Sermons Preached on Romans 8, Chapter 13 (1 of 3)

Sermons Preached on Romans 8 · Chapter 13 (1 of 3)

p. 456ROM. 8.3, 4.

—And for ſin, condemned ſin in the Fleſh: That the righteouſneſs of the Law might be fulfilled in us,—

CHAP. XIII. Of Chriſt's being a Sacrifice, and expiating Sin thereby.

A Fifth Head in the Words diſcuſſed, viz. the End of God in ſending his own &c. or the Effect thereof. How the Wiſdom of God is ſecured by this End. Of the placing of the Words [for ſin]. The whole a little deſcanted upon. What the condemning of ſin is; opened more generally, more particularly in three things. The condemning of ſin [for ſin] opened: a twofold interpretation given of it. Of the Fleſh in which ſin is ſaid to be condemned. The Obſervation raiſed from the Words: where

1. Of Chriſt's being a Sacrifice for Sin. How he excels the Old Law-Sacrifices, and of their reference to him. Six things in thoſe Sacrifices, which are all to be found in Chriſt, the true Sacrifice. 'Tis enquired 1. What a kind of Sacrifice he was? proved that he was an expiatory Sacrifice. Of the difference and diſtinction of the Jewiſh Sacrifices. Four Heads inſiſted upon for the confirming of the main Truth: As

(1.) that our ſins p. 457were the meritorious Cauſe of Chriſt's Sufferings:

(2.) that he did ſubſtitute himſelf in the Sinners ſtead: (where two Queſtions are briefly anſwered,

(1) Whether he underwent the ſame puniſhment that was due to the Sinner, or only that which was equivalent thereunto?

(2) Whether he took the guilt of ſin upon himſelf, or only ſubmitted to the puniſhment thereof?)—

(3.) that he was killed and ſlain and his blood ſhed, in correſpondency with the Levitical expiatory Sacrifices.

(4.) this is prov'd from the Ends and Effects of his Death, viz.

Atonement and Expiation; (both of which are opened). Of the concurrence of the Heathens in their notions about Sacrifices.—'Tis enquir'd

(2.) When and where Chriſt was an expiatory Sacrifice? 'tis anſwered, when he dy'd upon the Croſs.

2. Of the Effect of his Sacrifice, the condemning of Sin. Parallel expreſſions cited. Of the nature of the expiation of Sin: Of the extent of it with reſpect to the Subject and Object. Whether were all Sins expiated by the Law-Sacrifices? Uſe 1. I infer from the premiſes

(1.) The verity of Chriſt's Satisfaction:

(2.) The true Nature and principal Ends of his Death:

(3.) The vanity and falſhood of all humane ſatisfactions:

(4.) The true notion of the Lord's Supper:

(5.) The happineſs of Believers under the Goſpel above theirs who liv'd under the Law.

(6.) The excellency of Chriſt's Prieſthood and Sacrifice.

(7.) The Evil of Sin.

(8.) The ſeverity of God's Juſtice.

Uſe 2. Several Dutys urged from hence: as Holineſs, the Love of Chriſt &c. Uſe 3. This improved ſeveral ways for the Comfort of Believers.

A Fifth Head, viz. the End of God in ſending his Son &c. or the Effects thereof.IN the preceding Words [God ſending his own Son, in the likeneſs of ſinful Fleſh,] Four things have been obſerved and opened; in theſe now read a Fifth Head offers it ſelf to our conſideration: and that is the Effect of Chriſt's miſſion, incarnation, and of what p. 458followed thereupon, or God's End in all this. Did he pitch upon ſo admirable a Way and Method? ſurely ſome high and glorious Effect muſt be produced thereby; and ſo there was, for thereby ſin was condemned: and ſurely too, therein the Wiſe God muſt propound to himſelf ſome great and very conſiderable End to be accompliſhed; and ſo he did, for he aim'd at nothing lower than that the righteouſneſs of the Law might be fulfilled in Believers.

In the Words then we have both the Effect (what God did by his own Son as firſt aſſuming & then ſuffering in fleſh), and alſo the End of God in his taking this ſtrange and wonderful courſe: for theſe two though they be diſtinct in themſelves, and carry in them notions ſomewhat different, yet here in this place they both are alike applicable to the matter ſpoken of, and it to them. If it be conſidered with reſpect to God's intention, ſo it falls under the nature of an End; if with reſpect to his execution (of what he intended), ſo it falls under the nature of an Effect. Therefore upon the oneneſs and coalition of theſe two and the equal applicableneſs of the matter to each, whereas there are two branches in the Text (each of which contains diſtinct matter in it), in the former the thing is expreſs'd under the notion of an Effect [and for ſin condemned ſin in the fleſh], in the latter under the notion of an End [that the righteouſneſs of the Law might be fulfilled in us].

The Wiſdom of God ſecur'd by the proportioning of his End to the medium which he pitch'd upon.It pleaſing God to ſend his own Son &c. his Wiſdom would have been lyable to impeachment, if

(1.) he had not effected ſome great thing thereby; if

(2.) (which indeed ſhould have been firſt mentioned) he had not deſigned ſome great thing therein: For the Wiſdom of an Agent lies not only in his having an end in what he doth, but in his having ſuch an end as ſhall be proportionable to the means which he pitches upon; if they be high and the end but low, this ſpeaks a defect in point of

Wiſdom; for that ever ſhews it ſelf as in the fitting of the means to the end, ſo in the proportioning of the end to the means. If therefore the bleſſed God will ſingle out ſuch a medium as the ſending of his own Son &c. he then ſtands engag'd upon the account of his Wiſdom, to propound to himſelf ſuch an end as may be anſwerable to that medium: which therefore accordingly he did, in aſmuch as in that great act he had this great End (or Ends), the ſatisfying of his Juſtice, the expiating of Sin, the fulfilling of the Law &c. theſe were Ends worthy of ſuch Means as the Coming, Incarnation, Death of his own Son. Now all theſe are ſet down in the Words before us, in which therefore you have that which is a full vindication, nay the higheſt manifeſtation of God's infinite Wiſdom.

p. 459Of the pla…ing of the Words [for Sin].I begin with the firſt Effect or End here ſpecify'd [and for Sin, condemned Sin in the Fleſh]. At my firſt entrance upon the whole Paragraph, I touch'd upon the reading of this Clauſe (there being ſome difference amongſt Expoſitors about it), therefore that I will not again inſiſt upon, only let me take notice of another difference among them which was not there mentioned. That refers to the placing of the Words; for whereas we take in [for ſin] into this Branch, **foreign pertinet ad Participium foreign: Beza. Omnino referendum puto foreign ad Participium foreign. Juſtin. So Cyril. reads them in Joh. l. 9. c. 47.Some would have it placed in the former, thus, God ſending [for ſin] his own Son, in the likeneſs of ſinful Fleſh, condemned ſin in the Fleſh. But though this ranking of them may poſſibly ſeem to ſome to make the words run more ſmoothly, yet if it be admitted of, the conjunctive particle [and] muſt be quite expung'd; which I ſhould be loth to ſubmit unto becauſe of its ſpecial ſignificancy & emphaſis in this place: partly as it heightens the thing ſpoken of, and intimates the wonderfulneſs of the way in which it was brought about, and partly as it notes the††Appoſitam ſiquidem intelligimus Conjunctionem, ad ſignificandam ſequelam alterius beneficii; ut ſcil. notemus, Deum non tantum miſiſſe Filium ſuum in ſimilitudine carnis peccati, ſed & de peccato damnaſſe peccatum in carne. Cajetan. joyning together of that here mentioned with that which went before; God did not only ſend his own Son in our Fleſh, but (which is to be ſuperadded to that as an Effect or Conſequent thereof) he alſo in that fleſh for ſin condemned ſin. I will therefore keep to our methodizing of the Words, and if you take them as here they lie, there will be no neceſſity either of putting in or putting out: yet if you will go by their ſenſe then you may reade them with this addition, And by a Sacrifice for ſin condemned ſin in the Fleſh.

The Words a little deſcanted upon.[And for ſin condemned ſin in the fleſh:] good and bleſſed Words! No condemnation to them who are in Chriſt (Verſ. 1.)? Sin it ſelf condemned (Verſ. 3.)? what could be ſpoken higher to raiſe the thankfulneſs, encourage the faith, heighten the joy of ſincere Chriſtians! The word [condemned] is not ſo terrible when apply'd to the Sinner, but 'tis as comfortable when apply'd to ſin it ſelf: that which had been the condemning is now the condemned thing, how may a gracious Soul rejoyce at this! The non-condemnation of perſons ſpoken of in the firſt Verſe, is ſecured by and grounded upon the condemnation of ſin in this, for both muſt not be condemn'd; if ſin be condemn'd, the ſinner ſhall not. Obſerve here, ſin was the thing which God fell upon and dealt thus ſeverely with: the Apoſtle had told us the Law was weak (unable to help poor fal'n man), whereupon he ſaith God ſent his own Son; but wherefore p. 460did he ſo do? was it that he might fall upon this Law, and condemn the condemning Law? O no! 'twas ſo far from that, that he would rather have it fulfilled (for ſo it follows Verſ. 4.), he had no evil eye at all upon his Law for that was good; upon what when? why upon ſin, for that was evil and very evil; Chriſt was ſent that ſin only might be condemn'd. And no wonder that God was ſo ſet againſt it and reſolv'd upon this ſevere proceſs againſt it, it being the principal Offender, the arch Traytor and Rebel againſt himſelf, the only object of his hatred, the bold oppoſer of his glory, the great obſtructer of his Grace, the curſed fomenter of breaches 'twixt himſelf and his creatures, the murderer of Souls &c. did not ſuch a malefactor highly deſerve to be condemn'd? yes ſurely, and therefore ſo it ſhall be. O (ſaith God) I muſt take a, courſe with this ſin, I muſt and I will diſpatch it out of the way, and then my work is done; all my gracious deſigns will then be carried on without any let or impediment, then the happineſs of my people will be ſure and full, neither my own Wrath, nor the Curſe of my Law, nor the ſting of Death ſhall then be able to hurt them. Upon ſuch grounds as theſe God would have ſin condemn'd, and he was ſo ſet upon it that in order thereunto he will on purpoſe ſend his own Son in the likeneſs of ſinful fleſh, yea in that fleſh to offer up himſelf as a Sacrifice, and ſo to bring about ſins condemnation.

The Explication of the Words.But to come to the cloſe handling of the Words! They being ſomewhat obſcure, my firſt work muſt be to open them (that I may the better make way for the main Obſervation which they reſolve themſelves into). There are three things in them to be explain'd,

1. The condemning of Sin.

2. The condemning of Sin for ſin.

3. The condemning of Sin in the Fleſh.

What is meant by the condemning of Sin? epened more generally.1. What doth the Apoſtle mean by the condemning of ſin? and for ſin [condemned ſin &c]. The word in its uſual acceptation is apply'd to Perſons rather than to Things; yet in ſuch a ſenſe 'tis properly enough applicable to them alſo, (viz.) as it ſignifies the diſallowing, diſapproving, ſentencing, or judging of them to be ſo and ſo evil: according to which ſignification, ſin may as truly be ſaid to be condemn'd as the ſinner himſelf in any other notion. But this will not reach the full ſcope and emphaſis of the Word in this place; for unqueſtionably there's a great deal more intended in God's condemning ſin, than barely his ſentencing or judging it to be p. 461a very evil thing; though Chriſt had never come in fleſh nor ſuffered in Fleſh yet God would thus have condemned Sin: its condemnation is here brought in as a ſingular effect of the Grace of God to Sinners, but (according to this ſtating of it) it would only be an effect of his Holineſs, not at all of his Grace; he may thus judge of Sin and yet the Sinner periſh by it. 'Tis very true, that God in the Death of his Son did in this reſpect ſignally condemn Sin; O in that he made it to appear what thoughts he had of Sin, what an evil thing he judg'd it to be, how he was ſet againſt it &c. but yet this is not the only thing, no nor the main thing held forth in this expreſſion of God's condemning Sin.

Well! for the right underſtanding of that I conceive we muſt borrow our light from Condemnation amongſt Men, for though ſin be not a perſon yet its being condemned will beſt be known by what is proper to condemned perſons. Amongſt us malefactors are ſeiz'd upon, brought to tryal, arraign'd, prov'd guilty, ſentene'd to die (if their Offence be capital), then the Sentence is executed upon them, to cut them off that they may do no more miſchief; and this is their being condemn'd: juſt ſo (ſo far as the nature of the thing would admit of) virtually and analogically all this was done by God in Chriſt's Death againſt Sin. It had been an heinous malefactor, guilty of high and notorious crimes, had done inexpreſſible miſchiefs, for all which God will arraign, judge, ſentence, cut it off, that it alſo may do no more miſchief to his people, and this is its condemnation. Divers Expoſitors in their opening of the Words conceive of Sin here as a Perſon, and accordingly they open its being condemn'd by this alluſive and analogical notion; whatever is commonly done amongſt Men in their judicial proceſſes againſt great Offenders, all that (in effect) was done by God through Chriſt's death againſt ſin; and ſo he condemn'd it.

