the supposition of humane nature or a being endued and acting with reason to make all things equally good or evil For what doth reason signifie as it respects the actions of men but a faculty of discerning what is good and fitting to be done from what is evil and ought to be avoided And to what purpose is such a faculty given us if there be no such difference in the nature of things Might not men with equal probability argue that there is no such thing as a difference in the things about which life and sense are conversant as in those wherein reason is imploved With what impatience would those men be heard who should assert that there is no such thing as a difference in the qualities of meats and drinks but that they do all equally tend to the preservation of life that it is pedantical and beneath a Gentleman to talk of any such thing as Poisons that will so suddenly and certainly destroy mens lives and that these are things which none talk of or believe besides those whose trade is either to kill or cure men With how much wit and subtilty might a man argue upon these things that it is impossible for any man to define what the nature of poison is or in what manner it destroys the life of man that men have conquered the malignity of it by use and that the same things which have been poison to some have been food and nourishment to others But notwithstanding all these plausible arguments none of these brave spirits dare venture the experiment upon themselves and yet these only changing the terms are the very same arguments used against the natural differences of good and evil viz. the difficulty of defining or setting the exact bounds of them and the different customs or apprehensions of men in the world concerning the things which are called good and evil If we proceed farther to the objects of sense how ridiculous would those persons appear that should with a mighty confidence go about to perswade men that the differences between light and darkness between pleasure and pain between smells and tasts and noises are but phantastick and imaginary things Who would ever believe that those are men of the most excellent sight to whom light and darkness are equal for others who pretend not to so much wit are wont to call such persons blind Or that those have the most exquisite sense that feel no difference of pain and pleasure which was wont to be thought the sign of no sense at all And surely the persons I am now arguing against love their palats too well to admire those who can discern no difference of tasts and would be well enough contented to be thought deaf if they could put no distinction between the pleasant sound of vocal or instrumental Musick and the harsh jarring of two saws drawn cross each other Thus it appears that nothing would make men more ridiculous than to explode and laugh at the difference that there is in the means of life and the objects of sense let us now proceed higher Dare any man say there is no such thing as reason in man because there appears so little of the truth of it in men and so much of the counterfeit of it in Bruits or that there is no such thing as a difference of Truth and fashood because they are so commonly mistaken for one another What reason then imaginable can there be that there should not be as wide a distance in the matters of our choice as in the objects of our sense and understanding Is it that we have natural faculties of sense and perception but not of choice that every one is able to resute by his constant experience that finds a greater liberty in his choice than in his perception The reason of which is wholly unintelligible unless a difference be found in the nature of the things proposed to his choice that some have a greater excellency and commendableness in them more agreeable to humane nature more satisfactory to the minds of those who choose them than others are And must all this difference be destroyed meerly because all men are not agreed what things are good and what evil We call goodness the beauty of the soul and do men question whether there be such a thing as beauty at all because there are so many different opinions in the world about it Or is deformity ever the less real because the several nations of the world represent it in a colour different from their own Those arguments then against the natural differences of good and evil must needs appear ridiculous which will be granted to hold in nothing else but only the thing in question And yet in the midst of all the ruines and decays of humane nature we find such evident footsteps and impressions of the differences of good and evil in the minds of men which no force could extinguish no time could deface no customs could alter Let us search the records of ancient times and enquire into the later discoveries of nations we shall find none so barbarous and bruitish as not to allow the differences of good and evil so far as to acknowledge that there are some things which naturally deserve to be praised and others which deserve to be punished Where as if good and evil were meerly names of things there can be no reason assigned why praise and honour should necessarily belong to some things and infamy and disgrace to follow others If the things themselves be arbitrary the consequences of them would be so too But is it possible to imagine that any man should deserve to be punished as much for being true to his trust as for betraying it for honouring his Parents as for destroying them for giving to every one their due as for all the arts of injustice and oppression Is it possible for men to suffer as much in their esteem for their fidelity temperance and chastity as they always do for their falseness intemperance and lasciviousness How comes the very name of a lie to be a matter of so much reproach and dishonour that the giving of it is thought an injury so great as cannot be expiated without the satisfaction of the givers blood if it be in it self self so indifferent a thing Nay I dare appeal to the consciences of the most wicked persons whether they are so well pleased with themselves when they come reeking from the satisfaction of their lusts and sodden with the continuance of their debaucheries as when they have been paying their devotions to God or their duties to their Parents or their respects to their Country or Friends Is there not whether they will or no an inward shame and secret regret and disquiet following the one and nothing but ease and contentment the other What should make this difference in those persons who love their vices far more than they do the other and if
to sue out prohibitions in the Court of Heaven to hinder the effects of Iustice there Do they design to out-wit infinite Wisdom or to find such flaws in Gods government of the World that he shall be contented to let them go unpunished All which imaginations are alike vain and foolish and only shew how easily wickedness baffles the reason of mankind and makes them rather hope or wish for the most impossible things than believe they shall ever be punished for their impieties If the Apostate Spirits can by reason of their present restraint and expectation of future punishments be as pleasant in beholding the follies of men as they are malicious to suggest them it may be one of the greatest diversions of their misery to see how active and witty men are in contriving their own ruine To see with what greediness they catch at every bait that is offered them and when they are swallowing the most deadly poyson what arts they use to perswade themselves that it is a healthful potion No doubt nothing can more gratifie them than to see men sport themselves into their own destruction and go down so pleasantly to Hell when eternal flames become their first awakeners and then men begin to be wise when it is too late to be so when nothing but insupportable torments can convince them that God was in earnest with them that he would not always bear the affronts of evil men and that those who derided the miseries of another life shall have leisure enough to repent their folly when their repentance shall only increase their sorrow without hopes of pardon by it 3. But if there were any present selicity or any considerable advantage to be gained by this mocking at sin and undervaluing Religion there would seem to be some kind of pretence though nothing of true reason for it Yet that which heightens this folly to the highest degree in the last place is that there can be no imaginable consideration thought on which might look like a plausible temptation to it The covetous man when he hath defrauded his neighbour and used all kinds of arts to compass an Estate hath the fulness of his baggs to answer for him and whatever they may do in another world he is sure they will do much in this The voluptuous man hath the strong propensities of his Nature the force of temptation which lies in the charms of beauty to excuse his unlawful pleasures by The ambitious man hath the greatness of his mind the advantage of authority the examples of those who have been great before him and the envy of those who condemn him to plead for the heights he aims at But what is it which the person who despises Religion and laughs at every thing that is serious proposes to himself as the reason of what he does But alas this were to suppose him to be much more serious than he is if he did propound any thing to himself as the ground of his actions But it may be a great kindness to others though none to himself I cannot imagine any unless it may be to make them thankful they are not arrived to that height of folly or out of perfect good nature lest they should take him to be wiser than he is The Psalmists fool despises him as much as he does Religion for he only saith it in his heart there is no God but this though he dares not think there is none yet shews him not near so much outward respect and reverence as the other does Even the Atheist himself thinks him a Fool and the greatest of all other who believes a God and yet affronts him and trifles with him And although the Atheists folly be unaccountable in resisting the clearest evidence of reason yet so far he is to be commended for what he says that if there be such a thing as Religion men ought to be serious in it So that of all hands the scoffer at Religion is looked on as one forsaken of that little reason which might serve to uphold a slender reputation of being above the beasts that perish nay therein his condition is worse than theirs that as they understand not Religion they shall never be punished for despising it which such a person can never secure himself from considering the power the justice the severity of that God whom he hath so highly provoked God grant that the apprehension of this danger may make us so serious in the profession and practice of our Religion that we may not by slighting that and mocking at sin provoke him to laugh at our calamities and mock when our fear comes but that by beholding the sincerity of our repentance and the heartiness of our devotion to him he may turn his anger away from us and rejoyce over us to do us good SERMON III. Preached at WHITE-HALL LUKE VII XXXV But Wisdom is justified of all her Children OF all the Circumstances of our Blessed Saviours appearance and preaching in the World there is none which to our first view and apprehension of things seems more strange and unaccountable than that those persons who were then thought of all others to be most conversant in the Law and the Prophets should be the most obstinate opposers of him For since he came to fulfil all the Prophesies which had gone before concerning him and was himself the great Prophet foretold by all the rest none might in humane probability have been judged more likely to have received and honoured him than those to whom the judgement of those things did peculiarly belong and who were as much concerned in the truth of them as any else could be Thus indeed it might have been reasonably expected and doubtless it had been so if interest and prejudice had not had a far more absolute power and dominion over them than they had over the rest of the people If Miracles and Prophesies if Reason and Religion nay if the interest of another World could have prevailed over the interest of this among them the Iewish Sanhedrin might have been some of the first Converts to Christianity the Scribes and Pharisees had been all Proselytes to Christ and the Temple at Ierusalem had been the first Christian Church But to let us see with what a jealous eye Power and Interest looks on every thing that seems to offer at any disturbance of it how much greater sway partiality and prejudice hath upon the minds of men than true Reason and Religion and how hard a matter it is to convince those who have no mind to be convinced we find none more furious in their opposition to the person of Christ none more obstinate in their infidelity as to his Doctrine than those who were at that time in the greatest reputation among them for their authority wisdom and knowledge These are they whom our Saviour as often as he meets with either checks for their
they found this so gainful and withall so easie a trade among the people when with a demure look and a sowre countenance they could cheat and defraud their Brethren and under a specious shew of devotion could break their fasts by devouring Widows houses and end their long Prayers to God with acts of the highest injustice to their Neighbours As though all that while they had been only begging leave of God to do all the mischief they could to their Brethren It is true such as these were our Saviour upon all occasions speaks against with the greatest sharpness as being the most dangerous enemies to true Religion and that which made men whose passion was too strong for their reason abhor the very name of Religion when such baseness was practised under the profession of it When they saw men offer to compound with Heaven for all their injustice and oppression with not a twentieth part of what God challenges as his due they either thought Religion to be a meer device of men or that these mens hypocrisie ought to be discovered to the World And therefore our Blessed Saviour who came with a design to retrieve a true spirit of Religion among men finds it first of all necessary to unmask those notorious hypocrites that their deformities being discovered their ways as well as their persons might be the better understood and avoided And when he saw by the mighty opinion they had of themselves and their uncharitableness towards all others how little good was to be done upon them he seldom vouchsafes them his presence but rather converses with those who being more openly wicked were more easily convinced of their wickedness and perswaded to reform For which end alone it was that he so freely conversed with them to let them see there were none so bad but his kindness was so great to them that he was willing to do them all the good he could And therefore this could be no more just a reproach to Christ that he kept company sometimes with these than it is to a Chyrurgion to visit Hospitals or to a Physician to converse with the sick 2. But when they saw that his Greatness did appear in another way by the authority of his Doctrine and the power of his Miracles then these wise and subtle men apprehend a further reach and design in all his actions Viz. That his low condition was a piece of Popularity and a meer disguise to ensnare the people the better to make them in love with his Doctrine and so by degrees to season them with Principles of Rebellion and disobedience Hence came all the clamours of his being an Enemy to Caesar and calling himself the King of the Iews and of his design to erect a Kingdom of his own all which they interpret in the most malicious though most unreasonable sense For nothing is so politick as malice and ill will is for that finds designs in every thing and the more contrary they are to all the Protestations of the persons concerned the deeper that suggests presently they are laid and that there is the more cause to be afraid of them Thus it was in our Blessed Saviours case it was not the greatest care used by him to shew his obedience to the Authority he lived under it was not his most solemn disavowing having any thing to do with their civil Interests not the severe checks he gave his own Disciples for any ambitious thoughts among them not the recommending the doctrine of Obedience to them nor the rebuke he gave one of his most forward Disciples for offering to draw his sword in the rescue of himself could abate the fury and rage of his enemies but at last they condemn the greatest Teacher of the duty of Obedience as a Traytor and the most unparallel'd example of innocency as a Malesactor But though there could be nothing objected against the life and actions of our Blessed Saviour as tending to sedition and disturbance of the Civil Peace yet that these men who were inspired by malice and prophesied according to their own interest would say was because he was taken away in time before his designs could be ripe for action but if his doctrine tended that way it was enough to justifie their proceedings against him So then it was not what he did but what he might have done not Treason but Convenience which made them take away the life of the most innocent person but if there had been any taint in his doctrine that way there had been reason enough in such an Age of faction and sedition to have used the utmost care to prevent the spreading it But so far is this from the least ground of probability that it is not possible to imagine a Religion which aims less at the present particular interests of the embracers of it and more at the publick interests of Princes than Christianity doth as it was both preached and practised by our Saviour and his Apostles And here we have cause to lament the unhappy fate of Religion when it falls under the censure of such who think themselves the Masters of all the little arts whereby this world is governed If it teaches the duty of Subjects and the authority of Princes if it requires obedience to Laws and makes mens happiness or misery in another life in any measure to depend upon it then Religion is suspected to be a meer trick of State and an invention to keep the world in awe whereby men might the better be moulded into Societies and preserved in them But if it appear to inforce any thing indispensably on the Consciences of men though humane Laws require the contrary if they must not forswear their Religion and deny him whom they hope to be saved by when the Magistrate calls them to it then such half-witted men think that Religion is nothing but a pretence to Rebellion and Conscience only an obstinate plea for Disobedience But this is to take it for granted that there is no such thing as Religion in the World for if there be there must be some inviolable Rights of Divine Soveraignty acknowledged which must not vary according to the diversity of the Edicts and Laws of men But supposing the profession and practice of the Christian Religion to be allowed inviolable there was never any Religion nay never any inventions of the greatest Politicians which might compare with that for the preservation of civil Societies For this in plain and express words tells all the owners of it that they must live in subjection and obedience not only for wrath but for Conscience sake that they who do resist receive unto themselves damnation and that because whosoever resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God Than which it is impossible to conceive arguments of greater force to keep men in obedience to Authority for he that only obeys because it is his interest to do so will have the same
