Concerning the Doctrine of Christs Satisfaction, Title page 1 – Discourse

Concerning the Doctrine of Christs Satisfaction · Title page 1 – Discourse

A DISCOURSE Concerning the DOCTRINE OF Christ's Satisfaction; OR, The True Reasons of his Sufferings; WITH An ANSWER TO THE SOCINIAN OBJECTIONS.

To which is added A Sermon concerning the Mysteries of the Christian Faith; Preached April 7. 1691.

With a Preface concerning the True State of the Controversie about Christ's Satisfaction.

By the Right Reverend Father in GOD, EDWARD Lord Bishop of Worcester.

The Second Edition.

LONDON, Printed by I. Heptinstall, for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard, 1697.

p. iijTHE PREFACE.

THE Design of the following Discourse, is to vindicate the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction from the Socinian Objections. Which, that I might do more effectually, I set my self to consider the Force and Strength of all that Crellius had produced in his elaborate Answer to Grotius. For I have always endeavoured to understand the right state of a Question, before I undertook it; and when I had done that, I have taken as much Care, as I could, to represent it truly to others. Which made me not a little surprized, when I found our modern Socinians in their late Pamphlets to charge Me as well as others,Considerations on the Explications of the Trinity in the Archbishop's Sermons, &c. p. 31. with not reading their Books upon this Question, and wholly mistaking the State of the Question between the Church and them. Whereas, if I had not read their Books p. ivI might peradventure have entertained a more favourable Opinion of them, than I now have. But it was upon a diligent Consideration of the utmost I could find was said by their best Writers, that I so long since satisfied my self, that if the Books of the New Testament are to be our Rule of Faith, they were extreamly mistaken. Indeed, our Unitarians (as they call themselves) seem to go another way to work; which is, by undermining the Authority of these Books, and so to introduce Deism among us; (of which I hope to give an Account in another Discourse.) But my present business is to lay open the true state of this Controversie between us. In their Answer to my Sermon (which is here Reprinted) they say,Answ. to Serm. p 12. That the Unitarians never denied, as I fancy, that Jesus Christ made himself a voluntary Sacrifice for Expiation of the Sins of Mankind. If this be true, I confess, I have mistaken them; but if the contrary prove very true from their own Writings, what do these Men deserve, for denying that which they know to be true? For it is hardly possible to suppose such bold Vndertakers, as they are, should be ignorant that Socinus absolutely denied, That Christ made himself a voluntary Sacrifice for p. vExpiation of the Sins of Mankind. For in his Answer to Volanus, he saith,Socin. Op. T. 1. p. 391. That he and most others are greatly mistaken when they say, that Christ offered up himself to God, when his Blood was shed upon the Cross: And he positively affirms, That the Sacrifice which Christ offered was not upon the Cross, but in Heaven. These Passages gave great offence to one Niemojevius, a Friend of his, who in his first Epistle to him, calls it,Socin. Epist. p. 196. Ed. Racov. A horrid Paradox, and directly contrary to Scripture, and wonders what he meant to write so confidently against the plain Testimonies of Scripture. Socinus in answer to him, saith, It is no more than himself had asserted some Years before, in his Book De Servatore; p. 204.and others of their Party before him. And he lays down, as his Conclusion, which he desires his Friend to bring his Arguments against, viz. That the Expiatory Sacrifice of Christ for our Sins was not performed on the Cross, but in Heaven. Niemojevius brings express places of Scripture against this Opinion; and saith,p. 224. He could by no means excuse such plain Opposition to the words of Scripture. Socinus in his Reply persists in saying,p. 226. That there was no Expiatory Sacrifice for Sin p. viin the Death of Christ; and that it ought to be considered as an Intervening Condition in order to the Expiation in Heaven, p. 254.p. 265.and not otherwise; but he will by no means allow any Proof of any Sacrifice of the Expiation on the Cross. And so the Dispute ended. With what face can they now say, That the Unitarians never denied this, when Socinus not only doth it, but defends it, to the last, and saith, That others had done it before him: Which shews, that it was no singular Opinion of his own, but that which had been received among the Unitarians before him.

But say they, The Vnitarians ever acknowledged that the Lord Christ was an Expiatory Sacrifice for our Sins, as may be seen in the Racovian Catechism. This is indeed a wonderfull Proof, they ever acknowledged it, as may be seen in the Racovian Catechism: Were there no Unitarians before the Racovian Catechism? And was that always the same? Suppose the Unitarians before, were of another Opinion; suppose the Racovian Catechism it self hath been altered in this matter: how can any man of Sense be satisfied with such kind of Arguments as these? One would think, they wrote onelyonly for such as would take their Words; they joyn so much Confidence with p. vijso very little appearance of Reason. All that know any thing of these Matters, know very well, that the Racovian Catechism was first framed by Smalcius, a strict Follower and Defender of Socinus, from whose Opinions he did not vary at all as to this matter, as will appear from all the old Editions of it. In which the Question is put,Catech. Racov. c. 8. q. 4. What is the Reason of the Sufferings of Christ? The Answer is two fold; 1. To be an Example of Patience. 2. To confirm the Truth of God's Promises. And after these are explained, another Question is asked,Q. 12. Is there no other Cause of the Death of Christ? The Answer is very short, Nulla prorsus, None at all. And in the Conclusion of that Chapter a Question is put about Sacrifices,Q. 38. and the Answer is, That the Death of Christ was no Sacrifice, but only a Preparation to it, and a kind of Introduction to it, for the Sacrifice was offered in Heaven and not before. Have we not now great Evidence to believe from the Racovian Catechism, that Jesus Christ made himself a voluntary Sacrifice for Expiation of the Sins of Mankind? But besides the Racovian Catechism, they referr me to Schlictingius and Ruarus. For what, I pray? For what the Unitarians always p. viijheld? That is impossible, when there is such evident Proof to the contrary. I suppose their meaning is, That the Racovian Catechism, being reviewed by them speaks otherwise. And is this a good Proof, that they were always of that mind, because from hence it is evident they have changed it? And so it will appear to any one that will compare the latter Editions with the former.Catech. Racov. Staurop. A.D. 1680. In the last Edition I have seen, as it is review'd by Schlictingius, Ruarus, and others, there is a Preface, wherein they confess it is changed in several things from what it was, when it was first published by Moscorovius, A. D. 1609, and yet the Unitarians were still of the same mind, although some more softning Expressions were for meer shame thought fit to be inserted. In this Correct Edition, the Question is put, Why was it necessary for Christ to suffer as he did? And the Answer is twofold;p. 141. 1. That Christ suffered for our Sins by God's appointment, and underwent a cruel Death as a Sacrifice of Expiation. Who could imagine this to be the Racovian Catechism still? 2. Because those who are to be saved by him are subject to the like Sufferings. This is somewhat a dark Reason; but the former is that which we are to consider.

