Sermons Preached on Romans 8, Chapter 13 (2 of 3)

Sermons Preached on Romans 8 · Chapter 13 (2 of 3)

p. 493This foundation I have laid for the better underſtanding of the deſtroying, killing, ſhedding of blood that was in the typical Sacrifices, I come now to build upon it with reſpect to the real Sacrifice, Chriſt Jeſus. In conformity to them therefore, Chriſt was ſlain, died upon the Croſs, his body broken, his blood ſpilt &c. all which ſpeaks him to be a true expiatony Sacrifice: Had he not died and ſuffer'd he could not have been ſuch, but upon that he is not only ſuch a Sacrifice really but eminently, (the dignity of his Perſon putting a ſuperlative worth and …fficacy upon his Death and Sacrifice). O what was the death of Greatures to the death of God's Son? what was the blood of Beaſts to the blood of him who was God Acts. 20.28.? for ſuch a…perſon to die, to ſhed his blood for the expiation of Sin? here was a Sacrifice indeed! And ſurely one great end of God in ordering the death of the old Sacrifices, was to convince the World of the neceſſity of the death of this far greater Sacrifice; by them he deſigned (in ways beſt known to himſelf) to lead men to a dying and bleeding Chriſt. How much doth the p. 494Scripture ſpake of his blood! and (though his whole humiliation muſt be taken in, as making up his Sacrifice, yet in ſpecial) what a ſtreſs and emphaſis doth it put upon his Death and Blood (wherein his greateſt humiliation lay), with reſpect to their influence upon the good of Sinners! Eph. 1.7. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveneſs of ſins: Rom. 3.25. whom God hath ſet forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood &c. Rom. 5.9. Much more then, being now juſtified by his blood, we ſhall be ſaved from wrath through him. 1. Joh. 1.7.—and the blood of Jeſus Chriſt his Son cleanſeth us from all ſin. Rev. 1.5. Ʋnto him that loved us, and waſhed us from our ſins in his own blood. 1 Pet. 1.19.—but with the precious blood of Chriſt, as of a Lamb without blemiſh and without ſpot. Mat. 26.28. This is my blood of the New-Teſtament which is ſhed for many for the remiſſion of ſins. Heb. 9.12, &c. Neither by the blood of Goats and Calves, but by his own Blood he entred in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us: For if the blood of Bulls and of Goats &c. Col. 1.14.—having made peace through the blood of his Croſs. Surely there muſt be ſome ſpecial reaſon why this blood of Chriſt is ſo often mention'd, and why the great benefits, which Sinners receive by him, are in ſuch a way of eminency aſcrib'd to it, (of which ſome account will be given in the following particular). O the ſeverity of God's Juſtice, which nothing could ſatisfie but the blood of his own Son! O the love of Chriſt, who thought not the beſt blood in his veins too good for Sinners! O the truth of his Satisfaction, for what could ſuch blood be ſpilt for but for that? what end could be proportionable to ſuch a medium but Satisfaction? O the admirable harmony between type and antitype, the ſhadow and the ſubſtance, Sacrifice and Sacrifice! under the Law 'twas blood, under the Goſpel' twas blood too, (only that was common blood but this excellent and precious).

The Fourth Head; of the Ends & Effects of the old expiatory Sacrifices, and how they are applicable to Chriſt.4. Fourthly, if we compare Chriſt with the Jewiſh Sacrifices in their Ends and Effects, that will further demonſtrate him to be a true expiatory Sacrifice. What were they? atonement and expiation; by them God was to be atoned and Sin to be expiated: now both of theſe were deſigned and admirably effected in and by Chriſt, therefore he was what I am proving.

That thoſe Sacrifices were of an atoning nature, and appointed for that end, what can be more plain? Here the ſo often cited Text (which indeed is the key to the whole body of the Levitical-Sacrifices) doth recur, Levit. 17.11.—I have given it to you upon p. 495the Altar (for what end?) to make an atonement for your Souls: where the word uſed (as in very many other places) is Caphar, which ſignifies to**This ſenſe of the word juſtify'd by all Anti-Socinian Writers. Franz. Diſp. 15. th. 38. Turretin. de Satisf. p. 208. Grot. de Sat. p. 39. Hoorneb. Socin. Confut. p. 607. Dr. Stillingfl. p. 509. &c. pacify, appeaſe, or aſſuage the anger of one that is incens'd; ſo its taken Gen. 32.20. I will (ſaith Jacob concerning his brother Eſau) appeaſe him with the preſent that goeth before me; (ſo 2 Sam. 21.3.): it ſignifies alſo to††Pſal. 32.1.Ps 32:1 cover, to‖‖Pſal. 49.7, 8.Ps 49:7Ps 49:8 redeem &c. but this of atoning or pacifying is moſt uſual. Now in order to this atoning God appointed Sacrifices, the ſhedding of whoſe blood was to make an atonement (ſaith the Lord here), and he goes over it again for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the Soul. All along in the ſeveral kinds of Sacrifices it runs, it ſhall be accepted for him to make atonement for him, the Prieſt ſhall make an atonement for them &c. this alwayes comes in as the great end or effect of the Law-Sacrifices: Whence they are ſaid to be of a ſweet ſavour unto the Lord, (not only becauſe of their pleaſingneſs to God, but alſo becauſe they made him propitious to and well-pleaſed with ſuch as had offended him); ſo Levit. 1.9, 13, 17. 'Tis the ſame word, but ſometimes 'tis rendred by reconciling; as Levit. 6.30. No Sin-offering—to reconcile withal in the holy place— Levit. 8.15.—to make reconciliation upon it. We find when at any time in ſome particular judgments the anger of God did break forth, either againſt the people or againſt particular perſons, preſently they betook themſelves to Sacrifices thereby to atone and propitiate him: Numb. 16.46. And Moſes ſaid unto Aaron, take a Cenſer and put fire therein from off the Altar, and put on incenſe: and go quickly unto the Congregation and make an atonement for them; for there is wrath gone out from the Lord, the plague is begun: 2 Sam. 24, 25. And David built there an Altar unto the Lord, and offered Burnt-offerings and Peace-offerings, ſo the Lord was intreated for the Land and the plague was ſtaid from Iſrael.

As to the other End or Effect viz. Expiation, that alſo belong'd to Sacrifices; they had a power or virtue in them to cleanſe and purifie from Sins guilt, to procure pardon and remiſſion (whence they were called Expiatory,), and had it not been for this effect they could not have paſſed under that denomination. A full proof of it you have in that one Sacrifice, the Heifer, which was to be offered for the cleanſing of the people, when murder had been committed but the acter of it was conceal'd; Deut. 21.7, 8. And they ſhall anſwer and ſay, Our hands have not ſhed this blood, neither have our p. 496eyes ſeen it: Be merciful, O Lord, unto thy people Iſrael, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Iſraels charge: and the blood ſhall be forgiven them. So ſhalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from amongst you &c. was not here expiation? and wherein did that lie, but in the putting away of the guilt of innocent blood and in the obtaining of pardon? for 'tis ſaid and the blood ſhall be forgiven them. This is that which is ſet forth by cleanſing from ſin, Levit. 16.30. For on that day ſhall the Prieſt make an atonement for you, to cleanſe you, that you may be clean from all your ſin before the Lord: Numb. 3.5.—for blood defileth the band, and the land cannot be cleanſed of the blood that is ſhed therein, but by the blood of him that ſhed it. The Apoſtle ſets it forth by purifying of the fleſh Heb. 9.13. (by which he means the taking away of that ceremonial, ritual or civil guilt which any did lie under): And he puts it out of all doubt, that expiation in the old Sacrifices did not point to the abolition of Sins power, but to the ablation of Sins guilt; for having ſaid that**Heb. 9.22.Heb 9:22 almoſt all things are by the Law purged with blood, he tells you what he meant by that purging, adding, without ſhedding of blood is [no remiſſion, or expiation of ſins guilt]: and this is the notion which alwayes he drives at in that Epiſtle, in thoſe ſeveral words which he there uſes, (viz.) ſanctifying, purifying, purging &c. Indeed this was the**Vide Eſſen. Tri. Crucis. l. 1. ſect. 4. c. 8. p. 6. chief and moſt proper effect of Sacrifices, other things might be done by them but this was the main; therefore it ſo often comes in upon this account, And the Prieſt ſhall make an atonement for them [and it ſhall be forgiven them] Levit. 4.20. ſo Verſ. 26.—31,—35.**Cauſa cur noluerit Deus alteri Sacrificari quam ſibi, ea potiſſimum videtur quod Sacrificia imprimis fierent ad expiandâ peccata, ſolus verò Deus jus habeat ea condonandi. Voſſius de. Idol. l. 1. p. 977. And this might be one Reaſon why God prohibited the offering of Sacrifices to any but to himſelf, becauſe the end of them being the forgiveneſs of ſin, and none being able to reach that end but himſelf, therefore none ſhould be ſacrific'd unto but himſelf.

Four things laid down concerning Atonement and Expiation by Sacrifices.For the better underſtanding of this double Effect of the Law-Sacrifices, I deſire four things may be conſidered:

1. That the atonement and expiation effected by thoſe Sacrifices, muſt be conceived of as done by them in that notion which was proper to them as Sacrifices: None can deny but that they did atone and expiate, but how did they ſo do? there's the queſtion: I anſwer, this was done by them as they were ſubſtituted in the place of Offenders, and were ſlain in their ſtead and for their ſake; (other p. 497accounts I know by ſome are given of this but that now ſet down is the true, as appears by what hath been already ſpoken under the two foregoing Heads).

2. That this atoning and expiating virtue was not limited only to the Sacrifices us'd at the anniverſary great Expiation, but it belong'd to the other Sacrifices. For inſtance, to Burnt-offerings (I take in thoſe that were made uſe of before the giving of the Law about Sacrifices); ſee Job. 1.5.—42.8: after the giving of the Law, to Free-will-offerings Levit. 1.3, 4, &c. to the Meat-offering and Drink-offering Levit. 2. per tot. Levit. 23.13. Numb. 15.7, 10, 13, 14. to the Peace-offering Levit. 3.15, 16. to the Sin-offering and Treſpaſs-offering Levit. 4.6. to the Ram, which was therefore call'd the Ram of atonement Numb. 5.8. (there's no end of ſuch inſtances).

3. That yet the atonement and expiation proper to thoſe Sacrifices, is to be limited according to the bounds which God himſelf was pleas'd to ſet; for 'twas but in ſuch caſes, and for ſuch ſins, wherein he did admit of them in order to theſe effects, (of which more by and by).

4. That theſe effects were not produc'd by any inherent or innate virtue in the Sacrifices themſelves, but only as they were inſtituted by God and as they derived efficacy from the Sacrifice to come, Chriſt himſelf. Take away theſe two things, and what could theſe Sacrifices have done? what could there be in them to paciſie an angry God, or to to purifie a guilty Sinner? what was the blood of a Beaſt (as conſidered in it ſelf) to expiate the ſin of a Man? The Apoſtle plainly tells us Heb. 10.4. It is not poſſible that the blood of Bulls and Goats ſhould take away ſin: therefore he ſayes there was no perfection by the Levitical Prieſthood Heb. 7.11. and the Law made nothing perfect Heb. 7.19.—in which were offered gifts and Sacrifices, that could not make him that did the ſervice perfect, as pertaining to the Conſcience, Heb. 9.9. So that whatever virtue thoſe Sacrifices had (further than the taking away of civil guilt, ritual uncleanneſs, ſecuring from Church and State-penalties,) it wholly depended upon the inſtitution of God and the merit of Chriſt. The brazen Serpent heal'd ſuch as were ſtung, yet not from any intrinſick power in it ſelf, but only as God was pleas'd to give that power and efficacy to it; and ſo 'twas here in the caſe of the old Sacrifices. Theſe four things I have laid down both to clear up the Sacrifices themſelves, and alſo becauſe they are of great uſe to p. 498ſet us right in our conceptions about Chriſt the great Sacrifice (which muſt be opened by them).

Anſwerably now to theſe two great Ends and Effects of the Moſaical Sacrifices, the ſame were deſigned to be done, and were actually done by the Lord Jeſus, when he offered up himſelf to God upon the Croſs; whereby he alſo

(1.) atoned God,

(2.) expiated the ſin of the Elect.

