A sermon concerning the sacrifice and satisfaction of Christ. preached before the Queen at Whitehall, April 9., 1693.

A SERMON Concerning the Sacrifice and Satisfaction of Christ, &c.

HEB. IX. 26.

But now once hath he appeared in the end of the world, to take away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

AMong many other great ends and reasons for which God was pleased to send his Son into the World to dwell amongst us, this was one of the chief, that by a long course of the greatest innocency

and the greatest sufferings in our Nature he might be capable to make a perfect Expiation of Sin: But now once in the end of the world, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the conclu∣sion of the Ages, that is in the last Age of the World, which is the Gospel Age, hath he appeared to take away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

The general design of God in sending his Son into the World was to save mankind from eternal death and misery, and to purchase for us eternal life and happiness. So the Author of our Salvation himself tells * 1.1us, That God so loved the World, that he gave his only begotten Son, that who∣soever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Now in order to the procuring of this Salvation for us, the impedi∣ments and hindrances of it were to be removed: these were the guilt, and the dominion of Sin: By the

guilt of Sin we were become obno∣xious to the wrath of God and to eternal condemnation, and by the defilement and dominion of it we were incapable of the happiness of Hea∣ven and the reward of eternal Life.

To remove these two great hin∣drances two things were necessary: the Forgiveness of sins past, in or∣der to our deliverance from the wrath of God and the eternal tor∣ments of the next Life; and the Reformation of our hearts and lives to make us capable of eternal Life and happiness in another World. And both these, if God had so plea∣sed, might for any thing we certain∣ly know to the contrary, have been effected by the abundant mercy and powerful grace of God, without this wonderful method and dispen∣sation of sending his Son in our Na∣ture to take away sin by the sacrifice of himself: But it seems the wisdom of

God thought fit to pitch upon this way and method of our Salvation, and no doubt for very good Rea∣sons; amongst which these three seem to be very obvious and very consi∣derable.

First, to vindicate the honour of his Laws, which if Sin had gone al∣together unpunish'd would have been in great danger of falling into contempt. For if God had pro∣claimed a general Pardon of Sin to all mankind, without any testimony of his wrath and displeasure against it, who would have had any great veneration for his Laws, or have be∣lieved in good earnest that the vio∣lation of them had been either so extremely offensive to Him, or so very dangerous to the Sinner?

Therefore to maintain the ho∣nour of his Laws, rather than Sin should pass unpunish'd God would lay the punishment of it upon his

only begotten Son, the dearest Per∣son to him in the World: Which is a greater testimony of his high dis∣pleasure against Sin, and of his ten∣der regard and concernment for the honour of his Laws, than if the Sin∣ner had suffered the punishment due to it in his own person.

Secondly, another Reason of this Dispensation, and that likewise ve∣ry considerable, was, that God might forgive Sin in such a way as yet effectually to discountenance and discourage it, and to create in us the greatest horror and hatred of it: Which could not have been by an absolute Pardon, without any punishment inflicted, or satisfaction made to the honour of his Justice. For had Sin been so easily forgiven, who would have been sensible of the great evil of it, or afraid to of∣fend for the future?

But when God makes his own Son a Sacrifice, and lays upon him the punishment due for the iniqui∣ties of us all, this is a demonstra∣tion that God hates Sin as much, if it be possible, as he loved his own Son. For this plainly shews what Sin deserves, and what the Sinner may justly expect, if after this se∣verity of God against it he will ven∣ture to commit it.

And if this Sacrifice for Sin, and the Pardon purchased by it, be not effectual to reclaim us from Sin, and to beget in us an eternal dread and detestation of it: If we sin wilfully after so clear a revelation of the wrath of God from heaven against all un∣godliness and unrighteousness of men, there remains no more sacrifice for sin, but a certain fearful looking for of judg∣ment and fiery indignation to consume the adversaries. For what could God do more to testify his displeasure

against sin, and to discountenance the practice of it, than to make his only Son an offering for Sin, and to give him up to be wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities? In what clearer Glass can we at once behold the great evil and demerit of Sin, and the infi∣nite goodness and mercy of God to Sinners, than in the sorrows and suf∣ferings of the Son of God for our Sins and for our sakes?

Thirdly, another Reason of this Dispensation seems to have been a gracious condescension and compli∣ance of Almighty God with a cer∣tain apprehension and persuasion, which had very early and universally obtained among Mankind, concern∣ing the expiation of Sin and appea∣sing the offended Deity by Sacrifices: by the Sacrifices of living Creatures, of Birds and Beasts; and afterwards by Human Sacrifices and the blood of

their sons and daughters: by offering to God, as the expression is in the Prophet, their first-born for their trans∣gression, and the fruit of their body for the sin of their souls.

