surplusage he that was our creditor is become our debtor there is more honor ariseth to God from Christ's sufferings than he suffered dishonor by our sins 3ly For his wisdom how wonderfully is that display'd in the whole transaction the debt pay'd and yet the debtor forgiven sin punished and yet the sinner acquitted God at once infinitely righteous and withal gracious Death submitted to yet conquered c. See Eph. 1. 8. Eph. 3. 10. and as the Father is honoured through this transaction so is the Son hereby he gives demonstration of his love to mankind Rev. 1. 5. is rewarded for his sufferings with a numerous seed Isa 53. 10 11. And in recompence for his depression and humiliation he hath a name given him above every name Phil. 2. 7 8 9. Eph. 1. 21 22. and to overweigh his cross and shame he is crowned with dignity honour and glory Heb. 2. 9. Having thus far cleared our way by demonstrating that it is not against justice for one to be made suffer for anothers sin and having opened what conditions are necessary to render such a transaction righteous and that they all meet in the affair before us Before we come to the proof of Christ his having suffered what we should have suffered we desire further to premise these three things 1. We are to distinguish what is essential in the punishment from what only is accidental in it what it includes in its own nature from what ensueth through the weakness of the subject If we consider only what is absolutely included in the threatning we shall find no more but this namely that the sinner ought to undergo both as to sense and loss as much as it is possible for a creature to bear The law principally eyes the quality and the weight of the punishment not so much the duration and continuance The living and dying in Prison is no part of a man's debt neither is that the primary intention of the law towards any yet this comes justly to be his lot that will not or cannot pay his debt That which lyes then formally in the threatning is death Rom. 6. 23. wrath Rom. 2. 5. and the curse Gal. 3. 10. but that this is eternal ariseth meerly from the finiteness and weakness of the creature If a sinner could at once bear that which is proportionable and equal in justice to his crime and by so doing make satisfaction there might in time be an end of his punishment but this he cannot do â—nd therefore must suffer forever according to what he is capable of bearing Now Christ was to undergo only what was formally in the threatning to bear the weight of it and having by bearing of it made satlsfaction he was no ways concerned in the eternity and duration of the punishment justice it self discharging him the debt being pay'd 2. We must distinguish betwixt those effects which flow naturally from suffering and those which through the corruption of the party punished flow only accidentally from it If the Socinians would be pleased to take notice of this they would ease us the trouble of that thread-bare objection viz. that in case Christ underwent the punishment of the law he behoved to dispair and blaspheme forasmuch as these do not flow naturally from suffering but proceed meerly from the corruption and imbecillity of those that suffer A person may undergo punishment without either murmuring at the Judge who sentenceth him or reproaching the law by which he is condemned The blasphemy of a damned sinner ariseth in way of causation meerly from his own corruption his pains are at most but occasional of it and while he had mercies they issued in the like effects For the dispair of a damned person it proceeds hence that he knows he shall never make satisfaction nor extricate himself from under what he feels Now it was not possible that either of these should fall upon Christ not the first seeing he was perfectly holy in his nature without any principle of or inclination to sin Not the second in that he knew himself able to make God a satisfaction and foresaw and believed a glorious issue from all his pains 3. We must make a difference betwixt those sufferings which were directly in the threatning and those that were only consequentially â—in it Those that the humane nature may be made obnoxious to though it be holy and innocent and those that follow the humane nature as existing only in our sinful persons Christ assumed only the common nature of man and not the person of any man and therefore was neither subject to passionate disorders of mind nor painful sicknesses of body seeing these do not appertain to the essence of the humane nature but only attend it as it exists in our sinful persons These things being premised I come now to prove that Christ hath suffered what we should have suffered and that the same penalty which was due to us was inflicted on him the death and curse which the law denounced against the sinner Christ as the Surety bore The punishment which was due to us consisted of two parts death and the curse to be inflicted upon us and the favour of God to be suspended and withdrawn from us 1. That which was expresly denounced as the penalty of sin was death and the curse Gen. 2. 