A Vindication, Instance 8

A Vindication · Instance 8

p. 284The 8^th Argument or Inſtance (as he calls it) is this.

p. 285If Chriſt be a meer creature, then the value of that offering which Chriſt offered, when he offered himſelf to God, is taken away, and the ſatisfaction which Chriſt gave to divine juſtice, is deſtroyed; for if the perſon that dyed were a meer man, and the blood that was ſhed was the blood of a meer man, and not of God as it is called, Acts 20. 28. then how could it ſatisfie for the ſins of many tranſgreſſours? For there is no proportion betwixt one meer man dying for ſin, and many men ſinning and deſerving death each of them for the ſins they have committed. And how an finite juſtice offended ſhould be ſatisfied with a ſacrifice infinite in value, is unconceiveable, and againſt the tenor of the Scripture.

He puts it into this forme.

That doctrine which takes away the value of Chriſts offering, and destroyes the ſatisfaction which he gave to divine juſtice, brings in as it were another Goſpel, &c.

But that doctrine which makes Chriſt a meer creature, doth ſo, therefore

He grants the Major, and anſweres to the proofs of the Minor propoſition, which are preſented in the forme of two Queries, the firſt was,

If Chriſt was a meer creature, then how could he ſatisfie for the ſins of many tranſgreſſours?

To this he makes this reply.

If it pleaſe you to conſider, Rom. 5. 12▪ and ſo p. 286forward, you may anſwer your own Querie; or ſee a good reaſon of this which I ſhall now propound.

If Adam were a meer creature, how could his ſin make many tranſgreſſours? If through the offence of one, many be dead, much more the grace of God and the gift by grace by one man Jeſus Chriſt hath abounded unto many. Rom. 5. 15. Chriſt as well as Adam was a common perſon, and therefore the Lord having laid on him the iniquity of us all, and he bearing the curſe of the Law, his members are delivered both from the ſinne and curſe.

Reply, There is nothing in the place which he hath directed me to, viz. Rom. 5. 15. which he hath or can fetch out with all his conſideration that will anſwer my Querie. His asking of an other queſtion will be no anſwer to mine. Adams ſinne might make many tranſgreſſours, upon that account, as no mans righteouſneſſe can render them (being tranſgreſſours) righteous and juſt perſons. 1. All perſons which afterward ſprung from him, were in his loyns at that time when he ſinned, and were parts of him, and conſequently they ſinned in him, and with him, his ſinne was their ſinne, it extended unto them, and they could not but participate of it, as of Levi it is ſaid, that he paid tythes in Abrahams loynes, Heb. 7. 9, 10.

2. Adams ſtate in which he ſtood, when the p. 287whole world was in him, was a ſtate of grace and favour with God, from which (if he ſinned) himſelf was to fall and all his poſterity with him; after the manner of ſome perſons that holds an eſtate, upon the good will of their Lord, whom if they offend they are caſt out and all their poſterity with them, for that is the condition upon which it is given to be poſſeſſed, and the children and off-ſpring are in volved in the guilt of ſuch perſons treſpaſſes, whoſe favour is on ſuch termes; God is to be looked upon as ſoveraigne Lord of all creatures, to whom it belongs to ſhew favour to what creatures he will, and upon what termes he will, and under what conditions he pleaſeth, and under what penalties (in caſe of tranſgreſſion) liketh him; therefore it was that he ſet Adam over the works of his hands, entred into a conditionall League and Covenant with him, and did both priviledge him, and reſtrain him, and abridge him therein; and this was done under penalty of dying, both to him and his, in caſe of treſpaſſe, thou ſhalt dye the death (ſaith God) to him. And thus it came, that through the offence of one, many are dead.

3. Sinne was propagated and generated to and in Adams poſterity, after that Adam fell, and loſt Gods image. It is ſaid of him that begat a ſon after his own image, Gen. 5. 3. And ſo all perſons came to be conceived in iniquity, and to p. 288be borne in ſin, for out of an unclean thing nothing that is clean can proceed. And ſo it comes to paſſe, that Adams ſinne made many tranſgreſſours; for by propagation all men have ſins of their own (over and above the ſinne of Adam,) imputed to them. Thus the paſſage of ſin and death, from one Adam to all men, appears facile and eaſie; there is no obſtruction in the way, ſoveraignty and holineſſe and juſtice, and truth furthered it, effected it.

But now in reference to Chriſt it cannot be thus aſſerted, that righteouſneſſe paſſeth upon men after this manner. 1. Righteouſneſſe is not propagated at all, but only imputed. 2. It is not by participation, becauſe none are in Chriſts loynes by nature: Chriſt hath no naturall ſeed, that are parts of him. 3. If there be any ſuch relation betwixt Chriſt and men▪ as that Chriſt ſhould be a father to them, and they children to him, that he ſhould be as a ſecond Adam, it is not unto all, but to thoſe only that beleeve and this is alſo meerely through grace, and ſo there may be an imputation of righteouſneſſe from one to many, but it is through grace. Therefore it is ſaid, the grace of God hath abounded by one man unto many: Not unto all men, but to all that receive it, that do beleeve, verſ. 17. 4. being to be imputed through grace, there comes to be an obſtruction to it; juſtice and truth muſt be ſatisfied, before there be any place for grace; p. 289and if grace cannot paſſe, the gift of grace which is righteouſneſſe and life to men through Chriſt, cannot paſſe neither. And ſo it appears that the way of ſins paſſing is more ready from one man to many, then the way of righteouſneſſe abounding through one to many. Becauſe of ſatisfaction that muſt interpoſe, that grace may have a free and open paſſage unto many. 5, If it be through ſatisfaction, that muſt interpoſe, before the grace of God, and the gift by grace can by one abound to many; and if firſt the ſins of thoſe many, that grace abounds to, through one, muſt be laid upon that one, that that one might bear the curſe of the Law, that by this means the grace of deliverance (which conſiſts in righteouſneſſe imputed, and in life,) might paſſe over, through that one, and abound to thoſe many, (as he himſelf (though ſomewhat darkely) doth confeſſe) then this one man (through whom grace muſt abound to many) cannot be any one, but ſuch an one who is able to give ſatisfaction for many. And concerning this ſatisfaction the querie is made, how it could be that any one meer man could ſatisfie for the ſinnes of many tranſgreſſours; and the diſproportion is pleaded: No proportion betwixt one meer man dying for ſin, and many men ſinning and deſerving death, each of them for the ſins they have committed. But he makes no anſwer at all unto it, but ſends me to Rom. 5. 15. to anſwer my ſelf, which p. 290ſleight proceedings will ſatisfie none but ſuch who are willing to be deluded by him.

The queſtion only will be, what ſatisfaction is neceſſary, that grace may abound to many? Becauſe there be many that conceive that any ſatisfaction will ſerve (to make man capable of grace) which God will accept, and they do not look at proportion. And there are others that hold that no ſatisfaction at all is neceſſary, in reſpect of God, becauſe God having loved the Elect, loves them for ever, and there is no change at all in Gods love, nor is God capable of changing, but is immutable in his nature; and therefore though man ſinned, yet his love was not broken off thereby; nor was there any breach on his part at all, nor did Chriſt dye to ſatisfie him at all; for he was ſatisfied always in his own love, which continued the ſame after man had ſinned as before; for in his love he gave Chriſt after man had tranſgreſſed; therefore the breach was on mans part; he had wronged God, and merited nothing but hatred, and wrath, and all evill, and no love at all; and having an evil and guilty conſcience, he was ſuſpicious of God, and expected no good from him, but feared all evil, and could not conceive how God could love ſuch a creature, or ſhew any grace or favour to him, that had ſinned in ſuch ſort againſt him; and knew not how God could do it without ſatisfaction; Thus unſatisfied was mans conſcience p. 291(having ſinned) concerning the finding of any mercy from Gods hands; therefore God gave Chriſt and delivered him up to death, and layed him under the curſe of the Law, not to ſatisfie himſelf thereby, but to ſatisfie mans conſcience, and to give reſt and quiet to it, and that God cared not for a few drops of bloud, but there was a wound in the conſcience of thoſe that had ſinned, that would not be healed but by ſuch a manifeſtation of the Fathers love, as in giving Chriſt, and delivering him up for ſuch, appeared. And ſome ſay Chriſt came to reveal the Fathers councells, and dyed for the confirmation of them. This opinion takes hold of many, and ſpreads and prevailes much; my deſigne is not to make a large diſcourſe in way of anſwer, becauſe it is beſide my preſent undertaking; only becauſe I am neceſſitated (in reply to him) to inſiſt a little on the point of ſatisfaction, and becauſe the point is of great concernment, I ſhall not overſleightly paſſe over it, but ſtay a while in anſwer to both the forementioned Tenents, and ſhall firſt ſhew that ſome ſatisfaction to God is neceſſary, and then declare what it is.

Sol. And firſt I ſhall premiſe ſome things, and afterward lay down ſome poſitions.

That which is to be premiſed, is: 1. That there are no paſſions and affections in God, after the manner of men; there is neither love nor hatred, nor wrath, nor anger, nor joy, nor p. 292grief, nor any ſuch by which the mindes and ſpirits of men are moved and diſturbed; for God had all things before him at firſt that ſhould come to paſſe afterward; and if it were good, it was of his own operation; and if it were evill, it was of his own permiſſion and ordering alſo, and that which he could eaſily have prevented. So that it is irrationall to conceive that God ſhould be ſtirred or moved with any thing that comes to paſſe, or that he ſhould be in divers tempers or mindes, or that he ſhould be one thing to day, and an other thing to morrow; this is inconſiſtent to that abſolute bleſſedleſſe of God; therefore though theſe things are ſpoken of God in Scripture, yet they be humanitus dicta, they be attributed to God after the manner of men. And thoſe things that are paſſions and affections in men▪ are attributes and decrees, and counſels, and actions and operations in God; and imply not the leaſt mutation or change in God. As for example, Gods loving of Jacob before he had done good to deſerve ſuch a thing, what was it but Gods goodneſſe and graciouſneſſe; which is an attribute in God, noted in decreeing Iacob to glory, which is called Election; and Gods hatred to Eſau before he had done evill, what was it but his ſoveraignty and abſolute dominion which God hath over the creatures, without being capable to give any account, exerciſed i… app…inting him to perdition and deſtruction … p. 293they are not paſſions and affections in God, but they are acts of the unchangeable will of God, in which the above mentioned properties in God are expreſſed. And Gods wrath and anger is not a paſſion in God, but it is an act of Gods righteouſneſſe and juſtice, by which he repells that which is evill in the creature, and contrary to his own holineſſe, in teſtification of the unſuitableneſſe of it to him, and of that which he juſtly expects from the creature.

2. There is difference to be put betwixt the decree and purpoſe of God, concerning life and glory, in reference to ſuch perſons whom he will glorifie goodneſſe towards, and the way and means by which God will effect it and accompliſh it, which is in advancing holineſſe and righteouſneſſe; in order to which he made the firſt Adam after his image, gave him an holy and righteous nature, writte his will in his heart, and then entred into a Covenant of life and peace, and glory with him upon the obſervation of his will; and threatened death, and all evil, and miſery, upon the violation thereof; and this Covenant was in reference to himſelf, and his poſterity that were in his loyns. This latter is called in Scripture the way of peace and life, Rom. 3. 16, 17. The former is hid in God; for who hath been of his counſell, or who knoweth further then he reveals? and it hath its being in God, and no where elſe. The latter is declared to the creature p. 294and it is the creatures capacity of life, or the viſible ſtate of life into which God did put him, and it hath its being in the creature.

3. There is difference to be put betwixt the love of God to the creature, and the amity of God with the creature; or betwixt the decree of grace in electing the creature to life and glory, & the proſecution of the decree in ſuteable and proportionable actings of God toward the creature.

If there be a right diſtinguiſhing betwixt theſe things that thus differ, theſe following propoſitions and concluſions will be better underſtood and more eaſily granted.

1. When ſin was committed againſt God, the love of God was not broken off, nor the councell, purpoſe and thoughts of God, concerning glorifying of ſuch perſons whom he had choſen to life and glory, were not altered, nor changed; for this foundation ſtands ſure, the Lord knoweth who are his, nor is God in this ſence like man that he ſhould repent: Thoſe whom he thus loveth, he loveth to the end, that is, he cannot caſt off whom he hath choſen. For theſe councells of grace concerning theſe perſons being without reſpect either to good or evill in the perſons themſelves, Rom. 9. 11. The good or evill that followed them in ſuch perſons, could neither confirme them nor overturne them; becauſe they ſtand upon this baſis, the immutable and unchangable Will of God, not upon the p. 295uncertain and wavering creature; and hence it came to paſſe, that when one means of effecting them, viz mans own righteouſneſſe proved ineffectual, God (to ſhew his firmeneſſe in his Councels) found out other means to accompliſh them by viz. the righteouſneſſe of another, and therefore gave Chriſt, John 3. 16.

