of it actual punishing with the principle whence it ariseth and proceeds actual punishing depends upon the divine decree but the inclination to punish is founded in the divine nature He adds that we men have a P. 12. natural right to our Limbs and he that maims us deserves to be punished yet notwithstanding we may forgive the offence Answ 1. There be cases wherein being wronged we cannot without injustice forgive but are bound to prosecute revenge upon the offender see pag. 53. of the former discourse 2. He argues from what a private person may do â—o what God who is the suâ—ream Rector and Governour â—ught to do whereas even â—mong men that which is lawâ—ull for a private person is not â—awfull for a Magistrate vid. â—bi supra 3. The Gentleman â—n this whole affair confounds â—us justitia power and equiâ—y We may have a physical â—ower to do that which we â—ave not a moral right to do â— Father may if we speak as â—o power connive at rebelliâ—n in his Son but it is moâ—ally wicked and destructive â—f Paternal Government to do â—o so here we do not argue â—bout the unlimited power of God what in a way of absoâ—uteness he may do but what in agreeableness to his â—ustice wisdom and holiness is â—it for him to do Whereas he adds that sins give P. 12. â—od a right to punish but that he may dispense with his right if hâ— please or else he were more impoâ—tent than we contemptible wormâ— are Answ 1. If this prove anâ— thing it will prove more thaâ— the Adversary desires namely that God may forgive thâ— obstinate and impenitent seeing we not only can but in somâ— cases are bound so to do buâ— the contrary hereof both Socâ—nus and Crellius affirm and I suppose the Disciple will not varâ— from his Masters 2. It is truâ— that he who sins gives God â— right to punish him and thaâ— God may remit his right buâ— then it must be upon term which may secure his honour now it is against his honouâ— to do it otherwise than upoâ— the conditions we alledge anâ— upon these we affirm that iâ— demonstration of his grace hâ— doth it Neither is it througâ— impotency that God cannot otherwayes act but through infiniteness of perfection His next assault is upon my P. 13. Argument from the nature of God and the account that the Scriptures give us of it in reference to sin â—nd sinners to which purpose I â—ited 2 Thes 1. 6 7. upon which â—e replyes that God is said to be â—ighteous in recompencing rest to â—hem who are troubled as well as â—ribulation to them who trouble â—ut forasmuch as that is not from â—he necessity of Gods nature but â—rom his merciful determination â—o neither is this from the incliâ—ation of his nature but the pleaâ—ure of his will Answ 1. God having proâ—ised to reward obedience â—annot without faileur in his veâ—acity and truth but perform â—t for though his promise was â—n act of grace yet the keeping â—f it is an act of justice and therefore the Scripture asserts that God cannot otherwise do without being false and unrighteous Heb. 6. 10. 2 Tim. 4. 8. and by consequence God having threatned to punish sin is obliged by his veracity to do no less his truth is as prevalent with him in the one case as iâ— the other so that this exception is so far from prejudicing us that it clearly overthrows his cause who brought it 2. God being infinitely good is enclined by his nature to love vertue and though it were noâ— against his justice not to rewarâ— it forasmuch as it is impossiblâ— that a creature should lay an obligation upon its maker yet iâ— is that which his wisdom and goodness will not admit him to do How much more then is iâ— contrary to his nature not to punish sin that being formally against his justice as well as unbecoming his wisdom 3. We affirm that there is a difference betwixt obedience and sin as to the point of ones being punished and the other rewarded for â—e owe the utmost of Service â—o God as we are his creatures â—nd withall there is that in the â—ature of duty which deserves â—hat it should be pursued but â—n the contrary sin is so far from â—eing a debt which we owe to God that he commands us on the â—ighest perill to avoid it and â—here is nothing in the nature â—f sin that should invite us to â—ommission of it and withall â— is contrary both to Gods naâ—re and government and â—erefore though God be obliâ—d by his nature to punish sin â—t he is under no such obligaâ—on to reward obedience obeâ—ence being a debt we owe to â—od as our maker and ruler â—ereas sin is both an opposing his nature and a rebelling against his Rectorship The Apostle asserts the same distinction Rom. 6. 23. for the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. The next attempt is upon my P. 13. arguing for the necessity of sins punishment from the sense and notion which the Heathens without revelation have of it Against which he excepts that the same light taughâ— them that God was merciful pardoning sin without a satisfaction Answ If we consider in thiâ— affair the sentiments of the Heathen our Adversaries havâ— clearly the disadvantage for iâ— is most certain that they believed God to be offended anâ— therefore sought by costly offerings lustrations c. to appeasâ— him 2. We readily granâ— that the Heathens had somâ— light of Gods being mercifulâ— herein he left himself nowhere without a witness Act. 14. 