As God was angry and offended with the Sinner, ſo Chriſt by his death procur'd atonement, pacification, reconciliation; as the Sinner lay under guilt, ſo Chriſt brought about the purgation or expiation of his guilt: both of theſe were done by him, and that too not only really but in a much higher way than what was done by the old Sacrifices, therefore he was a true proper expiatory Sacrifice, yea, the moſt eminent expiatory Sacrifice.

Of atonement and reconciliation by Chriſts Sacrifice.1. For atonement or reconciliation. By Adams Fall a ſad breach had been made 'twixt God and Man, Sin had greatly incens'd the holy God againſt his ſinful Creatures, nay there was a mutual and reciprocal enmity contracted between them: Things being in this diſmal ſtate the bleſſed. Jeſus interpos'd himſelf, in order to the appeaſing of an offended God and the reconciling of him and the Sinner (the two parties that were at variance). For the effecting of which, he did not only as a bare Internuntius treat with both, or only offer up prayers to the one (in which reſpect Moſes atoned God Exod. 34.10, 11, 12, 13, 14.) and intreaties to the other (2 Cor. 5.20.), and ſo proceed by ſome verbal interpoſures; but (when nothing elſe would do it) he was willing even to lay down his own Life, to die as a Sacrifice upon the Croſs, by this means to bring God and Man together again in amity and love. By which death of Chriſt the offended God was perfectly atoned and reconciled to the Sinner; ſo as that now, upon the ſatisfaction made to him therein, he could without any injury to his Juſtice and Holineſs receive the Sinner into his favour, and not inflict upon him that wrath and puniſhment which he had made himſelf obnoxious unto: (this is the true notion of atonement and reconciliation by Chriſt, and all that we**Non ſtatuimus Deum irato propriè factum eſſe propitium, ſed Chriſti Satisfactione cauſas irae divinae obliteratas eſſe, ut ſalvâ juſtiſtiâ ſuâ poſſit gratiam exhibere. Eſſenïus. p. 253. mean by it). But that this was thus done by him, what one thing is there in all the matters of Faith wherein the Goſpel is more clear and full? 1 Joh. 2.2. And he is the propitiation for our ſins: 1 Joh. 4.10. Herein is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us, and ſent his Son, to be the propitiation for our ſins: Rom. 3.25. Whom God hath ſet forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood &c. Rom. 5.10, 11. For if p. 499when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more being reconciled we ſhall be ſaved by his life: And not only ſo, but we alſo joy in God, through our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, by whom we have now received the atonement. 2 Cor. 5.18, 19. All things are of God who hath reconciled us to himſelf by Jeſus Chriſt—God was in Chriſt reconciling the world to himſelf—Col. 1.20, 21. And (having made peace through the blood of his Croſs) by him to reconcile all things unto himſelf &c. And you that were ſometimes alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath be reconciled, in the body of his fleſh through death—So Eph. 2.13, 14, &c.—Iſa. 53.6. the chaſtiſement of our peace was upon him (i. e. by his penal ſufferings our peace was made with God). 'Tis true (which our**Socin. de Serv… p. 1. c. 8. Adverſanies would fain improve to their purpoſe), that all along in theſe Scriptures the reconciliation is ſaid to be on Mans part, as if Sinners were reconcil'd to God, not God to them; but there's a ſpecial reaſon for that, (viz.)**Baxters Life of Faith. p. 189. becauſe they were the firſt in the breach, they fell out with God before he fell out with them; as alſo becauſe the averſeneſs to reconciliation is on their part; wherefore if they be willing to be reconcil'd to God and are actually reconciled to him, there's no queſtion of it but that he is willing to be reconciled to them, and is ſo actually. Some would have the reconciliation (as on God's part) to be ſpoken of Heb. 2.17.—that he might be a merciful and faithful high Prieſt, in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the ſins of the people; (where foreign, is according to the Hebrew Enallage as much as foreign, as**De Satisf. p. 93. Grotius well obſerves). Howerver (ſuppoſing that this Text doth not ſo expreſly hold forth the thing,) yet there is enough in thoſe convincing Reaſons, Arguments, and Conſequences which the Word elſewhere affords, to prove the reconciliation to be mutual (as is fully proved by divers). Which reconciliation (you ſee) was accompliſhed by Jeſus Chriſt, yea by his death and blood; ſo that he exactly anſwers to the firſt effect of the Jewiſh Sacrifices.

Of the Expiation of Sin by Chriſt's Sacrifice.2. The for the Second, the expiation of ſin, that alſo was done (with great advantage) by Chriſt; his death carried indeed a Sinexpiating virtue in it and was moſt truly of an expiatory nature. Let us a little look into the Scripture & ſee what it ſaith about this; and that we ſhall find not only to aſſert the thing, but ſo to aſſert it as withal to ſet down and determine the nature and true notion of it. I mean this, the Scripture doth not only in general ſpeak of Chriſt's taking away or expiating of Sin, but it ſhews in what p. 500manner he did it and wherein the nature of that expiation did conſiſt: as namely that he did expiate it in that way which was agreeable to what was done in and by the old Sacrifices, and that according to the notion proper to their expiation ſo his muſt be underſtood. For in ſpeaking thereof it uſes thoſe expreſſions which point to thoſe Sacrifices and to their expiation; thereby noting

(1.) that Chriſt did expiate in that very way wherein they did: and

(2.) that therefore his expiation (in the nature of it) muſt run parallel with theirs.

Take a few Inſtances: Heb. 9.13, 14. For if the blood of Bulls and Goats, and the aſhes of an Heifer ſprinkling the unclean, **foreign.ſanctifieth to the purifying of the fleſh: How much more ſhall the blood of Chriſt, who through the eternal Spirit, offered himſelf without ſpot to God, ††foreign.purge your Conſcience from dead works to ſerve the living God?—Verſ. 22, 23. And almoſt all things are by the Law purged with blood: and without ſhedding blood is no remiſſion. It was therefore neceſſary that the patterns of things in the Heavens ſhould be ‖‖foreign.purified with theſe, but the Heavenly things themſelves with better Sacrifices than theſe. Heb. 1.3.—When he had by himſelf **foreign.purged our ſins (or as 'tis in the Greek, he having by himſelf made purgation or expiation of our ſins): 1 Joh. 1.7.——and the blood of Jeſus Chriſt his Son ††foreign.cleanſeth us from all ſin; (by which cleanſing the Apoſtle meant the expiation or remiſſion of ſin, for Verſ. 9. he puts them together—he is faithful and juſt to forgive us our ſins and to cleanſe us from all unrighteouſneſs). Heb. 10.22.—having our bearts **foreign.ſprinkled from an evil Conſcience, and our bodies ††foreign.waſhed with pure water. Revel. 1.5. Ʋnto him that loved us and ‖‖foreign.waſhed us from our ſins in his own blood.

Now pray obſerve from theſe Scriptures

1. That the expiating of ſin (under the terms of purifying, purging, cleanſing, waſhing, ſprinkling) is expreſly attributed to Chriſt.

2. That he, as being a Sacrifice, by dying and ſhedding his blood, ſo did expiate ſin.

3. That the proper and primary effect of his death and blood was the expiation of ſins guilt, and as a conſequent thereof its remiſſion. Matth. 26.28. This is my blood of the New Teſtament which is ſhed for many [for the remiſſion of ſins]. Eph. 1.7. In whom we have redemption through his blood, [the forgiveneſs of ſins]—(So Rom. 3.25).

4. That as the Jewiſh Sacrifices were truly expiatory, they (in their way) taking off ſins guilt and the puniſhment due thereupon, p. 501wherein the formal nature of their expiation did conſiſt; ſo anſwerably Chriſt Jeſus was a true expiatory Sacrifice, he (in his way too) taking off ſins guilt &c. wherein the formal nature of his expiation did and muſt conſiſt alſo.

This I ground upon a twofold conſideration:

(1.) Becauſe by thoſe very Words which were proper to thoſe Sacrifices and by which their expiation of ſin was ſeth forth, I ſay by thoſe very Words the Sacrifice of Chriſt and the efficasy thereof is deſcribed; therefore it muſt be as truly expiatory of ſin as they were; (this is ſufficiently proved in the places that have been cited). And I might further add, that the words there uſed are the very ſame with thoſe which the Greek prophane Authors do always uſe, when they are ſpeaking of their expiatory Sacrifices and of the effect of them, (of which many inſtances are given by the**Stuck. de Sacrif. fol. 148. Grot. de Sat. p. 128, 129. (with many Others). Learned).

—(2.)Becauſe the Apoſtle (who moſt uſes theſe words, and in the place too where he moſt uſes them, I mean in his Epiſtle to the Hebrews,) doth profeſſedly draw a parallel 'twixt Chriſt and the Law-Sacrifices, ſhewing there was a great analogie and reſemblance betwixt them.

True, he aſſerts a greater excellency and efficacy in the one than in the other, and as to the manner of working he ſhews there was a vaſt difference between them; but yet as to the great effect of a Sacrifice (expiation of ſin) in that (ſo far as the nature of the things would admit of) they did agree. Well then! if they did purifie and expiate, ſo muſt Chriſt; and as they did purifie and expiate (in taking away guilt by death and blood), ſo muſt Chriſt; otherwiſe where would the analogie be between them? was it not thus there would be expiation in the type and none in the antitype, and one way of expiation in the type and another in the antitype, (both of which are directly contrary to the Apoſtles ſcope and deſign in the forenamed Epiſtl… ).

Some poſſibly will ask why I multiply ſo many words and ſtay ſo long upon this point? I'le tell them, I do it to vindicate both the reality and alſo the true notion of our Saviours expiatory Sacrifice. For the SOCINIANS (who have not left us one fountain of Evangelical Comfort un-poyſon'd) herein deal with their uſual ſubtilty; very fair words are ſpoken by them as though they were for and did own Chriſt's **Socin. de Serv. p. 2. c. 11.13, 14, 16, 17. Crellius contra Grot. cap. 10. ſect. 2.expiation of ſin, but when they come to open it and to ſhew what they mean by it, they make it a quite other thing than what indeed it is; they keep the Word but quit the Scripture-ſenſe thereof: Chriſt (ſay they) did expiate ſin, but how? why, by begetting Faith in the Sinner, by working p. 502repentance in him, by turning and drawing him off from ſin, by delivering from the effects of it, by declaring the Will of God about remiſſion and the way thereunto, as his death was an antecedent to his exaltation in Heaven where (ſay they) he only expiates ſin &c. in ſuch things as theſe, but not in Chriſt's undergoing the puniſhment due to the Sinner and dying in his ſtead; they make his expiation of Sin to lie. Now though much might be (and**Grot. de Sat. p. 136. Hoorneb. p. 581. &c. Franz. p. 207. & 450. Dr. Stillingſt. againſt Crell. c. 6. p. 507. &c. Turret. p. 202. &c. Jacob. ad Portum. p. 464. &c. is) ſaid againſt each of theſe particularly, yet that which I have in the general inſiſted upon is a ſufficient confutation of them all; viz. Chriſt muſt expiate ſin in that way and ſenſe wherein the Sacrifices under the Law did, now did they expiate any other way than as they were ſubſtituted in the Offenders room and as they dy'd in his ſtead? therefore that muſt be the way wherein Chriſt our Sacrifice doth expiate alſo. Thus I have gone over the four Heads propounded for the proving of Chriſt to be a true, proper expiatory Sacrifice.