2. Though ſinne did not, could not overturn the Decree of life, yet it broke the Covenant of life, and ſo overthrew that viſible ſtate of life in which the elect were, whom God had choſen; and ſo brought them into a dreadfull viſible ſtate of death, though not into a final miſerable ſtate, becauſe of Gods election. Sin altered the ſtate of elect perſons, though it altered not Gods thoughts concerning them; ſo that it might be ſaid, he that was before in the ſtate of ſalvatiō, is now through ſin in the ſtate of condemnation; though it cannot be ſaid that God will (becauſe of ſin) now damn that perſon, whom his thought and purpoſe was to have ſaved, Rom. 3. 11. Deſtruction and miſery is in their paths; and ver. 23. All have ſinned and fallen ſhort of the glory of God and Rom. 5. 12. As by one man ſin entred into the world, and death by ſin, ſo death paſſed over all men, becauſe all had ſinned.

3. Sin having overthrown the Covenant of life and glory, and brought men into the ſtate of death, all hope and expectation of life was (together with it) taken away, and nothing but a fearfull expectation of death and condemnation. p. 296It is ſaid of Adam when he had ſinned, that he hid himſelf from God, when God came into the Garden, as one that expected no good from Cod. We read of the condition of the elect, before deliverance, that through fear of death they were all their life ſubject to bondage. This is to be interpretend in reference to their conſciences, which tormented them with the repreſentations of death; but this will be granted, that Chriſt came to ſatisfie the conſcience and quiet, it, but not to ſatisfie God.

4. Though the election of God ſtand ſure, and the ſove of God could not be broken off, yet the amity and friendſhip of God was brought to an end, and wrath was manifeſted inſtead of love, and God inſtead of proſecuting his Decree of life, proſecutes the breach of the Covenant of life, which was violated by ſin; and ratifies the threatning, which was this, thou ſbalt ſurely die; and doth unfold the curſe in it, and open it in ſome part of its latitude, which was ſhut up under theſe generall words, thou ſhalt die, Gen. 3. 16. to 20. And Epheſ. 2. 3. Elect perſon are called Children of wrath, as well as the reprobate; they are in one ſtate till deliverance come. And 1 Theſ. 1. 10. Jeſus is ſaid to deliver us from wrath to come. Now wrath is not a paſſion in God, as I have ſhewed, but it is Gods righteouſneſſe conflicting with, and proſecuting ſinne, viz. the firſt ſin, in the violation of the Covenant of of p. 297life, and all after ſins alſo; And ſuch which ſinne, are accurſed, Gal. 3. 10. that being the ſentence of the Law, is the ſentence of God, whoſe the Law is, ſo that God as a Judge proſecuting ſinne on the Lawes behalf, is repreſented unto us.

5. If God muſt be a righteous and juſt God, and faithfull and true God, he muſt be (even he himſelf) the proſecutor of the Elect, notwithſtanding his Decree of life and glory, in which he had comprehended them, wherein his goodnes freely wrought from all eternity towards them; becauſe God had threatned, and muſt not reverſe it, leaſt he ſuffer in his truth, leaſt his word be falſified, which was, that Adam tranſgreſſing his Commandement ſhould ſurely die; and the law ſaith, That that ſoule that ſins ſhall die; His truth therefore binds him to it; God muſt be true and every man a liar, that contradicts him in that which he ſpeaks. And the Apoſtle Paul ſpeaks of ſome perſons, That knew the judgement of God, that they that commit ſuch things are worthy of death; He had mentioned many ſins which men committed, and brings in the knowledge that they had of the demerit of ſuch ſins againſt them, that ſuch ſins were worthy of death; and that it might not be thought that they judged theſe ſins worthy of death, through the working of their conſciences only, the Apoſtle ſhews that they had the knowledge of the judgement of God, and that p. 298thence it was that they judged theſe ſins worthy of death. Now the judgement of God is according to righteouſneſſe; therefore Juſtice preſſeth God on to a proſecuting where ever ſin is.

6. Though God, becauſe he hath choſen ſome to life, will not ſuffer them to periſh, but will bring them to life everlaſting, and though he love them ſo well, that to ſave them he will give Chriſt to them and for them, as from John 3. 16. is manifeſt he doth; yet in the giving of Chriſt he will have ſuch reſpect to his juſtice and to his truth, that neither of them may be violated or wronged. Hereto the Apoſtle gives witneſſe, Rom. 3. 25, 26. God hath, ſaith he, ſet forth Chriſt to declare his righteouſneſſe, that he might be juſt, and the juſtifier of them that beleeve in Jeſus. God had regard to both theſe in ſending and ſetting forth Chriſt, that he might juſtifie thoſe that he had choſen, and had brought to faith; and that he might be juſt in ſo doing, becauſe the ſinne that ſuch had commited, or participated in, was worthy of death by Gods owne dome; therefore God minds both, that goodneſs and righteouſneſſe might be exalted together in the ſame Chriſt. So in Gal. 3. 10. 13. God had an eye to his truth; when he gave Chriſt; it was written in the Law, that he that continued not in all things contained there, was accurſed; and becauſe no man did continue in all things written p. 199there, that God in the Law might be true, Chriſt (whom Gods electing love gave to the elect) became accurſed for them. Chriſt therefore died not for any ſuch end as to ratifie the doctrine which he had brought from the Father; for by his miracles he gave ſufficient witneſſe thereto, nor is this made the end of Chriſts dying any where in Scripture; but it was to appeaſe God, and to fulfill righteouſneſſe.

7. Gods laying the ſinnes of the Elect upon Chriſt, Iſa. 53. 6. was in order to ſatisfaction to God; It was not only done to aſſure us that in mercy they are taken away from us, that we might not fear, but might poſſeſſe our ſoules in quietneſſe; but it was done to aſſure us that in juſtice and righteouſneſſe they are taken away, and upon ſuch termes, as that God is no loſer, therefore they were laid upon Chriſt when he was upon the tree, 1 Pet. 2. 24. to intimate to us that it was to that end that they were laid upon him, that he might there and then ſatisfie for them; in which regard it is ſaid in Iſa. 53. 5. that he was wounded for our tranſgreſſions, he was bruſed for our iniquities, the chaſtiſement of our peace was upon him; The meaning is, he had wounds and bruiſes by chaſtiſements, which belonged to us, becauſe of our iniquities, by reaſon of which God was wrath with us, that he by enduring and bearing them might make peace for us.

8. It is aſſerted in Scripture that Chriſt ſuffered p. 300for us, died for us, Rom. 5. 6. 1 Pet. 3. 18. and in many other places, which muſt not be underſtood finaliter, as if we onelyonly were the end of Chriſts ſufferings, and had onelyonly ſome profit by them; but for us, is as much as in our ſtead; as when David ſaid of Abſolom, would God I had died for thee, that is, in thy ſtead; ſo it is to be underſtood in Rom. 5. 6, 7, 8. Scarcely for a righteous man would one die, that is, ſcarcely in ſtead of him, to deliver him from death; and ſo in application to Chriſt for us, is as much as in his roome, and place, and ſtead, which further appears, becauſe firſt the very evils which were due to us Chriſt endured, as firſt the wrath of God in his ſoule, ſuch which the very damned have in hell, but more intolerable; it is ſaid that his ſoul was heavy unto death, and that on a cold winters day, he did through the meere anguiſh of his ſoule, and while he was conflicting with Gods anger, ſweat drops of water and blood, notwithſtanding all the ſupport he had, which was his fathers immediate ſtroke; for no hand was upon him at this time but Gods; and it was the torment of the mind that had ſuch an influence upon his body, for his body was put to no paine. Now this wrath was upon him, becauſe wrath was due to us, we were children of wrath, Eph. 2. 3. 2. He endured the curſe of the law; and was not the curſe of the law our portion for tranſgreſſion? Col. 3. 10. 3. He ſuffered p. 301death; and was not death the wages of our ſinne? The wages of ſinne is death, ſaith the Apoſtle, Rom. 6. 23. Secondly, Chriſt endured the very evils that were due to us, to deliver us from enduring them, as 1 Theſ. 1. 10. He delivereth us from wrath to come; it was by his bearing wrath; and from the curſe he ſaves us, that is by becoming a curſe, Gal. 3. 13. And by death it was that he delivered us from the fear of death, to which we were in bondage, Heb. 2. 15. Now if he ſuffered in ſtead of us, then it was in a ſatisfactory way, becauſe our ſufferings would have been to ſatisfie the law, and Gods juſtice which is in the law; and the damned in hell do ſuffer for that reaſon, to pay that debt to juſtice, which becauſe they can never compleatly do, therefore they do ever ſuffer.

9. Our ſalvation which through Chriſt we partake of, is through redemption, Rom. 3. 24. But redemption in a proper acception, hath ſatisfaction in it; for it may be thus deſcribed, Redemption is a freeing a captive from the hands of him that detains him, by a price given unto him; as when a perſon is taken captive by the Turks, there is a price given to him for the freeing of ſuch a perſon. So it is in the redemption effected by Chriſt, on the behalfe of the Elect; and there are theſe following particulars in it.

1. The captives that are detained in bondage p. 302and miſery, theſe are thoſe that were appointed unto glory before the world was, but through ſin are become captives, Rom. 8. 21, 22, 23. Col. 1. 13. Rom. 7. 24, 25.

2. The perſon that detains them in this bondage, this is God; for it is the wrath of God that holds them in it; they are the children of wrath, under the power of wrath, Epheſ. 2. 3. and they are held under it till they be delivered from it, 1 Theſ. 1. 10. Rom. 5. 9. Now wrath relates to God, as the ſubject in whom it is; for it is God that was wronged, therefore he it is that was offended, and is angry, and whoſe wrath burnes like fire, till ſatisfaction be given, and then it is turned away. It is alſo the juſtice and judgment of God that detains them, Rom. 1. 31. The conſcience of the ſinner is brought in by the Apoſtle acknowledging the righteous judgment of God, and ſubſcribing unto this, that they that commit ſuch things are worthy of death. It is alſo the Law that detaines them; for the Law worketh wrath, Rom. 4. 15. that is, the wrath of God is revealed in the Law againſt all unrighteouſneſſe of men, and this worketh diſquietneſſe in the mind; till the Law be ſatisfied, God is not ſatisfied; for the Law is Gods Law, and his righteouſneſſe in it; and till both the Law, and God the Author of it be ſatiſfied, the priſoner the poore captive muſt nec…ſſarily be detained.

3. The enemies and evils under whom and p. 303which theſe Priſoners and Captives are detained, Theſe are Satan, death, the infernal pit, ſin. Acts 26. 18. 1 Pet. 1. 18. Col. 1. 13. Heb. 2. 45. Luke 1. 74. and unto theſe was man delivered, viz. unto the power of theſe after he had ſinned in and by that ſentence of God, viz. in the day thou eateſt thereof, thou ſhalt die the death, Gen. 2. 17. And God hath ſoveraign power over all theſe plagues and evils; for though ſome of them be Gods grand enemies, as well as ours, yet they are Gods ſervants as well as his enemies, and they do but hold men while Gods will is they ſhould, Rev. 16. 9. and chap. 19. 10, 15, 14. And indeed there is no reaſon but that Gods proceedings muſt be with men that have finned, as well as Angels that ſinned, till he have ſatisfaction, but he ſpared not the Angels that ſinned, but caſt them down to hell, and delivered them to chains of darkneſſe to be reſerved to judgement, 2 Pet. 2. 4. Therefore it is he that delivers men to death, and to him that hath the power of death, that is the devil, and to hell alſo, and thoſe chains of darkneſſe, there to be reſerved, till either ſatisfaction come, or the laſt doom be paſſed.

4. The perſon that redeems theſe captives from Gods juſt judgement, and from his wrath, and from theſe enemies and evils, and this is Chriſt, Rom. 5. 9. 1 Theſ. 1. 10. Gal. 3. 13. and chap. 4. 4, 5. Luke 1. 69, 70, 71.

p. 3045. The price that is given by this Redeemer unto God for his ſatisfaction, This is the life of Chriſt. John 10. 15. And the blood of Chriſt, 1 Pet. 1. 18, 19. Now that this life of Chriſt was laid down, and this blood of Chriſt was ſhed as a price to ranſome the Elect, who were Captives, appears clearly from Mat. 20. 28. and 1 Tim. 2. 6. where it is ſaid, that Chriſt laid down his down his life a ranſome for many, ye… for all the Elect; and the Apoſtle Peter make… a compariſon betwixt this price of Chriſts blood, and a price that is wont to be given for the ranſome of Captives in gold and ſilver, and ſuch corruptible things; and he makes this price of Chriſts blood farre more precious then the other, 1 Pet. 1. 18. 19. And that this price was, given to God, is manifeſt alſo from the ſame place of Peter, where Chriſts blood is compared to the blood of an immaculate Lambe that hath no blemiſh nor ſpot; now ſuch Lambs were treſpaſſe-offerings brought to God, who was the perſon againſt whom the treſpaſſe was committed; and it was for ſatisfaction in reference to ſin committed; and it pointed at Chriſt, who was indeed the Lambe of God that taken away the ſins of all Elect ones in the world, by that ſatisfaction or price which he gave in his own blood. Alſo David in his ſpeech to Saul▪ in 1 Sam. 26. 19. gives witneſſe to this truth, that offerings were brought to God, and p. 305that blood was the price of redemption for ſin, given to God: If God have ſtirred thee up againſt me being offended at me, (for that is the meaning of it, let him accept an offering, that is, for ſatisfaction and pacification let him accept it. But more directly and poſitively the Author to the Hebrews ſpeaks to this, Heb. 9. 14. How much more (ſaith he) ſhall the blood of Chriſt, who through the eternal ſpirit, offered himſelf without ſpot to God, purge your conſciences, &c. If then the price of redemption was given to God, God is the perſon that firſtly and principally detains the Elect as Captives in bondage; for he that receives the price is he that holds us in ſuch evil condition, and the redemption is from him, that is from that in him that holds us.