And this Notion of the expiati∣on of sin by Sacrifice, whether it had its first Rise from Divine Revela∣tion, and was afterwards propaga∣ted from Age to Age by Tradition: I say, from whence soever this No∣tion came, it hath of all other No∣tions concerning Religion, except∣ing those of the Being of God, and his Providence, and of the Recompen∣ces of another Life, found the most universal reception, and the thing hath been the most generally pra∣ctised in all Ages and Nations, not only in the old, but in the new discovered parts of the World.

And indeed a very great part of the Jewish Religion, which was in∣stituted by God himself, seems to

have been a plain condescension to the general Apprehension of Man∣kind, concerning this way of ap∣peasing the offended Deity by Sa∣crifices: As it was also a Figure of that great and efficacious Sacrifice which should in due time be offer'd to God to make atonement once for all for the Sins of all Mankind.

And the Apostle to the Hebrews doth very particularly insist upon this condescension of God to them, in the Dispensation of the Gospel: and whereas they apprehended so great a necessity of an High-Priest and of Sacrifices to make expiation for the sins of the People, that it was an established Principle among them, that without shedding of blood there was no remission of Sins; God was pleased to comply so far with these Notions and Apprehensions of theirs, as to make his own Son both a Priest and a Sacrifice, to do that once for

all which their own High-Priest pre∣tended to do year by year.

And from hence the same Apostle takes occasion to recommend to them the new Covenant and Dispensa∣tion of the Gospel, as having a great∣er and more perfect High-Priest and a more excellent Sacrifice, than were the High-Priests and the Sacrifices un∣der the Law; the Son of God having by one Sacrifice of himself obtained eter∣nal Redemption for us, and perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

And this Apprehension prevailed no less in the Heathen World, and proceeded to the Sacrifices of Men, even of their first born. And with this Apprehension, not to counte∣nance but to abolish it, God was pleased to comply so far as to make a general Atonement for the Sins of Mankind by the Death of his Son, appearing in our Nature to become a voluntary Sacrifice for us: God

permitting him to be unjustly put to death and his blood to be shed by the malice of men, in appearance as a Malefactor, but in truth as a Martyr; and accepting of his Death as a meritorious Sacrifice and propiti∣ation for the Sins of the whole World: That by this wise counsel and per∣mission of his Providence he might for ever put an end to that barbarous and inhuman way of serving God which had been so long in use and practice among them: The Son of God by the voluntary Sacrifice of himself having effected all that at once, and for ever, which Mankind from the beginning of the World had in vain been endeavouring to accomplish by innumerable and con∣tinual Sacrifices; namely, the par∣don of their Sins, and perfect peace and reconciliation with God.

For these Ends and Reasons, and perhaps for many more as great and

considerable as these which our shallow understandings are not able to fathom, the Wisdom of God hath pitched upon this way and me∣thod of delivering Mankind from the guilt and dominion of Sin by the Sacrifice of his Son. And to this end it was requisite that he should appear in our Nature and dwell amongst us for some consider∣able time, that by a long course of the greatest Innocency and of the greatest Sufferings in our Nature he might be capable of making a per∣fect expiation of Sin.

So that two things were requisite to qualify him for this purpose; per∣fect Innocency and Obedience, and great Sufferings in our Na∣ture, even to the suffering of Death. Both these the Scripture declares to be necessary qualifica∣tions of a Person capable to make expiation of Sin; and both these

were found in the Person of our B. Saviour.

First, unspotted Innocency and per∣fect Obedience. This the Scripture testifies concerning Him, and the whole course of his Life and acti∣ons. He was in all points tempted like * 1.2as we are, yet without Sin, saith the Apostle to the Hebrews. He always * 1.3did the things which pleased God, as He testifies concerning himself, and we are sure that his witness is true. He did * 1.4no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth, as St. Peter tells us of Him. And this was necessary to qualify him for the perfect expiation of Sin, whether we consider Him as a Priest, or as a Sacrifice.

