our sins Joh. 1. 9. It is in reference to â—od's promise but that which is the ground of it with respect tâ— Hoc interest inter condonationem mâ—ram justificatioâ—eÌ„ acquisiâ—am quod ibi pana relaxatur hic meritum paenae Gâ—tak Remissio non justos sed a pâ—na peccaâ—i liberos statuit Gâ—mar Nemo prudens punit quia peccatum est sed nâ— peccetur revocaâ—i enim praeterita non possunt futura prohibcantur Sen. Hence punishments are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 justice is the bloud of Christ v. 7 3. Remission and forgiveneâ— doth not make a man that iâ— guilty to become guiltless thougâ— a Thief be pardoned yet as tâ— guilt he is a Thief still this iâ— only the gratifying of an offendoâ— not the justifying of him this iâ— a meer Act of Grace not an Acâ— of Justice Forgiveness can only release from the penalty whereas justification releases from thâ— demerit 4 It is not the sustaining thâ— penalty that makes a man who iâ— unjust to become just I know there are many of another mind but the ground of the mistake â— apprehend to be this that they dâ— not consider that the end of thâ— Law in all criminal matters iâ— obedience and that the penalty iâ— added for other ends as to dâ—ter men from doing the like Deut 13. 11. and 17. 13. and to diveâ— â—he wrath of God which if sin go unpunished is kindled not onâ—y against the Offenders but the whole Land Deut. 13. 15. 16 17. But the sustaining the penalty neâ—er makes a man that is unjust to â—e just in Law A Perjured person though he has lost his ears â—et he is reputed a perjured person still and if introduced into a Court of Justice to take an Oath â—e will be rejected and refused as unworthy and uncapable in Law Though a Thief be Burn't in the Hand yet he is accounted a Thief â—till The sustaining the penalty doth not save and make up the wrong done to the party prejudiced If a Traitor take away the â—ife of the Supream Governour â—is undergoing the utmost torâ—ure cannot compensate the wronge he hath done the State However should it be so in other â—ases yet it is most certain that â—n the case we are to treate of a man that is unjust cannot by undergoing the penalty be made just again for to undergo the penalty of sin is to be ever damned and never justified So that it Satisfacere est tantum facere quantum satis est â—rato ad vindictam remains if a man hath been once unjust he can only be made just again by a satisfaction and this is able to do it for plenary satisfaction for a fault and the non commission of it are of equal justice if there be an equivalency and just value in that satisfaction that is made to the honour of â—he party offended and law that is broken Satisfactio pro solutione est saith the Civil Law so that as much benefit ariseth by the satisfaction as there was dammage by the offence then the satisfaction is full and justice it self acquits that man 4. The fourth thing I would offer to be observed in general is this that it is not needful that the satisfaction be always made in kind but it is sufficient if it be made in value If a Beast be stollen satisfaction may be made by paying down as much money to the party wronged as he demands as well as if the very Beast were restored It was ordained in the Judicial Law that if a man smote the eye of his servant that it perish'd he should let him go free for his eyes sake Exod. 21. 26. so that God himself being judge the mans liberty was esteemed Vid. etiam Exod. 21. 18 19 32 33. valuable satisfaction for the loss of his eye 5. I would propose this to be considered that it is not always â—eedful that the satisfaction be made by the party offending but â—t may be made by an other If â—he Surety pay the Debt it is all â—ne to the Creditor as if he that â—ontracted it pay'd it This uniâ—ersally holds in pecuniary matâ—ers if the Debt be pay'd the â—aw doth not enquire who paid â— But in criminal matters it is â—therwise there noxa sequitur caput put a Man hath dominion over his money and in that respect may in way of suretiship engage himself to pay another mans debt but no man hath a dominion over himself or his own life and therefore may neither part with a member of his own in commutation for the member of another noâ— lay down his own life for the redemption of anothers This doth admirably display the Grace oâ— So that there legis is both Impletio relaxatio solutio debiti debiti condonatio God as well as his Justice thaâ— though he would have his Law satisfied yet he would allow â— commutation where the rigouâ— of the Law allowed none Anâ— it also shews the full dominioâ— that Christ had over his own life that he could part with it for thâ— life of others 6. Let this be taken notice oâ— that satisfaction may be made bâ— doing or suffering or jointly bâ— both If a man owe a summâ— money and cannot pay his Crâ—ditor in kind he satisfies him if he does it in service if he work as â—ong freely for him as the Crediâ—or shall count valuable to the â—ebt If a Person having injured mother should afterwards hazard â—is life for him this might be â—eemed satisfaction for the former â—njury Or one that is in debt to â—nother may pay him part in moâ—ey and part in service CHAP. III. â—omethings more particularly proposed towards the clearing of our justification We must be charged Must plead Cannot plead not guilty nor be justified upon the Plea of mercy for the sake of mercy Nor upon the Plea of satisfaction made by our selves Only upon the Plea of a satisfaction made by another WE must in order to being justified be arraigned and charged otherwise as onâ— well notes If a man be pronounced righteous that was never endited he is onely praised not justified Now we all stand arraigned and charged Joh. 5. 45 There is one that accuseth you eveâ— Moses i. e. the Law of Moseâ— This was one great reason whâ— after we had lost and darkned thâ— transcript of the Law which wâ— in our natures God renewed thâ— Law by Moses Gal. 3. 19. It 〈◊〉 added because of transgression Nâ— only to curb and restrain from siâ— but to charge and accuse for siâ— For as the Apostle says elsewherâ— 1 Tim. 1. 9. the Law is not for tâ— righteous but the disobedient â— e. it is not to accuse and condeâ— the righteous but only to accuâ— and threaten the disobedient Wâ— stand all endited and charged bâ— the Law Gal. 3. 20. By the Lâ— is the knowledge of sin We shouâ— not have known our selves so wâ— to be guilty unless the Law had Meminerit
