Six Sermons, Table of contents – Title page 2
THE CONTENTS.
PART I. Six SERMONS upon
Amos 4. 11. 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, page 1
Proverbs 14. 9. Fools make a mock at sin, 49
Luke 7. 35. But wisdom is justified of all her children, 89
Romans 1. 16. For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God to salvation to every one that believes, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile, p. 131
Heb. 2. 3. How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation, 167
Heb. 12. 3. For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest y… be weary and faint in your minds, 207
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 … 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 discover'd, from the different reason and ends of them. The right of punishment 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 d… 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 the future state. page 259
CHAP. II. The particular state of the Controversie, concerning the Sufferings of Christ. Th… 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 Mat. 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 punishments 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. p. 314
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. Ezek. 18. 20. explained at large. Whether the guilty being freed by the sufferings of an innocent person makes that punishment unjust or no? Crellins 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. p. 378
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 Jews 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. Levitic. 10. 17. explained. The expiation of uncertain murther proves a substitution. A substitution of Christ in our room proved, from Christs 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. p. 419
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 o… Atonement; from whence it is proved, tha… Christs Priesthood did not begin from his entrance into Heaven. The mactation in Expiatory Sacrifices, no bare preparation to a sacrifice, proved by the Jewish 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. p. 450
CHAP. VI. That the effects of proper Expiatory Sacrifices …elong to the death of Christ, which either …espect the sin or the person. Of the true …otion 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 Jews 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 He… from his sitting at the right hand of G… The effects of an Expiatory Sacrifice, respe… ing the person, belong to the death of Chri… which are Atonement and Reconciliation. Of … signification of foreign and foreign. The Reconc… liation by Christs death, doth not meerly r… spect us, but God; why the latter less us… in the New Testament. A twofold Reconciliation with God mentioned in Scriptur… Crellius his evasion answered. The Objectio… from Gods being reconciled in the sending … Son, and the inconsistency of the Freeness … Grace with the Doctrine of Satisfaction a… swered, and the whole concluded. p. 50…
ERRATA.
PAge 13. marg. for foreign r. foreign, p. 191 l. 4. blot out: af… to, p. 260. l. 23. for. make: p. 295. l. 21. for intemperace r. inte… p…ance, p. 302. marg. r. Cod. Leg. antiq. p. 303. l. 23. r. foreign, p. 311. l. 11. r. respect, p. 313. l. 5. r. future, p. 341. l. 13. for … sin r. of, p. 347. l. 3. for foreign r. foreign. p. 349. l. 19. for express… r. oppression, p. 362. l. 15. for by r. upon, p. 374. l. 22. blot out … p. 375. l. 3. after expressed insert in, p. 427. l. 19. after must insert b… p. 469. l. 13. for appeale r. appease, p. 474. l. 22, for foreign r. foreign p. 513. marg. for placendi r. placandi.
A SERMON Preached before the Honourable House OF COMMONS, At St. MARGARETS WESTMINSTER Octob. 10. 1666. being the Fast-day appointed for the late dreadful Fire in the City of LONDON.
By Edward Stillingfleet, B. D. Rector of St. Andrews Holborn, and one of his Majesties Chaplains in Ordinary.
Published by Order of the said House.
The Fourth Edition.
LONDON, Printed by Robert White, for Henry Mortlock, and are to be sold at his Shop, at the Sign of the White Hart in Westminster Hall. 1669.