Page images
PDF
EPUB

ing to explain, in what manner God, without any injury to his justice, had forborne sinners, and passed by their sins; most beautifully shews, that all regard was paid to the honour of divine justice, in the propitiation by Christ's blood, to be made and revealed in due time. For it was in virtue of this, that the sins of the believers in past times were forgiven. But the other explication, does not remove this difficulty just mentioned. The design of the whole is to shew that God is just when justifying the sinner for the merits of Christ.

XII. It likewise deserves our consideration, what the Apostle has expressly said, and often repeated, that the legal sacrifices could never abolish the guilt of sin, Heb. x. 1, 4, 11. But why might not a thing so easily to be removed without atonement be expiated by the death of legal sacrifices? And it is to be carefully observed, that the Apostle denies this from a consideration of the nature of the thing. It is said they could not do it, not because it seemed otherwise to God, but because sin is of a nature, that no blood of bulls or of goats can wash out its stain; which the light of nature itself will readily yield to as a thing certain. And indeed the church of the Old Testament professed, that their sins could not be expiated by any blood of calves or rams, not tho' multiplied to thousands; by any libations of oil, tho' ten thousand rivers thereof were poured out; nay not by the death of their first born, Mich. vi. 6, 7.

XIII. And we must not omit the Apostle's inference, whereby from the inability of legal sacrifices to make satisfaction, he concludes the necessity of the alone sacrifice of Christ. For af ter he had said, "it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins;" he immediately subjoins," where fore when he cometh into the world he saith," &c. adding, he taketh away the first; namely, the offering of beasts; that he may establish the second; namely, the offering of the body of Christ. But that inference would not hold, could there be some third way of expiation, or if no satisfaction was necessary. But now the Apostle argues, by supposing it a thing granted by the Jews, that sins cannot be forgiven without a proper atonement; but as this could not be effected, by the legal victims it certainly follows that it is to be sought for in the offering of Christ, without which the stain of sin remains for ever indelible. The justness of this inference of the Apos le arises from the nature of God, and of the thing itself; for if we are to infer the neces sity of the offering of Christ from the free and arbitrary good pleasure of the divine will, the Apostle's reasoning would have been to no purpose, the good pleasure of God only was to be insisted upon.

Iia

XIV. In

XIV. In like manner, the same Apostle argues, Rom. iii. 19. 25. 21. &c. Where he lays it down as a fundamental truth, that the whole world is subject to condemnation before God. Whence he infers, that none can be justified by the works of the law. And from that concludes, that we can be justified no other way, but by the blood of Christ, which is, doubtless, a very trilling way of arguing, if God, by his mercy alone, by his bare nod, can take away sin, and adjudge the sinner to life. For the Jews would very readily answer,. that there is another far more compendious way of justification, in the infinite mercy of God, and in the most free act of his power, without exposing the Messiah to reproach. And to mention it once more, we are not to have recourse to the most free disposition of the divine will, as if that was the alone cause of this necessity. For if the Apostle makes any such supposition, there is an end of all further reasoning. He would have gained his point, just by mentioning that disposition. And if he does not suppose this, his argument is of no force. Which is far from being the case.

XV. We must not here omit that expression of the Apostle, by which he cuts off those who have sinned against the Holy Ghost from all hope of salvation by this argument; because, having rejected Christ's expiation, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, Heb. x. 26. For when he would intimate, that there remained no more sacrifice, laying it down as an undoubted truth, that the offering of a sacrifice necessarily goes before pardon. If this was not the case, why might not man, who wanted a sacrifice, hope for pardon, without any satisfaction, from the infinite mercy of God?

XVI. To the same purpose is what the Apostle says, Heb. vi. 6. “it is impossible to renew those again unto repertance, who crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." Which last words are variously explained by divines. But doubtless are intended to give a reason why those who have made the crucifixion of Christ of no use to themselves, are excluded from all hopes of salvation: because, without that, it is impossible to obtain salvation. The very learned Moses Amyraldus, in Desputat. de peccato in spiritum sanctum, sect. 40, thus expounds it; namely, since those apostates have no further interest in the sacrifice already offered, because they have rejected it, and therefore if they would be saved they must look out for another. And because none could offer a true expiatory sacrifice, besides that of Christ alone; if they will be saved, it is necessary they give up Christ to be crucified afresh, and.

again exposed to open shame. But it is impious to design such a thing, which, on no account, can be obtained of God, Rom. vi. 9. 10. If this exposition be admitted, it presents us with a very strong argument for our opinion: because it supposes such an absolute necessity for the satisfaction of Christ, that if what he has already done be of no avail, a new satisfaction must be made before ever the sinner can have any hopes of mercy.

It

XVII. Moreover, our sentiment tends to display the glory of the divine perfections. It sets off his holiness, by reason of which he can in no respect become like a sinner, or without due satisfaction, allow him to have communion with himself, and the inhabitation of his Spirit. It exalts the justice of God, which is implacably inclined to punish sin. preserves inviolable the majesty of God, which, as zealous for his honour, can suffer no contempt to be put upon it, as all sin does to go unpunished. It glorifies the unsearchable wisdom of God, which found out a way, above the reach of all created understanding, by which justice and mercy might be happily reconciled, and the honour of them both maintained pure. In a word, it magnifies the inestimable grace and love of our God, who, when there were no other means of our salvation, spared not his own Son, but gave up him for us all. And who would not heartily embrace an opinion, that displays, in such an eminent manner, the glory of God?