As a Priest, he could not have been fit to make expiation for the Sins of others, had he not been without sin himself. And this the Apostle tells us is one great Advan∣tage of our High-Priest under the

Gospel, above the High-Priest under the Law, who being a Sinner him∣self, as well as those for whom he offer'd, had need to offer for him∣self before he could make so much as a Legal expiation for the Sins of others: But a perfect and effectual expiation of Sin, so as to purge the conscience from the guilt of it, can∣not be made but by an High Priest who is holy and innocent himself; * 1.5For such an High-Priest, saith the Apostle, became us, that is, now un∣der the Dispensation of the Gospel, when a perfect expiation of Sins is to be made, such an High-Priest is necessary, as is holy, harmless, unde∣filed, separate from Sinners, who needs not as those High-Priests, that is as the High-Priests under the Law, to offer up sacrifice first for his own Sins, and then for the People: The plain force of which Argument is this, that he who will be qualified to make atone∣ment

for the Sins of others must be without sin himself.

And then if we consider Christ as a Sacrifice for Sin; perfect holi∣ness is necessary to make a Sacrifice acceptable and available for the ex∣piation of Sin. The necessity of this was typified by the quality of the expiatory Sacrifices under the Law: the Beasts that were to be offered were to be without spot and blemish: To which the Apostle alludes, speak∣ing of the quality and efficacy of the Sacrifice of Christ: How much * 1.6more, says he, shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered him∣self without spot to God, purge your consciences from dead works to serve the * 1.7living God? And to the same purpose St. Peter, For asmuch as ye know ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot, &c; hereby

intimating, that nothing less than the perfect innocency and holiness of him who was to be a Sacrifice for us could have expiated the guilt of our sins and purchased eternal Redemption for us.

Secondly, great Sufferings likewise in our Nature, even to the suffer∣ing of Death, were requisite to the perfect expiation of Sin: I say, even to the suffering of Death. For the Sacrifices which were to make expiation were to be slain. And it was a constant Maxime and Prin∣ciple among the Jews, and the Apo∣stle more than once in this Epistle seems to allow and confirm it, that without shedding of blood there was no remission of Sins.

Not that God could not have par∣doned Sin without satisfaction made to his Justice, either by the suffer∣ing of the Sinner himself, or of a Sacrifice in his stead: But, accord∣ing

to the method and Dispensation which the Wisdom of God had pitched upon, he was resolved not to dispense Forgiveness in any other way. For which reason he seems either to have possess'd Mankind with this Principle, or to have per∣mitted them to be so perswaded, that Sin was not to be expiated but by Blood, that is, either by the Death of the Sinner, or of the Sacrifice.

Now the Life of our B. Saviour, as well as his Death, was made up of Sufferings of one kind or other: Continual Sufferings from his Cradle to his Cross, from the time he drew his first breath to his giving up of the ghost: And not only continual Sufferings, but the greatest that ever were, considering the Dignity of the Person that suffered, and the nature of the Sufferings: Consider∣ing likewise that these Sufferings were not only wholly undeserved

on his part, but unmerited also on ours, for whose sake he submitted himself to them: Nay, on the con∣trary, he had obliged to the utmost those for whom and by whom he suffered, and continued still to ob∣lige them by the greatest Blessings and Benefits purchased and procured for them by those very Sufferings which with so much Malice and Cruelty they inflicted on him.

Had our B. Saviour been a mere Man, the perfect Innocency and un∣spotted Purity of his whole Life; his Zeal to do the Will of God, and his delight in doing it; his infi∣nite pains and unwearied diligence in going about doing good: His constant Obedience to God in the most diffi∣cult Instances, and his perseverance in well doing, notwithstanding the ill usage and hard measure, the bit∣ter Reproaches and Persecutions he met withal for it, from a wicked and

ill natured World: His perfect sub∣mission to the Will of God, his in∣vincible Patience under the greatest and bitterest Sufferings, and his infi∣nite Charity to his Enemies and Per∣secutors: These must needs be highly acceptable to God, and if Man could merit of God, likely enough to be available for the Sins of others.

But our Saviour and our Sacrifice being the Son of God in our Nature; and He voluntarily assuming it, and submitting to the condition of Humanity in its lowest and most miserable state, Sin only excepted; and his being contented to live a Life of doing good and suffering evil, and at last to be put to Death and slain a Sacrifice for us: The Dignity of the Person who did and suffered all this for us, and his dear∣ness to God, must needs add a migh∣ty value to so perfect an Obedience

and such patient Sufferings; so as to render them a full, perfect and suffi∣cient Sacrifice, oblation and satisfa∣ction for the Sins of the whole World.