10. The reconciliation which Chriſt effected through his death and blood, was of God to us, as well as of us to God, which appears from Rom. 3, 25. where it is ſaid that God hath ſet Chriſt forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood. The ſenſe of the Greek word, foreign, is Placamentum, that by which God is appeaſed and pacified, who was angry before, and gives anſwers of peace to his people, when he meets with them, as in Exod. 25. 17, 21, 22. God cauſed a Mercy-ſeat to be made, it is rendred propitiatorium, and is the ſame word with this of the Apoſtle, and he cauſed it p. 306to be put upon the Ark, and there he met with the people, and communed with them in a peaceable way and manner; This was this type of Chriſt, this appeaſed God ſacramentally, typically, figuratively; Chriſt properly, really, truly, by his blood, which ſpeaks better things in Gods ears, then the blood of Abel, that cryed for vengeance; this cries for pardon, for peace, for reconciliation; therefore the Apoſtle John ſaith, If any man ſin, we have an Advocate with the Father who is a Propitiation for our ſins, who expiates our ſins by his blood, and ſo appeaſeth God and pacifies him. And by Chriſt it is ſaid that we receive the attonement that is with God, or we have God attoned to us, Rom. 5. 11. for all the offerings of the Old Teſtament were for attonement, and the people offered them to attone him; God did not offer them to attone them or reconcile them; nor did they offer them to ſhow that they were reconciled to God; for they were offered immediately after they had ſinned, and had the ſenſe of their ſinne upon their conſciences, and knew they had angred God; that by offering them in a beleeving way, looking at Chriſt the ſinne-offering (which they ſignified) they might appeaſe him and pacifie him, and ſo might have peace in their owne hearts.

But there are many objections that are framed againſt this great and weighty truth of Chriſts p. 307making ſatisfaction for the offences of men to God.

Object. 1. It is aſſerted that there is no ſuch thing read of as ſatisfaction unto God.

Sol. Though the word it ſelf be not to be found in Scripture, yet the ſence of the word is found in many places; that which is equivalent, is found in Matth. 20. 28. and 1 Tim. 2. 6. Chriſt is ſaid to give his life foreign, a ranſome for many, which words do ſignifie the price of redemption, by way of ſatisfaction, paid for tranſgreſſion, and the guilt of it. And the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is called in Rom. 5. 18. foreign, which may ſignifie juſt ſatisfaction, in this place moſt properly, though in ſome other places it is taken in other ſences; for there is an oppoſition betwixt foreign, the one is ſet againſt the other, the righteouſneſſe or rather righteous ſatisfaction of Chriſt againſt the offence of Adam, and the offence being but one, there is one ſatisfaction, or ſatisfaction at once ſet againſt it; for the words ought to run, as by one offence judgment came upon all men▪ ſo by one juſt ſatisfaction the free gift came upon all men unto juſtification of life.

Obj. 2.

It is aſſerted that there is no ſuch thing that we read of in Scripture as the reconciling of God to men, and that it is repugnant to Gods love in giving Chriſt, that he ſhould give him for that end to reconcile himſelfe to men; for he p. 308ſhewed himſelf reconciled to them, in that he gave Chriſt to them.

Sol. We read of God offended, becauſe of ſin; of God threatning man having ſinned; of God expulſing man from the place where himſelf had a little before placed him, in his tender love and care over him; and if his ſetting of Cherubims, and a flaming ſword turning every way, to guard the way to the tree of life, which argued a great breach betwixt God and man, and that not only on mans part, but on Gods part; for theſe were all of them paſſages of diſpleaſure and anger on Gods part; and we read of the whole poſterity of man abiding under wrath, having no other portion but wrath, having the marks of Gods wrath upon them from the womb, Epheſ. 2. 3. and we read of Gods wrath taken away in Chriſt by the ſhedding of his blood; and of the pacification of God towards men through blood, and of his being attoned to men through Chriſt; and what is all this but the reconciling of God to men?

And though love and anger would have beene foreign, inconſiſtent together in God, towards the ſame ſubject perſon or object about which they would be converſant, if ſinne had not come betwixt, yet becauſe of ſins intervening, there is no more incongruity to ſay God loved ſuch a creature, and yet is angry with ſuch a creature, then to ſay a father loves ſuch a child, and yet is angry with ſuch a child, becauſe he hath p. 309offended him; eſpecially when God is wiſe enough, and knows how to declare his goodneſſe and his righteouſneſſe together, and to proſecute his decree of grace in bringing ſuch perſons to glory, and to proſecute their ſin with wrath, with a curſe, and with death at the ſame time without thwarting with himſelf; nor are love and anger oppoſite to one another, conſidered in a divers reſpect; a father loves his child as his child, yet is angry with him as wanton, as froward, as diſobedient; and God loves the elect as elect, as ſuch whom he freely choſe and ſet his heart upon, and yet is angry with them as breaking his Law, and doing things derogatory to his glory.

Obj. 3.

It is aſſerted that redemption is taken in Scripture many times in a metaphoricall ſenſe, when only power is put forth to deliver perſons from enemies, and an evil ſtate, & no price paid at all; ſo in the deliverance from Egypt, there was power exerciſed againſt Pharaoh and his Realm, by which Iſrael was fetched out from bondage, but no price paid to any, yet it is called redemption in many places, and Moſes a Redeemer, Acts 7. 35. And becauſe this deliverance from Egypt was a type of the ſpiritual deliverance which comes by Chriſt, and Moſes a type of Chriſt in this deliverance, therefore the deliverance which is effected by Chriſt, is not redemption by any price paid to God, but in a p. 310metaphorical ſenſe, by power put forth againſt Satan, death, hell, all enemies that detained the Elect.

Sol. Though redemption be taken metaphorically in ſome places of Scriptures, yet it follows not it ſhould be taken ſo in all places; and though external deliverances are many times by power only, and without price, it will not therefore follow that this great ſpiritual and eternal deliverance muſt be a deliverance of the ſame kind; And though this temporal deliverance from Egypt be a type of this ſpiritual by Chriſt from ſin, and death, and hell: yet it follows not that therefore there muſt be a ſimilitude and parity in all things betwixt them; and though Moſes be a type of Chriſt, yet the type reacheth not the perfection of the thing typified; it is clear in the perſon of Moſes compared with the perſon of Chriſt: and it is as clear in the redemption that Moſes effected from God, which was from outward ſervitude and bondage, and that redemption which was wrought by Chriſt, which was from hell and from the devil. There are many diſſimilitudes betwixt the one redemption and the other; and this is one, that there is no price paid in the one but power uſed, but in the other there was both. And to convince of this the better, conſider, the one was without blood, for there needed none; but the other muſt be with blood, p. 311for there could be no remiſſion without it, Heb. 9. 22. The one was without the intervening of the Redeemer, in the place and room of the redeemed; Moſes was not to be in bondage, in the room and & place ſtead of thoſe that were by him to be redeemed from bondage; but in this ſpiritual deliverance it muſt be ſo; the Redeemer muſt be in the condition that the redeemed were in; Chriſt muſt come▪ in the room of ſinners, and muſt bear their ſins, and ſuffer their plagues inſtead of them, as hath been proved. And the reaſon of this difference is, becauſe Moſes had not in the redemption of Iſrael, any thing to do with an offended God, who had a controverſie againſt the people whom Moſes was to redeem, and from whom he would have ſatisfaction before he would ſave them; for then in ſuch a caſe againſt the enemy that held them, power would not have been ſufficient for their deliverance, but a price would have been required; but Chriſt in his redemption hath to do with Gods wrath, and anger, and with Gods righteouſneſſe, which were ſhewed and revealed againſt the Elect; for the Elect had ſinned, whom he was to redeem; and God had threatned they ſhould die the death, and they had deſerved it, and God muſt be juſt and true in what he had ſaid; therefore Chriſt muſt firſt prevail with God in the deliverance of this people, before he could exerciſe any power agalnſt the p. 312devil, or death, or hell; and this prevailing muſt be by a price paid to ſatisfie for tranſgreſſion; for it could not be by power; God might be appeaſed, but overcome he could not be, as thoſe enemies muſt, whom he was to deliver the Elect from. THis hath all been ſhewed already, and this is it that makes the diſparity betwixt the two deliverances which do typifie one the other.

Object. 4.

It is aſſerted in Scripture that redemption in Scripture is never ſaid to be from God, as it muſt needs be, were any price paid to God, or ſatisfaction given to God; but redemption is ſaid to be from Satan, Acts 26. 18. from death, Heb, 2. 14, 15. from the power of darkneſſe, Col. 1. 13. from our vain converſation, 1 Pet. 1. 18. from iniquity, Tit. 2. 14. yea it is ſo farre from being a redemption from God, that it is a redemption to God, Rev. 14. 4.

Sol. Redemption in Scripture, though it be nowhere ſaid in ſo many words to be from God, yet it is ſaid to be from the wrath of God, from the judgement of God, from the curſe of God; the Laws curſe is Gods curſe, and ſo in a ſenſe redemption is from God, as an enemy and an Avenger; it is from God as a Judge, whoſe office is to ſearch out iniquity, and to paſſe ſentence according to the Law, and hath his officers to attend upon him, to whom he delivers up the ſinner and offender; from God as ſuch an one the redemption of p. 313Chriſt is, but not from God in reference to relation, intereſt, communion, fellowſhip, acquaintance, dependance, power, and diſpoſe, &c. for in all theſe reſpects redemption is to God, and not from him.

Though Redemption be from Sin, Satan, the world, death, hell, and all ſuch enemies and evils, yet it is to be underſtood, that it is from theſe only as the leſſe principal cauſes of the detention of Gods Elect in bondage; even as when a perſon is delivered from the Gaole, he is delivered from the Gaoler, & from the daungeon or pit into which he was caſt, and from his bolts, and chains, and from all the noiſomeneſſe, and filthineſſe, and naſtineſſe, that attends that condition; yet theſe are but the leſſe principal cauſes of the evils; he is firſtly and principally delivered from his Creditor and the Judge, that committed him to theſe; So it is in this caſe; God is the principal perſon that detains, and the reſt that are mentioned in Scripture are but his ſervants. The devil is as the officer that receives perſons that are ſentenced of God into his cuſtody; ſin is but as the fetters and cords in which ſuch perſons are held, the world is but as the priſon, and death is but as the torments perſons are put to; but properly we are Gods Captives, and are doomed and ſentenced of God to baniſhment from his preſence, as Cain was, and are delivered up to the power and diſpoſe p. 314of the God of this world; For 1. God is the Soveraign Lord, and ſupream Monarch and Judge, and the power primarily belongs to him to caſt body and ſoule into hell. 2. Men are guilty of that which they call crimen laeſae majestatis, or treaſon againſt divine Majeſty; Againſt thee, thee only I have ſinned, ſaid David, therefore worthy to be rejected.

3. Therefore they are by nature children of wrath, The wrath of God is revealed from heaven; Upon thoſe that beleeves not, the wrath of God abides; 4. We ask to be loſed and diſcharged from our ſins, not from Satan, but from God, and to be loſed from the bonds and ſnares of hell and death; therefore primarily we are held in bondage to God, and not to Satan or any other. Hereto agrees the witneſſe of Scripture, God hath ſhut up all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all, Rom. 11. 32. The Scripture, that is God in the Scripture, hath ſhut up all under ſinne, that the promiſe of faith through Ieſus Chriſt might be given unto them that beleeve, Gal. 3. 22. God gave ſome up to vile affections, Rom. 1. 26. and verſe 28. becauſe they liked not to retain God in their thoughts, therefore God gave them up to a reprobate mind, God gave them up to worſhip the Hoſt of Heaven, Acts 7. 42. The Parable of the King that was wrath with him that was unmerciful to his fellow-ſervant, is pertinent to the ſame purpoſe, he delivered p. 315him to the tormentors, Matth. 18. 34. And that exhortation of Chriſt, To agree with our adverſary while in the way, leſt the Judge deliver to the officer, &c. Which places do all ſhew that we through ſin are primarily the Captives of God, as a King and Judge offended; and that only ſecondarily we are Captives to the devil and other enemies as to Gods Miniſters and Servants, though enemies, to which we are committed; for without commiſſion and permiſſion we are taught, that the greateſt tyrants can effect nothing againſt Gods Elect; and the very devils themſelves, could not go into the herd of ſwine without leave; therefore the price paid to God to ſatisfie him is the principal thing in redemption.