p. ixChrist, say they, suffer'd for the sins of Mankind, and was a Sacrifice of Expiation by his Death. What can we desire more? shall we always maintain disputes about Words, when we agree in Sense? No, that is not the Case, but we may seem to agree in Words and differ in Sense. That therefore must be more strictly examined. But because they sometimes seem to be displeased that we take their Opinion from foreign Writers, Considerations on the Explications of the Trinity by Dr. W. &c. p. 32.(since they here set up for themselves and are so able to express their own Sense) and because they refer me to their own late Prints in the English Tongue, therefore I shall apply my self to them, to find out what their true Sense in this matter is. And they seem freely to tell us what they deny and what they affirm.Answer to my Serm. p. 12.

1. They deny that this Sacrifice was by way of true and proper Satisfaction or full and adequate Payment to the Justice of God.

2. They affirm, that this Sacrifice was only an Oblation, or Application to the Mercy of God.

In another place they complain,Answ. to Milb. p. 58. that very few of their Adversaries have really understood what they affirm or deny concerning the Causes or Effects of p. xour Saviour's death. And they say, the Question is only this, Whether the Lord Christ offer'd himself as such a Sacrifice, Oblation or Price as might be made to the Justice of God, by way of Equivalent for what we should have suffer'd; or was an Oblation or Satisfaction as all former Sacrifices under the Law were, to the Mercy of God by way of Humble Suit and Deprecation? So that they will no longer Dispute with us, about the Death of Christ being an Expiatory Sacrifice for the sins of Mankind; and so this Point seems wholly gained. But we must have a Care of being deceived by them. For the Scripture was too clear and full to be born down by the Authority or Evasions of Socinus; and therefore they found it necessary to comply in Terms, as long as they could keep to their own Notions under them. But what is the true Meaning of an Expiatory Sacrifice to the Mercy of God? If it be no more but as a Condition intervening, Socinus would not allow that to make an Expiatory Sacrifice, and therein he was in the Right.

The main Point then between us seems to be whether the Death of Christ had Respect to the Justice or to the Mercy of God?Answ. to Milb. p. 53. And here we must consider what they p. xiunderstand by the Justice of God.

1. They say, that Almighty God as King and Proprietor of all Persons and Things, can forgive any Offence or all Offences, even without Repentance or Amendment, nor is it contrary to his Justice so to do.

2. That it is not the Justice of God, by which he is prompted to punish sinners, but his Holiness and Wisdom, and that Justice hath no other share or interest in Punishment, but only to see that Punishment be not misplaced, and that it do not exceed the Offence.

3. That God could not (justly or wisely) substitute an innocent and well deserving Person to undergo Punishment, p. 54.properly so called in the Place of the unrighteous and worthless, because it is of the Nature of Justice not to misplace Punishments.

4. That Christ could not offer himself freely for us to undergo the Punishment due to us, nor could God accept of it, or allow it: because it is of the very Essence of Justice not to misplace Punishment and not to exceed the Desert of the Offence, p. 55.which they say are the two things that constitute the Nature of Punitive Justice.

p. xijTrinitarian Scheme of Relig. p. 18.In another place, they say, That Christ made himself an Oblation, an Expiatory Sacrifice on the Altar of the Cross for our Sins. But his Sufferings were not (as Trinitarians teach) designed as a Punishment laid on him in our stead, because Punishment is the evil of Suffering inflicted for the evil of Doing; but Christ having done no sin; what he underwent was only labour and suffering and no Punishment. And again they say, the Oblation was not made to the Justice, but to the Mercy of God. But the Sufferings of Christ being graciously accepted by God, p. 19.as an Intercession on our behalf, God was satisfied with them, and this, they say, is the proper Notion of Satisfaction. Answ. to the Archbishop, p. 32.The same they repeat in other places. And if no more were to be regarded but meer words, this Controversie were at an End; for they own Christ's Death to be an Expiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of Mankind, and that he made by his Sufferings Satisfaction to God.

But I shall now make it appear, that whatever they pretend, they do really own no such thing as the Death of Christ being an Expiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of Mankind. However, we have this Advantage by these Concessions, that the p. xiijScriptures are yielded to be on our side, and that they are forced to speak as we do, whatsoever their meaning be. But that they do not own any proper Expiatory Sacrifice in the Death of Christ, will best appear by an Account of the Rise and Progress of this Controversie, and of the true State of it.

