The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined, Commentary on text · Chapter 21
CHAP. XXI.
Of the Death of Christ, the Causes, Ends, and Fruits thereof, with an entrance into the Doctrine of his Satisfaction thereby.
MR Biddles 12th Chapter is concerning the Death of Christ, §. 1.the Causes, and Fruits, and Ends thereof: The Errour and mistake whereabout, is the Second great head of the Socinian Religion; Next to his Person, there is not any thing, they set themselves so Industriously to oppose, as his Death, in the sence wherein it hath constantly hitherto been embraced by all Christians, as the great foundation of their Faith and Considence.
That the Lord Jesus, our Mediator, did not by his Death and§. 2. Sufferings undergoe the penalty of the Law, as the punishment due to our sinnes, that he did not make Satisfaction to God, or make Reconciliation for Transgressours, that he did not thereby properly Redeeme us by the payment of a Ransome, nor so suffer for us, as that our sins should in the Justice of God be a meritorious cause of his suffering, is the Second Great Article of the Creed, which they *Vid. Faust. Socin. de Jes. Christ. Servator. Praelect: Theol. Lect. Saec. Paeraen. ad Volan. Epistola ad Niemojev. Thes. de Iustif. Smal: Ref. Thes. Fran. adv. Smigl. Nov. Monst. Catec. Rac. &c. Crelli. de Caus. Mor. Christ. Vindic. ad Grot. Volkel. Ver. Relig. Christ. Ostored. Institut. cap. 11. Schlicting. Epist. ad Hebrae. &c.labour to assert and maintaine.
There is not any thing about which they have laid out so§. 3. much of their strength, as about this, namely, that Jesus Christ is called our Saviour in respect of the way of Salvation, which he hath revealed to us, and the power committed to Him to deliver us, and save us, in, and by Obedience required at our hands, not on the account of any Satisfaction he hath made for us, or Attonement by the Sacrifice of himselfe.
How Faustus Socinus first broacht this opinion, with what§. 4. difficulty he got it to be entertained, with the men of his own profession, as to the Doctrine of the Trinity, has been before declared. What weight he laid upon this opinion about thePreface. Death of Christ, and the opposition he had engaged in against his satisfaction, with the diligence he used, and the paines he took about the one and the other, is evident from his writings to this purpose which are yet extant. His Book De Jesu Christo Servatore is wholy taken up with this Argument; so is the greatest part of his Praelections; his Lectiones Sacrae are some of them of the same subject; & his Paraenesis against Volanus; many of his Epistles, especially those to Smalcius, and Volkelius, and Niemojevius, as also his treatises about Justification have the same designe. Smalcius is no lesse industrious in the same cause, both in his Racovian Catechisme, and his Answers and Replys with Franzius and Smiglecius. It is the maine designe of Schlictingius his Comment on the Hebrews; Crellius de Causis mortis Christi, and his defence of Socinus against Grotius dwells wholy on this Doctrine. Volkelius hath his share in the same Work, &c.
What those at large contend for, M. Biddle endeavours§. 5. slily to insinuate into his Catechumens in this Chapter; Having threfore briefely spoken of Salvation by Christ, and of his Mediation in generall, in consideration of his 6, and 7. Chapters; I shall now God assisting take up the whole matter, and after a briefe discovery of his intendment in his Queries concerning the Death of Christ, give an account of our whole Doctrine of his Satisfaction, confirming it from the Scriptures, and vindicating it from the exceptions of his Masters.
For the order of proceedure, I shall first consider M. Biddles §. 6.Questions; then state the point in difference, by expressing what is the judgement of our Adversaries concerning the Death of Christ, and what we ascribe thereto; and then demonstrate from the Scripture the Truth contended for.
M. Biddles first Question is,§. 7.
Was it the will and purpose of God that Christ should suffer the Death of the Crosse? What saith the Apostle Peter to the Jews concerning this? Ans. Acts 2. 22, 23. to which he subjoynes, What say the Disciples in generall concerning the same? Ans. Acts 4. 24, 27, 28.