17. Deut. 27. 26. Rom 6. 23. Rom. 5. 12. Gal. 3. 10. And this and no less this very punishment and not an other did Christ undergo the same sentente of the law which should have been executed upon us was executed upon him There was a change of persons the Surety suffering for the Debtor the just for the unjust but no change of punishment at all Christ tasted death Heb. 2 9. was put to death Joh. 18. 31 32. became obedient unto death even the death of the Cross Phil. 2. 8. bore the curse Gal. 3. 13. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us The Apostle having asserted in the 10. verse that every person who continues â—ot in all things which are writâ—en in the Book of the Law to do â—hem is cursed He here opens â—ow believers notwithstanding â—hat commination come to be â—eed from the curse namely beâ—ause Christ hath born it and for â—he proof of this he refers them â—o Deut. 21. 23. where they were â—aught so much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Execraâ—o a Curse the abstract for the â—oncrete as is usual in Scripture 2 Câ—r 3. 9. and 5. 21 Eph. 5. 8. John 17 17. Rom. 3. 30. â—e the Texts in the Margin that is â—e underwent all the wrath which â—e law denounced particularly â—at death to which it only affixed â— curse By curse we may either â—nderstand the sentence of the law â—ecrating and condemning the sinâ—r which is called the curse â—tively or we may understand the execution of punishment according to that sentence which is the curse passively for in both respects Christ was made
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
that Moses was a type of Christ and that the redemption out of Egypt was a type of that which the Messiah was to work yet it no ways follows that because the redemption out of Egypt was without any ransome of price therefore the redemption from sin must likewise be so for it is not needful that the type and the thing typified be in all things alike it is enough if they agree in that wherein the one was designed of God to be the type of the other Jonas his being in the belly of the Whale was a type of Christ's being in the bowels of the Earth must we therefore infer that because Jonas was alive in the belly of the Whale that Christ was so in the grave So here it was sufficient to render Moses a type of Christ that they were both deliverers and that they both wrought deliverances but it was no wise needful either that their deliverances should be of one kind or accompâ—ished after one manner The deliverance which Moses wrought was a temâ—oral deliverance who will therefore say that that of Christ was but a temporal deliverance â—o more ought we to alledge that because the one was accomplished without a price that therefore the â—ther must be effected so also 4. Moses was not a type of Christ in all his Offices Now â—hat wherein Moses was a type of Christ was Christ's Kingship and therefore we are not to expect an agreeableness betwixt what Christ wrought as he was Priest and what Moses did but we must seek â—he resemblance in that wherein â—he one was the type of the other Now there is a resemblance beâ—wixt Moses's redeeming Israel â—rom the tyranny of Pharaoh and Christ's redeeming us from the power of Satan Object 2 Object 2. But is is further obâ—ected that redemption in this whole affair must be understood in a Metaphorical sense because we are saiâ— to be redeemed from iniquitieâ— Tit. 2. 14. and from a vain conversation 1 Pet. 1. 18. but it cannot be said that there was a pricâ— paid to sin or that there was a satisfaction made to our vain conversation and consequently that to redeem is no more in this affair but tâ— deliver Answ For Answer 1. The objectoâ— at once proclaim themselves ignorant both of Law and Religion iâ— there any thing more usual thaâ— when a person pays to the Creditor the debt of one that is in Prison or the ransome of one that iâ— in bondage to him that detainâ— him to say that that person hath redeemed such a one out of Prison and from the Gally though the satisfaction was not made to the Prison or Gally but to him or them by whom they were held and detained in these conditions In alâ— cases satisfaction is to be made to him who detains the captive by way of law power and authority and not to them who detain him only in subserviency to the principal Creditor and Judge Now it was God that we were debtors to and criminals against it was his Law we had broken and it was by his Sentence that we stood condemned Our sins were the debts satisfaction was to be made for not to be made to Satan was only an instrument of our vexation and bondage in subserviency to God's leave and commission neither they nor he were properly our detainers but only as the Jaylor and Irons detain a Malefactor at the Action of the Creditor Sentence of the Judge and Authority of the Law 2. We have before distinguished the principal end of Christ's