continuing their lives and making them miserable but let them live and they will sin yet further must it be by utterly destroying them that to persons who might have time to sin the mean while supposing annibilation were all to be fear'd would never have power enough to deterr men from the height of their wickedness So that nothing but the misery of a life to come can be of force enough to make men fear God and regard themselves and this is that which the Gospel threatens to those that neglect their salvation which it sometimes calls everlasting fire sometimes the Worm that never dies sometimes the wrath to come sometimes everlasting destruction all enough to fill the minds of men with horror at the apprehension and what then will the undergoing it do Thence our Saviour reasonably bids men not fear them that can only kill the body but are not able to kill the soul but rather fear him which is able to destroy both body and soul in hell Thus the Gospel suggests the most proper object of fear to keep men from sin and as it doth that so it presents likewise the most desireable object of hope to encourage men to be good which is no less than a happiness that is easier to hope to enjoy than to comprehend a happiness infinitely above the most ambitious hopes and glories of this world wherein greatness is added to glory weight to greatness and eternity to them all therefore call'd a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory Wherein the Joys shall be full and constant the perception clear and undisturbed the fruition with continual delight and continual desire Where there shall be no fears to disquiet no enemies to allarm no dangers to conquer nothing shall then be but an uninterrupted peace an unexpressible Joy and pleasures for evermore And what could be ever imagined more satisfactory to minds tired out with the vanities of this world than such a repose as that is What more agreeable to the minds and desires of good men than to be eased of this clog of flesh and to spend eternity with the fountain of all goodness and the spirits of just men made perfect What more ravishing delight to the souls that are purged and made glorious by the blood of the Lamb than to be singing Hallelujahs to him that sits upon the Throne and to the Lamb for ever and ever How poor and low things are those which men hope for in this world compared with that great salvation which the Gospel makes so free a tender of What a mean thing is it to be great in this world to be honourable and rich i. e. to be made the object of the envy of some the malice of others and at last it may be an instance of this worlds vanity and after all this to be for ever miserable But O the wisdom of a well-chosen happiness that carries a man with contentment and peace through this life and at last rewards him with a Crown of everlasting felicity Thus we see the Gospel proposes the most excellent means to make men happy if they be not guilty of a gross neglect of it and if they be that is their own act and they must thank none but themselves if they be miserable 2. But I pray what reason can be given since God is so tender of our happiness that we should neglect it our selves which is the next thing to be spoken to There are three sorts of things we think we have reason to neglect Such as are too mean and unworthy our care such as are so uncertain that they will not recompence it such as our own Interest is not at all concerned in but I hope there are none who have an immortal soul and the use of their understandings can ever reckon their salvation under one of these 1. Is it too mean an employment for you to mind the matters of your eternal welfare Is Religion a beggarly and contemptible thing that it doth not become the greatness of your minds to stoop to take any notice of it Hath God lost his honour so much with you that his service should be the object of mens scorn and contempt But what is it which these brave spirits think a fit employment for themselves while they despise God and his Worship Is it to be curiously dressed and make a fine shew to think the time better spent at the Glass than at their Devotions These indeed are weighty imployments and fit in the first place to be minded if we were made only to be gazed upon Is it meerly to see Plays and read Romances and to be great admirers of that vain and frothy discourse which all persons account wit but those which have it This is such an end of mans life which no Philosopher ever thought of Or is it to spend time in excesses and debaucheries and to be slaves to as many lusts as will command them This were something indeed if we had any other name given us but that of Men. Or lastly is it to have their minds taken up with the great affairs of the World to be wise in considering careful in managing the publick interest of a Nation This is an employment I grant fit for the greatest minds but not such which need at all to take them off from minding their eternal salvation For the greatest wisdom is consistent with that else Religion would be accounted folly and I take it for granted that it is never the truly wise man but the pretender that entertains any mean thoughts of Religion And such a one uses the publick Interest no better than he doth Religion only for a shew to the world that he may carry on his own designs the better And is this really such a valuable thing for a man to be contented to cheat himself of his eternal happiness that he may be able to cheat the world and abuse his trust I appeal then to the Consciences of all such who have any sense of humanity and the common interest of mankind setting aside the considerations of a life to come whether to be just and sober vertuous and good be not more suitable to the design of humane Nature than all the vanities and excesses all the little arts and designs which men are apt to please themselves with And if so shall the eternal happiness which follows upon being good make it less desireable to be so No surely but if God had required any thing to make us happy which had been as contrary to our present Interest as the Precepts of Christianity are agreeable to it yet the end would have made the severest commands easie and those things pleasant which tend to make us happy 2. Are these things so uncertain that they are not fit for a wise man to be solicitous about them if they will come with a little care they will say they are destreable
but too much will unfit them for greater business But do men believe these things to be true or not when they say thus if they be true why need they fear their uncertainty if they be certain what pains and care can be too great about them since a little will never serve to obtain them Let but the care and diligence be proportionable to the greatness of the end and the weight of the things and you never need fear the want of a recompence for all your labour But suppose you say if you were fully convinced of their certainty you would look more after them What hinders you from being so convinced Is it not a bad disposition of mind which makes you unwilling to enquire into them examine things with a mind as free as you would have it judge seriously according to the reason of things and you will easily find the interests of a life to come are far more certain as well as more desireable than those of this present life And yet the great uncertainty of all the honours and riches of this world never hinder the covetous or ambitious person from their great earnestness in pursuit of them And shall not then all the mighty arguments which God himself hath made use of to confirm to us the certainty of a life to come prevail upon us to look more seriously after it Shâ—ll the unexpressible love of the Father the unconceiveable sufferings of the Son of God and the miraculous descent and powerful assistance of the Holy Ghost have no more impression on our minds than to leave us uncertain of a future state What mighty doubts and suspicions of God what distrusts of humane Nature what unspeakable ingratitude and unaccountable folly lies at the bottom of all this uncertainty O fools and slow of heart to believe not only what the Prophets have spoken but what our Lord hath declared God himself hath given testimony to and the Holy Ghost hath confirmed 3. But is not your Interest concerned in these things Is it all one to you whether your souls be immortal or no whether they live in eternal felicity or unchangeable misery Is it no more to you than to know what kind of Bables are in request at the Indies or whether the customs of China or Iapan are the wiser i. e. than the most trifling things and the remotest from our knowledge But this is so absurd and unreasonable to suppose that men should not think themselves concerned in their own eternal happiness and misery that I shall not shew so much distrust of their understandings to speak any longer to it 3. But if notwithstanding all these things our neglect still continues then there remains nothing but a fearful looking for of judgement and the fiery indignation of God For there is no possibility of escaping if we continue to neglect so great salvation All hopes of escaping are taken away which are only in that which men neglect and those who neglect their only way to salvation must needs be miserable How can that man ever hope to be saved by him whose blood he despises and tramples under foot What grace and favour can he expect from God who hath done despight unto the Spirit of Grace That hath cast away with reproach and contempt the greatest kindness and offers of Heaven What can save him that resolves to be damned and every one does so who knows he shall be damned if he lives in his sins and yet continues to do so God himself in whose only pity our hopes are hath irreversibly decreed that he will have no pity upon those who despise his goodness slight his threatnings abuse his patience and sin the more because he offers to pardon It is not any â—elight that God takes in the miseries of his Creatures which makes him punish them but shall not God vindicate his own honour against obstinate and impenitent sinners He declares before hand that he is far from delighting in their ruine and that is the reason he hath made such large offers and used so many means to make them happy but if men resolve to despise his offers and slight the means of their salvation shall not God be just without being thought to be cruel And we may assure our selves none shall ever suffer beyond the just desert of their sins for punishment as the Apostle tells us in the words before the Text is nothing but a just recompence of reward And if there were such a one proportionable to the violation of the Law delivered by Angels how shall we think to escape who neglect a more excellent means of happiness which was delivered by our Lord himself If God did not hate sin and there were not a punishment belonging to it why did the Son of God die for the expiation of it and if his death were the only means of expiation how is it possible that those who neglect that should escape the punishment not only of their other sins but of that great contempt of the means of our salvation by him Let us not then think to trifle with God as though it were impossible a Being so merciful and kind should ever punish his Creatures with the miseries of another life For however we may deceive our selves God will not be mocked for whatsoever a man soweth that shall he reap for he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flâ—sh reap corruption but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting I shall only propound some few Considerations to prevent so great a neglect as that of your salvation is 1. Consider what it is you neglect the offer of Eternal Happiness the greatest kindness that ever was expressed to the World the foundation of your present peace the end of your beings the stay of your minds the great desire of your Souls the utmost felicity that humane Nature is capable of Is it nothing to neglect the favour of a Prince the kindness of Great Men the offers of a large and plentiful Estate but these are nothing to the neglect of the favour of God the love of his Son and that salvation which he hath purchased for you Nay it is not a bare neglect but it implies in it a mighty contempt not only of the things offered but of the kindness of him who offers them If men had any due regard for God or themselves if they had any esteem for his love or their own welfare they would be much more serious in Religion than they are When I see a person wholly immersed in affairs of the World or spending his time in luxury and vanity can I possibly think that man hath any esteem of God or of his own Soul When I find one very serious in the pursuit of his Designs in the World thoughtful and busie subtle in contriving them careful in managing them but very formal remiss and negligent in all affairs