It is not unknown what difference we have, both with the Socinians and Arminians about the purposes and efficacious decrees, and the Infallibility of the Prescience of God: something already hath been spoken to this purpose, in our Discourse concerning the Prescience of God, as formerly in that of Perseverance. How unable M. Biddles companions are to disentangle themselves from the Evidence of that Testimony, which is given to the Truth we contend for, by these Texts which here he with so much confidence recites, hath been abundantly by others Demonstrated. I shall not here enter into the merits of that cause, nor shall I impose on M. Biddle the opinion of any other men, which he doth not expressly own; only I shall desire him to reconcile what he here speakes in his Querie, with what he before delivered concerning Gods not foreseeing our free actions, that are for to come. What God purposes shall be, and come to passe, He certainely foresees, that that will come to passe. That Christ should dy the death of the Crosse was to be brought about by the free actions of men, if any thing in the world was ever so, and accomplished in the same manner; yet that this should be done, yea so done, God purposed; and therefore without doubt foresaw that it should be accomplished, and so foresaw all the free actions whereby it was accomplished. And if he foresee any one free action, why not all? There being the same Reason of one and all. But at the present let this passe. His second Question is.
Did Christ dye to reconcile and bring God to us, or on the contrary, to §. 8▪bring us to God? Ans. Rom. 5. 10. Ephes. 2. 14. 16. 2 Cor. 5. 19. & 1 Pet. 3. …8.
That I may (by the way) speake a little to this Question, reserving the full discussion of the matter int…nded to the ensueing discourse; The termes of it are first to be explained.
1. By Reconciling God, we intend the making of such an Attonement, whereby his w…ath or Anger, in all the …ffects of it, are turned away. Though we use not the expr…ssion of Reconciling God to us, but of Reconc…ng us to God, by the taking away, or removall of his wrath, and Anger, or the mak…ng reconciliation with God for sinne; yet as to reconcile God, intends the appeasing of the Justice and Anger of God, so that whereas before we were obnoxious to his Displeasure, Enmity, Hatred, and Wrath thereby, and on that account we come to be accepted with him, we say Christ dyed to reconcile God to Ʋs, which in the progresse of the Discourse with plentifull demonstrations from the Scripture shall be evinced.
2. Of bringing God to us, we speake not; unlesse by bringing §. 9.God to us, he intends the procurement of the Grace and Favour of God toward us, and his loving presence to be with us, and then we say, in that sence Christ by his death brought God to us.
3. Our Reconciliation to God, or the reconciliation as it§. 10. stands on our part, is our Conversion unto God, our deliverance from all that Enmity and opposition unto God, which is in us by nature; and this also we say is the effect, and fruit of the Death of Christ.
4. Our bringing unto God, mentioned 1 Pet. 3. 18. is of a§. 11. larger and more comprehensive signification, than that of our Reconciliation; containing the whole effect of the death of Christ, in the removall of every hinderance and the Collation of every thing necessarily required to the perfect and compleat accomplishment of the worke of our Salvation, and so containes no lesse the Reconciliation of God to us, than ours to him; and is not proper to make up one member of the division there instituted, being a generall expression of them both.
Now concerning these things M. Biddle enquires, Whether §. 12.Christ by his death reconciled God to us, or on the contrary, us to God; So insinuating, that one of these Effects of the Death of Christ is inconsistent with the other; This seemes to be the mans aime,
1. To intimate, that this is the state of the difference between him and us; that we say, Christ dyed to Reconcile God to us; and he, that he dyed to Reconcile us to God.
2. That these things are contrary; so that they who say the one, must deny the other; That we who say, that Christ dyed to Reconcile God to us, must of necessity deny that he dyed, to Reconcile us to God; and that he also, who saith, he dyed to Reconcile us to God, may, and must deny on that account the other effect by us ascribed to his death. But this Sophistry is so grosse, as it is not worth the while to insist upon its discovery; We say, that Christ dyed to Reconcile God to us in the sence before explained, and us unto God; and these things are so farre from being of any Repugnancy one to another, as to the making up of one entire end, and effect of the death of Christ, that without them both the worke of Reconciliation is by no meanes compleat.
Not to prevent the full proofe and evidence hereof, which is intended, it may at present suffice, that we evince it by the light§. 13. of this one consideration; If in the Scripture it is expressly and frequently affirmed, that Antecedently to the consideration of the Death of Christ, and the Effects thereof, there is not only a reall Enmity on our parts against God, but also a Law Enmity on the part of God against us, and that both of these are removed by Vertue of the Death of Christ, then the Reconciliation of God to us, and our Reconciliation to God, are both of them one entire effect of the death of Christ. That there is in us by nature a reall Enmity against God▪ before it be taken away by the virtue of the death of Christ, and so we Reconciled to him, is not denyed; and if it were, it might be easily evinced from Rom. 8. 18. Tit. 3. 3. Ephes. 2. 12. and innumerable other places; And certainely the evidence on the other side, that there was a Law enmity on the part of God against us, Antecedent to the consideration of the Death of Christ, is no lesse cleare. The great Sanction of the Law, Gen. 3. Deut. 27. 29. cons…dered in conjunction with the Justice of God, Rom. 1. 32. Hab. 1. 13. Psal. 5. 4, 5, 6. 2 Thess. 10. 5, 6. and the Testimonies given concerning the state and condition of man in reference to the Law and Justice of God, Joh. 3. 36. Rom. 5. 18. Ephes. 2. 3, 12. &c. with the expresse assignation of the Reconciliation pleaded for, to be made by the Death of Christ, Dan. 9. 24. Heb. 2. 18. do abundantly evince it; There being then a mutuall Enmity between God and us, though not of the same kind, (it being Physicall on our part, and Legall or Morall on the part of God,) Christ our Mediatour making up peace and friendship between us, doth not only Reconcile us to God, by his Spirit, but God also to us, by his blood; but of this more afterward under the consideration of the death of Christ, as it was a Sacrifice.