More particularly in three things. In the abolitiof its power.But not to take up with Generals this may be more particularly open'd in three things:

1. God by Chriſt condemn'd Sin as he aboliſhed its power. Sin's condemnation is its**Secundum Phraſin Hebraicam poſitum eſt damnavit pro abolevit, extinxit, ſuſtulit Deus. Perer. abolition, wherein doth that lie? why (partly) in the taking away of its power, in the diveſting it of that Rule and Command which it had over Sinners for a long time: thus God condemn'd or aboliſhed ſin, he put an end to its reign and dominion, pull'd it off from the throne, turn'd it out of Office and authority, yea, adjudged it to die for all the Evils of which it had been guilty. Thus 'tis with condemned men; upon the paſſing of the condemnatory Sentence upon them they are ipſo facto diſpoſſeſs'd p. 462of all their power and authority, and further than this too they muſt ſuffer the penalty of death for what they have done; ſo anſwerably it was with Sin in God's dealings with it. It had acted the Tyrants part in and over the world a great while, had domineer'd and lorded it over its poor Subjects at a ſtrange rate, did with men what it pleas'd; O but in the Fleſh of Chriſt God condemn'd it (that is) he broke it in its power, brought it down to ſome purpoſe, ſtripp'd it of that abſolute, illimited dominion which it had before: Chriſt's croſs was the ruine of ſins throne. And not only ſo, but there's a ſentence of death too paſs'd upon it; it ſhall not only loſe its power but its life alſo, God will have it kill'd, ſlain, put to death in all who have an intereſt in Chriſt's Merits, he would not ſuffer ſuch a malefactor to live, hee'l rid the world of it. This condemnatory ſentence was paſs'd upon it long ago, which though it be but gradually and in part executed whilſt the Saints are here below, yet when they ſhall once aſcend to God then it ſhall be fully executed; inſomuch that then ſin ſhall quite be taken out of the way, and ſhall not have ſo much as a being in them in the glorify'd ſtate. Thus many**—foreign. Chryſ. Damnavit peccatum, i.e. dominio ſuo mulctavit ne regnaret in carne. Staplet.—Ut ejus dominium & robur auferret. Tolet. Damnavit, interfecit; foreign eſt interficere ſicut foreign pro morte, quia damnati interfici ſolent. Interfecit vero i.e. interficiendi vires nobis praeſtitit. Interficere eſt efficientiam adimere. Grot. See Melanch. Bucer. P. Mart. De dieu Deodat.— Interpreters do open the condemning of ſin; and††Who renders it by exauctoravit, extinxit, abolevit &c. De Servat, part 2. cap. 23. Socinus likes this interpretation ſo well that he contends for it but fiercely oppoſes thoſe which follow.

In the abolition of Sins guilt.2. Sins Condemnation lies in the abolition or expiation of its guilt. It here properly notes the taking away of that which was the hurtful, deſtructive, miſchievous part of Sin. Condemned men can do no hurt, let them be never ſo hurtful before yet when once the ſentence of Condemnation is paſs'd upon them they can be ſo no longer: Sin had been a very huriful thing (and would have been ſo ſtill) to precious Souls, but God in the fleſh of his Son (as ſuffering and ſatisfying) put a ſtop to it, took it out of the way, condemn'd it (that is) diſabled it from doing the hurt it had done before, and remov'd that in it which was of ſo hurtful a nature. What was that? I anſwer, its guilt; O that's an hurtful thing indeed! it binds the Sinner over to anſwer at God's tribunal for all the evils commited by him, expoſes him to the Wrath of the great God, renders him lyable to a Sentence of eternal death: but p. 463now it pleaſed God for ſin to condemn ſin, (i.e.) by Chriſt's being a Sacrifice to expiate this guilt of ſin which in it ſelf was ſo pernicious and hurtful, ſo that believers ſhould not lie under it or eternally ſuffer for it. Now this is that explication of the Word which is moſt commonly given by the beſt**Damnatio peccati nos in juſlitiam aſſeruit, quia deleto reatu abſolvimur, uti nos Deus juſtos reputet. Calvin. (with many Others). Beza diſſents, Non mihi facilè perſuaſerim de peccatorum expiatione hic agi, eſt enim pars illa jam pridem ab Apoſtolo explicata, adeo ut à v. 12. c. 5. aliud Argumentum ſit exorſus. Expoſitors, and I prefer it before the former upon theſe Reaſons:

1: As to the aboliſhing of Sins power that the Apoſtle had ſpoken to already in the foregoing verſe, the Law of the Spirit &c. and he inſtances in the Spirit there as he doth in the Son here. Now (according to what was ſaid before) as 'tis the proper act of the Spirit to free from Sins power (therefore that muſt be underſtood there), ſo 'tis the proper act of the Son to free from Sins guilt (therefore that muſt be underſtood here).

2: The Word here uſed [foreign] all along in Scripture points to the guilt of ſin and the puniſhment inflicted thereupon, never to its power or dominion; (for the proof of which ſeveral Texts might be cited if it was deny'd). 'Tis uſually apply'd to the Sinner, here only (if I well …emember) 'tis apply'd to ſin it ſelf; and in this different application it carries a different ſenſe: for as 'tis elſewhere apply'd to the Sinner, it notes the imputation of guilt to him and the paſſing of a condemnatory ſentence upon him for that guilt, but as 'tis here apply'd to ſin it notes the expiation or abolition of its guilt; yet this doth not wealien what I have ſaid, becauſe in both references (though in a different ſenſe) it ſtill points to guilt and puniſhment (which is enough for my purpoſe).

3: The Apoſtle ſpeaks of that abolition of Sin which was effected in Chriſt's Fleſh; therefore it muſt be underſtood of the abolition of its guilt rather than of its power, that being the thing which was moſt directly and immediately done in Chriſt's Fleſh.

4: 'Tis that condemning ſin which is for ſin (i.e.) by a Sacrifice for ſin; wherefore it muſt be taken in that ſenſe which beſt ſuits with what was done in and by Sacrifices. Now they aboliſhed ſin not ſo much by turning men from it, or by leſſening its power (though that might follow as a Conſequent upon them), as by the**This proved in Eſſenius de Satisf. Chriſti c. 8. p. 422. Turretin. de Sat. &c. part 6. p. 202 Dr. O. againſt B. P. 574. expiating of its guilt: this was the proper and primary effect of the Le…itical Sacrifices, in alluſion to which when Chriſt (the true Sacrifice) p. 464is ſaid to purge away ſin, to purifie &c. you are to underſtand thoſe expreſſions as reſpecting the expiation of Sins guilt (as I ſhall have occaſion further to prove in what will follow). For theſe reaſons (though I would not exclude wholly the former ſenſe, yet) I prefer this before it.

In the puniſhing of it in Chriſt's perſon.3. There is a**See Pareus in loc. & in Dub. 3. p. 779. Condemnare perpetuò ſignificat Apoſtolo poenas peccati irrogare. Damnare pec catum eſt illud dignum poenà judicare, paenaſ que pro eo exigere. Contzen. his ſenſe of the Word juſtified by Calov. Socin. profl. p. 433. third interpretation put upon the Word; namely God's condemning ſin was his puniſhing of it in Chriſt's perſon, or his exacting of Chriſt that puniſhment which was due to the Sinner himſelf. For this Condemning muſt be joyn'd with that which follows [in the Fleſh] and expounded by that; and then the meaning will be this, For ſin God condemned ſin in the fleſh (that is) he fell upon ſin, ſeverely puniſh'd it, inflicted the curſe and puniſhment due to us for it in and upon the Perſon of his own Son; he††Iſa. 53.6.Isa 53:6 laid the iniquities of Believers upon Chriſt, and then puniſhed them in him, ſo that he bore that penalty which Sinners themſelves ſhould have undergone: God did of him in our Nature paenas peccato debitas exigere, or maledictionem nobis debitam irrogare. Man having fin'd either he himſelf or his ſurety muſt ſuffer: the puniſhment thereby deſerv'd, God will have ſin punniſh'd ſomewhere; therefore Chriſt having put himſelf into the Sinners ſtead he muſt bear the puniſhment due to the Sinner, for though God will ſo far‖‖See of God's relaxing his Law and the threatning thereof Mr. Baxter Aphor. p. 36. &c. Mr. Burgeſſe of. Juſtif. p. 84. relax his Law as to admit of a ſubſtitution or commutation as to the Perſon ſuffering, yet he will have its penalty inflicted either upon the proper Offender himſelf, or upon the Saviour who was willing to interpoſe for the Offender ſo as to ſuffer what he ſhould have ſuffered: and God accordingly dealing withhim and proceeding againſt him in the laying of the puniſhment due for Sin upon him, this was his condemning Sin in the fleſh of Chriſt. I am not now to prove the truth of the thing (of that hereafter), at preſent I'me only ſhewing how 'tis held forth in the Word which I am opening: ſo much for the firſt thing what this condemning of Sin is.

How Sin is ſaid to be condem'd for Sin.2. The Second thing that needs explaination is the condemning ſin [for ſin], what may our Apoſtle mean by this for ſin? **Contra duas Pelagian. Ep. l. 3. c. 6.Auſtine gives a threefold ſenſe of it:

(1.) For ſin, (that is) by that fleſh which look'd like to ſinful fleſh; which therefore might be called ſin, ſince (as he ſaith) the reſemblances of things do uſually paſs under the names of the things which they reſemble: by that fleſh ſin was condemn'd.—

(2.) For Sin he makes to be as much as by a Sacrifice for Sin.—

(3.) He expounds it of the Sin of the Jews, not as heightning it (in which ſenſe all the Greek Expoſitors p. 465take it,) but as pointing to the effect of it, by that ſin of theirs in crucifying Chriſt eventually Sin was condemn'd or expiated. But theſe things muſt be further enquired into!

The double Reading of Sin and for Sin, both opened.'Tis in our Tranſlation exactly as 'tis in the Original, equally conciſe in both, and as the One is to be filled up ſo is the Other alſo. The Prepoſition foreign ſignifying of or for, accordingly 'tis rendred both wayes: Some reading it of Sin (as the Old Verſion, Anſelme, the Greek Interpreters generally &c.) they making the Words to run thus Of Sin God condemned Sin. Parallel to which foreign is elſewhere ſo rendred; as Joh. 8.46. Which of you convinceth me of ſin? Joh. 16.8, 9. He will convince the world of ſin, &c. Of ſin, becauſe they believe not on me: (in all 'tis foreign, juſt as it is in the Text). They who follow this Reading make the ſenſe of the Words to be this; God ſending his own Son in the likeneſs of ſinful fleſh, in that fleſh of his Son (as ſuffering and dying) he condemned ſin of ſin, in as much as by that ſtrange and wonderfull courſe he made it to appear to the world that ſin was full of ſin, highly guilty and criminal, **Rom. 7.13.Rom 7:13exceeding ſinful (as the Apoſtle ſpeaks upon another account).

Now though I ſhall not follow this Expoſition, yet it containing nothing in at but what is true for the matter of it, and it being given by ſome Authors of great repute, I will ſo far inſiſt upon it as to give a double illuſtration of it.

1. As 'tis applicable to Sin in the general. Take the whole body of Sin or Sin in its utmoſt extent, 'twas all condemn'd of ſin in Chriſt's fleſh (as firſt aſſum'd and then crucify'd), how? why, by that it was prov'd and judg'd to be a thing out of meaſure evil and faulty; thereby God let the world ſee what ſin is, what an exceſs of poyſon and malignity there is in its nature. Did he ſend his own Son? to be incarnate? yea, to appear in the likeneſs of ſinful Fleſh? ſo to be abaſed, ſuffer and die? and was Sin the meritorious Cauſe of all this? was all this done and ſuffered for the making of ſatisfaction for the miſchiefs and injuries which Sin had been guilty of? O what a condemnation was here of Sin! Never was there ſuch a demonſtration of Sins Evil, what an heinous and capital Offender it is, as in Chriſt's being made Man and dying upon the Croſs: the ſtrangeneſs of the remedy ſhows the malignity of the diſeaſe, the high terms of ſatisfaction the greatneſs of the crime; God's ſeverity laid upon the Fleſh of his own Son in ſuch unparallell'd ſufferings, made it apparent to the world that ſin is a quite other thing than what men generally take it to be: had it not p. 466been evil, deſperately evil God had never dealt with Chriſt as he did, therefore in his fleſh ſin was condemned of ſin.