And all this being willingly per∣formed in our Nature, and accepted by God as done upon our account, may reasonably be presumed to re∣dound to our benefit and advantage, as much as if we our selves had per∣formed it in our own persons: No∣thing being so proper, and so avail∣able to make an honourable amends and satisfaction to the Justice of God for the Sins of all Mankind, as the voluntary Obedience and Sufferings of Human Nature in a Person of so great Dignity and dearness to God as his eternal and entirely belo∣ved Son.

Now that Expiation of Sin was made by the Sufferings of Christ in

our stead, I shall endeavour to make good these three ways.

First, from plain Testimonies of H. Scripture, declaring this matter to us as clearly and fully as it is possible for words to do it.

Secondly, from the nature and in∣tention of Expiatory Sacrifices, both among the Jews and Heathen; to which the Death of Christ is in the New Testament so frequently compa∣red, and in point of vertue and effi∣cacy to take away Sin infinitely pre∣ferred to it.

Thirdly, by vindicating this Me∣thod and Dispensation of the Divine Wisdom from the Objections which are brought against it; and by shew∣ing that there is nothing in it that is unreasonable, or any wise unworthy of God.

I. I shall produce some plain [ I] Testimonies of H. Scripture which

decIare this matter as clearly and fully as it is possible for words to do it; namely, that the Son of God, in order to the effectual Expiation of Sin, suffered in our stead, and bore the wrath of God for us, and made a perfect Atonement for Sin, and obtained eternal Redemption for us.

This the Scripture declares to us in great variety of expressions; as, that Christ dyed for us, and for our Sins; that he was a Sacrifice for us, and a propitiation for the Sins of the whole World, that is, of all Man∣kind; that he bare our Sins in his own body on the Tree, and appeared to take away Sin by the Sacrifice of himself; that we are justified in his blood, and redeemed by the price of it; and in very many other expressions to the same purpose.

And this is so evidently the scope and meaning of these Expressions, that it cannot be denied without

offering the greatest violence imagi∣nable to the H. Scriptures. For can any man think that God would have used so many expressions in Scripture, the plain and most obvious sense of all which is that the Son of God suffer∣ed for our Sins and in our stead, if this had not been his design and meaning? Would not this be in effect to say, that God hath writ∣ten a great Book to puzzle and con∣found, but not to instruct and teach Mankind?

I will at present single out some few of those many Texts of Scripture which might be produced to this purpose: He hath made him to be sin * 1.8for us, who knew no sin, that is, he hath made him who had no sin him∣self a Sacrifice for our sins. Again; and walk in love, as Christ also hath lo∣ved * 1.9us and given himself for us, an offer∣ing and a sacrifice to God. St. Peter * 1.10to the same purpose tells us, that

Christ also hath once suffered for Sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh: Here Christ is said to have suffered for Sin; and to declare that the Apostle did not only mean that Christ suffered upon the occasion of our Sins, but that he suffered in the place and stead of the Sinner, he adds, the just for the unjust, that is, the Son of God, who was innocent and had no Sin, suffered for us who were Sinners; or as it is elsewhere ex∣press'd, he bare our sins in his own body on the Tree.

It is true indeed, that Christ suffer∣ed for our benefit and advantage; which the Socinians would have to be all that is meant in the Texts which I have cited: But then it ought to be considered, that Christ's suffer∣ing for our benefit and advantage does by no means exclude, nor is any wise inconsistent with his suffer∣ing

in our stead. For whoever suffers in another man's stead, and to save him from suffering, does un∣doubtedly suffer for his benefit and advantage, and gives the best de∣monstration of it that can be: But the manner of the expression, if compared with other parellel Texts of Scripture, and especially with what is so often said of our Saviour's being a Sacrifice, which I shall have occasion further to urge by and by: I say the manner of the expression, if well considered, will appear to any man that is not contentious to signify our Saviour's suffering instead of the Sinner.

But not to argue from words and phrases, I will produce two Texts which declare this matter so plainly, that the force of them is not to be avoided without the most shameful wresting and perverting of them. This is my Commmandment, says our * 1.11

Saviour, that you love one another, as I have loved you. How is that? he declares in the next words, Grea∣ter * 1.12love than this hath no man, that a man lay down his life for his friend, that is, that he be contented to die in his stead. And to the same pur∣pose * 1.13St. Paul, For when ye were yet Sinners in due time Christ died for the un∣godly: Now the question is, whe∣ther by this expression of Christ's dying for the ungodly be meant only his dying for the benefit and advan∣tage of Sinners, but not his dying in their stead? This, let the words which immediately follow deter∣mine: For scarcely for a righteous man will one dye, yet peradventure for a good man one would even dare to dye: But God commendeth his love to us, in that whilst we were yet sinners Christ dyed for us. And now I appeal to any man of good sense, whether it be not plain that the Apostle here speaks of Christ's

dying for sinners in the same sense as one man is said to dye for another, that is, to save another from death; which what is it else but to dye in his stead? He that can deny this, is perverse to the highest degree, and I fear almost beyond the possi∣bility of being convinced.

