de Turc moribu◠c. 4. p. 130. it was their custom to use these words In the name of God of Mercy and of their Spirit If any shall be so in love with his private Sentiments as to deny this Truth which has gained so universal a Testimony upon the account of some difficulties which our shallow Intellects cannot reach to the bottom of he may with the same reason assert there is no such thing as the Ocean because he cannot by his line find the depth of it in every place If all this will not satisfie let him exercise his reason about some difficulties in nature and he will find the existence of things very plain where their contexture is so concealed and intricate that the greatest Wits are at a loss in their disquisition about it If the intricacy of some modes in natural things be no reasonable inducement to deny the reality of the things themselves much less is the ineffable union betwixt the Divine Essence and Subsistence a justifiable plea for the denial of the Sacred Trinity He that shall think fit to try the acuteness of his Intellect about some knots in Philosophy will find the edge of his reason so much blunted in the encounter that it will not be easie for him to perswade himself that it is sharp enough to penetrate into all the Mysteries in Divinity If this will not prevail without an engagement with those difficulties which this Truth is usually assaulted with let a Catalogue be made of them and it will not be difficult for him to make his way thro' them who is armed with the following considerations 1. Altho' there be Three Persons or Subsistences in the Godhead yet there are not three Essences Every Person distinctly considered has an Essence but every person has not a distinct Essence 2. Tho' one finite individual Nature cannot be communicated to Three Persons yet an infinite may If the whole Divine Essence is intimately in all created persons at the same time there is no reason to think but that it may be communicated to three increated Whatsoever is alledged against this Communication holds as strong against the Universal Presence which all acknowledge but those who deny the Deity 3. Finite and infinite perfect and imperfect are not proper predicates of Subsistence but of Being So that when we are interrogated whether the three persons in the Holy Trinity are finite or infinite perfect or imperfect if by Person is meant only a mode of subsistence without the Nature it is a very incongruous question For infinity and finity perfection and imperfection are but modes of Entity and every mode imports variation and one variation cannot properly be predicated of another If by Person is understood the Divine Essence subsisting in a peculiar manner then we answer that every person distinctly is infinitely perfect tho' every person has not a distinct infinite perfection 4. Altho' the three Persons have one and the same Nature yet the Son cannot be said to be the Father or the Spirit the Son The same specifical Nature agrees to Joh Moses and Daniel Every one of them has the whole nature of Man yet we have no reason to assert that Moses is Job or Joh Daniel As there is some thing not contained in the common Nature which doth individuate them So there is a characteristical property appertaining to the Father the Son and holy Spirit whereby they are distinguisht altho' they are all equally interested in the same infinite Essence 5. When it is said that the only God is the Father Jesus Christ is the only God therefore Jesus Christ is the Father the major proposition is peccant For in every proposition the predicate is never less comprehensive than the subject but always of a greater latitude and therefore bears the title of the major term But here the predicate Father is less comprehensive than the subject the only God Now I have finished the Third Proposition The Three Persons are One God 4. This One God is to be Worshipped If we consider him essentially his peerless perfections do justly challenge the deepest veneration They being infinite cannot admit of any additions All that We are capable of doing is to own them with the decent significations of the most humble and submissive regards It is an Article in the Jewish Creed Fag in Deut. c. 14. v. 1. The Blessed God is worthy to be Worshipped It is a principal part of the Confession of the Christian Church Thou art worthy O Lord to receive Glory and Honour It was usual among the Heathens to worship the Head of great Rivers Sax. Will-worship He who considers God as the fountain of all that goodness which circulates in the veins of the Creation can conclude no less than that the most profound veneration is due to him If the Deity be considered personally every person doth require Divine Worship to be directed to him The Father Jo. 4.23 The Son Heb. 1.6 Psal 2.12 Phil. 2.10 S. Stephen directed his Prayer to him Act. 7.59 Ananias enjoyned S. Paul to call upon him Act. 22. v. 16. Salvation is promised to those who express a conformity to this command Rom. 10.13 When we say the Son is to be Worshipped we do not consider him without his humane Nature but as a person consisting both of Divine and Humane Supreme Adoration is given upon the account of the infinite excellency of the Divine Nature This excellency is communicated to the Person which has assumed our Nature and advanced it to the dignity of an Hypostatical union but not to the nature it self And therefore the Worship which is due must not be terminated upon the nature considered abstractedly but the person who is clothed with it This induced Athanasius to say Epist ad Adelph 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let them know meaning the Arrians that when we Worship the Lord in the flesh we do not Worship a Creature but the Creator cloathed with a created body Neither must our blessed Lord be considered without his Mediatorship