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
foundation of their preaching to the world and is insisted on by them upon that account as is clear in that place to the Corinthians That God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself not imputing unto men their trespasses and hath committed to us the Word of Reconciliation and therefore addes Now then we are Ambassadors for Christ as though God did beseech you by us me pray you in Christs stead be ye reconciled to God And least these words should seem dubious he declares that the reconciliation in Christ was distinct from that reconciliation he perswades them to ' for the reconciliation in Christ he supposeth past v. 18. All things are of God who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ and v. 21. he shews us how this Reconciliation was wrought For he hath made him to be sin for us who know no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him Crellius here finds it necessary to acknowledge a twofold Reconciliation but hopes to escape the force of this place by a rare distinction of the Reconciliation as preached by Christ and by his Apostles and so Gods having reconciled the World to himself by Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thing else but Christs preaching the Gospel himself who afterwards 〈◊〉 that Office to his Apostles But if such shifts as these will serve to baffle mens understandings both they were made and the Scriptures were written to very little purpose for if this had been all the Apostle had meant that Christ preached the same Doctrine of Reconciliation before them what mighty matter had this been to have solemnly told the World that Christs Apostles preached no other Doctrine but what their Master had preached before especially if no more were meant by it but that men should leave their sins and be reconciled to God But besides why is the Ministery of Reconciliation then attributed only to the Apostles and not to Christ which ought in the first place have been given to him since the Apostles did only receive it from him Why is that Ministery of Reconciliation said to be viz. that God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself was this all the subject of the Apostles preaching to tell the World that Christ perswaded men to leave off their sins how comes God to reconcile the World to himself by the preaching of Christ since Christ himself saith he was not sent to preach to the world but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel Was the World reconciled to God by the preaching of Christ before they had ever heard of him Why is God said not to impute to men their trespasses by the preaching of Christ rather than his Apostles if the not imputing were no more than declaring Gods readiness to pardon which was equally done by the Apostles as by Christ himself Lastly what force or dependance is there in the last words For he made him to be sin for us who knew no sin c. if all he had been speaking of before had only related to Christs preaching How was he made sin more than the Apostles if he were only treated as a sinner upon the account of the same Doctrine which they preached equally with him and might not men be said to be made the righteousness of God in the Apostles as well as in Christ if no more be meant but being perswaded to be righteous by the Doctrine delivered to them In the two latter places Eph. 2. 16. Coloss. 1. 20. c. it is plain that a twofold reconciliation is likewise mention'd the one of the Jews and Gentiles to one another the other of both of them to God For nothing can be more ridiculous than the Exposition of Socinus who would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to be joyned with the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to stand by it self and to signifie that this reconciliation of the Jews and Gentiles did tend to the glory of God And Crellius who stands out at nothing hopes to bring off Socinus here too by saying that it is very common for the end to which a thing was appointed to be expressed by a Dative case following the Verb but he might have spared his pains in proving a thing no one questions the shorter answer had been to have produced but one place where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ever signifies any thing but to be reconciled to God as the offended party or where-ever the Dative of the person following the Verb importing reconciliation did signifie any thing else but the party with whom the reconciliation was to be made As for that objection concerning things in Heaven being reconciled that phrase doth not import such a Reconciliation of the Angels as of Men but that Men and Angels upon the reconciliation of men to God become one body under Christ and are gathered together in him as the Apostle expresseth it Eph. 1. 10. Having thus far proved that the effects of an Expiatory Sacrifice do belong to the death of Christ nothing now remains but an answer to be made to two Objections which are commonly insisted on by our Adversaries The first is That God was reconciled before he sent his Son and therefore Christ could not dye to reconcile God to us The second is That the Doctrine of Satisfaction asserted by us is inconsistent with the freeness of Gods grace in the remission of sins Both which will admit of an easie Solution upon the principles of the foregoing discourse To the first I answer That we assert nothing inconsistent with that love of God which was discovered in sending his Son into the world we do not say That God hated mankind so much on the account of sin that it was impossible he should ever admit of any terms of Reconciliation with them which is the only thing inconsistent with the greatness of Gods love in sending Christ into the world but we adore and magnifie the infiniteness and unexpressible greatness of his love that notwithstanding all the contempt of the former kindness and mercies of Heaven he should be pleased to send his own Son to dye for sinners that they might be reconciled to him And herein was the great love of God manifested that while we were enemies and sinners Christ dyed for us and that for this end that we might be reconciled to God by his death And therefore surely not in the state of favour or Reconciliation with God then But it were worth the while to understand what it is our Adversaries mean when they say God was reconciled when he sent his son and therefore he could not dye to reconcile God to us Either they mean that God had decreed to be reconciled upon the sending his son or that he was actually reconciled when he sent him if he only decreed to be reconciled that was not at all inconsistent with Christs dying to reconcile God and us in pursuance of that decree if they mean he was actually
