Sermons Preached on Several Occasions, Title page 1 – Table of contents
SERMONS Preached on several Occasions.
To which a DISCOURSE IS ANNEXED Concerning the TRUE REASON OF THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST.
WHEREIN CRELLIUS his Answer to GROTIUS IS CONSIDERED.
By EDWARD STILLINGFLEET D. D. Chaplain in Ordinary to his Majesty.
LONDON, Printed by Robert White, for Henry Mortlock, at the Sign of the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard, and at the White Hart in Westminster Hall. 1673.
THE CONTENTS.
PART I. Six SERMONS upon
AMOS IV. XI. I Have overthrown some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye were as a firebrand pluckt out of the burning: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the Lord. pag. 1
PROV. XIV. IX. Fools make a mock at Sin. pag. 23
LUKE VII. XXXV. But Wisdom is justified of all her Children. pag. 42
ROMANS I. XVI. For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ; for it is the Power of God unto salvation to every one that believes, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. pag. 62
HEBREWS II. III. How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation? pag. 79
HEBREWS XII. III. For, consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be weary, and faint in your minds. pag. 97
JUDE V. II. And perished in the gainsaying of Corah. pag. 120
MATTHEW XXI. XLIII. Therefore say I unto you, the Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a Nation bringing forth the fruit; thereof. pag. 141
JOHN VII. XX XIX. But this spake he of the Spirit which they that believe on him should receive. For the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Iesus was not yet glorified. pag. 162
ISAIAH LVII. XXI. There is no peace, saith my God to the Wicked. pag. 178
II CORINTH. V. II. Knowing therefore the terrour of the Lord, we perswade men. pag. 198
MATTHEW XVI. XXVI. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? or what shall he give in exchange for his soul? pag. 217
PART II. A Discourse concerning the true Reason of the Sufferings of CHRIST.
CHAP. I. OF the Socinian way of interpreting Scripture. Of the uncertainty it leaves us in as to the main articles of Faith, manifested by an Exposition of Gen. 1. suitable to that way. The state of the Controversie in general concerning the sufferings of Christ for us. He did not suffer the same we should have done. The grand mistake in making punishments of the nature of Debts; the difference between them at large discovered, from the different reason and ends of them. The right of punishments in God, proved against Crellius, not to arise from meer dominion. The end of punishment not bare Compensation, as it is in debts; what punishment due to an injured person by the right of Nature; proper punishment a result of Laws. Crellius his great mistake about the end of Punishments. Not designed for satisfaction of Anger as it is a desire of Revenge. Seneca and Lactantius vindicated against Crellius. The Magistrates interest in Punishment distinct from that of private persons. Of the Nature of Anger in God, and the satisfaction to be made to it. Crellius his great arguments against satisfaction depend on a false Notion of Gods anger. Of the ends of divine Punishments, and the different nature of them in this and and the future state. pag. 239
CHAP. II. The particular state of the Controversie, concerning the sufferings of Christ. The Concessions of our Adversaries. The debate reduced to two heads: The first concerning Christs sufferings, being a punishment for sin, entred upon. In what sense Crellius acknowledgeth the sins of men, to have been the impulsive cause of the death of Christ. The sufferings of Christ proved to be a punishment, from Scripture. The importance of the phrase of bearing sins. Of the Scape-Goats bearing the sins of the people into the Wilderness. Grotius his sense of 1 Pet. 2. 24. vindicated against Crellius and himself. foreign never used for the taking away a thing by the destruction of it. Crellius his sense examined. Isa. 53. 11. vindicated. The argument from Matth. 8. 17. answered. Grotius constant to himself in his notes on that place. Isa. 53. 5, 6, 7. cleared. Whether Christs death be a proper foreign, and whether that doth imply, that it was a punishment of sin? How far the punishment of Children for their Fathers faults, are exemplary among men. The distinction of calamities and punishments, holds not here. That Gods hatred of sin could not be seen in the sufferings of Christ, unless they were a punishment of sin, proved against Crellius. Grotius his Arguments from Christ being made sin and a curse for us, defended. The liberty our Adversaries take in Changing the sense of words. The particles foreign, being joyned to sins and relating to sufferings do imply those sufferings to be a punishment for sin. According to their way of interpreting Scripture, it had been impossible for our doctrine to be clearly expressed therein. pag. 265