Of the concurrence of the Heathens in theſe notions of Sacrifices.Only for the further clearing and▪ confirming of what hath been ſaid, it will not be amiſs (before I go off from this) to ſhew how the Heathens themſelves, in their notions about their Sacrifices, did exactly agree with what I have now delivered concerning the Jewiſh Sacrifices, and alſo concerning Chriſt (the far greater Sacrifice). The buſineſs of ſacrificing was not a thing us'd and practis'd only amongſt the Jews, but amongſt Gentiles and Heathens alſo; yea, even amongſt thoſe this practice in antient times was ſo Catholick and univerſal, as that there was ſcarce any conſiderable Nation or People in the world of whoſe uſing of Sacrifices we have not ſome account. Whence this came about I am not now to enquire; only (in a word) it proceeded partly from the**See River. in Gen. Exerc. 42. Dr. Owen Theol. Nat. 1. c. 8. p. 89. inſtigation and deluſion of the Devil, (who loves to ape it after God, and to ſtir up his blind and deluded followers to do that to falſe Gods. which ſhould only be done to the true God)▪ partly from the practice and example of the**Prima victimarum Gentilium origo eſt ex divinâ inſtitutione Patriarchis factâ urgente inſuper Conſcientiâ. Eſſen. p. 237. Patriarchs; the knowledge of whoſe ſacrificing (according to divine inſtitution) being diſſus'd and ſpread over the world by tradition, (which commenc'd firſt from Adam to Seth, then continued from Seth to Noah, then from Noah to his Sons, and they peopling the world tranſmitted the uſe of Sacrifices to their poſterity), it had this effect to draw men univerſally to conform unto and imitate the example of theſe Patriarchs in this matter. And though they ſoon degenerated from the primitive and right uſe. of Sacrifices, in their departing from the true object of them and in their ſacrificing to them that were**Gal. 4.8.Gal 4:8 no Gods; p. 503yet (in their idolatrous way) they continued and kept up the obſervation of them from one generation to another. In proceſs of time when the Jews (after their coming out of Egypt) were form'd into a diſtinct politie, & Sacrifices were re-inſtituted by God, and all things in ſpecial Laws made by him preciſely ordered about them, 'tis probable that from thence the Gentiles did receive further light (which accordingly they in a great meaſure comply'd with): for do but bate the difference in the object (& in ſome other things) & there was a great agreement betwixt the Sacrifices of the one and of the other, as alſo in the conceptions of both about them. This being the thing which falls in with what I deſign, I muſt be more particular about it; for inſtance therefore thus: In the Jewiſh expiatory Sacrifices there was a ſurrogation or ſubſtitution of the things ſacrific'd in the room and ſtead of the Offenders themſelves (as hath been ſhown); the ſame was alſo done in the(a)(a)Which therefore they call'd Hoſtiae ſuccedancae. Men' piaculum oportet fieri propter ſtultitiam tuam, ut meum tergum ſtultitiae tuae ſubdas ſuccedaneum? Plant. Gentile Sacrifices, and this was that very notion which they in them went upon. Nothing more uſual amongſt them than for one to die (b)(b)As the Decii amongſt the Romans, Codrus amongſt the Athenians, Menecaus amongſt the Thebans &c.—Hanc tibi Eryx meliorem animam pro morte Daretis Perſolvo. Virgil.for another (eſpecially for the Community); and if they apprehended their Gods by the inflicting of ſuch and ſuch evils upon them to be angry, preſently they ſubſtituted ſome (whom they call'd Viri piaculares, (c)(c)In alluſion to whom (ſome think) the Apoſtle uſes theſe words 1 Cor. 4.13. Suidas in V. foreign Dr. Hammond in loc.—In the luſtration or purgation of their Cities they us'd to put to death ſome malefactor, and at the execution of him to ſay foreign, be thou a Victime in our ſtead.1 Cor 4:13foreign) to die in the ſtead of all the people, ſo to make expiation. And as the Jews teſtify'd their deſigning and believing of this by their laying on of hands upon the Sacrifices, ſo did the(d)(d)See Dr. Stillingſt. againſt Crellius. p. 444. Gentiles alſo. In the Jewiſh Sacrifices there was the killing of them, the ſhedding of their blood &c. the(e)(e)—Et culpam hanc miſerorum morte piabunt. Virg.—Date gaudia Thebis Quae pepigi, & toto quae ſanguine prodigus emi. Statius: Upon this Porphyry wrote much againſt thoſe Sacrifices—foreign. l. 2. p. 59. Gentiles in their's too were for death and blood: The Jews hoped by their Sacrifices to propitiate and atone God when offended, the(f)(f)V. Stuekium de Sacrif. fol. 146. Gyrald. Synt. 17. p. 491. Placuit ad averruncundam: Deorum iram victimus coedi. Liv. lib. 8. Mactatâ venlet mitior hoſtiâ Horat. Gentiles by theirs deſign'd and hop'd the ſame (for they had their Sacrificia foreign too). The Jews had their Burnt-offerings, whole Burnt-offerings, their Sin-offerings, their ſolemn and annual expiations, and all for purging, purifying, p. 504expiating of ſin; the(g)(g)—Et ſolida imponit taurorum viſcera flammis. Virgil. See Grot. on Levit. 1.9.—Soepe Deos aliquis peccando fecit iniquos, & pro delictis hoſtia blanda fuit. Ovid. Annua quae differre nefas celebrate faventes Nobiſcum. Virgil. They call'd theſe Sacrifices foreign, from their purging and purifying from guilt. See inſtances in Grot. de Sat. p. 124.—te que piàcula nulla reſolvent. Horat.Lev 1:9 Gentiles in all theſe concurr'd with them. Nay, becauſe they would be ſure to do this effectually, by the ſacrificing of their beſt to their Gods, and conceiving that the life of man was moſt proper to expiate for the life of man; therefore (though this was their great ſin) in order to the pacifying of their Gods and the expiating of guilt, they ſtuck not at the Sacrificing of(h)(h)Pro vitâ hominum niſi vita hominis reddatur, non poſſe Deorum immortalium Numen placari arbitrantur, Caeſar de Bel. Gallico. Sanguine quaerendi reditus animâ que litandum Argolicâ. Virg. Sanguine placaſtis ventos & virgine caeſa. Idem. Omnis & humanis luſtrata cruoribus arbor. Lucan. This foreign prevail'd ſo much, that the Senate of Rome was fain to make a Decree againſt it. Plin. Nat. Hiſt. l. 3 c. 1. See of it Euſeb. de Praepar. Evang. l. 4. c. 16. Tertull. Apol. c. 9. Theodoret. vol. 4. p. 589. Porphyr. foreign l. 2. ſect. 27. Saubertus de Sacrif. c. 21. p. 517. Stuck. fol. 41. Grot. de Sat. p. 132. Cloppenb. Spicileg. p. 212. men themſelves, yea, of their deareſt children: (Inſtances of which, with Commands againſt it, frequently occur in Scripture, 2 King. 3.27. 2 King. 17.31. 2 King. 23.10. 2 Chron. 28.3. Jer. 7.31. Jer. 19.5. Jer. 32.35. Pſal. 106.37, 38. Levit. 18.21. Levit. 20.2. In other things the Heathens borrowed from the Jews, in this the Jews from the Heathens). Upon the whole then it appears, that Scripture and Nature do both concur in that notion of expiatory Sacrifices which I have inſiſted upon: and ſurely in the applying of it to Chriſt (the grand expiatory Sacrifice) the Goſpel is exceeding clear. So that when we aſſert his ſubſtitution in the ſtead of Sinners, his dying for them, his atoning God and expiating Sin by his death and blood; we ſay nothing but what Jews and Heathens in their expiatory Sacrifices apprehended, believed, and acted upon. They then who differ in theſe things (as to the general nature, uſe and end of ſuch Sacrifices,) they differ not only from us but from all mankind: of whom it might be expected they would better agree with Heathens ſince they do ſo ill agree with Chriſtians.

Of the Second Enquiry, when and where Chriſt was this expiatory Sacrifice?I have diſpatch'd the Firſt Enquiry What a kind of Sacrifice Chriſt was? the Second follows when and where he was ſuch a Sacrifice? To which I anſwer, when he was here on earth and eſpecially when he died upon the Croſs, then and there he was this expiatory Sacrifice. All are not, of my mind herein; the Enemy (who way-lays me in every ſtep I take in theſe great Truths) is upon me again, and forces me to defend my ſelf (or rather the Truth I have laid down).**Socin. de Serv. p. 2. c. 12, 15. Smale. de Divin. Chriſti. c. 23. Gatech. Racov. de Mun. Chriſti. Sacerd. Quaeſt. 2. He ſaith, Chriſt's being thus a Sacrifice p. 505points to his being in Heaven, and to what he there doth; that his death here was but a preparation to his Sacrifice as there to be made, or but an antecedent Condition to his having of power there to expiate ſin, (with much more to that purpoſe). Here then lies the difference between us and S, we ſay Chriſt's being the expiatory Sacrifice belongs to that part of his Prieſtly-Office which he executed here upon earth, they make it to refer to that part of his Prieſtly-Office which he now executes in Heaven; we time it in Chriſt's dying upon the Croſs, they in his ſitting upon the Throne.

Now that I may at once prove what is true and alſo confute what is falſe, I argue thus:

1. It appears that here Chriſt's Sacrifice was exhibited (or that here he made his expiatory Offering), becauſe the Scripture ſpeaks of it as a thing that is paſt, and antecedent to his exaltation and glory; and therefore it muſt be done here on earth and not in Heaven. Eph. 5.2.—and [hath given] himſelf for us, an Offering, a Sacrifice to God for a ſweet ſmelling ſavour: Heb. 1.3.—when he [had] by himſelf purged our ſins, he ſate down on the right hand of the Majeſty on high; (mark it, the Sacrifice-purgation or expiation of ſin was over and done, and then Chriſt's exaltation in Heaven followed after): Heb. 9.12. Neither by the blood of Goats and Calves, but by his own blood he entred in once into the holy place, [having obtained] (not to obtain) eternal redemption for us: Heb. 10.12. But this man [after he had offered] one Sacrifice for ſins for ever, ſate down on the right hand of God: he did not firſt ſit down on the right hand of God and then offer up his Sacrifice for ſins, but he firſt offered and then he ſat down on the right hand of God.

2. When the Scripture ſpeaks of Chriſt's expiation of ſin by the Sacrifice of himſelf, it ſpeaks of it as a thing done but once; therefore it muſt refer to his death which was but once, not to his interceſſion (or any other act) in Heaven which is a**Heb. 7.25.Heb 7:25 continued, repeated and reiterated act. Heb. 9.26. For then muſt he often have ſuffered ſince the foundation of the world; but now [once] in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away ſin by the Sacrifice of himſelf.—Verſ. 28. Chriſt was [once] offered to bear the ſins of many: Heb. 7.27.—this he did [once] when he offered up himſelf: Heb. 10.10. By the which will we are ſanctified, through the offering of the body of Jeſus Chriſt [once] for all. Doth this once agree with any thing that he now doth in Heaven?

p. 5063. If Chriſt had not diſpatch'd his expiatory work at his death, why did he then ſay**Joh. 19.30.John 19:30 It is finiſhed? if his expiating of ſin was yet to come and to be done in Heaven, how could he with truth have ſpoken theſe words that all was finiſhed when the great thing was yet undone?

4. That of the Apoſtle is pertinent to our purpoſe, Heb. 10.5. Wherefore when he [cometh into the world] he ſaith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldſt not, but a body haſt thou prepared me &c. wherefore did Chriſt come into the world? why, to be a Sacrifice and to do that which the old Sacrifices could not; God was e'ene weary of them, could no longer**Heb. 10.8.Heb 10:8 take pleaſure in them, he will have Chriſt (the better Sacrifice) to come into the world, which accordingly he did. I but what was the world into which he came? ſurely it muſt be this lower world: for it muſt be underſtood of that world into which he came to do the Will of God (as appears Verſ. 7.9.), now that was this World below rather than that above; for where do we reade that Chriſt aſcended into the upper World to do the Will of God? eſpecially this Will of God referring to his aſſuming a body and offering up that body (Verſ. 5.10.)? theſe were things to be done only on this lower ſtage of earth: whence then it follows that here his Sacrifice was made.

5. There was (as hath been obſerv'd) to be an analogie and reſemblance 'twixt Chriſt's Sacrifice and the Levitical Sacrifices, and he was to expiate in that way wherein they did expiate; but if you do not place his Sacrifice in his death where will that analogie be? or how will he expiate in that way wherein they did? What is there in Chriſt as in Heaven that carries any reſemblance to the killing, ſlaying, ſhedding the blood, offering of the Levitical Sacrifices? There he ſits in great glory, puts forth his Regal power, is Head of Church &c. but what's all this to ſuffering, dying, pouring out his blood, wherein he was to anſwer to thoſe Sacrifices? Doth the Scripture lay ſo much upon his death and blood for expiation, and yet ſhall that be done where there is none of theſe?