17. and the common discoveries which he made of his goodness were intended in a kind of objective way and had a great tendency and usefulness to that purpose to lead us to Repentance Rom. 1. 19 20. Rom. 2. 4. but that they had any notion of Gods pardoning sin without satisfaction we deny and challenge him to prove it if he can yea their whole Worship implyed the contrary to what end were all their Sacrifices but upon a steady belief of Gods being angry to attone him It is very remarkable that of all the parts and principles of justified Worship-Priesthood and Sacrifice made the largest spread there being scarce any People or Nation which hath arrived to our knowledge among whom we do not find some Prints and footsteps of them And though the Heathens mistook the right end of Sacrifices yet the first Rise of them among them was some traditional conveyance from the Church to whom God enjoyned them as Types of the great Sacrifice of the Messiah As to what the Gentleman alledgeth in reference to the Ninivites it is altogether impertinent 1. In that it was but Gods withholding of a temporal judgment and that also but for a time for about forty years after they were destroyed and their City taken and overthrown 2. All the mercy they could suppose in God was
them alone foâ— expiation of guilt and right to life But that no satisfaction can bâ— made by sacrifices appears 1. In that Scripture expreslâ— Sacrificia considerantur vel quaâ—enus typi crant futurae satis facticnis Messia vel quatenus illis vis expiandi per se adscribebatur priori modo Deuâ— illa voluit posteriori carejecit Walth rejects all sacrifices when trusteâ— to for that end and purpose Psalâ— 40. 6. Sacrifice and offering thâ— didst not desire mine ears hast thâ— opened burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required i. e. hâ— did not desire them as means bâ— which sin could be expiated Sâ— Psal 50. 8. to 12. Micah 6. 6 7 Heb. 9. 9. and 10. 1 2 3 4. Goâ— in Scripture expresseth his disliâ— of sacrifices upon three occasionâ— 1. Because of the prophaness â— the Offerers Isa 1. 11 12. c. â— 18. Isa 66. 5. Jer. 6. 20. 2â— When they were preferred to moral obedience 1 Sam. 15. 22. Hos 6. 6. Jer. 7. 21 22. 3. When trusted to for justification and life as we have just before expressed 2. There is no worth in the blood of a Bull or Goat to make reparation for the dishonour done by sin to God he must have very mean thoughts both of sin and God that thinks his justice can be satisfied or the guilt of sin expiated by the bloud of a Calf or Lamb. The wrong done by sin being infinite justice requireth that the satisfaction should be proportionable 3. Nor was there any proporâ—ion nor relation either betwixt the sinner and the sacrificed beast that the blood and death of the one should pass for a satisfaction â—or the sin and offense of the other There should be a conjunction in Nature betwixt him that commits â—he offence and him that makes the satisfaction in what nature the sin is committed in that nature the reparation should be made there being therefore no communion in nature betwixt a beast and a man the blood of the one cannot pass for a satisfaction for the crime of the other 4. Because it is necessary that whoever makes satisfaction for another should consent and willingly submit to such an undertaking now a beast is altogether uncapable of stipulation or agreeing to such an exchange Psal 118. 27. and therefore can no wise make satisfaction The Heathen could say Quum sis ipse nocens moritur cuâ— victima prote Stultitia est morte alterius sperarâ— salutem So that upon the whole it is clear we cannot plead a satisfaction bâ— sacrifice 2. Others possibly may be ready to insist on moral obedience as if by that we could make God a valuable compensation for the wrong we have done him This was the the great refuge of the Jews of old Rom. 2. 17. They rested in the law Rom. 9. 31. They followed after the law i. e. they expected life and righteousness in and through the observance of the law not that they thought themselves able so universally to keep it as not at all to sin but they apprehended that they sufficiently kept the law to justification if they performed the outward acts of duety and forbore the outward acts of sin or if their good works were more than their evil Mat. 19. 18 19 20. Phil. 3. 6. but that there is no coming off on this Plea 1. The Scripture every where informs us in its disclaiming all possibility of being justified by works Rom. 3. 20. By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight Gal. 3. 