It is alſo to be underſtood, that theſe two, To be redeemed from God, and to be redeemed to God, will conſiſt very well together; for the captivity of the Elect, is not like the captivation of a perſon taken in war, and detained by the enemy, from whom when he is redeemed, he is totally alienated and ſeparated, and hath no more to do with him: nor is it like the captivation of a perſon, who is violently and unjuſtly detained in the hand of a cruel one, who tyrannizeth over him after the manner of Pharaoh, who laid unjuſtly heavy burdens upon the children of Iſrael, from whom (if he be once freed) he is totally withdrawn from ſuch an one, and divided, never p. 316to come into his hands or power any more. But the captivity of the Elect is as when a ſubject for ſome offence againſt his Prince, is delivered into the Serjeants hand, or into ſome other officers cuſtody and power, to be impriſoned, or ſcourged, or puniſhed with death, according to the nature of the offence, unleſſe ſatisfaction be given, and he be releaſed upon that account; ſuch a redemption as this is, viz. of a ſubject from the wrath of his Prince, is not the alienation of the ſubject from his Prince, but the reconciliation of him to his Prince; and the perſon that is redeemed from, is redeemed to man; for theſe do conſiſt well enough together, from the wrath and juſtice of the Prince, to the love and favour of the Prince he is redeemed. And though God offended, doth deliver the Elect to enemies, and not to ſubjects; for the devil is an enemy both to God and to the Elect, and not a ſubject, yet this makes no difference but that the Elects captivation may fitly be reſembled captivation of a ſubject to his own Prince, becauſe God is the Lord of devils, and they as truly ſubject, (though not as willingly ſubject) as any other that are under Gods power.

Object. 5.

It is further aſſerted, that it is God that gave Chriſt to redeem men, and if there be any ſatisfaction given to God by Chriſt, God himſelf is the author of it, and gave it to himſelf; if he gave it to himſelf, he was ſatisfied before, p. 317and the price moves him nothing, to releaſe the captive, becauſe it is not from the captive, but from himſelf, and of his own providing; and nothing is added to God by it, for it is but Gods ſatisfying of himſelf. And what a kinde of ſatisfaction is this? In the truth of the thing it is as no ſatisfaction; for if the ſatisfaction muſt come out of himſelf, he is ſatisfied in himſelf, without any ſatisfaction from the captive.

Sol. God muſt be looked upon as one that dearly loves the captivated elect perſons, who had ſinned againſt him, and would not have them periſh; and withall he muſt be looked upon as one that dearly loved juſtice and truth, and cannot ſuffer either of them to be violated; for they are himſelf, as dear to him as himſelf; therefore he provides that Juſtice and Truth, and the life and welfare of ſuch poor captives, may conſiſt together; and becauſe he ſees it impoſſible by any thing that the electcan do, who had offended, becauſe they are without ſtrength, and can make no ſatisfaction for any treſpaſſe, therefore he himſelf in his wiſdome and love to the Elect, and in his love to Juſtice and Truth, findes out a way to ſave them from ruine, and to ſatisfie theſe. And that is by Chriſt, whom he ſends; and this is all his deſigne, and he lookes for no further gain, nor advantage to himſelf, but that his goodneſſe and righteouſneſſe and truth might be glorified together, in the ſalvation of the Elect, p. 318that had ſinned; for what ſtandeth God in need of, and what can be given to him for ſatisfaction, which may be added to his ſtore? If his juſtice and truth in reference to his law be maintained, and kept on foot, with his love to thoſe whom he hath choſen, this is more to him then all the earth and the fulneſſe of it; and other ſatisfaction he looks for none. The declaration of his juſtice and truth is ſatisfaction enough, and a motive ſtrong enough to let the captive go free, and this he obtained by the intervention of the death and blood of his Son. What advantage had Zaleucus, who made a law that adulterers ſhould loſe both their eyes, and he to ſatisfie this law, that he might be accounted juſt and impartiall therein, when his ſon (whom he loved had offended by adultery) cauſed one of his ſons eyes, and another of his own, to be put out, ſave only the praiſe of his juſtice and truth in his lawes? and this is that which God grieves at. And if the Judge, loving the priſoner that is before him, and knowing he hath nothing to pay, and yet the law recovers payment, will give his own ſon to be his ſurety, and will lay the debt upon him, and is content that his ſon ſhall fetch the price out of his own treaſure, yet the law is ſatisfied, and the judges righteouſneſſe in reference unto it, and his love to the Priſoner are glorified.

Nor is the ſatisfaction the leſſe, becauſe God p. 319the offended perſon procures it, and not man that offended him; for the truth of God ſtands firme by that means, and the law takes place, and is not made of none effect, as it would have been, had no ſatisfaction been given, which would have redounded to Gods diſhonour; Yea, the righteouſneſſe of God and his love to undeſerving creatures ſhines forth, becauſe the ſatisfaction is of Gods own procuring.

And though it proceed from God, yet it cannot be ſaid that God ſatisfies himſelf, or that he was ſatisfied before; for he that provides it, doth not act it, but it is acted in and by an other perſon. The Father ſends the Son, and the Father in the Son receives ſatisfaction; and though the Father and Son be the ſame God, yet they are not the ſame perſon, nor is the ſatisfaction that the Son gives (materially conſidered) given in the divine nature, or God-head, but the Sonne took fleſh, and in that fleſh by dying and ſheding his blood, gave ſatisfaction; ſo that it is from God, but not in God, if we ſpeak of the next and immediate ſubject, which is the man-hood, if the matter of the ſatisfaction be reſpected.

And though it may be ſaid that God was ſatisfied before in reference to his own love to ſuch perſons, he did not repent of it in ſuch ſort as to caſt them off, nor was his purpoſe of glorifying them one whit ſhaken, yet he was not ſatisfied after they had ſinned, and after he had ſentenced p. 320them to death, in point of righteouſneſſe and truth, to paſſe by their tranſgreſſion without ſatisfaction; his Law was not ſatisfied in a free forgiveneſſe without ſatisfaction, and ſo God was unſatisfied, becauſe the Law was.

Object. 6.

It is likewiſe aſſerted, that there is an unſatisfied conſcience in men; men having ſinned, cannot diſcerne how Gods heart can be towards them without ſatisfaction; therefore the Scripture ſpeaks of propitiation through Chriſts bloud, and of atonement by his death, condeſcending therein to mans infirmity, which could not otherwiſe apprehend how God could communicate life and glory to men after they had ſinned, without being firſt appeaſed and pacified by Chriſts blood: But if things be rightly conſidered in themſelves, as in truth they are, Chriſt dyed not to reconcile us to God, but to heal us of an evill conſcience, and that we might know that God loved us after we had ſinned, as well as he did before, by the gift of Chriſt, who is the manifeſtation of the Fathers love after the fall which the Elect could not be perſwaded of, but by a pledge of it; Therefore it is ſaid that Chriſt ſhed his bloud to purge our conſcience from dead works, to ſerve the living God, Heb. 9. 14. and not to ſatisfie God.

Sol. It will readily be confeſſed, that it was an end of Chriſts dying, to reconcile men to God, and that they might have the anſwer of a good p. 321conſcience before God, 1 Pet. 3. 21. But that this was the ſolitary end, or the principall end, or that ſatisfaction to God is no end, but is wholly excluded, is denyed, and hath been diſproved all along in the diſcourſe upon this ſubject.

1. What need would there have been that Chriſt ſhould have dyed at all, if only ſatisfaction to mens conſciences concerning Gods goodneſſe and love to fallen creatures had been intended therein. For God could beſt have done that by his ſpirit, and muſt yet do it by his ſpirit, if it be ever done in the hearts of men. Indeed God having given Chriſt, and delivered him up to death, the ſpirit repreſents it as a great manifeſtation of the Fathers love, but the ſpirit might have abundantly aſſured the heart of a ſinner of the Fathers love without it, ſo that there was no neceſſity of Chriſts dying in that regard.

2. The love of God repreſented unto men in giving Chriſt, is much leſſened to them in the repreſentation, if Chriſt were only given to ſatisfie their hearts in reference to their fears of God, & not to ſatisfie Gods juſtice; if there were no need of Chriſt, in reference to any danger they were in, in regard of God, if God could or would have pardoned ſin without him, and his juſtice and truth could have remitted it.

3. It is derogatorie to Gods wiſdome and love to aſſert that Chriſt was delivered up to be crucified upon the croſſe, and there to ſhed his blood principally for this end, to cure mans panique fears and his groundleſſe, cauſeles ſuſpicions of God, and not from any neceſſity that there was in mans evill condition, p. 322in regard of ſin committed by him, and of Gods righteouſneſſe and truth proſecuting it againſt him. For God might have done this in an eaſier way, and have ſpared his dear Son. God is repreſented prodigall of his dear Sons bloud, if he muſt die and bleed out his ſpirits, to cure ſome falſe conceits that men have entertained of God.

4. What need was there that the Son ſhould come in fleſh, and ſhould empty himſelf of his glory, and that he that is the Lord of glory ſhould be crucified, if no ſatisfaction to divine juſtice was looked at, but only the ſatisfaction of the conſcience? the bloud of God (as it is called) would not have been neceſſary, but the bloud of a meer creature Chriſt, would have ſerved the turne for ſuch a purpoſe, had that been all.

5. How came thoſe fears in the heart of man after the fall, after ſinne committed? What bred them? was there no ground for them? were they meer conceipts and jealouſies that wanted a right bottom? did not the threatning before ſinne was committed, cauſe the horrours and terrours that were in the ſoul after ſinne was committed? and if they had Gods threatning as the ground of them, viz. in the day thou eateſt thereof, thou ſhalt dye the death, were they not well grounded? and was it poſſible that theſe fears ſhould be cured by the bloud of Chriſt, and the cauſe not removed by the bloud of Chriſt, the threatning not taken away, the truth of God and his righteouſnes not fulfilled and ſatisfied, which were in the threatning and which bred the feares?

6. Theſe fears and terrors of the Elect, before Chriſts p. 323bloud be brought to their hearts to remove them, are they not of the ſame nature with the horrours of the reprobate in hell? And if ſo, are not both the one and the other that wrath of God which God poures into the ſoul becauſe of ſinne which he proſecutes againſt men? are they not puniſhments for ſin from God? is not Gods righteouſneſſe therein revealed againſt ſin, & the truth of God in the threatning fulfilled, which did reach to both Elect and Reprobate? And if ſo, how can God remove them from the Elect through Chriſt, without ſatisfaction given by Chriſt, and yet ſuffer them to lie upon the Reprobate, without palpable unrighteouſneſſe and untruth, when the threatning, viz. Thou ſhalt dye the death, extended to all mankinde in Adams loynes without exception?

7. How may Scripture come to be eluded, and the ſtrength and force of it infringed in all other caſes, if plain pregnant places of it may be evaded after this manner, as when it is ſaid, God hath ſet forth Chriſt to be a propitiation, that is, to be one that appeaſeth God, Rom. 3. 25. and by Chriſt we have received the attonement; Rom. 5. 11. that is, we have received God attoned to us; for all the offerings in the Law were to attone God to men that had ſinned, if ſuch an anſwer may be taken and may paſſe: God doth in theſe expreſſions condeſcend to mans infirmity, who thinks God to be angry, and had need to be appeaſed and reconciled; how eaſie would it be to wreſt and pervert all Scripture? By this that hath been repreſented, it appears that ſome ſatisfaction to God is neceſſary to be given by Chriſt, and the contrary p. 324doctrine is dangerous and deſperate, and overthrows our juſtification; for if God be not ſatisfied for our ſins, they are not pardoned, and we are yet in our ſins; and this doctrine that thus oppugnes Chriſts ſatisfaction, doth deny Chriſt to have bought us; for if he payed not any price to God for us, I am ſure he paid none to the divel, nor to any other enemy; for he conquered them by force and power and might, and paid not any price to them; therefore it utterly overthrows Chriſts purchaſe of the Elect; and yet (which is much to be lamented) this doctrine ſpreads very much and corrupts very many.

Q. 2. The ſecond thing that I promiſed to ſpeak to, is this, that ſeeing ſome ſatisfaction muſt be given to God, in reference to a treſpaſſe committed, and an offence taken, and a threatning given out upon ſuppoſition, and afterward inflicted upon the perpetration of ſuch an evill, what ſatisfaction it is that is neceſſarie: whether any ſatisfaction will ſerve, or whether it muſt be a proportionable ſatisfaction.

Sol. 1. It cannot be denyed but that God is the ſoveraigne Lord over all, and hath none above him to appoint him, or to enjoyne him, to give rules and laws to him, how he ought to walk towards the creature; none can limit or reſtraine him, or ſet bounds unto him; but his will (which is always holy and juſt and good) is the rule that he acts by; and he doth whatſoever pleaſeth him, Pſ. 115. 3. & further then he ſets bounds to himſelf, he cannot be bound up to any thing, or by any one; and further then he reſtrains and limits himſelf, he cannot be reſtrained and limited p. 325by any other. Therefore he might at the firſt (if it had pleaſed him) have pardoned ſin without ſatisfaction; or he might have accounted that for ſatisfactiō, which himſelf would accept for ſatisfaction, be it more or leſſe; and ſo the blood of bulls and goats might have ſatisfied as well as the blood of a man, and the blood of a meer man (ſuch as my Antagoniſt would have Chriſt to be) as well as the blood of Chriſt who is God and man; but this comes not home to the point; for we are to conſider what ſatisfaction is now neceſſary, & not what might at firſt have been accepted of.

