Sermons Preached on Several Occasions, Chapter 4
CHAP. IV.A
e 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 BLev. 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 Cforeign attributed to it, cannot be taken for meer deliverance.
WE come now to consider the death of Christ, §. 1. The death of Christ considered as an Expiatory Sacrifice for sin.as an Expiatory Sacrifice for the sins of mankind: Which is as much denied by our Adversaries, as that it was a punishment for our sins. For though they do not deny, That Christ as a Priest did offer up a Sacrifice of Expiation for the sins of men; yet they utterly deny, That this was performed on earth, or that Dthe Expiation of sins did respect God, but only us; or, that the death of Christ, had any proper efficacy towards the expiation of sin, any further than as it comprehends in it all the consequences of his death, by a strange Catechresis. I shall now therefore prove, that all things which do belong to a proper Expiatory Sacrifice, do agree to the death of Christ. There are three things especially considerable in it: 1. A Substitution in the place of the Offenders. 2. An Oblation of it to God. 3. An Expiation of sin consequent upon it. Now these three, I shall make appear to agree fully to the death of EChrist for us.
1. A Substitution in the place of the Offenders. That we are to prove, was designed in the Expiatory Sacrifices under the Law, and that Christ in his death for us, was substituted in our place. 1. That in the Expiatory Sacrifices under the Law, there was Aa Substitution of them in the place of the Offenders. This our Adversaries are not willing to yield us, because of the correspondency which is so plain in the Epistle to the Hebrews, between those Sacrifices, and that which was offered up by Christ. We now speak only of those Sacrifices, which we are sure were appointed of old for the expiation of sin, by God himself. As to which the great rule assigned by the Apostle was, That without shedding of blood there was no remission. If we Heb. 9. 22.yield Crellius what he so often urgeth; viz. That these words are to be understood, of what was done under the Law: They Crell c. 10. sect. 14.Bwill not be the less serviceable to our purpose; for thereby it will appear, that the means of Expiation lay in the shedding of blood: Which shews, that the very mactation of the beast to be sacrificed, was designed in order to the expiation of sin. To an inquisitive person, the reason of the slaying such multitudes of beasts in the Sacrifices appointed by God himself among the Iews, would have appeared far less evident than now it doth, since the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews hath given us so full an account of them. For it had been very unreasonable to have thought, that they had been meerly instituted Cout of compliance with the customs of other Nations, since the whole design of their Religion, was to separate them from them: and on such a supposition the great design of the Epistle to the Hebrews signifies very little; which doth far more explain to us the nature and tendency of all the Sacrifices in use among them, that had any respect to the expiation of sins, than all the customs of the Egyptians, or the Commentaries of the latter Iews. But I intend not now to discourse at large, upon this subject of Sacrifices, either as to the nature and institution of them in general, or with a particular respect to the DSacrifice of Christ, since a learned person of our Church, hath already undertaken Crellius upon this Argument, and we hope ere long will oblige the world with the benefit of his pains. I shall therefore only insist on those things which are necessary for our purpose, in order to the clearing the Substitution of Christ in our stead, for the expiation of our sins by his death; and this we say was represented in the Expiatory Sacrifices, which were instituted among the Iews. If we yield Crellius what he after Socinus contends for; viz. That the Sacrifice Crell. c. 10. sect. 13.of Christ was only represented in the publick and solemn Expiatory ESacrifices for the people, and especially those on the day of Atonement: We may have enough from them to vindicate all that we assert, concerning the Expiatory Sacrifice of the blood of Christ.