and condemn their Soveraign And if Corah Dathan and Abiram had succeeded in their Rebellion against Moses no doubt they would have been called the Keepers of the Liberties of Israel It makes all Government dangerous to the persons in whom it is considering the unavoidable infirmities of it and the readiness of people to misconstrue the actions of their Princes and their incapacity to judge of them it not being fit that the reasons of all counsels of Princes should be divulged by Proclamations So that there can be nothing wanting to make Princes miserable but that the people want Power to make them so And the supposition of this principle will unavoidably keep up a constant jealousie between the Prince and his people for if he knows their minds he will think it reasonable to secure himself by all means against their Power and endeavour to keep them as unable to resist as may be whereby all mutual confidence between a Prince and his People will be destroyed and there can be no such way to bring in an arbitrary Government into a Nation as that which such men pretend to be the only means to keep it out Besides this must necessarily engage a Nation in endless disputes about the forfeiture of Power into whose hands it falls whether into the people in common or some persons particularly chosen by the people for that purpose for in an established Government according to their principles the King himself is the true representative of the people others may be chosen for some particular purposes as proposing Laws c. but these cannot pretend by vertue of that choice to have the full power of the people and withal whatever they do against the consent of the people is unlawful and their power is forfeited by attempting it But on the other side what mighty danger can there be in supposing the persons of Princes to be so sacred that no sons of violence ought to come near to hurt them Have not all the ancient Kingdoms and Empires of the world flourished under the supposition of an unaccountable power in Princes That hath been thought by those who did not own a derivation of their power from God but a just security to their persons considering the hazards and the care of Government which they undergo Have not the people who have been most jealous of their Liberties been fain to have recour'e to an unaccountable power as their last refuge in case of their greatest necessities I mean the Romans in their Dictators And if it were thought not only reasonable but necessary then ought it not to be preserved inviolable where the same Laws do give it by which men have any right to challenge any power at all Neither doth this give Princes the liberty to do what they list for the Laws by which they Govern do fence in the rights and properties of men and Princes do find so great conveniency ease and security in their Government by Law that the sense of that will keep them far better within the compass of Laws than the Peoples holding a Rod over them which the best Princes are like to suffer the most by and bad will but grow desperate by it Good Princes will never need such a curb because their oaths and promises their love and tenderness towards their people the sense they have of a Power infinitely greater than theirs to which they must give an account of all their actions will make them govern as the Fathers of their Country and bad Princes will never value it but will endeavour by all possible means to secure themselves against it So that no inconveniency can be possibly so great on the supposition of this unaccountable Power in Soveraign Princes taking it in the general and meerly on the account of reason as the unavoidable mischiefs of that Hypothests which places all power originally in the people and notwithstanding all oaths and bonds whatsoever to obedience gives them the liberty to resume it when they please which will always be when that Spirit of Faction and Sedition shall prevail among them which ruled here in Corah and his company 2. Another pretence for this Rebellion of Corah was the freeing themselves from the encroachments upon their spiritual priviledges which were made by the usurpations of Aaron and the Priesthood This served for a very popular pretence for they knew no reason that one Tribe should engross so much of the wealth of the Nation to themselves and have nothing to do but to attend the service of God for it What say they are not all the Lords people holy Why may not then all they offer up incense to the Lord as well as the Sons of Aaron How many publick uses might those Revenues serve for which are now to maintain Aaron and all the sons of Levi But if there must be some to attend the service of God why may not the meanest of the people serve for that purpose those who can be serviceable for nothing else Why must there be an order of Priesthood distinct from that of Levites why a High-Priest above all the Priests what is there in all their office which one of the common people may not do as well as they cannot they slay the sacrifices and offer incense and do all other parts of the Priestly office So that at last they make all this to be a Politick design of Moses only to advance his own Family by making his Brother High-Priest and to have all the Priests and Levites at his devotion to keep the people the better in awe This hath always been the quarrel at Religion by those who seldom pretend to it but with a design to destroy it For who would ever have minded the constant attendance at the Temple if no encouragements had been given to those who were imployed in it Or is not Religion apt enough to be despised of it self by men of prophane minds unless it be rendred more mean and contemptible by the Poverty of those who are devoted to it Shall not God be allowed the priviledge of every Master of a Family to appoint the ranks and orders of his own servants and to take care they be provided for as becomes those who wait upon him What a dishonour had this been to the true God when those who worshipped false Gods thought nothing too great for those who were imployed in the service of them But never any yet cryed but he that had a mind to betray his Master to what purpose is all this waste Let God be honoured as he ought to be let Religion come in for its share among all the things which deserve encouragement and those who are imployed in the offices of it enjoy but what God and Reason and the Laws of their Country give them and then we shall see it was nothing but the discontent and faction of Corah and his company which made any encroachment of Aaron and the
them and so made it impossible for them to start back in charging God with injustice in punishing them he now applies it to themselves in these words which I suppose ought immediately to follow the 41. verse Therefore say I unto you the Kingdom of God shall be taken from you c. Wherein we have 1. The greatest judgement which can ever befal a people which is the taking away the Kingdom of God from them 2. The greatest mercy can ever be vouchsafed to a nation which is Gods giving his Kingdom to it And give it to a nation c. In the judgement we consider the cause of it therefore say I unto you c. which is either more general as referring to all going before and so it makes the taking away the Kingdom of God to be the just punishment of an incorrigible people or more particular as referring to the sin of the Jews in crucifying Christ and so it makes the guilt of that sin to be the cause of all the miseries which that nation hath undergone since that time In the later part we may consider the terms upon which God either gives or continues his Kingdom to a nation and that is bringing forth the fruits thereof We consider the former with a particular respect to the state of the Jewish nation And therein 1. The greatness of their judgement implyed in those words the Kingdom of God c. 2. The particular reason of that judgement which was crucifying the Son of God 1. The greatness of the judgement which befel the Jewish nation after imbruing their hands in the blood of Christ. And that will appear if we take the Kingdom of God in that double notion in which it was taken at that time 1. It was taken by the Jews themselves for some peculiar and temporal blessings which those who enjoyed it had above all other people 2. It was taken by our Saviour for a clearer manisestation of the will of God to the world and the consequence of that in the hearts of good men and all the spiritual blessings which do attend it So that the taking away the Kingdom of God from them must needs be the heaviest judgement which could befal a people since it implies in it the taking away all the greatest temporal and spiritual blessings 1. We take it in the notion the Jews themselves had of it and in this sense we shall make it evident that the Kingdom of God hath been taken from that people in accomplishment of this prediction of our Saviour For they imagined the Kingdom of God among them to consist in these things especially Deliverance from their enemies A flourishing state The upholding their Religion in Honour chiefly in the pompous worship of the Temple Now if instead of these things they were exposed to the fury of their enemies so as never any nation besides them were if their whole Polity was destroyed so as the very face of Government hath ever since been taken from them if their Religion hath been so far from being upheld that the practice of it hath been rendred impossible by the destruction of the Temple and the consequences of it then the Jews themselves cannot but say that in their own sense the Kingdom of God hath been taken from them 1. They make the Kingdom of God to consist in a deliverance of them from their enemies For this was their great quarrel at our Saviour that he should pretend to bring the Kingdom of God among them and do nothing in order to their deliverance from the Roman Power They either were such great admirers of the Pomp and Splendor of the world or so sensible of their own burdens and the yoke that was upon them that they could not be perswaded that God should design to send his Kingdom among them for any other end but their ease and liberty They apprehended the Crown of Thorns which was put upon our Saviours head was the fittest representation of the nature of his Kingdom for they looked upon it as the meer shew of a Kingdom but the reality was nothing but affliction and tribulation and this was a doctrine they thought of all others the least needful to be preached to them who complained so much of what they underwent already They took it for the greatest contradiction to talk of a Kingdom among them as long as they were in subjection to the Roman Governors But if Jesus of Nazareth had raised an army in defence of their liberty and had destroyed the Romans they would never have enquired farther concerning Prophesies or Miracles this had been instead of all others to them and then they would willingly have given him that title which was set up only in derision as the Elogium of his Cross Iesus of Nazareth King of the Iews But we see how justly God dealt with them soon after when they crucified the Son of God because he preached another Kingdom than they dream'd of God suffers this very pretence of a temporal Kingdom to be the occasion of the ruine of the whole Nation For upon that it was that they denied subjection to the Romans for they were for no other Kingdom but only Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to acknowledge no other King but God was the pretence of the War upon which arose that desperate Faction of the Zealots who like so many Firebrands scattered up and down among them soon put the whole Nation into Flames And from this time there never was a more Tragical story either acted or written than that is of the miseries which this people underwent For if ever there were the marks of divine vengeance seen in the ruine of a Nation they were in that For they were so far from hearkning to the counsel of their wisest men that the first thing they made sure of was the destruction of them Wisdom was but another name for Treason among them and there needed no other evidence to take away the lives of any but to say that they were rich and wise When they had thus secured themselves as they thought against the danger of too much Wisdom by the removal of all such who at least did not counterfeit madness and folly by joyning with them then they began to suspect one another and three Factions at once break forth at Hierusalem who seem'd to be afraid the Romans should not destroy them fast enough for in the several parts of the City where they were they were continually killing one another and never joyned together but when they saw the Romans approaching their Walls least they should take that work out of each others hands By all means they were resolved to endure a seige and as a preparative for that they burnt up all the stores almost of provision which were among them whence ensued a most dreadful famine so great that it was thought reason enough to take away the life of a man because he
nature to have yet the very thoughts of dying and leaving all in a short time must needs make his happiness seem much less considerable to him And every wise man would provide most for that State wherein he is sure to continue longest The shortness of life makes the pleasures of it less desirable and the miseries less dreadful but an endless State makes every thing of moment which belongs to it Where there is variety and liberty of change there is no necessity of any long deliberation before hand but for that which is to continue always the same the greatest consideration is needful because the very continuance of some things is apt to bring weariness and satiety with it If a man were bound for his whole life time to converse only with one person without so much as seeing any other he would desire time and use his best judgement in the choice of him If one were bound to lie in the same posture without any motion but for a month together how would he imploy his wits before hand to make it as easie and tolerable as might be Thus solicitous and careful would men be for any thing that was to continue the same although but for a short time here But what are those things to the endless duration of a soul in a misery that is a perpetual destruction and everlasting death always intolerable and yet must always be endured A misery that must last when time it self shall be no more and the utmost periods we can imagine fall infinitely short of the continuance of it O the unfathomable Abysse of Eternity how are our imaginations lost in the conceptions of it But what will it then be to be swallowed up in an Abysse of misery and eternity together And I do not know how such an eternal State of misery could have been represented in Scripture in words more Emphatical than it is not only by everlasting fire and everlasting destrustion but by a worm that never dyes and a fire that never goes out and the very same expressions are used concerning the eternal State of the Blessed and the damned so that if there were any reason to Question the one there would be the same to question the other also 4. The loss of this world may be abundantly recompenced but the loss of the soul can never be For what shall a man give in exchange for his soul If a man runs the hazard of losing all that is valuable or desirable in this world for the sake of his soul heaven eternal happiness will make him infinite amends for it He will have no cause to repent of his bargain that parts with his share in this evil world for the joys and glories which are above They who have done this in the resolution of their minds have before hand had so great satisfaction in it that they have gloried in tribulations and rejoyced in hopes of the glory of God they have upon casting up their accounts found that the sufferings of this present life are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed because the afflictions they meet with here are but light and momentany but that which they expected in recompence for them was an exceeding and an eternal weight of Glory O blessed change what life can be so desirable as the parting with it is on such terms as these It was the hopes of this glorious recompence which inspired so many Martyrs to adventure for heaven with so much courage patience and constancy in the primitive times of the Christian Church How do they look down from heaven and despise all the vanities of this world in comparison with what they enjoy And if they are sensible of what is done on earth with what pity do they behold us miserable creatures that for the sake of the honours pleasures or riches of this world venture the loss of all which they enjoy and thereby of our souls too Which is a loss so great that no recompence can ever be made for it no price of redemption can ever be accepted for the delivery of it For even the Son of God himself who laid down his life for the redemption of souls shall then come from heaven with flaming fire to take vengeance on all those who so much despise the blood he hath shed for them the warnings he hath given to them the Spirit he hath promised them the reward he is ready to bestow upon them as in spight of all to cast away those precious and immortal souls which he hath so dearly bought with his own blood Methinks the consideration of these things might serve to awaken our security to cure our stupidity to check our immoderate love of this world and inflame our desires of a better Wherein can we shew our selves men more than by having the greatest regard to that which makes us men which is our souls Wherein can we shew our selves Christians better than by abstaining from all those hurtful lusts which war against our souls and doing those things which tend to make them happy We are all walking upon the shore of eternity and for all that we know the next tide may sweep us away shall we only sport and play or gather cockle shells and lay them in heaps like Children till we are snatched away past all recovery It is no such easie matter to prevent the losing our souls as secure sinners are apt to imagine It was certainly to very little purpose that we are bid to work out our Salvation if lying still would do it or to give all diligence about it if none would serve the turn or to strive to enter in at the straight gate if it were so wide to receive all sinners No Many shall seek to enter in and shall not be able what then shall become of those that run as far from it as they can Those I mean whom no intreaties of God himself no kindness of his Son no not the laying down his life for their souls no checks or rebukes of their own consciences can hinder from doing those things which do without a speedy and sincere repentance exclude men from the Kingdom of heaven O that men could at last be perswaded to understand themselves and set a just value upon their immortal souls How would they then despile the vanities conquer the temptations and break through the difficulties of this present world and by that means fit their souls for the eternal enjoyment of that blessed State of souls which God the Father hath promised his Son hath purchased and the Holy Ghost hath confirmed To whom be rendred c. FINIS A DISCOURSE Concerning the TRUE REASON OF THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST By EDWARD STILLINGFLEET D. D. Chaplain in Ordinary to his Majesty The Second Edition LONDON Printed by Robert White for Henry Mortlock and are to be sold at his Shops at the Sign