2. This may more particularly be apply'd to that ſin of killing and murdering the Lord Jeſus. God did not only condemn ſin of ſin in the groſs, but in ſpecial that ſin which was committed againſt and upon the Fleſh of Chriſt in the crucifixion of him: here 'twas the Sin of Sin, here Sin was ſinful indeed. That it ſhould ſo boldly, ſo injuriouſly, ſo wickedly faſten upon a Perſon ſo near and dear to God, ſo inoffenſive and innocent, ſo holy and gracious, what an aggregation of Sins and what an aggravation of Sins guilt was there in this? Sin never was more ſin than in this act; here 'twas in its higheſt ſtature and fulleſt dimenſions, this was its maſter-piece, the vileſt thing that ever it did; all its other crimes were but dwarfiſh things in compariſon of this gigantick and over-grown crime. Well! according to its acting and carriage herein ſo God judg'd it to be very guilty and ſinful, and accordingly paſs'd Sentence upon it. And as to thoſe that had an hand in this horrid fact, whether Satan (to whom ſome(a)(a)Damnavit peccatum i. e. Satanam de peccato, quòd nempe Chriſtum innocentem in Cruce interfeciſet. Ambroſ. So alſo Hilarius in Pſal. 67.Ps 67 apply the Words), or the Jews, O 'twas in all ſin full of ſin! their offence was ſuperlatively great in doing what they did to the fleſh of God's own Son; Sin in this act did riſe exceeding high. Now the(b)(b)Vide Chryſoſt. in loc. (very largely inſiſting upon this). Greek Expoſitors are very large upon this notion: of ſin God condemned ſin &c. (that is ſay they) God judged the ſin of the Jews (according to what it was in its own nature) to be very (c)(c)—&c. foreign. Oecum.great, it (or rather they) were guilty of a moſt unparallell'd offence, (d)(d)—foreign. Theodoret.high injuſtice, prodigious cruelty, inexpreſſible ingratitude, ſtrange impudency, upon their crucifying of the Holy Jeſus, the Lord of Glory. And in the purſuance of this Explication theſe Expoſitors bring in Sin as a Perſon, as a perſon arraign'd by God for this particular crime, after tryal and proceſs ſentenc'd to be highly guilty, and accordingly to be dealt with. And they alſo inſiſt upon God's way and method in his dealing with Sin, which was not in the way of Power but of Juſtice, he did not down-right ſubdue it by plain force but he condemn'd it after the hearing of that plea it could make for it ſelf: as alſo upon God's order, (e)(e)foreign. Chryſoſt.firſt he condemn'd it and then he puniſh'd it.

This Interpretation ſome(f)(f)Haec Chryſoſtomi Expoſitio convenientiſſima & inter omnes accommodatiſſima videtur. Tolet. Haec Graecorum Expoſitio ita placet ut eam caeteris antepon…ndam cum Toleto cenſeam. Eſtius. Vid. Alap. Catharin. &c. latter Writers do fall in with and p. 467much applaud: Bneer himſelf at firſt was taken with it, but aft…wards he altered his thoughts;(g)(g)Haec Expoſitio nihil aliud eſt quam ſubtilis argutia. Beza. Beza paſſes a ſevere cenſure upon it. The truth is, the Apoſtle in the Words ſeems to look at another thing, this was not the condemnation of Sin which he had (mainly) in his eye, (viz.) the heightening or aggravating or proving of its guilt, and then paſſing ſentence upon it according to that; no, but there was another condemnation which he drove at (viz.) the abolition and expiation of its guilt; God ſo condemned ſin as that it might never condemn the Sinner, (that's the Apoſtles proper and principal ſcope as I humbly conceive).(h)(h)In loco prius citato. Auſtine though he reades it too de peccato condemnavit &c. yet he opens it in a different ſenſe, he making this of ſin to be as much as by ſin: and ſo he thus gloſſes upon it, By the ſin of the Jews (in their putting of Chriſt to death) God aboliſhed and took out of the way all the ſin of all the Elect; he ſo over-ruled the matter that even by ſin ſin was deſtroy'd, by the greateſt ſin that ever was committed ſin it ſelf was condemned; had not the blood of Chriſt been ſpilt (though that in it ſelf was a moſt wicked act) there had been to believers no remiſſion, no expiation; as Death was deſtroy'd by Death ſo Sin by Sin, it condemned Chriſt but by ſo doing it was condemn'd it ſelf. So much for the firſt reading of the Words.

2. Secondly the Prepoſition is rendred by For; and that rendring of it our Tranſlators (according to other**Propter peccatum. V. Syr. Propter ipſo…n peccatum. Tremell. Verſions and the general current of Interpreters) follow, and for ſin condemned ſin &c. If we take it ſo, the Words then may carry a threefold ſenſe in them:

1. That Sin was the procuring, meritorious Cauſe of all that which God the Father did in a way of ſeverity upon and againſt Chriſt. He condemned ſin in Chriſt's Fleſh, fell very ſeverely upon him, teſtify'd great anger and diſpleaſure againſt him, inflicted ſharp and dreadful puniſhments upon him; why did ſuch a Father ſo deal with ſuch a Son? what might be the cauſe that a perſon ſo innocent ſhould ſuffer as he did? why, 'twas Sin (not his but ours) which brought all this upon him … had it not been for that, God had never ſent his Son in Fleſh into the world and then have puniſhed him in that Fleſh as he did. Chriſt might thank Sin for all his ſufferings, and lay all the Evils which he ſuſtain'd in Soul and Body at its doors; that ſet his Father againſt him, that laid the foundation of all his ſorrows, that brew'd that bitter cup which he was to drink, that was the meritorious cauſe of all the miſeries that ever befel him: 'twas for ſin that God ſo condemned ſin in his Fleſh. The Prepoſition foreign is ſometimes uſed in this ſenſe; ſo p. 468Joh. 10.33. For a good work we ſtone thee not, but [foreign] for blaſphemy, and becauſe that thou being a man makeſt thy ſelf equal with God. 1 Pet. 3.18. For Chriſt alſo hath once ſuffered [foreign] for ſins &c. (which is as much as foreign Gal. 1.4. Heb. 10.12.)

2. The for ſin may be taken finally: Wherefore did God thus condemn ſin in his Son's Fleſh? wherefore was it with Chriſt as it was? O 'twas for ſin! namely that he might take it away, acquit the Sinner from its guilt, make ſatisfaction for it, over-rule it in all its plea's and power, quite deſtroy it. God would deal with Sin in the perſon of his own Son (he having ſubmitted to take the guilt of it upon himſelf), that thereby he might give a through diſpatch to it and throughly rid believers of its hurtfulneſs. 1 Joh. 3.5. And ye know that he was manifected to take away our ſins, and in him is no ſin: (Verſ. 8.) For this purpoſe the Son of God was manifeſted, that he might deſtroy the works of the Devil: In this final notion foreign is taken Matth. 26.28.1 Cor. 15.3.

3. It may be underſtood Materially with reſpect to Chriſt's being a Sacrifice for Sin. For Sin God condemned Sin, how? why, as Chriſt ſubmitting to be a Sin-offering was and did that by which this effect was produc'd. According to this Interpretation we muſt reade the words (as is noted in the margent) thus,**Phraſi Hobraeâ peccatum vocat Sacrificium pro peccato. Franz. Schola Sacrif. diſp. 7. th. 56. By a Sacrifice for ſin God condemned ſin; whatever there is … this condemning of ſin (and there is abundance in it,) 'twas all brought about by that Sin-offering or Sacrifice which Chriſt in his fleſh offered up to God; 'twas cut off, expiated, diſabled as to its deſtructive and damning nature &c. all this was effected by Chriſt's being a Sacrifice. So that the words are Elliptical, there being in them ſomething cut off and left out which muſt be ſupply'd by the inſerting or adding of by a Sacrifice, or ſome other ſuch word. Which Ellipſis is very uſual and common in Holy Writ (eſpecially when 'tis treating of Sacrifices); Levit. 10.17. Wherefore have ye not eaten the Sin-offering (ſo we reade it but in the Hebrew 'tis only the Sin) in the holy place &c. ('twould be tedious to cite the very many places of this nature which do occur in**Levit. 4.3.29.33.—5.6, 7.9.11.—9.22.—12.6, 8.—14.13.—16.16.Lev 4:3Lev 4:29Lev 4:33 that Book): Ifa. 53.10. When thou ſhalt make his Soul ſin (we fill it up by an offering for ſin): Hoſ. 4.8. They eat up the Sin of my people, (that is the Sacrifices which were to be offer'd up for the people): Ezek. 45.19. The Prieſt ſhall take of the blood of the Sin (we reade it of the Sin-offering).**Sicut hoſtias quae pro peccato offerebant in Lege, peccati nomine vocabant cum ipſae delicta neſcirent, ſic & Chriſti caro, quae pro peccati noſtris oblata eſt, peccati nomen accepit. Hieron. See Grotius de Sat. Chriſti. c. 1. p. 16. Nothing more uſual in the Old Teſtament p. 469than to make the words (Chattaath and Aſcham) to be expreſſive both of Sin and of the Sacrifice too by which that Sin was to be expiated; anſwerably to which is foreign us'd in the New; 2 Cor. 5.21. He that knew no ſin was made ſin &c. (that is, a Sacrifice for ſin). An Ellipſis (like to this in the Text) you have Heb. 10.6. In burnt Offerings and [for Sin] thou hadſt no pleaſure, (where Sacrifices is left out but muſt be put in); ſo here in the words which I am upon. This now is that Interpretation which is moſt**Per hoſtiam carnis ſuae quam obtulit pro peccante damnavit peccatum in carne ſuâ. Orig. Hoſtiâ pro peccato damnavit peccatum in Carne. Melanch. Per hoſtiam pro peccato Chriſtum; Deus abolevit peccatum in hominibus. Vatabl. Sed quid fi, mittens filium &c. vult dicere, & quidem hoſtiam pro peccato, five ut eſſet hoſtia pro peccato. Druſ. Ego adduci nequeo ut nomen Peccati alio ſenſu hic poſitum eſſe exiſtimem, quam pro expiatrice victima quae foreign dicitur Hebraeis, ficuti Graeci foreign vocunt Sacrificium cui maledictio injungitur. Calv. For Sin, that he might be a Sacrifice for Sin. Dr. Ham. To be a propitiatory Sacrifice for Sin. Deod. To the ſame purpoſe P. Martyr, Heming. Piſcat. Vorſt. Lud. de Dieu &c. (whom I need not cite); yet Beza will not admit of this expoſition; Praepoſitio foreign nullâ ratione poteſt hanc interpretationem admittere; ne que nunc Apoſtolus agit de Chriſti morte & noſtrorum peccatorum expiatione, ſed de Chriſti incarnatione & naturae noſtrae corruptione per eam ſublata. Beza. generally pitch'd upon, which ſeems beſt to correſpond with other parallel Texts and with the Matter and Scope of this which we have in hand, and therefore that only I ſhall iuſiſt upon: and indded the two former Senſes are included in this and do moſt naturally incorporate with it (as you will perceive in the following diſcourſe).

What is meant by in the fleſh?3. There is a Third thing to be opened (which in a very few words ſhall be diſpatch'd); 'tis ſaid here For Sin God condemned Sin in the Fleſh, now this being indefinitely propounded it may be ask'd, of what or of whoſe Fleſh doth the Apoſtle ſpeak? I anſwer, of the Fleſh of Chriſt: God ſent him in the likeneſs of ſinful Fleſh and in that very fleſh ſin was condemn'd. I know**Auguſtinus exponit de noſtra Carne in quâ peccatum tyrannidem poſſidet extra Chriſtum. Muſcal. Sed melius eſt ur dicamus, debilitavit fomitem peccati in carne noſtrâ. Aquin. Some interpre it of our fleſh, but the moſt apply it to Chriſt's Fleſh: there is in dafferent reſpecis a truth in both, for in our fleſh ſin is condemn'd as to the effect and benefit thereof, but in Chriſt's Fleſh it was condemn'd meritoriouſly and cauſally. The Syriack therefore (to make this the more expreſs) turns it and for ſin condemned ſin in his Fleſh. Sin ſhall be puniſhed and expiated in that Nature wherein it had been committed; Man in the fleſh had committed ſin and God in the fleſh (of him who was Man) will condemn Sin, ut caro humana quae peccaverat eadem pro peccato lueret. Our Saviours being††Sacerdos noſter à nobis accepit quod pro nobis offerret, accepit enim a nobis carnem, in ipſa Carne victima factus eſt. Auguſt. in Pſal. 129.Ps 129 a Sacrifice p. 470pointed to his Fleſh, 'twas the Humane Nature wherein he offered up himſelf, and therefore in that God is ſaid to condemn ſin. And as Sin ſhall be expiated in that Nature wherein it had been committed, ſo Satan too ſhall be bafled in that Nature over which he had been victiorious; Chriſt will beat him upon his own ground, he had overcome Man and Man ſhall overcome him; O the Wiſdom, Mercy, Power of God! (but theſe things were under the former Head much enlarg'd upon). I will only further take notice of two things:

1. This condemning of ſin is here brought in as God's act; God ſent his own Son &c. and for ſin condemned &c. But is not this applicable to Chriſt alſo? yes, if you conſider him as **Quamvis de Chriſto ut eſt Filius Dei poſſet verè dici eum expiare authoritativè & judicialitèr, quatenus ipſe cum Patre poteſtatem habet remittendi peccata, quia tamen hic conſideratur non ut Deus ſed ut Mediator, ut Sacerdos & victima—non poteſt aliter expiatio fieri quam per poenae lationem ſuccedaneam & vicariam mortem explicari. Turret. de Sat. Chriſti. pars 6. p. 204.God and as the eternal Son of God ſo 'twas and is his act as well as the Fathers to aboliſh, acquit and abſolve from Sins guilt in an authoritative way: but in the Clauſe (which I am opening) Chriſt is not ſpoken of in that notion as he was God, only as he was Man and as a victime and Sacrifice for ſin, and ſo he acquits from Sin not authoritatively but as the Way and Means which God made uſe of for the bringing about of this mercy for Sinners.