And the Argument from these two Texts is so much the stronger, because we do not here reason merely from the phrase and expres∣sion, but from the main Scope of our Saviour's discourse in the one, and of St. Paul's in the other. For the design of both is to recommend the Superlative love of Christ to us above the greatest love that ever any man express'd to another. The highest pitch that human affection did ever rise to, was for a man to lay down his life for his Friend; but the Son of God laid down his life for his Enemies. Scarcely, says St.

Paul, would one lay down his life for a righteous man, that is, for one who is but strictly just and honest, and does no body wrong; but for a good man, that is, for one that is kind and beneficial to all, and hath obliged Mankind by great Benefits, some one may be found that would lay down his life to save the life of such a Person: But the love of Christ hath gone far beyond this: He dyed for Sinners, for those who were neither good men nor righteous: But God com∣mendeth his love to us, in that whilst we were yet Sinners Christ dyed for us. Now where doth the force of this Argument lye, if not in this? that Christ hath done that for us, who were Enemies and Sinners, which some very few persons in the World have done for their Friend, or for some very eminently good man: And what is that? Why they have laid down their lives in their stead: And

so Christ hath done for us. This seems to be so very plain, that I do not see how the force of this Argu∣ment is possible to be avoided.

It is evident then from Scripture, that Christ dyed not only for our ad∣vantage but in our stead; as truly and really as any man ever did or can dye for another who lays down his own life to save another from death. For if Christ had not dyed, we had perished everlastingly; and because he dyed, we are saved from eternal Death and misery.

And though this be no where in Scripture spoken of by the name or term of Satisfaction, yet it is said to be the price of our Redemption; which surely is the same thing in effect with Satisfaction. For as we are Sinners we are liable, and, as I may say, indebted to the Justice of God: And the Son of God, by his Death and Sufferings in our Nature,

hath discharged this obligation and paid this debt for us: Which dis∣charge since it was obtained for us by the shedding of Christ's blood, and the Scripture tells us that without shedding of blood there is no remission of Sins: And since God is graciously pleased to accept of it for the Debt which we owed to his Justice, and to declare himself fully pleased and contented with it, why it may not properly enough be called payment or satisfaction I confess I am not able to understand. Men may eternally wrangle about any thing, but what a frivolous contention, what a tri∣fling in serious matters, what barre∣trie in Divinity is this?

Not that God was angry with his Son, when he thus laid on him the ini∣quities of us all: No he was always well pleased with him; and never better, than when he became obedient to the Death, even the Death of the Cross,

and bore our Sins in his own body on the Tree.

Nor yet that our Saviour suffered the very same that the Sinner should have suffered, namely▪ the proper Pains and Torment of the Dam∣ned: But that his Obedience and Sufferings were of that value and esteem with God, and his volunta∣ry Sacrifice of himself so well-plea∣sing to him, that he thereupon en∣tred into a Covenant of Grace and Mercy with Mankind, wherein he hath engaged himself to forgive the Sins of those who believe and re∣pent, and to make them partakers of eternal life. And hence the Blood of Christ which was shed for us upon the Cross is called the Blood of the Co∣venant, as being the Sanction of that New Covenant, into which God is en∣tred with Mankind: and not only the Sanction and confir mation of that Covenant, but the very Foundation of

it: For which reason the Cup in the Lord's Supper is called the New Testa∣ment, or, as the word should rather be rendred, the New Covenant in his Blood, which was shed for many for the remission of Sins. I proceed now to the

[ II] II^d. Thing propounded, which was to shew that the Expiation of our Sins was made by the Sufferings of Christ, from the nature and inten∣tion of Expiatory Sacrifices, both a∣mong the Jews and Heathen; to which the Death of Christ is in the New Testament so frequently compa∣red, and in point of vertue and effi∣cacy to take away Sin infinitely pre∣ferr'd to it.

Now the nature and design of Ex∣piatory Sacrifices was plainly this: To substitute one Living Creature to suffer and die instead of another; so that what the Sinner deserved to

have suffered was supposed to be done to the Sacrifice, that is, it was slain to make an atonement for the Sinner.