The first Rise of it was from the Multitudes of Places of Scripture, which Attribute all the proper Effects of an Expiatory Sacrifice to the Death of Christ. And that by those who best understood for what End it was that Christ suffer'd, and had no Intention to deceive or to amuse Mankind, I mean our Saviour and his Apostles. Our Blessed Saviour himself saith, That the Son of Man came to give his Life a Ransom for many. Matt. 2….28. Mark 10.45.Matt 2:28Mark 10:45A Ransom as to what? Surely not as to the Mercy of God. But Christ's Death was a Ransom as it was an Expiatory Sacrifice; and if the one respects the Mercy of God, the other must do so too. They may say, the Ransom is from the Punishment of Sin, but this Ransom might be made as to the Mercy of God, which delivers from it. But a Ransom is something which is paid or laid down as a Price of Redemption; and was very well understood in that Sense among p. xivthe Jews; who all knew that by their Law, the Blood of the Sacrifices was appointed to be a Ransom for their Souls. Levit. 17.11.Lev 17:11For it is the Blood that maketh an Atonement for the Soul. To which the Apostle refers,Heb. 9.22.Heb 9:22 when he saith, that without shedding of Blood there is no Remission. So that hereby the Jews understood these things, (1.) That there was a Punishment due to their Sins, from which they could expect no Deliverance but by the Blood of Sacrifices as a Ransom or Price of Redemption for them. (2.) That as the Punishment became due by the Law, and the Execution of it was by the Iustice of God, so the Ransom or Price of Redemption must be by way of Satisfaction to the Law, in such a manner as it had appointed. (3.) That they had no other Notion of an Expiatory Sacrifice, but the Offering the Blood of the Sacrifice for an Atonement in order to the Averting the just Displeasure of God against them for their Sins; and this was that, which they understood by Expiation or Remission of Sins. (4.) That the Expiation did not depend upon the Sacrifice, as an intervening Condition, as to the Party who thereby performed an Act of Obedience, but upon the Nature of the Sacrifice which was offer'd to God. For, p. xvwhatever had been required, the Obedience had been the same; but here the great Force is laid on the Blood being offer'd for Expiation. (5.) That however the Mercy of God was seen both in the Appointing and Accepting the Ransom; yet the Expiatory Sacrifice was never understood by them to Respect the Mercy of God, but his Just Displeasure against their Sins. What strange Language would it have been thought among the Jews to offer an Expiatory Sacrifice to the Mercy of God? But Men that bring in New Doctrines, must make a New Sense of Words and Phrases; or else they can never reconcile them to each other. And it is a mighty Advantage to our Cause, that we understand the Expressions of the New Testament with Respect to these Matters, no otherwise than the Jews understood them, among whom they were spoken; and who had their own Law to interpret them by. Our present Unitarians do not deny that the Sacrifices under the Law had an immediate Respect to God; but they say, it Was not by way of Satisfaction to the Justice of God, but by way of Application to the Mercy of God, by way of humble Suit and Deprecation.

But if there were such a Sanction of the p. xviLaw, whereby an Obligation to Punishment did follow the Offences forbidden by it; If the Iustice of God were concerned to see the Punishment executed, if the Law were not satisfied; If the Sacrifice of Atonement or Expiation were designed for satisfaction of the Law; and God did accept it for that End, then it follows, that these Sacrifices were intended not meerly as Rites of Intercession and Deprecation to the Mercy of God; but by way of Satisfaction to his Justice. For was it not Iustice in God to punish Offenders against his Law? Was it not Iustice in God to require a Satisfaction to his Law when it was broken? Was it not Iustice in God, when he had declared that he would accept a Sacrifice of Atonement, to require that instead of the Punishment of the Offenders, and to punish those who wilfully neglected or despised it? How then, can they pretend that these Sacrifices had no Respect to the Justice of God? We never read in Scripture any Expressions, as to the Methods of Supplication like this, That the Blood of the Sacrifices was to expiate for their Sins▪ and that it was given for an Atonement for the Soul. Is it ever said, that Prayer and Supplication was to make a Sacrifice of Atonement, and that it was appointed for p. xvijthat End? Prayer is a Natural and Necessary Duty and a Condition in order to Pardon, but the Life and Force of that lies in a Man's own Breast, in the inward and fervent Desires of the Soul: but a Sacrifice of Atonement was a thing of another Nature, the Blood was to be shed and then offer'd up to God, as a Sacrifice of Atonement, which God himself had appointed for that End; and without which no Remission of Sins was to be expected. But was not this from the Mercy of God to appoint such a Sacrifice of Atonement? No doubt of it, and so it was that he would accept it for such an End. But that is by no means the present Question; for it is, Whether the Sacrifice, which God appointed for an Atonement, was only a Rite of Supplication to the Mercy of God? In one Sense a Sacrifice of Atonement is a way of Deprecation: but then it relates to the Wrath and Displeasure of God; for it is that which God hath appointed as the Means of Averting his Wrath, and Preventing the Execution of his Iustice. But the main Question is, Whether the Sacrifice of Atonement as to God's just Wrath and Displeasure, be not a Real Satisfaction to his Justice? For if he be justly displeased, and might justly punish, but doth accept a p. xviijSacrifice of Expiation in stead of it, although there be a Concurrence of Mercy, yet there is a Real Atonement to his Iustice: unless they will say, the Iustice of God is not concerned in preserving the Honour of his Laws. But of this more afterwards. If an Expiatory Sacrifice under the Law were nothing else but a Solemn Rite of Supplication to the Mercy of God it would take away the Typical Nature of those Sacrifices, and especially those on the Day of Expiation. For what doth a Rite of Supplication and Intercession represent as a Figure of something to come? Why were the Goat and the Bullock for the Sin-Offering to be presented alive before the Lord; Levit. 16.10, 11.Lev 16:10Lev 16:11then their Blood to be shed, and to be sprinkled before the Mercy-seat and upon the Altar? 14, 15, 19.Why was the Scape-Goat to have the Sins of the People confessed over him and put upon his head? Why was the Flesh of the Bullock and Goat that was Sacrificed burnt without the Camp? v. 21.27.Do these look like Applications to the Mercy of God, by way of humble Suit and Deprecation? But the Apostle to the Hebrews tells us,Heb. 9.9, 12, 13, 14.Heb 9:9Heb 9:12Heb 9:13Heb 9:14 these things were a Figure representing Christ offering himself up to God by his own Blood, who having obtain'd eternal Redemption p. xixfor us enter'd into the Holy Place (in Heaven) whose Blood was far more effectual for the Purging away of Sin, than the Blood of Bulls and Goats could be; and to answer to the burning of the Flesh of the Sacrifices without the Camp,13 12. that he might Sanctify the People with his own Blood, he suffer'd without the Gate. Was all this nothing but an Oblation to the Mercy of God by way of Prayer and Intercession? Why all this Ceremony about an Oblation of Prayer, which depends on the hearty Devotion of him that makes it? Why did not the High-Priest enter without Blood into the Holy of Holies, if it were nothing but a Rite of Supplication? Why was the Blood sprinkled upon the Altar for Atonement, after he came out from the Mercy-Seat? Why was the Flesh burnt without the Camp? Was that for Intercession too? But saith the Correct Racovian Catechism, all this doth not prove that the whole Expiatory Sacrifice of Christ was performed on the Cross, but only that it was begun there and perfected in Heaven. This doth evidently prove, that the Blood of Christ was shed for the Expiation of Sins, and that as the High-Priest went into the Holy of Holies with the Blood of the Sacrifice of Atonement p. xxthere to make Intercession; so Christ as our High-Priest with his Blood shed enter'd in Heaven,Heb. 7.25.Heb 7:25 where he ever lives to make Intercession for us. But say they, the Sacrifices under the Law did not make any proper Satisfaction for Sin, therefore neither did Christ's Sacrifice. So that at last they confess that Christ's death was no proper Expiatory Sacrifice; for whatsoever is so, must make Satisfaction to the Law and Iustice of God. But say they, the Sacrifices were not offer'd for Payment but for Remission. I say, they were a Payment in order to Remission. I mean such a Payment as the Law appointed and God accepted, and that is true and proper Satisfaction. But we must distinguish a Legal Payment and Satisfaction, from Pecuniary Payment to a Creditor. And all the Confusion these Men have run into, hath been from want of distinguishing these; of which I have treated at large in the following Discourse.