Tho' supreme Adoration doth not immediately terminate upon the relation of a Mediator yet it doth upon him who is invested with that Relation Our Saviour in this respect is inferiour to the Father and nothing inferiour to the Deity can challenge Supreme Adoration The taking up the mediatory Office was an act of free Grace and by consequence might not have been done Now that which might have been or not been must be inferiour to that necessary and immutable excellency which is the proper Object of the highest Veneration We must distinguish betwixt the foundation of Worship and the Motives to it Tho' the free acts of the Divine Benignity as redeeming mediating c. are vigorous inducements to Worship yet the sole foundation and immediate object is infinite excellency which will not permit any thing which is inferiour to share with it in the same degree of Honour A Subject may have many motives from the
Jesus is said to return in the power of the Spirit Luk. 14. S. Paul prays that the Romans may abound in hope thro' the power of the Holy Ghost Rom. 15 14. Mighty signs and wonders are said to be done by the power of the Spirit of God If the Spirit in these places did signifie no more than a divine power the meaning would be that Christ returned the Romans abounded miracles were wrought thro' the power of a Power The Spirit is likewise evidently distinguished from effects or gifts The Apostle saies that There are diversity of gifts but the same Spirit 1 Cor. 12.4 To one is given by the Spirit the word of Wisdom to another the word of Knowledge by the same Spirit v. 8. And that all these worketh this one and the same Spirit So that there can be nothing left in these Texts for the Spirit to signifie but a Person He being manifestly distinguished from the Divine Power and the gifts and products of that Power Now I have finished the second Proposition In the Godhead there are Three Persons 3. These Three are One God Unity is essential to the Deity Plurality proceeds from the fecundity and fruitfulness of Causes but God is of himself without dependence upon any Cause If there be more Gods there must be more Infinites in the same kind which implies a contradiction for one infinite Being contains all perfection not only as considered in the general notion but actually and therefore there is none for any other Deity to be invested with and possessed of in the same manner If there be more Gods they must be distinct one from another This distinction must arise from some diversity in Nature to attribute such diversity to the Divine Nature is to make a dishonourable reflection upon the simplicity of it The Father Son and Holy Ghost are this One God 1. The Scripture plainly asserts that they are one 1 John 5.7 Tho' these words are not found in some Copies yet they are extant in more than they are wanting in and in that which is dubious the decision is according to the suffrage of the major part If such an addition has been made to the Text it must be done before or after the two first General Councils If before it was either accidental or intentional Not Accidental thro' the inadvertency of the Scribe For tho' a Scribe may mistake and leave out letters and words yet it cannot be imagined that he should casually without any design add a whole sentence and not presently upon a review which may be justly presumed in a Writing of such importance discover and correct his errour Not Intentional no good reason can be given why any should industriously make such a spurious insertion before the controversie concerning the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost did commence Neither was the addition which is pretended made after the two first General Councils Because the words we speak of are found in those Copies which the Fathers who lived before those Councils made use of S. Cyprian asserts de Patre Filio c. Of the Father Son and Holy Ghost it is written and these Three are One. This gives us just reason to believe that the Copies in which these words are wanting fell into the hands of the Arrians and that a rasure was made by them 2. As the words of S. John assure us that The Father the Son and the Spirit are One so we are assured by other texts of Sacred Writ that this Unity is in the Divine Essence They have all one and the same infinite Nature This is evident by the attribution of the Name Properties and peculiar Operations of the most High God to them None doubt of this relation to the Father The matter is likewise clear concerning the Son and the Spirit Christ is called the mighty God Isa 9.6 God blessed for evermore Rom. 9.5 The true God 1 Joh. 5.20 The most high God Psal 58.17 56. The most High which the Israelites tempted and provoked in the wilderness is expresly called Christ 1 Cor. 10.9 The name of God is never attributed in the sacred Oracles with such emphatical Epithets to any finite Being They are intentionally inserted to signifie that Jesus is stiled God not upon the account of his Embassy from his Father or a deification in the state of Glory but his infinite Nature He who is made God and is not so essentially cannot be said to be the true mighty most High God blessed for evermore As the Name of God so the Properties of the Divine Nature are attributed to him Omniscience Joh. 21.17 Immutability Heb. 1.11 Omnipotence Rev. 1.8 Eternity He is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is which was which is to come v. 4. Eternity comprehends all differences of time Was he but a meer Creature such perfections could not reside in him A finite Being under the greatest Elevation has not a capacity large enough to entertain and receive such boundless excellencies The peculiar Operations of God are likewise attributed to him as Creation Joh. 1.2 Coloss 1.16 God is said to create all things by Jesus Christ Eph. 3.9 The Son did concur