And though there was no reason to hope for any such effect from the Blood of Bulls, or Goats, or of any other Living Creatures that were wont to be offered up in Sacrifice; yet that both Jews and Heathen did expect and hope for it, is so very evident, that it cannot without ex∣treme Ignorance or Obstinacy be deny'd.

But this expectation, how unrea∣sonable soever, plainly shews it to have been the common Apprehen∣sion of Mankind, in all Ages, that God would not be appeased, nor should Sin be pardoned without Suf∣fering: But yet so that men gene∣rally conceived good hopes that upon the Repentance of Sinners God would accept of a vicarious punish∣ment,

that is, of the Suffering of some other in their stead. And ve∣ry probably, as I said before, in compliance with this Apprehension of Mankind, and in condescention to it, as well as for other weighty Reasons best known to the Divine Wisdom, God was pleased to find out such a Sacrifice as should really and effectually procure for them that great Blessing of the Forgive∣ness of Sins, which they had so long hoped for from the multitude of their own Sacrifices.

And the Apostle to the Hebrews doth in a large Discourse shew the great vertue and efficacy of the Sacrifice of Christ, to the purpose of Remission of Sins, above that of the Sacrifices under the Law: And that the Death of Christ is really and effectually to our advantage all that which the Sa∣crifices under the Law were suppo∣sed to be to the Sinner: But now once,

saith the Apostle here in the Text, in the end of the World, hath he appeared to take away Sin by the Sacrifice of himself. This is the great vertue and efficacy of the Sacrifice of Christ, that what ever was expected from any other Sacrifices, either by Jews or Heathens, was really effected by this.

This was plainly signified by the Jewish Passover, wherein the Lamb was slain, and the Sinner did escape and was pass'd by. In allusion where∣to St. Paul makes no scruple to call Christ our Passover or Paschal Lamb, who was slain that we might escape: Christ our Passover, says he, is slain or * 1.14offer'd for us; that is, He by the gra∣cious appointment of God was sub∣stituted to suffer all that in our stead which the Paschal Lamb was sup∣posed to suffer for the Sinner.

And this was likewise signified by the Sinners laying his hand upon the Sacrifice that was to be slain,

thereby as it were transferring the punishment which was due to him∣self upon the Sacrifice that was to be slain and offered up. For so God tells Moses, that the Sinner, who came to offer an Expiatory Sacrifice, * 1.15should do: He shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering, and it shall be accepted for him, to make an Atone∣ment for him. And the Apostle tells us, that it was an established Princi∣ple in the Jewish Religion, that with∣out shedding of blood there was no Remis∣sion of Sins: Which plainly shews that they expected this Benefit of the Remission of Sins, from the Blood of their Sacrifices.

And then he tells us, that we are really made partakers of this Benefit by the Blood of Christ, and by the * 1.16vertue of his Sacrifice: And again, Christ, says he, was once offered to bear the Sins of many; plainly alluding to the Sacrifices under the Law, which

did, as it were, bear the faults of the Sinner.

And that this expression, of Christ's being offered to bear our Sins, cannot be meant of his taking away our Sins by his holy Doctrine which was confirmed by his Death, but of his bearing our Sins by way of imputation, and by his suffering for them in our stead, as the Sacrifice was supposed to do for the Sinner; This, I say, is evident beyond all denial from the opposition which follows, after the Text, between his first Appear∣ance and his second; Christ, says our Apostle, was once offered to bear our Sins, * 1.17but unto them that look for him he shall appear a second time without Sin unto Sal∣vation. Why? Did he not appear the first time without Sin? Yes cer∣tainly, as to any inherent guilt; for the Scripture tells us he had no Sin. What then is the meaning of the opposition, That at his first Coming

he bore our Sins, but at his second Com∣ing he shall appear without Sin unto Salva∣tion? These words can have no other imaginable sense but this, that at his first Coming he sustain'd the Per∣son of a Sinner and suffered instead of us; but his second Coming shall be upon another account, and he shall appear without Sin unto Salvation, that is, not as a Sacrifice, but as a Judge to confer the Reward of Eternal Life upon those who are partakers of the bene∣fit of that Sacrifice which he offered to God for us in the days of his Flesh. I proceed to the

[ III] III^d. Thing I proposed, and which yet remains to be spoken to; name∣ly, to vindicate this Method and Dispensation of the Divine Wisdom from the Objections which are brought against it; and to shew that there is nothing in it that is unrea∣sonable,

or any wise unworthy of God. I shall mention four Objecti∣ons which are commonly urged in this matter, and I think they are all that are considerable.