that the words are used sometimes to import and signifie our accepting the tenders of God's grace and favour as 1 Cor. 5. 20. We pray you in Christ's stead be ye reconciled But withal we affirm that in their most frequent use they signifie the appeasing God's anger and the reconciling him to us This we confirm from the ensuing Scriptures Rom. 5. 10. When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son Where by being reconciled is principally meant God's being reconciled to us as appears 1. Because the reconciliation spoken of here is that to which justification is equivalent ver 9. but justification is God's reconciliation to us not our conversion to him 2. In that the reconciliation here intended is that which is the immediate effect of the death of Christ and consequently we cannot understand by it the reconciling of our natures to God this being immediat fruit of the spirit of Christ for though remotely it be founded on the death of Christ yet in Scripture it is made the immediate effect of the resurrection life and power of Christ Acts 5. 31. and latter part of this same verse 10. Much more being reconciled by the death of his Son we shall be saved by his life But we must necessarily understand the reconciling of God to us 3. Because the reconciliation here spoken of is that which is tendred to us and which we receive ver 11. have received the atonement and therefore cannot be meant of our reconciliation or conversion to God forasmuch as we are not said to receive our conversion or to have our conversion tendred to us but must needs be spoken in reference to the appeasing of God's anger towards us and our acceptation with him and accordingly the Syriack renders it Reconciliatus est nobiscum Deus God was reconciled to us Another Scripture which offers for the further establishing of this is 2 Cor. 5. 18 19 20. All things are of God who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ and hath given us the ministry of reconciliation to wit that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation now then we are Embassadors for Christ as though God did beseech you by us we pray you in Christ's stead be ye reconciled to God Besides the reconciliation of man to God by conversion mentioned in the latter end of the 20 vers and to which we are there exhorted There is also mention of God's reconciliation to us and â—hat this is the main thing insisted â—on and intended by the Apostle appears 1. In that he expresseth it by God 's not imputing our sins to us not by our conversion from sin to God and what is it now for God not to impute sin it is not â—o charge our sins upon us so as â—o condemn us but in consideraâ—ion of the death of Christ to lay aside his anger and receive us into â—avour 2. Because the reconciliation â—ere intended is that the declaration whereof is committed to the Ministers of the Gospel Now that which they have in trust to Preach is not that we are actually converted to God but that God in consideration of the sufferings of Christ is willing upon terms of faith and repentance c. to take us into favour and friendship 3. Because if the intendment of all these Verses were only our conversion to God we should be necessitated to fasten nonsenâ— upon the Apostle for at this raâ— of expounding the import woulâ— be ye are converted therefore be ye converted Many more testimonies speaking clearly to the same purpose if I studied noâ— brevity might be alledged Seâ— Ephes 2. 12 13 14 15 16 17. Col. 1. 20. Object But it may be objected that we often read of our being reconciled to God but we do not once read in the whole Bible that God iâ— reconciled to us Answ It is true but the reason is because God is the offended Ruler and Judge and we are the offending Subjects now in every case the party who offends is said to be reconciled to the party offended and not on the contrary so Mat. 5. 23 24. 1 Cor. 7. 11. See that pertinent place to this purpose 1 Sam. 29. 4. where the Philistines â—efusing to let David march along with them to the encounter against Saul assign this as the reason of it For wherewith should he reconcile himself unto his Master should it not be with the heads of these men Now David had no enmity nor anger against Saul only Saul was angry with David and yet it is expressed that David should reconcile himself to Saul i. e. that he would endeavour by such a stratagem to make Saul his friend God having given us no cause then why we should be angry with him but we having given him cause of being provoked against us it lyes with us to go and reconcile our selves to him but how by the appeasing of his anger which forasmuch as we could not do Christ hath done it That Christ by the appeasing of God's wrath and anger hath wrought reconciliation and by consequence our very adversaries being judges made satisfaction will receive full establishment if we consider thesâ— things 1. That this was prophesied before hand of the Messiah Dan. 9 24. and to make reconcilâ—ation for iniquity Which the Apostle expresly applies to Christ Heb. 2. 17. Wherefore in all thingâ— it behoved him to be made like untâ— his brethren that he might be â— merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God to make reconciliation for the sins of the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by an enallage put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make reconciliation with God for iniquities not meerly Peccata aâ—ferre aut purgare à peccato to take away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apud graecos Scriptores omnes poctas hic oricos alios est placare Gâ—ot de satisf sin or to cleanse from sin as Grotius in his notes contrary to himself elsewhere but expiare placare to attone to reconcile by removing wrath according to the constant use of the word in all Greek Authors It is equivalent to that phrase Heb. 1. 3. when he had by himself purged our sins Namely by the attoning and pacifying God's anger through the sacrifice of himself that we should not be condemned for them not by the sanctification of believers from them It is an observation of the reverend and learned Dr. Owens that wherever sin not sinners are made the object of any mediatory acts of Christ that act immediately respecteth God and not the sinner So Heb. 9. 15. For the redemption of transgressions i. e. to redeem from the wrath due to transgression by making God a reparation And Heb. 9. 26. he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself to take it away by satisfaction so that it should not be charged 2. Christs reconciling us