with the Father and the Spirit in this great Work as a co-ordinate cause The Nature of Creation will not admit the interposals of an instrument There being no matter to prepare a physical instrument has nothing to do in the case And Christ is represented as more than a Moral The infinite power whereby all things are made is often ascribed to him which is never done to a meer moral instrument such as the Apostles were in the production of Miracles Conservation is likewise ascribed to him He is said to uphold all things with the word of his power Heb. 1.3 It was usual for the Jews to express the Deity by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here inserted to assure them that Christ sustains the World and prevents its relapse into its primitive Abyss by virtue of his Deity Lastly He is said to work Miracles He made the blind to see the lame to walk the dead to revive This he did not bring to pass by any mutuatitious power When he healed the multitude it is said Virtue went out of him Luk. 6.19 The power whereby he did it was not adventitious but innate When S. Peter wrought a miracle that Christ by whose power it was effected might not be deprived of the glory of it he names him as the principal cause His name thro' faith in his name hath made this man whole Act. 3.16 As the name properties and operations of the Divine Nature are attributed to the Son of God So likewise to the Holy Ghost The Spirit of the Lord 2 Sam. 23.2 is stiled the God of Israel Ananias who lied unto the Spirit Act. 5.3 is said to lie unto God v. 4. The body which is the Temple of the holy Ghost 1 Cor. 6.19 is stiled
adversaries were as peremptory in this as the other charge Tertullian reckons the report that the Christians were Crucis religiosi amongst those scandals which were raised by malice in order to the eclipsing their reputation As for the Relicks of Saints we find no mention of any religious respect which was paid to them Those who have the greatest zeal for them are usually mounted upon tradition but finding it not able to carry them thro' the first Centuries in this particular they think good to alight and content themselves with some instances in Scripture which are nothing to the purpose as the hemm of Christ's garment the shadow of S. Peter the Handkerchiefs and Aprons that touched the body of S. Paul Because the Woman diseased with an issue of blood was healed by touching the first the sick were brought into the streets that they might be overshadowed by the second many were delivered from evil spirits by the third They have a mind to perswade us without any good reason that these particulars with all Relicks of an equivalent Nature challenge religious veneration No doubt Peter himself was every way as valuable as his shadow and yet when Cornelius made an attempt to worship him he prevented him by an express prohibition The Fathers in the ages next to the Apostles were not such good husbands as to make such an advantagious improvement of these instances but on the contrary we find them charging the Heathens with Superstition of a like nature as the worshipping the Monuments of the Dead and we never read that the Heathens did retort upon them their guilt in the same kind which no doubt they would have done in case there had been any such practice among them Celsus Lucian c. were not so dull as to overlook so signal an advantage They which use to charge them with too much would have paid them their own in case there had been the least appearance of reason for it As the most early Writers next to the Apostles never mention the Worshipping any else but God so all the words which import Divine Worship are by them exclusively applied to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Justin Martyr Apel. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Theophilus Antiochenus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Tatianus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 L. 1. Cont. Cels Servire by Irenaeus Huic servire soli oportet discipulos Christi Colere adorare by Tertullian Apol. c. 17. Inst l. 1. c. 20. Quod colimus unus Deus est Praescribitur ne quem alium adorem Venerari by Lactantius veneratio nulla alia nisi unius Dei tenenda est Hitherto I have asserted the verity of this Proposition God only is to be Worshipped In the next place I will consider the opposition that has been made against it by the Church of Rome and those who adhere to Her Maldonate makes no scruple to pronounce n Mat. 5. v. 34. that it is a wicked error to maintain that religious Honour is to be tendered to none but God The Inquisitors have blotted out such Words and Sentences out of Books as cast a favourable aspect upon this Doctrine In a Sentence cited out of Gregory Nyssen by Antonius in his mellifluous Sermons in these words eam verò folummodò naturam quae increata est colere venerari didicimus they condemn the word Index Exp. solummodò to an expunction The Index to Athanasius's Works Printed at Basil has been treated with the same respect These words adorari solius Dei est are not permitted to remain in it The Gloss in the Margin of the Bible upon 1 Sam. 7.3 Prepare your hearts unto the Lord and serve him only has not escaped their severity Their decree concerning it runs in these terms deleantur illa verba serviendum Deo soli They have done with these Testimonies as Caesar Borgia used to do with men namely contrive the death of those who did impede the accomplishment of his designs This practice doth evidently declare that they are conscious that their Worship cannot stand without this Principle be taken out of the way The sence of it is opposed by them in many particulars as the Worship of the Sacrament the Invocation of Saints the Adoration of Images c. 1. The Worship of the Sacrament The Church of Rome hath given too much occasion to believe