death from the subordinate betwixt that which was the primary end of his dying and that which was only secondary Now the principal and primary end of the death of Christ was the satisfying the justice of God the making him a compensation for the dishonour which had been done to his Name and for the contempt which had been shown to his Law the secondary and that which was only consequential on the former was the purchasing the spirit and grace for us that thereby we might be enabled to resist and conquer Satan kill and subdue inbred corruption have a conformity wrought in us to God's holiness and be brought again to a willing obedience CHAP. VIII The satisfaction of Christ further justified from his having made reconciliation The words used in this affair opened Signifie God's being reconciled to us Foretold that Christ should make reconciliation This the intendment of the Levitical Priesthood Christ properly a Priest Hath offered a true sacrifice Through him we have attonement TO reconcile is to restore and recover lost friendship it is the renuing of peace betwixt persons once at an agreement but now at variance so that it supposeth these two things 1. That there was once a peace and friendship betwixt God and Man God approved Man and Man loved God In the state of innocency there was a twofold union betwixt Man and God an union of nature he was like God and an union of state he was Gods friend 2. By the fall there arose a breach of that peace and friendship We at once lost the image of God and forfeited his fâ—vour we became alienated from God through sin and God became alienated from us for sin The enmity is mutual not only on our part to God Col. 1. 21. but on God's part to us There is no peace in him to the wicked Isa 48. 22. They are the children of his wrath Ephes 2. 3. And under his curse Gal. 3. 10. Their persons are an abomination to him Psal 5. 5. And their services an abhorrency Prov. 15. 8 and 21. 4. Now Christ by a satisfactory sacrifice hath appeased the anger of God purchased his grace to renue us and so hath brought God and Man into a state of friendship and favour again The words the Holy Ghost expresseth this by are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 5. 10. 2 Cor. 5. 18 19 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephes 2. 16. Col. 1. 20 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Col 1. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 5. 11. 2 Cor. 5. 18 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 2 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Joh. 2. 2. 1 Joh. 4. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 3. 25. Now all these words signifie to appease to render propitious to turn away anger to attone to reconcile and import as well God's being ' reconciled to us as our being reconciled to God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Sâ—phocles is to attone the Anger of the Gods and to render them propitious and favourable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Homeâ— is by sacrifice to appease God It is that which the Latines call Propitiare placare And in this sense do the Septuagint most frequently make use of them Exod. 30. 15 16. and 32. 30. Levit. 4. 20. and 10. 17. Numb 28. 22 30. In all which places and innumâ—rable more the words signifie by appeasing anger to reconcile God to us It is not denied but
to God by propitiation and attonement will receive further strength and light if we observe that this was the great truth and mystery which was signified and intended in the Aarenical Priesthood and Levitical Sacrifices That these did in their institution and end typifie the sacrifice of the Son of God the Holy Ghost puts out of question by calling them shadows Col. 2. 17. Heb. 8 5. Heb. 10. 1. figures Heb. 9. 9. patterns ibid. ver 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now attonement and reconciliation is every where ascribed to these Levit. 4. 20. and 5. 6. and 6. 7. and 10. 11. Num. 5. 8. and 28. 22. and 31. 50. alibi And that not only in reference to some sins or to lesser sins but in reference to all sins to the veâ—y greatest Levit. 16. 21 22. Levit. 5. 1 2 3. 4 5 6 7 14. c. Num. 5. 6 Object If it should be objecteâ— that there were some sins froâ— which by the law of Moses theâ— could not be justified Acts 13. 39 and therefore that their sacrificeâ— did not serve to make attonement for all sins I Answer 1. All that the Apostle intends is that the sacrifices of the law could expiate no sin further than typically and that it was Christ whom they typified who could alone absolutely justifie from any sin The sacrifices of the law could not of themselves so much as attone for one sin Gal. 3. 