'Twill be ſaid, there's this in Chriſt in Heaven to carry reſemblance to the old Sacrifices, their blood was carried by the High-Prieſt into the Holy of Holy's, and there ſprinkled by him towards the Mercy-ſeat; upon which expiation and atonement followed: now parallel to this Chriſt himſelf (our High-Prieſt) is entred into Heaven, the Sanctuary not made with hands, and there he executes his Prieſtly Office (after a ſort) for expiation and atonement p. 507alſo. To which I reply, Chriſt's entrance into Heaven cannot be deny'd, nor that that doth much reſemble what was done by the High-Prieſt under the Law (all that being but typical of this); Heb. 9.24. For Chriſt is not entred into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into Heaven itſelf, now to appear in the preſence of God for us. And therein we have the ſecond part of his Prieſthood (the oblation of himſelf here on earth being the firſt and his interceſſion in heaven the ſecond): which two muſt not be divided but conjoyn'd, the former muſt not juſtle out the latter nor the latter the former. Which ſecond part of his Prieſthood was neceſſary partly in reſpect of Chriſt himſelf; for the compleating and conſummating of his Prieſthood (the perfection and excellency of which depended upon it); for (ſaith the Apoſtle) Heb. 8.4. If he were on earth he ſhould not be a Prieſt (i.e. not a Prieſt of the higheſt rank, he would come ſhort of the High-Prieſt and be but as one of the ordinary Prieſts, if he ſhould only offer without and after that not enter into the Sanctuary as the High-Prieſt did, and he only): And partly too in reſpect of Believers, that he might not only make his oblation for them in order to impetration (which he had done on earth), but that he might further preſent and plead the merit of that oblation in order to application, and the actual giving out the benefits purchas'd and merited thereby (which was to be done in Heaven): therefore this we readily grant and firmly believe. But that our Lord's whole Prieſthood doth lie in this, or that he only in this place and ſtate doth expiate ſin, or that his reſemblance herein to the High-Prieſt is ſufficient, that we utterly deny: For

1. The Scripture (as hath been proved) in drawing the parrallel 'twixt Chriſt and the Law-Sacrifices, doth not inſtance only in what was done by the High-Prieſt in the Holy of Holy's, but alſo in what was done by the other Prieſts in the Temple, and in thoſe ſacrificial acts which were proper to them as well as to him. Nay

2. It mainly inſtances in theſe; making the reſemblance chiefly to lie in the mactation and oblation of thoſe Sacrifices which was done without; and therefore it muſt be Chriſt's death on the Croſs and not his interceſſion in Heaven which muſt be meant by them.

3. As that which is aſſerted by our Oppoſers would utterly deſtroy all analogie 'twixt Chriſt and thoſe Prieſts, and the far greateſt part of Sin-expiating Sacrifices; ſo it would in truth leave Chriſt no Sacrifice or oblation at all: inaſmuch as what he doth in p. 508Heaven cannot (in any ſtrictneſs or propriety of ſpeaking) come under the notion of an oblation or Sacrifice. There indeed is the preſenting, commemorating, pleading of the Sacrifice which he offer'd here on earth, but that's all; he improves the Sacrifice there upon the Throne, but he made it here upon the Croſs; he applys the expiation there but he wrought it here.

4. 'Tis true, the High Prieſt entred into the Sanctuary and there expiated ſin, but 'twas with the blood which had been ſhed and offered without: ſome of that blood (before offered upon the Prieſt's Altar) he carried into the Holy of Holy's, and there preſented it before the Lord, and ſo made atonement. Had he gone in thither without this blood and only have ſhown himſelf before God, it would have ſignified nothing; what he there did was grounded upon the virtue of the preceding oblation, which was only now in a more ſolemn manner repreſented before the Lord. Juſt ſo it is with our Lord Jeſus, he entred into Heaven and there intercedes as our High-Prieſt to his Father, but the efficacy of this his interceſſion is founded upon his blood ſhed when he was here on earth: take away his oblation here and take away his interceſſion there, for 'tis that which gives the efficacy and prevalency to this. Therefore he's ſaid to enter into the holy place, but how? why, by his own blood Heb. 9.11. he muſt firſt ſhed his blood here upon Earth, and then carry the virtue and merit of it with him into Heaven, and ſo he may expect to do ſomething (which upon his meer appearance in Heaven he could not have done). So that there muſt be ſomething in Chriſt's Prieſthood and Sacrifice more than what is proper to him now he is above, in correſpondency to what was done by the High-Prieſt in his entring into the Holy of Holy's and there expiating ſin. I think if all be put together which hath been ſpoken upon this account, the Truth (which I contend for) is written as with the beams of the Sun, therefore I'le ſay no more.

Of the Effect of Chriſt's Sacrifice, viz. the condemning of ſin, (the Second thing propounded to be ſpoken unto).Thus I have finiſhed the firſt thing propounded for the clearing of the Obſervation, namely Chriſt's being a Sacrifice for ſin. Where I have ſhown that he was a Sacrifice, what a kind of Sacrifice he was, and when or where he was ſuch a Sacrifice. The Second thing propounded to be opened was the Effect or Efficacy of this Sacrifice, viz. the condemning of ſin; [and for ſin condemned ſin in the fleſh]. (In this I'le be but very brief becauſe it falls in with what hath been already inſiſted upon.

p. 509Here was a ſtrange and wonderful Sacrifice, the moſt coſtly one that ever was offered up to God, therefore ſurely ſomething that is extraordinary and great muſt be effected by it; and ſo there was: What was that? why, Sin was cut off, taken out of the way (as condemned perſons uſe to be), its guilt aboliſh'd or expiated, (wherein you have heard the condemning of it doth mainly conſiſt. How this is ſet forth by ſuch terms as anſwer to the Law-Sacrifices, I have already ſhown: Heb. 1.3. When he had by himſelf [purged] our ſins: 1 Joh. 1.7. and the blood of Jeſus Chriſt his Son [cleanſeth] us from all ſin: Rev. 1.5. Ʋnto him that loved us, and [waſhed] us from our ſins in his own blood: but there are ſome other terms by which 'tis ſet forth which have not as yet been mentioned. As namely the taking away of ſin; Joh. 1.29. Behold, the Lamb of God that taketh away the ſin of the world: 1 Joh. 3.5. And ye know that he was manifeſted to take away our ſins—: (which taking away of ſin was a thing far above the power of the Levitical Sacrifices, Heb. 10.4. For it is not poſſible that the blood of Bulls and of Goats ſhould take away ſins). So alſo the finiſhing and making an end of ſin; Dan. 9.24.—to finiſh the tranſgreſſion, and to make an end of ſins—: where the finiſhing of tranſgreſſion is not the filling up of its full meaſure (of which you reade Gen. 15.16. 1. Theſ. 2.16.), neither is it the compleating or perfecting of it (as we commonly take the word, in which reſpect Chriſt is ſaid to be the author and finiſher of our faith Heb. 12.2. and to finiſh what he had to do and ſuffer Joh. 17.4.—19.30.); but 'tis (as follows) the making an end of ſin, ſuch a finiſhing as is deſtructive not perfective: by Chriſt's Sacrifice ſin was deſtroy'd, he thereby made an end of it or ſeal'd it up (as the word ſignifies) ſo as that it ſhould never be ſeen or come forth again to the hurt of God's people. Again, 'tis ſet forth by the putting away of ſin; Heb. 9.26.—but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared [foreign] to put away ſin by the Sacrifice of himſelf: the word is rendred by diſannulling Heb. 7.18. by making void or abrogating Mark 7.9. ſet it as high as you will the virtue and efficacy of Chriſt's Sacrifice will reach it: by the oblation of himſelf he hath quite diſannull'd or abrogated and put away the guilt of ſin. Put all together, here's purging, cleanſing, waſhing, taking away, putting away, finiſhing, making an end of ſin (all of which are the ſame with the condemning of ſin in the Text), do not all prove the real expiation of the Sin of Believers as the reſult and iſſue of the Sacrifice of Chriſt?

p. 510I having (in what goes before) ſaid enough for the opening of the true notion of our Saviours expiating of ſin, under the preſent Head I have but two things further to ſpeak unto; the one referring to the nature of the act, the other to the extent of the act.

Of the nature of the expiation of Sin by Chriſt.1. As to the nature of the act know, that Chriſt hath ſo expiated ſins guilt as that it ſhall never be imputed to the believing Sinner, in order to the inflicting of eternal puniſhment upon him: (this muſt be rightly apprehended or elſe we ſhall run our ſelves upon great miſtakes). When you read of the expiating, condemning, taking away of ſin, (and ſo on in the other expreſſions named but now), you are not only to underſtand them as pointing to the removal of ſins guilt (in their proper and primary intention), but alſo as holding forth no more about that removal of guilt than the non-imputation thereof to puniſhment. Chriſt indeed by the Sacrifice of himſelf hath done all that which I am ſpeaking of, but how? not but that believers have yet guilt upon them, that that guilt (as conſider'd in it ſelf) makes them lyable to the penalty threatned, that the formal intrinſick nature of guilt (viz. obligation to puniſhment) doth yet remain, and is the ſame in them which it is in others: all therefore which it amounts unto is only this, that this guilt ſhall not be charged upon ſuch or imputed to them for eternal condemnation. Sin is Sin in the godly as well as in the ungodly, thereupon there's guilt on them as well as on the other, & upon this guilt they are equally obnoxious to the Laws ſentence; but now here comes in the expiation by the Obedience, Death, Satisfaction of Chriſt, by which things are brought to this happy iſſue that though this be ſo, yet theſe perſons ſhall be exempted from wrath and Hell and the puniſhment deſerved ſhall not be inflicted. Thus far we may ſafely go but beyond this we cannot; we may (for the encouraging of Faith, the heightning of Comfort) ſet this Sin-expiatory act of Chriſt very high, but we muſt not ſet it ſo high as to aſſert Contradictions. (But theſe things will be more fully ſtated when I ſhall come to the handling of the main Doctrine of Juſtification).

Of the extent of this act with reſpect to the Subject and Object.2. For the extent of the act that muſt be conſider'd two wayes; either as it reſpects the Subject for which this expiation was wrought, or as it reſpects the Object, the thing expiated.

1. As to its extent in reference to the Subject: And ſo Chriſt's expiatory Sacrifice reaches

(1.) both to Jew and Gentile; not to the one or to the other (excluſively), but to both. 1 Joh. 2.2. And p. 511he is the propitiation for our ſins: and not for ours only, but alſo for the ſins of the whole world.—

(2.) To thoſe who liv'd under the Law as well as to thoſe who now live under the Goſpel: the former had the benefit of Chriſt's expiation of ſin as well as the latter. Rom. 3.25. Whom God hath ſet forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to declare his righteouſneſs [for the remiſſion of ſins that are paſt], through the forbearance of God: where by Sins paſt you are to underſtand thoſe that were committed under the firſt Teſtament before Chriſt's coming in fleſh: ſo the Apoſtle opens it Heb. 9.15. And for this cauſe he is the Mediator of the New Teſtament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the tranſgreſſions that were [under the firſt Teſtament], they which are called might receive the promiſe of eternal inheritance. Nay

(3.) there is a a ſufficiency of virtue and merit in Chriſt's Sacrifice to expiate the ſins of all men in the world. Yet

(4.) in point of efficacy it extends no farther than to true believers; others may receive ſome benefits by a dying Chriſt, but this, of the full and actual expiation of Sin, belongs only to thoſe who have ſaving faith wrought in them. As this (which I here aſſert) is matter of Controverſie I have no mind to engage in it; as it is practically to be improv'd and enlarg'd upon ſo I ſhall ſpeak to it in the Ʋſe; therefore at preſent I'le ſay no more to it.

All Sins whatſoever expiated by Chriſt's Sacrifice.2. As to its extent in reference to the Object or the thing expiated, it reaches to all and every ſin. Chriſt is ſuch a Sin-offering as doth take off from thoſe who believe in him all guilt whatſoever; by his Sacrifice for ſin he condemned ſin (that is) all ſins whatſoever, 'tis indefinitely expreſs'd & to be underſtood univerſally. Take ſin collectively in the whole heap or maſs of it, or take it diſtributively for this or that particular ſin, all is expiated and done away by Chriſt's blood; the expiation is ſo full and compleat that there is not the guilt of any one ſin (little or great) left unremov'd. 1 Joh. 1.7. the blood of Jeſus Chriſt his Son cleanſeth us from [all ſin]: Acts 13.39. And by him all that believe are juſtified from [all things], from which ye could not be juſtified by the Law of Moſes.