2. Satisfaction that will now be admitted of and accepted, is ſatisfaction according to the Law, that holds proportion to it; for the Law is Gods Law, which flowed from Gods righteouſneſſe and holineſſe, and in which, and to which, God hath limited himſelf, and bound up himſelf, ſo that God muſt deny his own Law, and his own Truth, righteouſneſſe and holineſſe that is in it, if he do in the leaſt kind wave that ſatisfaction that it requires. Now the law to Adam (which compriſeth all his poſterity) was, Thou ſhalt not eat, &c. for if thou do eat, thou ſhalt ſurely dye; & that ſoul that ſins, ſhall dye; and curſed is every one that continues not in all things written in the Law, to do the ſame. Therefore the ſatisfaction could not have been leſſe then death, or leſſe then the curſe of the Law, what ever that evil is that is underſtood by death, or by the curſe.

3. What ever that evill is that reprobated, perſons doe or ſhall endure, upon whom the curſe of the law is laid, and the death threatned, lighteth becauſe they were in Adams loynes, when he fell under the threatning p. 326of death, and becauſe they continued not in all things written in the Law, and ſo incurred the curſe; I ſay what ever the anguiſh, torture and torment is, either in mind or body, which ſuch perſons paſs, or muſt paſs, abide, or muſtabide under at preſent, or hereafter, the like puniſhment in all degrees, without any abatement, have the Elect merited and deſerved, being in the ſame ſtate and condition with the Reprobate, being equally in the loynes of Adam with him, and not abiding any more then he did in all things written in the Law; and if there be deliverance for the Elect, and the Law in the death and curſe of it be not laid, nor doth light upon them, but ſatisfaction is made in Chriſt for them, then it muſt be a proportionable ſatisfaction that muſt be given to God, in reference to which God doth remit ſuch pains of hell, ſuch everlaſting deſtruction and perdition, and doth releaſe the Elect from them; that is, Chriſt muſt ſuffer the whole, and the full, of that which either any, or all the Elect have deſerved and from which they are acquitted and diſcharged in Chriſt; Chriſt muſt ſatisfie as far as the guilt of all and every of the Elect extends to, which is as great as the light of the Reprobate, and ſo Chriſts ſufferings in one kind or other, muſt be equivalent to the eternal damnation of all the Elect, from which they are diſcharged by his ſufferings, equivalent unto thoſe exquiſite torments which the damned in hell do, or ſhal ſuffer, which the Elect had merited as well as they.

The conſequence of this, is, that Chriſts ſufferings were not the ſufferings of a meer man; for had Chriſt p. 327been but a meer man, his ſufferings for all the Elect could not have been proportionable to their guilt & demerit. For the righteous God (which without reſpect of perſons, had laid all men under the ſame curſe and wrath, becauſe of the ſame ſin and guilt, which without difference, all were under) could not ſave by Chriſt without tranſmitting that curſe and wrath which was due to all and every of the Elect to Chriſt and if Chriſt had been but a meer man, then there would have been need of ſo many Chriſts to have ſuffered and endured as there are Elect perſons; and every one of theſe Chriſts muſt have ſuffered hel, viz. the torments of hell as well as death, and then they muſt have ſuffered ever alſo, without any end, and yet could not have juſtified the Elect, becauſe while they ſhould be ſuffering till that be ended, God could not be ſatisfied; and if God could not be ſatisfied, the Elect could not be juſtified and diſcharged, and ſo to all eternity the Elect could not be acquitted; and this appears in Chriſt, if he had ſuffered and had never got through his ſuffering we had never been ſaved; if he had dyed, and had never riſen, we had never riſen to life and glory.

And this is that which I preſented, in that Argument or Inſtance (as he calls it) of mine, viz. that the ſatisfaction which Chriſt gave to Gods juſtice is deſtroyed, if Chriſt be but a meer man and not God; for how could the blood of aman ſatisfie for the ſins of many tranſgreſſours, whereas there is no proportion betwixt one meer man dying for ſin, and many men ſinning and deſerving death, each of them for the ſins they have committed?

p. 328The righteouſneſſe is in Scripture called foreign, Rom. 5 18. which ſignifies a juſt ſatisfaction, or ſatisfaction according to the exactneſſe of juſtice; and Gods ſcope is thereby to declare himſelf juſt, that is to magnifie his juſtice thereby, Rom. 3. 26.

By all this that hath been preſented, it appeares how ſleight and weak he is in his anſwer to an Argument of the higheſt weight, and moment. For what thing is there of greater conſequence for the ſatisfying of the conſcience, then to know that the ſatisfaction is full and ſufficient, which Chriſt hath given? which was ſhewed by the Argument that I brought, to be diſproportionable upon his Tenent of Chriſts meer creatureſhip, to which he returnes no other anſwer but this: As the ſin of one meere man was imputed unto, and brought death upon all men: even ſo the gift of grace by one man Jeſus Chriſt (whom he makes but a meer man) abounded unto many unto juſtification and life; In the next place he comes to diſcuſſe and give anſwer to my 2^d Querie.

How it may be conceivable that an infinite justice offended ſhould be ſatisfied by a ſacrifice finite in value?

And thus he expreſſeth himſelf.

What matters it if it be unconceivable? muſt it therefore be uncredible? doubtleſſe, in all controverſall doctrines you will not hold this for an orthodox all Tenent: In the doctrine of the Trinity, credit muſt be given to things unconceiveable; but the like liberty will not be allowed in Christs Mediatorſhip.

Reply. 1. If no more words had been added by me to theſe expreſſions, It is unconceivable, yet if there p. 329be a truth therein, that it is unconceivable, theſe bare expreſſions (without any addition) might have paſſed with him for an unanſwerable Argument, becauſe he profeſſeth himſelf to be a man ſo given up to reaſon, that he will proſtrate himſelf (to uſe his own expreſſions) to the ſhadow of it, and his faith will not carry him beyond reaſon, how ſhallow ſoever his apprehenſion is; he will not beleeve further then he can ſee, which hath cauſed him to be ſo unſetled and unſtable in the doctrine of the Trinity, and to queſtion it ſo long, till at laſt he hath rejected it. 2. That which is unconceivable, and wants the authority of Scripture ſo to countenance it, is not receivable. So did not the doctrine of the Trinity; for though it be an incomprehenſible myſtery, yet it is not an unſcriptural doctrine, but it is compaſſed about with a cloud of witneſſes, both of the old and new Teſtament, which do declare it with the greateſt clearnes; but that ſuch a thing ſhould be in Chriſts Mediatorſhip, that that which is finite in nature & value, ſhould yet ſatisfie for that which is infinite in provocation and offence, hath neither the light of reaſon, nor the truth of Scripture to draw out conſent unto it, & therfore is worthy to be expunged out of the Saints beliefs. 3. That which is unconceivable & againſt the tenor of the Scripture (which words I added, but he would take no notice therof) deſervs no credit with Chriſtians, but muſt be razed from among the articles of their faith; but that a ſacrifice that is finite in value, ſhould ſatisfie an infinite Juſtice offended, is both incomprehenſible by reaſon, and contradictory to Scripture, as p. 330appears from Heb. 9. 9. Gifts and Sacrifices while the firſt Tabernacle was ſtanding were offered, which could not make him that did the ſervice perfect: it could not purge away his ſin nor juſtifie him; what was the reaſon of it? could not God have taken theſe gifts and ſacrifices for ſatisfaction? no, he could not; the Apoſtle faith it could not be; there was no proportion; an offence againſt God muſt be purged away with better ſacrifices then theſe; T… Apoſtle that was of Gods counſel, and knew the truth, tels us ſo, Heb. 9. 23. It was neceſſary that the patterns of things in the heavens ſhould be purified with theſe, but the heavenly things themſelves with better ſacrifices then theſe: why neceſſary? becauſe the juſtice of God could not be ſatisfied by theſe, nor the truth of God fulfilled; therefore it was neceſſary there ſhould be better then theſe: but if theſe better be not proportionable to the offence, to purge the guilt away, in a ſatisfactory way to juſtice, wherin is the betternes betwixt them? there is no difference: in this reſpect they are alike, without preheminence one to the other. He repeats it again, Heb. 10. 1. as that which is of weighty conſideration, and which he would have the Chriſtian Hebrews to be throughly inſtructed in. The Law (ſaith he) having a ſhadow of good things to come, can never with thoſe ſacrifices which they offered, make the comers thereto perfect; and v. 4. It is not poſſible that the blood of buls and goats ſhould take away ſin; It was poſſible at firſt; but after God had ſaid, In the day that thou eateſt thereof thou ſhalt die the death, it was not poſſible; a…ter the law had curſed every one that continues p. 331not in all things written therein, it was not poſſible; and the Apoſtle fetcheth his confirmation from Chriſts own words in Pſ. 40. which he mentions and applies to this purpoſe, v. 5. Wherefore, he ſaith, when he cometh into the world, ſacrifice and offering thou wouldſt not, but a body haſt thou prepared; in burnt offering and ſacrifice thou delighteſt not; then ſaid I, loe I come to do thy will O God. Why would not God have ſacrifice, but prepared a body for his Son? the reaſon is, becauſe this fleſh of Chriſt is called a greater, and more perfect Tabernacle, by which being ſacrificed and offered up to God, he entred heaven, and opened it for beleevers. It is called a greater Tabernacle, becauſe it was not of this building, not framed of the ſeed of male and female▪ as other bodies are, but of another building, as the Apoſtle obſerves, Heb. 9. 11. conceived in the wombe of a Virgin, by the over ſhadowing of the Holy Ghoſt; and it was greater alſo, becauſe, not the glory of the Lord filled it only, as it did the Tabernacle made in the wilderneſſe, but becauſe the fulnes of the Godhead dwelt in him bodily, and by this greater Tabernacle he obtained eternal redemption for us, and entred into heaven to take poſſeſſion of glory for us. Why did not God delight in burnt-offering, but Chriſt muſt come? the reaſon is rendred, it was to do the Will of God. The Will of God was to have his truth ſatisfied, his law ſatisfied, his righteouſneſſe ſatisfied, that upon juſt, and holy, and honourable termes he might be reconciled; this was the Will of God. This Will burnt-offerings and ſin-offerings could not accompliſh; Chriſt muſt therefore p. 332come to ſatisfie it and to fulfil it. Therefore it is ſaid Not by the blood of Goats and Calves, but by his own blood he entred once into the holy place, Heb. 9. 12. and in ver. 13, 14. it is ſaid, If the blood of Buls and Goats do cleanſe the fleſh (being types of the blood of Chriſt) how much rather ſhal the blood of Christ clenſe the conſcience? If all had depended upon inſtitution, and that there had been no reſpect had by God of a full ſatisfaction: the blood of buls and goats, might have been as effectual to have clenſed, not the outſide, but the conſcience, equally as the blood of Chriſt, if the vertue of clenſing had not depended upon the excellency of the perſon, whoſe blood it was that did clenſe: there would have been no difference betwixt the bloods that did clenſe: therefore the value of the blood in reference to the perſon whoſe it was, fals under the conſideration of God in the buſines of remiſſion. But he ſaith, The foundation that I build upon, is not a little queſtionable, and that not a few errors do lie under my non ſcriptural language.

You tell us (ſaith he) of an infinite ſacrifice; but what you mean by it, and where Scripture tels us ſo much, I am yet for to learne; The Scripture tels us that Christ was made ſin (or a ſin offering) for us by taking our ſins and bearing the curſe; but how this ſacrifice was infinite, remains to me unconceivable. If the ſuffering of Chriſt had been infinite, there had been no end of it; if the curſe had been infinite, man could not have born it, being uncapable of any thing infinite in the infinity of it. It is enough for me to beleeve that my Lord Jeſus ſuffered p. 333for me, what I deſerved to ſuffer, and that was the curſe of the Law, be that what it will.

Rep. The foundation which I build upon, wil admit of his utmoſt queſtioning, without being ſhaken therby. As for the errors that may lie under my words, he might have done well to have preſented them unto view, yea I beleeve he hath done it, ſo far as his fancy hath ſuggeſted any to him; which whether they will prove to be errors, when I ſhall have repreſented what I am able to ſay, will be judged of by the Reader; and whether my language be unſcriptural in the ſenſe of it, or his anſwer be not impertinent, and no anſwer to any thing wherin the ſtrength of my Argument lies, or whether it be not rather a ſhuffling and a ſhifting, then an anſwering, let any intelligent impartial perſon judge.

He hath been wont to draw up my Arguments into form when he hath apprehended an advantage by it; but at other times pretermits it; I ſhall therfore do it for him at this time; he cals it a Querie, and it runs in that form, but the ſtrength of this Argument is in it.