to God by propitiation and attonement will receive further strength and light if we observe that this was the great truth and mystery which was signified and intended in the Aarenical Priesthood and Levitical Sacrifices That these did in their institution and end typifie the sacrifice of the Son of God the Holy Ghost puts out of question by calling them shadows Col. 2. 17. Heb. 8 5. Heb. 10. 1. figures Heb. 9. 9. patterns ibid. ver 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now attonement and reconciliation is every where ascribed to these Levit. 4. 20. and 5. 6. and 6. 7. and 10. 11. Num. 5. 8. and 28. 22. and 31. 50. alibi And that not only in reference to some sins or to lesser sins but in reference to all sins to the veâ—y greatest Levit. 16. 21 22. Levit. 5. 1 2 3. 4 5 6 7 14. c. Num. 5. 6 Object If it should be objecteâ— that there were some sins froâ— which by the law of Moses theâ— could not be justified Acts 13. 39 and therefore that their sacrificeâ— did not serve to make attonement for all sins I Answer 1. All that the Apostle intends is that the sacrifices of the law could expiate no sin further than typically and that it was Christ whom they typified who could alone absolutely justifie from any sin The sacrifices of the law could not of themselves so much as attone for one sin Gal. 3. 13. but typically they serâ—ed to make attonement for every â—â—n The Jews in reference to whom â—he Apostle discourseth trustâ—d solely to sacrifices for righteâ—usness and life and in this he â—firms that they were mistaken â—â—d that it was only the blood â—â—d sacrifice of Christ which they â—gnified and shadowed that could â—ally free the conscience from the â—ilt of the least sin 2. It may be Answered that â—der the law there was a twofold â—ilt a Ceremonial and a Moral one external binding over the transgressour unto temporal punishment another spiritual binding over the offendor unto eternaâ— wrath Now sacrifices as theâ— were incorporated into their policy as well as a part of their worship were in many cases appointed anâ— accordingly served to deliver froâ— temporal guilt Heb. 9. 15. bâ— there were other cases whereiâ— they were not at all allowed to deliver from the temporal punishment Psal 51. 16. but accordinâ— to their political constitutions death was without mercy to â— inflicted on the offendor Noâ— says the Apostle these sins froâ— the temporal guilt of which aâ— your sacrifies could not dischanâ— you the blood of Christ is suâ—cient to acquite you from the eteâ—nal guilt even of those This objection being dischaâ—ed it stands established that â— tonement and reconciliation ascribed to sacrifices and that not only in reference to some sins but to every sin Now this expiation was not real but only typical all their sacrifices were not able to acquit them from the moral guilt of one sin Heb. 9. 9. and 7. 19. and 10. 4. For it is not possible that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away sins But the sole intendment of all their sacrifices was to shaddow forth the great sacrifice of the Messiah and the atâ—onement and expiation which were to be made by it This will arrive with more light to the Reader if we present it in these three â—eads 1. Christ is our true Priest in â—atters pertaining to God whom all he other Priests did but shaddow All others were only called Priests â—ecause they represented him and â—utwardly by type expressed what â—e was really to accomplish and â—o and never one could do the proper work of a Priest namely make reconciliation for the sins of the people but he That he should be a Priest then only in a metaphorical sense is such a contradiction to Law and Gospel as it could not possibly receive the entertainment of any who had not first set themselves in opposition to the whole mystery of God but that Christ was properly a Priest may be many ways rendred evident 1. From the definition of a Priest properly so called Heb. 5. 1. Every high Priest taken from among men is ordained for men in thingâ— pertaining to God that he may offeâ— both gifts and sacrifices for sin That this is the definition of â— Priest properly so called is botâ— clear in the thing it self for if sucâ— a one as is here described be noâ— properly a Priest there was neveâ— a Priest properly so called in thâ— world as also in the Apostles aâ—commodating it ver 4. to Aaroâ— who was unquestionably a Priest in a proper and not in metaphorical sense Now that Jesus Christ is such a Priest as is here described is manifest in that all the parts of this description do admirably appertain to him he was taken from among men To this very end principally and none other did he partake of the humane nature Heb. 10. 5. He was also ordained for men see ver 5 6. and herein he excelled all other Priests that he was constituted only for others and not for himself Heb. 7. 27. Lastly he was ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices yea herein he transcended all other Priests that he had something of his own to offer other Priests had indeed something to offer but nothing of their own they only offered the bodies of beasts which the people brought them but Christ had a body given him to be at this own disposal to this purpose That this description of a Priest belongs properly to Christ yea that it is he whom the Holy Ghost principally describes may be put out of question by observing that the Apostle applies it ver 5. particularly to him 2. That Christ was properly a Priest may be further established from Heb. 8. 3. Every high Priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer Now if Christ be not truly a Priest this way of arguing is altogether impertinent for it might be easily replyed that though it be needful that a Priest properly so called should have somewhat to offer yet it is not necessary that he who is only metaphorically a Priest should have any thing to to offer for it is no ways needful that whatever appertains to that which is true and real should also appertain to that which is figurative and improper Though a man be a rational creature yet it doth not follow that the picture of a man should be so And therefore the Apostle by concluding that Christ behoved to have somewhat to offer because he was a Priest mvst needs intend that he was a Priest in a proper and not in a metaphorical sense 3. It appears further that Christ was truly and properly a Priest in that he was a Priest of a true and proper order namely of the order of Melchisedeck Psal 110. 4. Heb. 5. 10. and 7. 17. 21. I do not now dispute who Melch sedeck was all that I affirm is that
