the Altar Neither can it with any reason be said that if the redemption were obtained by the blood of Christ there could be no need of his entrance into Heaven since we do not make the Priesthood of Christ to expire at his death but that he is in Heaven a mercifull High-Priest in negotiating the affairs of his People with God and there ever lives to make intercession for them Crellius answers That granting the Aorist being put before the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should imply such an action which was antecedent to Christs sitting at the right hand of God yet it is not there said that the expiation of sins was made before Christs entrance into Heaven for those saith he are to be considered as two different things for a Prince first enters into his Palace before he sits upon his throne And therefore saith he Christ may be said to have made expiation of sins before he sate down at the right hand of his Father not that it was done by his death but by his entrance into Heaven and offering himself to God there by which means he obtained his sitting on the right hand of the Majesty on high and thereby the full power of remission of sins and giving eternal life To which I answer 1. That the Scripture never makes such a distinction between Christs entrance into Heaven and sitting at the right hand of God which latter implying no more but the glorious state of Christ in Heaven his entrance into Heaven doth imply it For therefore God exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour and the reason of the power and authority given him in Heaven is no where attributed to his entrance into it as the means of it but our Saviour before that tells us that all power and authority was committed to him and his very entrance into Heaven was a part of his glory and given him in consideration of his sufferings as the Apostle plainly asserts and he became obedient to death even the death of the Cross wherefore God hath highly exalted him c. There can be then no imaginable reason to make the entrance of Christ into Heaven and presenting himself to God there a condition or means of obtaining that power and authority which is implyed in his sitting at the right hand of God 2. Supposing we should look on these as distinct there is as little reason to attribute the expiation of sin to his entrance considered as distinct from the other For the expiation of sins in Heaven being by Crellius himself confessed to be by the exercise of Christs power and this being only the means to that power how could Christ expiate sins by that power which he had not But of this I have spoken before and shewed that in no sense allowed by themselves the expiation of sins can be attributed to the entrance of Christ into Heaven as distinct from his sitting at the right hand of God Thus much may suffice to prove that those effects of an Expiatory Sacrifice which do respect the sins committed do properly agree to the death of Christ. I now come to that which respects the person considered as obnoxious to the wrath of God by reason of his sins and so the effect of an Expiatory Sacrifice is Atonement and Reconciliation By the wrath of God I mean the reason which God hath from the holiness and justice of his nature to punish sin in those who commit it by the means of Atonement and Reconciliation I mean that in consideration of which God is willing to release the sinner from the obligation to punishment he lies under by the Law of God and to receive him into favour upon the terms which are declared by the Doctrine of Christ. And that the death of Christ was such a means of Atonement and Reconciliation for us I shall prove by those places of Scripture which speak of it But Crellius would seem to acknowledge That if Grotius seem to contend for no more than that Christ did avert that wrath of God which men had deserved by their sins they would willingly yield him all that he pleads for but then he adds That this deliverance from the wrath to come is not by the death but by the power