Whether the Jewiſh Sacrifices did expiate all Sins?Whether the Levitical Sacrifices did thus univerſally expiate ſin is a controverted point; wherein the Socinians hold the Negative, the Orthodox the Affirmative. The**Socin. de Servat. p. 2. c. 11, 12, 18. former ſay thoſe Sacrifices did free from the guilt of leſſer ſins, (ſuch as were ſins of ignorance, committed through incogitancy, inadvertency, humane infirmity), but for great and grievous ſins (ſuch as were committed againſt knowledge or willingly and willfully) they did not free from their p. 512guilt: the**Vid. Calov. Socin. proflig. p. 625. Lubbert. contra Socin Hoorneb. Socin. confut. p. 602. Turretin. de Sat. Chriſti p. 226. Stegm. Photin. p. 282. O. againſt B. p. 474. & p 469. latter aſſert and defend the contrary. And not without very good and weighty reaſons; for if we look into the annual expiatory Sacrifice we find that all ſins were expiated by it: Levit. 16.21. Aaron ſhall lay his hands upon the head of the live Goat, and confeſs over him [all the iniquities] of the children of Iſrael, and [all their tranſgreſſions in all their ſins], putting them upon the head of the Goat &c. And the Goat ſhall bear upon him [all their iniquities], unto a land not inhabited. (30.) On that day ſhall the Prieſt make and atonement for you, to cleanſe you, that ye may be clean from [all your ſin] before the Lord. (34.) And this ſhall be an everlaſting ſtatute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Iſrael, [for all their ſins], once a year. And as it was thus in the publick Sacrifices for all the people, ſo alſo in the private Sacrifices for particular perſons: therefore as you reade of the (**Of the difference of theſe two (Chataath and Aſham) much is written. Fagius makes the one to refer to ſins of Omiſſion, the other to ſins of Commiſſion. In Levit. 4 2—Others make the Aſham to point to ſins particularly enumerated, Chataath to ſins in the general. See Dr. O. Exerc. 24. on the Heb. p. 317. Dr. Stillingſt. againſt Crellius. p. 474.—But the moſt diſtinguiſh them, as one was for Sins of Ignorance, the other for Sins knowingly and willingly committed. Vid. Petit. Var. Lect. l. 2. c. 8. Saubert. de Sacrif. c. 3. p. 65.Lev 4:2 Chataath) the Sin-offering which was appointed for Sins of Ignorance Levit. 4.2.—13.—22.—27. ſo of the (Aſham) the Treſpaſs-offering which was appointed for ſins committed knowingly and willingly, ſuch as were of a more high and hainous nature; as falſhood in the detaining of what was depoſited, lying, violence, perjury, &c. Levit. 6.2, 3, &c. were not theſe great and horrid ſins? and yet God appointed Sacrifices for the expiation of them. Numb. 5.6. When a man or woman ſhall commit [any ſin] that men commit, to do a treſpaſs againſt the Lord, and that perſon be guilty; Then they ſhall confeſs their ſin &c.—The Prieſt is ſaid Heb. 5.1. to be ordained in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and Sacrifices [for ſins]; ('tis ſet down without any exception or limitation); ſo Heb. 7.27. 'Tis true (which the Adverſaries make great uſe of) the Apoſtle ſets it forth by the errors of the people; Heb. 9.7. Into the Second went the High Prieſt alone once every year, not without blood, which be offered for himſelf, and for the errors of the people: But then you muſt know that by theſe errors he means not only ſmaller ſins but all whatſoever, even ſuch as were of a very crimſon die. And the Greek word**Acts 3.17.—13.27. 1 Tim. 1 13. 2 Pet. 2.12.Acts 3:171 Tim 1:132 Pet 2:12 foreign (here rendred by errors), with the Hebrew word††1 Sam. 26.21 Job 6.24. Pſal. 119.21. See Franz. Schol. Sacrif. Diſp. 6. th. 60.1 Sam 26:21Job 6:24Ps 119:21 Scagag, do often point to great and grievous ſins; therefore why ſhould we limit it to ſins of a lower ſize and ſtature? eſpecially if we conſider that in that Sacrifice (to which the p. 513Apoſtle here plainly refers) the expiation was general of all ſins, (as you heard but now out of Levit. 16.) And 'tis very true too that for Sins which were committed with an high hand, contumaciouſly, in open defiance of God &c. there he would not admit of a Sacrifice for the expiating of ſins ſo circumſtantiated: Numb. 15.27. &c. If any Soul ſin through ignorance, then he ſhall bring a She-goat,—And the Prieſt ſhall make an atonement for the Soul that ſinneth ignorantly, when he ſinneth by ignorance before the Lord, to make an atonement for him &c. But the Soul that doth ought preſumptuouſly, the ſame reproacheth the Lord, and that ſoul ſhall be cut off from among his people: becauſe he hath deſpiſed the Word of the Lord,—that Soul ſhall utterly be cut off, his iniquity ſhall be upon him. Heb. 10.26. For if we ſin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more Sacrifice for ſins; But a certain fearful looking for of Judgment &c. But this doth not weaken the truth of what I have ſaid, viz. that even great offences were expiated by Sacrifices; becauſe they might be ſuch and yet not come up to this ſinning with an high hand and wilfully againſt the Lord; and thereupon might be expiable. Were there no ſins of a middle nature 'twixt ſuch as were of meer infirmity and ſuch as were committed perverſly and obſtinately, out of open contempt and defiance of God? ſurely there were, (you have had inſtances of ſuch); and was there no expiation for ſuch? the contrary hath been prov'd.

To clear up this whole matter I would lay down three things:

1. When we ſay that the Law-Sacrifices did take off the guilt of all ſins, yea, of great ſins, we alwayes except ſuch as God himſelf did except; where he was pleas'd to make a limitation there we muſt do the ſame, but not otherwiſe.

2. 'Tis evident that as to ſome ſins God did make an exception. For the caſe ſtood thus;**See Grotius de Sat. Chriſti. p. 122. it pleaſed the Lord to give excellent Laws to the people of Iſrael, thoſe Laws he back'd with a ſevere penalty, that penalty was death (which was due upon every violation of the Law): it being ſo, yet out of his great compaſſion he (who being the Law-giver might therefore relax and alter his Laws and the penalties annexed to them as ſeem'd good to him,) would not proceed in the utmoſt rigour, but he would graciouſly moderate and mitigate his threatnings. And therefore though death was incur'd by every ſin yet it ſhall not accordingly be inflicted; but a ſubſtitution ſhall be admitted of, the Beaſt ſhall die but the Sinner himſelf ſhall live: Upon this God appointed p. 514Sacrifices, wherein the puniſhment due to the Offender ſhould be laid upon the thing ſacrific'd and thereby his Sin expiated. Well! but though he will be ſo gracious as thus to admit of the expiation of ſin, yet (partly out of reſpect to his own honour, and partly out of reſpect to the Jewiſh politie, Civil and Eccleſiaſtical,) he will do this with ſome kind of reſtriction; (that is) he will admit of Sacrifices for the expiating of ſome ſins, but not of all. The Murderer was to die and no Sacrifice to be accepted of on his behalf, Numb. 35.30, 31, 32. (with reference to which ſome underſtand that of David Pſal. 51.16. Thou deſireſt not Sacrifice, elſe would I give it, &c.) ſo the Adulterer Levit. 20.10. the Idolater, (and ſo in ſeveral other caſes). Here now was a limitation ſet by God himſelf, and therefore here could be no expiation (in the external and ordinary way): indeed upon repentance there might be the doing away of the moral guilt (which made the offender lyable to God and to eternal death), but as to political guilt (which made the offender lyable to temporal death), that (if publick and known) could not by Sacrifices be taken off: when therefore you hear ſo much ſpoken of the virtue and efficacy of the old Sacrifices as expiatory, you muſt alwayes underſtand it according to this ſtating of it.

3. Thoſe Sacrifices may be conſidered abſolutely or relatively: Abſolutely and in themſelves, and ſo their expiation reached only to ſome ſins and to the removal of ſome guilt (viz. that which was ritual and ceremonial): Relatively with reſpect to Chriſt who was typified by them, and ſo by virtue of his great Sacrifice to come (which they prefigur'd) to perſons duly qualified their expiation was general of all ſins and of all guilt, (I mean of all moral guilt before God though not of all political guilt before Men).

But though there be this difficuly as to the type, as to the antitype there's none: by Chriſt's offering up of himſelf to be ſure all ſins are expiated, even the greateſt are waſh'd away by his blood, none can ſtand before his infinite merit and ſatisfaction; former Sacrifices were weak but Chriſt the grand Sacrifice he is ſtrong, **Heb. 7.25.Heb 7:25able to ſave to the utmoſt all that come to God through him. He is not only a Sin-offering to remove the guilt of leſſer ſins, but a Treſpaſs-offering to remove the guilt of the greateſt ſins; therefore as he is ſet forth by the former in the Text ſo by the latter in Iſa. 53.10. Where final impenitency and unbelief do not hinder the death of Chriſt is ſufficient to acquit from all guilt; by it all p. 515(who perform the Goſpel-conditions) have a full and univerſal diſcharge.

Application.I have now gone through the ſeveral things neceſſary to be ſpoken unto for the explaining and confirming of the Point; the Ʋſe follows.

Ʋſe 1. Of Information.Was Chriſt a Sacrifice for ſin? and did he thereby condemn ſin? I ſhall from hence infer ſomething

(1.) by way of Information;

(2.) of Exhortation;

(3.) of Conſolation.

1. Of the truth of Chriſt's Satisfaction.Firſt for Information: and ſo this great Truth may be uſeful in the informing of our judgements in ſundry particulars: As

1. We learn from it the truth of Chriſt's ſatisfaction. Here (amongſt many others) is a very conſiderable Argument to prove, that Chriſt did really ſatisfie Gods Juſtice for Mans ſin; which therefore all, who write upon and for the verity of his Satisfaction, do in ſpecial inſiſt upon, with great evidence and advantage to the Cauſe which they defend. And indeed it carry's ſuch light and conviction in it, as that the grand Oppoſer of this Satisfaction was more troubled to get off from it than from any other Argument whatſoever; for when he came to anſwer COVETƲS arguing for it from the legal Sacrifices as prefiguring Chriſt, he was forc'd to ſay—&c:**Socin. de Servat. p. 2. c. 9. in quo major vis eſſe videtur, in which (head of Teſtimonies) there ſeems to be greater ſtrength than in any of the former: And the annual, great Expiation being urg'd, as to that he ſaith‖‖Ibid. c. 12. difficilis ſanè nodus ſolvendus reſtat, one hard knot remains to be untyed: ('twas an hard knot indeed, which he might endeavour to looſe but could not). The word Satisfaction ('tis very true) we have not foreign, expreſsly, **De Servat. p. 3. c. 6. Ego quidem etiamſi non ſemel, ſed ſaepe id in ſacris monumentis Scriptum extaret, non idcirco tamen ita rem prorſus ſe habere crederem, ut vos opinamini.in ſo many letters and ſyllables in the whole Bible; but the thing we have: yea, as to that the Scripture is ſo copious and full that 'tis not in any one other thing more copious and full. But ſuppoſe we had there the Word as well as the Thing, what would that ſignifie to thoſe with whom I have now to do? when SOCINƲS is ſo bold as to ſay, For my part although I ſhould find that (meaning Chriſt's Satisfaction) aſſerted in Scripture, not once but often, yet I ſhould not therefore believe the thing to be as Diſſenters do hold: (wherein he comes but little ſhort of what his friend SMALCIUS dared to ſpeak concerning the Incarnation of the Son of God, of which you had an account before).