If Chriſt be a meer creature, then a ſacrifice finite in value, wil be able to ſatisfie an infinite juſtice offended; but a ſacrifice finite in value, cannot ſatisfie an infinite juſtice offended; ergo Chriſt is not a meer creature.

He anſwers not to either of theſe propoſitions, nor indeed can do, without running into abſurdities; for firſt the conſequence is firme and good, which will be manifeſt if theſe five things be made out. 1. That the p. 334ſacrifice of a meer creature neither is nor can be any other then finite in value, which none wil doubt of, if they conſider that a meer creature is only finite, and can be nothing more; and if ſo, then the actings of it are according to the nature of it finite alſo, both in their nature, and in their value & worth; for nothing can act beyond it ſelf; and this I beleeve he will not deny. 2. That the juſtice of god is infinite, which becauſe it is an attribute of God, and is God (for what ever is in God is God) muſt needs be granted, becauſe God himſelf is infinite; and indeed God cannot be compounded of things that are finite; for an infinite being is never made up of finite things, ſo that all in God is infinite. And that which is finite, is limited; and that which is limited, is limited by another which is greater then it, and can limit it; but both theſe are incompetent to God, who is greater then all, & limits all, but is limited of none. 3. That this infinite juſtice was offended, which is manifeſt, becauſe 1. a juſt and holy law was broken; 2. a righteous and juſt penalty propoſed to warn man leſt he ſhould tranſgreſs, was ſleighted and deſpiſed; 3. man was immediately upon the tranſgreſſion judged and ſentenced with death, and expulſed Paradiſe; 4 becauſe this law was Gods which was tranſgreſſed, and the penalty that was threatned and was deſpiſed, was Gods alſo, therefore the offence in tranſgreſſing and deſpiſing was infinite, though not in the nature of it, yet in relation to ſuch a God who is infinite; which will farther appear, if this be granted, which in reaſon cannot be denied, that faults cōmitted receive their aggravation as from p. 335the matter and manner of committing, and from the end and deſign, ſo from the object or perſon againſt whom committed; the greater & more excellent the perſon is, againſt whom the tranſgreſſion is, the greater is the tranſgreſſion; therfore if againſt a Prince, it is an high aggravation, and it counted treaſon, and a more grievous death is inflicted; and if it be an high crime againſt him, it is endeavoured that his death may be perpetuated; therefore his torments are prolonged, and this is judged righteouſneſſe in the perſons that inflict ſuch puniſhment in reference to ſuch tranſgreſſion; and yet the higheſt of men are perſons that muſt die, and their breath is in their noſtrils; and they are not only finite, but their life is like bubbles upon the water, and in compariſon of God they are but as Wormes and Graſhoppers. What then if the fault be againſt God, who is the Prince of all Princes, and before whom the higheſt is but as the duſt of the ballance, who is infinite in his nature and in all his attributes; the guilt of ſuch a fault will be according to the perſon, infinite, as the perſon is; and hence it is that it cannot be expiated by perſons that commit a fault againſt God, no not by ſufferings; therefore the wicked and ungodly ſuffer for ever, becauſe they can never ſuffer enough, in any time; to give ſatisfaction to God for their tranſgreſſion, therefore they muſt always ſuffer, and there muſt be infinity in their ſuffering, ſo far as they are capable of infinity; we ſay that that which hath no end, is infinite; but the ſufferings of the Reprobate have no end; This comes from the Juſtice of the infinite God, which in puniſhing the creature that ſins againſt him, conſiders the infinite diſtance that is betwixt him and it, and makes the puniſhment proportionable, which made Eli ſay to his ſons, If a man ſinne against a man, the Judge ſhall judge him, but if man ſinne against the Lord, who ſhall intreat for him? the diſtance is ſuch that there is no mediatour that the creature can find out for him, but he is puniſhed with everlaſting deſtruction p. 336from the preſence of the Lord. 4. That ſacrifice is ſomething that was ordained of God to ſatisfie the juſtice of God, which muſt needs be confeſſed, if it can be proved that God was attoned, appeaſed, pacified by ſacrifice, and that tranſgreſſions againſt God, which carry infinite guilt in them are remitted by them; but this is manifeſt from many places of Scripture, Lev. 1. 4. and chap. 4. 26, 31, 34. and divers others. 5. The ſacrifice that Chriſt offered to God, when he offered himſelf to God, was ſufficient to ſatisfie Gods juſtice, though infinitely wronged, and offended by the Elects tranſgreſſions, Rom 8. 33, 34. Who can lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect? it is God that juſtifieth; but how can that be when ſo juſt and ſo holy a law hath been tranſgreſſed, and the juſtice of God calling upon God for ſatisfaction? The Apoſtle anſwers it in the next words, Who can condemne? it is Chriſt that died, or rather that is riſen again. This imports that Chriſt by dying hath given ſuch ſatisfaction that nothing can condemne; the Law that was tranſgreſſed cannot, Gods juſtice cannot, Heb. 9. 26. Christ hath once in the end of the world appeared to put away ſin by the ſacrifice of himſelf, and ver. 12. Chriſt by his own blood entred once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

The minor Propoſition or the Aſſumption is undeniable, and needs no proof, which is this; A ſacrifice finite in value, cannot ſatisfie an infinite juſtice offended; for there muſt be ſome proportion betwixt the offence by which infinite juſtice is ingaged againſt perſons that commit it, and the ſatisfaction that is tendred and given to juſtice ſo ingaged, in reference to tranſgreſſion; but what proportion betwixt a finite ſacrifice of a finite value and vertue, and infinite juſtice moved, ſtirred, offended, and ingaged againſt men?

Now unto this Argument there is no anſwer returned, but ſome little arguing there is againſt an infinite ſacrifice, which is rather a denying of the concluſion, then an anſwering to any premiſe of the Argument. Notwithſtanding it is neceſſary that I conſider what he objecteth againſt the thing which I drive at, though he comes not near the Argument, which I propounded to arrive at it.

p. 337Repl. How doth that appear in my expreſſions, when I onelyonly ask a queſtion how a Sacrifice finite in value, can ſatisfie an infinite Juſtice offended? And in ſteed of anſwering it, there is deep ſilence, he paſſeth it over as if he had not obſerved it.

Yet he ſaith, The Scripture tels us that Chriſt was made ſin, or a ſin-offering for us, by taking our ſins, and bearing the Curſe: but how this Sacrifice was infinite, to me is unconceivable.

Repl. And doth not the Scripture tell us, that the perſon that was made this ſin-offering was God? therefore his bloud is called the bloud of God, Acts 20. 28. was the Lord of glory; therefore it is ſaid, had they known him, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory: now this is the Title of the moſt high God, Pſal. 24. 7. Pſal. 29. 3. Was the great Shepherd of the ſheep; yea the chief Shepherd; which is equivalent to the moſt high God: for the moſt high is familiarly in Scripture called a Shepherd. Pſal. 23. 1, and Pſal. 80. 1. And if ſo, then he is chief Shepherd; and if chief Shepherd, then Chriſt is he, becauſe there are not two chief Shepherds, but one chief Shepherd; and ſo the Father and Chriſt are one and the ſame chief Shepherd. Heb. 13. 20. 1 Pet. 5. 4. The great or chief Shepherd is ſaid to be brought again from the dead by the Father: ſo that the perſon that was this ſin-offering, p. 338was as great, as high, as excellent, as can be imagined; as high as the higheſt, infinitely high and great, as theſe Scriptures do declare; for ſuch a perſon according to the fleſh that he aſſumed, was crucified, did ſhed his bloud, was raiſed again by the Father, in ſome places of Scripture, by himſelf in other; for the Father and he work the ſame works; the Father raiſeth the dead, yea the dead body of Chriſt; and the Son raiſeth the dead, and his own dead body alſo; as hath been ſhewed before.

Yea further, Doth not the Scripture tell us, that Chriſt through the eternal Spirit offered up himſelf without ſpot to God, and that his blood in this regard is made more effectual for the purging away of ſin, than the bloud of Bulls and Goats? Heb. 9. 14. How much more (ſaith the Apoſtle) ſhall the bloud of Chriſt, who through the eternal Spirit offered up himſelf to God, purge your Conſciences from dead works to ſerve the living God? In this Scripture here is both the Sacrifice and the Prieſt that offered it. Chriſt according to his Humanity is the ſacrifice; it was himſelf according to the Fleſh that was offered up: and Chriſt according to his Divinity or Deity was the Prieſt that offered up him according to the Fleſh. It is ſaid that Chriſt did it through the Eternal Spirit; What is this Eternal Spirit? It was not the ſoul of Chriſt; for firſt, The ſoul of Chriſt is not properly p. 339eternal, no more then he will grant the ſufferings of the creature in hell to be infinite; and yet they never ſhall have end: that is properly eternal which neither hath beginning nor ending, and ſo cannot be meaſured: and therefore nothing can be ſaid to be paſt, and nothing future and to come, in that which is eternal; and eternity is one of the Attributes of the moſt high God, and incommunicable to the creature; though ſomtimes that which hath no end is ſaid (but very improperly) to be eternal.

2. The ſoul of Chriſt may be ſaid to be a part of the ſacrifice that Chriſt offered up to God by or through the eternal Spirit; for though he ſuffered in the fleſh, and ſhed his bloud according to the fleſh, yet he ſuffered in the ſoul, bore the wrath of God in the ſoul, and the curſe of ſin lay upon the ſoul as well as upon the body; therefore the ſoul as well as the body was in a ſenſe offered up to God; and therefore both of them are diſtinct from the eternal ſpirit that is here ſpoken of, by which it is ſaid he offered up himſelf; that which was offered, and that by which it was offered, are different things from one another. 3. When Chriſt ſpeaks of his ſoul, he calls it Spirit, without adding the Epithite of Eternal to it. Luke 2…. 46. 4. The ſouls of men may be as properly and truly called eternal Spirits, as the ſoul of Chriſt be called an eternal Spirit, being of the p. 340ſame nature both the one and the other: But where is ſuch an Adjective added to them in Scripture, as Eternal?

Nor can the Spirit of God be meant by this eternal ſpirit; for Chriſt in reference to the eternal ſpirit, is made the Prieſt and the Efficient that offered up to God that which was offered up, viz. the whole Humane Nature of Chriſt conſiſting of ſoul and body; though Scripture ſpeak moſt of the body in which he dyed and ſhed his bloud. For this Pronoun who, points at ſomthing in Chriſt beſides ſoul and body which was offered to God; which did ſlay the ſacrifice, and offer it up: and this can be nothing but the eternal ſpirit in Chriſt, the Deity of Chriſt, by which ſpirit he went and preached to the ſpirits in priſon in the days of Noah, before he had either ſoul or body; and by which ſpirit he ſearcheth the heart, which the ſoul of Chriſt cannot do: and the ſpirit of God it was not, becauſe Chriſt is ſpoken of in thoſe places, and not the holy Ghoſt. Nor can it be ſaid that he offered up himſelf by another ſpirit that was not his, but by his own ſpirit; as it is ſaid, that he entred into heaven not by other bloud which was not his, but by his own bloud, Heb. 9. 12. Beſides, this offering up of himſelf through the eternal ſpirit, is that that is mentioned to put the value upon the offering up of himſelf to God, above all the legal Sacrifices; for p. 341otherwiſe, the bloud of a man is no more to God than the bloud of a beaſt: but the perſon in reference to this eternal ſpirit, is more excellent and glorious than all other creatures either men or beaſts; in which regard his fleſh is called a greater and more perfect Tabernacle, becauſe this eternal ſpirit dwelt in it, and filled it with glory. By the bloud of this perſon he entred in the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

And this is the formal reaſon and cauſe whence it came to paſs that the ſufferings of Chriſt, which both in ſoul and body were finite and received an end, for he ſuffered once, and doth not alwaies ſuffer; yet are able to expiate ſins which carry infinite guilt in them, being againſt an infinite God; and are able to free millions of perſons from ſufferings; which are as it were eternal and infinite, becauſe they would not have any end, if Chriſt by ſuffering had not diſcharged from them; for otherwiſe it would be utterly impoſſible that by one ſacrifice or offering he ſhould for ever perfect them that are ſanctified, but it would have been as when the high Prieſt offered up daily the ſame ſacrifices, becauſe ſin could not be taken away by one ſacrifice: but it is this eternal ſpirit that doth put the worth, and value, and merit into this one ſacrifice: therefore it is ſaid that every Prieſt ſtandeth daily miniſtring and offering up p. 342the ſame ſacrifices, which can never take away ſin; But this man after he had offered one ſacrifice for ſins, for ever ſate down on the right hand of God, expecting from henceforth till his enemies be made his foot-ſtool: Heb. 10. 11, 12, 13. As one that hath done a work that hath great merit, deſert, and worth in it expects a reward, looks that things ſhould be ſo and ſo done to him; ſo Chriſt after he had offered one ſacrifice, ſate down, expecting the enemies to be ſubdued at his feet: which had the offering been of himſelf a meer man, he could not have done; for what is man that he ſhould deſerve any thing of God?

Now becauſe the word merit doth reliſh ill in reference to Chriſt himſelf with many, and becauſe all ſuch who are againſt ſatisfaction by Chriſt, or at leaſt againſt full ſatisfaction, are much more againſt merit, becauſe there is no ſuch word found in Scripture, therefore I ſhall clear up the Doctrine of Chriſts merit from the Scripture.