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 saken 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 is 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 always 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 sigâ—ifie the aversion of the wrath of God by a â—â—crifice and that there is no reason to â—…cede from that signification when they â—…e applied to the blood of Christ. And â—…e do not contend that when the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applied to him that â—…oth forgive it doth imply appeasing â—…t the effect of it which is pardoning â—…ut that which we assert is that when 〈◊〉 is applied to a third person or a thing â—…ade use of in order to forgiveness then â—…e say it signifies the propitiating him that as justly displeased so as by what was â—…one or suffered for that end he is wilâ—…g to pardon what he had just reason to â—…nish So Moses is said to make Atoneâ—ent for the people by his prayers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exod. 34. 14. and we â—…ay see Vers. 11. how much God was â—â—spleased before And Moses besought the â—…ord his God and said Why doth thy wrath â—…x hot against thy people and Vers. 12. â—…rn from thy fierce wrath and repent of â—…is evil against thy people and then it is â—…id Vers. 14. The Lord was atoned for the â—…il which he thought to do unto his people would therefore willingly know why â—…oses might not here properly be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore since it iâ—… so very often said in the Levitical Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the accusative casâ—… scarce ever put but in two cases viz When these words are applied to iâ—… animate things as the Altar c. or wheâ—… to God himself implying forgiveness whâ—… reason can we assign more probable foâ—… this different construction then that wheâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used the verb hath a respect tâ—… the offended party as the accusative uâ— derstood as Christ is said in the place mentioned to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whicâ— ought in reason to be understood as thosâ— words after Moses his intercession 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Crellius asks Wâ—… then do we never read once concerning tâ—… Priest that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but we read that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and God is saiâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this I answer 1. That the reason why the person prâ—… pitiated is not expressed is because 〈◊〉 was so much taken for granted that thâ—… whole Institution of Sacrifices did immediately respect God and therefore theâ—… was no danger of mistaking concerninâ— the person who was to be atoned 2. I â—…onder Crellius can himself produce no â—…stance where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used â—…ith respect to the Sacrifices and the person whose offences are remitted by the Atonement but where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath a â—elation to that it is still joyned with a Preposition relating either to the person 〈◊〉 to the offences if no more were understood when it is so used then when God â—imself is said to do it why is not the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well said of the Priest as it is of God From whence Grotius his sense of Hebr. 2. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is far more agreeable to the use of the phrase in the Old Testament than that which Crellius would put upon it Therefore since the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is attributed to Christ we ought to take it in the sense proper to a Propitiatory Sacrifice so it is said by Moses where God is left out but is necessarily understood after the people had provoked God by their Idolatry Ye have sinned'a great sin And now I will go up unto the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That I may make an Atonement for your sin What way could Moses be said to make this Atonement but by propitiating God yet his name is not there expressed but necessarily understood So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in the most proper sense for appeasing the anger of a person Gen 32. 20. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Sam. 21. 3 which places have been already insisted on in the signification of
the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And that those places wherein Christ is said to be a propitiation for our sins are capable of no other sense will appear from the consideration of Christ as a middle person between God and us and therefore his being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be parallel with that phrase where God himself is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Christ is here considered as interposing between God and us as Moses and the Priests under the Law did between God and the people in order to the averting his wrath from them And when one doth thus interpose in order to the Atonement of the offended party something is always supposed to be