21 22. If there had been a law given which could have given life verily righteousness should have been by the law but the Scripture hath concluded all under sin c. Rom. 8 3. what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh c. The law had we kept it by continuing in the sâ—ate wherein we were created was both appointed and able to have given life but man by sin becoming flesh the law stood by as altogether insufficient to help such an one and is therefore called the ministration of death 2 Cor. 3. 7. and of condemnation 2 Cor. 3. 9. and though it was afterward continued for other ends yet it was never intended that they should have life and righteousness by it 2. The obedience of the law is such as never any sinner did or can perform Psal 143. 2. In thy sight shall no man living be justified i. e. upon a personal righteousness of his own Psal 130. 3. If thou Lord shouldst mark iniquities O Lord who shall stand The law required not only a personal but an universal perfect and perpetual obedience and as to all the last three we are sadly defective and accordingly those Saints who had as much to plead this way as any yet constantly disclaim'd being justified on this score Psal 19. 12. Psal 40. 12. My sins are more than the hairs of my head As if he had sâ—id I may sooner tell my hairs than reckon my sins Job 9. 2 3 15 20 21 30. read it at leisure See also 2 Cor. 4 4. Though I know nothing by my self yet am I not hereby justified Phil. 3 8 9. 3 Were it possible that we coulâ— give God a perfect and universal obedience which we never can yet it were no more than a debt which we owe him as we are his Creatures and therefore could be no satisfaction from us as we are his delinquents Whatever we are or have it being from God we owe him the farthest improvement of all without rendring him beholding yea in the state wherein he created us he might have obliged us to the utmost obedience and after all that instead of any reward have reduced us into the state of nothing out of which he raised us being fallen more than we can yield is a debt we owe him as our Maker and therefore can be no satisfaction to him as an offended Judge One debt useth not to go in payment for another if a man commit one treasonable act and for a time make an escape but be afterwards apprehended it will be no Plea in Law to say he is Loyal now because he was bound to have been so before and therefore must satisfie for his former disloyalty 4. All the obedience we are â—er able to yield to God it is â—rough the alone strength and inâ—uence of his grace Joh. 15. 5. Cor. 3. 5. And therefore instead â— being a satisfaction to his juâ—ce we are made fresh debtors to â—s mercy 5. One sin dishonours God â—ore than an eternity of obedience â—n recompence all our service â—ings no accession to God to meâ— any thing at his hand Job 22. 3. Can a man be profitable to â—d is it pleasure to the Almighty â—at thou art righteous or is it â—in to him that thou makest thy â—ys perfect Job 35. 7. If thou â— righteous what givest thou unto â—m or what receiveth he at thine â—nd see also Psal 16. 2 3. Luc.
Dignitas personae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 satisfactionis detrahere nil potest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 potest ratio est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est satisfactionâ— essentialis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non est 2. The second part of the curse was separation from God and the sense of the loss of his favour and this also Christ underwent being for a time under the with drawment and loss of the feeling of God's love So much was before hand prophesied concerning him Psal 22. 1. and himself declareth that he bore it Mat. 27. 46. My God my God why hast thou forsaken mâ— It is true he was not left as to the dissolution of the personal union with the Divine Essence â—on 14. 11. and 10. 30. Heb. 9. 14. nâ—r as to the vertue and support of God's power and providence Psal 16. 8 9 Joh. 16. 32. nor as to grace and sanctification Col. 1. 19. It was needful that he should be always holy otherwise he had failed in the work which he came about but â—t was not needful that he should be always joyful yea considering his undertaking it was impossible that he should be so and therefore he was left only as to the communication of the effects of Divine love and favour which is that which the damned â—ye under in hell And this with what I delivered under the former head was the ground of his fear agony and bloody sweat c. Having proved that Christ suffered the very same which we should have suffered it naturally follows that he did it in way of a satisfaction for there is no other reason imaginable why God should thus punish a person who in himself was altogether innocent and one so dear to him as his own Son but that he stood charged as a Surety with our sins to make satisfaction to Divine Justice for them CHAP. VI. The satisfaction of Christ further established in that he suffered in our room He underwent death as a penalty our sins were laid on him He was made sin dyed for us bare our iniquities THE next thing which comes under consideration for the more full clearing that Christ hath satisfied for us is this that as he suffered the same which we should have suffered so he suffered it all in our room and stead It was before hand told that the Messiah should be cut off but not for himself Dan. 9. 