XVIII. Nor is it less subservient to the promotion of piety. It teacheth us to tremble before the majesty of the most high God, who, from his being God, cannot clear the guilty. It heightens the horror of sin, which it becomes us to believe is of so atrocious a nature, that nothing short of the blood of a most holy, and truly divine sacrifice, could wash it away. It sets before us the unspotted holiness of God for our pattern, that, like him, we may entertain a mortal hatred to sin, and have no manner of fellowship with it. In a word, it inflames our hearts with the most deserved returns of love, willingly to devote ourselves to his service, who, out of pure grace, delivered up his Son for us unto death, without which we should have remained miserable through eternity. And thus our opinion is that true doctrine, which is according to godliness.

XIX. And it does not derogate in the least from any of the divine perfections: not from his absolute power; because, doubtless, God cannot deny himself and his own perfections; nor, by his actions, testify sin not to be contrary to his nature; nor ever behave, as if he took pleasure in it, by communicating

a

municating himself to the sinner; not from his most free will j as God neither wills, nor can will any thing but what tends to his glory, which requires his appearing as unlike the sine. ner as possible. Seneca spoke well, quest. Nat. lib. 1. God is not hereby less free, or less powerful: For he is his own necessity. Nor does it derogate from the liberty of those actions of God, which are called ad extra, or without him. For though he is, by no necessity of nature, constrained to external operations, considered in the gross, or together: yet, supposing the existence of one operation without him, many others necessarily follow. For instance, God was at liberty to create a world out of nothing but having done it, it be came necessary that he should govern the same in a way greeable to his justice, holiness, wisdom and goodness. In like manner, here God was at liberty to permit sin; but then having permitted it, his essential justice requires it to be punished. He was also at liberty to save some sinners; yet, having declared his will with respect to this, there was a necessity for a suitable satisfaction to intervene, on account of those immutable divine perfections, which he cannot in any of his actions disavow. As little does this derogate from the wise counsel of God, in ordering the punishment of it, as to the time, the degree, and the persons. For though we do not think that God inflicts punishment from his nature in such a manner as fire burns (though even in this respect, he compares himself to fire, Isa. xxvii. 4. and Deut. iv. 24.) yet his nature is a strong reason why he orders and inflicts punishment in a most wise manner. Now the nature of God requires, that he so display the glory of his justice, as he may likewise manifest the riches of his grace. Nor does it derogate from the infinite goodness of God, as if by that he could grant repentance to the sinner, and so receive him into favour without any satisfaction. For the bestowing of the spirit of regeneration is an effect of the highest love. But that God should so much love a sinner, continuing still impenitent, without the consideration of a satisfaction, is a conduct inconsistent with his ther perfections, as we have already so frequently shewn. God cannot but take his spirit from him who maketh a mock of him. It is not becoming to grant repentance by means of the same spirit, without the intervention of the sacrifice of the priest, whereby sin may be expiated.

XX. Seeing therefore both the nature and actions of God, and the reasonings of the sacred writers, teach us the necessity of a satisfaction; since by that doctrine the eminent per

fections

fections of God are placed in the most shining light seeing the right observance thereof tends very much to promote piety: And as thereby there is no derogation made from any of the divine perfections, we conclude it is the safest course soberly to embrace it.

XXI. Yet we must observe, when speaking in general of the necessity of a satisfaction, or of such a punishment of sin, wherein the righteous and holy God may be justified and sanctified, we set no bounds to the time, the degree, or the special manner of the punishment. The history of the life and death of Christ, makes it very evident, that dispensations, and mitigations, at least a compensation by an equivalent, took place here, and consequently could justly take place. And who will assert, or, if he should presume to say so, can plainly prove, that it was impossible that Christ, in order to make satisfaction, should undertake and submit to sufferings, fewer in number, shorter in duration, less intense in quantity, as to the parts of the body, and faculties of the soul, the moments and periods of his life spent here upon earth? And here let that saying of Paul, Rom. xii. 3. be ever a rule to us; "not to think more highly than we ought to think, but to think soberly."

CHA P. IX.

Of the Persons for whom Christ engaged and satisfied.

WE

E should have no certainty of all those things, which it is proper for us to know, for the glory of our Lord Christ, and our own consolation, concerning this suretiship and satisfaction, did it not also appear, for whom he satisfied according to his covenant-engagement. The solution of this question is indeed of very great moment, but it does not appear so very difficult, if we only carefully attend to the nature of Christ's suretiship and satisfaction, which we have already explained, proved and defended. For since Christ did, by his engagement, undertake to cancel all the debt of those persons for whom he engaged, as if it was his own, by suffering what was meet, and to fulfil all righteousness in their room; and since he has most fully performed this by his satisfaction, as much as if the sinners themselves had endured all the punishment due to their sins, and had accomplished all righteousness: the consequence is, that he has en

gaged

« PreviousContinue »