done or suffered by him as the means of that Atonement As Jacob supposed the present he made to his Brother would propitiate him and David appeased the Gibeonites by the death of Sauls Sons both which are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So the shedding of the blood of Sacrifices before and under the Law was the means of atoning God for the sins they committed What reason can there be then why so receiv'd a sense of Atonement both among the Jews and all other Nations at that time when these words were written must be forsaken and any other sense be embraced which neither agrees with the propriety of the expression nor with so many other places of Scripture which make the blood of Christ to be a Sacrifice for the Expiation of sin Neither is it only our Atonement but our Reconciliation is attributed to Christ too with a respect to his Death and Sufferings As in the place before insisted on For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son and more largely in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians And all things are of God who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ and hath given to us the ministery of reconciliation To wit that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them and hath committed to us the word of reconciliation For he hath made him to be sin for 〈◊〉 who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him And to the Ephesians And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by his Cross having slain the enmity thereby To the same purpose to the Colossians And having made peace through the blood of his Cross by him to reconcile all things to himself by him I say whether they be things in Heaven or in Earth and you that were sometimes â—lienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death Two things the substance of Crellius his answer may be reduced to concerning these places 1. That it is no where said that God was reconciled to us but that we are reconciled to God and therefore this reconciliation doth not imply any averting of the anger of God 2. That none of these places do assert any reconciliation with God antecedent to our conversion and so that the Reconciliation mention'd implies only the laying aside our enmity to God by our sins I begin with the first of these concerning which we are to consider not barely the phrases used in Scripture but what the nature of the thing implyes as to which a difference being supposed between God and Man on the account of sin no reconciliation can be imagined but what is mutual For did man only fall out with God and had not God just reason to be displeased with men for their Apostasie from him If not what made him so severely punish the first sin that ever was committed by man what made him punish the old World for their impieties by a deluge what made him leave such Monuments of his anger against the sins of the World in succeeding Ages what made him adde such severe sanctions to the Laws he made to the people of the Jews what made the most upright among them so vehemently to deprecate his wrath and displeasure upon the sense of their sins what makes him declare not only his hatred of the sins of men but of the persons of those who commit them so far as to express the greatest abhorrency of them Nay what makes our Adversaries themselves to say that impiety is in its own nature hatefull to God and stirrs him up to anger against all who commit it what means I say all this if God be not angry with men on the account of sin Well then supposing God to be averse from men by reason of their sins shall this displeasure alwayes continue or not if it alwayes continues men must certainly suffer the desert of their sins if it doth not alwayes continue then God may be said to be reconciled in the same sense that an offended party is capable of being reconciled to him who hath provoked him Now there are two wayes whereby a party justly offended may be said to be reconciled to him that hath offended him First when he is not only willing to admit of terms of agreement but doth declare his acceptance of the mediation of a third person and that he is so well satisfied with what he hath done in order to it that he appoints this to be published to the World to assure the offender that if the breach continues the fault wholly lyes upon himself The second is when the offender doth accept of the terms of agreement offer'd and submits himself to him whom he hath provoked and is upon that received into favour And these two we assert must necessarily be distinguished in the