of the White Hart in Westminster Hall and the Phoenix in S t. Paul's Church-Yard 1673. DISCOURSE Concerning the TRUE REASON Of the SUFFERINGS of CHRIST CHAP. 1. Of the Socinian way of interpreting Scripture Of the uncertainty it leaves us in as to the main articles of Faith manifested by an Exposition of Gen. 1. suitable to that way The state of the Controversie in general concerning the sufferings of Christ for us He did not suffer the same we should have done The grand mistake in making punishments of the nature of Debts the difference between them at large discovered from the different reason and ends of them The right of punishment in God proved against Crellius not to arise from meer dominion The end of punishment not bare Compensation as it is in debts what punishment due to an injured person by the right of Nature proper punishment a result of Laws Crellius his great mistake about the end of Punishments Not designed for satisfaction of Anger as it is a desire of Revenge Seneca and Lactantius vindicated against Crellius The Magistrates interest in Punishment distinct from that of private persons Of the nature of Anger in God and the satisfaction to be made to it Crellius his great arguments against satisfaction depend on a false Notion of Gods anger Of the ends of divine Punishments and the different nature of them in this and the future state SIR ALthough the Letter I received from your hands contained in it so many mistakes of my meaning and design that it seemed to be the greatest civility to the Writer of it to give no answer at all to it because that could not be done without the discovery of far more weaknesses in him than he pretends to find in my discourse Yet the weight and importance of the matter may require a further account from me concerning the true reason of the sufferings of Christ. Wherein my design was so far from representing old Errors to the best advantage or to rack my wits to defend them as that person seems to suggest that I aimed at nothing more than to give a true account of what upon a serious enquiry I judged to be the most natural and genuine meaning of the Christian Doctrine contained in the Writings of the New Testament For finding therein such multitudes of expressions which to an unprejudiced mind attribute all the mighty effects of the Love of God to us to the obedience and sufferings of Christ I began to consider what reason there was why the plain and easie sense of those places must be forsaken and a remote and Metaphorical meaning put upon them Which I thought my self the more obliged to do because I could not conceive if it had been the design of the Scripture to have delivered the received Doctrine of the Christian Church concerning the reason of the sufferings of Christ that it could have been more clearly and fully expressed than it is already So that supposing that to have been the true meaning of the several places of Scripture which we contend for yet the same arts and subtilties might have been used to pervert it which are imployed to perswade men that is not the true meaning of them And what is equally serviceable to truth and falshood can of it self have no power on the minds of men to convince them it must be one and not the other Nay if every unusual and improper acception of words in the Scripture shall be thought sufficient to take away the natural and genuine sense where the matter is capable of it I know scarce any article of Faith can be long secure and by these arts men may declare that they believe the Scriptures and yet believe nothing of the Christian Faith For if the improper though unusual acception of those expressions of Christs dying for us of redemption propitiation reconciliation by his blood of his bearing our iniquities and being made sin and a curse for us shall be enough to invalidate all the arguments taken from them to prove that which the proper sense of them doth imply why may not the improper use of the terms of Creation and Resurrection as well take away the natural sense of them in the great Articles of the Creation of the World and Resurrection after death For if it be enough to prove that Christs dying for us doth not imply dying in our stead because sometimes dying for others imports no more than dying for some advantage to come to them if redemption being sometimes used for meer deliverance shall make our redemption by Christ wholly Metaphorical if the terms of propitiation reconcilation c. shall lose their force because they are sometimes used where all things cannot be supposed parallel with the sense we contend for why shall I be bound to believe that the World was ever created in a proper sense since those persons against whom I argue so earnestly contend that in those places in which it seems as proper as any it is to be understood only in a metaphorical If when the World and all things are said to be made by Christ we are not to understand the production but the reformation of the World and all things in it although the natural sense of the Words be quite otherwise what argument can make it necessary for me not to understand the Creation of the World in a metaphorical sense when Moses delivers to us the history of it Why may not I understand in the beginning Gen. 1. for the beginning of the Mosaical Dispensation as well as Socinus doth in the beginning John 1. for the beginning of the Evangelical and that from the very same argument used by him viz. that in the beginning is to be understood of the main subject concerning which the author intends to write and that I am as sure it was in Moses concerning the Law given by him as it was in St. Iohn concerning the Gospel delivered by Christ. Why may not the Creation of the Heavens and the Earth be no more than the erection of the Jewish Polity since it is acknowledged that by New Heavens and new Earth wherein dwelleth righteousness no more is understood than a new state of things under the Gospel Why may not the confused Chaos import no more than the state of Ignorance and darkness under which the World was before the Law of Moses since it is confessed that it signifies in the New Testament such a state of the World before the Gospel appeared and consequently why may not the light which made the first day be the first tendencies to the Doctrine of Moses which being at first divided and scattered was united afterwards in one great Body of Laws which was called the Sun because it was the great Director of the Iewish Nation and therefore said to rule the day as the less considerable Laws of other Nations are called the Moon because they were to
govern those who were yet under the night of Ignorance Why may not the Firmament being in the midst of the Waters imply the erection of the Jeâ—…ish State in the midst of a great deal of trouble since it is confeâ—â—ed that Waters are often taken in Scripture in a Metaphorical sense for troubles and afflictions and the Earth appearing out of the Waters be no more but the settlement of that state aftâ—â—â—tâ— troubles and particularly with great elegancy aâ—ter 〈◊〉 pâ—…age through the Red Sea And the production of Herbs and living Creatures be the great encrease of the People of all sorts as well those of a meaner rank and therefore called herbs as those of a higher that were to live upon the other and sometimes trample upon them and therefore by way of excellency called the Living Creatures And when these were multiplied and brought into order which being done by steps and degrees is said to be finished in several days then the State and the Church flourished and enjoyed a great deal of pleasure which was the production of Man and Woman and their being placed in Paradise for a perfect Man notes a high degree of perfection and a Woman is taken for the Church in the Revelations But when they followed the Customs of other Nations which were as a forbidden tree to them then they lost all their happiness and pleasure and were expelled out of their own Country and lived in great slavery and misery which was the Curse pronounced against them for violating the rules of Policy established among them Thus you see how small a measure of wit by the advantage of those ways of interpreting Scripture which the subtilest of our adversaries make use of will serve to pervert the clearest expressions of Scripture to quite another sense than was ever intended by the Writer of them And I assure you if that rule of interpreting Scripture be once allowed that where words are ever used in a Metaphorical sense there can be no necessity of understanding them in a proper there is scarce any thing which you look on as the most necessary to be believed in Scripture but it may be made appear not to be so upon those terms for by reason of the paucity and therefore the ambiguity of the Original words of the Hebrew language the strange Idioms of it the different senses of the same word in several Conjugations the want of several modes of expression which are used in other Languages and above all the lofty and Metaphorical way of speaking used in all Eastern Countries and the imitation of the Hebrew Idioms in the Greek translation of the Old Testament and Original of the New you can hardly affix a sense upon any words used therein but a man who will be at the pains to search all possible significations and uses of those words will put you hard to it to make good that which you took to be the proper meaning of them Wherefore although I will not deny to our adversaries the praise of subtilty and diligence I cannot give them that which is much more praise worthy viz. of discretion and sound judgement For while they use their utmost industry to search all the most remote and Metaphorical senses of words with a design to take off the genuine and proper meaning of them they do not attend to the ill consequence that may be made of this to the overthrowing those things the belief of which themselves make necessary to salvation For by this way the whole Gospel may be made an Allegory and the Resurrection of Christ be thought as metaphorical as the Redemption by his Death and the sorce of all the Precepts of the Gospel avoided by some unusual signification of the words wherein they are delivered So that nothing can be more unreasonable than such a method of proceeding unless it be first sufficiently proved that the matter is not capable of the proper sense and therefore of necessity the improper only is to be allowed And this is that which Socinus seems after all his pains to pervert the meaning of the places in controversie to rely on most viz. That the Doctrine of satisfaction doth imply an impossibility in the thing it self and therefore must needs be false nay he saith the infallibility of the Revealer had not been enough in this Case supposing that Christ had said it and risen from the dead to declare his own Veracity unless he had delivered it by its proper causes and effects and so shewed the possibility of the thing it self And the reason he saith why they believe their Doctrine true is not barely because God hath said it but they believe certainly that God hath said it because they know it to be true by knowing the contrary Doctrine to be impossible The controversie then concerning the meaning of the places in dispute is to be resolved from the nature and reasonableness of the matter contained in them for if Socinus his reason were answerable to his confidence if the account we give of the sufferings of Christ were repugnant not only to the Justice Goodness and Grace of God but to the nature of the thing if it appear impossible that mankind should be redeemed in a proper sense or that God should be propitiated by the Death of his Son as a Sacrifice for sin if it enervate all the Precepts of Obedience and tends rather to justifie sins than those who do repent of them I shall then agree that no industry can be too great in searching Authors comparing places examining Versions to find out such a sense as may be agreeable to the nature of things the Attributes of God and the design of Christian Religion But if on the contrary the Scripture doth plainly assert those things from whence our Doctrine follows and without which no reasonable account can be given either of the expressions used therein or of the sufferings of Christ if Christs death did immediately respect God as a sacrifice and were paid as a price for our Redemption if such a design of his death be so far from being repugnant to the nature of God that it highly manifests his Wisdom Justice and Mercy if it assert nothing but what is so far from being impossible that it is very reconcileable to the common principles of Reason as well as the Free-Grace of God in the pardon of sin if being truly understood it is so far from enervating that it advances highly all the purposes of Christian Religion then it can be no less than a betraying one of the grand Truths of the Christian Doctrine not to believe ours to be the true sense of the places in controversie And this is that which I now take upon me to maintain For our clearer proceeding herein nothing will be more necessary than to understand the true state of the Controversie which hath been rendred more obscure by the mistakes of some who have
to be wholly free for God to remit them without any satisfaction They make the right of punishment meerly to depend on Gods absolute Dominion and that all satisfaction must be considered under the notion of compensation for the injuries done to him to whom it is to be made But if we can clearly shew a considerable difference between the notion of debts and punishments if the right of punishment doth not depend upon meer Dominion and that satisfaction by way of punishment is not primarily intended for compensation but for other ends we shall make not only the state of the Controversie much clearer but offer something considerable towards the resolution of it The way I shall take for the proof of the difference between debts and punishments shall be using the other for the Arguments for it For besides that those things are just in matter of debts which are not so in the case of punishments as that it is lawful for a man to forgive all the debts which are owing him by all persons though they never so contumaciously refuse payment but our Adversaries will not say so in the case of sins for although they assert That the justice of God doth never require punishment in case of Repentance yet withal they assert That in case of Impenitency it is not only agreeable but due to the nature and decrees and therefore to the rectitude and equity of God not to give pardon But if this be true then there is an apparent difference between the notion of debts and punishments for the Impenitency doth but add to the greatness of the debt And will they say it is only in Gods power to remit small debts but he must punish the greatest what becomes then of Gods absolute liberty to part with his own right will not this shew more of his kindness to pardon the greater rather than lesser offenders But if there be something in the nature of the thing which makes it not only just but necessary for impenitent sinners to be punished as Crellius after Socinus frequently acknowledges then it is plain that sins are not to be considered meerly as debts for that obstinacy and impenitency is only punished as a greater degree of sin and therefore as a greater debt And withal those things are lawful in the remission of debts which are unjust in the matter of punishments as it is lawful for a Creditor when two persons are considered in equal circumstances to remit one and not the other nay to remit the greater debt without any satisfaction and to exact the lesser to the greatest extremity but it is unjust in matter of punishments where the reason and circumstances are the same for a person who hath committed a crime of very dangerous consequence to escape unpunished and another who hath been guilty of far less to be severely executed Besides these considerations I say I shall now prove the difference of debts and punishments from those two things whereby things are best differenced from each other viz. The different Reason and the different End of them The different Reason of debts and punishments The reason of debts is dominion and property and the obligation of them depends upon voluntary contracts between parties but the reason of punishments is Justice and Government and depends not upon meer contracts but the relation the person stands in to that Authority to which he is accountable for his actions For if the obligation to punishment did depend upon meer contract then none could justly be punished but such who have consented to it by an