13. but typically they serâ—ed to make attonement for every â—â—n The Jews in reference to whom â—he Apostle discourseth trustâ—d solely to sacrifices for righteâ—usness and life and in this he â—firms that they were mistaken â—â—d that it was only the blood â—â—d sacrifice of Christ which they â—gnified and shadowed that could â—ally free the conscience from the â—ilt of the least sin 2. It may be Answered that â—der the law there was a twofold â—ilt a Ceremonial and a Moral one external binding over the transgressour unto temporal punishment another spiritual binding over the offendor unto eternaâ— wrath Now sacrifices as theâ— were incorporated into their policy as well as a part of their worship were in many cases appointed anâ— accordingly served to deliver froâ— temporal guilt Heb. 9. 15. bâ— there were other cases whereiâ— they were not at all allowed to deliver from the temporal punishment Psal 51. 16. but accordinâ— to their political constitutions death was without mercy to â— inflicted on the offendor Noâ— says the Apostle these sins froâ— the temporal guilt of which aâ— your sacrifies could not dischanâ— you the blood of Christ is suâ—cient to acquite you from the eteâ—nal guilt even of those This objection being dischaâ—ed it stands established that â— tonement and reconciliation ascribed to sacrifices and that not only in reference to some sins but to every sin Now this expiation was not real but only typical all their sacrifices were not able to acquit them from the moral guilt of one sin Heb. 9. 9. and 7. 19. and 10. 4. For it is not possible that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away sins But the sole intendment of all their sacrifices was to shaddow forth the great sacrifice of the Messiah and the atâ—onement and expiation which were to be made by it This will arrive with more light to the Reader if we present it in these three â—eads 1. Christ is our true Priest in â—atters pertaining to God whom all he other Priests did but shaddow All others were only called Priests â—ecause they represented him and â—utwardly by type expressed what â—e was really to accomplish and â—o and never one could do the proper work of a Priest namely make reconciliation for the sins of the people but he That he should be a Priest then only in a metaphorical sense is such a contradiction to Law and Gospel as it could not possibly receive the entertainment of any who had not first set themselves in opposition to the whole mystery of God but that Christ was properly a Priest may be many ways rendred evident 1. From the definition of a Priest properly so called Heb. 5. 1. Every high Priest taken from among men is ordained for men in thingâ— pertaining to God that he may offeâ— both gifts and sacrifices for sin That this is the definition of â— Priest properly so called is botâ— clear in the thing it self for if sucâ— a one as is here described be noâ— properly a Priest there was neveâ— a Priest properly so called in thâ— world as also in the Apostles aâ—commodating it ver 4. to Aaroâ— who was unquestionably a Priest in a proper and not in metaphorical sense Now that Jesus Christ is such a Priest as is here described is manifest in that all the parts of this description do admirably appertain to him he was taken from among men To this very end principally and none other did he partake of the humane nature Heb. 10. 5. He was also ordained for men see ver 5 6. and herein he excelled all other Priests that he was constituted only for others and not for himself Heb. 7. 27. Lastly he was ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices yea herein he transcended all other Priests that he had something of his own to offer other Priests had indeed something to offer but nothing of their own they only offered the bodies of beasts which the people brought them but Christ had a body given him to be at this own disposal to this purpose That this description of a Priest belongs properly to Christ yea that it is he whom the Holy Ghost principally describes may be put out of question by observing that the Apostle applies it ver 5. particularly to him 2. That Christ was properly a Priest may be further established from Heb. 8. 3. Every high Priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer Now if Christ be not truly a Priest this way of arguing is altogether impertinent for it might be easily replyed that though it be needful that a Priest properly so called should have somewhat to offer yet it is not necessary that he who is only metaphorically a Priest should have any thing to to offer for it is no ways needful that whatever appertains to that which is true and real should also appertain to that which is figurative and improper Though a man be a rational creature yet it doth not follow that the picture of a man should be so And therefore the Apostle by concluding that Christ behoved to have somewhat to offer because he was a Priest mvst needs intend that he was a Priest in a proper and not in a metaphorical sense 3. It appears further that Christ was truly and properly a Priest in that he was a Priest of a true and proper order namely of the order of Melchisedeck Psal 110. 4. Heb. 5. 10. and 7. 17. 21. I do not now dispute who Melch sedeck was all that I affirm is that