reconciliation between God and us For upon the death and sufferings of Christ God declares to the World he is so well satisfied with what Christ hath done and suffer'd in order to the reconciliation between himself and us that he now publishes remission of sins to the World upon those terms which the Mediator hath declared by his own doctrine and the Apostles he sent to preach it But because remission of sins doth not immediately follow upon the death of Christ without supposition of any act on our part therefore the state of favour doth commence from the performance of the conditions which are required from us So that upon the death of Christ God declaring his acceptance of Christs mediation and that the obstacle did not lye upon his part therefore those Messengers who were sent abroad into the world to perswade men to accept of these terms of agreement do insist most upon that which was the remaining obstacle viz. the sins of Mankind that men by laying aside them would be now reconciled to God since there was nothing to hinder this reconciliation their obstinacy in sin excepted Which may be a very reasonable account why we read more frequently in the writings of the Apostles of mens duty in being reconciled to God the other being supposed by them as the
reconciled then there was no need for Christ to dye to reconcile God and us but withal actual Reconciliation implies pardon of sin and if sin were actually pardoned before Christ came there could be no need of his coming at all and sins would have been pardon'd before committed if they were not pardoned notwithstanding that love of God then it can imply no more but that God was willing to be reconciled If therefore the not-remission of sins were consistent with that love of God by which he sent Christ into the world then notwithstanding that he was yet capable of being reconciled by his death So that our Adversaries are bound to reconcile that love of God with not presently pardoning the sins of the world as we are to reconcile it with the ends of the death of Christ which are asserted by us To the other Objection Concerning the inconsistency of the Freeness of Gods Grace with the Doctrine of Satisfaction I answer Either Gods Grace is so free as to exclude all conditions or not If it be so free as to exclude all conditions than the highest Antinomianism is the truest Doctrine for that is the highest degree of the Freeness of Grace which admits of no conditions at all If our Adversaries say That the Freeness of Grace is consistent with Conditions required on our part Why shall it not admit of conditions on Gods part especially when the condition required tends so highly to the end of Gods governing the world in the manifestation of his hatred against sin and the vindication of the honour of his Laws by the Sufferings of the Son of God in our stead as an Expiatory Sacrifice for our sins There are two things to be considered in sin the dishonor done to God by the breach of his Laws and the injury men do to themselves by it now remission of sins that respects the injury which men bring upon themselves by it and that is Free when the penalty is wholly forgiven as we assert it is by the Gospell to all penitent sinners but shall not God be free to vindicate his own Honor and to declare his righteousness to the world while he is the Justifier of them that believe Shall men in case of Defamation be bound to vindicate themselves though they freely forgive the Authors of the slander by our Adversaries own Doctrine and must it be repugnant to Gods Grace to admit of a Propitiatory Sacrifice that the world may understand that it is no such easie thing to obtain pardon of sin committed against God but that as often as they consider the bitter Sufferings of Christ in order to the obtaining the forgiveness of our sins that should be the greatest Argument to disswade them from the practice of them But why should it be more inconsistent with the Sacrifice of Christ for God freely to pardon sin than it was ever presumed to be in all the Sacrifices of either Jews of Gentiles who all supposed Sacrifices necessary in order to Atonement and yet thought themselves obliged to the goodness of God in the Remission of their sins Nay we find that God himself in the case of Abimelech appointed Abraham to pray for him in order to his pardon And will any one say this was a derogation to the grace of God in his pardon Or to the pardon of Jobs Friends because Job was appointed to sacrifice for them Or to the pardon of the Israelites because God out of his kindness to them directed them