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
he had no sooner finished but he goes with his Disciples to the usual place of his retirement in a Garden at the foot of the Mount of Olives And now begins the blackest Scene of sufferings that ever was acted upon humane Nature Which was so great that the Son of God himself expresseth a more than usual apprehension of it which he discovered by the Agony he was in in which he sweat drops of blood by the earnestness of his Prayer falling upon his knees and praying thrice saying O my Father if it be possible let this Cup pass from me nevertheless not as I will but as thou wilt Surely this Cup must needs have a great deal of bitterness in it which the Son of God was so earnest to be freed from If there had been nothing in it but what is commonly incident to humane Nature as to the apprehensions of death or pain it seems strange that he who had the greatest innocency the most perfect charity the freest resignation of himself the fullest assurance of the reward to come should express a greater sense of the horror of his sufferings than thousands did who suffer'd for his sake But now was the hour come wherein the Son of God was to be made a Sacrifice for the sins of Men wherein he was to bear our griefs and carry our sorrows when he was to be wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities now his soul was exceeding sorrowfull even unto death for now the hour of his enemies was come and the power of darkness And accordingly they improve it they come out against him as a Malefactor with swords and staves and having seized his Person being betray'd into their hands by one of his Disciples they carry him to the High Priests house where his professed enemies presently condemn him of Blasphemy and not content with this they express the greatest contempt of him for they spit in his face they buffet him and smite him with the Palms of their hands they mock him and bid him prophesie who it was that smote him so insolent was their malice grown and so spightfull was their indignation against him And so fearfull were they lest he should escape their hands that the very next morning early they send him bound to the Roman Governour to have the sentence pronounced against him to whom they accuse him of Sedition and Treason but Pilate upon examination of him declares he found no fault in him which made them heap more unreasonable calumnies upon him being resolved by what means soever to take away his life Nay the price of the blood of the Son of God was fallen so low with them that they preferred the life of a known seditious person and a Murtherer before him And when Pilate being unsatisfied asked still what evil he had aone they continue their importunity without any other answer but Crucifie him and making up what wanted in Justice and Reason in the loudness of their clamors And at last seeing the fury and madness of the people with the protestation of his own innocency as to his blood he delivers him up to the people and now he is stripped and scourged and mock'd with a Crown of Thorns a Scarlet Robe and a Reed in his hand all the indignities they could think of they put upon him But though it pleased them to have him exposed to all the ignominies imaginable yet nothing would satisfie them but his blood and therefore he is led forth to be crucified and though so lately scourged and weakened by his sorrows yet he is made to carry his own Cross at least through the City for no other death could satisfie them but the most ignominious and painfull And when he was brought to the place of Crucifixion they nail his hands and feet to the Cross and while he was hanging there they deride and mock him still they divide his garments before his face give him Gall and Vinegar to drink and the last act of violence committed upon him was the piercing of his side so that out of his Pericardium issued both water and blood Thus did the Son of God suffer at the hands of unreasonable men thus was the blood of that immaculate Lamb spilt by the hands of violence and he who left the bosom of his Father to bring us to glory was here treated as if he had been unworthy to live upon the Earth 2. But that which yet heightens these sufferings of Christ is to consider from whom he suffer'd these things it was from sinners which is as much as to say from men if the word were taken in the largest sense of it for all have sinned but being taken by us in opposition to other men so it implyes a greater height of wickedness in these than in other persons But this is not here to be consider'd absolutely as denoting what kinde of persons he suffer'd from but with a particular respect to the nature of their proceedings with him and the obligations that lay upon them to the contrary So that the first shews the injustice and unreasonableness of them the second their great ingratitude considering the kindness and good will which he expressed towards them 1. The Injustice and unreasonableness of their proceedings against him It is true indeed what Socrates said to his wife when she complained that he suffer'd unjustly What saith he and would you have me suffer justly it is much greater comfort to the person who does suffer when he does it unjustly but it is a far greater reflection on those who were the causes of it And that our Blessed Saviour did suffer with the greatest injustice from these men is apparent from the falseness and weakness of all the accusations which were brought against him To accuse the Son of God for Blasphemy in saying he was so is as unjust as to condemn a King for treason because he saith he is a King they ought to have examined the grounds on which he call'd himself so and if he had not given pregnant evidences of it than to have passed sentence upon him as an Impostor and Blasphemer If the thing were true that he was what he said the Son of God what horrible guilt was it in them to imbrue their hands in his blood and they found he alwayes attested it and now was willing to lay down his life to confirm the truth of what he said This surely ought at least to have made them more inquisitive into what he had affirmed but they allow him not the liberty of a fair tryall they hasten and precipitate the sentence that they might do so the execution If he were condemned as a false Prophet for that seems to be the occasion of the Sanhedrim meeting to do it to whom the cognisance of that did particularly belong why do they not mention what it was he had foretold which had not come to pass or what reason do they give why
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