« PreviousContinue »
unjust. Christ in our stead suffered for our sins, that he might bring us to God. Now, this suffering of Christ in our stead, for our sins, 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 died to reconcile us to God by our conversion to him, yet all the places cited by Mr B. to prove it (so unhappy is he in his quotations) speak 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 the object of the death of Christ and the universality thereof. The words of it are, “For whom did Christ die?” The answer is from
” 2 Cor. v. 14, 15; 1 Tim. ii. 6; Heb. ii. 9; John üi. 16; where men
1 tion 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 for whom he died, hath of late by very many been fully discussed, and I have myself spoken elsewhere somewhat to that purpose. It shall not, then, here be insisted on. In a word, we confess that Christ died for “all” and for the world;" but whereas it is very seldom 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 nowhere described by any term expressive constantly of an absolute universality, we say the words insisted on are to be taken in the latter sense, and not the former; being ready, God assisting, to put it to the issue and trial with our adversaries, when we are called thereunto.
The expressions are, that Christ was “ delivered for our offences,” that Christ was “bruised for our iniquities," and " died for our sins."
That in these and the like places, that clause, “For our offences, iniquities, and sins,” is expressive of the procuring cause of the death of Christ, Mr B. grants. Sin can be no otherwise the procuring cause of the death of Christ but as it is morally meritorious thereof. To say, “Our sins were the procuring cause of the death of Christ," is to say that our sins merited the death of Christ; and whereas this can no otherwise be but as our sins were imputed to him, and he was 1 Salus Electorum Sanguis Jesu., vol. x.
put to death for them, Mr B. hath in this one question granted the whole of what in this subject he contends against! If our sins 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 tenor, of the law of God, was procured by them; and so, consequently, he in his death underwent the penalty of our sins, suffering in our stead, and making thereby satisfaction for what we had done amiss. Mr B.'s masters say generally that the expression of“ dying for our sins” denotes the final cause of the death of Christ; that is, Christ intended by his death to confirm the truth, in obedience' whereunto we shall receive forgiveness of sin. This grant of Mr B's, that the procuring cause of the death of Christ is hereby expressed, will perhaps appear more prejudicial to his whole cause than he is yet aware of, especially being proposed in distinction from the final cause or end of the death of Christ, which in the next place he mentions, as afterward will more fully appear; although, I confess, he is not alone, Crellius making the same concession.
The last question of this chapter is, “What are the ends of Christ's suffering and death intimated by the Scripture?” whereunto, by way of answer, sundry texts of Scripture are subjoined, every one of them expressing some one end or other, some effect or fruit, something of the aim and intendment of Christ in his suffering and death; whereunto exceeding many others might be annexed. But this business 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 sins, making atonement and giving satisfaction for them, redeeming us properly by the price of his blood, etc., -being of so great weight and importance as it is, lying at the very bottom and foundation of all our hope and confidence, I shall, leaving Mr B., handle the whole matter at large in the ensuing chapters.
For our more clear and distinct procedure in this important head of the religion of Jesus Christ, I shall first lay down the most eminent considerations of the death of Christ as proposed in the Scripture, and then give an account of the most special effects of it in particular, answering to those considerations of it; in all manifesting wherein the expiation of our sins by his blood doth consist.
The principal considerations of the death of Christ are of it,-1. As a price; II. As a sacrifice; III. As a penalty: of which in the order wherein they are mentioned.
Crell. de Causis Mortis Christi, p. 18.
The several considerations of the death of Christ as to the expiation of our sins
thereby, and the satisfaction made therein–First, Of it as a price; secondly, As a sacrifice.
I. THE death of Christ in this business is a PRICE, and that properly so called: 1 Cor. vi. 20, 'HyopáoOnte sins,“ Ye are bought with a price.” And if we will know what that price was with which we are bought, the Holy Ghost informs us, 1 Pet. i. 18, 19, Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ." It is the blood of Christ which
” in this business hath that use which silver and gold have in the redeeming of captives; and paid it is into the hand of him by whose power and authority the captive is detained, as shall be proved. And himself tells us what kind of a price it is that is so paid; it is λύτρον, Μatt. Xx. 28, « He came to lay down his life λύτρον αντί Foãr." which, for its more evidence and clearness, is called åvela.urpov, 1 Tim. ii. 6, “ a price of redemption” for the delivery of another.
The first mention of a ransom in the Scripture is in Exod. xxi. 30: "If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid on him.” The word in the original is 172; which the LXX. there render aúrpa Auoen húrpa oñs Yuxñs aisoi. And it is used again in the same sense, Ps. xlix. 9; and in both places intends a valuable price, to be paid for the deliverance of that which, upon guilt, became obnoxious to death. It is true, the word is from 1770,“ redimere, vindicare, asserere in libertatem,” by any ways and means, by power, strength, or otherwise ; but whereever it is applied to such a kind of redemption as had a price going along with it, the LXX. constantly render it by ÅTout poūv, and sometimes λυτρώσασθαι, otherwise by ρύομαι, and the like.
It is, then, confessed that 770 in the Old Testament is sometimes taken for redemit in a metaphorical sense, not strictly and literally by the intervention of a price; but that Auspuraooo, the word whereby it is rendered when a price intervened, is ever so taken in the New Testament, is denied. Indeed, Moses is called ausputns, Acts vii. 35, in reference to the metaphorical redemption of Israel out of Egypt,--a deliverance by power and a strong arm; but shall we say, because that word is used improperly in one place, where no price could be paid, where God plainly says it was not done by a price but by power, therefore it must be so used in those places where there is express mention of a price, both the matter of it and its formality as a price, and speaketh not a word of doing it any other way but by the payment of a price? But of this afterward.