that the Accidents of the Bread and Wine are to be honoured with supreme Veneration The Council of Trent in plain words asserts that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is granted to signifie supreme honours is to be given to the Sacrament It does not say to a part only of it but useth the Word in general which must necessarily imply the whole and extend to all which is appointed to be received Now it is evident that the Accidents are a part of the Sacrament which is to be received They constitute the outward and visible sign L. 4. Saâ—r Bellarmine represents them as the principal ratio Sacramenti magis convenit speciebus ut continent Corpus quà m corpori Christi ut est sub speciebus The following words of the Council confirm this Interpretation nec enim minùs adorandum c. neither is it the Sacrament to be less adored because it hath been instituted by Christ the Lord that it may be taken for him the same God we believe to be present in it whom the eternal Father bringing into the World saith Let all the Angels adore him c. Here the Sacrament is represented as that in which our blessed Lord is present and contained under and by consequence as distinct from it That which contains any thing is always diverse from that which is contained in it Now what is there left for the Word Sacrament to import but the outward Elements the signifying part under which it is supposed that the Sacred Body of our blessed Lord is latent His Presence in the Sacrament is alledged as the reason of the Adoration given to it Tho' this is not sufficient to justifie the practice for then every thing in which God is present would be an adorable object as the Sun and Moon and whole Creation yet it leads us into the meaning of the Word Sacrament as it lies in the Council and assures us that it imports some thing besides our blessed Saviour which can be nothing but the outward Elements whereby he is represented A command to give civil honour to the Throne of a Prince because the Prince himself sits in it evidently implies that the Throne and the Prince are distinct one from the other To expound the Decree by the Canon in which there is mention only of Worshipping Christ in the Sacrament is very preposterous They aim at two distinct things The first obligeth us to Worship the Sacrament the second to Worship Christ who is present in the Sacrament These two are as different as to Worship the Palace in
call the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament the Body and Blood of Christ 2. They say that they are not so essentially but figuratively and therefore stile them signs Symbols Figures Antitypes Memorials It is usual to call the sign and the thing signified by the same name 3. They affirm that after Consecration the substance of the Bread and Wine remains and the change made is only in respect of Use Office and Dignity 4. They say That they nourish our flesh and blood and have the same effect that other food has and therefore they use to give the remains of the Euchariscical Bread to boyes and to abstain from the Communion upon Fasting days 5. They assert that wicked men do not eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ but interpret the eating of his flesh Jo. 6. the receiving of him in a spiritual manner namely by Faith 6. When they deny the Eucharist to be a figure or sign they mean a bare sign The Sacrament is more than so It feals and exhibits It is a means whereby we receive the Body and Blood of Christ not only the benefits of them but Christ himself in a spiritual manner as crucified for us and is a real pledge to assure us thereof Tho' the crucified body of Christ is in Heaven yet that spirit which dwells in it being communicated to a worthy Receiver in the Sacramental action we are made to drink into one Spirit it produceth such a union betwixt us and Christ Jesus as laies a clear foundation of Communion with and participation of him 7. When they say there is a mutation in the nature of the Bread they mean by nature the use and property only as is manifest by their own explications Before Consecration it was appropriated to the nourishment of the body but now by Consecration it is exalted to a higher purpose A new dignity is put upon it It becomes a means whereby a worthy Communicant gains Communion with our blessed Lord. 8. When it 's said That the Senses are deceived and no competent judges of the mutation this may be very true altho' the change be Sacramental only The change is not the proper object of sense but of faith The knowledge of it with its effects is conveyed to us by a Divine Testimony extant in the holy Scriptures 9. When it is affirmed That under the species of Bread is given the Body and under the species of Wine the Blood by Species we must not understand the Accidents without their proper subjects This apprehension never entred into the thoughts of the antient Fathers They were perfect strangers to this kind of Philosophy S. Aust l. 4. cal â—â— Tâ—in Serm. de Temp. 38. S. Ambr. l. 4. de Init. By species they understand the specifical nature of a thing and by the species of Bread and Wine True Bread and True Wine as is manifest to any who consult their discourses 10. Where it is said That the Lord who changed Water into Wine could change in the Eucharist Wine into Blood the intention of Cyril is not to make these two conversions in every thing parallel Jerus as is manifest by the words that follow he presently asserts That the eating of Christ's flesh must be understood spiritually and calls the Table mystical and intellectual And therefore all that his words can import is this He who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 changed Water into Wine by a corporal mutation changed at his mystical Table Wine into Blood not corporally but spiritually and mystically Lastly It must be acknowledged that there are many Hyperbolical expressions in the Fathers Hom 23. in Mat Par. 