2. The Fleſh of Chriſt here is not to be conſidered ſimply & abſolutely, but under this reſtriction or ſpecial conſideration**Hoc factum eſt per carnem i. e. per mortem quam in carne & juxta humanam Naturam paſſus eſt. Zwingl. In Carne, i. e. per Carnem Filii ſui ſuſpenſam & mortificatam in Cruce. Eſtius. as dying, and thereby ſatisfying divine Juſtice. I would take in his whole humiliation, but this being the higheſt degree thereof therefore eminently by it ſin was condemned: O when this Fleſh of Chriſt hung upon the Croſs then ſin received its condemnatory Sentence, its mortal wound; then when Chriſt was condemn'd Sin (in another ſenſe) was condemn'd alſo. This (I ſay) was brought about in his fleſh as ſuffering the penalty of Death, ſo the Apoſtle puts it in Col. 1.22. In the body of his fleſh through death—. I'le add nothing farther upon this.

The Obſervation raiſed.The Words being thus explain'd, 'tis high time that I come to that Doctrinal Truth which they mainly hold forth; that's this, The Lord Jeſus ſubmitting to be a Sacrifice for ſin, and offering up himſelf as ſuch to God, he did thereby take away, aboliſh, explate all ſin, in all its guilt, ſo as that it ſhall never be charged upon Believers to their eternal ruine: In the language of the Text 'tis in ſhort For Sin, Sin was condemned. You heard but now in the opening p. 471of the condemning of Sin, that that admits of more ſenſes than that one which I now inſtance in in the Obſervation, yet however this being moſt agreeable to the nature of a Sacrifice (in reference to which Chriſt is here ſet forth), I therefore only mention it.

In the handling of this Point (which carries me again into the very midſt of the Socinians Camp, where I ſhould not chooſe to be but I muſt follow the Word whitherſoever it leads me,) there are two things to be ſpoken to:

1. To Chriſt's being a Sacrifice for Sin.

2. To the bleſſed Effect of that bleſſed Sacrifice, (viz.) the condemnation or expiation of Sin.

Of Chriſt's being à Sacrifies for Sin.I begin with the firſt, Chriſt was a Sacrifice for ſin: Which though in the General none deny, yet when we come to particulars about it as namely the true notion of his being ſo, the efficacy, ends, effects of his Sacrifice, the time when and the place where it was offered, (with ſeveral other things which are incident about it), there many differences do ariſe. Certainly there are none who believe the Scriptures but (in ſome ſenſe or other) they muſt grant Chriſt to be a Sacrifice, becauſe they are ſo plain and expreſs about it: Iſa. 53.10. When thou ſhalt make his Soul an Offering for Sin. 1 Cor. 5.7. For even Chriſt our Paſſeover is ſacrificed for us. 2 Cor. 5.21. He that knew no ſin, was made ſin (a Sacrifice for Sin) &c. Eph. 5.2. Walk in love as Chriſt alſo hath loved us, and hath given himſelf for us, an Offering and a Sacrifice to God for a ſweet ſmelling ſavour: (where the Apoſtle ſeems to allude

(1.) to the**Cloppenh. Schola Sacrif. p. 3. Franzius Diſp. 13. theſ. 2, 3. Mincah and Zebach amongſt the Jews; the Former of which did refer to their oblations of the Fruits of the Earth (ſet forth here by foreign), the Latter to the Sacrificing and offering of living Creatures (ſet forth here by foreign):

(2.) He alludes to the pleaſingueſs and gratefulneſs of the primitive Sàcrifices to God: Gen. 8.21.

And the Lord ſmelled a ſweet ſavour &c. Noah's Sacrifices (ſpoken of Verſ. 20.) were highly pleaſing to God: the like you have of the Levitical Sacrifices Levit. 1.9. an offering made by fire of a ſweet ſavour unto the Lord; (ſo Verſ. 13.17.) anſwerably to which (yea far above them) Chriſt was a Sacrifice of a ſweet ſmelling ſavour to God. Heb. 7.27.—This he did once when he offered up himſelf: Heb. 9.14.—who through the eternal Spirit offered up himſelf to God: (Verſ. 26.)—but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away ſin by the Sacrifice of himſelf: (Verſ. 28.)—So Chriſt was once offered to bear the ſins of many—. Indeed the great buſineſs of the Apoſtle p. 472in his excellent Epiſtle to the Hebrews, is both to aſſert and alſo to illuſtrate Chriſt's being a Sacrifice for Sin, (which he doth ſo fully and plainly as that one would think there ſhould be no doubts or differences amongſt any that bear the name of Chriſtians, about either the thing or the true nature and notion thereof).

Of Chriſt's being the eminent Sacrifice, and the reference of all the old Sacrifices to him.Yea, Chriſt was not only a Sacrifice (a true, real, proper Sacrifice, in oppoſition to thoſe who would make him but an improper, figurative, metaphorical Sacrifice), but he was the Sacrifice (in a way of eminency); unto which therefore all the Law Sacrifices did bear a ſpecial reference: For

1. Thoſe were the Types of this, all of them**Propter hoc etiam omnia Sacrificia Veteris Teſtamenti leguntur, ut hoc unum Sacrificium deſignarent: per quod vera eſt reiniſſio peccatorum & mundatio animae in eternum. Ambroſ. in Ep. ad Heb. c. 9.—Fuit apud Veteres oblatio Holocauſti Concio quaedam de morte Chriſti, quâ nes à peccatis per fidem purgati ſumus. Quia omnia Sacrificia Legis in unum Chriſtum reſpiciunt, at que unicum ejus Sacrificium adumbrant. Munſter. in Lev. 1.1.Heb 9Lev 1:1 typifying and prefiguring Chriſt the grand Sacrifice and like the gnomon in the Dyall pointing to him in this conſideration. I ſay, all were typical adumbrations of him; therefore we find they are not only in the body and lump of them, but as taken ſeverally and apart apply'd and brought down to him: yea, he was ſhadowed out by them not only with reſpect to their matter, but alſo with reſpect to the ſeveral rites and modes uſed about them; (both of which aſſertions are ſufficiently made out in the forenamed Epiſtle). And whereas††Socin. de Servat. p. 2. c. 9. Againſt him in this, ſee Grotius de Sat. Chriſti. p. 126, 127. Turretin. de Satiſ. p. 216. Franz. Diſp. 6. theſ. 34 &c. Eſſen. Tri. Crucis. p. 226. Hoornb. Socin. conf. 597, 599. Some affirm, that the annual expiatory Sacrifices (of which you read Levit. 16.) only did prefigure Chriſt and his being a Sacrifice, 'tis a very great falſity; thoſe indeed might ſo prefigure him eminently but not ſolely: For we find Others apply'd to him as well as thoſe, as namely the Lamb in the daily Offering, the Paſchal Lamb (which was partly a Sacrifice and partly a Sacrament), Joh. 1.29. 1 Pet. 1.19. 1 Cor. 5.7. Rev. 5.6. &c. Chap. 13.8. the red Heifer (to be Sacrific'd upon occaſion for the expiating of the guilt of unknown murder, Numb. 19.) Heb. 9.13. the daily Sacrifices Heb. 7.27. Heb. 10.11. But (paſſing by theſe things) I ſay Chriſt was typified by the old Sacrifices; and probably that might be one End of God in his inſtituting of them. For that they were of**For this vide Suarez. in 3. part. Sum. Aquin. Queſt. 83. Art. 1. Diſp. 71. Rivet. in Gen. Exerc. 42. p. 170. &c. & p. 222. Franz. de Sacrif. Diſp. 2. theſ. 76. Diſp. 3 Diſp. 76. Diſp. 16 theſ. 33. Cloppenb. Scho. Sacrif probl. 2. p. 51. &c. Dr. O. de Theologiâ Adamica. l. 2. c. 1. p. 133, 134. divine and poſitive inſtitution, and not taken up upon the Light or Law of Nature, is to me (though I know††The Papiſts generally. B…ll…rm. de Miſsâ l. 1. c. 20. Valentia de Miſſae Sacrificio. l. 1. c. 4. Others are of this Opinion alſo: The Author of Eccleſ. Policy. p. 100. &c. Defence &c. p. 421. &c. who yet grants expiatory Sacrifices to be of divine Inſtitution, p. 427. &c. Others think otherwiſe p. 473a truth clear enough. But why did God inſtitute them? to appoint the ſlaying of ſo many poor Creatures, ſuch various and coſtly Sacrifices to be offered, ſo often to be repeated, ſuch for every day, ſuch for every Sabbath, ſuch for every New Moon, ſuch every year at the ſolemn and anniverſary Expiation, beſides what were offered at the Paſſeover, at ſeveral Feaſts, at the leſſer and greater Jubile upon particular and ſpecial occaſions, as dedications &c? pray what might be God's End (or Ends) in all this? Was it that he might ſhew his dominion over the Creatures? was it that he might by this demonſtrate the Evil of Sin and what the Sinner deſerv'd upon it? was it to**Theodoret for this, Vol. 4. de curandis Graec. affectibus c. 7. p. 584. gratifie the Jews (who having been amongſt the Egyptians where Sacrifices did abound might therefore be taken with them and fond of them), and thereby to prevent their Idolatry? Several ſuch Ends and Reaſons are aſſign'd, but ſurely that which I am upon muſt not be left out (if not preferr'd before any other,) viz. therefore God††Fagius in Levit. 1.2. gives two reaſons of them. Ut populus in Idololatriam pronus ab idolis averteretur & in cultu Dei retineretur. Deinde ut typos haberet populus Dei Sacrificii Chriſti, quem oportebat aliquando in crucem agi pro peccatis ſuorum. Rivet. in Gen. p. 222. Praecipuè quia voluit adumbrari Sacrificiis paſſionem futuram Mediatoris & &c.Lev 1:2 did ordain and inſtitute Sacrifices that by them he might typifie and prefigure that great Sacrifice which was to come; thereby the better to prepare and inform the world about it; (but how, or in what meaſure, and in what extent God did clear up this Notion, Ʋſe and End of Sacrifices, I ſhall not be too forward to determine).

2. As the Law-Sacrifices were Types ſo they were but Types: there was little in them take away the typical nature of them, what poor things were they further than as they did point to Chriſt! The Apoſtle calls them but ſhadows of good things to come Heb. 10.1. figures for the time then preſent Heb. 9.9. patterns of things in the Heavens Heb. 9.23. examples and ſhadows of heavenly things Heb. 8.5.

3. Nay Thirdly, all that **Hujus Sacrificii à Chriſto peragendi Sacrificia caetera typi erant; quia ut pecus moriebatur pro homine Levit. 17.11. ita & Jeſus Chriſtus eſſet ſanguinem ſuum effuſurus pro nobis. Utra que igitur auferebant reatum: hoc tamen diſcrimine, quod Sacrificium Chriſti id praeſtabat virtute ſuâ, illa vero legalia proprie & directè ſolum tollebant reatum ratione poenae temporalis: in figurâ tantum promitterent piis effectum Spiritualem & aeternum, puta ablationem reatus aeterni five poenae infernalis. Voſſius de Idolol. l. 1. p. 297.Lev 17:11virtue and efficacy which was in them was all derived from and did all depend upon this great Sacrifice, the Lord Jeſus. Alas! what could they do by any inherent virtue in themſelves for the expiating of Sin and pacifying of God! Heb. 10.4. p. 474It is not poſſible that the blood of Bulls and Goats ſhould take away Sins: how often doth the Apoſtle go over this (viz.) the weakneſs of the Levitical Sacrifices with reſpect to expiation and atonement! doubtleſs whatever virtue or efficacy was in them in order to the production of theſe effects it wholly depended upon Chriſt the Sacrifice that was to come.