For that those were designed by way of Substitution in the Aplace of the offenders, will appear from the circumstances and §. 2. What the expiation of si… was by the sacrifices under the Law.reason of their Institution: But before we come to that, it will be necessary to shew what that Expiation was, which the Sacrifices under the Law were designed for; the not understanding of which, gives a greater force to our Adversaries Arguments, than otherwise they would have. For while men assert, that the expiation was wholly typical, and of the same nature with that expiation which is really obtained by the death of Christ, they easily prove, That all the expiation then, was only declarative, and did no more depend on the sacrifices offered, than Bon a condition required by God, the neglect of which would be an act of disobedience in them; and by this means it could represent, say they, no more than such an expiation to be by Christ; viz. Gods declaring that sins are expiated by him, on the performance of such a condition required in order thereto, as laying down his life was. But we assert another kind of expiation of sin, by vertue of the Sacrifice being slain and offered; which was real, and depended upon the Sacrifice: And this was twofold, a Civil, and a Ritual expiation, according to the double capacity in which the people of the Iews may be considered, either Cas members of a Society, subsisting by a body of Laws, which according to the strictest Sanction of it, makes death the penalty of disobedience, Deut. 27. 26. but by the will of the Legislator, did admit of a relaxation in many cases, allowed by himself; in which he declares, That the death of the beast designed for a Sacrifice should be accepted, instead of the death of the offender; and so the offence should be fully expiated, as to the execution of the penal Law upon him. And thus far, I freely admit what Grotius asserts upon Grot. de Satisf. c. 10.this subject, and do yield that no other offence could be Dexpiated in this manner, but such which God himself did particularly declare should be so. And therefore no sin which was to be punished by cutting off, was to be expiated by Sacrifice; as wilful Idolatry, Murther, &c. Which it is impossible for those to give an account of, who make the expiation wholly typical; for why then should not the greatest sins much rather have had sacrifices of expiation appointed for them: because the Consciences of men would be more solicitous for the pardon of greater than lesser sins; and the blood of Christ represented by them, was designed Efor the expiation of all. From whence it is evident, that it was not a meer typical expiation; but it did relate to the civil constitution among them. But besides this, we are to consider the people with a respect to that mode of Divine Worship which was among them; by reason of which, the Apeople were to be purified from the legal impurities which they contracted, which hindred them from joyning with others in the publick Worship of God, and many Sacrifices were appointed purposely for the expiating this legal guilt, as particularly, the ashes of the red heifer, Numb. 19. 9. which is there called a purification for sin. And the Apostle puts the Heb. 9. 12, 13.blood of Bulls and of Goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, together; and the effect of both of them, he saith, was to sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh; which implies, that there was some proper and immediate effect of these Bsacrifices upon the people at that time, though infinitely short of the effect of the blood of Christ upon the Consciences of men. By which it is plain, the Apostle doth not speak of the same kind of expiation in those sacrifices, which was in the Sacrifice of Christ, and that the one was barely typical of the other; but of a different kind of expiation, as far as purifying the flesh is from purging the Conscience. But we do not deny, that the whole dispensation was typical, and that the Law had Heb. 10. 1.a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, i. e. a dark and obscure representation, and not the Cperfect resemblance of them. There are two things which the Apostle asserts concerning the Sacrifices of the Law: First, that they had an effect upon the Bodies of men, which he calls purifying the flesh; the other is, that they had no power to expiate for the sins of the soul, considered with a respect to the punishment of another life, which he calls purging the Conscience from dead works; and therefore he saith, that all the gifts Heb. 9. 9. 10. 4.and sacrifices under the Law, could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the Conscience, and that it was impossible that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take Daway sin. So that the proper expiation which was made by them, was civil and ritual, relating either to corporal punishment, or to legal uncleanness, from whence the Apostle well proves the necessity of a higher Sacrifice to make expiation for sins, as pertaining to the Conscience: But that expiation among the Iews did relate to that Polity which was established among them, as they were a people under the Government of a body of Laws distinct from the rest of the world. And they being considered as such, it is vain to enquire, whether they had only temporal or eternal promises; for it was impossible Ethey should have any other than temporal, unless we imagine, that God would own them for a distinct people in another World as he did in this. For what Promises relate to a People as such, must consider them as a People, and in that capacity they must be the blessings of a Society, viz. peace plenty, Anumber of People, length of days, &c. But we are far from denying that the general Principles of Religion did remain among them, viz. that there is a God, and a rewarder of them that seek him; and all the Promises God made to the Patriarchs, did continue in force as to another Country, and were continually improved by the Prophetical instructions among them. But we are now speaking of what did respect the people in general, by vertue of that Law which was given them by Moses, and in that respect the punishment of saults being either death or exclusion from the publick Worship, the expiation of them, was taking away the obligation to either of these, which Bwas the guilt of them in that consideration.
But doth not this take away the typical nature of these sacrifices? No, but it much rather establisheth it. For as Socinus argues, If the expiation was only typical, there must be something in the type correspondent to that which is typified Soci…. de servat. l. 2. c. 10. Prael…ct. Theolog. cap. 22.by it. As the Brazen Serpent typified Christ, and the benefit which was to come by him, because as many as looked up to it were healed. And Noahs Ark is said to be a type of Baptism, because as many as entred into that were saved from the deluge. So Corinth. 10. the Apostle saith, that those Cthings happened to them in types, v. 11. because the events which happened to them, did represent those which would fall upon disobedient Christians. So that to make good the true notion of a Type, we must assert an expiation that was real then, and agreeable to that dispensation, which doth represent an expiation of a far higher nature, which was to be by the Sacrifice of the Blood of Christ.