〈◊〉 as S. Chrysostome and others in relation to the Sacrament The design of them is to secure it from contempt and to elevate and raise the devotion of Communicants They being improper Speeches must not be expounded in such a sence as is inconsistent with what is elsewhere expressed by the same Authors in plain words without any figure They all agree in this in as clear expressions as can be desired That the substance of the Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist Their Rhetorical flourishes cannot be interpreted to the prejudice of that which is plain and manifest When S. Chrysostome says That Christ mingles himself with us and not by Faith only but indeed makes us to be his Body His meaning is not That there is any corporal mixture or immediate contact betwixt us and his body but that when we receive the figure of his body which is in Heaven the Spirit which dwells in it is communicated to the worthy Receiver and produceth a union betwixt them and therefore what we receive â— 870. he presently calls the Grace of the Spirit Damascen who lived in the eighth Century was one of the first who deserted the Orthodox doctrin of the Fathers He being concerned in the controversie concerning Images and the opposers of them asserting that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament were the only Image and representation which Christ allowed of himself he was transported with an intemperate zeal and affirmed they were no image or figure at all L. 4. c. sid Oâ—t ◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tho' in these words he did not design any real conversion of the Elements but rather a corporal presence or consubstantiation yet he gave occasion to some in the ninth Age to dispute for a substantial mutation Paschasius Ratbertus was the first who writ seriously and copiously about it as Bellarmine asserts His sentiments about this argument were received with a warm opposition Rabanus Maurus Bertram Joannes Scotus Erigena did strongly assert the contrary doctrin In the tenth Age which was a night of ignorance all things fell asleep controversies were laid aside Darkness did reconcile them as the want of light does various colours In the eleventh Age Berengarius was awakened and did with great perspicuity assert the Truth Tho' the violence of his enemies and infirmity of his nature induced him to submit to a recantation The controversie all this while was managed with so much ambiguity that Joannes Duns Scotus asserts That it was not necessary for any to believe a substantial conversion or Transubstantiation till the Lateran Council held under Innocent the Third in the year 1215. and therefore the master of the Sentences who flourished in the Century before about the year 1145. useth these words What kind of conversion it is 〈…〉 illa 〈…〉 whether formal or substantial I am not able to determine The truth is that Transubstantiation was brought forth by Paschasius confirmed by Innocent the Third and at last so firmly married to the See of Rome by the Council of Trent that there was no possibility of a divorce tho' there is just reason to believe that the most Learned of that Community could heartily desire it The issue produced by this unhappy conjunction is the mutilation of the Sacrament the Adoration of the Host the Sacrince of
and acceptance or else upon some person who is willing to become a surety for the Delinquent and is able by his sufferings to restore that honour which publick order has been impaired in and by this means content the mind of the Supreme Rector and this is properly satisfaction What is usually said That if the nature of God doth oblige him to punish sin then he is by the same necessity ingaged to punish it in the offender is of no moment His hatred being not primarily terminated upon the person but the sin if the guilt be transferred by imputation to a Surety it is not incongruous to assert That the sin may be punished in him Some acts which are in general natural to God are free and undetermined in respect of the modification To Govern the World supposing the Creation is essential to him yet the mode whether he will do it immediately by himself only or make use of the Ministry of Men is his free choice So tho' to punish Sin is natural yet the manner of doing of it whether in the person offending or his undertaker is at his election If it be further added That if it be natural to punish it must be done so soon as the transgression is committed and in the extremity That which is natural admits of no delay The reply is easie This is true of that which is natural in Creatures which want freedom and life but it is otherwise in the Creator who is an Intellectual Being Supposing the Creation it is natural to him to do good and yet it is free for him to time his bounty as he pleaseth and to communicate it in what degrees and methods he judgeth most convenient It is natural for him to give a Law to his Creature but he is not determined to the circumstances of publication whether by innate Ideas only or by revelation The necessity he is under is intellectual which admits of the interposal of Counsel about the modes and circumstances of his actions If it be replied That what is natural in God tho' it may be free in these respects yet it must be always expressed in some measure or other which cannot be affirmed of his punishing sin I answer That Sin in some measure is always punished Jans Augtom 2. l. 3. cap. 3. so soon as it is committed from the first moment the Transgressour is deprived of that contentment which doth naturally emerge from a sence of a compliance with the Law of Creation The Worm of Conscience presently grows out of the feculency and pollution the Soul is defiled with The serenity of mind wherein our