Thus far it appears that they have by no means allow'd the Death and Sufferings of Christ to have been an Expiatory Sacrifice in the Sense of the Iews, as it was a Ransom or Price of Redemption.

But there is something farther to be consider'd in an Expiatory Sacrifice, and that p. xxiis a Substitution in place of the Offenders. For that the Jews and others understood by a Sacrifice of Expiation; when the Punishment of one was laid upon another in order to his Deliverance. Not that the very same was to be undergone, as appears by the Sacrifice of Atonement on the Day of Expiation; which was not that which the People of Israel were to have suffer'd without it, but it was what God Appointed and Accepted instead of their Punishment: and therefore the Scape-Goat is said to bear upon him all the Iniquities of the People, Levit. 16.22.Lev 16:22which was supposed to be so much charged with them, that he that let him go was to Purify himself before he could come into the Camp. 26.So in the Sin-offering for the Congregation, 4.15.the Elders were to lay their hands upon the head of the Bullock before the Lord: and in other Sacrifices the Rule among the Jews was,1.4. that none but the Owner was to lay on his hands; to shew on whose Account he was offer'd up as a Sacrifice of Atonement. For here the Right of Dominion was sufficient for Substitution; but in a Rational Agent, Consent is necessary to make it Just.

Having thus seen, what the true Nature of an Expiatory Sacrifice was, we must p. xxijnow consider, how far this can agreee with the Suffering of Christ for the Sins of Mankind. And we have already found our Saviour himself declaring that he gave his Life a Ransom for many. But that is not all; for, when he instituted his last Supper for a Commemoration of his Suffering, he said,Matt. 26.28.Matt 26:28 For this is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins. His Disciples, to whom he spake these words, must understand them as the Jews commonly did; when the Blood of a Sacrifice was offer'd for an Atonement in order to the Remission of Sins. And one great end of his Preaching was to declare that he came into the World with that design; that it was the Will of God he should suffer,Heb. 10.9, 10.Heb 10:9Heb 10:10 and that he came to do his Will. And therefore speaking of laying down his Life, he saith, No man taketh it away from me but I lay it down of my self. John 10.17, 18.John 10:17John 10:18I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it again. This Commandment have I received of my Father. So that here we have God's Appointment of such a Sacrifice of Atonement for Mankind; Christ's free and voluntary Consent for the undertaking it, and a Translation of the Punishment of our Sins upon p. xxiijhim;2 Cor. 5.21.2 Cor 5:21 which St. Paul calls God's making him to be sin for us who knew no Sin; which shews that the Sufferings of Christ were on the Account of our Sins, being laid upon him by his own Consent as our Sin-offering; or a Sacrifice of Expiation for our Sins. And in another place saith, that he hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law, being made a Curse for us. Gal. 3.1…Gal 3:1How could he be made a Curse for us in order to the Redeeming us from the Curse of the Law; if his Sufferings were only a meer voluntary Condition in order to his Exaltation, without bearing the Burden of our Sins? But St. Paul adds, that we have Redemption through his Blood, Eph. 1.7. Coloss. 1.14. Rom. 3.25.Eph 1:7Col 1:14Rom 3:25the Forgiveness of Sins. That, God hath set him forth as a Propitiation through Faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the Remission of Sins. That, when we were enemies, 5.10. Eph. 5.2.Eph 5:2we were reconciled to God by the Death of his Son. That he hath given himself for us, an Offering and Sacrifice to God. That,Heb. 9.26, 28.Heb 9:26Heb 9:28 he appeared to put away Sin by the Sacrifice of himself; and that he was once offer'd to bear the Sins of many. That,1 Tim. 2.6.1 Tim 2:6 he gave himself a Ransom for all.