by the Prophets and appointed the means in order to it But although God appointed our High-Priest for us and out of his great love sent him into the world yet his Sacrifice was not what was given him but what he freely underwent himself he gave us Christ but Christ offered up himself a full perfect and sufficient Sacrifice Oblation and Satisfaction for the sins of the world Thus Sir I have now given you a larger account of what I then more briefly discoursed of concerning the true Reason of the Sufferings of Christ and heartily wishing you a right understanding in all things and requesting from you an impartial consideration of what I have written I am SIR Your c. E. S. Jan. 6. 1668 9 FINIS Books printed for Henry Mortlock at the White-Hart in Westminster-Hall A Rational account of the grounds of Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterburies relation of a Conference and from the pretended Answer by T. C. wherein the true grounds of Faith are cleared and the false discovered the Church of England Vindicated from the Imputation of the Schism and the most important Controversies between us and the Church of Rome throughly examined Origines Sacrae or a Rational account of the grounds of Christian Faith as to the Truth and Divine Authority of the Scriptures and the matters therein contained Irenicum A Weapon-Salve for the Churches wounds All three by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Knowledge and Practice or a plain Discourse of the chief things necessary to be known believed and practiced in order to Salvation By S. Cradocâ— The Being and Well-being of a Christian in three Treatises The first setting forth the property of the Righteous The second the Excellency of Grace The third the Nature and Sweetness of Fellowship with Christ. By Edward Reyner The Moral Philosophy of the Stoicks Translated out of French into English By Charles Cotton Esq. Jam. 2. 1. Luke 17. 28 29. Hv 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de bell Jud. l. 7. c. 14. Jude 7. Tacit. An. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Xiphil in Epit. Dion in Tito p. 227. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Herodian in Comâ—od hist. l. 1. p. 22. v. Xiphil ad fin Commodi Niceph. l. 15. c. 21. Evagr. l. 2. cap. 13. 〈◊〉 Baron Tom. 5. A. 465. 1. Hieron in loc Gildas de Excid Brit. Scipio apud Aug. de Civ D. l. 1. c. 33. Cicer. pro Flacco Hab. 2. 11. Isa. 47. 7 8. 11. Zeph 1. 13 14 15. Amos 3. 6. Lact. l. 2. c. 11. Rev. 9. 20. 1 King 4. 29 30 31. 1 Joh. 4. 4 Nicol. Damascen de moribus gent. p. 9. Ed. Cragii Geta in Appiano Herod Thal. v. Synes de laude Calvitii p. 77. Tit. 2. 12. Tacit. de moribus German Gal. 6. 7. Eph. 5. 6. Luke 3. 5 6. Rom. 13. 1 2 3 4 5. Titus 2. 12. Rom 5. 1. Rom. 10. 3. Rom. 3. 27. Gal. 3. 10. Rom. 3. 29. Mat. 11. 23. Heb. 10. 28 29. Mark 4. 19. Matth. 5. 3. V. 4. V. 5. V. 6. V. 7. V. 8. V. 9. V. 10 11 12. V. Lud. Viv. ad S. Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 19. c. 1. Mat. 25. 41. Mark 9 44. 1 Thess. 1. 10. 2 Thess. 1. 9. Matth. 10. 28. 2 Cor. 4. 17. Rev. 7. 14. Heb. 10. 27. Gal. 6. 7 8. Heb. 2. 10. 1 John 11. Matth. 13. 55 56. John 3. 2. Mat. 11. 21. Luk. 22. 44. Mat. 26. 39. Isa. 53. 4. 5. Mat. 26. 38.
sins and relating to susterings do imply those sufferings to be the punishment of sin Rom. 4. 25. 1 Cor. 15. 3. 1 Pet. 3. 18. He. 10. 12. Crell c. 1. Sect. 6. Sect. 1â— p. 17. Socin de servat l. 3. c. 6. §. 1. The matter debated in point of reason Certum est Christum innocentissimum à Deo gravissimis cruciatibus ipsaque morte fuissè affectum cum non in materiâ poenae absolute per se consideraâ— adâ—oque etiam in eâ afflictione à quâ poenae forma aâ—est injuria residere à noâ—â— dicatur Crel c. 4. Sect. 3. Potuit autem id Deus facere atque adeo fecit jure dominii quod in Christi vitam ac corpus habebat aâ—â—â—dente praesertiâ— ipsius Christi consensu Id. Ib. Sect. 4. Quod si ex thesi speciali facere velis generalem â—a haec erit injustum esse punire iâ—…ocentem quacunque tandem de causâ id fiat non vero simplicitâ—r punire quempiam ob aliâ—na dâ—lictâ— id enim concedi potest non semper esse injustum Crell c. 4. Sect. 3. Cum ne illud quidem ad naturam poenae requiratur ut is ipse qui puniendus est poenam reverà fuerit commeritus Id. Sect. 5. Poena quidem simpliciter in innocentem cadit justae non cadit Crell c. 4. Sect. 28. §. 2. In what cases Crellius grants some may be lawfully punished for the sins of others Quia Deus hunc puniendo illum quoque alterum ob cujus peccati eum dicitur punire simul punire possit ob arctiorem quae inter illâ—s intercedat conjunctionem Crell ib. sect 5. Crell p. 242. Crell ib. sect 11. sect 19. §. 