present beatitude consists is instantly lost and the anticipations of future torments succeed The sparks of infernal fire are quickly kindled A sence of the just judgment of God That he who doth such things is worthy of death fills the Soul with horrour and the deepest consternation Those blessings which before the Delinquent was encircled with are Metamorphised into curses Plough-shares converted into Swords Pruning-hooks into Spears every thing assumes a direful shape and menacing aspect If it be added That punishment is a debt and every one has power freely to remit his debts I answer this is not true of all kinds of debt There is a debt of Active Obedience which we owe to God from which he cannot give us a full discharge The Law of Nature is as unchangeable as his Essence Those who are guilty of open defamation are indebted to the defamed and obliged by pensive agnitions to re-invest them with that honour they have robbed them of This debt the persons injured have no more right to remit than they have to murder themselves their credit being as valuable as their lives Sin deprives God of his glory which he can by no means part with and therefore in justice must require restitution by some convenient satisfaction before he remit the penalty due to the Transgressour and receive him into favour This satisfaction which is so necessary before we can have an interest in the divine acceptance Jesus Christ has made He has repaied the damae which publick order and the Laws of Heaven received from our Sins and fully contented the mind of the Supreme Rector who in justice was obliged to vindicate the honour of his appointments This will be manifest if we consider the following particulars Jesus Christ has suffâ—red the punishment of our sin What he suffered was in our stead The damage done by sin is repaired and the mind of the Supreme Rector fully appeased and reconciled unto us upon the terms of the New Covenant 1. Christ Jesus has suffered the punishment of our Sin It is plain to every one who consults the Sacred Oracles That his sufferings were of the highest nature if we consider the words by which they are represented 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sets forth the extremity of his grief ad satietatem usque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaks his sorrow to be so great That it produced a stupefaction in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports nothing short of these two words his Soul was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beseized on every side with grief Heaven above did forsake him in his apprehension Hell below did conspire against him The Jews on the one hand stood ready to betray him The Gentiles on the other were prepared to crucifie him Nothing but occasions of grief were administred to his Senses His Eyes beheld the fury of his adversaries His Ears were filled with their blasphemies The most Nervous parts of his body were pierced with instruments of cruelty The drops of Blood which fell from his sacred Body argue That nothing was wanting to consummate the most exquisite torment The circumstances of his Passion were so amazing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Dionysius in Aegypt when he saw the Sun in mourning at his crucifixion used these words Either the Divinity suffers or sympathizeth with him that does For all this there must be some important reason It cannot be imagined That he who was interested in the highest degree of the Love of his Father That never had done any thing to merit the least unkindness should be treated with so much severity upon some unnecessary grounds The could be no motives of an inferiour Nature which did induce the eternal Father to suffer his only Son the Lord of Life to die The Lord of Glory to be obscured with the clouds of ignominy and reproach There must be something in the case which could not be accomplished in any other method All confess that What the Socinians alledge as the reason might have been brought to pass upon far easier terms They tell us That Christ suffered to confirm the Covenant induce us to perform the conditions of it to make way for his ingress into Heaven in order to the performing the Office of a Priest The First of these might have been done by the working of Miracles which are the broad Seal of Heaven What can
perswasion It constantly signifies to bear or carry and for this reason is interpreted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matt. 8.17 He bore their sicknesses that is He did undergo much trouble and pains in the curing of them He had no respite all the day and when the even was come at which time others compose themselves for rest he was pressed upon by the multitude and did attend this great work What Crellius says in the second place if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to bear it doth not follow That he did bear the punishment of sin He might accidentally undergo sorrow which was occasioned by our sins in which there was nothing of the nature of punishment in relation to him is of no validity If it be granted That it signifies to bear the thing born must be the punishment of sin Punishment imports a natural evil inflicted by one in authority That the party offended by the commission of some moral evil may receive satisfaction and the ends of government be secured All this agrees to the Sufferings of Christ They import a natural evil They were displeasing to humane Nature They were inflicted by the Supreme Rector of the World It pleased the Lord to bruise him The design of his Passion was to make Satisfaction to the injured Our Sins robbed God of his Glory This was restored by the Sufferings of his Son He was set forth to be a propitiation to declare his Righteousness The ends of Government are eminently secured His Sufferings must necessarily