import is that it is Christ who reconciles God to us if you take it in the second then the meaning is that he doth it by himself as by a placamen an anger appeasing sacrifice Most take it in the Neuter and so it is either by way of allusion to the propitiatory sacrifices by which God was said to be attoned and reconciled Levit. 6. 30. and 8. 15. Hence the Ram was called the Ram of attonement Num. 5. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Septuagint So Christ hath put away sin by the sacrifice of himself Heb 9. 26. Or else by way of allusion to the Mercy Seat which the Apostle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 9. 5. either because the Mercy Seat covered the Ark the law which chargeth and condemneth us for sin lay in the Ark Exod 25. 16. Now the Mercy Seat covered the Ark to signifie that through Christ the law should not condemn us Exod 25. 20 21. Exod. 36. 34. So Christ hath blotted out removed and cancelled the handwriting which was against us Col. 2. 14. Or else because through sprinkling of thâ— blood of the sacrifice upon thâ— Mercy Seat God signified himselâ— pleased and attoned Levit. 16. 15 16 1â— and it is very remarkablâ— â—hat the High Priest durst not go â—ear the Mercy Seat but with the â—lood of the sacrifice which was â—ppointed to make attonement â—o in and through the blood of Christ we are accepted Ephes 1. â—6 but without coming in the verâ—ue and under the sprinkling of â—he blood of Christ there is no â—cceptance Or else because it was â—om the mercy seat that God as â—econciled communed with his â—eople Exod 25. 22. Num. 7. 89. â—o in and through Jesus Christ we â—ave access with boldness and conâ—dence Ephes 2. 18. and 3. 12. We hope now that from this which hath been tendred in the â—resent chapter especially togeâ—er with what hath been deliverâ—d in the preceding chapters we â—ay boldly infer and assert the â—ruth of Christ's satisfaction Object 1. But it is objected that â—od before hand loved us forasâ—uch as in demonstration of his love he sent his Son to dye for us and consequently that he cannot be saiâ— to have been angry with us or that bâ— needed to be reconciled For Answer 1. It is true God'â— love was carried towards us as hiâ— creatures but at the same time hâ— hated us as sinners Deus mirâ— modo quando nos oderat diligebatâ— odit in unoquoque nostrum quod sâ— ceramus amavit quod fecerat Beâ— He did not love us and hate us â— the same time and in the same respect He loved us as his creâ—tures whom he intended to recover he hated us as rebels who haâ— transgressed his law and contemned his government Answer 2. There is a twofolâ— love in God a love of benevoâ— lence and a love of friendship â— love of good will and a love â— delight The first we ascribâ— to God antecedently to the consiâ—deration of the death of Christ as that which was the spring anâ— â—untain of his giving Christ and â—his we own to have been superlaâ—ve in its kind Joh. 3. 16. 1 Joh. â— 10. Neither was there in God â—ny hatred or anger opposite to â—is love but then this love was â—othing else but a purpose of conâ—iving and by such means of â—inging about our reconciliation â—hile in the mean time we were â—e objects of his wrath Joh. 3. â—6 Ephes 2. 3. God's eternal â—urpose of reconciling himself to â—s did not in the mean time exâ—mpt us from being the objects of â—is wrath but supposeth both that â—e were and behoved to continue â— till by such ways and mediums â—ur peace was purchased It imâ—lyes not the least contrariety to â—firm that God hated us but yet â— as to purpose by such means his â—turning into friendship with us â— the 42. chap. of Job ver 7 8. â—e read of God's being angry â—ith Jobs three friends yet so as to signifie by what means he would again accept them Object 2. It is objected 2ly That upon supposition that God would not pardon us without a satisfaction and that Christ undertook anâ— hath made satisfaction we should bâ— more obliged to the Son than to thâ— Father Answ We are infinitely anâ— alike obliged to both to the Father in giving his Son to make thâ— satisfaction and in taking us intâ— favour upon it being made tâ— the Son in condescending and undertaking to make it And accordingly the Scripture mentionâ— equally the love of both the loâ— of the Father as the rise and sprinâ— of our reconciliation Joh. 3. 16 1 Joh. 4. 10. Rom. 5. 8. and in râ—ference to this he is called our Saviour 1 Tim. 1. 1. Tit. 1. 3. Thâ— love of the Son as the means â— carrying it on and accomplishiâ— it Eph. 5. 2. 25. Rev. 1. 5. Gal. â— 20. Eph. 3. 19. So that to make the comparison betwixt the one and the other argues not only bold presumption but also ignorance of this whole mystery of God Object 3. But it is alledged thirdly that by asserting the satisfaction of Christ we must be exposed to one of these two absurdities either that Christ hath satisfied himself or else that he is more merciful than the Father and pardons sin without any satisfaction Answer 1. To this I return these two things 1. It is no ways absurd to say he hath satisfied himself The Court of Aldermen having a Citizen before them who â—s obnoxious to a mulct and which they in consistency with the preservation of Government cannot remit and the offendor not having wherewithal to pay may not one of themselves make soluâ—ion in the offenders behalf to the Court and so by making satisfaction to the Bench he makes also satisfaction to himself forasmuch as he is a member of it So God being in this whole affair considerable a Governour and not as a meer Creditor it is no pageantry to affirm that he might satisfiâ— himself Answer 2. Upon supposition that Christ hath made satisfaction yet it doth not follow that adequatè he hath made it to himself seeing he made it as God man and it was made to him only as God Now as there is nothing more usual in Scripture than to affirm contrary things of Christ under different respects for example that the Father is greater than he Joh. 14. 28. and yet that the Father and he are one Joh. 10. 30. that he is Gods equal Phil. 2 6. and yet Gods sâ—rvant ibid. ver 7. So under different respects he both made the satisfaction and had it made to him Having at great length demonstrated the satisfaction of Christ which is the alone plea upon which we can be justified the next enquiry is how upon this plea we come to be justified CHAP. IX How upon the Plea of a satisfaction made by Christ we are justified The satiffaction of Christ effectual before made as well as after None actually justified till they believe