Yet here I would not be miſunderſtood, in ſuch a ſenſe I do not make the Law-Sacrifices to be meer types or altogether weak; for as to that which the Apoſtle calls the purifying of the fleſh Heb. 9.13. they were more than types and had more than**See Dr. Stillingfleete in his Diſcourſe concerning the True Reaſon of Chriſt's Sufferings. p. 423. &c. a typical expiation; and with reſpect to that by virtue of God's inſtitution they were able to effect it: But beſides this there was the making of perſons perfect as pertaining to the Conſcience, the purging of the Conſcience &c. Heb. 9.9, 14. now as to this their ſtrength was wholly derived and their uſe wholly typical. By the purifying of the Fl…, is meant exemption from thoſe Civil and Eccleſiaſtical penalties which upon ſuch tranſgreſſions of the Law the Jews were lyable to: God gave them with reſpect to their polity ſuch and ſuch Laws, which if any did break they were ſo and ſo to be puniſhed; yet he was ſo gracious to them as to allow in ſeveral Caſes the offering of Sacrifices, in order to the expiating of their guilt and the preventing of the puniſhment threatned to them (as they ſtood in ſuch a politick capacity); therefore as to this Sacrifices had a real efficiency and alſo a full efficacy. By the making perfect as pertaining to the Conſcience, is meant the doing away of Sins guilt in the ſight of God, the ſetting of things right betwixt God and the Sinner, the pacifying of his wrath, ſecuring from eternal puniſhments: now as to this the Moſaical Sacrifices could do nothing, here they were meer types and altogether weak; this was to be done by the alone Sacrifice of Chriſt. So that whereas Some do argue againſt the Sacrifices under the Law as not prefiguring Chriſt, becauſe they had no power or virtue in them to take away Sin, I anſwer

(1.) As to the taking away of external guilt and obligation to external puniſhment, ſo far they had a power:

(2.) Suppoſe they had had**This made good by Jacob▪ ad Portum contra Oſtorod. p. 468. Turretin. de Sat. Chriſti. p. 237. none at all yet for all that they might have had this uſe; as (I hope) the brazen Serpent was a real type and prefiguration of Chriſt, in reference to his Spiritual healing of the poor Sin-ſtung Soul, and yet that of it ſelf had no virtue at all to bring about that effect which ſhould bear any analogie unto the thing typified.

p. 4754. That thoſe old Sacrifices had a ſpecial reference to Chriſt, the great Sacrifice, is evident from this becauſe with him they **Cum pro miſſo Meſſiâ ince perunt Sacrificia, cum Meſſiâ defuncto defuncta ſunt &c. Franzius Diſp. 10. theſ. 98. See him alſo Diſp. 21. p. 757.began and with him they ended: For as ſoon as ever Chriſt had been exhibited in that primitive Promiſe Gen. 3.15. that the ſeed of the woman ſhould bruiſe the Serpents head &c. immediately upon this (as Divines do not only conjecture but prove) Sacrifices did commence; and as ſoon as he himſelf came and had offered himſelf upon the Croſs (as the true Sacrifice), within a very little while the Jewiſh Sacrifices ceas'd. Within a few years after their Temple was deſtroy'd, and with that all their Sacrifices expir'd; yea, (in proceſs of time) though††The full ſtory in Socrates. l. 3. c. 20. Sozom. l. 5. c. 22. Julian gave them encouragement to reedifie the Temple (for this very end that Sacrifices might again be uſed), and the Jews thereupon endeavoured to their utmoſt ſo to do, yet God from Heaven blaſted them in all their attempts in a miraculous and extraordinary manner:‖‖Vide Cyprian. adverſus Judaeos. l. 1. c. 16. Tertull. contra Marcion. l. 2. O the true Sacrifice was come, therefore there ſhall be no more uſe of what was but typical thereof, (as the dark ſhades of the night vaniſh when the Sun itſelf ariſes). The Heathen Oracles entrench'd too much upon Chriſt's Prophetical Office, and therefore at his coming they muſt**Reade Plutarch. de Oraculorum defectu. p. 409. ceaſe; and Sacrifices did as much entrench upon his Prieſtly Office and the oblation of himſelf, and therefore after his Death they ſhall and did ceaſe too. 'Twas propheſied of the Meſſiah that he ſhould cauſe the Sacrifice and the Oblation to ceaſe, Dan. 9.27. and Heb. 10.8, 9. Above, when he ſaid, Sacrifice and Offering, and burnt Offerings, and offering for Sin thou wouldeſt not, neither hadſt pleaſure therein, which are offered by the Law: Then ſaid he, Lo, I come to do thy will (O God). He taketh away the firſt, that he may eſtabliſh the ſecond; (that's the obſervation which the Apoſtle makes upon it). And this very thing (the ceaſing of Sacrifices) was reveal'd to ſome amongſt the Jews themſelves, for in the Age before Chriſt's coming they had got this Propheſie amongſt them;††Vorſtius ex Jalcutt ad finem Ezrae &c. Sic conſentiunt in abolitionem Sacrificiorum. Alting. Shiloh. p. 423. Omnes oblationes ceſſabunt in futuro ſaeculo, in the Age that is next to come all Sacrifices ſhall ceaſe. And if there be not ſomething extraordinary in the caſe, why do the modern Jews (they knowing how expreſs and poſitive God's inſtitution and command is about Sacrifices) live in the omiſſion of them? (for as to that which‖‖Buxtorf. Synag. Judaica. c. 20. p. 357. ſome ſpeak of as to their annual Sacrificing even now at the time of the great Expiation, I cannot give any great credit to it).

Let not any think that all this Diſcourſe (concerning the reference of the antient Sacrifices to Chriſt the true Sacrifice) is unneceſſary; p. 476for I have gained two things by it;

(1.) That the Lord Jeſus is the great Sacrifice; all former Sacrifices pointing to him as the end, matter, ſubſtance, **Omnia haec ſuo modo in typo facta perfectiſſimè in Chriſto praeſtita ſunt in veritate & reipſa &c. utpote qui mortis ſuae Sacrificio peccata noſtra delevit, ab irâ Dei nobis eſt umbraculum, & Sacrificio ſuo apud Deum nos reconciliavit. Zarnov. de Sat. Chriſti. p. 38.accompliſhment of them.

(2.) That he is alſo a true and real Sacrifice; for was there reality in the Type, and ſhall there not be the ſame (with advantage) in the Anti-type? or ſhall they be ſhadows of a ſhadow? ſhall there be ſuch a ſhell and no kernel, ſuch a bone and no marrow in it?

But to go on! In the old Sacrifices there were theſe Six things:

Six things in the Old Sacrifices all of which are to be found in Chriſts Sacrifice.1. The Perſon who did inſtitute, ordain, and appoint the uſe of them; who was God himſelf, (whoſe inſtitution of them though it be not expreſs'd in the Scriptures yet it may very ſtrongly be inferr'd from them).

2. The Perſon unto whom they were offered; and he alſo was God himſelf.

3. The Perſons offering (viz.) the Prieſts, to whom by divine appointment this work was committed, and it was a great part of their work and one great end of their Office, For every high Prieſt taken from among men, is ordained for men in things partaining to God, that he may offer both Gifts and Sacrifices for ſins, Heb. 5.1.

4. The Matter of the Sacrifice, or the thing offered: which was very various according to what God was pleas'd to ſpecifie and appoint, Oxen, Bulls, Heifers, Sheep, Rams, Goats, &c.

5. The Oblation it ſelf: when the Beaſt was ſlain it was to be offered up, and then part of the blood thereof was to be carried into the Holy of Holy's, there to be preſented before the Lord; and the main ſtreſs of the**See Dr. Stillingfl. againſt Crellius. ch. 5. p. 451. expiation lay not upon the repreſentation (which followed after), but upon the mactation and ſolemn oblation of the Sacrifice.

6. The Altar upon which all was to be offer'd.

Now anſwerably and in correſpondency to all theſe,

1. God inſtituted, appointed, ordained Chriſt to be the Sacrifice; it was his will and ordination that his Son ſhould offer up himſelf a propitiatory or expiatory Sacrifice. Rom. 3.25. Whom God hath ſet forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood. 2 Cor. 5.19. God was in Chriſt reconciling the world to himſelf &c. 1 Pet. 1.20. Who verily was fore-ordained before the foundation of the world &c. It p. 477was as much the appointment of God that Chriſt (the true Sacrifice) ſhould die, be ſlain, offered up, as that under the Law any of thoſe Sacrifices ſhould be ſo uſed: and as from all eternity he decreed and appointed Chriſt to be the Sacrifice, ſo in time he fitted and prepared him for his being ſo; therefore ſaith Chriſt**Heb. 10.5.Heb 10:5 But a body haſt thou prepared me, (without which he could not have been a Sacrifice).

2. Chriſt offered up himſelf to God. He had to do**Grot. de Sat. Chriſti. c. 10. p. 121. with God as he ſtood in the quality and reſpect of a Sacrifice, for this was a part of his Prieſtly Office which primarily refers to God; as King and Prophet he hath to do with us, but as Prieſt he had to do with God (that he might propitiate and atone him). So 'twas with the Aaronical Prieſts, they were ordained for men in things [pertaining to God] Heb. 5.1. and ſurely ſo it muſt be too with the great Prieſt whom they did typifie. Heb. 2.17.—that he might be a merciful and faithful High Prieſt in things [pertaining to God]: The Apoſtle ſpeaks it expreſly,—and hath given himſelf for us, an offering, and [a Sacrifice to God] for a ſweet ſmelling ſavour.

3. Here was the Perſon offering, and that was Chriſt himſelf: he as Mediator, as God-Man was the Prieſt to offer up himſelf. They under the Law had variety of Sacrifices and variety of Prieſts, we under the Goſpel have but one Sacrifice and one Prieſt; who firſt offered up himſelf and now continues (in another way) to offer up our duties and ſervices to God.

4. As Chriſt was the Prieſt offering ſo he was the Sacrifice offered; for he was both (which was unuſual and extraordinary). The Levitical Prieſts and the Sacrifices which they offered were diſtinct; they were not bound to offer themſelves, but our Lord Jeſus was**Ut quoniam quatuor conſiderantur in omni Sacrificio, cui offeratur, à quo offeratur, quid offeratur, pro quibus offeratur: idem ipſe unus verúſ que Mediator, per Sacrificium pacis reconcilians nos, unum cum illo maneret cui offerebatur, unum in ſe faceret pro quibus offerebatur, unus ipſe eſſet qui offerebat & quod offerebat. Auguſt. de Trinit. Utrum Chriſtus ſimul f…erit Sacerdos & Hoſtia? Aquin. in 3. p. Qu. 22. Art. 2. Prieſt and Sacrifice too; in his Perſon he was the Offerer, in his humane Nature he was the thing offered. 'Twas neceſſary that he ſhould offer ſomething, For every high Prieſt is ordained to offer gifts and Sacrifices: wherefore it is of neceſſity that this man have alſo ſomewhat to offer, Heb. 8.3. what then did he offer? ſuch things as had been offered before? the blood of bulls and goats? no, he offered his own blood, Heb. 9.12. his own body, Heb. 10. 4, 5, 6, 7, 10.—through the offering of the body of Jeſus Chriſt once for all: that very body which was ſo miraculouſly framed, p. 478with which he liv'd here on earth, which he carried up with him afterwards to heaven, that very body (I ſay) he freely offered up upon the Croſs as a Sacrifice to God: His Soul comes in too, (but that's himſelf) Iſa. 53.10. When thou ſhalt make his ſoul an offering for ſin: His whole ſelf in his whole Humane Nature was the matter of this Sacrifice; Eph. 5.2.—and hath given himſelf for us, an offering &c. Heb. 1.3.—when he had by himſelf purged our ſins—Heb. 9.14.—who through the eternal Spirit offered himſelf without ſpot to God.—So Heb. 7.27. The Text ſaith for ſin God condemned ſin in the fleſh; by which fleſh the Apoſtle underſtands the whole Manhood of Chriſt, and that was the Sacrifice for ſin by which Sin was condemned.

5. There was Chriſt's formal and proper oblation performed upon the Croſs, by and upon which the ſins of Believers were to be expiated. That there was in Chriſt an oblation none deny, but that this was done at his Death or here on earth, and was expiatory (in that ſenſe which we put upon it), both of theſe are vehemently deny'd by the SOCINIANS; (but I ſhall have occaſion to vindicate both by and by).

6. In Chriſt's Sacrifice there was an Altar too, namely his Godhead. The Altar ſanctify'd the gift Matth. 23.19. ſo 'twas here; the Deity of Chriſt did not only ſuſtain and ſtrengthen his Humane Nature in his being a Sacrifice therein, but it alſo gave merit and efficacy to his Sacrifice: for how did that come to be ſo meritorious and effectual for the good of Sinners? but from this that he who offered up himſelf was God as well as Man; therefore the Apoſtle ſpeaking of the efficacy of this Sacrifice above the Levitical Sacrifices, lays it upon Chriſt's Godhead, Heb. 9.14. How much more ſhall the blood of Chriſt, who through the eternal Spirit (his Deity), offered himſelf &c.

The chiefeſt difficultys not lying in theſe things, I do not (you ſee) make any long ſtay upon them; but there being a twofold Enquiry which will carry us into the very bowels of the main Truth, and take in what is moſt ſtruck at by our Adverſaries, that I would rather to ſpend my time upon. The Lord Jeſus being a Sacrifice it will be asked

1. What a kind of a Sacrifice he was?

2. When and where he was that Sacrifice?

What a kind of Sacrifice Jeſus Chriſt was? Anſ. An expiatory Sacrifice.To the Firſt I anſwer, he was a propitiatory or expiatory Sacrifice, anſwering unto (yet infinitely exceeding) the Jewiſh expiatory Sacrifices, by which he was ſhadowed out and typify'd. p. 479The proof and illuſtration of this very thing is the deſign and buſineſs of the Apoſtle in that Epiſtle (I mean that written to the Hebrews), which gives us more light into it than all the Books that ever were written before or beſides. Pray reade (again and again) the 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 Chapters thereof, and you'l find the Apoſtle there doing theſe three things;

—(1.) He proves that Chriſt was not only a Sacrifice but that he was (truly and really) an expiatory Sacrifice: for he inſtances in all the proper, conſtitutive ingredients into and effects of the Law-expiatory Sacrifices, all of which he applys and brings down to Chriſt.

(2.) He ſhows the analogy and reſemblance 'twixt thoſe expiatory Sacrifices and this of Chriſt, and what reſpect they all carried to this.

(3.) He ſhows wherein and how far the latter exceeded the former.

The diſcuſſing of theſe three Heads takes up the greateſt part of that moſt excellent Commentary upon the Law-Sacrifices; the particular Texts in it I will not at preſent cite (as they are proper to what I have now laid down), but that will be done in what will follow.