1. Scripture teſtifies that Chriſt hath made a purchaſe; Acts 20. 28. Feed the flock of God which he hath purchaſed with his own bloud: this is ſpoken of Chriſt, who is called God; and he is ſaid to purchaſe the Church with his bloud. The Church is called a purchaſed poſſeſſion. Epheſ. 1. 14. The Jews were called a people peculiar by purchaſe; ſo in the Original: p. 3431 Pet. 2. 9. Salvation is ſaid to be obtained by purchaſe through our Lord Jeſus Chriſt: 1 Theſ. 5. 9. ſo it is in the Greek. Now this purchaſe is not an acquiſition of grace, as ſome may conceive, who may give this ſenſe of it: Chriſt hath gained the Church, and gained or obtained ſalvation; but through grace he obtained and gained; which in an analogical ſenſe may be called a purchaſe: but this purchaſe is an acquiſition of work, as the Greek word ſignifies that is uſed by the holy Ghoſt, which is foreign and foreign, which ſignifies to acquire, and get by work; which is uſed in 1 Tim. 3. 13. They that have uſed the Office of a Deacon well, purchaſe to themſelves a good degree. Now he that purchaſeth any thing, deſerves the thing that he purchaſeth; but Chriſt hath purchaſed the Church, hath purchaſed ſalvation, hath performed a work that deſerves the having of the Church, and the having of ſalvation for the Church; ſo that if words might not be formally ſtood upon too much, it is manifeſt that we have the thing in equivalent expreſſions.

2. Merit and Deſert properly have reſpect to ſome work which is not due, neither could be required from ſuch a perſon; in which ſenſe Chriſt may be ſaid to merit, when yet the perſons on whoſe behalf Chriſt hath done ſuch a work, could not have been ſaid to have merited, if they p. 344in their own perſons had done it; the reaſon is, becauſe if men having ſinned againſt God, had been able to ſatisfie the Law to the utmoſt, in reference to their ſin they had committed againſt it, and had done it, yet they could have merited nothing from God, becauſe ſuch ſatisfaction was due from them who had ſo offended, and it would be but the paying of a juſt debt; but if an innocent one will come in for another, and this not only out of his reſpect to the delinquent or offending perſon, but alſo to accompliſh the will of the offended perſon, this is not debt, this could not be required; there is not any Law that requires an innocent one to ſuffer; therefore here is deſert and merit. Now this is the caſe in reference to Chriſts ſufferings, they are ſufferings of a juſt one for unjuſt ones, as the Scripture teſtifies, 1 Pet. 3. 18. therefore there is deſert and merit in it.

3. There is a Covenant entred into betwixt God and Chriſt voluntarily on both ſides, in which ſomthing is required and condeſcended to upon condition; in which reſpect it may be ſaid, that Chriſt having done the works required, deſerves the accompliſhment of the condition agreed on; as Jacob having ſerved for a wife, might ſay, Give me the wife which I have ſerved for: which yet cannot be aſſerted in reference to the Covenant of God with Adam; for though it was of works, yet thoſe works p. 345might have been required without covenant, and conſequently without condition; and ſo it was of grace that there was either the one or the other, either covenant or condition; but works might have been required without any intimation of reward. But Chriſt is a more excellent perſon then Adam; he is the Lord from heaven; a Son, and not a ſervant, and did voluntarily empty himſelf, and humble himſelf, and come in the form of a ſervant; Philip. 2. 7. therefore God highly exalted him in our fleſh, and us in him, and it was compact and covenant, as appears from Tit. 1. 2. God which cannot ly, promiſed eternal life before the world was. To whom was this promiſe of God made, while as yet the world was not made? To no creature, becauſe there was no creature; it was made to Chriſt, it was the Fathers promiſe to the Son, it reſpected a work to be done by Chriſt, to which work the Father made a promiſe; the work was the Redemption of Elect in a way of ſatisfaction to juſtice, becauſe of tranſgreſſion; and the promiſe was of eternal life to the Elect ſo redeemed. Iſa. 42. 6. Chap. 49. 8.

4. There was ſomthing performed by Chriſt for the ſatisfaction of God, which was ſuperabundant to the tranſgreſſion of all the Elect, in reference to the dignity and excellency of the Perſon that performed it, which was not a meer man, as hath been abundantly proved, but Godman: p. 346for as there is no proportion betwixt God offended and man ſatisfying, ſo there is no proportion betwixt man ſinning, and God ſatisfying for ſuch ſin; and as in ſome ſenſe a meaner ſuffering for ſin would have been ſo far from meriting, that he could not have ſatisfied, ſo in a ſenſe it may be ſaid, that ſuch a perſon as Chriſt is ſuffering, not onelyonly ſatisfyed, but merited in ſatisfying; for this one ſacrifice of Chriſt▪ offering up himſelf to God in the vertue, efficacy, value, and force of it, might have extended to have purged away the ſins of millions more tranſgreſſors, if God had pleaſed, and if they had belonged to the Election of Grace.

5. God had ſatisfaction which was full and compleat, and perfect in Chriſt, and which was given at once for the ſins of all the Elect, which without Chriſt could not have been had no not by the ſufferings of the perſons that had ſinned, though God ſhould have laid upon them as much puniſhment as they could be able to bear; yet becauſe the guilt is infinite, and the creature finite, the creature might have been ever ſuffering and never ſatisfying: Now it is an advantage to the Creditor to receive full payment, and to have it at once; and it is a diſadvantage to receive it in parcels, and never to receive all. But tranſgreſſors, if the debt ly upon them, will be ever paying, but never all paid; p. 347will be ever ſuffering, but never ſatisfying by what is ſuffered, but ſtill God is a loſer when ever the account is caſt up: But in Chriſts undertaking, becauſe he paid God all, therefore God hath advantage by Chriſts interpoſition and ſuretyſhip which Chriſt hath undergone, in which reſpect it may be ſaid that Chriſt hath merited and deſerved.

6. The death of Chriſt is not only of vertue and of value for the redemption of tranſgreſſors from death and deſtruction in a way of ſatisfaction, but it alſo obtains an eternal inheritance for ſuch perſons who are ſo redeemed; and this comes from the ſuper-abundance of worth and value in Chriſts death; that after ſatisfaction even to God by it, there remains yet ſomthing of vertue and efficacy in it, to deſerve ſome further favor and grace for tranſgreſſors, then barely to free them and deliver them; viz. to procure and obtain for them eternal inheritance, Heb. 9. 15. and all this comes to paſs from the tranſcendent glory and majeſty of the perſon who dyed and roſe again; Chriſt through the eternal Spirit offered himſelf to God, and ſo effected not only eternal Redemption, but eternal Inheritance for us, becauſe his Sacrifice who thus offered himſelf, was infinite in value.

But he argues againſt an infinite ſacrifice thus,

If the ſufferings of Chriſt had been infinite, there had been no end of them.

p. 348Repl. The ſufferings of Chriſt were not infinite, materially conſidered, neither in the quality of them, nor in the duration and continuance of them; but in reference to the ſubject perſon who underwent them, who was God manifeſt in fleſh; The Word made fleſh, who dwelt among us, and was put to death among us, and in ſuffering offered a ſacrifice in value infinite.

He further ſaith,

If the Curſe had been infinite, man could not have born it, being uncapable of any thing infinite in the infinity of it.

Repl. It is true that man cannot bear it, as not being capable to bear any thing that is infinite, therefore he is ever bearing as he is capable, and yet muſt ever bear without an end; becauſe he cannot bear it at once; and ſo it comes to paſs that he ſuffers that which is in ſome ſenſe infinite; not in the greatneſs, but in the continuance; that, which though it be not beyond meaſure, yet is beyond end. But Chriſt being not onelyonly great in ſtrength, but greater in worth, ſuffered that which as from him had infinite worth in it.

He thus concludes,

It is enough for me to believe that my Lord Jeſus ſuffered for me whatever I deſerved to ſuffer; and was the curſe of the Law, be that what it will.

p. 349Repl. It is a fearful thing to conſider both of the blindneſs and preſumptuouſneſs of men, that even they which deny Chriſt, and in ſome ſenſe deſpitefully uſe him, will yet lay claim to him; but let all ſuch know, that he that denyeth the Son, denyeth the Father alſo; and ſuch without repentance can have no mercy.

As for that general knowledge which he comforts himſelf in, it is a ſeeing a far off, and is next to blindneſs; it is like the light of him that ſaw men like trees walking, there's more darkneſs in it than light. The myſterie of Chriſt is not ſeen in it; it warms not, heats not, quickens not the heart in love, nor by it are perſons able to know what it is they ſtumble at. It is the knowledge of thoſe that care not what they know; who behold that which appears above ground, but wil not dig for knowledge as for ſilver: Such who reſt themſelves contented with ſuch a knowledge, are never like to know that love of Chriſt that paſſeth knowledge. Eph. 3. 10.

This is but ſutable to ſome other expreſſions of his concerning the perſon of Chriſt; to know Chriſt to be a perſon ſent of God, hath been declared to be ſufficient knowledge to ſave men; and that text alſo in Rom. 10. 9. is made uſe of, and this concluſion exſerted from it, that to know Chriſt to be the Lord, whether created or uncreated, whether the ſame with the Father, p. 350or made by the Father, is not material; a perſon may be ſaved without it.

But ſuch aſſertions are detrimental to godlineſs, ſerve to nouriſh up ignorance of God and Chriſt, and the myſterie of the Goſpel in carnal perſons, who have been wont to ſay, what need is there of ſo much knowledge? to know my ſelf a ſinner, and that Chriſt dyed for me, is enough; and Chriſt rebukes it, and makes the Scribes and Phariſces aſhamed of it, when he asks them whoſe ſon Chriſt was; and when they ſaid David's; he demands how it could be, when David in ſpirit called him Lord? but they were confounded and were not able to anſwer him. Their general knowledge that Chriſt was David's ſon, without a right perception of his Divinity, in which reſpect he was David's Lord, was no better then ſhameful ignorance, (ſeeing God had revealed both the one and the other) both in them and us.

In the cloſe of his anſwer he deals with a Scripture which I produced to prove that the ſatisfaction and merit that was in Chriſts bloud, was from the ſubject perſon whoſe bloud it was; it is called the bloud of God, Acts 20. 28. And indeed he deals injuriouſly with it, and evilly intreats it. His words are theſe.

I ſhall offer theſe few things to conſideration.

p. 351There may be ſome miſtake in it, God may be put for Chriſt or Lord, and then the words muſt be thus read; to feed the Church of Chriſt which he hath purchaſed with his own bloud.

And why may there be a miſtake? Becauſe (ſaith he) the Churches of the Saints are called the Churches of Chriſt, Rom. 16. 16. and there is poſſibility, probability, and facility to countenance it.

Repl. 1. Logicians have been wont to ſay, a poſſe ad eſſe non valet conſequentia: that the deduction, inference, or conſequence that is drawn from [a may be] to [a being ſo] is weak, and very invalid. There may be a miſtake (ſaith he) and muſt there therefore be a miſtake ſay I? What good conſequence can be in this? 2. This Doctrine of miſtakes in Scripture, eſpecially in points of ſuch grand concernment, is dangerous to be broached; it tends greatly to engender Atheiſme in the hearts of men, and ſerves to no better a purpoſe then to unſettle men in the Faith; for what will be the conſequent of it, if there be miſtakes in ſome things contained in Scripture, why not in other things? and then what will remain firm that may be ſurely built upon? And may not any Heretick when he p. 352is driven out, and forced to forſake all other holds, fly hither, and ſhelter himſelf here, there may be a miſtake in the Text or Texts that are cited? 3. If there were no other place of Scripture wherein Chriſt were called God, and if there were no place that holds analogy with this of the Acts, where the bloud of Chriſt is called the bloud of God, there might then be better plea for a miſtake, which yet would be of evil conſequence if it were granted; but there is a cloud of witneſſes that come in to evidence Chriſts God-head, and there are parallel places to this Text that ſpeaks of the bloud of God: 1 Cor. 2. 8. Had they known him, they would never have crucified the Lord of Glory. Chriſt was crucified as he was man, and ſhed his bloud as he was man, and he was not crucified as he was the Lord of Glory, nor did he ſhed his bloud as he was God; and yet it is ſaid, the Lord of Glory was crucified, and the bloud of God was ſhed: The meaning is, the Perſon who was Lord of Glory, and who was God, was crucified, and ſhed his bloud; but not as he was Lord of Glory, nor as he was God, but fleſh was aſſumed, the humanity was taken, and in that nature he was crucified, and ſhed his bloud.

But let it be weighed what he ſaith of the poſſibility. The Scribe (ſaith he) through careleſneſs, or ſomthing worſe, might here put God p. 353for Chriſt. There are two places, one in the old Teſtament, another in the new, which Willet conceiveth to have been miſtaken by the Scribes negligence, or ſomthing worſe.