'Tis not for me here to launch out into that vaſt Controverſie of Chriſt's ſatisfaction, (in the opening, ſtating, proving, defending of which ſo many Volumes have been written); I muſt confine my p. 516ſelf to that one thing which lies before me. And there's enough in it to ſtabliſh you in the belief of what we contend for: for was Chriſt (truly and properly) a Sacrifice for ſin? were our ſins the meritorious cauſe of his ſufferings? did he put himſelf into the Sinners ſtead, taking his guilt upon him and undergoing that puniſhment which he ſhould have undergone? did he die, ſhed his blood, that he might thereby atone God and expiate ſin, (all of which have been proved out of the unerring Word)? and doth not all this amount to a demonſtration of the truth of Chriſt's ſatisfying the Juſtice of God for Sin? do we mean any thing by his Satisfaction but theſe things? and are not they clear enough from Scripture-light? The truth is, all the other Arguments brought for the proof of Chriſt's Satisfaction, I ſay all of them do either run into or fall under this one, of his being a Sacrifice for ſin. If God would pardon ſin, be appeaſed towards the Creature &c. abſolutely and without the intervention of any Satisfaction, why did he appoint Sacrifices under the Law? why muſt ſo many Creatures die? why muſt ſo much blood be ſpilt? quorſum perditio haec? he whoſe**Pſal. 145.9.Ps 145:9 tender mercies are over all his works, who hath pity and goodneſs for all that he hath made, would he unneceſſarily or meerly to ſhew his abſolute dominion have ordered ſo many Creatures to be killed, ſlaughtered, deſtroyed from day to day? why did he ſo peremptorily ſtand upon this, that††Heb. 9.22.Heb 9:22 without ſhedding of blood there ſhould be no remiſſion? But I go higher, if God had not required ſatisfaction why muſt**Si non fuiſſet peccatum non neceſſe fuerat Filium Dei agnum fieri, nec…opus fuerat …um in carne poſitum jugulari, ſed manſiſſet hoc quod erat in principio, Deus Verbum. Verum quoniam introiit pecatum in mundum, peccati autem neceſſitas propitiationem requirit, & propitiatio non fit niſi per hoſtiam, neceſſarium ſuit provideri hoſtiam pro peccato. Orig. in Numb. Hom. 4. Chriſt himſelf be made a Sacrifice for ſin? why muſt he take fleſh, and then die in that fleſh? why muſt his precious blood be poured out? why muſt he feel the wrath of his Father? be under a neceſſity of ſuffering, and of ſuch ſuffering too? was there not a cauſe for this? yes ſurely! and what could that be but ſatisfaction? God had great and weighty Reaſons which made him to inſiſt upon this, ſo as that he would in this and in no other way let out his Love and Mercy to Sinners: for inſtance, he muſt vindicate his truth, make good his threatning, maintain his own honour, as alſo the honour of his Laws, make known his Holineſs, let the world ſee what Sin was, what an extreme hatred he had to it, keep up and aſſert his rectoral righteouſneſs, &c. for though as**Vid. Hulſium in Theol. Jud. p. 473. Grot. de Sat. c. 2. pars offenſa and creditor he might have done what he p. 517pleas'd, yet as rector mundi he muſt do that which ſhall ſpeak him to be juſt and righteous in his Government: now were not theſe great and weighty reaſons for God to do what he did? and could theſe high ends have been attain'd without ſatisfaction? All his Attributes were equally dear to him, and thereupon ſhall all be advanc'd alike; he was not for the advancing of Mercy only but of Juſtice alſo; and therefore he will ſo carry it in his dealings with man▪ as that he may glorifie the one as well as the other. If he juſtifie the Sinner (wherein he diſplays ſo much of Mercy), hee'l do it in ſuch a way as that he may diſplay his Juſtice too; wherefore Chriſt muſt be a Sacrifice, firſt to expiate Sin by his blood and then God will not charge it upon the Sinner: Rom. 3.25, 26. Whom God hath ſet forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood; to declare his righteouſneſs for the remiſſion of ſins that are paſt &c. (he goes over it again) To declare, I ſay, at this time his righteouſneſs; (wherein or ſon what end?) that be might be juſt, and the juſtifier of him which believeth in Jeſus: what could the Apoſtle have ſpoken fuller & plainer to determine the buſineſs in hand? how can the Denyers of Chriſt's Satisfaction and of the neceſſity thereof ſtand before the light of this Scripture? Propitiation muſt be made by blood, by the blood of Chriſt, that thereby God might declare his righteouſneſs; that he might be juſt, not ſo much in himſelf and in the general, as in this ſpecial act of the juſtifying of a Sinner. Had we no other Text in all the ſacred Records but this one, me-thinks it ſhould be enough to ſilence and convince gain-ſayers; 'tis a bulwark for Faith which will ſtand firm in ſpite of all the little batteries that men can make againſt it. But the truth of Chriſt's ſatisfying divine Juſtice will yet more fully appear from what follows in the next Head, therefore I go on to that.

The true Nature and. Ends of Chriſt's Death.2. Secondly, this may help us to right notions concerning the Nature and Ends of Chriſt's death. For if it be ask'd, How or in what manner he dy'd? we ſee he dy'd as a Sacrifice: if it be further ask'd, Wherefore did he die or what were the main ends of his dying? I anſwer, he dy'd chiefly for ſuch ends as are moſt proper to Sacrifices. If God's own Son die undoubtedly there muſt be ſomething ſpecial in his death, and ſome great ends muſt be deſign'd to be promoted thereby, (**2 Sam. 3.33.2 Sam 3:33 died Abner as a fool dieth?) but what were they? Anſw. ſuch as may beſt comport and ſuit with the common ends of all Sacrifices, eſpecially of thoſe by which he was more directly typified: & therefore the pacifying of an angry God, the purifying of a guilty Sinner, being the principal ends in p. 518the death of the typical Sacrifices (as you have heard), anſwerably theſe muſt alſo be the principal ends of the death of Chriſt, the real Sacrifice.

The SOCINIANS in this matter run into two dangerous Errors;

(1.) they make that in Chriſt's death to be ſupream and principal which was indeed but ſubordinate: nay

(2.) they make that which was but ſubordinate to be the ſole thing therein, altogether excluding and denying what was ſupream and principal.

Now this one thing which I am upon (viz.) Chriſt's being and dying as a Sacrifice (in correſpondency with the Ends of the Levitical Sacrifices), was it rightly underſtood and firmly believ'd would be a ſufficient confutation of, and antidote againſt their pernicious tenents: For do they ſay that the main end of the death of Chriſt was to turn men from ſin? the contrary appears becauſe that was not the main end in the Law-Sacrifices: or do they ſay that Chriſt died only for our good? 'twas not ſo becauſe that doth not agree with the Law-Sacrifices, which were offered not only for the Sinners good but in the Sinners ſtead: or do they ſay that he died only as a Witneſs of the Truth, as an Example, &c. 'twas not ſo neither becauſe it ſhuts out that which was the principal intendment of the Law-Sacrifices.

But beſides this there are ſome other things of conſiderable ſtrength, which that we may the better take in we muſt more particularly enquire into thoſe Cauſes or Ends of Chriſt's death which**Socin. de Serv. p. 1. c. 3. &c. et de Officio Chriſti. Crellius de Cauſ. Mortis Chriſti (with all the reſt). Againſt them ſee Grot. de Sat. p. 26. &c. Franz, de Sacrif. p. 400. &c. et 606 &c. Hoornb. Socin. conf. l. 3. p. 492. &c. Portus contra Oſtorod. p. 447. &c. Turret. p. 7. p. 247. &c. Dr. Stillingſt. diſcourſe concerning the true Reaſons of the Sufferings of Chriſt. (with many Others). they aſſign; that by the removal of falſe Cauſes and Ends (I mean in their excluſive ſenſe), the true ones may the better appear.

They ſay therefore (1.) Chriſt dy'd for this End, that he might bear witneſs to the truth, confirm the Evangelical Doctrine, and give aſſurance to the world of the verity of what he had taught: To which we reply, the queſtion is not whether theſe were true and proper Ends (that we readily grant), but whether they were the principal, much more the ſole Ends of Chriſt's death (that we utterly deny). And our denyal is grounded upon theſe Reaſons:

1. All along in Scripture the confirmation of the Doctrine of the Goſpel is laid upon Chriſt's Works and Miracles, not upon his Death: p. 519(reade Act. 2.22. Joh. 10.25. & paſſim). And he having by theſe given a ſufficient proof or evidence of the truth of what he had taught, it cannot be imagined that he dy'd only or chiefly for this, that by his death he might give a further proof or evidence thereof. Beſides, if this was the main thing deſigned and effected thereby, then in the remiſſion of ſin, reconciliation with God &c. we ſhould owe as much to Chriſt's Miracles as to his Death; than which nothing can be more repugnant to the whole tenour of the Word.

2. This would take away the peculiarity or ſpeciality of Chriſt's death. For if there was nothing in it more than bearing witneſs to the truth, or confirmation of the Goſpel-doctrine, then all the Apoſtles and Martyrs (who ever died) did the ſame, in as much as they by dying bore witneſs alſo to the truth, and confirmed the Goſpel-Doctrine: then as he ſaith to us**Matth. 5.47.Matt 5:47 What do ye more than others? we may ſay the ſame to him What (bleſſed Jeſus!) doſt thou more than others? (and would not this be a fine queſtion?) Certainly the death of the Mediator and the death of the Martyr are two different things; not only quoad gradum but quoad ſpeciem: but if it was as this ſort of Men would have it, there might be a gradual difference betwixt them but nothing more. Muſt Chriſt's dying for us amount only to his dying as a Martyr for the truth? here's the foreign but where's the foreign? Paul laid down his life upon this account, and yet (ſaith he)**1 Cor. 1.13.1 Cor 1:13 Was Paul crucified for you?

3. Nay thirdly, if Chriſt had dy'd only upon this ground and for this end, then ſeveral of the Martyrs had gone beyond him. How readily and chearfully did many of them die! how deſirous were they of laying down their lives for the Goſpel! they did not fear death, all their fear was that God would not ſo far honour them as to call them out to ſuffer it for his ſake: And when they came to die what abundance of inward peace and comfort had they! how were their Souls brim-full of heavenly conſolation! they had as much thereof as ever heart could hold, ſo much that all their outward torments were nothing to them. But was it thus with Chriſt? true, he was very ready and willing to die, yet there was a time when he pray'd again and again that the Cup might paſs from him; **Matth. 26.39, 42, 44.Matt 26:39Matt 26:42Matt 26:44Father if it be poſſible let this cup paſs from me: and he had an innocent, ſinleſs fear of death, for be was heard in what he feared Heb. 5.7. And had he ſuch raptures and extaſies of joy at his death as ſeveral of the Martyrs had? O no! his Soul was p. 520**Matth. 26.38.Matt 26:38exceeding ſorrowful, he was under bitter††Luk. 22.44.Luke 22:44 agonies and conflicts, had great terrors in his Spirit, &c. Now had he dy'd only as they did, meerly to have borne his teſtimony to the truth, and for the confirmation of the Doctrine of the Goſpel, would it have been thus? what? Saints ſo full of joy and God's own Son ſo full of ſorrow? Saints in their ſufferings to have ſuch a mighty preſence of God with them, and God's own Son to cry out My God, my God, why haſt thou forſaken me? Surely there muſt be ſomething ſpecial and extraordinary in his death above theirs; and ſo there was, for he had the guilt of all Believers upon him, lay under the wrath of God, bare the puniſhment due to Sinners, was under the curſe of the Law &c. theſe were the ſad ingredients in his death which put ſuch a bitterneſs into it. Had there been nothing more in it than bare Martyrdom or what is proper to that, how would he have been ſaid to be**Gal. 3.13.Gal 3:13 a curſe for us? what ſingular thing would there have been in his††Phil. 3.8.Phil 3:8 being obedient to death, even the death of the Croſs?

2. Secondly 'tis ſaid, Chriſt dy'd for this end that he might ſet before men an example of obedience, patience, ſubmiſſion to God's Will, zeal, (and the like). I anſwer, that this was one end is very true, but that this was the only end is very falſe: Chriſt did not deſign his death to be only exemplary to us, but that it ſhould alſo be ſatisfactory to God; he had in his eye the expiation of our ſin as well as our imitation of his example. Chriſt (ſaith the Apoſtle) alſo ſuffered for us, leaving us an example, that we ſhould follow his ſteps, 1 Pet. 2.21. but was that all? no, (Verſ. 24.) who his own ſelf, bare our ſins, in his own body on the tree: here was ſubſtitution in our ſtead, ſuſception of our guilt, as well as the propounding of an example. If Chriſt ſhould further the happineſs of Sinners only in this exemplary way, what then would become of the Fathers and of all thoſe who liv'd before he came and dy'd in the fleſh, who therefore could reap no benefit by his example? And this would make the effects of his death to terminate wholly in us, and not at all to reach to God, whereas he is a Prieſt in things pertaining to God Heb. 2.17.