the Messiah Is it possible that we should desire in â—eference to the affair in hand a Text either more plain or full He â—aid on him the iniquities of us all The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hiphgiang from the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pahang Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth properly to meet and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifiâ— he made to meet They were sâ— made to meet on him that hâ— bore them ver 11. It were non-sense to render the words Thâ— Lord made him to intercede the inâ—quity of us all upon him It sâ— true the word is sometimes sâ— translated where the subject matter requires it as Jer. 7. 16. buâ— neither Grammar nor context wiâ— allow it to be so here See ver â— 5 10. He hath born our grieffs anâ— carried our sorrows he waâ— wounded for our transgressions â— was bruised for our iniquâ—ties Goâ— doth not remit sin only in favouâ— of his Son at his intreaty as King sometimes pardon Malefactors aâ— the earnest request of a favouritâ— No Christ prayed that if maâ— without his death could have beeâ— saved the Cup might pass froâ— him Mat. 26. 39. but it woulâ— not do they were so laid on him that God exacted of him a satisfaction for them He was opprâ—ssed and he was afflicted so we render it but it might be better rendred It was exacted and he answered how 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nagus with sin signifieth to exact and require and how 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 naaneh signifieth to answer as well as to be afflicted and how translated either ways it admirably establisheth the satisfaction of Christ see our Annotators on the place That Christ was to suffer through having our sins laid on him was the faith of the Old Testament Church typified in their imposition of hands upon and confession of sin over the head of the sacrifice Levit. 16. 21. Levit 5 5 6. Their confessing of sin over the sacrifice and their laying their hands on it was both to signifie their earnest desire that their sins might be taken off from them and laid on the sacrifice and that the punishment which was How far the Heathen did in this imiâ—ate theâ— see Herodot lib 2. c. 29. and Plutarch in I side due to them might be upon it Quicquid à me peccatum est sit in hujus victimae caput i. e. paenam peccato commeritam ab illa reposcâ—t Deus As also a profession of their faith in Christ as the true sacrifice to be slain for sin and that the present sacrifice was only a type thereof And this for the second consideration for the confirming that what Christ suffered he suffered in our room and stead 3. That Christ suffered in our room and as being charged with â—uâ— sins will be yet more fully established if we take notice of that of the Apostle he was made sin for us 2 Cor. 5. 21. He hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin Now sin is either to be taken properly or metonymically metonymically either by a metonymie oâ— the cause for the effect Isa 53. 12 He bore the sin of many i. e. thâ— punishment 1 Pet. 2. 24. Whâ— his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree i. e. The punishment of our sins in his body Gen. 4. 13. My punishment is greater than I can bear so we render it but in the Hebrew It is my iniquity is greater c. See also Gen. 19. 15. Zech. 14. 19. or else by a metonymie of the adjunct for the subject sin put to denote a sacrifice for sin Levit. 4. 29. and 5. 9. and elsewhere frequently in that book we render it sin offering but in the Hebrew it is sin See also Hos 4. 8. Isa 53. 10. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin so we read it but it is in the Hebrew trespass or sin Now whether we pitch upon either of these or both the Text proves this much that Christ who had no sin of his own to suffer for suffered the punishment that was due to ours he that had no crime of â—is own to expiate became a sacrifice of expiation for our crimes Or if you will take sin here properly as the context by stating sin in opposition to righteousness seems to encline it Non per tropum est explicandum sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sumendum est pro ut oppositio monstrat Walth Then the imporr will be that Christ who had no sin in his nature nor committed any in his life who in a moral sense was altogether free from sin was yet in a judicial sense made sin Our iniquities were charged upon him and satisfaction exacted of him for them as if they had been his own Lutherus non male Christum nominavit maximum pâ—ccatorem It is a most frivolous civil of the Socinians that Christ his being made sin signifieth no more than that the world esteemed of him and treated him as a sinner Sinit cum tractari tanquam scelerosum Grot. in loc Wonderfully betraying the truth even after he had once defended it There might have been some plea for this exception if it had been he was accounted sin or if it had â—een man made him to be sin But â—s 1. they can hardly shew that â—o be made sin is in all the Scriâ—ture of the same intendment with being esteemed a sinner much â—ess 2. can they show that to be made sin by God should be ever â—sed to imply the being reputed a â—inner by men 3. That this canâ—ot be the meaning the next words â—at out of question For as our â—eing made the righteousness of God â—s not that the world holds us for â—ighteous but that in a law sense â—e are constituted as righteous â—hrough Christ as God eiâ—er desires or can require So is being made sin is not that the â—orld esteemed him a sinner or â—at God suffered him to be treatâ—d by the world as a sinner but â—e intendment is that he was lâ—â—ally and in a judicial sense chaâ—ed with our sins and that whatever the law made the punishment of them he bore 4. Christ his suffering in our room and stead will be furtheâ— strengthned by considering those expressions and places in which it â— expresly affirmed that he died fâ— our sins and that he suffered for us There are four prepositions the Holy Ghost useth to this purpose that if one be more emphaticaâ— that another they may all conspirâ— to justifie this truth First oâ— Rom. 4. 24. Who was delivered fâ— our offences this particle joyneâ— with an accusative doth generalâ— signifie the impulsive cause aâ— not the final See Mat. 10. 2â— and 13. 5. and 14. 9. Joh. 20. 1â— 2 Cor. 4. 11. and particularly whâ— used in reference to sufferings hath that signification and â— other see Levit. 26. 18. 28. Deâ— 28. 11. 2 Kings 23. 26. Jer. 1â— 22. Joh. 10. 32. in all