Repl. What Scribe doth he here ſpeak of who might be thus negligent, or ſomthing worſe? Doth he mean ſuch Scribes as the holy men of God, who were inſpired by the holy Ghoſt, made uſe of to write what was ſuggeſted and dictated to them by the Spirit? Then thoſe holy Men, Prophets, or Apoſtles, whether ever they were, who no queſtion had the ſuperviſing and peruſing of it after written, would have diſcovered it, and corrected it. Doth he ſpeak of any other Scribes who might afterwards write out Copies of ſuch things? The Original writing would have been extant to have detected and confuted ſuch miſtakes, and fraud, and falſhood, and there would have been godly ones enough in thoſe Ages, to have rectified out of the Original ſuch error or deceit. Can any Printer now by any craft or cunning bring corruption into any Text of Scripture but it would ſoon be diſcerned? Nor could any Scribe then,

But he gives inſtances in Pſal. 22. 16. CAARI ſignifying as a Lyon, is put for CARU, they pierced: and in Rom. 12. 11. we have foreign, pro foreign, time for Lord.

Repl. He that can ſearch out theſe things, and make uſe of them to ſerve his own turn, whoſe p. 354ſaith ſoever he ſtumble thereby, might alſo have preſented ſuch anſwers as are given by the Learned unto them, for no queſtion he hath read them, and if he would have dealt candidly, he would as well have produced the one as the other. I ſhall only recite ſomthing of that which I have read in Rivet concerning the one Text, who writes upon it, and ſhall refer the Learned to ſatisfie themſelves in reading him at large.

This Lection (ſaith he) of CAARI, as a Lyon, the latter Jews have ſnatched at, leſt they ſhould be forced to confeſs that this Prophecie, [They pierced my hands and my feet] was fulfilled in none other but in Jeſus Christ alone; becauſe neither David (who compiled this Pſalm) nor any other had their hands and their feet pierced. But Joannes Iſaacus hath moſt learnedly ſhewed in his defence of the Hebrew verity againſt Lindanus, that nothing is more abſurd and fooliſh then ſuch a Lection or Reading. 1. Becauſe it is pointed contrary to the Rules of Grammer if the ſignification ſhould be [as a Lyon] 2. Becauſe the expreſſion would be maimed, and defective, and without ſenſe; for what reaſon is in theſe words [as a Lyon my hands and my feet? 3. He produceth the Authority both of Maſſoreth the great, and the leſs. In Maſſoreth the leſs two CAARI are found, and onelyonly two in a diverſe ſignification; the one in Iſa. 38. 13. which is right interpreted, p. 355[as a Lyon] the other in this Pſalm, viz. 22. which he quotes, which muſt neceſſarily have an other interpretation, becauſe of ſome peculiarity that is in it. In Maſſoreth the great he ſaith, that Rabbi Jacob found written in the Text CARU, and in the margent CAARI. 4. He ſpeaks his own knowledge, I Johannes Iſaac can teſtifie in truth, and with a good conſcience the ſame thing for I ſaw a Pſalter of my Grand-fathers in which in the Text it was written CARU, and I doubt not but all exemplars had it alſo.

And Rivet adds this, that in all the Hebrew Copies or Exemplars, there is both CAARI and CARU, the one in margent, and the other in the Text: Not that CAARI whether in the margent or in the Text is to be read [as a Lyon] but it is vox animala, a word beſide rule, and is the third perſon of the preterperfect tenſe CARA, by ſome interpoſition and change of letters, as is ſomtimes found in the Hebrew; And he giveth inſtances of the like.

As for the other Text in Rom. 12. 11. I ſhall refer the Learned to that which Beza ſaith of it, and only exſert ſomwhat for the ſatisfaction of others.

In all the moſt approved Authors (ſaith he) it is foreign, and foreign; And he ſhews how it is probable the corruption came in, and how foreign was changed into foreign. In that ſhort way p. 356of writing (ſaith he) there is foreign put for foreign; and he ſaith he hath ſeen it ſo written in Paſil, and ſome that writ out, declared this particle foreign by the word foreign inſteed of foreign. And this might eaſily be done through ignorance of that ſhort hand that was in uſe.

But it may be obſerved how ready he is to give advantage to the pertinacious Jews, in ſiding with them in the rendring of the word CAARI [as a Lyon] without any warrantable cauſe for the upholding of his own opinion. And he alſo takes part with the Papiſts, who from the various lection, do take occaſion of detracting from the truth of the Hebrew and Greek Text, as that which is corrupted by the Jews and others, and would bring all to the interpretation of the Church.

But he goes on, and not onelyonly makes it poſſible, but probable that there is ſuch a miſtake; for (ſaith he) Gretius obſerves many Copies have Lord, and the Syriack hath Chriſt, not God.

Repl. Some Copies have Lord and God; and Beza makes a conjecture how it came about; but there is no Copie that hath Lord without God: God is not left out in any Greek Copie, and conſequently it makes nothing for his purpoſe, but remains as ſtrong againſt him as before: for if the words be read thus, To feed the Church of the Lord and God, which he hath purchaſed with his own bloud; the word [which] p. 357refers to both of them as Antecedents; and the meaning is, which Lord, and which God hath purchaſed with his own bloud: and Chriſt is ſtill ſet forth as God, and the bloud of Chriſt is ſtill the bloud of God: But yet his fraud appears, for he ſaith, Many Copies have Lord, ſeperatim & diviſim (for ſo he would be underſtood) as if they had had Lord, and not God, or Lord inſteed of God, when as in truth they have them conjunctim, both Lord and God, conjoyned as Titles of one and the ſame perſon, who ſhed his bloud to purchaſe his Church. As for the word Christ inſteed of God, it is not to be found in any Greek Copie, in which language the New Teſtament was written, and if in any other, it makes nothing to his purpoſe.

Laſtly (he ſaith) It is eaſie to miſtake, taking one for the other, from that compendious writing which was anciently much in uſe; where for foreign they wrote only foreign, and for foreign.

Repl. The miſtake of a letter, though it may be eaſie, yet it may be groſs enough, and may utterly overthrow the ſenſe of the place; and it is as eaſily diſcovered, when it is ſurveyed by him that compiled it: Would it not be groſs in our Engliſh if Word ſhould be written inſteed of Lord? If Moon ſhould be written inſteed of Noon? and it is but the miſtake of a Letter, and it is eaſily done, and as eaſily ſeen being done, and corrected; therefore this Argument is without force alſo.

p. 358To make this conceit of his of a miſtake to paſs the better, he ſaith the Churches of Saints are called the Churches of Chriſt, Rom. 16. 16.

Repl. And what is this to the purpoſe? they are called the Churches of God alſo, 1 Cor. 11. 16. And they are never a whit the leſs the Churches of God, becauſe they be the Churches of Chriſt; yea becauſe they be the Churches of Chriſt, they be therefore the Churches of God; and this Text proves it: For Chriſt is the perſon that is here ſpoken of, becauſe the perſon that ſhed his bloud for the purchaſe of the Church is ſpoken of, which is Chriſt, and he is called God, and as God, the Church is his; as the words declare, which he hath not yet overthrown.

But he attempts it by an other conſideration which he offers to view:

2. If it proves that there is no miſtake in the Text (ſaith he) there may be a defect in the words; for the laſt clauſe ſome Greek Copies have it thus; which he hath purchaſed with the bloud of his Own, and ſo the Word SON is to be underſtood; with the bloud of his own Son.

Repl. It is ſaid of ſome perſons who are loth to work, that they live by their ſhifts, or by their wits; ſo this man, who is loth to be convinced of the Truth, will maintain and keep alive an errour (if he can) by his wits, or by his ſhifts, which are more than one; and when one p. 359fails him, he flies to an other; yet all that he ſays is but [may be] which we have been troubled enough with already: He doth not ſay there is a defect in the words, but it may be there is, which we know proves nothing. Yet I ſhall paſs over his [may be] in ſilence, but ſay ſomthing to that which he bottoms it upon; he ſaith, Some Greek Copies read it thus, which he hath purchaſed with the bloud of his own, meaning [Son:] but Beza ſaith it is one Copie that the words run ſo in; whether ſhall I believe (for I have not ſeen all the Greek Copies my ſelf, though I have examined ſome) Beza or him? When he comes up to Beza's learning and integrity, I ſhall be at a ſtand whoſe teſtimony to take, but not till then. However this will do him no good; for the bloud is the price wherewith the purchaſe was made; and it was his bloud that made it, for it was not made with an others bloud; but the Text is cleer, and he cannot overthrow it, that the perſon that purchaſed it is God; then the bloud muſt needs be the bloud of God alſo, becauſe therewith he purchaſed: So that if there be one Copie that ſaith which he purchaſed with the bloud of his own, yet the defect will be in the word ſelf that is wanting, and not in the word Son that is wanting; and the words muſt run thus; which he purchaſed with the bloud of his own ſelf. And if it were as he would have it, with the bloud of p. 360his own Son, yet it is a proper Son that is ſpoken of; and the Apoſtle makes him God in that expreſſion: As the Jews ſaid of Chriſt, that he made himſelf equal with God, becauſe he ſaid, God was his own proper Father, as the words are in the Original, John 5. 18. and this amounts to as much as I intended in the quotation of the place; this puts value and merit enough upon the ſatisfaction of Chriſt, that it was the bloud of a perſon that was God and equal with the Father, that was ſhed for the taking away of ſin.

But he hath a third evaſion, and if he be beaten out from the covert of that, whither will he then fly?

3. If both theſe be removed, ſaith he, yet the words may have an other meaning then what you and many others do allot them; Chriſts bloud may be ſaid to be Gods own bloud in way of eminency, it being more excellent by far then the bloud of the Legal Sacrifices. In the old Teſtament, tall Trees are called the Cedars of God; in this ſenſe alſo Chriſt is called the Lamb of God, John 1. 36. becauſe he was far more excellent then either the paſchal Lamb, or any other Lamb which was to be ſlain in way of Sacrifice: And the Author to the Hebrews in this ſenſe prefers the bloud of Chriſt far before all other bloud ſhed for the expiation of ſin, Heb. 9. 13, 14.

Repl. If he could but turn the word [may] into the word [muſt] and could be able to make p. 361it out from the text or context, that the ſenſe that he puts upon the words muſt be the true ſenſe of the place, and that none other that any other allots to it can ſtand or conſiſt with it, there would be ſome weight in his words; but this [may be] hath nothing but weakneſs and uncertainty in it.

2. The ſenſe that he puts upon the text, is without ſenſe, there is not the leaſt footing for it in the Text; it is a meer invention, without the ſhadow of reaſon in it, for that which it is grounded on, is not to be found in the Text; there is no mention of the bloud of God in the Text, and therefore no reaſon he ſhould parallel it with ſuch like phraſes as the Trees of God, the Cedars of God, which are of the ſame nature with other trees, but are more excellent, and are therefore called the Trees and Cedars of God. The words in the Greek are foreign, which Beza renders ſuo illo proprio ſanguine, that is, by that his own proper bloud; and it relates to the ſubject ſpoken of before, which is God; for the exhortation is, to ſeed the Church of God, and it is added, which he, that is, which God hath purchaſed with his own proper bloud; ſo that it is the bloud of God through the relation it hath to a perſon, that is called God, whoſe bloud it is, and not by way of eminency, as trees are called the trees of God, for the excellency they have in them above other p. 362trees, which yet ſtand in no relation to God, Now if he be able to prove that God is not here ſpoken of, but it is another that is not God, though he be called God; then may he prove that the bloud that is ſaid to be his bloud, is yet not the bloud of the perſon that is God, but the bloud of anothet that is called God, but is not God; otherwiſe it ſtands in force: the bloud of Chriſt is not the bloud of a meer creature, but the bloud of God; whence the merit of it proceeds for the expiating of ſin.

Whereas he ſaith that in this ſenſe Chriſt is called the Lamb of God, becauſe he was far more excellent then the Paſchal Lamb, oa any other Lamb that was ſacrificed. It is granted that he was ſo called for that reaſon, and not only becauſe Chriſt who was ſlain was man, and thoſe Lambs were bur bruit creatures, and ſo inferior to him, but becauſe the perſon of this Lamb ſlain, was more then a man, was the Son of God, and very God; but not ſlain like a Lamb as he was the Son of God, and very God, but according to the humanity which he aſſumed; and as the ſon of man, and very man, ſo was he ſlain. It is ſaid the ſon of man muſt be delivered up into the hands of men, and they ſhall kill him: yet though he could not ſuffer as God, he notwithſtanding by the eternal Spirit, viz. by the Divinity or God-head, offered up himſelf a ſacrifice a Lamb without ſpot and blemiſh to p. 363God; which made his bloud more effectual to expiate ſin, then the blood of Goats could be; for otherwiſe there would have been no difference in point of worth and value, in purging away of ſins of men; for the bloud of a man at the moſt, could but ſatisfie for the offence of a man, and not of many men; and to this purpoſe the bloud of a man would have been as ineffectual as the bloud of a beaſt.

I have been large in the vindication of this inſtance, becauſe the matter of it was weighty, it being a great Truth of God, and of high concernment to the Saints: I ſhall be the briefer in the next.

The ninth Argument or Inſtance that I produced, was this.