A ſhort account of the difference and diſtinction of the Jewiſh Sacrifices. Of which (in particular) ſee Philo. Jud. de Victimis. Joſeph. Antiq. Jud. l. 3. c. 10. Sigon. de Repub. Hebr. l. 3. c. 2. (with very many Others). Dr. Owen on the Hebr. in Proleg. Exercit. 24. Dr. Stillingfl. Anſwer to Crellius p. 473.For our better procedure in ſpeaking to this important Truth, before I can well fall upon the cloſe handling of it, it will not be amiſs for us a little to caſt our eye upon and to take a ſhort view of the Jewiſh Sacrifices. With the general Nature whereof I intend not at all to meddle, only give me leave (that being proper to the buſineſs in hand and indeed neceſſary for the better underſtanding of it,) to ſhew how theſe were diverſify'd and diſtinguiſhed. Concerning which, ſeveral Diviſions and Diſtinctions are given of them, but the beſt and ſhorteſt is this viz. Some were gratulatory and ſome Propitiatory, or ſome Euchariſtical and ſome Expiatory.

Euchariſtical were thoſe that were deſign'd for the expreſſing of gratitude, for the giving of thanks and praiſe to the Lord upon the receiving of mercy: of which you reade Lev. 7.15.—22.29. Pſal. 50.14. Hoſ. 14.2. (but theſe I am not concerned about).

Expiatory were thoſe that were deſign'd for the atoning and pacifying of God, the averting of his anger, the doing away the guilt of Sin, and the preventing or removing of the puniſhment of it: theſe were the Sacrifices which took up the greateſt room in the body of Moſaical Sacrifices, and which did in ſpecial point to the grand Sacrifice of our Lord Jeſus, and to that too as expiatory.

Now theſe expiatory Sacrifices were many and various, all of p. 480them carrying ſomething in them whereby they differ'd and were diſtinguiſhed each from the other; which differences (with the grounds and reaſons of them) if we could exactly hit upon, 'twould be of marvellous great uſe to us in many things; but (alas) excepting where the Goſpel it ſelf opens this for us, we are much in the dark about it! the Jewiſh Writers that ſhould help therein contribute but very little help (as they tell us who are moſt converſant in them). If we take a brief and general Scheme of them, this is clear: the old expiatory Sacrifices differ'd in the matter of them; for in ſome 'twas living Creatures, in others 'twas what grew from the earth; and often theſe two were joyn'd, the Zebach and the Mincah going together in the ſame Sacrifice, (as in the daily Sacrifice Exod. 29.39, 40. and in diverſe others). They differ'd in the Rites us'd about them (all of which were preſcrib'd by God himſelf); ſome were to be poured out, ſome burnt; ſome to be ſlain and offered by the ordinary Prieſts, ſome by the High Prieſt himſelf; the blood of ſome to be carried into the Holy of Holy's, of others not ſo; ſome to be wholly conſum'd; and God to have all (as in the Holocauſts), ſome but in part conſum'd, in which of what was left, one part was to go to the Prieſts (as in the Sin and Treſpas-offering), and the other to the Perſons who brought the Sacrifice (as in the Peace-offering, provided that that which was offered was for private perſons, for if it was offered for the whole Congregation then no private perſon might ſhare in the reſidue, Levit. 23.19, 20.) They differ'd in the Time which was appointed for them; for ſome were to be offer'd every day, morning and evening, (call'd the daily Sacrifice); Exod. 29.38, 39, 40. Numb. 28.3, 4, 5. 2 Chron. 8.13. 1 Chron. 16.40. Ezek. 46.13, 14. Dan. 8.11.—9.21.—11.31.—12.11. Nehem. 10.33. Ezra 9.4, 5.—Some to be offered but every Sabbath day, Numb. 28.9, 10. Some at the New Moons Numb. 28.11. Some at the revolution of the Sabbatical year Levit. 25.2. &c. Some at the great Jubile Levit. 25.8. &c. Some at the Solemn Feaſts, as that of the Paſſeover Exod. 12. Numb. 28.26. of Pentecoſt Lev. 23.17. &c. of Tabernacles Numb. 29.12. Some but once a year at the great aniverſary Expiation Levit. 16. per tot. They differ'd in the Riſe of them; ſome being purely from the will of the Offerer (the**Vide L'Empereur de Leg. Hebr. p. 264. Free-will Offerings), Levit. 7.16. Levit. 22.21. others occaſioned by ſome ſpecial emergency of Providence, (when ſome eminent mercy was received, or ſome great judgment to be removed &c. 2 Sam. 6.13, 17. 1 Chron. 15.26. 2 Chron. 29.21. &c. p. 4812 Sam. 24. ult.) Others were conſtant being ſet and ſtated by God himſelf, (as thoſe that have been already mentioned). They differ'd according to the Perſons for whom they were appointed; ſome for the Prince, ſome for the Prieſts, ſome for private men, ſome for the whole Community, (for each of which directions are given Lev. 4.) And then as to the kinds or Species of them there were the Burnt-offerings (about which Rules are ſet down Lev. 1.), Meat-offerings (of which Levit. 2.), Peace-offerings (Levit. 3.), the Sin-offering (Levit. 4.), the Treſpaſs-offering (Levit. 5. and 6.)**Philo Jud. de Vict. p. 648. foreign. Some reduce all to three, the Burnt-offering, the Peace-offering, the Sin-offering; ††Joſeph. Ant. l. 3. c. 10. foreign &c.—Some to two, the Holoucaſt and the Thank-offering; (but of ſuch different apprehenſions there's no end).

Now though theſe Sacrifices were thus diverſify'd amongſt themſelves, yet the moſt (if not all) of them agreed in this that they were in their Ʋſe, End, and Effects of an expiatory nature: I ſay all, for unqueſtionably it belong'd not only to the Sacrifices us'd at the anniverſary Expiation nor only to the Sin-offering and Treſpaſs-offering to expiate ſin, but all the reſt (more or or leſs) were deſigned for this end and accordingly did produce this effect. Agreeably to which, Chriſt (the true and great Sacrifice) in the offering up of himſelf to God did truly, properly expiate ſin; for if they did ſo, he then much more: becauſe they in their expiation were types of him in his expiation, now whatever is in the type muſt needs be in the thing typified; as alſo becauſe their expiation was done in the ſtrength and virtue of Chriſts Sacrifice, now ſurely that which gives expiatory virtue to other things muſt needs have ſuch virtue in it ſelf.

Four things propounded for the opening & proving of Chriſt's being an Expiatory Socrifice.For the better opening and proving of Chriſt's being an expiatory Sacrifice, by making a collation or parallel between him and the expiatory Sacrifices under the Law; there are theſe Four things which I ſhall endeavour to make good:

1. That in thoſe expiatory Sacrifices, whatever was laid upon them is was for the ſin of the People, as the impulſive and meritorious Cauſe thereof; and that ſo it was with Chriſt in his Sufferings.

2. That thoſe Sacrifices were ſubſtituted in the place and ſtead of the Offenders themſelves, bearing their puniſhment; and that ſo it was with Chriſt in reference to Sinners.

3. That thoſe Sacrifices were to be offered up, killed, ſlain, conſumed, and in that way they became expiatory; and that ſo it was with Chriſt.

p. 4824. That by thoſe Sacrifices God was actually atoned and propitiated, the expiation and remiſſion of Sin procured; and that ſo it was by Chriſt: Theſe things being cleared and proved it will be evident that Chriſt was a true expiatory Sacrifice; (I'le go over them as briefly as the nature of the thing will admit of).

Of the Firſt; whatever befel the Expiatory Sacrifices was for the Peoples Sin, and ſo it was with Chriſt in his Sufferings.1. Firſt (I ſay) in thoſe expiatory Sacrifices whatever was laid upon them it was for the Sin of the people, as the impulſive and meritorious Cauſe thereof: For wherefore were the poor innocent Beaſts and living Creatures killed and ſlain as they were? what had they done that ſo many of them muſt be put to death from day to day? did God delight in making his Temple a ſlaughter-houſe? was it his pleaſure to have it thus that he might ſhew his dominion and ſoveraignty over the Creature? ſurely that was not the great thing which he deſign'd therein! he had other ways (which might ſeem more ſuitable to his goodneſs and pity to his Creatures) wherein he might have made known his dominion over them: And beſides, if this was the thing only aimed at why muſt the people lay their hands upon the Cattel when they were ſacrificed? why muſt they confeſs their ſins over them (as you'l ſee under the next Head they were to do)? theſe rites evidently declare, that God did not here proceed in the way of abſolute dominion, but that there was ſin in the caſe as the procuring Cauſe of all this: and if ſo, they having no ſin of their own for which they could thus ſuffer, their ſuffering muſt be reſolved into the ſin of the people as that which brought it upon them. So it was with Chriſt our Sacrifice; his Sufferings were exceeding ſharp, his precious life was taken from him, he dy'd upon the Croſs, indured hard uſage indeed; whence did all this befal him? was there not ſome ſpecial Cauſe why it ſhould be thus with God's own Son? yes: what was that? why, Sin, Sin was that cauſe: but whoſe ſin? not his own, for he was perfectly free from all ſin; he knew no ſin 2 Cor. 5.21. he was holy, harmleſs, undefiled, ſeparate from Sinners, Heb. 7.26. a Lamb without blemiſh and without ſpot 1 Pet. 1.19. it muſt be our ſin then that was the meritorious Cauſe of all Chriſt's ſufferings. Dan. 9.26. After threeſcore and two weeks ſhall Meſſiah be cut off, but not for himſelf: Iſa. 53.4, 5, 6. Surely, he hath born our griefs, and carried our ſorrows: yet we did eſteem him ſtricken, ſmitten of God and afflicted: But he was wounded for our tranſgreſſions, he was bruiſed for our iniquities; the chaſtiſement of our peace was upon him, and with his ſtripes we are healed: All we like ſheep have gone aſtray; we have turned every one to his p. 483own way, and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Rom. 3.25. Who was delivered for our offences (foreign) and raiſed again for our juſtification: 'tis the ſame Prepoſition in both branches but its ſenſe is different, (which difference riſes from the different nature of the matter ſpoken of); for when 'tis joyned with ſins or offences it imports that they were the meritorious Cauſe of Chriſt's Sufferings, but when 'tis joyn'd with Chriſt's reſurrection and the Sinners juſtification there its ſignification and import is final, (yet too in ſuch a ſenſe the foreign may be taken meritoriouſly in the latter as well as in the former branch).**De Servat. p. 3. c. 7. & p. 3. c. 7. SOCINƲS tells us that this (with ſome other parallel expreſſions) only notes our ſins to be the occaſion, but not the impulſive Cauſe of Chriſt's Sufferings; as alſo that the particle foreign is both here and elſe where alwayes taken in a final, never in any meritorious ſenſe: But moſt**Ubi eſt foreign cum Accuſativo: quae apud Graecae Linguae Authores Sacros & Profanos uſitatiſſima eſt nota Cauſae impulſivae. Ut cum dicitur foreign propter haec venit ira Dei in filios contumaciae; Eph. 5.6. Grot. de Sat. Chriſti. c. 1. (in Rom. 4.25.).Eph 5:6Rom 4:25 untruly, for 'tis ſaid Eph. 5.6.—becauſe of theſe things the wrath of God comes upon the children of diſobedience; foreign, for theſe things as thoſe which merit and bring down the Wrath of God upon Sinners. But I will not ſtay upon the refuting of the uſual Cavils and falſe aſſertions about this, becauſe I conceive this Head may not be ſo proper to that which I am upon; for I am not now ſpeaking to the Sufferings or Death of Chriſt under the conſideration of a puniſhment (to which a meritorious Cauſe doth point), but of a Sacrifice: The expiatory Sacrifices 'tis very true were puniſhed for the Sins of men, but yet that wherein they were expiatory, and as they were expiatory more immediately pointed to ſomething elſe, (namely to that which will follow in the ſucceeding Particulars); and ſo 'tis here too with reſpect to Chriſt. Whoſe Death (as is uſually obſerved) falls under a threefold conſideration, 'twas a Puniſhment, a Sacrifice, a Ranſom; with reſpect to the Firſt, the effect thereof was Satisfaction; to the Second, the effect thereof was Atonement, to the Third, the effect thereof was Redemption: now I at preſent conſidering it in the Second notion as 'tis a Sacrifice, have not ſo much to do with that which refers to it in the notion of a puniſhment; therefore this firſt particular I paſs over.