3. They ſay, Chriſt dy'd for this end, that by his death he might ſtrengthen and encourage faith, and thereby raiſe up men to the aſſurance of the remiſſion of ſin, freedom from eternal death, the poſſeſſing of eternal life &c. Anſw. We grant that Faith receives eminent ſupport and encouragement from this, that it gives the higheſt ſatisfaction that is poſſible as to the certainty of Goſpel-bleſſings; yet p. 521this muſt not be look'd upon as the primary, much leſs as the only end of Chriſt's death. For

(1.) the bleſſing muſt be procur'd before there can be any aſſurance of it; the thing muſt be ſuppos'd to be before perſons can be ſure of it: now how was that brought about but by the death of Chriſt? and if ſo, then the only end thereof was not aſſurance, but there muſt be another antecedent end (viz.) the purchaſing or effecting of the thing which was to be the matter of that aſſurance. And by that the Scripture mainly repreſents Chriſt's death; Matth. 26.28. This is my blood of the new Teſtament which is ſhed for many for the remiſſion of ſins: mark it, 'twas ſhed for the procuring of this great bleſſing, not for the aſſuring perſons of it.

(2.) This aſſurance is as much (if not more) the effect of Chriſt's reſurrection as of his death: Indeed for him to die that contributes very much, but 'tis his dying and riſing again that hath the greateſt influence upon it; 1 Pet. 1.3. Bleſſed be the God and Father of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, which according to his abundant mercy, hath begotten us again unto a lively hope, (by what?) by the reſurrection of Jeſus Chriſt from the dead. As to purchaſe and impetration we owe more to Chriſt's death than to his reſurrection, but as to aſſurance and ſubjective certainty we owe more to his reſurrection than to his death; therefore the Apoſtle brings this in with a rather, Rom. 8.34. It is Chriſt that died, yea, rather that is riſen again. He is ſaid to be delivered for our offences, and to be raiſed again for our juſtification, Rom. 4.25. the Sinners juſtification was merited by his death, but it was manifeſted by his reſurrection; thence therefore Faith, in its being aſſured of that priviledge, muſt fetch its main encouragement: ſo that this cannot be the only thing aimed at in his death, ſince it more properly belongs to another Head.

(3.) The old-Teſtament Saints were high in their aſſurance, and yet they liv'd before the death of Chriſt.

—(4.) His death ſimply conſidered gives no ſuch encouragement to faith or ground of aſſurance: conſider it indeed as we ſtate it (that is) as he dy'd in our ſtead, to ſatisfie God's Juſtice, appeaſe his Father's wrath, expiate our ſin, &c. and ſo 'tis highly ſtrengthning to Faith; but if you take it in it-ſelf and as our Adverſaries ſtate it, ſo there's but little in it for Faith's advantage. What inducement or encouragement would this be to Sinners to believe, to ſet before them the death of Chriſt (unleſs thoſe Ends and Conſiderations about it be taken in which our Antagoniſts oppoſe)? without which it would rather draw out mens fear than their faith, rather drive them from God than to God; for ſo, more of his juſtice and ſeverity would therein appear to deterre p. 522them, than of his Mercy to allure and encourage them: O did God deal ſo with his own Son, who too was innocent and blameleſs, what then will he do to ſuch vile, wretched, guilty creatures as we are? muſt Chriſt ſo die? would not God ſpare him in the leaſt? what then will become of ſuch as we? Upon the whole matter, the Soc. ſay Chriſt's death was not at all intended to be ſatisfactory to God, I'me ſure (according to their ſtating of it) 'tis not at all conſolatory to Sinners.

4. They ſay, Chriſt dy'd for this end that he might have a right and power after his death, when he ſhould be in heaven, to forgive ſin: Anſw. Whilſt he was here on earth before his death he had that right or power; therefore that could not be any end thereof; Matth. 9.2. Son, be of good cheer, thy ſins be forgiven thee: and when ſome murmured at this ſee how he ſtood upon the aſſerting of it, (Verſ. 6.) That ye may know that the Son of man hath power [on earth] to forgive ſins &c.

5. 'Tis ſaid, Chriſt dy'd for this end that he might procure for himſelf ſuch and ſuch power, dignity and glory: But to this we ſay, it was ſo far from being the main end, that it was indeed no end at all; it being but the Co…ent not the End of his death; (ſee Phil. 2.8, 9.).

Theſe defective Cauſes and Ends being remov'd, it remains that I ſet down thoſe which were the chief and principal. And they were ſuch as theſe: Chriſt dy'd to be a Sacrifice for Sin, Heb. 9.26.—10.12. a Ranſom 1 Tim. 2.6. Matth. 20.28. a Propitiation 1 Joh. 2.2. to reconcile God to us and us to God, Rom. 5.10. 2 Cor. 5.19. Eph. 2.13, 14. Col. 1.20. &c. to deliver us from the curſe of the Law by his being made a curſe for us, Gal. 3: 13. to ſave from wrath to come 2 Theſ. 1.10. to juſtifie and make righteous 2 Cor. 5.21. Rom. 5.9. to procure remiſſion of ſin by his blood 1 Joh. 1.7. Eph. 1.7. Matth. 26.28. to overcome death by death Heb. 2.14. to purchaſe eternal life Joh. 6.51. Heb. 9.12. As he dy'd in our place and ſtead (taking our guilt and bearing our puniſhment) ſo he died for theſe ends, that he might reſtore us to God's love and favour, and expiate all our ſins by his making ſatisfaction for them: theſe were not only Ends but the ſupream and primary ends of his Death. I do not exclude the former, provided that

(1.) they be taken in conjunction with theſe; nay

(2.) in ſubordination to them: Chriſt in his dying might intend this and that, as his bearing witneſs &c.

but his main and principal intendments were ſatisfaction, reconciliation, forgiveneſs of ſin, &c. in the revealing of which the Holy Scriptures are ſo expreſs and plain, that p. 523(to me) 'tis very ſtrange that any oppoſition (much more that ſo vehement oppoſition) ſhould be made againſt it: Good Lord! how are Oppoſers faine to ſtrain their wit, to ſummon in all their invention & ſubtilty, for the finding out of ſome forc'd and pitiful interpretations of the Texts alledged, thereby to evade the true ſenſe and meaning of them! how do they ſet theſe Scriptures (and themſelves too) upon the rack, that they may ſeem to reconcile them with their hypotheſes's! but all in vain (as is abundantly prov'd).

The vanity & falſhood of humane Satisfactions.3. Thirdly from hence I infer the vanity and falſhood of all humane Satisfactions. Was the Lord Jeſus himſelf a Sacrifice for ſin? and did he thereby condemn, aboliſh, expiate all ſin for his members? then what needs to be done (or can be done) further by any Creatures in the way of Satisfactions? **Eccleſ. 2.12.Eccl 2:12What can the man do that cometh after the King? I cannot but take notice, how whoever will engage in theſe weighty Points he muſt tread upon thorns and bryars every ſtep he takes; no ſooner ſhall he have got off from one Enemy but there will be ſome other at hand with whom he muſt encounter alſo: I find it (I'me ſure) to be ſo, for no ſooner have I quit my ſelf of the SOCINIANS, but the PAPISTS (in a full body) make head againſt me: The former would wholly take away Chriſt's Satisfaction, the latter would add Mans to it; the One denies the verity, the Other the perfection of it. For they tell us, 'tis very true that Chriſt did fully ſatisfie the Juſtice of God by his being a Sacrifice for ſin, and fully expiate the ſins of Believers, in reſpect of their guilt and of the eternal puniſhment due thereupon; but not in reſpect of temporal puniſhments: theſe (they ſay) they are yet lyable unto (notwithſtanding all that Chriſt hath done and ſuffered), and that too not only in the preſent but (for ſome time) in the future ſtate; for the preventing or removing of which, ſatisfaction muſt be made to God, either by themſelves or by others: (this is the ROMISH-Doctrine). In which ſo far as I have gone we have falſities enough, but ſhould we go farther to their particular explication and ſtating of the latter branch (mens ſatisfying by themſelves or by others), what a maſs and heap of ungrounded, unſcriptural, abſur'd Opinions ſhould we there meet with! for there come in their penances, faſtings, pilgrimages, corporal puniſhments, voluntary poverty, maſſes and prayers for them who are in Purgatory, Indulgences &c. O what a big-bellied Error is this of humane Satisfactions! what a numerous train of falſities is it attended with! Contrary to this we hold, that**See the 31 Article of our Church. Chriſt by the once offering up of himſelf to God, did ſo fully free from all guilt and from all puniſhment p. 524too whatſoever, as that there is no need of any ſatisfaction at all to be added to his.

The truth of ours, the falſhood of their Opinion might very largely be made out from theſe following Conſiderations:

1. In the Jewiſh Sacrifices (with which our Lord's doth correſpond) there was no Satisfaction or compenſation, but only what was in and by the Sacrifices themſelves. Indeed in them God ordered, in caſe any private perſon had been injur'd that**Lev. 6.5.Lev 6:5 Satisfaction ſhould be made to him by the Sacrificer, but otherwiſe as to the expiation of all guilt before God & exemption from all puniſhment, the Sacrifices themſelves (their abſolute and relative notion too being taken in) were ſufficient. Reſpect being had to Chriſt and moral conditions being performed, they alone did acquit from guilt and from eternal puniſhment, and they too of themſelves did acquit from temporal puniſhment; without the intervention of any††Dominus qui exactiſſimè omnes expiandi ritus per Moſem exequitur, nuſpiam tamen hanc aut illam Satisfaciendi rationem conſtituit, ſed totam in Sacrificiis compenſationem requirit. Turret. de Sat. p. 329. other Satisfaction: if the guilty perſon did offer up his Sacrifice that was judg'd enough to free him from all the penalties which otherwiſe he was obnoxious unto. And ſhall more be done by the type than by the antitype? muſt they not agree in this as well as in other things?

2. All puniſhment (in order to Satisfaction) is inconſiſtent with the nature and tenor of the remiſſion of ſin. This gracious act is ſet forth by blotting out of ſin Iſa. 43.25. by covering it Pſal. 32.1. not imputing it Rom. 4.8. not remembring it Iſa. 43.25. caſting it into the depths of the ſea Mic. 7.19. It goes ſo high in its degree as that God promiſes upon the Sinners repentance his ſin ſhould not be ſo much as mentioned Ezek. 18.22; if it ſhould be ſought for it ſhould not be found Jer. 50.20. and 'tis ſo univerſal in its extent, that where one ſin is pardoned every ſin is pardoned; (Iſa. 38.17. Mic. 7.19. Col. 2.13.) Now how is punition reconcileable with this? for God to do all this and yet to puniſh (in a vindictive way or in order to Satisfaction, for I only ſpeak of puniſhment in that notion,) is a contradiction. I know what our Adverſaries ſay, that in remiſſion God acquits from the guilt but not from the temporal puniſhment: I reply, this is their foreign, that rotten foundation upon which their whole ſuperſtructure is built. I am not afraid (notwithſtanding the Decree and Anathema of the**Seſſ. 4. c 8. can. 13. Council of TRENT) to averre it to be an utter falſhood: for if the guilt be done away (as they affirm) what room is there then for puniſhment? that being the ground of this, if it be removed this muſt be removed alſo: pray let me ask, a perſon by p. 525pardoning grace being made guiltleſs whence ſhould the puniſhment of this perſon ariſe? That common maxime (which our Writers ſo much inſiſt upon) viz. Sublatâ culpâ tollitur pana is of moſt unqueſtionable truth, and back'd with the concurrent ſuffrages of the Antients; the guilt being taken away the puniſhment is taken away alſo (ſaith**Exempto reatu eximitur & poena. Tert. de Bapt. c. 5. Tertullian); and where there is pardon there is no puniſhment (ſaith††foreign. Chryſ. Hom. 8. ad… Rom. Chryſoſtome). And indeed to aſſirm the contrary is to make the remiſſion of ſin little better than a ludicrous thing; 'twould then be as if the Creditor ſhould ſay to his debtor, I freely forgive thee all thou oweſt me only I muſt throw thee into priſon there to lie all thy dayes; or as if the Judge ſhould ſay to the Offender, I acquit thee from all thy crimes only thou muſt die for them: juſt ſo it would be here if God ſhould remit the fault and yet exact the puniſhment. I do not deny but that he may lay many evils even upon pardoned perſons, but then I deny them to be (properly and ſtrictly) puniſhments; for the matter of them they may be ſo but formally they are not ſo; ohaſtiſements they are but not puniſhments; medicinal but not penal; they do not come from God's vindictive wrath, nor doth he deſign them for the ſatisfaction of his Juſtice, but they proceed from other Cauſes and are deſign'd for**—ad demonſtrationem debitae miſeriae, vel ad emendation em labilis vitae, vel ad exercitationem neceſſariae paticutiae, temporaliter hominem detinet poena, etiam quem jam ad damnationem ſempiternam reum non detinet culpa. Aug. tr. poſtr. in Joh. Poenae ante remiſſionem peccatorum ſunt ſupplicia peccatorum, poſt remiſſionem ſuut certamina, exercitationéſ que juſtorum. Id. L. 2. de peccat. Mer. & rem. c. 34. foreign. Chryſoſt. Hom. 41. in Matth. other Ends; (as namely to quicken them to repentance, to make them more ſenſible of the evil of ſin, to refine them more from their droſs, to heighten their graces, to draw out their patience, to make themſelves and others to fear &c). For God thus to afflict or correct is very well conſiſtent with pardoning grace, but to puniſh (under any notion of ſatisfaction, ſave only that of Chriſt's) is not. In different reſpects we may (and do) both affirm and deny puniſhment to be incident to God's people; for when we have to do with the Antinomian (in ſuch a ſenſe) we affirm it, but when with the Papiſts (who would have it to be ſatisfactory to divine Juſtice) we utterly deny it.