26. He was to be penally cut off not upon his own account or for himself but for us This particular will be fully made out by considering these five things 1. In that he underwent death which God had constituted the punishment of sin and there being no â—use in himself why he should sufâ—r that penalty It unavoidably â—llows that it was because he stood â—arged with our offences I do not â—ow dispute whether God might â—ave made man obnoxious to â—ath in case he had never sinned â—e only question is what he hath â—one I will not deny but that â—od having given us our beings â—nd lives might without injuâ—ice have taken back what he â—ad given he might in way of doâ—inion and soveraignty have sent â— into the world to act our parts â—or a time and then remanded us â—to our state of not being again â—e only question is what he hath one and that in condecency to is wisdom goodness and righteâ—usness as governour of his creaâ—res and here we affirm that â—eath was appointed by God to be â—e wages of sin and that if man â—ad not sinned he should not have â—yed notwithstanding the possibility of dying which was in maâ— nature he should by the power â— God have been preserved froâ— actual dying Whatever he was obâ—noxious to in the constitution â— his nature he should for ever naâ— been free from death in the evenâ— And it was very consonant to Diâ—vine wisdom and goodness thâ— perfect righteousness and puriâ— should have been attended witâ— life and immortality and thâ— God should not take away thâ— being which he had bestowed but upon a faileur in reference tâ— the end for which it was given God appointed death to be thâ— punishment of sin Gen. 2. 17. Iâ— the day that thou eatest thereof thâ— shalt surely dye This being denounced only in case of sin wâ— are thence fully informed that iâ— man had not sinned he should noâ— have dyed To this it were â—asiâ— to subjoyn many other places oâ— Scripture Rom. 6. 23. The wagâ—â— of sin is death Rom. 5. 12. Death entred into the world by sin It came not in as a consequent of the frailty of humane nature but as the demeâ—it of the fall Hence death is called an enemy 1 Cor. 15. 26. God made not death saith â—he Apocryphal writer Now Jesus Christ having suffered death which was the punishment of sin and having had no sin of his own for which he could be punished it results by a necessary consequence that he suffered death as the penalty of our sins â—nd as he stood in our room Object Object But possibly it may be â—bjected that this interferes with our own doctrine For if death be the â—enalty of sin then for asmuch as Christ by bearing the penalty hath deâ—ivered us from every thing that is â—enal he should have delivered us from death too but not having delivered us from death we contradict â—ur selves in calling death the puâ—ishment of sin Answ I Answer All those for whoâ— Christ hath satisfied are delivered by him from death so far as it is penal So that though it be continued yet it is not as it is a punishment but in order to other ends sin and the curse being separate from it it is no more poisonous but medicinal Instead of a punishment it is become a priviledge Christ having unstung it and swallowed up the curse which was in it 1 Cor. 15. 54 55. it cannot hurt them though it seise them Instead of being an inlet to wrath it is an entrance to glory 2. Christ his suffering in our room will be made further out if we consider that our sins were laid on him Isa 53 6 7. The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all he was oppressed and he was afflicted That it is the Messiah and none other who is intended throughout that whole Chapter hath been abundantly justified against the Jews and it is utterly impossible with any congruity and sense to apply it to any other And several testimonies taken hence are in the New Testament expresly applyed to Christ ver 1. Joh. 12 â—7 38. ver 4. Mat. 8. 17. ver 7 8. Act. 8. 28. ad 36. ver 12. Luke 22. 37. The attempts of Grotius in accommodating the whole to Jeremiah have been aâ—undantly refuted by Hoornbeck Alex. Morus and the learned Dr. Owen to whose writings I profess my self more beholding for a clear understanding of some things in â—he mystery of the Gospel than to â—ny mans besides Taking then at present for granted that it is to be understood of