Neither was it St. Paul only who speaks after this manner; but St. Peter saith, that p. xxivhis own self bare our Sins in his own body on the Tree. 1 Pet. 2.24. 3.18.1 Pet 2:241 Pet 2:31 Pet 2:18That Christ also hath once suffered for Sins, the Just for the Unjust. 1 John 1.7. 2.2. 4.10.1 John 1:71 John 1:21 John 1:41 John 1:10And St. John, that the Blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin, and that God sent his Son to be the Propitiation for our Sins. So that Christ and his Apostles agree in the same manner of expression; and great weight is laid upon Christ's being a Propitiation for us, and our Hopes of Remission of Sins and the Favour of God depend upon it. What now is to be said to all these places of Scripture? Were they designed only to humor and impose upon the Credulity of Mankind by telling them of such an Expiatory Sacrifice in the Death of Christ, which never was, nor could be, being Repugnant to the Iustice of God? For Christ, say they, being Innocent could not suffer the Punishment of our Sins, and God being Just could not accept of it, although he freely offer'd himself as a Sacrifice for our Sins. Doth this agree with the Force and Design of all these Expressions? Had not Christ the Power and Will to offer up himself as a Sacrifice of Propitiation to God? And where lies the Injustice of accepting such a Sacrifice which he freely offer'd? But it could not be, say they, by way of Punishment p. xxvfor our Sins. What then is the meaning of all those places, wherein he is said to bear our Sins and to suffer in our stead, the just for the unjust? What is this but to contradict the Tenour and Scope of the New Testament with respect to the Death of Christ; and to turn their Sense quite another way from what they were thought to signifie at that time? which is no reasonable way of interpreting Scripture.

Do they deny that Christ suffered, what we say he did? No; that they dare not do. But they say, What he underwent was only Labour and Suffering; but not the Punishment of our Iniquities. Then, I say, it could be no Expiatory Sacrifice, which implies a Substitution, and the contrary appears by the many places of Scripture already mentioned, wherein our Sins and the Sufferings of Christ are joined together.

Thus we see the true Rise of this Controversie was from the many places of Scripture, which seem very plain and clear in this matter; and therefore I shall now give an account of the Progress of it.

F. Socinus seeing the bent of the Scripture so much against him, sets himself to the finding out ways to avoid the force of them.

p. xxvi1. To those which speak of Christ's being a Ransom or Price of Redemption for us, Socin. de Serv. l. 2. c. 1. in fin.he answers, That these Expressions are to be understood only Metaphorically, and Christ's Death being an Intervening Condition in order to our Deliverance, it is therefore called, a Price of Redemption. And to the same purpose, the Correct Racovian Catechism; only there it is added, That God did accept of the Death of Christ as a most Acceptable Sacrifice. But not by way of Satisfaction or Payment of our Debts, because he as a Sacrifice was given by God himself; but that he might give us the greater Assurance of Pardon and Eternal Life.

So that here we have the true state of this matter before us; viz. Whether the Death of Christ, when it is said to be a Ransom or Price of Redemption for us, is only to be looked on as a hard Condition on his side Intervening, or as a proper Sacrifice of Atonement, which God had appointed, for the Expiation of Sins? The Question is not, Whether God appointed or accepted him, for that we have allowed in all Sacrifices of Atonement by the Law of Moses; but whether his Sufferings were not required in order to the Satisfaction of p. xxvijDivine Iustice for the Sins of Mankind; not by way of strict Payment, as in case of Debts; but by a Legal Satisfaction to the Justice of God as it is concerned in the Honour of his Laws.

Our Unitarians grant,Answ. to Milb. p. 58. That Christ was a Ransom and Price of Redemption for us; but they deny, That he was an Adequate Price, or a Sacrifice to the Justice of God. But still they run upon the Notion of Debts and Payments, as though there were no other Notion of Justice and Satisfaction but between Creditors and Debtors; or as if their Notions of these things were rather taken from the Shops than the Schools. And the monstrous Contradiction they conclude the charge of our Doctrine with, is, That God freely Pardons the whole Debt of Sin, and yet hath been infinitely over-paid for both in the Death and other Sufferings of the Lord Christ.

But in the following Discourse,Ch. I. I have endeavoured to lay open this Mistake, by shewing, That Debts and Punishments are of a different Nature; and therefore the Satisfaction in one Case is not to be measured by the other. But I shall not here anticipate the Reader, as to what follows; but I shall take notice of what they p. xxviijsay, which seems to relate to this matter.

Almighty God, say they, as King and Proprietor of all Persons and things, can forgive any Offence or all Offences even without Repentance or Amendment, nor is it contrary to his Justice so to do.

This is a very strange Assertion. For then there is no Obligation on God's part in point of Iustice to punish the most Impenitent and Incorrigible Offenders. But there is a great deal of difference, between making the Exercise of Punitive or Vindictive Justice necessary upon every Offence, and saying that the Iustice of God doth not require that any Offences should be punished.

The former makes Iustice in God to proceed by a natural Necessity, which would leave no place for Mercy, nor any Satisfaction by a Mediator, for that must suppose Liberty and Relaxation, as to the Executive Part of Iustice. And if God must punish Sinners as they deserve, there can be no stop to the Execution of Iustice short of Annihilation; for our very Beings are the Gift of God which we have deserved to be deprived of. But on the other side, to say, that the Justice of God doth not require the Punishment of any Offences p. xxixwithout Repentance or Amendement, is to overthrow any such thing as Punitive Justice in God; by which I do not mean, the actual execution of it, and the due measures which belong to it, but the Will to punish Obstinate and Impenitent Sinners. And that results from his Hatred and Abhorrency of Evil, and his just Government of the World. For how can any Men, who believe that God is really displeased with the Wickedness of Men, and that he is a Iust and Righteous Governour, ever think that it is not Repugnant to his Iustice to forgive all Offences without Repentance or Amendment? How can his Hatred of Sin and the Iustice of his Government be reconciled with the Impunity of the most Obstinate Offenders? Is there no such thing as Iustice to himself and to his Laws; which lies in a just Vindication of his Honour and of his Laws from Contempt? And who can be guilty of greater Contempt of him, than those who persist in their Wickedness without Repentance or Amendment? And after all, Is it not contrary to his Justice to forgive such as these, because he is absolute Lord and Proprietor of all Persons and Things? This might signifie something, if we could imagine God to be nothing but Almighty Power without Justice: p. xxxbut if his Justice be as Essential an Attribute as his Omnipotency, we must not so much as suppose the Exercise of one without the other.