3. Thirdly, humane Satisfactions are but meer humane inventions, groundleſs, unneceſſary, becauſe Chriſt himſelf hath made ſatisfaction, yea, full and plenary ſatisfaction: his expiatory Sacrifice being compleat and perfect why ſhould any thing be added to it? Heb. 10.10. By the which will we are ſanctified, through the offering p. 526of the body of Jeſus Chriſt once for all:—Verſ. 14. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are Sanctified: for by that he procured remiſſion of ſins, Now (ſaith the Apoſtle Verſ. 18.) where remiſſion of theſe is, there is no more offering for Sin, (that is, no need of any further expiatory Sacrifice). Hath the Lord Jeſus (by the Sacrifice of himſelf) ſatisfied, or not? if he hath (for that our Oppoſers dare not deny), then I argue ſhall He ſatisfie and the Sinner too? will God have the debt twice paid? ſhall the ſurety pay it and the debtor too? this double ſatisfaction would impeach both the**Non patitur juſtitia Dei ut duas exigat Satisfactiones propter unum debitum, cùm unâ ei abundantiſſ…ne eſt ſatisfactum. Theſ. Sedan. Vol. 2. p. 357. Juſtice and alſo the Grace of God. I ask further hath Chriſt fully ſatisfied, or not? if he hath (for this is not deny'd neither), then I ask what need is there of any additional or ſupplemental Satisfaction? if he hath paid the utmoſt farthing what hath the Creature then left to pay (but only duty, love, thankfulneſs &c.)? The PAPISTS ſpeak very high concerning this Satisfaction of our Saviour, for they ſay 'tis not only ſufficient and full, but redundant and overflowing; they talk of a foreign, a ſuperfluity or pleonaſm and overplus, there's enough in it & to ſpare: (and this overplus they make to be the matter of that treaſure which is depoſited in the Churches-hands out of which the POPE fetches his Indulgencies). That ſpeech of CLEMENT the Sixth is famous, One drop of Chriſt's blood was ſufficient for the redemption of all mankind; (as if all the reſt might have been ſpar'd, which in effect ſpeaks the Father to be too profuſe and prodigal of his Sons blood). But notwithſtanding all theſe high words they are not contented with Chriſt's Satisfaction alone, but there muſt be ſome aſſumenta ſome of their own Satisfactions to peece with it. We do not greatly fancy ſuch high expreſſions, yet as to the thing we go higher than they; for we fully acquieſce in our Lord's moſt perfect ſatisfaction, without adding any thing (under the notion of ſatisfaction) thereunto.

All that they ſay is this, Chriſt hath fully ſatisfied with reſpect to guilt and to eternal condemnation, but not with reſpect to teniporal puniſhments. Anſw. The vanity and unſoundneſs of this diſtinction hath been already refuted; all puniſhment reſulting from guilt, if there be a full expiation of that the puniſhment ceaſes (let the kind of it be what it will). But where do we find in the Word any ſuch reſtriction or limitation, that Chriſt ſatisfied for eternal, not for temporal puniſhments? did he not bear the one as well as the other? Iſa. 53.4. Surely he hath born our grief and carried our ſorrows &c. and did he not take off from the p. 527Sinner whatever he bare in his own perſon, (ſo far as ſatisfaction is concern'd)? As to that Queſtion of**De Purgat. l. 1. c. 10. Si Chriſtus ſatisfecit pro omni culpâ & poenâ, cur adhuc tam multa mala patimur? Bellarmine If Chriſt hath ſatisfied for our whole guilt and puniſhment, why after the remiſſion of the guilt do we ſuffer ſo many evils? it hath been already anſwered, they are but chaſtiſements, not puniſhments; corrections to us, not ſatisfactions to God.

4. Take one thing further: To ſatisfie an offended God is Chriſt's peculiar, an act wherein no Creature muſt ſhare with him. Humane Satisfactions do not only derogate from the perfection of his ſatisfaction (in which the ſtrength of the former Head did lie), but they alſo entrench upon the confinement of it to himſelf: 'tis for Man to Sin, but 'tis only for the Son of God to ſatisfie; this carries glory in it wherein there muſt be no partner or corrival with Chriſt. Heb. 1.3. When he had by himſelf purged our ſins: (mark that by himſelf, he & he alone could do ſuch a thing as this). What can Creatures do in God-ſatisfying work? can they do any thing for themſelves that ſhall amount to a compenſation for faults committed? 'tis not ſatisfaction unleſs it be the payment of the whole debt, but (alas!) they cannot pay ſo much as a farthing; they who when they have done and ſuffered all they can muſt ſay they are**Luk. 17.10.Luke 17:10 unprofitable, are very unfit perſons to compenſate injurys done to God. And if they cannot ſatisfie for themſelves much-leſs can they do it for††Os foreign; Baſil. in Pſa. 48.Ps 48 others, (as he that cannot pay his own debts is very unfit to pay the debts of others): the wiſe Virgins had but juſt oyl enough for their own lamps, they could ſpare none for the ſupply of the fooliſh Virgins, Matth. 25.8, 9. There's a great difference betwixt ſuffering for the good of others, and ſatisfying for the fault of others; a Paul may do the former (2. Tim. 2.10. Col. 1.24.) a Chriſt only can do the latter.

Obj. ‖‖Bellarm. de Poen. l. 4. c. 15.But Chriſt ſatisfied that the Saints might ſatisfie: Anſw. we deſire a Scripture-proof of that; otherwiſe our negation is as authentick as their affirmation.

Obj. But Chriſt's Satisfaction is apply'd by the Saints ſatisfactions. Anſw. We find no means of applying his Satisfaction, but only the Word and Sacraments without and the Spirit working faith and repentance within.

Obj. But we (ſay they) make the Saints only ſubordinate, not co-ordinate Agents with Chriſt in the matter of Satisfaction: Anſw. 1. Even that is too much: 2. They go higher; for their great**Amonſt others ſee Vaſquez in 3 part. Thom. Qu. 94. Art. 2. & 3. Writers maintain, that the Saints apart, by and of themſelves, without being beholden to Chrſt's merit or ſatisfaction, may as to temporal p. 528puniſhments make full ſatisfaction. Theſe are but very weak pretenſions to build an Opinion upon which doth ſo much entrench upon the glory of Chriſt's perſon and the perfection of his Sacrifice. There is but one Argument for humane Satisfactions which is conſiderable, and that is that vaſt profit, thoſe large incomes and revenues which this brings in to the diſpenſers of them; and this I confeſs I cannot anſwer: were but theſe taken away I aſſure my ſelf this Controverſie would ſoon be at an end; 'tis the ſatisfying of corrupt men (in their pride, avarice, filthy lucre), rather than the ſatisfying of a puniſhing God that is at the bottom of theſe Diſputes. I look upon this point (with its appurtenances) to have as much of the core and venome of POPERY in it as any one point whatſoever, therefore I could not omit to ſpeak a little about it: but for thoſe who deſire to look further into it, to ſee the things (which I have but touch'd upon) fully made out and vindicated, the Arguments to the contrary anſwered, they may peruſe the**Dallzus de Poenis & Sat. Sudeel adverſus humanas Satisfactiones. River. Sum. Còntrov. Tract. 3. Qu. 12. &. 13. Theſ. Salmur. p. 2. p. 61. &c. Theſ. Sedan. Vol. 1. p. 594. &c. Chamier. t. 3. l. 23. Chemnit. Exam. l. 2. ſeſſ. 4. c. 8. Calvin. Inſt. l. 3. c. 4. Turretin. de Satisf. Diſp. 11. p. 305. &c. Authors cited in the margent.

Of the true Nature and Ends of the Lord's Supper.4. Fourthly, hence ariſeth matter of information concerning the true Nature and Ends of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper: (when I have ſpoken ſomething to this I hope I ſhall be off of all bryars). The difference betwixt PAPISTS and PROTESTANTS was not ſo great about the foregoing Head, but 'tis every way as great about this: **Concil. Trident. Seſs. 22. c. 1. &c.they hold, that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper (or Maſs as they are pleas'd to call it,) under the Elements of Bread and Wine, as broken and poured out, the body and blood of Chriſt are offered up to God as a true and proper propitiatory Sacrifice, and that too not only for the living but alſo for the dead: ††Of this Controverſie ſee Phil. Mornaus de Euch. l. 3 c. 1. &c. Hoſpin. Hiſt. Sacram. l. 5. c. 13. p. 548. &c. Camer. Opuſc. Miſc. p. 522. (in 4to.) Maſonus de Min. Anglic. l. 5. c. 1. Forb. Inſtr. Hiſtorico-Theol. l. 11. c. 20.The Other hold that the Sacrament neither is nor ever was deſigned to be a propitiatory Sacrifice, but only a commemoration and application of that one and only Sacrifice which the Lord Jeſus when he dy'd upon the Croſs offered up to God: (now which of them in theſe different Opinions have truth on their ſide, it is our preſent work to enquire after).

In order to which I have two things to do,

(1.) to ſhow what the Sacrament is not;

(2.) to ſhow what it is.

For the firſt, 'tis not a Sacrifice, I mean 'tis not a propitiatory Sacrifice; as if there was any proper oblation of Chriſt's body and blood in it (further than what is done in a Symbolical and Sacramental p. 529manner) for propitiation and expiation. There is in it indeed (in a Sacramental way) that body and blood which was really offered up to God upon the Croſs, but not as ſo offered up in this Ordinance. I ſay 'tis not a Sacrifice, for 'tis a Sacrament therefore not a Sacrifice: theſe two carry a great difference in them; there's giving in the one, receiving in the other; **Sunt propriè Sacrificia populi ad Deum, ut Sacramenta Dei ad populum. Morn. de Euch. l. 1. c. 1.in the one we offer to God, in the other God offers to us. Accordingly with reſpect to Chriſt, as a Sacrifice he was offered for us, in the Sacrament he is offered to us; which are two things of ſuch different notions as muſt needs be the ground of an inconſiſtency betwixt them; for can he at the ſame time be offered for us and to us too? If the Lord's Supper be a Sacrifice it muſt ceaſe to be a Sacrament, for it cannot be both. True the Paſſeover was both; it was a Sacrament (as it was a ſign or**Exod. 12.13.Exod 12:13 token of Iſraels deliverance in Egypt, and as it was to be eaten), and it was alſo (in reſpect of the mactation and killing of the Paſchal Lamb)††See this proved in Cloppenb. Scho. Sacrif. p. 142. &c. a Sacrifice; therefore we reade of ſacrificing the Paſſeover Deut. 16.5, 6. Thou maiſt not ſacrifice the Paſſeover &c.—there thou ſhalt ſacrifice the Paſſeover at even &c.—But the reaſon of its being a propitiatory Sacrifice as well as a commemorative Sacrament was this, becauſe it was a ſpecial type of Chriſt the great propitiatory Sacrifice, whereupon 'tis ſaid 1 Cor. 5.7. Chriſt our Paſſeover is ſanctified for us: had it not been for this its typical nature and reference, it could not have been both. Now in the Lord's Supper there being nothing of this (it being wholly a repreſentation of what is paſt, not at all a type of what is to come), it is not capable of being a Sacrifice and a Sacrament too; ſo that if we give to it the nature and notion of the former, we take from it and deſtroy the nature and notion of the latter.