Which being premised, I now come to p…ove, that there was a substitution designed of the Beast to be slain and sacrificed §. 3. A substitution proved from Levit. 17. 11, &c.in stead of the offenders themselves. Which will appear from DLevitious 17. 11. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it you upon the Altar, to make an Atonement for your Souls; for it is the blood that maketh an Atonement for the Soul. The utmost that Crellius would have meant by Crell c. 10. sect. 9.this place is, that there is a double reason assigned of the prohibition of eating blood, viz. that the life was in the blood, and that the blood was designed for expiation; but he makes these wholly independent upon each other. But we say, that the proper reason assigned against the eating of the blood, is that which is elsewhere given, when this Precept is mentioned, Eviz. that the blood was the life, as we may see Gen. 9. 4 Levit. 17. 14. but to confirm the reason given, that the blood was the life; he adds, that God had given them that upon the Altar for an Atonement for their Souls: So the Arabick Version Arenders it, and therefore have I given it you upon the Altar, viz. because the blood is the life: And hereby a sufficient reason is given, why God did make choice of the blood for atonement, for that is expressed in the latter clause, for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the Soul; why should this be mentioned here, if no more were intended but to give barely another reason why they should not eat the blood? what force is there more in this clause to that end, than in the soregoing? for therein God had said, that he had given it them for an Atonement. If no more had been intended, but the Bbare prohibition of common use of the blood, on the account of its being consecrated to sacred use, it had been enough to have said, that the blood was holy unto the Lord, as it is in the other instances mentioned by Crellius, of the holy Oyntment and Perfume, for no other reason is there given, why it Exod. 30. 32, 33. 37. 38.should not be profaned to common use, but that it should be holy for the Lord; if therefore the blood had been forbidden upon that account, there had been no necessity at all of adding, that the blood was it that made atonement for the Soul: which gives no peculiar reason why they should not eat the blood, beyond Cthat of bare consecration of it to a sacred use; but if we consider it as respecting the first clause, viz. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, then there is a particular reason why the blood should be for atonement, viz. because the life was in that; and therefore when the blood was offered, the life of the Beast was supposed to be given instead of the life of the offender. According to that of Ovid,
Hanc animam vobis pro meliore damus.Ovid. Fast l. 6.
This will be yet made clearer by another instance produced Dby Crellius to explain this, which is the forbidding the eating of fat, which, saith he, is joyned with this of blood, Levit. 3. 17. It shall be a perpetual S…atute for your Generations, throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat, nor blood. To the same purpose, Levit. 7. 23, 25, 26. Now no other reason is given of the prohibition of the fat, but this, All the fat is the Lords. Which was enough to keep them Lev. 3. 16.from eating it; but we see here in the case of blood somewhat further is assigned, viz. that it was the life; and therefore was most proper for expiation, the life of the beast being substituted Ein the place of the offenders. Which was therefore called anamalis hostia among the Romans, as Grotius observes upon this place, and was distinguished from those whose entrails were observed; for in those Sacrifices as Servius saith, sola anima Servius ad Aencid. 4.Deo sacratur, the main of the Sacrifice lay in shedding of the Ablood, which was called the Soul; and so it is foreign in this place. From whence it appears that such a sacrifice was properly foreign, for the same word foreign is used, both relating to the blood and the soul, that is expiated by it: and the LXX do accordingly render it, foreign, and in the last clause, foreign. From Eus…b. demonst. Evang l. 1. c. 10.whence Eusebius calls these Sacrifices of living Creatures, foreign, and afterwards saith they were foreign. And Crellius elsewhere Crell. cap. 8. sect. 23. Denotat e…im vo… foreign eos quorum alter pro altero animam po…at aut devoveat, & fie id malum quod alteri sube…nd…m erat ejus loco subire non detrectet.grants, that where foreign is joyned with foreign it doth imply Bthat one doth undergo the punishment which another was to have undergone, which is all we mean by substitution, it being done in the place of another. From whence it follows, that the Sacrifices under the Law being said to be foreign doth necessarily infer a substitution of them in the place of the offenders. And from hence may be understood, what is meant by the Goat of the Sin offering, bearing the iniquity of the Congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord, Levit. 