antecedent contract If it be said That a contract is implied by their being in society with others that is as much as I desire to make the difference appear for in case of debts the obligation depends upon the voluntary contract of the person but in case of punishments the very relation to Government and living under Laws doth imply it And the right of punishment depends upon the obligation of Laws where the reason of them holds without any express contract or superiority of one over another as in the case of violation of the Law of Nations that gives right to another Nation to punish the infringers of it Otherwise Wars could never be lawful between two Nations and none could be warrantable but those of a Prince against his rebellious subjects who have broken the Laws themselves consented expresly to Besides in case of debts every man is bound to pay whether he be call'd upon or no but in case of punishments no man is bound to betray or accuse himself For the obligation to payment in case of debt ariseth from the injury sustained by that particular person if another detains what is his own from him but the obligation to punishment arises from the injury the Publick sustains by the impunity 〈◊〉 of crimes of which the Magistrates are to take care who by the dispensing of punishments do shew that to be true which Grotius asserts that if there be any Creditor to be assigned in punishment it is the publick good Which appears by this that all punishments are proportioned according to the influence the offences have upon the publick interest for the reason of punishment is not because a Law is broken but because the breach of a Law tends to dissolve the community by infringing the Authority of the Laws and the honour of those who are to take care of them For if we consider it the measure of punishments is in a well ordered State taken from the influence which crimes have upon the peace and interest of the community No man questions but that Malice Pride and Avarice are things really as bad as many faults that are severely punished by humane Laws but the reason these are not punished is because they do not so much injury to the publick interest as Theft and Robbery do Besides in those things wherein the Laws of a Nation are concerned the utmost rigor is not used in the preventing of crimes or the execution of them when committed if such an execution may endanger the publick more than the impunity of the offenders may do And there are some things which are thought fit to be forbidden where the utmost means are not used to prevent them as Merchants are forbidden to steal customs but they are not put under an Oath not to do it And when penalties have been deserved the execution of them hath been deferred till it may be most for the advantage of the publick as Ioabs punishment till Solomons Reign though he deserved it as much in Davids So that the rule commonly talked of Fiat justitia pereat mundus is a piece of Pedantry rather than true Wisdom for whatever penalty inflicted brings a far greater detriment to the publick than the forbearance of it is no piece of Justice to the State but the contrary the greatest Law being the safety and preservation of the
though it would not be upon theirs For if we suppose him to be a meer man that suffered then there could be no argument drawn from his sufferings to ours but according to the exact proportion of sins and punishments but supposing that he had a divine as well as humane nature there may not be so great a proportion of the sins of the world to the sufferings of Christ as of the sins of a particular person to his own sufferings and therefore the argument from one to the other doth still hold For the measure of punishments must be taken with a proportion to the dignity of the person who suffers them And Crellius himself confesseth elsewhere that the dignity of the person is to be considered in exemplary punishment and that a lesser punishment of one that is very great may do much more to deter men from sin than a greater punishment of one much less But he yet further urgeth that the severity of God against sinners may be discovered in the sufferings of Christ because Gods hatredagainst sin is discovered therein But if we ask how Gods hatred against sin is seen in the sufferings of one perfectly innocent and free from sin and not rather his hatred of innocency if no respect to sin were had therein he answers that Gods hatred against sin was manifested in that he would not spare his only Son to draw men off from sin For answer to which we are to consider the sufferings of Christ as an innocent person designed as an exemplary cause to draw men off from sin and let any one tell me what hatred of sin can possibly be discovered in proposing the sufferings of a most innocent person to them without any consideration of sin as the cause of those sufferings If it be said that the Doctrine of Christ was designed to draw men off from sin and that God suffered his Son to dye to confirm this Doctrine and thereby shewed his hatred to sin I answer 1. This is carrying the dispute off from the present business for we are not now arguing about the design of Christs Doctrine nor the death of Christ as a means to confirm that but as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what power that hath without respect to our sins as the cause of them to draw us from sin by discovering Gods hatred to it 2. The Doctrine of Christ according to their hypothesis discovers much less of Gods hatred to sin than ours doth For if God may pardon sin without any compensation made to his Laws or Honour if repentance be in its own nature a sufficient satisfaction for all the sins past of our Lives if there be no such thing as such a Justice in God which requires punishment of sin committed if the punishment of sin depend barely upon Gods will and the most innocent person may suffer as much from God without respect to sin as the cause of suffering as the most guilty let any rational man judge whether this Doctrine discovers as much Gods abhorrency of sin as asserting the necessity of vindicating Gods honour to the World upon the breach of his Laws if not by the suffering of the offenders themselves yet of the Son of God as a sacrifice for the expiation of sin by undergoing the punishment of our iniquities so as upon consideration of his sufferings he is pleased to accept of repentance and sincere obedience as the conditions upon which he will grant remission of sins and eternal life So that if the discovery of Gods hatred to sin be the means to reclaim men from it we assert upon the former reasons that much more is done upon our Doctrine concerning the sufferings of Christ than can be upon theirs So much shall suffice to manifest in what sense Christs death may be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that this doth imply that his sufferings are to be considered as a punishment of sin The next Series of places which makes Christs sufferings to be a punishment for sin are those which assert Christ to be made sin and a curse for us which we now design to make clear ought to be understood in no other sense for as Grotius saith As the Jews sometimes use sin for the punishment of sin as appears besides other places by Zach. 14. 19. Gen. 4. 13. so they call him that suffers the punishment of sin by the name of sin as the Latins use the word Piaculum both for the fault and for him that suffers for it Thence under the Law an expiatory Sacrifice for sin was called sin Levit. 4. 3 29 5. 6. Psal. 40. 7. Which way of speaking Esaias followed speaking of Christ Esai 53. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he made his soul sin i. e. liable to the punishment of it To the same purpose St. Paul 2 Cor. 5. 21. He made him to be sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him To which Crellius replies `` That as there is no necessity that by the name of sin when applied to sufferings any more should be implied than that those sufferings were occasioned by sin no more is there when it is applied to the person nay much less for he saith `` No more is required to this but that he should be handled as sinners use to be and undergo the matter of punishment without any respect to sin either as the cause or occasion of it So he saith The name Sinner is used 1 King 1. 21. and in St. Paul the name of sin in the first clause is to be understood as of righteousness in the latter and as we are said to be righteousness in him when God deals with us as with righteous persons so Christ was said to be sin for us when he was dealt with as a sinner And the Sacrifices for sin under the Law were so called not with a respect to the punishment of sin but because they were offered upon the account of sin and were used for taking away the guilt of it or because men were bound to offer them so that they sinned if they neglected it So that all that is meant by Esaias and St. Paul is That Christ was made an expiatory Sacrifice or that he exposed himself for those afflictions which sinners only by right undergo But let Crellius or any others of them tell me if the Scripture had intended to express that the sufferings of Christ were a punishment of our sins how was it possible to do it more Emphatically than it is done by these expressions the custom of the Hebrew Language being considered not only by saying that Christ did bear our sins but that himself was made sin for us those phrases being so commonly used for the punishment of sin Let them produce any one instance in Scripture where those expressions are applied to any without the consideration of sin that place 1
interpretation of the words and draw forth such a sense from them as is most consistent with it self and the tenor of the Scripture But for all his talking of the tenor of the Scripture by the same reason he interprets one place upon these terms he will do many and so the tenor of the Scripture shall be never against him and by this we find that the main strength of our Adversaries is not pretended to lye in the Scriptures all the care they have of them is only to reconcile them if possible with their hypothesis for they do not deny but that the natural force of the words doth imply what we contend for but because they say the Doctrine we assert is inconsistent with reason therefore all their design is to find out any other possible meaning which they therefore assert to be true because more agreeable to the common reason of mankind This therefore is enough for our present purpose that if it had been the design of Scripture to have expressed our sense it could not have done it in plainer expressions than it hath done that no expressions could have been used but the same arts of our Adversaries might have been used to take off their force which they have used to those we now urge against them and that setting aside the possibility of the thing the Scripture doth very fairly deliver the Doctrine we contend for or supposing in point of reason there may be arguments enough to make it appear possible there are Scriptures enough to make it appear true CHAP. III. The words of Scripture being at last acknowledged by our Adversaries to make for us the only pretence remaining is that our Doctrine is repugnant to reason The debate managed upon point of reason The grand difficulty enquired into and manifested by our Adversaries concessions not to lie in the greatness of Christs sufferings or that our sins were the impulsive cause of them or that it is impossible that one should be punished for anothers faults or in all cases unjust the cases wherein Crellius allows it instanced From whence it is proved that he yields the main cause The arguments propounded whereby he attempts to prove it unjust for Christ to be punished for our sins Crellius his principles of the justice of punishments examined Of the relation between desert and punishment That a person by his own consent may be punished beyond the desert of his own actions An answer to Crellius his Objections What it is to suffer undeservedly Crellius his mistake in the state of the question The instances of Scripture considered In what sense Children are punished for their Parents sins Ezec. 18. 20. explained at large Whether the guilty being freed from the sufferings of an innocent person makes that punishment unjust or no Crellius his shifts and evasions in this matter discovered Why among men the offenders are not sreed in criminal matters though the sureties be punished The release of the party depends on the terms of the sureties suffering therefore deliverance not ipso facto No necessity of such a translation in criminal as is in pecuniary matters HAving gained so considerable concessions from our Adversaries concerning the places of Scripture we come now to debate the matter in point of reason And if there appear to be nothing repugnant in the Nature of the thing or to the justice of God then all their loud clamors will come to nothing for on that they fix when they talk the most of our Doctrine being contrary to reason This therefore we now come more closely to examine in order to which we must carefully enquire what it is they lay the charge of injustice in God upon according to our belief of Christs sufferings being a punishment for our sins 1. It is not That the offenders themselves do not undergo the full punishment of their sins For they assert that there is no necessity at all that the offenders should be punished from any punitive justice in God for they eagerly contend that God may freely pardon the sins of men if so then it can be no injustice in God not to punish the offenders according to the full desert of their sins 2. It is not that God upon the sufferings of Christ doth pardon the sins of men for they yield that God may do this without any charge of injustice and with the greatest demonstration of his kindness For they acknowledge that the sufferings of Christ are not to be considered as a bare antecedent condition to pardon but that they were a moving cause as far as the obedience of Christ in suffering was very acceptable to God 3. It is not in the greatness or matter of the sufferings of Christ. For they assert the same which we do And therefore I cannot but wonder to meet sometimes with those strange out-cries of our making God cruel in the punishing of his son for us for what do we assert that Christ suffered which they do not assert too Nay doth it not look much more like cruelty in God to lay those sufferings upon him without any consideration of sin as upon their hypothesis he doth than to do it supposing he bears the punishment of our iniquities which is the thing we plead for They assert all those sufferings to be lawful on the account of Gods dominion which according to them must cease to be so on the supposition of a meritorious cause But however from this it appears that it was not unjust that Christ should suffer those things which he did for us the question then is whether it were unjust that he should suffer the same things which he might lawfully do on the account of dominion with a respect to our sins as the cause of them 4. As to this they acknowledge that it is not that the sufferings of Christ were occasioned by our sins or that our sins were the bare impulsive cause of those sufferings For they both consess in general that one mans sins may be the occasion of anothers punishment so far that he might have escaped punishment if the others sins had not been the impulsive cause of it And therefore Crellius in the general state of this question would not have it whether it be the unjust to punish one for anothers sins for that he acknowledges it is not but whether for any cause whatsoever it be just to punish an innocent person And likewise in particular of Christ they confess that our sins were the impulsive cause and the occasion of his sufferings 5. It is not that there is so necessary a relation between guilt and punishment that it cannot be called a punishment which is inflicted on an innocent person For Crellius after a long dicourse of the difference of afflictions and punishments doth acknowledge That it is not of the nature of punishment that the person who is to be punished should really deserve the