Of the Second: the Sacrifices were ſubſtituted in the place of the Offenders; ſo it was with Chriſt.2. Secondly, in the Levitical Expiatory Sacrifices there was the ſubſtitution of them in the place and ſtead of the Offenders themſelves; p. 484the Peoples ſin and the puniſhment due to them thereupon was laid upon the thing ſacrificed; inſomuch that whereas they ſhould have dy'd by ſurrogation and commutation the poor Beaſts dy'd for them. This was the great thing**Nequaquam Sacra Scriptura admittit alium finem Sacrificiorum quam hunc ipſum, quod nimirum vice hominum ſunt paſſa pecora Sacrificialia. Franzius in Praefat. ad Schol. Sacrif. Patriarch. intended and deſigned in thoſe Sacrifices; and that it was really ſo done in them the Scripture is very clear: Take that one place: Levit. 17.11. For the life of the fleſh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the Altar, to make an atonement for your Souls; for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the Soul. In all the four Books of Moſes (which treat ſo much upon Sacrifices) there is not a more pithy and plain account given of their Ʋſe and End than here in this place: the Lord in the 10^th Verſ. ſeverely prohibits the eating of blood, in this Verſ. he backs his prohibition with a double Argument;

(1.) becauſe the life of the fleſh was in the blood:

(2.) becauſe he had ſet that apart for an high and ſacred Ʋſe, viz. to be uſed in Sacrifices in order to atonement; and I have given it you upon the Altar, to make atonement &c. (for this great effect mainly lay upon the blood, it is the blood that maketh atonement for the Soul): Now mark it 'tis to make atonement [for your Souls], and it makes atonement [for the Soul] (that is) in the **So 'tis rendred in ſeveral Verſions of the Words, ſet down in Franz. p. 446. See this Text improv'd and vindicated in Dr. Stillingſt. againſt Crell. p. 429. &c.ſtead of your Soul (he ſpeaking to the people of Iſrael), ſo that in the blood Sacrific'd there was Soul for Soul, Life for Life, the Soul and Life of the Sacrifice for the more precious Soul and Life of the Sinner; was not here ſubſtitution of the one in the room of the other? Hence it is that the Sacrifices were ſaid to bear the iniquities of the people (becauſe of the transferring of the guilt and puniſhment of ſin over to them); ſo you read Levit. 16.22. Levit. 10.17.

Hence alſo was the laying on of hands upon the Sacrifice (ſometimes by the Prieſts, ſometimes by the People); you have it preſcrib'd in the Burnt-offering Levit. 1.4. in the Peace-offering Levit. 3.2, 8, 13. in the Sin-offering Levit. 4.15, 24, 29, 33. at the great Expiation, AARON was to lay both his hands upon the head of the live-Goat, and to confeſs over him all the iniquities of the children of Iſrael &c. Levit. 16.21. Now what might be the meaning of this rite? was it to ſignifie that the thing offered was now Deo ſacrum (as being ſet apart for God and conſecrated for his uſe, upon which account impoſition of hands was us'd in other Caſes)? or was it expreſſive of obteſtation, to hold forth the peoples praying to God Quicquid à nobis peccatum eſt ſit in hujus victimae caput, wherein-ſoever we have offended let all be laid upon the head of this Victime? or did they by this teſtifie the ſenſe of their deſerts to die themſelves? theſe p. 485things I grant may very well be taken in; but the main thing held forth in it, was the tranſlation of the Sinners guilt to the Sacrifice and the ſubſtitution of it in his ſtead. Whenever the people thus laid their hands upon the Sacrifice, they did in effect ſay**Hoc ritu quil offerebat, ſignificabat ſe ſcelera ſua conjicere in caput bovis qui propterea mactabatur. Druſius in Levit. 1.4.Lev 1:4 upon this Beaſt we lay all our ſins; and this was the primary intendment of that rite. And had there not been a ſtrange conveyance or imputation of ſomething of this nature to the things ſacrific'd, I would fain know a reaſon why the meſſenger that only went with the Scape-Goat into the Wilderneſs, as alſo why he who only burnt the reſidue of the bullock whoſe blood had been carried into the Holy of Holy's, I ſay why both of theſe ſhould be accounted unclean; ſo unclean, as that before they had been purify'd and waſh'd they were not to be admitted into the Congregation, (for ſo God enjoyn'd Levit. 16.26, 27, 28.). And now after all this, when the great Lord and Soveraign was pleas'd to have it thus, hath given out ſo full a declaration of himſelf about it, when Scripture is ſo clear, yea & when Nature too (as you will hear) hath given ſuch a confirmation of it, I ſay, after and notwithſtanding all this for any yet to deny it, to bring their little Objections againſt it, (as that becauſe there was**That Objection anſwered in Grotius de Sat. c. 10. p. 123. Eſſenius. Tri. Crucis. p. 218. Turretin. de Sat. p. 246. no communion of Nature and Species betwixt Men & Beaſts, therefore there could be no ſubſtitution &c.) this muſt needs diſcover exceſs of pride and folly: The thing poſſibly (in ſome reſpects) may ſeem ſomewhat ſtrange, but it becomes us to acquieſce in what God himſelf was pleas'd to determine upon, and then to order and reveal in his Law.

From theſe Sacrifices I proceed to the much higher Sacrifice, Chriſt himſelf; where we ſhall find an exact correſpondency between the type and the antitype, the one fully anſwering to the other. Did they carry ſubſtitution in them? that eminently was in Chriſt: he indeed ſubſtituted himſelf in the Sinners room, took our guilt upon him and put himſelf in our place, dy'd not only for our good but in our ſtead, did undergo what we ſhould have undergone, vouchſafed to dye that we might not dye, bare himſelf in his Soul and body (as our foreign) the puniſhment due to us; here was ſubſtitution far above what was in the Law-ſacrifices. But this**De Servat. p. 2. c. 4. (& paſſim). In Praelect. c. 18. with him concur Crellius, Smalcius &c. and all of that party. SOCINƲS and his Followers cannot indure to hear of; O they rally all their force, unite all their ſtrength, ſet themſelves with all their might to oppoſe and beat down this great Truth! there are but few of the Evangelical Myſteries which theſe pernicious Goſpel-deſtroyers do not aſſault (ſome way or other), but p. 486as to that which is now before us (Chriſt's ſuffering, dying, ſatisfying in our ſtead, the ſumm of Goſpel-revelation, the great Article of the Chriſtian Faith, the main prop and foundation of the believers Hope), this they make their fierceſt aſſaults upon; whatever ſtands (if they may have their will) this ſhall not: But alas poor men! when they have done their worſt, it will ſtand firm upon its ſure baſis as an eternal, unmoveable Truth; 'tis ſo eſtabliſhed in the Word and ſo rooted in the hearts of Chriſtians, that (in ſpite of the moſt ſubtile and fierce oppoſitions of all gain-ſayers) it ſhall abide for ever. Well! however let us ſee what ground we have for our belief of it; and ſurely upon enquiry it will appear we have enough and enough. If the Goſpel be not clear in this, 'tis clear in nothing; and bleſſed be the Lord, who in a point of ſuch vaſt importance to Souls hath given the world a revelation of it ſo plain and full! Subſtitution in the caſe of the old Sacrifices is not ſo evidently held forth in the Law, but ſubſtitution with reſpect to Chriſt and his Sacrifice is more evidently held forth in the Goſpel: Rom. 5.6. For when we were yet without ſtrength, in due time Chriſt died [for the ungodly]: Verſ. 8. But God commendeth his love towards us, in that while we were yet Sinners Chriſt died [for us]: 1 Pet. 3.18. For Chriſt alſo hath once ſuffered for ſins, [the juſt for the unjuſt]: 1 Pet. 4.1. Foraſmuh then as Chriſt hath ſuffered [for us] in the Fleſh &c. 1 Pet. 2.21.—becauſe Chriſt alſo ſuffered [for us] &c. Joh. 10.15. I lay down my life [for the ſheep]. Joh. 11.50. Nor conſider that it is expedient for us, that one man ſhould die [for the people] and that the whole nation periſh not. Heb. 2.9. That he by the grace of God ſhould taſte death [for every man] 2 Cor. 5.14, 15.—if one died [for all] then were all dead: And that he died [for all], that they which live, ſhould not henceforth live unto themſelves, but unto him which died [for them], and roſe again. In all theſe places the Prepoſition **Of this and the other Prepoſitions, Grot. de Sat. c. 10. p. 3. &c. 9. p. 115. Hoorneb. p. 566, 567, 568. Calor. p. 421. &c. et p. 453.foreign is uſed, which (though not alwayes yet) moſt frequently notes ſubſtitution, the doing or ſuffering of ſomething by one in the ſtead and place of others, (ſee Rom. 9.3. 2 Cor. 5.20.): and ſo 'tis all along here to be taken, where it being uſed of Perſons, the nature of the matter ſpoken of, the uſe of the word in parallel Texts, as alſo in Greek Authors, gives this ſenſe the preference before any other. But ſuppoſe this may be eluded, the other Prepoſition foreign proves the thing undeniably; Matth. 20.28. Even as the Son of Man came not to be miniſtred unto, but to miniſter, and to give his life a ranſom for many, [foreign]: p. 4871 Tim. 2.6. Who gave himſelf a ranſom [foreign] for all: Chriſt did not barely deliver poor captive-Souls, but he delivered them in the way of a ranſom, which ranſom he paid down for them in their ſtead; ſo as that what they themſelves ſhould have paid that he was pleas'd to pay for them. This is and muſt be the ſenſe and import of the word, for every one knows that foreign in Compoſition (out of that I know it hath other ſenſes, ſee Heb. 12.2. 1 Cor. 11.15.) ſignifies but two things, either**1 Joh. 2.18.1 John 2:18 oppoſition and contrariety, or ſubſtitution and††Rom. 12.17. Matth. 5.38. 1 Pet. 3.9. Luk. 11.11.Rom 12:17Matt 5:381 Pet 3:9Luke 11:11 commutation; ſo that the matter will come to this, we muſt either carry it thus that Chriſt gave himſelf a ranſom againſt Sinners (than which nothing more abſurd), or elſe thus that he gave himſelf a ranſom in the ſtead and place of Sinners (than which nothing more true).

I might further prove it by 2 Cor. 5.21. He hath made him to be ſin for us, who knew no ſin; that we might be made the righteouſneſs of God in him. Gol. 3.13. Chriſt hath redeemed us from the curſe of the Law, being made a curſe for us: If he had not ſo been in his own perſon, woe to poor Sinners! they muſt then have ly'ne under it themſelves to all eternity. What a full and convincing Chapter is that of Iſa. 53. for the proof of that which I am upon! 'twould take up a great deal of time to go**This is done by very many Anti-Socinian Writers: Particularly ſee Grot. de Sat. p. 11. &c. (O that he had not afterwards ſpoil'd in his Commentaries upon Iſa. 53. what he had before in this excellent Treatiſe ſo nervouſly and orthe doxly aſſerted! but there he is as weak as here he is ſtrong). Dr. Owen againſt B. p. 499. &c. his vindication of the true ſenſe of it againſt Grotius. p. 521. &c.Isa 53 over it, and to draw out the ſtrength and emphaſis of the ſeveral expreſſions in it; I muſt not engage ſo far. But ſurely the tongue of man could not utter, nor the head of man invent, any Words or Phraſes more plain and appoſite for the ſetting forth of Chriſt's ſubſtitution, than what you have there: the truth is, its edge is every way as ſharp againſt the SOCINIAN who denyes this, as 'tis againſt the JEW who denies Chriſt's Meſſiah-ſhip. (Verſ. 4.) Surely he hath born our griefs and carried our ſorrows &c. (Verſ. 5.) The chaſtiſement of our peace was upon him, and with his ſtripes we are healed: (Verſ. 6.) The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all, (or) the Lord hath made the iniquities of us all to meet on him: (Verſ. 7.) He was oppreſſed & he was afflicted &c. or (as the words are rendred by ſome) it was **So the word Nagas is taken 2 King. 23.35. Zech. 9.8. Significat. aigere ad ſolutionem debiti. Forer.—opprimi & ad ſolvendum adigi ab exactore. Morus in loc.2 Kgs 23:35Zech 9:8exacted and he anſwered: (Verſ. 8.) For the tranſgreſſion of my people was he ſtricken: (Verſ. 11.)—for he ſhall bear their iniquities: (Verſ. 12.)—and he bare the ſin of many. Is not all this ſpoken of our Lord Chriſt? and is there not in it ſufficient p. 488proof of his ſuſception of the Sinners guilt, and bearing the puniſhment due for it? It runs much in the ſtile of the old Sacrifices; they had the ſins of the people laid upon them Levit. 16.21. and the Prieſts too are ſaid to bear their iniquity Levit. 10.17. that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things Exod. 28.38. anſwerably to which, the Prophet tells us that Chriſt (our Sacrifice and Prieſt too) had the iniquities of all believers laid upon him, and that he bare them in his own perſon. So the Apoſtle Heb. 9.28. So Chriſt was once offered to bear the ſins of many &c. and that's a great Scripture 1 Pet. 2.24. Who his own ſelf bare our ſins in his own body on the tree—, foreign he [took them up with him when he aſcended the Croſs; the Apoſtle uſes the word Heb. 7.27. Who needeth not daily as thoſe high Prieſts to offer up [foreign to carry up] Sacrifice, firſt for his own ſins, and then for the peoples: for this he did once when he offered up himſelf [foreign, when he carried up himſelf]: So in the place cited but now, Chriſt was once offered to bear the ſins of many, foreign: 'tis an alluſion to the Prieſts who carried up the Sacrifice (and with it the ſins of the people) to the Altar; Chriſt did the ſame with reſpect to his Croſs, whither he firſt carried up ſin and then he carried or bore it away.

I have but juſt mentioned theſe Scriptures to prove the thing in hand, to which ſhould I have ſpoken as largely as the matter in them would have born, or ſhould I now fall upon the refutation of the Adverſaries Replys (ſuch as they are) by which they endeavour to weaken them, I ſhould certainly run my ſelf upon unpardonable prolixity.