Obj. 1st. First, That this Method, of the Expi∣ation of Sin by the Sufferings of Christ, seems to argue some defect and want of Goodness in God, as if he needed some external Motive and were not of himself disposed to forgive Sin∣ners.

To which I think the Answer is not difficult, namely, that God did not want Goodness to have forgiven Sin freely and without any Satisfaction, but his Wisdom did not think it meet to give encouragement to Sin by too easy a forgiveness, and with∣out some remarkable testimony of his severe displeasure against it: And therefore his greater Goodness and Compassion to Mankind devised this way to save the Sinner, without

giving the least countenance and encouragement to Sin.

For God to think of saving us any way, was excessive Goodness and Mercy; but to think of doing it in this way, by substituting his dearly beloved Son to suffer in our stead, is a Condescention so very amazing, that if God had not been pleased of his own Goodness to stoop to it, it had almost been Blas∣phemy in Man to have thought of it, or desired it.

Obj. 2d. Secondly, How can our Sins be said to have been forgiven freely, if the Pardon of them was purchased at so dear a rate and so mighty a Price was paid for it?

In Answer to this I desire these two things may be considered. 1st. That it is a wonderful grace and favour of God to admit of this translation of the Punishment which was due to us, and to accept of the

Sufferings of another in our stead, and for our benefit; when he might justly have exacted it of us in our own Persons: So that, even in this respect, we are, as St. Paul says, justified freely by his grace, through the Redemption that is in Jesus Christ: And freely too in respect of any ne∣cessity that lay upon God to forgive us in this or any other way. It was a free act of his Goodness to save us, even by the Satisfaction and Suffer∣ings of his own Son. 2ly. It was in effect freely too, notwithstanding the mighty Price which was paid for our Redemption. Because this Price was not of our own procuring, but of God's providing; He found out this Ransome for us. And will any man say, that a Prince who pre∣vails with his Son to intercede for the Pardon of a Rebel, yea and to suffer some punishment or to pay a Fine for the obtaining of it, does

not in effect and in all equitable and grateful construction forgive him freely?

Obj. 3d. Thirdly, It is yet further objected, That this seems to be more unrea∣sonable than the sacrificing of Beasts among the Jews, nay than the sa∣crificing of Men among the Heathen, and even of their own Sons and Daugh∣ters: Because this is the offering up of the Son of God, the most inno∣cent and the most excellent Person that ever was.

To which I answer, that if we con∣sider the manner, and the design of it, the thing will appear to be quite otherwise.

As to the manner of it, God did not command his Son to be sacrificed, but his Providence permitted the wickedness and violence of men to put him to death: And then his Goodness and Wisdom did over-rule this worst of Actions to

the best of Ends. And if we consi∣der the matter aright, how is this any more a reflection upon the Holy Providence of God, than any Enor∣mities and Cuelties which by his permission are daily committed in the World?

And then if we consider the End and Design of this permission of Christ's Death, and the application of it to the purpose of a general Expia∣tion; we cannot but acknowledge, and even adore the gracious and mer∣cifull Design of it. For by this means God did at once put an end to that unreasonable and bloody way of Worship, which had been so long practiced in the World: And after this one Sacrifice, which was so infi∣nitely dear to God, the benefit of Expiation was not to be expected in any other way; all other Sacrifices being worthless and vain in compa∣rison of this: And it hath ever since

obtained this effect, of making all other Sacrifices to cease, in all Parts of the World where Christianity hath prevailed.

Obj. 4th. Fourthly, The last Objection is, the Injustice and Cruelty of an inno∣cent Person's suffering instead of the Offender.

To this I answer, That they who make so great a noise with this Obje∣ction do seem to me to give a full and clear Answer to it themselves, by ac∣knowledging, as they constantly and expresly do, that our Saviour suffered all this for our benefit and advantage, though not in our place and stead. For this, to my apprehension, is plainly to give up the Cause, unless they can shew a good reason why there is not as much Injustice and Cruelty in an innocent Person's suffering for the benefit and advan∣tage of a Malefactor, as in his suffer∣ing in his stead: So little do Men,

in the heat of dispute and opposi∣tion, who are resolved to hold fast an Opinion in despite of Reason and good sense, consider, that they do many times in effect, and by neces∣sary consequence, grant the very thing which in express terms they do so stifly and pertinaciously deny.