Answ. to Milb. p. 53.But they do not deny, That it is inconsistent with the Wisdom and Holiness of God to let the Incorrigible and Impenitent escape unpunished, or to forgive Sin without Repentance or Amendment. But if the Wisdom and Holiness of God will not permit the Impunity of Impenitent Sinners, is it not just in God to punish them? Not barely as to the Degree and Desert of Punishment; but as to the Will of Punishing them according to their merits? Whence doth their Punishment come? Is it not from the Will of God? Is that Will just or not? If the Will to punish be just? whence comes it to be so? From the Wisdom and Holiness of God? Then Punitive Justice, when it is agreeable to God's Wisdom and Holiness, is a proper Divine Attribute as well as they. And they must have strange Notions of Punitive Justice, who would separate it from them.

But Justice, they say, hath no other share or interest in Punishment, but only to see that Punishment be not misplac'd, and that it do not exceed the Offence. We p. xxxiare far from denying these things to belong to the Measures in the Exercise of Punitive Justice: But whence comes Punitive Justice to belong to God? Is it not because it is just in him to punish Offenders according to those measures? And whence comes this, but from that Universal Justice in God, which is always joyned with his Wisdom and Holiness: and implies an Universal Rectitude in all he doth? And from thence it comes that all the Measures of Iustice are observed by him in the Punishment of the greatest Offenders.

Now this Universal Justice in God is that, whereby he not only punishes Obstinate and Impenitent Sinners, but he takes care of preserving the Honour of his Laws. And therefore, although Almighty God out of his great Mercy were willing that Penitent Sinners should be forgiven; yet it was most agreeable thereto, that it should be done in such a manner as to discourage Mankind from the practice of Sin, by the same way by which he offers Forgiveness; and for this end, it pleased God in his Infinite Wisdom and Goodness to send his Son to become a Sacrifice of Propitiation for the Sins of Mankind; which being freely undertaken by him, there was no breach in the Measures of Punitive Justice with respect p. xxxijto him; and so by his Death he offered up himself as a full, perfect and sufficient Sacrifice, Oblation and Satisfaction for the Sins of Mankind. And this is that Doctrine of the Satisfaction of Christ which we own and defend.

But these bold Assertions, That God as absolute Lord may forgive all Offences without Repentance, and it is not contrary to his Justice so to do; that, it is not the Justice of God which prompts him to punish Sinners, arise from too mean and narrow a Conception of Divine Justice; as though it lay only in the manner of the Execution of it. But that there is an Essential Attribute of Justice belonging to the Divine Nature, appears from hence, that there are some things which are so disagreeable to the Divine Nature that he cannot do them; he cannot break his Promises, nor deceive Mankind to their Destruction; he cannot deny himself, nor pervert that Order, or due Respects of things to each other, which he hath established in the World. He cannot make it the Duty of Mankind to dishonour their Maker, or to violate the Rules of Good and Evil, so as to make Evil Good and Good Evil; he cannot make Murder and Adultery to be Virtues, nor Impiety p. xxxiijand Wickedness not to deserve Punishment. But whence comes all this? Is it that God wants Almighty Power to do what he pleases? No doubt, he is supreme Lord over all, and hath all things under his Will. But there is an Essential Iustice in God, which is a supreme Rule of Righteousness, according to which he doth always exercise his Power and Will. And so Moses saith of him,Deut. 32.4.Deut 32:4 All his ways are perfect, a God of Truth, and without Iniquity, just and right is he; and the Psalmist, Psal. 145.17.Ps 145:17The Lord is righteous in all his ways and holy in all his works. He not only is so, but he can be no otherwise, for this Vniversal Righteousness is as great a Perfection and Attribute of God, as his Wisdom, or Power. It is not one Name which stands for all; but it is a real and distinct Attribute of it self: It is as a Rule and Measure to the Exercise of the rest. And he particularly shews it in all the Acts of Punitive Iustice: So Nehemiah; Neh. 9.33.Neh 9:33Howbeit thou art just in all that is brought upon us, for thou hast done right, but we have done wickedly. And Daniel; Righteousness belongeth unto thee, Dan. 9.7, 14.Dan 9:7Dan 9:14but unto us confusion of Face: For the Lord our God is righteous p. xxxivin all his Works which he doth, for we obey'd not his Voice. And Zephaniah; Zeph. 3.5.Zeph 3:5The just Lord is in the midst thereof, he will not do Iniquity. From whence it appears that the Exercise of Punitive Iustice is according to the Essential Iustice or Righteousness of the Divine Nature. And so Abraham pleaded with God,Gen. 18.25.Gen 18:25 Shall not the Judge of all the Earth do right? i. e. Will he not punish according to the Righteousness of his Nature? And so Abimelech argues from the natural Notion he had of God…s righteous Nature, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous Nation?20.4.

But here the main Difficulty which deserves to be cleared is this, How far Punitive Justice is founded on that Universal Justice which is an Essential Attribute of God. For the want of understanding this, hath been the great occasion of so much Confusion in the Discourses about this matter. And for the clearing of it, these things must be considered;

1. That there is a difference between that Iustice in God, whereby he hates Sin, and that whereby he punishes the Sinner. The hatred of Sin doth necessarily follow the Perfection of his Nature. Therefore p. xxxvGod is said, To hate the Wicked; Psal. 11.5. Prov. 6.16. Psal. 45.7. Zech. 8.17.Ps 11:5Prov 6:16Ps 45:7Zech 8:17and Evil to be an Abomination to him; to love Righteousness and to hate Wickedness. But if the Punishment of the Offender were as necessarily consequent as his Hatred of Sin, all Mankind must suffer as they offend, and there would be no place for Mercy in God, nor for Repentance in Men. But Sin in it self is perfectly hatefull to God, there being nothing like God in it; but Man was God's Creature and made after his Image and Likeness; and however God be displeased with Mankind on the account of Sin, yet the Workmanship of God still remains; and we continually see that God doth not exercise his Punitive Iustice according to the Measures of their Iniquities. And they who plead most for the necessity of Punitive Iustice, are themselves a Demonstration to the contrary; for they cannot deny, that they are not punished as their Iniquities have deserved. And if Punitive Iustice be necessary in it self it must reach the Persons that have deserved to be punished, if there be no Relaxation of the Severity of it.