There is mention of "a ransom"in ten places of the Old Testament;
"to ransom" and "ransomed” in two or three more. In two of these places, Exod. xxi. 30 and Ps. xlix. 9, the word is $72, from 1772, as before, and rendered by the LXX. aúspor. In all other places it is in the Hebrew Db, which properly signifies a propitiation, as Ps. xlix. 9; which the LXX. have variously rendered. Twice it is mentioned in Job, chap. xxxiii. 24 and xxxvi. 18. In the first place they have left it quite out, and in the latter so corrupted the sense that they have rendered it altogether unintelligible. Prov. vi. 35 and xiii. 8, they have properly rendered it aúspor, or a price of redemption, it being in both places used in such business as a ransom useth to be accepted in. Chap. xxi. 18, they have properly rendered it to the subject-matter, περικάθαρμα. Περικαθάρματα are things publicly devoted to destruction, as it were to turn away anger from others, coming upon them for their sakes.
So is rcbapa, “homo piacularis pro lustratione et expiatione patriæ devotus;" whence the word is often used, as scelus in Latin, for a wicked man, a man fit to be destroyed and taken away. Γρύζειν δε και τολμάτων και καθάρματε, says he in the poet.' Καθαρμός is used in the same sense by Herodotus: Καθαρμών της χώρης ποιευμένων Αχαιών, 'Adánarra sòv Aibhou,—“Athamas was made a piaculum, or a propitiation for the country.” Whence Budæus renders that of the apostle, 'ne nepozadópara toũ nóquou éyevýonuev, “ Nos tanquam piacula mundi facti sumus, et succedaneæ pro populo victimæ,”—“We are as the accursed things of the world, and sacrifices for the people," 1 Cor. iv. 13; reading the words, one xabópuara, not as mepiradepo mara: the Greek scholiast, who reads it as we commonly do, rendering it by útocapúlata, as the Vulgar Latin "purgamenta," to the same purpose,—such as have all manner of filth cast upon them. And Isa. xliii. 3, they have rendered the same word ännayda, "a commutation by price.” So Matt. xvi. 26, ti duos, ővpwmos årrán
, δώσει άνθρωπος αντάλhaya sñs Yuxñs, “a price in exchange.” Now, in all these places
ψυχής, and others, the Hebrews use the word pb, “a propitiation,” by way of allusion; as is most especially evident from that of Isaiah, “I will give Egypt a propitiation for thee.” That is, as God is atoned by a propitiatory sacrifice, wherein something is offered him in the room of the offender, so will he do with them,-put them into trouble in room of the church, as the sacrificed beast was in the room of him for whom it was sacrificed And hence does that word signify a ransom, because what God appointed in his worship to redeem any thing that by the law was devoted, which was a compensation by his institution (as a clean beast in the room of a first-born was to be
a offered a sacrifice to God), was so called. And the word "satisfaction,” which is but once used in the Scripture, or twice together, Num. xxxv. 31, is 5 in the original. 795, indeed, is originally * Aristoph. in Plut. v. 454.
; Lib. vii. 197.
"pitch” or “bitumen;" hence what God says to Noah about making the ark, m????, Gen. vi. 14, the LXX. have rendered dopahsuosis Tň dopánow,—“ bituminabis bitumine.” 799 in pihel is “placavit, expiavit, expiationem fecit;" because by sacrifice sins are covered as if they had not been, to cover or hide being the first use of the word.
And this is the rise and use of the word “ransom" in the Scripture, both $70, 779 and 195, which are rendered by húrpov, wspiráθαρμα, αντίλυτρον, άλλαγμα. It denotes properly a price of redemption, a valuable compensation made by one thing for another, either in the native signification, as in the case of the first word, or by the first translation of it from the sacrifice of atonement, as in the latter. Of this farther afterward, in the business of redemption. For the present it sufficeth that the death of Christ was a price of ransom, and these are the words whereby it is expressed.
II. It was a SACRIFICE; and what sacrifice it was shall be declared:
That Christ offered a sacrifice is abundantly evident from what was said before, in the consideration of the time and place when and wherein Christ was a high priest. The necessity of this the apostle confirms, Heb. viii. 3, “ For every high priest is ordained to offer both gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.” If he be a priest, he must have a sacrifice;
а the very nature of his employment requires it. The whole and entire office and employment of a high priest, as a priest, consists in offering sacrifice, with the performance of those things which did necessarily precede and follow that action. It is of necessity, then, that he should also have somewhat to offer as a sacrifice to God.
For the other part of our inquiry, namely, what it was that he sacrificed, I shall manifest in this order of process (taking leave to enlarge a little in this, intending not so much the thing, proved before, as the manner of it):-1. He was not to offer any sacrifice that any priest had offered before by God's appointment; 2. He did not actually offer any such sacrifice; 3. I shall show positively what he did offer.
1. He was not to offer any sacrifice that the priests of old had appointed for them to offer. He came to do another manner of work than could be brought about with the blood of bulls and goats. It cost more to redeem our souls. That which was of more worth in itself, of nearer concernment to him that offered it, of a more manifold alliance to them for whom it was offered, and of better acceptation with God, to whom it was offered, was to be his sacrifice. This is the aim of the Holy Ghost, Heb. x. 1-7, “For the law,” etc.
This is the sum of the apostle's discourse: The sacrifices instituted by the law could not effect or work that which Christ, our high priest, was to accomplish by his sacrifice; and therefore he was not