For the Texts cited by M. Biddle, as making to his purpose,§. 14. the most, if not all of them looke, another way then he intends to use them. They will in the following Chapter come under full consideration. Rom. 5. 10. When we were enemies we were Reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne; is the first mentioned. That our being Reconciled to God, in this place doth not intend our Conversion to him, and our deposition of the Reall enmity, that is in us against him, but our Acceptance with him, upon the account of the Attonement made in the blood of Christ, whereby he is Reconciled to us, is evident from sundry circumstances of the place. For
1. That which is called being reconciled by his death, in 10. is being justifyed by his blood, vers. 9. The observation of the same Antithesis in both verses makes this evident. Now to be justifyed by the blood of Christ, is not to have our enmity with God slaine and destroyed (which is our Sanctification) but our Acceptation with God upon the account of the shedding of the blood of Christ for us; which is his Reconciliation to us.
2. We are thus Reconciled, when we are enemies, as in the verse insisted on; when we were enemies we were Reconciled; Now we are not Reconciled in the sence of deposing our Enmity to God (that deposition being our Sanctification) whilest we are enemies, and therefore it is the Reconciliation of God to us, that i… intended▪
3. Verse 11. we are said to receive this Reconciliation; or as the word is rendred, the Attonement; the word is the same withforeign that used v. 10. Now we cannot be said to receive our own conversion, but the Reconciliation of God by the blood of Christ, his favour upon the Attonement made, that by Faith we do receive; Thus M. Biddles first Witnesse speakes expressly against him, and the designe for the carrying on whereof he was called forth; as afterward will more fully appeare.
His second also of Ephes. 2. 14, 16. speakes the same language;§. 15. He is our peace, who hath made both one, that we might reconcile both unto God in one body, by the death of his Crosse, having slaine the enmity thereby; Setting aside the joynt designe of the Apostle to manifest the Reconciliation made of Iewes and Gentiles by the Crosse of Christ, it is evident, the Reconciliation here meant consists in slaying the enmity mentioned, so making peace; Now what is the enmity intended? Not the Enmity that is in our hearts to God, but the Legall emnity that lay against us, on the part of God; as is evident from v. 15. and the whole designe of the place, as afterwards will appeare more fully.
There is indeed 2 Cor. 5. 18, 19, 20. mention made of Reconciliation§. 16. in both the sences insisted on; of us to God, v. 20. where the Apostle saith, the end of the ministry is to reconcile us to God; to prevaile with us to lay down our enmity against him, & opposition to him; of God to us, v. 19. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself; which to be the import of the words is evinced from the exegeticall expression immediately following; not imputing to them their sins & transgressions▪ God was so reconciling the world unto himselfe in Christ, as that upon the account of what was done in Christ, He will not impute their sins to th…m▪ The Legall enmity he had against them, on the account whereof alone mens sinnes are imputed to them, being taken away. And this is farther cleared by the summe of his former Discourse, which the Apostle gives us v. 21. declaring how God was in Christ reconciling the world to himselfe; For (saith he) he made him sin for us who knew no sinne, that we might be made the Righteousnesse of God in him; Thus he was in Christ reconciling the world to himselfe, in that he made him to be sinne, or a sacrifice for sinne, so to make an Attonement for us, that we might be accepted before God, as Righteous on the account of Christ.
Much lesse doth that of the 1 Pet. 3. 18. In the last place mentioned,§. 17. speak at all to M. B's purpose: Christ hath once suffered for sinne, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God; bringing to God, is a generall expression of the Accomplishment of the whole work of our Salvation, both in the removall of all hinderances, and the collation of all things necessary to the fulfilling of the work: Of this the Apostle mentions the great fundamentall, and procuring cause, which is the suffering of Christ in our stead; the just for the unjust: Christ in our stead suffered for our sinnes, that he might bring us to God; Now this suffering of Christ in our stead, for our Sinnes, is most eminently the cause of the Reconciliation of God to us; and by the intimation thereof, of our Reconciliation to God, and so of our Manuduction to him.