the places it necessarily signifies the meritorious and impulsive cause and no wise the final And so in the foregoing place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for our offences must needs be undestood that our offences were the meritorious and impulsive cause of Christ's suffering Another particle that the Holy Ghost useth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 6. 8. For when we were yet without strength Christ died for the ungodly Rom. 8. 32. He spared not his own Son but delivered him up to death for us all 1 Pet. 3. 18. Christ hath once suffâ—red the just for the unjust Tit. 2. 14. who gave himself for us 1 Tim. 2. 6. who gave himself a ransome for all Heb. 2. 9. he tasted death for every man Joh. 10. 15. I lay down my life for my sheep Luke 22. 19 20. This is my body which is given for you This Cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you Now the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among other significations that it hathe signifieth sometimes the impulsivâ— cause Phil. 2. 13. Eph. 5. 20. Rom. 15. 9. Sometimes the substitution of one in the room of another 2 Cor. 5. 20. Philem. v. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Demost Ego pro te molam Terent. Particularly when the sufferings of one for another is exprest by it it always signifieth the substitution of one in the place of another Rom. 9. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eurip. Unum pro multis dabitur caput Virg. Hanc tibi Eryx meliorem animam pro morte Daretis Persâ—lvo When ever it 's used to imply ones dying for another it always signifieth the dying in his stead Another Preposition made use of in this affair is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 3. 18 Christ also hath once suffered for sins Gal. 1. 4. who gave himself for our sins 1 Joh. 2. 2. and he is the propitiation for our sins Now this particle though it hath several significations according as the subject matter requires yet among others it often signifyeth the impulsive cause Luke 19. 37. Joh. 10. 33. especially when it refers to sufferings Jud. 15. The last particle made use of to this purpose is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 20. 28. even as the Son of Man came to give his life a ransome for many Repeated again Mark 10. 45. Now this Preposition when ever applyed to persons or things it always imports a substituting of one in the room of another or an exchanging of one for another Mat. 2. 22. Mat. 5. 38. and 17. 27. Luke 11. 11. Rom. 12. 17. 1 Cor. 11. 15. 1 Pet. 3. 9. So that from the whole we may confidently conclude that Christ not only suffered for our good but in our room and stead 5. That Christ dyed not only for our advantage and profit but in oâ— place will be fully demonstrated iâ— we observe that he is saâ—d to havâ— born our sins 1 Pet. 2. 24. who hiâ— own self bare our sins in his owâ— body on the tree Heb. 9. 28. Chrisâ— was once offered to bear the sins of many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he carried up our sinâ— on his body on the tree they werâ— made to ascend on him Now to bear sin is usually in the Scripture phrase to bear the punishment oâ— sin Levit. 5. 1. and 7. 18. and 20. 17. Numb 14. 33. Exod. 28. 43. Ezek. 28. 20. and 23. 49. and 18. 20. Lament 5. 7. And though it should be granted that to bear sin sometimes signifieth only to remove sin yet that this is not the solâ— meaning of it in reference to Christ his bearing sin the Holy Ghost puts out of question Isa 53. 4 5 8 10. He hath born our griefs and caâ—rie our sorrows he was wounded for our transgressions for the transgression of my people â—as he striken he shall bear â—eir iniquities The two words â—hich the Holy Ghost there useth â—e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nasa and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saball â—w though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies someâ—mes only to take away Job 7. 1. and to forgive Exod. 34. 7. â—um 14. 18. Psal 32. 1. yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—gnifieth ever to bear or carry a â—urthen by taking it on nor is it â—nce used otherwise in all the Scriâ—tures And besides however 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in other places may be allowâ—d to signifie only to remove or â—ake away yet that it should sigâ—ifie so here the context will not â—dmit In that it is said he bore our â—ns so as to be wounded for them â—rieved bruised chastised and put â—o pain for them which clearly â—hews the ground and cause of his â—ufferings and not only the issue â—nd the event Object But it is objected that â—his of the Prophet of Christ his â—earing our diseases is applied Mat. 8. 16 17. in reference to Christ â— healing of diseases and therâ—fore if the bearing our sicknessâ— be only his removing of them by câ—ring them in like manner â— bearing our sins is not the takinâ— them upon himself to undergo the pâ—nishment of them but only his takinâ— them away by forgiveness and heâ—ing To this I return these things bâ— way of Answer 1. It may â— denyed that Christ his bearing oâ— diseases is to be understood onâ— in reference to his removing â— them but that it imports also hâ— travelling under them as a bâ—then He had a fellow feeling â— the pains and griefs he cured â— was affected and afflicted under tâ— sense of them as if they had beâ— his own Heb. 4. 