10. 17. for Crellius his saying, That bearing is as much as taking away, or declaring that they are Ctaken away, hath been already disproved: And his other answer hath as little weight in it; viz. That it is not said, that the sacrifice did bear their iniquities, but the Priest: For, 1. The Chaldee Paraphrast, and the Syriack Version, understand it wholly of the Sacrifice. 2. Socinus himself grants, Soci…. de servat. l. 2. c. 11.That if it were said, the Priest did expiate by the sacrifices, it were all one as if it were said, that the sacrifices themselves did expiate; because the expiation of the Priest was by the sacrifice. Thus it is plain in the case of uncertain murther, mentioned Deut 21. from the first to the tenth; If a Dmurther were committed in the Land, and the person not known who did it, a heifer was to have her head cut of by the Elders of the next City; and by this means they were to put away the guilt of the innocent blood from among them: The reason of which was, because God had said before, That blood defiled the Land, and the Land cannot be cleansed Numb. 35. 33.of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it. From whence it appears, that upon the shedding of blood, there was a guilt contracted upon the whole Land wherein it was shed, and in case the Murtherer was not found to expiate that guilt by his own blood, then Eit was to be done by the cutting off the head of a heifer instead of him: In which case, the death of the heiser was to do as much towards the expiating the Land, as the death of the Murtherer if he had been found: And we do not contend, Athat this was designed to expiate the Murtherers guilt (which is the Objection of Crellius against this instance) Crell. c. 10. sect 9.but that a substitution here was appointed by God himself, for the expiation of the peo…: For what Crellius adds, That the people did not deserve punishment, and therefore needed no expiation; it is a flat contradiction to the Text: For the prayer appointed in that case is, Be merciful, O Deut. 21. 8.Lord, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people Israels Charge, and the blood shall be expiated; for the same word foreign is Bused here, which is in the other places where Expiation is spoken of. So that here must be some guilt supposed, where there was to be an expiation, and this expiation was performed by the substitution of a sacrifice in the place of the offender. Which may be enough at present to shew, that a substitution was admitted by the Law, of a sacrifice instead of the offender, in order to the expiation of guilt; but whether the offender himself was to be freed by that Sacrifice, depends upon the terms on which the sacrifice was offered; for we say still, that so much guilt was expiated, as the sacrifice Cwas designed to expiate; if the sacrifice was designed to expiate the guilt of the offender, his sin was expiated by it; if not his, in case no sacrifice was allowed by the Law, as in that of murther, then the guilt which lay upon the Land was expiated, although the offender himself were never discovered.
I now come to prove, that in correspondency to such a substitution §. 4. A substitution of Christ in o…r room proved by his dying for us.of the sacrifices for sin under the Law, Christ was substituted in our room for the expiation of our guilt; and that from his being said to dye for us, and his death being Dcalled a price of Redemption for us.
1. From Christs being said to dye for us. By St. Peter, 1 Pet. 3. 18. 2. 21. 4. 1.For Christ hath also once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust; by whom he is also said, to suffer foreign, for us, and, for us in the flesh: By St. Paul, he is said to dye foreign, for all, and foreign, for the ungodly, and to give himself foreign, a ransom for all, and, to 2 Cor. 5. 14. Rom. 5. 6. 1 Tim. 2 6. Heb. 2 9. John 11 50. Luke 22. 19, 20.taste death foreign, for every man: By Caiaphas, speaking by inspiration, he is said to dye foreign, for the people. So Christ himself instituting his last Supper said, This Eis my body which was given, and my blood which was shed foreign, for you; and before he had said, That the Son of man came to give his life foreign, a ransom for many. Matth. 20. 28.We are now to consider, what arts our Adversaries have made use of to pervert the meaning of these places, Aso as not to imply a substitution of Christ in our room: 1. They say, That all these phrases do imply no more, than a final cause; viz. That Christ died for the good of mankind; 1 John 3. 16. Colos…. 1. 