upon it Now these three I shall make appear to agree fully to the death of Christ for us 1. A Substitution in the place of the Offenders That we are to prove was designed in the Expiatory Sacrifices under the Law and that Christ in his death for us was substituted in our place 1. That in the Expiatory Sacrifices under the Law there was a Substitution of them in the place of the Offenders This our Adversaries are not willing to yield us because of the correspondency which is so plain in the Epistle to the Hebrews between those Sacrifices and that which was offered up by Christ. We now speak only of those Sacrifices which we are sure were appointed of old for the expiation of sin by God himself As to which the great rule assigned by the Apostle was That without shedding of blood there was no remission If we yield Crellius what he so often urgeth viz. That these words are to be understood of what was done under the Law They will not be the less serviceable to our purpose for thereby it will appear that the means of Expiation lay in the shedding of blood Which shews that the very mactation of the beast to be sacrificed was designed in order to the expiation of sin To an inquisitive person the reason of the slaying such multitudes of beasts in the Sacrifices appointed by God himself among the Iews would have appeared far less evident than now it doth since the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews hath given us so full an account of them For it had been very unreasonable to have thought that they had been meerly instituted out of compliance with the customs of other Nations since the whole design of their Religion was to separate them from them and on such a supposition the great design of the Epistle to the Hebrews signifies very little which doth far more explain to us the nature and tendency of all the Sacrifices in use among them that had any respect to the expiation of sins than all the customs of the Egyptians or the Commentaries of the latter Iews But I intend not now to discourse at large upon this subject of Sacrifices either as to the nature and institution of them in general or with a particular respect to the Sacrifice of Christ since a learned person of our Church hath already undertaken Crellius upon this Argument and we hope ere long will oblige the world with the benefit of his pains I shall therefore only insist on those things which are necessary for our purpose in order to the clearing the Substitution of Christ in our stead for the expiation of our sins by his death and this we say was represented in the Expiatory Sacrifices which were instituted among the Iews If we yield Crellius what he after Socinus contends for viz. That the Sacrifice of Christ was only represented in the publick and solemn Expiatory Sacrifices for the people and especially those on the day of Atonement We may have enough from them to vindicate all that we assert concerning the Expiatory Sacrifice of the blood of Christ. For that those were designed by way of Substitution in the place of the offenders will appear from the circumstances and reason of their Institution But before we come to that it will be necessary to shew what that Expiation was which the Sacrifices under the Law were designed for the not understanding of which gives a greater force to our Adversaries Arguments than otherwise they would have For while men assert that the expiation was wholly typical and of the same nature with that expiation which is really obtained by the death of Christ they easily prove That all the expiation then was only declarative and did no more depend on the sacrifices offered than on a condition required by God the neglect of which would be an act of disobedience in them and by this means it could represent say they no more than such an expiation to be by Christ viz. Gods declaring that sins are expiated by him on the performance of such a condition required in order thereto as laying down his life was But we assert another kind of expiation of sin by vertue of the Sacrifice being slain and offered which was real and depended upon the Sacrifice And this was twofold a Civil and a Ritual expiation according to the double capacity in which the people of the Iews may be considered either as members of a Society subsisting by a body of Laws which according to the strictest Sanction of it makes death the penalty of disobedience Deut. 27. 26. but by the will of the Legislator did admit of a relaxation in many cases allowed by himself in which he declares That the death of the beast designed for a Sacrifice should be accepted instead of the death of the offender and so the offence should be fully expiated as to the execution of the penal Law upon him And thus far I freely admit what Grotius asserts upon this subject and do yield that no other offence could be expiated in this manner but such which God himself did particularly declare should be so And therefore no sin which was to be punished by cutting off was to be expiated by Sacrifice as wilful Idolatry Murther c. Which it is impossible for those to give an account of who make the expiation wholly typical for why then should not the greatest sins much rather have had sacrifices of expiation appointed for them because the Consciences of men would be more solicitous for the pardon of greater than lesser sins and the blood of Christ represented by them was designed for the expiation of all From whence it is evident that it was not a meer typical expiation but it did relate to the civil constitution among them But besides this we are to consider the people with a respect to that mode of Divine Worship which was among them by reason of which the people were to be purified from the legal impurities which they contracted which hindred them from joyning with others in the publick Worship of God and many Sacrifices were appointed purposely for the expiating this legal guilt as particularly the ashes of the red heifer Numb 19. 9. which is there called a purification for sin And the Apostle puts the blood of Bulls and of Goats and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean together and the effect of both of them he saith was to sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh which implies that there was some proper and immediate effect of these sacrifices upon the people at that time though infinitely short of the effect of the blood of Christ upon the Consciences of men By which it is plain the Apostle doth not speak of the same kind of expiation in those sacrifices which was in the Sacrifice of Christ and that the one was barely typical of the other but of a
is set down briefly by Crellius in the beginning of his discourse of Sacrifices There is a twofold power saith he of the sacrifice of Christ towards the expiation of sin one taking away the guilt and the punishment of sin and that partly by declaring that God will do it and giving us a right to it partly by actual deliverance from punishment the other is by begetting Faith in us and so drawing us off from the practice of sin Now the first and last Crellius and Socinus attribute to the death of Christ as that was a confirmation of the Covenant God made for the remission of sin and as it was an argument to perswade us to believe the truth of his Doctrine and the other viz. the actual deliverance from punishment is by themselves attributed to the second coming of Christ for then only they say the just shall be actually delivered from the punishment of sin viz. eternal death and what expiation is there now left to the Oblation of Christ in Heaven Doth Christ in Heaven declare the pardon of sin any other way than it was declared by him upon Earth What efficacy hath his Oblation in Heaven upon perswading men to believe or is his second coming when he shall sit as Judge the main part of his Priesthood for then the expiation of sins in our Adversaries sense is most proper And yet nothing can be more remote from the notion of Christs Pristhood than that is so that expiation of sins according to them can have no respect at all to the Oblation of Christ in Heaven or which is all one in their sense his continuance in Heaven to his second coming Yes saith Crellius his continuance there is a condition in order to the expiation by actual deliverance and therefore it may be said that God is as it were moved by it to expiate sins The utmost then that is attributed to Christs being in Heaven in order to the expiation of sins is that he must continue there without doing anything in order to it for if he does it must either respect God or us but they deny though contrary to the importance of the words and the design of the places where they are used that the terms of Christs interceding for us or being an Advocate with the Father for us do note any respect to God but only to us if he does any thing with respect to us in expiation of sin it must be either declaring perswading or actual deliverance but it is none of these by their own assertions and therefore that which they call Christs Oblation or his being in Heaven signifies nothing as to the expiation of sin and it is unreasonable to suppose that a thing which hath no influence at all upon it should be looked on as a condition in order to it From whence it appears that while our Adversaries do make the exercise of Christs Priesthood to respect us and not God they destroy the very nature of it and leave Christ only an empty name without any thing answering to it But if Christ be truly a High-Priest as the Apostle asserts that he is from thence it follows that he must have a respect to God in offering up gifts and sacrifices for sin which was the thing to be proved 2. That Christ did exercise this Priestly Office in the Oblation of himself to God upon the Cross. Which I shall prove by two things 1. Because the death of Christ is said in Scripture to be an Offering and a Sacrifice to God 2. Because Christ is said to offer up himself antecedently to his entrance into Heaven 1. Because the death of Christ is said to be an offering and a sacrifice to God which is plain from the words of St. Paul as Christ also hath loved us and given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour Our Adversaries do not deny that the death of Christ is here called an Oblation but they deny That it is meant of an Expiatory Sacrifice but of a free will offering and the reason Crellius gives is because that phrase of a sweet-smelling savour is generally and almost always used of sacrifices which are not expiatory but if ever they be used of an Expiatory Sacrifice they are not applyed to that which was properly expiatory in it viz. the offering up of the blood for no smell saith he went up from thence but to the burning of the fat and the kidneys which although required to perfect the expiation yet not being done till the High-Priest returned out of the Holy of Holies hath nothing correspondent to the expiatory Sacrifice of Christ where all things are persected before Christ the High-Priest goes forth of his Sanctuary How inconsistent these last words are with what they assert concerning the expiation of sin by actual deliverance at the great day the former discourse hath already discovered For what can be more absurd than to say that all things which pertain to the expiation of sin are perfected before Christ goes forth from his Sanctuary and yet to make the most proper expiation of sin to lye in that act of Christ which is consequent to his going forth of the Sanctuary viz. when he proceeds to judge the quick and the dead But of that already We now come to a punctual and direct answer as to which two things must be enquired into 1. What the importance of the phrase of a sweet-smelling savour is 2. What the Sacrifices are to which that phrase is applyed 1. For the importance of the phrase The first time we read it used in Scripture was upon the occasion of Noahs Sacrifice after the flood of which it is said that he offered burnt-offerings on the Altar and the Lord smelled a savour of rest or a sweet savour Which we are not to imagine in a gross corporeal manner as Crellius seems to understand it when he saith the blood could not make such a savour as the fat and the kidneys for surely none ever thought the smell of flesh burnt was a sweet-smelling savour of it self and we must least of all imagine that of God which Porphyry saith was the property only of the worst of Daemons to be pleased and as it were to grow fat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the smell and vapours of blood and flesh by which testimony it withal appears that the same steams in Sacrifices were supposed to arise from the blood as the flesh But we are to understand that phrase in a sense agreeable to the divine nature which we may easily do if we take it in the sense the Syriack Version takes it in when it calls it Odorem placabilitatis or the savour of rest as the word properly signifies for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word formed from the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used for the resting of the Ark v. 4. of the
fell to the share of the Priests and these were either sins particularly enumerated by God himself under the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or else generally comprehended under the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being allowed to be expiated because committed through inadvertency 3. Such whereof a less part was consumed as in the Peace-offerings of the Congregation mentioned Levit. 23. 19. whereof the blood was sprinkled only the inwards burnt and the flesh not eaten by the persons that offered them as it was in the Peace-offerings of particular persons of which as being private Sacrifices I have here no occasion to speak but only by the Priests in the Court and these had something of expiation in them For thence saith Vatablus the Peace offering was called by the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Expiatorium and the LXX commonly render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and several of the Iews think the reason of the name was That it made peace between God and him that offered it But the great reason I insist on is Because all the things which were used in an Expiatory Sacrifice were in this too the slaying of the Beast the sprinkling of the blood and the consumption of some part of it upon the Altar as an Oblation to God which are the three ingredients of an Expiatory Sacrifice for the shedding of the blood noted the bearing the punishment of our iniquity and the sprinkling of it on the Altar and the consuming of the part of the Sacrifice or the whole there that it was designed for the expiation of sin From whence it follows that the phrase of a sweet-smelling savour being applied under the Law to Expiatory Sacrifices is very properly used by St. Paul concerning Christs giving up himself for us so that from this phrase nothing can be inferred contrary to the Expiatory nature of the death of Christ but rather it is fully agreeable to it But Crellius hath yet a farther Argument to prove that Christs death cannot be here meant as the Expiatory Sacrifice viz. That the notion of a sacrifice doth consist in the oblation whereby the thing is consecrated to the honour and service of God to which the mactation is but a bare preparation which he proves Because the slaying the sacrifice might belong to others besides the Priests Ezek. 44. 10 11. but the oblation only to the Priests To this I answer 1. The mactation may be considered two ways either with a respect to the bare instrument of taking away the life or to the design of the Offerer of that which was to be sacrificed As the mactation hath a respect only to the instruments so it is no otherways to be considered than as a punishment but as it hath a respect to him that designs it for a Sacrifice so the shedding of the blood hath an immediate influence on the expiation of sin And that by this clear Argument The blood is said to make an Atonement for the soul and the reason given is because the life of the flesh is in the blood So that which was the life is the great thing which makes the Atonement and when the blood was shed the life was then given from whence it follows that the great efficacy of the sacrifice for Atonement lay in the shedding of the blood for that end Thence the Apostle attributes remission of sins to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the shedding of the blood and not to the bare Oblation of it on the Altar or the carrying it into the Holy of Holies both which seem to be nothing else but a more solemn representation of that blood before God which was already shed for the expiation of sins which was therefore necessary to be performed that the concurrence of the Priest might be seen with the sacrifice in order to expiation For if no more had been necessary but the bare slaying of the Beasts which was the meanest part of the service the people would never have thought the institution of the Priesthood necessary and least of all that of the High-Priest unless some solemn action of his had been performed such as the entring into the Holy of Holies on the day of expiation and carrying it and sprinkling the blood of the sin offering in order to the expiation of the sins of the people And it is observable that although the Levitical Law be silent in the common Sacrifices who were to kill them whether the Priests or the Levites yet on that day whereon the High-Priest was to appear himself for the expiation of sin it is expresly said that he should not only kill the bullock of the sin-offering which is for himself but the goaâ— of the sin-offering which is for the people And although the Talmudists dispute from their Traditions on both sides whether any one else might on the day of expiation slay the sin-offerings besides the High-Priest yet it is no news for them to dispute against the Text and the Talmud it self is clear that the High-Priest did it From whence it appears there was something peculiar on that day as to the slaying of the sin-offerings and if our Adversaries opinion hold good that the Sacrifices on the day of expiation did iâ— not aâ—one yet chiefly represent the Sacrifice of Christ no greater argument can be brought against themselves than this is for the office of the High-Priest did not begin at his carrying the blood into the Holy of Holies but the slaying the sacrifice did belong to him too from whence it will unavoidably followâ— that Christ did not enter upon his Office of High-Priest when he entred into Heaven but when the Sacrifice was to be be slain which was designed for the expiation of sins It is then to no purpose at all if Crellius could prove that sometimes in ordinary Sacrifices which he will not say the Sacrifice of Christ was represented by the Levites might kill the beasts for Sacrifice for it appears that in these Sacrifices wherein themselves contend that Christs was represented the office of the High-Priest did not begin with entring into the Sanctuary but with the mactation of that Sacrifice whose blood was to be carried in thither Therefore if we â—peak of the bare instruments of mactation in the death of Christ those were the Iews and we make not them Priests in it for they aimed at no more than taking away his life as the Popae among the Romans and those whose bare Office it was to kill the beasts for Sacrifice among the Iews did but if we consider it with a respect to him that offered up his life to God then we say that Christ was the High-Priest in doing it it being designed for the expiation of sin and by vertue of this bloodshed for that end he enters into Heaven as the Holy of Holies there ever living to make intercession for us But the vertue of the consequent acts depends upon the