15. besides â— underwent great trouble pain anâ— travel in the curing of them Sâ— much at least is implyed in tâ— word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Est in hac voce â—neâ— quaedam â—olestiae significatio Grot. Nuspiam non portare significat bajulare vid. Mat. 3 11. and 20. 12. Mat. 14. 13. Luke 7. 14. and 10. 4. and 14. 27. Joh. 19. 17. and 20. 15. Acts 15. 10. Rom. 15. 1. Gal. 6. 5. Rev. 2. 3. 2. We meet with a great deal more in Scripture to induce us to believe that Christ bare our sins by taking them upon him than that he bare our diseases by taking them upon him for our sins are said to have been laid on him Isa 53. 6 and he is said to have been made sin for us 2 Cor. 5. 21. whereas we do not read that our siâ—â—nesses were laid on him or that he was made blind or lame c. for us 3. A Scripture may be alleged to be fulfilled not only when the thing foretold and principally intended comes to pass but when something like it falls out when there is only an allusion or accommodation to the Prophesie though in the primary and literal meaning of it there be something else intended though there be but one literal coordinate sense of Scripture yet there may be divers senses oâ— several kinds one subordinate to another Compare Psal 78. 2. with Mat. 13. 35.
debts something material is paid and received by which the Creditor is made richer In penal it is enough that thâ— Law be satisfied though the Governour be not formally made thâ— richer A person that is wronged may account himself satisfied iâ— the party who hath offended him hazard his life for him though hâ— formally pay him nothing Sâ— here it was not needful that Goâ— should properly receive any thingâ— it was enough that he should accept what was done To makâ— good God's acceptance of thâ— price it is sufficient that his law is satisfied and that his justice suffered not by the delivery of thâ— sinner though he be not formally made the richer and this is not only true that the justice of God suffers nothing by our release Rom. 3. 25. but besides it is more glorified than it could have been in the destruction of the sinner These things being premised we come now to prove that Christ by the interposition of his blood as a price hath properly in way of solution and payment redeemed and delivered us And this will appear if we consider these three things 1. If we observe that there was a price paid and this the Scripture fully informs us 1 Cor. 6. 20. for ye are bought with a price and what this price was we are expresly told 1 Pet 1. 18 19. Ye are not redeemed with silver and gold but with the precious blood of Christ as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot Of what use silver and gold are in other cases to redeeme captives of that use is the blood of Christ to redeem sinners Hence Christ's death is called a ransome Mat. 20. 28. He gave his life a ransome for many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is all one whether it come from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to loose or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pay As we wâ—re held prisoners by the law and justice of God we are by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 redeemed and set free The Antient Câ—ot in Mat. 28. 20. Jews used to stile the Messiah 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not improbable that the Romans derived their lustrum from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when many were delivered from destruction by one or more suffering to purifie and â—xpiate the sin of the rest Hinc Decâ—i dicuntur lustrasse Romanum exercitum Now Christ was such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of many Hence he is stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 2. 6. Quum alius solvit quod reus non poteraâ— Arâ—t Est tale pretium in quo liberator simile quid subâ—t et â—alo quod ei imminebat qui liberatur Scult It signifieth a counter price that which one undergoeth in the room of another When one giveth his own life for the saving of anothers Such were those whom the Greeks called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who gave life for life and body for body who used to devote themselves to death to deliver others as Alceste did for Admetus Philumene for Aristides Anâ—inous for Adrian the Decii for their Country So Christ laid down his life to redeem ours he bore the curse that we might escape it he shed his blood in our lieu and offered up himself a valuable compensation for our release 2. That it was paid and accepted in our lieu and stead There is no other ground with any consistency to Scripture or reason can be assigned of the payment of it for not being paid for himself it must meeds have been for us It is chiefly and principally in reference to this that he is our Mediator it was God's law and justice which was against us and the only way for a Mediator to deal with them was in bearing the penalty to give justice the satisfaction which it did claime So that should it be granted that the word is sometimes used to signifie only an interpreter and intermessenger yet the nature of the case betwixt God and us doth necessarily require that whoever interposeth in way of mediation must do it by price and ransome And the Apostle puts it out of doubt by asserting this as the cause ground and end of his mediatorship in those places where he so stiles and mentions him 1 Tim. 2. 