24.for the Apostle tells us, We are bound to lay down our lives for the Brethren, and St. Paul is said to suffer for the Church. To which I answer; 1. This doth not at all destroy that which we now plead for; viz. That these phrases do imply a substitution of Christ in our room: For when we are bid to lay down our lives for our brethren, a substitution is implied therein; and supposing that dying for another, Bdoth signifie dying for some benefit to come to him, yet what doth this hinder substitution, unless it be proved, that one cannot obtain any benefit for another, by being substituted in his room. Nay, it is observable, that although we produce so many places of Scripture, implying such a substitution, they do not offer to produce one that is inconsistent with Christs suffering in our stead; all that they say is, That foreign doth not always signifie so, which we never said it did, who say, that Christ suffered foreign not instead of our sins, but by reason of them; but we assert, Cthat when one person is said to dye for others, as in the places mentioned, no other sense can be so proper and agreeable, as dying in the stead of the other. 2. Socinus himself grants, That there is a peculiarity implied in those Soc de servat. l. 2. c. 8.phrases, when attributed to Christ, above what they have when attributed to any other. And therefore he saith, It cannot be properly said, That one Brother dies for another, or that Paul suffered for the Colossians, or for the Church, as Christ may truly and properly be said to suffer and to dye for us. And from hence, saith he, St. Paul Dsaith, was Paul crucified for you? implying thereby, that there never was, or could be any, who truly and properly 1 Cor. 1. 13.could be said to dye for men but Christ alone. How unreasonable then is it, from the use of a particle as applied to others, to infer, that it ought to be so understood, when applied to Christ? when a peculiarity is acknowledged in the death of Christ for us, more than ever was or could be in one mans dying for another. 3. It is not the bare force of the particle foreign that we insist upon; but that a substitution could not be more properly expressed, than it is in EScripture, by this and other particles, for not only foreign is used, but foreign too: which Socinus saith, Although it may signifie Socin. io.something else besides in the stead of another, yet in such places, where it is spoken of a ransom or price, it signifies the payment of something which was owing before, as AMat. 17. 27. foreign, and so he acknowledges, that where redemption is spoken of, there foreign doth imply a commutation, because the price is given, and the person received, which, he saith, holds in Christ only metaphorically: for the redemption according to him being only Metaphoricall, the commutation must be supposed to be so too.
And this now leads us to the larger Answer of Crellius upon §. 5. In what sense a surrogation of Christ in our room is asserted by us. Cr…l…. 9 sect. 3. Ib. sect. 2.this argument. Wherein we shall consider, what he yields, what he denies, and upon what reasons. 1. He yields, and so he saith, doth Socinus very freely, a commutation: but Bit is necessary that we should throughly understand what he means by it: to that end he tells us, That they acknowledge a twofold commutation; one of the person suffering, the kind of suffering being changed, not actually but intentionally, because we are not actually freed by Christ dying for us, but only Christ dyed for that end, that we might be freed. And this commutation, he saith, that Socinus doth not deny to be implied in the particle foreign, in the places where Christ is said to dye for us. Another commutation, which he acknowledges, is, that which is between a price, and the thing or Cperson which is bought or redeemed by it; where the price is paid, and the thing or person is received upon it. And this kind of commutation, he saith, is to be understood in the places where foreign is mentioned; which price, he saith, by accident may be a person; and because the person is not presently delivered, he therefore saith, that the commutation is Ib sect. 6.rather imperfect than metaphorical; and although, he saith, foreign doth not of it self imply a commutation, yet he grants, that the circumstances of the places do imply it. 2. He denies, that there is any proper surrogation in Christs Ib. sect. 7.Ddying for us, which, he saith, is such a commutation of persons, that the substituted person is in all respects to be in the same place and state wherein the other was; and if it refers to sufferings; then it is when one suffers the very same which the other was to suffer, he being immediately delivered by the others sufferings. And against this kind of surrogation, Crellius needed not to have produced any reasons; for Grotius never asserted it; neither do we say, that Christ suffered eternal death for us, or that we were immediately freed by his sufferings. But that which Grotius Easserts that he meant by substitution was this, that unless Christ had died for us, we must have died our selves, and because Christ hath died we shall not die eternally. But if this be all, saith Crellius, he meant by it, we grant Ib. …. 