the places it necessarily signifies the meritorious and impulsive cause and no wise the final And so in the foregoing place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for our offences must needs be undestood that our offences were the meritorious and impulsive cause of Christ's suffering Another particle that the Holy Ghost useth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 6. 8. For when we were yet without strength Christ died for the ungodly Rom. 8. 32. He spared not his own Son but delivered him up to death for us all 1 Pet. 3. 18. Christ hath once suffâ—red the just for the unjust Tit. 2. 14. who gave himself for us 1 Tim. 2. 6. who gave himself a ransome for all Heb. 2. 9. he tasted death for every man Joh. 10. 15. I lay down my life for my sheep Luke 22. 19 20. This is my body which is given for you This Cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you Now the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among other significations that it hathe signifieth sometimes the impulsivâ— cause Phil. 2. 13. Eph. 5. 20. Rom. 15. 9. Sometimes the substitution of one in the room of another 2 Cor. 5. 20. Philem. v. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Demost Ego pro te molam Terent. Particularly when the sufferings of one for another is exprest by it it always signifieth the substitution of one in the place of another Rom. 9. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eurip. Unum pro multis dabitur caput Virg. Hanc tibi Eryx meliorem animam pro morte Daretis Persâ—lvo When ever it 's used to imply ones dying for another it always signifieth the dying in his stead Another Preposition made use of in this affair is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 3. 18 Christ also hath once suffered for sins Gal. 1. 4. who gave himself for our sins 1 Joh. 2. 2. and he is the propitiation for our sins Now this particle though it hath several significations according as the subject matter requires yet among others it often signifyeth the impulsive cause Luke 19. 37. Joh. 10. 33. especially when it refers to sufferings Jud. 15. The last particle made use of to this purpose is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 20. 28. even as the Son of Man came to give his life a ransome for many Repeated again Mark 10. 45. Now this Preposition when ever applyed to persons or things it always imports a substituting of one in the room of another or an exchanging of one for another Mat. 2. 22. Mat. 5. 38. and 17. 27. Luke 11. 11. Rom. 12. 17. 1 Cor. 11. 15. 1 Pet. 3. 9. So that from the whole we may confidently conclude that Christ not only suffered for our good but in our room and stead 5. That Christ dyed not only for our advantage and profit but in oâ— place will be fully demonstrated iâ— we observe that he is saâ—d to havâ— born our sins 1 Pet. 2. 24. who hiâ— own self bare our sins in his owâ— body on the tree Heb. 9. 28. Chrisâ— was once offered to bear the sins of many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he carried up our sinâ— on his body on the tree they werâ— made to ascend on him Now to bear sin is usually in the Scripture phrase to bear the punishment oâ— sin Levit. 5. 1. and 7. 18. and 20. 17. Numb 14. 33. Exod. 28. 43. Ezek. 28. 20. and 23. 49. and 18. 20. Lament 5. 7. And though it should be granted that to bear sin sometimes signifieth only to remove sin yet that this is not the solâ— meaning of it in reference to Christ his bearing sin the Holy Ghost puts out of question Isa 53. 4 5 8 10. He hath born our griefs and caâ—rie our sorrows he was wounded for our transgressions for the transgression of my people â—as he striken he shall bear â—eir iniquities The two words â—hich the Holy Ghost there useth â—e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nasa and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saball â—w though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies someâ—mes only to take away Job 7. 1. and to forgive Exod. 34. 7. â—um 14. 18. Psal 32. 1. yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—gnifieth ever to bear or carry a â—urthen by taking it on nor is it â—nce used otherwise in all the Scriâ—tures And besides however 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in other places may be allowâ—d to signifie only to remove or â—ake away yet that it should sigâ—ifie so here the context will not â—dmit In that it is said he bore our â—ns so as to be wounded for them â—rieved bruised chastised and put â—o pain for them which clearly â—hews the ground and cause of his â—ufferings and not only the issue â—nd the event Object But it is objected that â—his of the Prophet of Christ his â—earing our diseases is applied Mat. 8. 16 17. in reference to Christ â— healing of diseases and therâ—fore if the bearing our sicknessâ— be only his removing of them by câ—ring them in like manner â— bearing our sins is not the takinâ— them upon himself to undergo the pâ—nishment of them but only his takinâ— them away by forgiveness and heâ—ing To this I return these things bâ— way of Answer 1. It may â— denyed that Christ his bearing oâ— diseases is to be understood onâ— in reference to his removing â— them but that it imports also hâ— travelling under them as a bâ—then He had a fellow feeling â— the pains and griefs he cured â— was affected and afflicted under tâ— sense of them as if they had beâ— his own Heb. 4. 15. besides â— underwent great trouble pain anâ— travel in the curing of them Sâ— much at least is implyed in tâ— word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Est in hac voce â—neâ— quaedam â—olestiae significatio Grot. Nuspiam non portare significat bajulare vid. Mat. 3 11. and 20. 12. Mat. 14. 13. Luke 7. 14. and 10. 4. and 14. 27. Joh. 19. 17. and 20. 15. Acts 15. 10. Rom. 15. 1. Gal. 6. 5. Rev. 2. 3. 2. We meet with a great deal more in Scripture to induce us to believe that Christ bare our sins by taking them upon him than that he bare our diseases by taking them upon him for our sins are said to have been laid on him Isa 53. 6 and he is said to have been made sin for us 2 Cor. 5. 21. whereas we do not read that our siâ—â—nesses were laid on him or that he was made blind or lame c. for us 3. A Scripture may be alleged to be fulfilled not only when the thing foretold and principally intended comes to pass but when something like it falls out when there is only an allusion or accommodation to the Prophesie though in the primary and literal meaning of it there be something else intended though there be but one literal coordinate sense of Scripture yet there may be divers senses oâ— several kinds one subordinate to another Compare Psal 78. 2. with Mat. 13. 35.