5 6. There is one Mediator betwixt God and Man the man Christ Jesus who gave himself a ransome Heb. 9. 15 He is the Mediator of the New Testament that by means of death for the redemption of transgressions that were under the first Testament they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance Heb. 12. 24. And to Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant and to the blood of sprinkling In all which places the Apostle clearly assigns this as the cause and reason of Christ's being Mediator namely that he gave himself a ransome and by his blood made reparation for transgression 3. This will further appear by observing that by vertue of the solution and payment which Christ hath made we are said to be redeemed Ephes 1. 7. repeated Col. 1. 14. In whom we have redemption through his blood the forgiveness of sins c. Though there be forgiveness yet it is only through the redemption wrought and accomplished by the blood of Christ c. see Rev. 5. 9. Heb. 9. 12. 1 Pet. 1. 18. 19. Rom. 3. 25. In all these places both our redemption is asserted and the blood of Christ hâ—ld forth as the meritorious and procuring cause of it The words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never so far as I remember made use of in the whole New Testament but to denote a proper redemption save that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is once metaphorically employed Heb. 11. 35. to signifie a temporal deliverance From what hath been offered we may now confidently infer the truth and certainty of a satisfaction Object 1 Object 1. But it is Objected That Moses as a type of Christ in reference to his bringing the people of Israel out of Egypt is called a redeemer who yet paid no price for them and consequently that the intendment of the Scripture when it speaks of Christ's having redeemed us is not that he payd any ransome for us but only that he hath set us free which he may have done by other ways and means than the solution of a price Answ To this I offer these Answers 1. It is a strange way of arguing that because redemption is taken sometimes Metaphorically that therefore it must always be so taken because we so interpret it in such places where it is expresly said to be done in a way of power must we likewise interpret it so in such places where there is express mention of a price and ransome 2. We have shown before how that temporal deliverance out of Egypt was not wrought without a typical reconciliation and price to intimate that the spiritual deliverance was not to be effected but by a proportionable price and ransome 3. Though I do not deny but
that the words are used sometimes to import and signifie our accepting the tenders of God's grace and favour as 1 Cor. 5. 20. We pray you in Christ's stead be ye reconciled But withal we affirm that in their most frequent use they signifie the appeasing God's anger and the reconciling him to us This we confirm from the ensuing Scriptures Rom. 5. 10. When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son Where by being reconciled is principally meant God's being reconciled to us as appears 1. Because the reconciliation spoken of here is that to which justification is equivalent ver 9. but justification is God's reconciliation to us not our conversion to him 2. In that the reconciliation here intended is that which is the immediate effect of the death of Christ and consequently we cannot understand by it the reconciling of our natures to God this being immediat fruit of the spirit of Christ for though remotely it be founded on the death of Christ yet in Scripture it is made the immediate effect of the resurrection life and power of Christ Acts 5. 31. and latter part of this same verse 10. Much more being reconciled by the death of his Son we shall be saved by his life But we must necessarily understand the reconciling of God to us 3. Because the reconciliation here spoken of is that which is tendred to us and which we receive ver 11. have received the atonement and therefore cannot be meant of our reconciliation or conversion to God forasmuch as we are not said to receive our conversion or to have our conversion tendred to us but must needs be spoken in reference to the appeasing of God's anger towards us and our acceptation with him and accordingly the Syriack renders it Reconciliatus est nobiscum Deus God was reconciled to us Another Scripture which offers for the further establishing of this is 2 Cor. 5. 