accept of this Sacrifice as an expiation for them and so charge not on them the innocent blood c. and upon doing of this it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the blood shall be expiated i. e. as the Vulgar Latin explain it the guilt of the blood shall be taken from them But how then should the expiating sin upon a Sacrifice slain in order thereto destâ—oy that satisfaction which we assert by the blood of Christ being shed in order to the expiation of our sins Nay it much rather sheweth the consistency and agreeableness of these one with another For we have before proved that the Sacrifice here did expiate the sin by a substitution and bearing the guilt which could not have been expiated without it But Crellius further urgeth that God himself is here said to expiate and therefore to expiate cannot signifie to attone or satisfie in which sense Christ may be said to expiate too not by atoning or satisfying but by not imputing sins or taking away the punishment of them by his power To which we need no other answer than what Crellius himself elsewhere gives viz. that Socinus never denyes but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie to appease or atone which is most eviâ—ently proved from the place mention'd by Grotius Gen. 32. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Expiabo faciem ejus in munere saith the interlineary Version placabo illum muneribus the Vulg. Lat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the LXX and all the circumstances of the place make it appear to be meant in the proper sense of appeasing the anger of a person by something which may move him to shew favour And if Crellius will yield this to be the sense of expiation as applyed to the Sacrifice of Christ he need not quarrel with the word satisfaction But why should he rather attribute that sense of expiation to Christ which is alone given to God wherein the expiation is attributed to him that receives the Sacrifice rather than to him that offers the sacrifice in order to the atonement of another since it is acknowledged that Christ did offer a sacrifice and therefore there can be no reason why that sense of expiation should not belong to him which was most peculiar to that which we shall now shew to be of the same kind with what is here mentioned viz. an appeasing by a gift offered up to God So we find the word used to the same sense 2 Sam. 21. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and wherewith shall I make the Atonement i. e. wherewith shall I satisfie you for all the wrong which Saul hath done unto you and we see afterwards it was by the death of Sauls sons In which place it cannot be denyed but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only signifies to appease but such a kind of satisfaction as is by the death of some for the faults of others and so comes home not only to the importance of the expiation belonging to a Sacrifice in general but to such a kind of expiation as is by the suffering of some in the place of others Which though it be more clear and distinct where one man suffers for others yet this was sufficiently represented in the sacrifices under the Law in which we have already proved that there was a substitution of them in the place of the offenders And in this sense the Iews themselves do understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. such an expiation as is made by the substitution of one in the place of another Of which many instances are collected by Buxtorf wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken by the Rabbinical Writers for such an expiation whereby one was to undergo a punishment in the place of another So when in the title Sanhedrin the people say to the High-Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simus nos expiatio tua let us be for an expiation for you the Gloss explains it thus hoc est in nobis fiat expiatio tua nosque subeamus tuo locò quicquid tibi evenire debet And when they tell us how Children ought to honour their Parents after their death they say when they recite any memorable speech of their Fathers they are not barely to say My Father said so but my Lord and Father said so would I had been the expiation of his death i. e. as they explain it themselves would I had undergone what he did and they give this general rule Where ever it is said behold I am for expiation it is to be understood behold I am in the place of another to bear his iniquities So that this signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a price of redemption for others Hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for a price of redemption of the life of another and rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exod. 21. 30. 30. 12. Numb 35. 31 32. where we render it satisfaction and by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal. 48. 7. and thereby we fully understand what our Saviour meant when he said that he gave his Soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a ransome for many and to this day the Iews call the Cock which they kill for Expiation on the day of Atonement by the name of Cappara and when they beat the Cock against their heads thrice they every time use words to this purpose Let this Cock be an exchange for me let him be in my room and be made an Expiation for me let death come to him but to me and all Israel life and happiness I insist on these things only to let us understand that the Iews never understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the sense our Adversaries contend for when applyed to an Expiatory Sacrifice but as implying a Commutation and a Substitution of one in the place of another so as by the punishment of that the other in whose room he suffers may obtain deliverance Which is the sense we plead for But the utmost which Socinus and Crellius will allow to the Sacrifices in order to Expiation is barely this That the offering of them is to be considered as a meer condition that hath no other respect to the expiation of sins than the paring a mans nails would have had if God had required it upon which slight obedience the pardon of some light sins might be obtained But can any one imagine that this was all that was designed by the Sacrifices of old who considers the antiquity and universality of them in the world in those elder times before the Law the great severity by which they were required under the Law the punctual prescriptions that were made in all circumstances for them the vast and almost inestimable expence the people were at about them but above all the reason that God himself assigns in the Law That the blood was given for expiation because it was the life and the correspondency so clearly expressed
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Crellius acknowledgeth do frequently signifie deliverance from guilt and punishment but he saith they may likewise signifie a declaration of that deliverance as decreed by God or a purging from the sins themselves or from the custom of sinning So that by Crellius his own confession the sense we contend for is most proper and usual the other are more remote and only possible why then should we forsake the former sense which doth most perfectly agree to the nature of a Sacrifice which the other senses have no such relation to as that hath For these being the words made use of in the New Testament to imply the force and efficacy of a Sacrifice why should they not be understood in the same sense which the Hebrew words were taken in when they are applied to the Sacrifices under the Law We are not enquiring into all possible senses of words but into the most natural and agreeable to the scope of them that use them and that we shall make it appear to be the same we plead for in the places in dispute between us as 1 John 1. 7. The blood of Iesus Christ his Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 purgeth us from all sin Heb. 9. 13 14. If the blood of bulls and of goats and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh How much more shall the blood of Christ purge your consciences from dead works 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 1. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he had by himself purged our sins So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used with a respect to the blood of Christ Heb. 10. 22. Apocalip 1. 5. And because remission of sin was looked on as the consequent of expiation by Sacrifice under the Law therefore that is likewise attributed to the blood of Christ Matth. 26. 28 This is the blood of the New Testament which was shed for many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the remission of sins Eph. 1. 7. In whom we have redemption through his blood the remission of sins and to the same purpose Coloss. 1. 14. And from hence we are said to be justified by his blood Rom. 5. 9. and Christ is said to be a propitiation through faith in his blood Rom. 3. 25. The substance of all that Crellius replies to these places is That those words which do properly signifie the thing it self may very conveniently be taken only for the declaration of it when the performance of the thing doth follow by vertue of that declartaion which then happens when the declaration is made of the thing decreed by another and that in the name and by the command of him who did decree it And in this sense Christ by his blood may be said to deliver us from the punishment of our sins by declaring or testifying to us the will and decree of God for that purpose But this answer is by no means sufficient upon these considerations 1. Because it doth not reach the proper and natural sense of the words as Crellius himself confesseth and yet he assigns no reason at all why we ought to depart from it unless the bare possibility of another meaning be sufficient But how had it been possible for the efficacy of the blood of Christ for purging away the guilt of our sins to have been expressed in clearer and plainer terms than these which are acknowledged of themselves to signifie as much as we assert If the most proper expressions for this purpose are not of force enough to perswade our Adversaries none else could ever do it so that it had been impossible for our Doctrine to have been delivered in such terms but they would have found out ways to evade the meaning of them It seems very strange that so great an efficacy should not only once or twice but so frequently be attributed to the blood of Christ for expiation of sin if nothing else were meant by it but that Christ by his death did only declare that God was willing to pardon sin If there were danger in understanding the words in their proper sense why are they so frequently used to this purpose why are there no other places of Scripture that might help to undeceive us and tell us plainly that Christ dyed only to declare his Fathers will but what ever other words might signifie this was the only true meaning of them But what miserable shifts are these when men are forced to put off such Texts which are confessed to express our Doctrine only by saying that they may be otherwise understood which destroys all kind of certainty in words which by reason of the various use of them may be interpreted to so many several senses that if this liberty be allowed upon no other pretence but that another meaning is possible men will never agree about the intention of any person in speaking For upon the same reason if it had been said That Christ declared by his death Gods readiness to pardon it might have been interpreted That the blood of Christ was therefore the declaration of Gods readiness to pardon because it was the consideration upon which God would do it So that if the words had been as express for them as they are now against them according to their way of answering places they would have been reconcileable to our opinion 2. The Scripture in these expressionÅ› doth attribute something peculiar to the blood of Christ but if all that were meant by it were no more than the declaring Gods will to pardon this could in no sense be said to be peculiar to it For this was the design of the Doctrine of Christ and all his miracles were wrought to confirm the truth of that part of his Doctrine which concerned remission of sins as well as any other but how absurd would it have been to say that the miracles of Christ purge us from all sin that through Christ healing the sick raising the dead c. we have redemption even the forgiveness of sins which are attributed to the blood of Christ but if in no other respect than as a testimony to the truth of the Doctrine of Remission of sins they were equally applicable to one as to the other Besides if this had been all intended in these expressions they were the most incongruously applied to the blood of Christ nothing seeming more repugnant to the Doctrine of the Remission of sins which was declared by it than that very thing by which it was declared if no more were intended by it For how unsuitableâ—a way was it to declare the pardon of the guilty persons by such severities used towards the most Innocent Who could believe that God should declare his willingness to pardon others by the death of his own Son unless that death of his be considered as the Meritorious cause for