To back this notion of theſe expiatory Sacrifices (which were of God's own appointment & inſtitution), I thought (though it would have been but as the holding of a candle to the Sun) to have ſhown, that it was the very notion of the Heathens themſelves in their idolatrous Sacrifices; which (whether perſons or things) they alwayes look'd upon as ſubſtituted in the room & ſtead of the offenders themſelves: but I have altered my purpoſe, becauſe I conceive it will be moſt proper at the cloſe of the Four Heads which I am upon, to bring in all together of what I have to ſay upon thoſe Pagan-Sacrifices, by way of parallel with the true Sacrifices.

Two Queries propounded & anſwered.'Tis no time for us to divide amongſt our ſelves, or unneceſſarily to run into parties, when the common Enemy is in the Field, yea, making fierce aſſaults upon us; to defend our ſelves againſt whom, all our united ſtrength will be little enough. Otherwiſe p. 489two things ſhould here be further enquired into: As

Whether Chriſt underwent the ſame puniſhment that was due to the Sinner, or onelyonly ſomething equivalent thereunto?1. It having been ſaid, that Chriſt did ſo far ſubſtitute himſelf in our ſtead as to undergo the puniſhment due to us, it may be query'd Whether he underwent the idem, the very ſelf-ſame puniſhment that we ſhould have undergone, or only the tantundem, that which did amount and was equivalent thereunto? To which I anſwer (though I'm very loth to meddle in points wherein perſons eminent for Learning and Piety ſeem to differ), that in different reſpects both may be affirmed: The**Mr. A. Burg. of Juſtif. p. 73, 74. Turret. de Sat. p. 9. p. 281. puniſhment which Chriſt indur'd if it be conſider'd in its Subſtance, Kind or Nature, ſo 'twas the ſame with what the Sinner himſelf ſhould have undergone; but if it be conſider'd with reſpect to certain Circunſtances, Adjuncts or Accidents, which attend that puniſhment (as inflicted upon the Sinner), ſo 'twas but**Non quidem idem Deo ſolutum quod debebatur ab iiſdem, nos etenim debebamus aeternas poenas exolvere, verum pependit aequivalens Chriſtus &c. Hoornb. Socin. Conf. p. 253.—V. Stegm. Photin. p. 260.—Mr. Baxter's Aphor. p. 26. Life of Faith. p. 325.—Alſo the Author of the Great Propitiation. p. 71. &c. equivalent and not the ſame. The puniſhment due to the Sinner was Death, the curſe of the Law (upon the breach of the firſt Covenant); now this Chriſt underwent for he was made a curſe for us Gal. 3.13; the Adjuncts or Circunſtances attending this death were the eternity of it, deſperation going along with it, &c. theſe Chriſt was freed from, (the dignity of his Perſon ſupplying the former, the ſanctity of his Perſon ſecuring him againſt the latter): therefore with reference to theſe (and to ſome other things which might be mention'd) it was but the tantundem, not the idem. But ſuppoſe there had been nothing of ſameneſs, nothing beyond equivalency in what Chriſt ſuffered, yet that (ſay ſome) would be enough for the making good of the main Truth againſt the Adverſary; for 'twas not**Dr. Stillingſt. againſt Crellius p. 441. neceſſary to his ſubſtitution that he ſhould undergo in every reſpect the ſame puniſhment which the Offender himſelf was lyable unto, but if he ſhall undergo ſo much as may ſatisfie the Law's threatning, and vindicate the Lawgiver in his truth, juſtice, and righteous government, that was enough: now that was unqueſtionably done by Chriſt.

Whether Chriſt took the guilt of our Sin upon himſelf, or only ſubmitted to the puniſhment?2. Secondly, it having alſo been ſaid that our Saviour took upon him the guilt of our ſins, it may further be query'd Whether he took the guilt it-ſelf of them, or whether he did any thing more than bear the puniſhment due for them? Anſw. he firſt took the guilt upon him, and then he bare the puniſhment. Far be it from me to aſſert any thing which may reflect the leaſt diſhonour upon Chriſt (I dread with my ſoul ſuch a thing); but I ſee nothing, in the p. 490aſſerting of his voluntary ſuſception of our guilt which hath any tendency to that, therefore I hope I may affirm it ſafely and confidently: 'tis ſo far from that, that 'twas the higheſt manifeſtation of his Love and that which was neceſſary for our Juſtification. There is in ſin the macula and the reatus, the ſtain (or filth) and the guilt of it; or there is in it the fact, the fault, and the guilt: the**Suſcipiendo paenam & non ſuſcipiendo culpam, & culpam delevit & paenam. Auguſt. de Serm. Dom. in Luc. Serm. 37. two former are ſolely ours, but the third and laſt Chriſt was pleas'd to take upon himſelf. What is guilt but obligation to puniſhment? if the holy Jeſus will freely put himſelf under that obligation what can be ſaid againſt it? certainly that he might do & yet (in himſelf) be as holy and innocent as ever he was, and neither be the committer of Sin nor in the leaſt be defil'd by it, (for the macula and the reatus are two different things). And indeed I do not well ſee how he could be ſaid to bear the puniſhment of ſin (that being ſtrictly taken), if firſt he ſhould not take its guilt: We all grant Chriſt's ſufferings to be penal, but how could they have been ſo without guilt? therefore having no guilt of his own he muſt be look'd upon as aſſuming ours, upon which he might be ſaid properly to undergo puniſhment. Had no guilt lain upon him he might have ſuffer'd but the could not have been puniſh'd, (puniſhment always neceſſarily preſuppoſing guilt). I would not ſtretch too far alluſive and metaphorical deſcriptions of Chriſt; but yet in all-ſuch that which is the firſt and moſt natural import of them muſt be improv'd and made uſe of: Now ſuch a deſcription of Chriſt is his being a Surety; of which what is the firſt and natural import? ſurely this, a Surety is one who takes the debt of another upon himſelf, and ſo (in caſe of the debtors inſufficiency) becomes lyable to the payment of it: as to the conſequences and inconveniencies that follow if he ſubmits to them that's but more remote, but the firſt and proper thing in his ſuretyſhip is his making of the debt to be his own: the application of this to the thing in hand is plain enough. 2 Cor. 5.21. He hath made him to be ſin for us, who knew no Sin, that we might be made the righteouſneſs of God in him: what is this being made ſin? is it Chriſt's being a Sacrifice for ſin? yes, but that's not all; it notes alſo (I'me ſure I am not ſingular in this interpretation) his being under the guilt of ſin: where Chriſt is ſaid to bear ſin that may poſſibly ſignifie no more than the bearing of the puniſhment thereof, (as the phraſe is us'd Levi…. 5.1.—20.17. 2 King. 7.9.); but when 'tis ſaid he was made ſin that implys his voluntary ſuſception of the Sinners guilt: And that this is the ſenſe of the words in this place is evident from what follows, p. 491—that we might be made the righteouſneſs of God in him: 'tis not ſaid he bare the puniſhment of ſin, that we thereupon might not be puniſhed, but he was made ſin (under the guilt of it, for 'tis oppos'd to righteouſneſs), that we might be made the righteouſneſs of God in him, (i.e.) that he taking our guilt, (& ſo taking it away), as that was made over to him ſo his righteouſneſs might be made over to us upon which we might be made guiltleſs and righteous before God: For my part (unleſs this ſenſe be admitted) I do not underſtand what tolerable interpretation can be put upon the words. He's ſaid to carry up our ſins in his own body &c. 1 Pet. 2.24. did he carry up the puniſhment of them? that's ſomewhat harſh; 'twas their guilt that he carried up with him when he aſcended the Croſs. This was the very way wherein he muſt juſtifie and ſave; for as he could not have ſaved us if firſt he had not taken our Nature, ſo he could not have juſtified us or taken away our guilt if firſt he had not taken it upon himſelf. For the macula peccati that he was not capable of, therefore that ſhall be remov'd another way; but for guilt (it being not contracted but aſſumed) that he was capable of, and that was the thing for which ſatisfaction was to be made; therefore that he muſt take upon him and ſo take it away. O the tranſcendent love of Chriſt in this ſubmiſſion! his righteouſneſs made over to us and our ſin made over to him? we made righteous and he made guilty (by imputation and in a Law-ſenſe)? what grace can be higher than this!

The Third Head, the expiatory Sacrifices to be conſum'd and ſlain &c.I have done with the Second thing, Chriſt's ſubſtituting himſelf in our ſtead in correſpondency with what was done in the old Jewiſh Sacrifices; the Third follows, viz. thoſe Sacrifices were to be conſum'd and ſlain, their blood to be ſhed and offered, and ſo they became expiatory. Such as conſiſted or were made up of inanimate things, were to be conſum'd; others that conſiſted of living Creatures were to be kill'd: As for inſtance, the Meat-offering that was to be burnt Levit. 2.1, 2; it follows indeed V. 12. the oblation of the Firſt-fruits was not to be burnt (they being to be kept for the Prieſts uſe Numb. 18.13.) but the Meat-offering offered by and for the Prieſts was to be burnt (Verſ. 14.16.): The Sacrifices of this kind and nature were to be conſumed as well as others, for where their materials were liquid, thoſe were to be poured out; where ſolid, thoſe were to be bruiſed and burnt; ſtill in every Sacrifice ſome way or other there was deſtructio rei oblatae. But eminently this was true in thoſe wherein living Creatures were to be Sacrificed, they were to be deſtroy'd or conſum'd indeed: And 'tis p. 492obſervable, the higher the Sacrifice was the greater was the deſtruction or conſumption of it; for in ſuch as were more ordinary (as thoſe that were offered for private perſons), there commonly but part of the Sacrifice was conſum'd and part reſerv'd for the Prieſts; but in the higher and more extraordinary (ſuch as were deſigned for the Prieſts, and the whole Community, eſpecially thoſe whoſe blood was carried into the Holy of Holies at the ſolemn, anniverſary Expiation) in them all was to be conſumed; (reade Levit. 6.30.—16.27.) The Scape-goat ſeems to be an exception againſt this deſtroying, even of the great expiatory Sacrifices, it being not to be ſlain but**Levit. 16.21. &c.Lev 16:21 ſent into the Wilderneſs by ſome fit meſſenger; but the truth is, though that (for ſome typical reaſons) was not preſently and down-right deſtroy'd, yet virtually and in effect it was; for upon the ſending of it into the Wilderneſs it would in a little time be either ſtarv'd to death or devour'd by wild Beaſts. But to come more cloſely to the buſineſs! The living Creatures in Sacrifices were to be kill'd, & then after that their blood (in a ſpecial manner) was to be offered upon the Altar, it being that upon which the expiation did mainly depend: So the Lord himſelf tells us Levit. 17.11. For the life of the fleſh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the Altar, to make an atonement for your Souls; for it is the blood that ma…eth an atonement for the Soul: where the firſt words, for the life of the fleſh is in the blood, come in not only as a reaſon to back the prohibition that went before Verſ. 10, (in which notion I conſider'd them before); but alſo as a Reaſon of that which follows, viz. why God appointed the uſe of blood in Sacrifices for atonement; 'twas upon this ground becauſe therein was the life of the Creature, now he deſigning Life for Life therefore he pitch'd upon blood wherein the life did lye. The Apoſtle tells us Heb. 9.22. And almoſt all things are by the Law purged with blood, and without ſhedding of blood is no remiſſion; and if you look into the Levitical Sacrifices you'l find what he ſaith to be true: In the Burnt-offering for private Perſons there was killing and blood Levit. 1.5. the ſame in the Peace-offerings Levit. 3.2, 8, 13. the ſame in the Sin-offerings Levit. 4.7, 16, 17, 18. (and ſo in the reſt). And the obſervation of theſe commands (which run ſo much upon blood) was ſo neceſſary, that ſhould any of the Prieſts have dared to have entred into God's preſence in any other way than by Sacrifices, and the blood thereof, he would not have taken it well at their hands; yea, ſhould they have brought into the Temple never ſo many Bullocks, Rams, Goats &c. and not have ſlain them, or having p. 493ſlain them had not preſented their blood before him according to his Inſtitution, they would have done no good either to themſelves or others; for God (to ſhew his Juſtice, Hatred of Sin &c) ſtood upon blood, and blood he would have. From all this we may infer, that thoſe old Sacrifices did not expiate as bare Antecedents or Conditions (without which God would not pardon), or as the offering of them carried in it ſome Obedience to God's Commands (both of which were common to many other things as well as to them); ſurely there was more in it than ſo!Dr. Stillingfl. againſt Crell: p. 516 &c. for can we reaſonably think, that God would have been ſo poſitive and ſo expreſs in his Injunctions about ſomany Sacrifices, ſo ſevere in the puniſhing the neglect of them, have ordered the taking away the lives of ſo many Creatures, and have ſo much inſiſted upon their death and blood in order to expiation; had he look'd upon them only as pre-requiſite and remoter Conditions of pardon, or common acts of Obedience, and that as ſuch only they ſhould be expiatory? Certainly had there been nothing in them more than this, the merciful Creator would have ſpar'd the blood of the poor Creatures, and would have pitch'd upon ſome other courſe which might have ſeem'd (at leaſt) more conſiſtent with his Wiſdom and Goodneſs! We may conclude them therefore to be Means inſtituted by God in order to atonement and expiation, to the effecting of which, by virtue of his own inſtitution and the mevit of the great Sacrifice to come, they had a direct and effectual tendency.