18 19 20. All things are of God who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ and hath given us the ministry of reconciliation to wit that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation now then we are Embassadors for Christ as though God did beseech you by us we pray you in Christ's stead be ye reconciled to God Besides the reconciliation of man to God by conversion mentioned in the latter end of the 20 vers and to which we are there exhorted There is also mention of God's reconciliation to us and â—hat this is the main thing insisted â—on and intended by the Apostle appears 1. In that he expresseth it by God 's not imputing our sins to us not by our conversion from sin to God and what is it now for God not to impute sin it is not â—o charge our sins upon us so as â—o condemn us but in consideraâ—ion of the death of Christ to lay aside his anger and receive us into â—avour 2. Because the reconciliation â—ere intended is that the declaration whereof is committed to the Ministers of the Gospel Now that which they have in trust to Preach is not that we are actually converted to God but that God in consideration of the sufferings of Christ is willing upon terms of faith and repentance c. to take us into favour and friendship 3. Because if the intendment of all these Verses were only our conversion to God we should be necessitated to fasten nonsenâ— upon the Apostle for at this raâ— of expounding the import woulâ— be ye are converted therefore be ye converted Many more testimonies speaking clearly to the same purpose if I studied noâ— brevity might be alledged Seâ— Ephes 2. 12 13 14 15 16 17. Col. 1. 20. Object But it may be objected that we often read of our being reconciled to God but we do not once read in the whole Bible that God iâ— reconciled to us Answ It is true but the reason is because God is the offended Ruler and Judge and we are the offending Subjects now in every case the party who offends is said to be reconciled to the party offended and not on the contrary so Mat. 5. 23 24. 1 Cor. 7. 11. See that pertinent place to this purpose 1 Sam. 29. 4. where the Philistines â—efusing to let David march along with them to the encounter against Saul assign this as the reason of it For wherewith should he reconcile himself unto his Master should it not be with the heads of these men Now David had no enmity nor anger against Saul only Saul was angry with David and yet it is expressed that David should reconcile himself to Saul i. e. that he would endeavour by such a stratagem to make Saul his friend God having given us no cause then why we should be angry with him but we having given him cause of being provoked against us it lyes with us to go and reconcile our selves to him but how by the appeasing of his anger which forasmuch as we could not do Christ hath done it That Christ by the appeasing of God's wrath and anger hath wrought reconciliation and by consequence our very adversaries being judges made satisfaction will receive full establishment if we consider thesâ— things 1. That this was prophesied before hand of the Messiah Dan. 9 24. and to make reconcilâ—ation for iniquity Which the Apostle expresly applies to Christ Heb. 2. 17. Wherefore in all thingâ— it behoved him to be made like untâ— his brethren that he might be â— merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God to make reconciliation for the sins of the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by an enallage put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make reconciliation with God for iniquities not meerly Peccata aâ—ferre aut purgare à peccato to take away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apud graecos Scriptores omnes poctas hic oricos alios est placare Gâ—ot de satisf sin or to cleanse from sin as Grotius in his notes contrary to himself elsewhere but expiare placare to attone to reconcile by removing wrath according to the constant use of the word in all Greek Authors It is equivalent to that phrase Heb. 1. 3. when he had by himself purged our sins Namely by the attoning and pacifying God's anger through the sacrifice of himself that we should not be condemned for them not by the sanctification of believers from them It is an observation of the reverend and learned Dr. Owens that wherever sin not sinners are made the object of any mediatory acts of Christ that act immediately respecteth God and not the sinner So Heb. 9. 15. For the redemption of transgressions i. e. to redeem from the wrath due to transgression by making God a reparation And Heb. 9. 26. he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself to take it away by satisfaction so that it should not be charged 2. Christs reconciling us