strike a consternation into all If such things were done in the green Tree what may be expected in the drie If he who had no sin of his own was so severely treated what can we look for if we persevere in our provocations If all things appertaining to the nature of a penalty agree to the Sufferings of Christ there is no reason but to believe when Christ is said to bear our sins that the meaning is That he did bear the punishment of them It is true A Man may be said to bear the miscarriages of another who accidentally falls under any disaster occasioned by them But the case here is quite otherwise Nothing was fortuitous The Person suffering was delivered into the hands of his Crucifiers according to the determinate Counsel of Heaven The intent of his Passion was to accomplish all those ends which are intended in punishment And that which makes an affliction to be a penalty in a proper sense is nothing but the end which is aimed at Consonant to this is what S. Paul has expressed 2 Cor. 5.21 For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him He was made sin for us that is Put under an obligation to suffer the punishment which our sins had deserved God laid upon him the Iniquity of us all The Transgressions of those who lived in the most opposite parts of the Terrestrial Globe did all meet together upon him He is the center upon which the burthen of them did settle Crellius tells us That when Christ is said to be made Sin the meaning is That he was by wicked Men reputed and treated as a sinner But if this was the meaning then Christ was made sin by his Crucifiers whereas the action is ascribed unto God When he is said to be made sin something must be understood which is peculiar to him But if Crellius's sence of the words prevails the Martyrs may be said to be made sin when they were punished under the notion of Malefactors by their inveterate enemies The Antithesis betwixt being made sin and knowing no sin is a clear justification of our interpretation Christ knew no sin that is was guilty of none by any deviation of his own Therefore when it is said He was made sin the meaning is He was made guilty of ours by imputation and by his own consent together with assent of his Father brought under an obligation to suffer the penalty of it It is manifest from the Text That he was so made sin for us as we are made righteousness or righteous in him Now it is manifest That upon our performing the conditions of the New Covenant we are made righteous in consideration of his meritorious satisfaction and therefore he was made sin for us in consideration of our demerit which he undertook to make expiation for That which induceth the Socinians to endeavour the elusion of the evidence of the Texts which are produced is a perswasion That the fence we contend for is repugnant to reason There can be no punishment but where there is guilt there can be no guilt where there is innocency and there was nothing but innocency in the Immaculate Lamb of God But it must be remembred That the proper notion of guilt is nothing but an obligation to punishment And it is not disagreeable to reason That such an obligation should be contracted by an Innocent Person in case he be willing to stand in the place of the Nocent and suffer the penalty due to him If he be one who has power to dispose of his own life as our Blessed Lord had he may by an act of his Will as well engage himself to lay down his life as to lay down a sum of Mony Every Man may do with that which is in his power what he pleaseth Tho' it be essential to punishment to be inflicted for sin yet it is not essential to be inflicted upon the sinner The merit of Virtue is as personal and incommunicable as the merit of sin yet it as not essential to the reward to be always conferred upon the person meriting Chimham was rewarded by David for Barzillais's kindness Children frequently fare the better for their Parents deservings There is no reason to believe That it is unjust in all cases to punish one for the crime of another God who is not obnoxious to errour in his administrations has done it When he tells the people That they should have occasion no more to use this Proverb The fathers have eaten sowr grapes and the childrens teeth are set on edge he intimates That they had formerly occasion so to do and what was now said in this matter was but a particular favour granted to them at this time and not to be a standing rule in all succeeding generations It is most evident That Judah suffered in the reign of Josiah for the provocations of Manasses 2 Kin. 23.26 Tho' they had sins of their own to irritate Divine Justice yet they were not the cause of their suffering He who punisheth a Nocent Person in that respect in which he is Innocent doth the same thing as if he punished one who is perfectly Innocent It is evident by the Second Command That the iniquity of the fathers is visited upon their children If such Children are only understood who imitate their Parents transgression no reason can be given of the limitation to the