in a state of friendship 2. In the constituting and proclaiming in the Gospel that whoever believes is justified As a person is condemned by a law and said to be condemned when the law condemns him so we are justified by the Gospel patent and may be said to be so when that Charter declares us justified which it doth if we believe Now the effects of this are a non-imputation of sin and a donation of a right to life our obligation to punishment is dissolved and we are vested with a title to life 1. Sin shall never be charged upon us in the legal guilt of it Rom. 8. 1 33 34. The legal guilt of all sins past is removed formally and the legal guilt of all sins to come is removed virtually That is thus justification takes of legal guilt where once it was and keeps it of where else it would be And 1. It is no more harsh that sins should be legally disimputed to us before committed than that they should be legally imputed to Christ before committed which all the sins of the elect who have lived and are yet to live since the death of Christ were 2. Because the guilt of sin may be as well disimputed to believers before committed by them as the satisfaction of Christ was imputed to believers before made by him which it was to all the Old Testament Saints 2. Being constituted righteous by having the righteousness of Christ accounted ours 〈◊〉 only our obligation to punishment is â—issolved but there also emergeth â—nd ariseth a new title to life Christ purchased not only redemâ—tion from wrath but a right to â—he heavenly inheritance And this â—hall suffice at least at present to â—ave been discoursed upon this whole affair AN APPENDIX In vindication of the Satisfaction of Christ from thâ— frivolous Objections of â— late Socinian Pamphletâ— made against a Sermon oâ— mine preached at thâ— Morning Lecture SECT I. The Title examined The Scripturâ— prefixed proved destructive of thâ— which they were brought to establish IT is not needful to give aâ— further account of the inducâ—ments and grounds of â— Preaching upon that subject sâ— what the Preface to the foregoing discourse intimates The cost of that exercise was before hand considered and whatever may be the consequences of it I hope to have satisfaction and peace in the bearing and encountring of them The party who hath appeared in opposition to the doctrine then held forth hath from what motives himself best knows been pleased to conceal his name and therefore seeing it may be omitted without prejudice to the cause â— manage I shall not concern my self about him though I could particularly declare him and assign his character Only it had been â—ut ingenuous when he had published the name of another and in â—hat exposed him to the law to â—ave given a more particular account of himself than what can meerly be gathered from two nuâ—erical letters wherein he hath eiâ—her endeavoured or may be able to wrong me I pardon him but what he hath attemped in opposition to the truth cannot in consistency to conscience and duty be overlookt The Title of his Book is very specious for what can more invite a Reader than the Freeness of God's grace in the forgiveness of sins by Jesus Christ But all is not gold which glisters a Box of poison may have a fair inscription the Prince of Darkness transforms himself into and desires to pass for an Angel of Light Error loves to appear in the garb oâ— truth I need not to tell whose character that is deceiving and being deceived 2 Tim. 3. 13. But we shall endeavour to unmaskâ— them here by animadverting these three things 1. That it is the great endeavouâ— of these men to present us as enemies to the grace of God Whereas 1. There is nothing we desirâ— more to exalt and admire and whatever doctrine of ours either directly or indirectly reflects upon the Freeness of God's Grace we disclaime and renounce it but we boldly affirme the Grace of God to be as free in the forgiveness of sin upon a satisfaction as it would have been if it had been possible to have forgiven sin without a satisfaction and how it is so you may see opened at large from page 23. to page 30. of the preceeding discourse 2. We aâ—sert our adversaries to be in this particular the only men who are tardy in that they establish justification by works which the Apostle every where excludes as opposite to and in this business utterly destructive of grace Eph. 2. 8 9. Rom. 11 6. 2. We would have observed that it is the method of these Gentlemen â—o cry up the grace of God to the â—verthrow of his holiness and righteâ—usness We acknowledge God to be infinitely gracious but withal we affirme to be infinitely pure and just We dare not exalt one perfection of God to the diminution of another We know God cannot be gracious if at the same time he may not be righteous also God can as soon cease to be God as that one property of his nature should be exalted to the dishonour of the rest Having therefore in the foregoing discourse from page 38. to 51. demonstrated the inconsistency of forgiveness without a satisfaction with the truth justice and holiness of God it necessarily follows that there can be no such grace in God He cannot be kind to us so as to be cruel to himself 3. We take notice that according to the Socinian Divinity they might have as well stiled their Book the Freeness of God's Grace in the forgiveness of sins by Paul or some other of the Apostles as by Christ For that which they assign as the ground of God's forgiuing sins by Christ being only that he preached the doctrine of forgiveness and afterwards sealed the truth of it with his blood accords to Paul and other of the Apostles as well as to Christ for they Preached the same doctrine and that by immediate revelation and also confirmed the truth of it by martyrdome and death so that according to the opinion of these Gentlemen I see no cause but that they might have given their Book the title I alledge as well as that which they have given it The next thing which comes under consideration is the examination of the Scriptures which he prefixes And he could have quoted few in the whole Bible which are more destructive of his cause and herein God displays his wisdom that that whereof his adversaries hope most to serve their design proves utterly subversive of it The first is Rom. 3. 24. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ Now the opening of this Verse together with the two following will without any more ado sufficiently evidence how disserviceable it is to the design it was brought for We have in these three verses justification set sorth in all its parts and causes First the efficient impulsive cause of it in God Causa impulsiva