CHAP. III. The words of Scripture being at last acknowledged by our Adversaries to make for us, the only pretence remaining is that our Doctrine is repugnant to reason. The debate managed upon point of reason: The grand difficulty enquired into, and manifested by our Adversaries concessions, not to lye in the greatness of Christs sufferings, or that our sins were the impulsive cause of them, or that it is impossible that one should be punished for anothers faults: or in all cases unjust: the cases wherein Crellius allows it, instanced. From whence it is proved that he yields the main cause. The arguments propounded whereby he attempts to prove it unjust for Christ to be punished for our sins. Crellius his principles of the justice of punishments examined. Of the relation between desert and punishment. That a person by his own consent may be punished beyond the desert of his own actions. An answer to Crellius his Objections. What it is to suffer undeservedly, Crellius his mistake in the state of the question. The instances of Scripture considered. In what sense Children are punished for their Parents sins. Ezec. 18. 20. explained at large. Whether the guilty being freed from the sufferings of an innocent person makes that punishment unjust or no? Crellius his shifts and evasions in this matter discovered. Why among men the offenders are not freed in criminal matters though the sureties be punished. The release of the party depends on the terms of the sureties suffering, therefore deliverance not ipso facto. No necessity of such a translation in criminal, as is in pecuniary matters. pag. 295
CHAP. IV. The Death of Christ considered as an Expiatory Sacrifice for sin. What the expiation of sin was by the Sacrifices under the Law; twofold, Civil and Ritual. The Promises made to the Iews under the Law of Moses, respected them as a People, and therefore must be temporal. The typical nature of Sacrifices asserted. A substitution in the Expiatory Sacrifices under the Law, proved from Lev. 17. 11. and the Concession of Crellius about the signification of foreign joyned with foreign. Lev. 10. 17. explained. The expiation of uncertain murther proves a substitution. A substitution of Christ in our room proved from Christ being said to dye for us; the importance of that phrase considered. In what sense a Surrogation of Christ in our room is asserted by us. Our Redemption by Christ proves a substitution. Of the true notion of Redemption: that explained, and proved against Socinus and Crellius. No necessity of paying the price to him that detains captive, where the captivity is not by force, but by sentence of Law. Christs death a proper foreign: and therefore the foreign attributed to it, cannot be taken for meer deliverance. pag. 314
CHAP. V. The notion of a sacrifice belongs to the death of Christ, because of the Oblation made therein to God. Crellius his sense of Christs Oblation proposed. Against him it is proved, that the Priestly office of Christ had a primary respect to God, and not to us. Expiatory Sacrifices did divert the wrath of God. Christ not a bare Metaphorical High-Priest. Crellius destroys the Priesthood of Christ by confounding it with the exercise of his Regal Power. No proper expiation of sin belongs to Christ in Heaven, if Crellius his Doctrine be true, Ephes. 5. 2. proves the death of Christ an Expiatory Sacrifice, and an Oblation to God. The Phrase of a sweet-smelling savour, belongs to Expiatory Sacrifices; Crellius his gross notion of it. His mistakes about the kinds of Sacrifices. Burnt-offerings were Expiatory Sacrifices both before and under the Law. A new distribution of sacrifices proposed. What influence the mactation of the Sacrifice had on Expiation. The High-Priest only to slay the Sin-offering on the day of Atonement; from whence it is proved, that Christs Priesthood did not begin from his entrance into Heaven. The mactation in Expiatory Sacrifices no bare preparation to a Sacrifice, proved by the Iewish Laws, and the customs of other Nations. Whether Christs Oblation of himself once to God, were in Heaven, or on Earth? Of the proper notion of Oblations under the Levitical Law. Several things observed from thence to our purpose. All things necessary to a legal Oblation, concur in the death of Christ: His entrance into Heaven hath no correspondency with it; if the blood of Christ were no sacrifice for sin. In Sin-offerings for the People, the whole was consumed; no eating of the Sacrifices allowed the Priests, but in those for private Persons. Christs exercise of Power in Heaven, in no sense an Oblation to God. Crellius, his sense repugnant to the circumstances of the places in dispute. Objections answered. pag. 329
CHAP. VI. That the effects of proper Expiatory Sacrifices belong to the death of Christ, which either respect the sin or the person. Of the true notion of expiation of sin, as attributed to Sacrifices. Of the importance of foreign, as applied to them. Socinus his proper sense of it examined. Crellius his Objections answered. The Iews notion of foreign. The Sacrifices not bare conditions of pardon, nor expiated meerly as a slight part of obedience. Gods expiating sin, destroys not expiation by Sacrifice. The importance of foreign and foreign, relating to Sacrifices. Expiation attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ, in the same sense that it was to other Sacrifices: and from thence, and the places of Scripture which mention it, proved not to be meerly declarative. If it had been so, it had more properly belonged to his Resurrection than his death. The Death of Christ not taken Metonymically for all the Consequents of it; because of the peculiar effects of the death of Christ in Scripture, and because Expiation is attributed to him antecedently to his entrance into Heaven. No distinction in Scripture of the effects of Christs entrance into Heaven from his sitting at the right hand of God. The effects of an Expiatory Sacrifice, respecting the person, belong to the death of Christ, which are Atonement and Reconciliation. Of the signification of foreign and foreign. The Reconciliation by Christs death, doth not meerly respect us, but God; why the latter less used in the New Testament. A twofold Reconciliation with God mentioned in Scripture. Crellius his evasion answered. The Objections from Gods being reconciled in the sending his Son, and the inconsistency of the Freeness of Grace with the Doctrine of Satisfaction answered, and the whole concluded. pag. 355