third and fourth generation That one may be punished for another was not accounted unjust amongst those who were governed by the light of Nature as is evident by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or sureties in capital matters which did engage life for life There can be no pretence of injury where the person suffering freely consents and has a dominion over his own life he having power to dispose of himself in his submission to the greatest passion he does no injury to any other and he consenting upon the clearest considerations no injury is done to himself When the understanding is weak and not a competent guide an injury may be done altho' the party concerned be willing But the case before us is quite otherwise Our Blessed Lord upon the clearest dictate of reason became willing to bear our sins He did in this comply with the propensities of his own benignity serve the necessities of Mankind justifie publick Order and assert the Majesty of the Law against all that contempt which our Sins had exposed it unto The Premises being well considered will make it manifest That Christ suffered the punishment of our Sins 2. What He suffered was in our stead This will be evident if we consider his blood which he shed either as a Sacrifice or a ransom as a Sacrifice The offering which he made to God was expiatory a Sacrifice for sin Heb. 10.20 This oblation must necessarily have the nature which is common to all offerings under the Old Testament of the same kind They were figures of this great Oblation and there must be an agreement betwixt the Type and the thing typified in that which is essential to the nature of the Type Now it is manifest That all the expiatory offerings in the Old Testament were in lieu of those persons for whom they were offered The Law did require death of every one that did not remain in the obedience of it The offences against it were of two sorts either such as were punished with the death of the offender as Murder and Idolatry c. without the benefit of Sacrifice Or else such for the expiation of which a Sacrifice was appointed and slain in the room of the Transgressour The blood of the beast in which the life consists was given upon the Altar to make atonement for the Souls of Men Lev. 17.11 As the Law was satisfied by the death of the offender in the first case So likewise by the death of the Sacrifice in the second The sin of the Delinquent was symbolically derived upon the Piacular Sacrifice and therefore he which carried the skin and flesh without the Camp to be burnt did by touching of them contract pollution and might not be admitted into the Camp again before he had washed his cloaths and bathed his flesh in water Lev. 16.28 This was the cause why he for whom the offering was made was obliged to lay his hand upon the head of it Theodoret says That the hand did import action and signifie That the actions of the Transgressour were laid upon the Sacrifice This was the apprehension of the ancient Jews as is evident by the form of words used when a sin-offering was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 haec sit expiatio mea which they expound thus The evil which I have deserved let it fall upon the head of the Sacrifice Now If the expiatory offerings under the Mosaical Oeconomy were Types of the offering of Jesus Christ and it was essential to them to be slain in the room of the Transgressour we have just reason from hence to infer That our blessed Lord suffered not only for our good and advantage but in our stead and place In order to the disappointing the force of this argument Crellius says That Christ was not a Priest till he came into Heaven and that those Sacrifices only which were offered for the whole Congregation and at some stated times especially That upon the day of expiation were Types of his oblation and that those which were designed for this use did not represent him in his mactation but in that one action only whereby their blood was carried into the holy place and sprinkled before the Lord. To all which I will reply in order 1. Christ did execute the office of a Priest here upon the earth The Apostle says he gave himself as an Offering and Sacrifice unto God Eph. 5.2 The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports such a Sacrifice as is put to death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jo. 10. v. 10. Reconciliation the proper effect of a Sacrifice is attributed to the blood of the Cross Col. 1.20 His purging our sins did precede his sitting down on the right hand of the Majesty on high Heb. 1.3 His having obtained eternal redemption is antecedent to his entring into the holy place Heb. 9.12 He is said to be once offered up Heb. 9.28 And after this to sit down at the right hand of God Heb. 10.12 If this offering has been in Heaven it would not have been said to have been once done The representation of this oblation there is every day He continually makes intercession The offering upon which the Apostles words have an aspect imports passion For he says in case it was to be repeated then Christ must have often suffered since the foundation of the World but the Passion of Christ was over before he entred into Heaven Those words If he were on earth he should not be a Priest Heb. 8.4 do not imply That he did not execute his Sacerdotal Function when he was upon the earth All that can be collected from them is That if after he had made an offering upon the Cross he had remained upon the earth he could not have been our High-Priest Because He who was to bear this office was not only to die for us upon the Earth but to appear in Heaven and there by presenting the merit of that oblation which was made here below procure those aids which we stand in need of 2. Those Sacrifices which were offered for the whole Congregation at some set times were not the only Types of the offering of the Messias The Apostle when he tells us That the Sacrifice of Christ was substituted in the room of the Legal Offerings and that the first was taken away that the second might be established Heb. 10.9 He must necessarily have his eye upon such oblations which as if they were shadows which when the body came did disappear and vanish Now it is plain That the Apostle there has his eye upon more Sacrifices than those which were offered for the whole Congregation He useth so many words as can comprehend no less than all the Mosaical Oblations as Sacrifice Offering Burnt-offerings Offering for sin 3. It is not true That those Sacrifice which typified Christ did represent him only in that action whereby the blood was carried into the holy place and sprinkled before the Lord. The