2. That it is very agreeable to the Divine Justice, to exercise the Severity of Punitive Iustice on obstinate and incorrigible p. xxxviOffenders. And this is that whereon the Iustice of the Punishments of Sinners in another World is founded; because God hath been so mercifull to them here, and used so many ways to reclaim them, and it is the Not exercising his Punitive Iustice upon them in this World, which makes it so much more reasonable in another. For thereby they have shewed their Contempt of God and his Laws, of his offers of Mercy and their wilfull obstinacy in offending him. And the reasonableness of the Punishment of such Offenders is not denyed by any of our more Learned Adversaries, as I have shewed in the following Discourse from Socinus and Crellius, Ch. I. p. 20.and might do from several others. But I need not mention any more, since in the late Correct Edition of the Racovian Catechism there is this Note,Catech. Racov. p. 179. That they have always asserted, that the Wicked shall be raised up at the great Day to undergo the Punishment of their Sins, and to be cast into the Fire prepared for the Devil and his Angels. And for this, besides their Publick Confessions, they quote Crellius, Schlictingius, Volkelius, Wolzogenius, Schlictin. in Joh 5.29.John 5:29&c. And Schlictingius saith, The Doctrine of future Punishments was necessary to be preached, as being part of p. xxxvijthe Christian Faith; and that God's Veracity is concerned in the Execution of his Threatnings. Which is a part of Natural Iustice. And those Learned Men, who have been thought most favourable to the Socinian Opinions have declared themselves very frankly as to the Justice of the Punishment of Impenitent Sinners.

Curcellaeus, whom they often mention with respect, saith,Curcel. Instit. l. 2. c. 13. §. 5. The Justice of God requires, that he should inflict the Punishments he hath threatned on Contumacious Sinners. And Limborch (whom they sometimes appeal to) saith,Limborch. Theol. Christ. l. 2. c. 12. §. 35. That the Justice of God doth not permit the Impunity of Refractory and Impenitent Contemners of his Grace. Because, saith he, God by his declared Will hath tied himself up from the Exercise of his Absolute Power; and his Laws would be trampled upon, and his Majesty slighted; nor would God's hatred of Sin ever be fully discovered. And therefore the Day of Wrath is called by St. Paul, Rom. 2.5.Rom 2:5The Revelation of the Righteous Judgment of God. Episcopius saith,Episcop. Inst. Theol. l. 4. c. 29. That although in such Punishments, which depend only on the Will of the Law-maker, he doth not think, that God in Justice is obliged to make good his Threatnings, as he is to perform p. xxxviijhis Promises; (but that in such Cases God is not bound in Justice to execute all that the Law threatens; but when he thinks fit to punish, then his Justice requires him not to punish beyond the Commination) yet in the Case of obstinate and incurable Offenders, he doth not deny, that the Justice of God requires the Rigour of the Law to be executed upon them. And he adds, That the Day of Judgment will fully manifest the Justice of God in the Threatnings he hath made to Impenitent Sinners. Vorst. de Attrib. Disp. 9. §. 38.Even Vorstius, who was supposed to be too much inclined to the Socinian Doctrine, owns it to be a part of God's Justice to punish wicked and impenitent Persons; that his Patience and Goodness may not be always contemned with Impunity. And afterwards, That although God doth no Injury to the Offender, §. 47.if he doth not execute his Threatnings; yet out of regard to the Justice of his Word, he doth not recede from what he hath declared: But all Threatnings under the Gospel are Conditional; and none are damned by it, but such as continue in Impenitency and Unbelief. And in his Explication he saith,§. 50. Not. ad §. 46. That where God hath absolutely declared his Will to p. xxxixpunish in such a manner, he cannot forgive without Injustice.

But our Unitarians speak without any Reserve, That it is not the Justice of God, which prompts him to punish Sinners, and so it is not contrary to his Justice to forgive all Offences without Repentance or Amendment. And thus the Justice of God is not concerned in the Punishments of the great Day, although the Apostle calls it, The Revelation of the Righteous Judgment of God.

And by this the World may see how very far our Modern Unitarians are from handling this Subject more Carefully, Judiciously and Exactly than others; However one of their own Party hath lately affirmed it;Vindic. of S. R. H. p. 128. with as much Confidence and as little Ground as they have done other things.

3. That it is very agreeable to Divine Justice to accept of a Satisfaction on behalf of the Sins of Mankind, who do not persist in their evil ways, so that their Sins shall be forgiven upon their Repentance and Amendment. For since the Exercise of Punitive Iustice is not necessary on the Persons of the Offenders, and since God in this Life abates so much of his just p. xlSeverity against them; he thereby shews, that he doth not proceed with Mankind here according to the Rigor of his Iustice; but yet, since God hath given to them very just and righteous Laws, since those Laws have been broken and his Authority contemned, it is very just for God to require a Sacrifice of Atonement for the Sins of the World, that Man…ind may see that God was justly displeased at them, and that none take Incouragement to go on to commit them; but yet, that upon their hearty Repentance and sincere Obedience, they may be assured of the Remission of Sins and the Promise of Eternal Life. All the Difficulty now remaining is about Christ's Suffering in our stead, of which the Scripture speaks so fully in the places already mention'd. But we must consider what is Answered to them.

II. To those places of Scripture which speak of Christ's Suffering the Punishment of our Sins; all that Socinus saith, comes to these two things.

Socin de Servat. Part. 2. c. 4. &c.1. That Christ suffer'd on the occasion of our Sins, and with a Design to take away our Sins.