3.the whole thing, and he complains of it as an injury for any Ato think otherwise of them. If so, they cannot deny but that there was a sufficient capacity in the death of Christ to be made an expiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the world. But notwithstanding all these fair words, Crellius means no more than Socinus did; and though he would allow the words which Grotius used, yet not in the sense he understood them in; for Crellius means no more by all this, but that the death of Christ was an antecedent condition to the expiation of sins in Heaven, Grotius understands by them, that Christ did expiate sins by becoming a Sacrifice for them in his death. BHowever, from hence it appears, that our Adversaries can have no plea against the death of Christs being an expiatory Sacrifice (from want of a substitution in our room) since they profess themselves so willing to own such a substitution. But if they say, that there could be no proper substitution, because the death of Christ was a bare condition, and no punishment, they then express their minds more freely; and if these places be allowed to prove a substitution, I hope the former discourse will prove that it was by way of punishment. Neither is it necessary, that the very same kind of punishment Cbe undergone in order to surrogation, but that it be sufficient in order to the accomplishing the end for which it was designed. For this kind of substitution being in order to the delivery of another by it, whatever is sufficient for that end, doth make a proper surrogation. For no more is necessary to the delivery of another person than the satisfying the ends of the Law and Government, and if that may be done by an aequivalent suffering, though not the same in all respects, then it may be a proper surrogation. If David had obtained his wish, that he had died for his Son Absolom, Dit had not been necessary in order to his Sons escape, that he had hanged by the hair of his head, as his Son did; but his death, though in other circumstances, had been sufficient. And therefore when the Lawyers say, subrogatum, sapit naturam ejus in cujus locum subrogatur: Covarruvias Covarru To. 1. p. 1. sect. 4 n. 3.tells us, it is to be understood secundum primordialem naturam non secundum accidentalem; from whence it appears, that all circumstances are not necessary to be the same in surrogation; but that the nature of the punishment remain the same. Thus Christ dying for us, to deliver us Efrom death, and the curse of the Law, he underwent an accursed death for that end; although not the very same which we were to have undergone, yet sufficient to shew, that he underwent the punishment of our iniquities in order to the delivering us from it. And if our Adversaries will Ayield us this, we shall not much contend with them about the name of a proper surrogation.
But in the matter of Redemption, or where foreign is used, §. 6 Our Redemption by Christ proves a substitution.Crellius will by no means yield that there was a commutation of persons between Christ and us, but all the commutation he will allow here is only a commutation between a thing, or a price, and a person. Which he therefore asserts, Crell. c 9 sect. 2.that so there may be no necessity of Christs undergoing the punishment of sin in order to redemption, because the price that is to be paid, is not supposed to undergo the Bcondition of the person delivered by it. Which will evidently appear to have no force at all, in case we can prove, that a proper redemption may be obtained by the punishment of one in the room of another; for that punishment then comes to be the foreign or price of redemption; and he that pays this, must be supposed to undergo punishment for it. So that the commutation being between the punishment of one, and the other redeemed by it, here is a proper commutation of persons implied in the payment of the price. But hereby we may see that the great subtilty of our Adversaries Cis designed on purpose to avoid the force of the places of Scripture, which are so plain against them: For when these places where foreign and foreign are joyned together, are so clear for a substitution, that they cannot deny it; then they say, by it is meant only a commutation of a price for a person; but when the word foreign is urged to prove a redemption purchased by Christ, by the payment of a price for it, then they deny that foreign doth signifie a proper price, but is only taken metaphorically; and yet if it be so taken, then there can be no force in what Crellius saith, for a bare Dmetaphorical price may be a real punishment: Two things I shall then prove against Crellius. 1. That the foreign as applied to Christ, is to be taken in a proper sense. 2. That although it be taken in a proper sense, yet it doth not imply a bare commutation of a price and a person, but a substitution of one person in the room of another.