of it actual punishing with the principle whence it ariseth and proceeds actual punishing depends upon the divine decree but the inclination to punish is founded in the divine nature He adds that we men have a P. 12. natural right to our Limbs and he that maims us deserves to be punished yet notwithstanding we may forgive the offence Answ 1. There be cases wherein being wronged we cannot without injustice forgive but are bound to prosecute revenge upon the offender see pag. 53. of the former discourse 2. He argues from what a private person may do â—o what God who is the suâ—ream Rector and Governour â—ught to do whereas even â—mong men that which is lawâ—ull for a private person is not â—awfull for a Magistrate vid. â—bi supra 3. The Gentleman â—n this whole affair confounds â—us justitia power and equiâ—y We may have a physical â—ower to do that which we â—ave not a moral right to do â— Father may if we speak as â—o power connive at rebelliâ—n in his Son but it is moâ—ally wicked and destructive â—f Paternal Government to do â—o so here we do not argue â—bout the unlimited power of God what in a way of absoâ—uteness he may do but what in agreeableness to his â—ustice wisdom and holiness is â—it for him to do Whereas he adds that sins give P. 12. â—od a right to punish but that he may dispense with his right if hâ— please or else he were more impoâ—tent than we contemptible wormâ— are Answ 1. If this prove anâ— thing it will prove more thaâ— the Adversary desires namely that God may forgive thâ— obstinate and impenitent seeing we not only can but in somâ— cases are bound so to do buâ— the contrary hereof both Socâ—nus and Crellius affirm and I suppose the Disciple will not varâ— from his Masters 2. It is truâ— that he who sins gives God â— right to punish him and thaâ— God may remit his right buâ— then it must be upon term which may secure his honour now it is against his honouâ— to do it otherwise than upoâ— the conditions we alledge anâ— upon these we affirm that iâ— demonstration of his grace hâ— doth it Neither is it througâ— impotency that God cannot otherwayes act but through infiniteness of perfection His next assault is upon my P. 13. Argument from the nature of God and the account that the Scriptures give us of it in reference to sin â—nd sinners to which purpose I â—ited 2 Thes 1. 6 7. upon which â—e replyes that God is said to be â—ighteous in recompencing rest to â—hem who are troubled as well as â—ribulation to them who trouble â—ut forasmuch as that is not from â—he necessity of Gods nature but â—rom his merciful determination â—o neither is this from the incliâ—ation of his nature but the pleaâ—ure of his will Answ 1. God having proâ—ised to reward obedience â—annot without faileur in his veâ—acity and truth but perform â—t for though his promise was â—n act of grace yet the keeping â—f it is an act of justice and therefore the Scripture asserts that God cannot otherwise do without being false and unrighteous Heb. 6. 10. 2 Tim. 4. 8. and by consequence God having threatned to punish sin is obliged by his veracity to do no less his truth is as prevalent with him in the one case as iâ— the other so that this exception is so far from prejudicing us that it clearly overthrows his cause who brought it 2. God being infinitely good is enclined by his nature to love vertue and though it were noâ— against his justice not to rewarâ— it forasmuch as it is impossiblâ— that a creature should lay an obligation upon its maker yet iâ— is that which his wisdom and goodness will not admit him to do How much more then is iâ— contrary to his nature not to punish sin that being formally against his justice as well as unbecoming his wisdom 3. We affirm that there is a difference betwixt obedience and sin as to the point of ones being punished and the other rewarded for â—e owe the utmost of Service â—o God as we are his creatures â—nd withall there is that in the â—ature of duty which deserves â—hat it should be pursued but â—n the contrary sin is so far from â—eing a debt which we owe to God that he commands us on the â—ighest perill to avoid it and â—here is nothing in the nature â—f sin that should invite us to â—ommission of it and withall â— is contrary both to Gods naâ—re and government and â—erefore though God be obliâ—d by his nature to punish sin â—t he is under no such obligaâ—on to reward obedience obeâ—ence being a debt we owe to â—od as our maker and ruler â—ereas sin is both an opposing his nature and a rebelling against his Rectorship The Apostle asserts the same distinction Rom. 6. 23. for the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. The next attempt is upon my P. 13. arguing for the necessity of sins punishment from the sense and notion which the Heathens without revelation have of it Against which he excepts that the same light taughâ— them that God was merciful pardoning sin without a satisfaction Answ If we consider in thiâ— affair the sentiments of the Heathen our Adversaries havâ— clearly the disadvantage for iâ— is most certain that they believed God to be offended anâ— therefore sought by costly offerings lustrations c. to appeasâ— him 2. We readily granâ— that the Heathens had somâ— light of Gods being mercifulâ— herein he left himself nowhere without a witness Act. 14. 17. and the common discoveries which he made of his goodness were intended in a kind of objective way and had a great tendency and usefulness to that purpose to lead us to Repentance Rom. 1. 19 20. Rom. 2. 4. but that they had any notion of Gods pardoning sin without satisfaction we deny and challenge him to prove it if he can yea their whole Worship implyed the contrary to what end were all their Sacrifices but upon a steady belief of Gods being angry to attone him It is very remarkable that of all the parts and principles of justified Worship-Priesthood and Sacrifice made the largest spread there being scarce any People or Nation which hath arrived to our knowledge among whom we do not find some Prints and footsteps of them And though the Heathens mistook the right end of Sacrifices yet the first Rise of them among them was some traditional conveyance from the Church to whom God enjoyned them as Types of the great Sacrifice of the Messiah As to what the Gentleman alledgeth in reference to the Ninivites it is altogether impertinent 1. In that it was but Gods withholding of a temporal judgment and that also but for a time for about forty years after they were destroyed and their City taken and overthrown 2. All the mercy they could suppose in God was