Thus, though it be most true, that Christ Dyed to Reconcile§. 18. us to God, by our conversion to him, yet all the places cited by M. Biddle to prove it, (so unhappy is he in his Quotation…) speake to the defence of that Truth, which he doth oppose, and not of that which he would assert; and which by asserting in opposition to the Truth, with which it hath an eminent consistency, he doth corrupt.
The next Question I shall not insist upon; It is concerning§. 19. the object of the death of Christ, and the Universality thereof; The words of it are, For whom did Christ dye? The Answer is from 2 Cor. 5. 14, 15. 1 Tim. 5. 6. Heb. 2. 9. Joh. 6. 8 where mention is made of all, and the World, in reference to the death of Christ. The Question concerning the object of the Death of Christ, or whom he dyed for, hath of late by very many been so fully discussed; and I have my selfe spoken elsewhere somewhat to that purpose; It shall not then here be in…sted on; InSalus Electorum sanguis Jesu. a word, we confesse that Christ died for all, and for the World; but whereas it is very seldome that these words are comprehensive of all and every man in the World, but most frequently are used for some of all Sorts, they for whom Christ died, being in some places expounded to be the Church, Believers, the Children, those given unto him out of the World, and no where described by any terme expressive constantly of an absolute Ʋniversality, we say the Words insisted on are to be taken in the latter sence, and not the former; being ready, God assisting, to put it to the issue and tryall with our Adversaries, when we are called thereunto.
He proceeds; What was the procuring cause of Christs death?§. 20.
Ans. Rom. 4. 25. Isa. 53. 5. 1 Cor. 15. 3. The Expressions are; That Christ was delivered for our offences, that Christ died for our sinnes, and was bruised for our iniquities.
That in these, and the like places, that clause for our sinnes, offences, and transgressions, is expressive of the procuring cause of the death of Christ, M. B. grants; Sinne can be no otherwise the procuring cause of the death of Christ, but as it is morally meritorious thereof▪ To say our sinnes were the procuring cause of the death of Christ, is to say, that our sinnes merited the death of Christ; And whereas this can no otherwise be, but as our sinnes were imputed to him, and he was put to death for them, M. B. hath in this one Question granted the whole of what in this subject he contends against. If our sinnes were the procuring cause of the death of Christ, then the death of Christ was that punishment which was due to them; or in the Justice, or according to the tenour of the Law of God, was procur'd by them; and so consequently He in his death underwent the penalty of our Sinnes, suffering in our stead▪ and making thereby satisfaction for what we had done amisse: M. Biddles Masters say generally that the expression of dying for our sinnes denotes the finall cause of the death of Christ; that is, Christ intended by his death to confirme the Truth, in obedience whereunto we shall receive forgivenesse of sinnes; This grant of M. B's, that the procuring cause of the Death of Christ is hereby exprest, will perhaps appeare more Prejudiciall to his whole cause, then he is yet aware of; especially being proposed in distinction from the finall cause, or end of the Death of Christ, which in the next place he mentions,Crellius de Causis Mortis Christi. p. 13. as afterward will more fully appeare; although I confesse he is not alone; Crellius making the same concession.
The last Question of this Chapter is, What are the ends of §. 21.Christs suffering and Death intimated by the Scripture? Whereunto by way of Answer, sundry Texts of Scripture are subjoyned; every one of them expressing some one end or other, some effect or fruit, something of the aime and intendment of Christ in his suffering and Death; whereunto exceeding many others might be annexed, but this businesse of the death of Christ, its Causes, Ends, and Influence into the work of our Salvation, the manifestation that therein he underwent the punishment due to our sinnes, making attonement, and giving satisfaction for them, redeeming us properly by the price of his blood, &c. being of so great weight and importance as it is, lying at the very bottome, and foundation of all our hope and confidence, I shall, leaving M. Biddle, handle the whole matter at large in the ensuing Chapters.
For our more cleere and distinct proceedure in this Important head of the Religion of Jesus Christ, I shall first lay downe the most Eminent Considerations of the Death of Christ, as proposed in the Scripture, and then give an Account of the most Speciall Effects of it in particular, answering to those Considerations of it; in all manifesting wherein the expiation of our sinnes by his blood doth consist.
The Principall Considerations of the Death of Christ, are of it,
1. As a PRICE.
2. As a SACRIFICE.
3. As a PENALTY.
Of which in the order wherein they are mentioned.