Both these will be cleared from the right stating the notion §. 7. Of the true notion of Redemptionof redemption between our Adversaries and us. For they will not by any means have any other proper notion of redemption but from captivity, and that by the payment of Ea price to him that did hold in captivity, and therefore because Christ did not pay the price to the Devil, there could be no proper sense either of the redemption, or the price which was paid for it. This is the main strength of all the arguments used by Socinus and Crellius, to enervate the ASocia. de servat. …. 2. c. 1, 2. Crell. c. 8. sect. 11.force of those places of Scripture which speak of our redemption by Christ, and of the price which he paid in order to it. But how weak these exceptions are, will appear upon a true examination of the proper notion of Redemption, which in its primary importance signifies no more, than the obtaining of one thing by another as a valuable consideration for it. Thence redimere anciently among the Latins signified barely to purchase by a valuable price, for the thing which they had a right to by it; and sometimes to purchase that which a man hath sold before, thence the pac…um Bredimendi in contracts: still in whatever sense it was used by the Lawyers or others, the main regard was, to the consideration upon which the thing was obtained, thence redimere delatorem pecunia, h. e. eum à delatione deducere; so redimere litem; and redemptor litis was one that upon ulpia l 29. D. de …re fi…i.certain consideration took the whole charge of a suit upon himself: and those who undertook the farming of customs at certain rates, were called redemptores vectigalium, quiredempturis auxissent vectigalia, saith Livy. And all those Budaeus ad Pa…dect. p. 189. Liv. l. 23. Festus v. red. ul…ian. l 39. D. de rei vend.who undertook any publick work at a certain price, redemptores Cantiquitus dicebantur, saith Festus and Ulpian. From hence it was applied to the delivery of any person from any inconvenience that he lay under, by something which was supposed a valuable consideration for it. And that it doth not only relate to captivity, but to any other great calamity, the freedom from which is obtained by what another suffers; is apparent from these two remarkable expressions of Cicero to this purpose. Quam quidem ego (saith he, Cicer. ep. …a…il l. 2. cp 16.speaking of the sharpness of the time) a rep. meis privatis & domesticis incommodis libentissimè redemissem. And Dmore expresly elsewhere, Ego vitam omnium civium, statum Or…t. …o Syll….orbis terrae urbem hanc denique, &c. quinque hominum amentium ac perditorum poena redemi. Where it is plain, that redemption is used for the delivery of some by the punishment of others; not from meer captivity, but from a great calamity which they might have fallen into, without such a punishment of those persons. So vain is that assertion of Socinus, redimere, nihil aliud propriè significat, quam eum captivum e manibus illius, qui eum detinet, pretio Soc. de …rvat. l. 2. c. 1.illi dato liberare.E
And yet supposing we should grant that redemption as used §. 8. No necessity of paying the price to him that detains captive.in sacred Authors doth properly relate to captivity, there is no necessity at all of that which our Adversaries contend so earnestly for, viz. That the price must be paid to him that detains captive. For we may very easily conceive a double Asort of captivity, from whence a redemption may be obtained; the one by force, when a Captive is detained purposely for advantage to be made by his redemption; and the other in a judicial manner, when the Law condemns a person to captivity, and the thing designed by the Law is not a meer price, but satisfaction to be made to the Law, upon which a redemption may be obtained; now in the former case it is necessary, that the price be paid to the person who detains, because the reason of his detaining, was the expectation of the price to be pald; but in the latter, the detainer is meerly Bthe instrument for execution of the Law, and the price of redemption is not to be paid to him; but to those who are most concerned in the honour of the Law. But Crellius Crell. c 8. sect. 11.objects, that the price can never be said to be paid to God, because our redemption is attributed to God as the author of it, and because we are said to be redeemed for his use and service, now, saith he, the price can never be paid to him for whose service the person is redeemed. But all this depends upon the former mistake, as though we spake all this while of such a redemption, as that is of a Captive by force; Cin whom the detainer is no further concerned, than for the advantage to be made by him; and in that case the price must be paid to him who detains, because it would otherwise be unsuccessful for his deliverance: but in case of captivity by Law, as the effect of disobedience, the Magistrate who is concerned in the life of the person, and his future obedience may himself take care that satisfaction may be given to the Law for his redemption, in order to his future serviceableness. From hence we see both that the foreign is proper in this case of our redemption, and that it is not a meer commutation Dof a price for a person, but a commutation of one persons suffering for others, which suffering being a punishment in order to satisfaction, is a valuable consideration, and therefore a price for the redemption of others by it. Which price in this sense doth imply a proper substitution; which was the thing to be proved. Which was the first thing to be made good concerning the death of Christ being a sacrifice for sin, viz. that there was a substitution of Christ in our stead as of the sacrifices of old under the Law; and in this sense the death of Christ was a proper foreign or price of redemption Efor us. Nothing then can be more vain, than the way of our Adversaries, to take away the force of all this, because foreign is sometimes taken for a meet deliverance without any price, which we deny not; but the main force of our argument is from the importance of foreign, where the foreign is mentioned; and then we say that foreign when applied to Asins, signifies expiation, (as Heb. 9. 15. foreign,) but when applied to persons, it signifies the deliverance purchased by the foreign, which is not to be considered as a bare price, or a thing given, but as a thing undergone in order to that deliverance: and is therefore not only called foreign, but foreign too, which Crellius confesseth doth imply a commutation, and we have shewed, doth prove a substitution of Christ in our place.BCDE