2. That by his Sufferings he came to have a Power to Forgive Sins; and that this is the proper Expiation of Sin. But p. xliby no means that he suffer'd in our stead; for he hath these Words;C. 7. Ut nihil aliud sit Christum pro nobis mortuum esse, quam vice seu loco nostro mortem subiisse, id adeo à veritate abhorret ut nihil magis. Which in plain English is, that nothing is more false than that Christ suffer'd in our stead.

The old Editions of the Racovian Catechism follow Socinus, and there the Answer to the Places which speak of Christ's Dying for us, is, that they do not signify in our stead; but for our good. Which they are very careful to distinguish, because they think that the latter implies no more than a Condition in order to the Expiation in Heaven; but the other makes him a true Propitiatory Sacrifice for our Sins. But if Christ did not suffer in our stead; how can they possibly Reconcile his undergoing this Condition with their own Measures of Divine Iustice? All they pretend to say, is, that it was Labour and Suffering but not Punishment. Which is to speak against the Common Sense of Mankind; and is a ridiculous piece of Stoicism. They say, it was a meer Act of Dominion as to Christ and not of Justice. But if there be such an Essential Attribute as Iustice in God, then the Exercise of Dominion must p. xlijbe regulated by it; especially where there was nothing but perfect Innocency. The Case is very different as to the sinful Race of Mankind, who having the Guilt of Sin upon them, God may justly exercise his Dominion over them as he sees cause; but he always doth it justly, although the particular Reasons may not be within our reach. But here is no Guilt of Sin consider'd, either of his own, or others; according to their Principles; and yet they make him to undergo as great Sufferings, as we do, who assert that he suffer'd for our sakes in our stead; which alone gives a Reasonable Account of it.

But in the late correct Edition of the Racovian Catechism they say, the Sense of Christ's Suffering for our Sins is twofold, but both come to one at last, 1. That Christ suffered as a Sacrifice in our stead; tanquam victima pro nobis Succedanea. How can Socinus and the Racovian Catechism agree? 2. That he suffer'd for our good. But they deny any Commutation which they say, was not in the Expiatory Sacrifice among the Jews. What doth a Substitution differ from a Commutation in this Case?

But how do suffering in our stead and for our good come all to one at last? p. xliijEither it must be, that Christ did truly suffer in our stead, when he underwent the Punishment of our Sins in order to our Redemption and Expiation; and that is a very good and true Sense; which we readily embrace, and are very well content that they should come all to one: Or if the meaning be only, that Christ may be said to suffer in our stead, because we have Benefit by the Consequences of his Death; then his dying is only consider'd as a bare Condition and not as a Sacrifice in our stead. As to make it plain by an Instance; we all agree that Joseph's Suffering in Egypt was designed by the Wise Providence of God for the good of his Brethren, which they received after his Advancement, to which his Suffering was an Antecedent Condition. But can any Man say, that he suffer'd in stead of his Brethren? But now if Joseph's Brethren had been sold for Slaves in Egypt, and Joseph had gone down thither and offer'd himself a Prisoner for their Deliverance; this had been truly Suffering in their stead, as well as for their Advantage. And suppose the King of Egypt had agreed with Joseph, that if he would become Prisoner for his Brethren, he would advance him, and he should himself deliver them by his own Power; this doth p. xlivnot at all hinder his Suffering in their stead. But if it had no Relation to their Deliverance by his being made Captive himself; but was only a step to his Advancement; then it cannot be said to be in their stead, although it might turn to their Advantage. And so much for the Sense of the Racovian Catechism.

But our Unitarians fly higher, for they say,

1. That God could not justly or wisely substitute an Innocent Person to undergo Punishment in place of the Guilty.

2. That Christ could not freely offer himself as a Sacrifice in our stead, nor could God accept of it, or allow it.

So that here we have the true State of this Controversie between us, viz. whether Christ were a Real Expiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of Mankind. For, if he could not be Substituted in our stead, nor God accept of his offering up himself for us; all the other Expressions are meer Words given out on purpose to Amuse and Deceive us.

And this is that which I have undertaken to make out in the following Discourse, viz.

p. xlv1. That the Scripture doth as plainly set forth that Christ suffer'd the Punishment of our Sins and in our stead, Chap. II.as it could do; and that no Expressions could be thought of to that purpose, but might be answered in the same way that they do these. And therefore it is in vain to contend with such Men, who are resolved that Words and Phrases shall signify no otherwise, than they would have them. And yet at last they cannot deny but a kind of Substitution is implied as a Victima Succedanea; but how? That he suffer'd for our good and by the occasion of our Sins, but not the Punishment of them. Thus far then we have gained, that the Words of Scripture are for us; but say they, what ever the Words are, they cannot mean any real Punishment, because he was an Innocent Person. Therefore I have shewed;

2. That there is no Repugnancy in Reason,Chap. III. nor to the Iustice of God for an Innocent Person to suffer by his own Consent and for so great an End, what the Scripture attributes to our Saviour. And I have fully answered the Arguments brought by our Adversaries to prove that God could not justly or wisely substitute an Innocent Person to suffer for the Guilty.

p. xlviCh. IV. v. 4.3. That Christ did offer up himself, as an Expiatory Sacrifice to God in our stead; and that God did accept and allow of it. Which is the Design of the three last Chapters. And till an Answer be given to what I have there discoursed at large, I shall refer the Reader to what is already said; and shall suppose those Answers to be sufficient, till I see some better Reasons for their Opinion in this matter, than I have yet met with, although I have been no stranger to their late Writings, as, God willing, they may see on another Occasion.

E. W. April 24. 1696.

ADVERTISEMENT.

THere are already published Two Volumes of Sermons, Preached upon Several Occasions, by the Right Reverend Father in God, Edward Lord Bishop of Worcester, in Octavo: Sold by Henry Mortlock, at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard.

A Third Volume will speedily be prepared for the Press.

p. 1A DISCOURSE Concerning the Sufferings of Christ.