as little reason to attribute the expiation of sin to his entrance considered as distinct from the other For the expiation of sins in Heaven being by Crellius himself confessed to be by the exercise of Christs power and this being only the means to that power how could Christ expiate sins by that power which he had not But of this I have spoken before and shewed that in no sense allowed by themselves the expiation of sins can be attributed to the entrance of Christ into Heaven as distinct from his sitting at the right hand of God Thus much may suffice to prove that those effects of an Expiatory Sacrifice which do respect the sins committed do properly agree to the death of Christ. I now come to that which respects the person considered as obnoxious to the wrath of God by reason of his sins and so the effect of an Expiatory Sacrifice is Atonement and Reconciliation By the wrath of God I mean the reason which God hath from the holiness and justice of his nature to punish sin in those who commit it by the means of Atonement and Reconciliation I mean that in consideration of which God is willing to release the sinner from the obligation to punishment he lyes under by the Law of God and to receive him into favour upon the terms which are declared by the Doctrine of Christ. And that the death of Christ was such a means of Atonement and Reconciliation for us I shall prove by those places of Scripture which speak of it But Crellius would seem to acknowledge That if Grotius seem to contend for no more than that Christ did avert that wrath of God which men had deserved by their sins they would willingly yield him all that he pleads for but then he adds That this deliverance from the wrath to come is not by the death but by the power of Christ. So that the question is Whether the death of Christ were the means of Atonement and Reconciliation between God and us and yet Crellius would seem willing to yield too that the death of Christ may be said to avert the wrath of God from us as it was a condition in order to it for in that sense it had no more influence upon it than his birth had but we have already seen that the Scripture attributes much more to the death and blood of Christ in order to the expiation of sin We do not deny that the death of Christ may be called a condition as the performance of any thing in order to an end may be called the condition upon which that thing is to be obtained but we say that it is not a bare condition but such a one as implies a consideration upon which the thing is obtained being such as answers the end of him that grants it by which means it doth propitiate or atone him who had before just reason to punish but is now willing to forgive and be reconciled to them who have so highly offended him And in this sense we assert that Christ is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a propitiation for our sins 1 John 2. 2. 4. 10. which we take in the same sense that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for the Sin-offering for Atonement Ezek. 44. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they shall offer a sin-offering for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies and in the same sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken Ezek. 45. 19 and the Ram for Atonement t s call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Numb 5. 8. And thence the High-Priest when he made an Atonement is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Maccab 3. 33. which is of the greater consequence to us because Crellius would not have the sense either of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be taken from the common use of the word in the Greek Tongue but from that which some call the Hellenistical use of it viz. That which is used in the Greek of the New Testament out of the LXX and the Apocryphal Greek in both which we have found the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a sense fully correspondent to what we plead for But he yet urges and takes a great deal of pains to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not alwayes signifie to be appeased by another but sometimes signifies to be propitious and merciful in pardoning and sometimes to expiate and then signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which if it be granted proves nothing against us having already proved that those words do signifie the aversion of the wrath of God by a Sacrifice and that there is no reason to recede from that signification when they are applyed to the blood of Christ. And we do not contend that when the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applyed to him that doth forgive it doth imply appeasing but the effect of it which is pardoning but that which we assert is that when it is applyed to a third person or a thing made use of in order to forgiveness then we say it signifies the propitiating him that was justly displeased so as by what was done or suffered for that end he is willing to pardon what he had just reason to punish So Moses is said to make Atonement for the people by his prayers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exod. 34. 14. and we may see Verse 11. how much God was displeased before And Moses besought the Lord his God and said Why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people and Verse 12. Turn from thy fierce wrath and repent of this evil against thy people and then it is said Verse 14. The Lord was atoned for the evil which he thought to do unto his people I would therefore willingly know why Moses might not here properly be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore since it is so very often said in the Levitical Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the accusative case scarce ever put but in two cases viz. When these words are applyed to inanimate things as the Altar c. or when to God himself implying forgiveness what reason can we assign more probable for this different construction than that when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used the verb hath a respect to the offended party as the accusative understood as Christ is said in the places mentioned to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which ought in reason to be understood as those words after Moses his intercession 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Crellius asks Why then do we never read once concerning the Priest that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but we read that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and
God is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this I answer 1. That the reason why the person propitiated is not expressed is because it was so much taken for granted that the whole Institution of Sacrifices did immediately respect God and therefore there was no danger of mistaking concerning the person who was to be atoned 2. I wonder Crellius can himself produce no instance where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used with respect to the Sacrifices and the persons whose offences are remitted by the Atonement but where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath a relation to that it is still joyned with a Preposition relating either to the person or to the offences if no more were understood when it is so used than when God himself is said to do it why is not the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well said of the Priest as it is of God From whence Grotius his sense of Hebr. 2. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is far more agreeable to the use of the phrase in the Old Testament than that which Crellius would put upon it Therefore since the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is attributed to Christ we ought to take it in the sense proper to a Propitiatory Sacrifice so it is said by Moses where God is left out but is necessarily understood after the people had provoked God by their Idolatry Ye have sinned a great sin And now I will go up unto the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That I may make an Atonement for your sin What way could Moses be said to make this Atonement but by propitiating God yet his name is not there expressed but necessarily understood So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in the most proper sense for appeasing the anger of a person Gen 32. 20. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Sam. 21. 3. which places have been already insisted on in the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And that those places wherein Christ is said to be a propitiation for our sins are capable of no other sense will appear from the consideration of Christ as a middle person betwen God and us and therefore his being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be parallel with that phrase where God himself is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Christ is here considered as interposing between God and us as Moses and the Priests under the Law did between God and the people in order to the averting his wrath from them And when one doth thus interpose in order to the Atonement of the offended party something is alwayes supposed to be done or suffered by him as the means of that Atonement As Iacob supposed the present he made to his Brother would propitiate him and David appeased the Gibeonites by the death of Sauls Sons both which are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So the shedding of the blood of Sacrifices before and under the Law was the means of atoning God for the sins they committed What reason can there be then why so received a sense of Atonement both among the Iews and all other Nations at that time when these words were written must be forsaken and any other sense be embraced which neither agrees with the propriety of the expression nor with so many other places of Scripture which make the blood of Christ to be a Sacrifice for the Expiation of sin Neither is it only our Atonement but our Reconciliation is attributed to Christ too with a respect to his Death and Sufferings As in the place before insisted on For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son and more largely in the second Epistle to the Corinthians And all things are of God who hath reconciled us to himself by Iesus Christ and hath given to 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 to us the word of reconciliation 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 And to the Ephesians And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by his Cross having slain the enmity thereby To the same purpose to the Colossians And having made peace through the blood of his Cross by him to reconcile all things to himself by him I say whether they be things in Heaven or in Earth and you that were sometimes alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death Two things the substance of Crellius his answer may be reduced to concerning these places 1. That it is no where said that God was reconciled to us but that we are reconciled to God and therefore this reconciliation doth not imply any averting of the anger of God 2. That none of these places do assert any reconciliation with God antecedent to our conversion and so that the Reconciliation mention'd implyes only the laying aside our enmity to God by our sins I begin with the first of these concerning which we are to consider not barely the phrases used in Scripture but what the nature of the thing implyes as to which a difference being supposed between God and man on the account of sin no reconciliation can be imagined but what is mutual For did man only fall out with God and had not God just reason to be displeased with men for their Apostasie from him If not what made him so severely punish the first sin that ever was committed by man what made him punish the old World for their impieties by a deluge what made him leave such Monuments of his anger against the sins of the World in succeeding Ages what made him add such severe sanctions to the Laws he made to the people of the Iews what made the most upright among them so vehemently to deprecate his wrath and displeasure upon the sense of their sins what makes him declare not only his hatred of the sins of men but of the persons of those who commit them so far as to express the greatest abhorrency of them Nay what makes our Adversaries themselves to say that impiety is in its own nature hateful to God and stirrs him up to anger against all who commit it what means I say all this if God be not angry with men on the account of sin Well then supposing God to be averse from men by reason of their sins shall this displeasure always continue or not if it always continues men must certainly suffer the desert of their sins if it doth not always continue then God may be said to be reconciled in the same sense that an offended party is capable of being reconciled to him who hath provoked him Now there are two ways whereby a party justly offended may be
speaks of the death of Christ in a notion proper to it self having influence upon our reconciliation and doth not consider it metonymically as comprehending in it the consequents of it 2. Because the expiation of sins is attributed to Christ antecedently to the great consequents of his death viz. his sitting at the right hand of God Heb. 1. 3. When he had by himself purged our sins sate down on the right hand of his Majesty on high Heb. 9. 12. But by his own blood he entred in once into the Holy Place having obtained eternal redemption for us To these places Crellius gives a double answer 1. That indefinite particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being joyned with Verbs of the praeterperfect tense do not always require that the action expressed by them should precede that which is designed in the Verbs to which they are joyned but they have sometimes the force of particles of the present or imperfect tense which sometimes happens in particles of the praeterperfect tense as Matth. 10. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and several other instances produced by him according to which manner of interpretation the sense he puts upon those words Heb. 9. 12. is Christ by the shedding of his blood entred into the Holy of Holies and in so doing he found eternal redemption or the expiation of sins But not to dispute with Crellius concerning the importance of the Aorist being joyned with a Verb of the praeterperfect tense which in all reason and common acceptation doth imply the action past by him who writes the words antecedent to his writing of it as is plain in the instances produced by Crellius but according to his sense of Christs expiation of sin it was yet to come after Christs entrance into Heaven and so it should have been more properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not I say to insist upon that the Apostle manifests that he had a respect to the death of Christ in the obtaining this eternal redemption by his following discourse for v. 14. he compares the blood of Christ in point of efficacy for expiation of sin with the blood of the Legal Sacrifices whereas if the expiation meant by him had been sound by Christs Oblation of himself in Heaven he would have compared Christs entrance into Heaven in order to it with the entrance of the High-Priest into the Holy of Holies and his argument had run thus For if the High-Priest under the Law did expiate sins by entring into the Holy of Holies How much more shall the Son of God entring into Heaven expiate the sins of Mankind but we see the Apostle had no sooner mention'd the redemption obtained for us but he presently speaks of the efficacy of the blood of Christ in order to it and as plainly asserts the same v. 15. And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament that by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions which were under the first Testament they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance Why doth the Apostle here speak of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the expiation of sins by the means of death if he had so lately asserted before that the redemption or expiation was found not by his death but by his entrance into Heaven and withal the Apostle here doth not speak of such a kind of expiation as wholly respects the future but of sins that were under the first Testament not barely such as could not be expiated by vertue of it but such as were committed during the time of it although the Levitical Law allowed no expiation for them And to confirm this sense the Apostle doth not go on to prove the necessity of Christs entrance into Heaven but of his dying v. 16 17 18. But granting that he doth allude to the High-Priests entring into the Holy of Holies yet that was but the representation of a Sacrifice already offer'd and he could not be said to find expiation by his entrance but that was already found by the blood of the Sacrifice and his entrance was only to accomplish the end for which the blood was offer'd up in sácrifice And the benefit which came to men is attributed to the Sacrifice and not to the sprinkling of blood before the Mercy-seat and whatever effect was consequent upon his entrance into the Sanctuary was by vertue of the blood which he carried in with him and was before shed at the Altar Neither can it with any reason be said that if the redemption were obtained by the blood of Christ there could be no need of his entrance into Heaven since we do not make the Priesthood of Christ to expire at his death but that he is in Heaven a merciful High-Priest in negotiating the affairs of his People with God and there ever lives to make intercession for them Crellius answers That granting the Aorist being put before the Ver 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should imply such an action which was antecedent to Christs sitting at the right hand of God yet it is not there said that the expiation of sins was made before Christs entrance into Heaven for those saith he are to be considered as two different things for a Prince first enters into his Palace before he sits upon his throne And therefore saith he Christ may be said to have made expiation of sins before he sate down at the right hand of his Father not that it was done by his death but by his entrance into Heaven and offering himself to God there by which means he obtained his sitting on the right hand of the Majesty on high and thereby the full Power of remission of sins and giving eternal life To which I answer 1. That the Sripture never makes such a distinction between Christs entrance into Heaven and sitting at the right hand of God which latter implying no more but the glorious state of Christ in Heaven his entrance into Heaven doth imply it For therefore God exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour and the reason of the power and authority given him in Heaven is no where attributed to his entrance into it as the means of it but our Saviour before that tells us that all power and authority was committed to him and his very entrance into Heaven was a part of his glory and given him in consideration of his sufferings as the Apostle plainly asserts and he became obedient to death even the death of the Cross wherefore God hath highly exalted him c. There can be then no imaginable reason to make the entrance of Christ into Heaven and presenting himself to God there a condition or means of obtaining that power and authority which is implyed in his sitting at the right hand of God 2. Supposing we should look on these as distinct there is