3. Crellius his arguments propounded Crell c. 4. sâ—ct 3. p. 239 240. Crell ib. sect 18. §. 4. That a person by his own consent may be punished beyond the desert of his own actions Grot. de Satisf c. 4. Crell c. 4. sect 5. p. 244. §. 5. Objections answered Immerito quenquam punire est injustè punire Crell p. 240. §. 6. The instances of Scripture considered Exod. 20. 3. Alph. à Castro de just â haeret punit l. 2. c. 10. Gen. 9. 25. 2 Sam. 24. 17. Sam. 21. 5. 2 Kings 23. v. 4. to v. 21 Vers. 22. Vers. 26. 2 Chron. 34. 33. 2 Sam. 24. 3 4. §. 7. Eâ—â—k 18. 20 expâ—ainâ—d Eâ—â—k 18. 4 20. Jer. 31. 29 30. Ezek. 18. 2. Matth. 23. 35. Ezek. 18. 25. Ezek. 33. 20. Crell c. 4. sect 15. §. 8. The deliverance of the guilty by the sufferings of an innocent person by his own consent makes not the punishment unjust Crell c. 4. sect 30. 32 34 c. Crell c. 4. sect 25. 1 King 21. 19. Crell c. 6. sect 39. Crell ib. sâ—ct 28. §. 1. The death of Christ considered as an Expiatory Sacrifice for sin Heb. 9. 22. Câ—â—ll c. 10. sect 14. Crell c. 10. sect 13. §. 2. What the expiation of sin was by the sacrifices under the Law Grot. de Satus c. 10. Heb. 9. 12 13. Heb. 10. 1. Heb. 9 9. 10. 4. Socin de servat l. 2. c. 10. Praelect Thâ—olog cap. 22. §. 3. A substitution proved from Levit. 17. 11. c. Crell c. 10. sect 9. Exod. 30. 32 33. 37. 38. Ovid. Fast. l. 6. Lev. 3. 16. Servius ad AEneid 4. Euseb. demoust Evang. l. 1. c. 10. Crell cap. 8. §. 23. Denotat enim vox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eos quorum alter pro altero animam ponat aut devovâ—at sic id malum quod alteri subâ—â—ndum erat ejus loco subire non dâ—treclet Socia de servat l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 11. Numb 35. 33. â—…ll c. 10. sect 9. Deut. 21. 8. §. 4. A substitution of Christ in our room proved by his dying for us 1 Pet. 3. 18. 2. 21. 4. 1. 2 Cor. 5. 14. Rom. 5. 6. 1 Tim. 2. 6. Heb. 2. 9. Joh. 11. 50. Luke 22. 19 20. Math. 20. 28. 1 John 3. 16. Coloss. 1. 24. Soc. de servat l. 2. c. 8. 1 Cor. 1. 13. Socin ib. §. 5. In what sense a surrogation of Christ in our room is asserted by us Crell c. 9. sect 3. Iâ— sâ—ct 2. Ib. sect 6. Ib. sect 7. Ib. sect 3. Covarru To. 1. p. 1. sect 4. 〈◊〉 3. §. 6. Our Redemption by Christ proves a substitution Crell c. 9. sâ—ct 2. §. 7. Of the true notion of Redemption Socin de servat l. 2. c. 1 2. Crell c. 8. sâ—ct 11. Ulpian l. 29. D. de jure sisci Budaeus ad Paâ—dect p. 189. Liv. l 23. Festus v. red Ulpian l. 39. D. de rei vend Cicâ—r ep famil l. 2. ep 16. Orat. prâ— Syllâ Soâ— de servat l. 2. c. 1. §. 8. No necessity of paying the price to him that detains captive Crâ—ll c. 8. sect 11. §. 1. Of the Oblation made by Christ unto God Crell c. 10. sect 45. Ib. sect 55. Ib. sect 47. Ib. sect 53. Ib. sect 54. Sect. 56. §. 2. That the Priestly Office of Christ had a primary respect to God and not us Crell in Heb. 5. 1. Crell c. 10. sect 3. Numb 16. 46. Vers. 48. 2 Sam. 24. 25. Lev. 1. 4. 4. 20. 5. 7. 1 Chron. 6. 49. Grot. in Heb. 5. 1. § 3. Christ no barely metaphorical High-Priest Crell c. 10. sâ—ct 3. Hebr. 8. 3. Crell c. 10. sect 3. Id. sect 56. p. 547. §. 4. Crellius destroys the Priesthood of Christ. Smalc c. Smiglec Crell c. 10. p. 544. Levit. 4. 26. v. 31. 35. §. 5. No proper expiation of sin belongs to Christ in Heaven if Crâ—… his doctrine be true Crell c. 10. sect 2. Crell c. 10. sect 3. p. 476. Heb. 7. 25. Rom 8. 3 〈◊〉 1 John 2. 1. §. 6. Ephes. 5. 2. proves the death of Christ an Expiatory Sacrifice and an oblation to God Ephes. 5. 2. Crell c. 10. sect 47. Gen. 8. 20. 21. Porphyr de abstinent l. 2. sect 42. Joseph Antiq Jud. l. 1. c. 4. §. 7. Crellius his mistakes about the kinds of sacrifices Gen. 4. 3 4. Job 1. 5. 42. 8. Selden de jure nat gent. apud Ebrae l. 3. c. 2. c. 6. Levit. 1. 4. Levit. 7 16. 22. 18 c. Lev. 6. 7. Crell â—c 10. p. 530. §. 8. What influence the mactation of the sacrifice had on expiation Crell c. 10. p. 533. Levit. 17. 11. Heb. 9. 22. Levit. 16. 11 15. Codex Joma cap. 4. sect 3. c. 5. sect 4. Heb. 9. 13 14. 10. 4 10. Maâ—â—â—h 〈◊〉 l. 3. c. 5. Straâ—o l. 15. 〈◊〉 in Hom. Iliad 1. Stâ—â—â—o l. 3. Herod l. 1. §. 9. Whether Christs Oblation of himself once to God were in Heaven or on Earth Crell c. 10. sect 54. Lev. 1. 3. V. 4. Lev. 4. 25. 30. V. 6. Lev. 6. 26. Lev. 4. 11 12. Levit. 6. 30. Levit. 16. 14 15. §. 10. All things necessary to a legal oblation concur in the death of Christ. Heb. 9. 12. Heb. 13. â—2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