The truth of the matter is this; there is nothing of Injustice or Cru∣elty in either Case; neither in an In∣nocent Person's suffering for the bene∣fit of an Offender, nor in his stead; supposing the Suffering to be volun∣tary: But they have equally the same appearance of Injustice and Cruelty: Nor can I possibly discern any reason why Injustice and Cruel∣ty should be objected in the one Case more than in the other, there being every whit as little reason why an Innocent Person should suffer for the benefit of a Criminal, as why he should suffer in his stead. So that I

hope this Objection, which above all the rest hath been so loudly and so invidiously urged, hath received a just Answer.

And I believe, if the matter were searched to the bottom, all this per∣verse contention, about our Saviour's suffering for our benefit but not in our stead, will signify just nothing. For if Christ dyed for our benefit so as some way or other, by vertue of his Death and Sufferings, to save us from the wrath of God and to pro∣cure our escape from eternal Death, this, for ought I know, is all that any body means by his dying in our stead. For he that dies with an in∣tention to do that benefit to another as to save him from Death, doth cer∣tainly to all intents and purposes dye in his placea nd stead.

And if they will grant this to be their meaning, the Controversie is at an end; and both sides are agreed in

they will give up that which by their own confession is an undoubted Article of the Christian Faith and not contro∣verted on either Side; except on∣ly by the Socinians, who yet are hear∣ty Enemies to Transubstantiation, and have exposed the absurdity of it with great advantage.

But I shall endeavour to return a more particular Answer to this Ob∣jection; and such a one as I hope will satisfy every considerate and un∣prejudiced mind, that after all this confidence and swaggering of theirs there is by no means equal reason either for the receiving or for the re∣jecting of these two Doctrines of the Trinity and Transubstantiation.

First, There is not equal reason for the belief of these Two Doctrines. This Objection, if it be of any force, must suppose that there is equal evi∣dence and proof from Scripture for these two Doctrines: But this we ut∣terly

deny, and with great reason; because it is no more evident from the words of Scripture that the Sacra∣mental Bread is substantially changed into Christ's natural Body by virtue of those words, This is my Body, than * 1.18it is that Christ is substantially changed into a natural Vine by virtue of those words, I am the true Vine; or than that the Rock in the Wilder∣ness, of which the Israelites drank, was substantially changed into the Person of Christ, because it is ex∣presly said, That Rock was Christ; or than that the Christian Church is sub∣stantially changed into the natural Body of Christ, because it is in express terms said of the Church, That it is his * 1.19Body.

But besides this, several of their own most learned Writers have freely acknowledged, that Transubstantiati∣on can neither be directly proved, nor necessarily concluded from Scri∣pture:

But this the Writers of the Christian Church did never acknow∣ledge concerning the Trinity, and the Divinity of Christ; but have al∣ways appealed to the clear and un∣deniable Testimonies of Scripture for the Proof of these Doctrines. And then the whole force of the Objection a∣mounts to this, that if I am bound to believe what I am sure God says, tho I cannot comprehend it; then I am bound by the same reason to believe the greatest Absurdity in the World, though I have no manner of assu∣rance of any Divine Revelation con∣cerning it. And if this be their meaning, though we understand not Transubstantiation, yet we very well understand what they would have, but cannot grant it; because there is not equal reason to believe two things, for one of which there is good proof, and for the other no proof at all.

Secondly, neither is there equal reason for the rejecting of these two Doctrines. This the Objection sup∣poses, which yet cannot be suppo∣sed but upon one or both of these two grounds: Either because these two Doctrines are equally incompre∣hensible, or because they are equally loaded with Absurdities and Contra∣dictions.

The First is no good ground of rejecting any Doctrine, merely be∣cause it is incomprehensible; as I have abundantly shew'd already. But be∣sides this, there is a wide difference between plain matters of Sense, and Mysteries concerning God; and it does by no means follow that, if a man do once admit any thing con∣cerning God which he cannot com∣prehend, he hath no reason after∣wards to believe what he himself sees. This is a most unreasonable and destructive way of arguing, be∣cause

it strikes at the foundation of all Certainty, and sets every man at liberty to deny the most plain and evident Truths of Christianity, if he may not be humor'd in having the absurdest things in the World ad∣mitted for true. The next step will be to persuade us that we may as well deny the Being of God because his Nature is incomprehensible by our Reason, as deny Transubstantiation because it evidently contradicts our Senses.

2dly. Nor are these two Doctrines loaded with the like Absurdities and Contradictions: So far from this, that the Doctrine of the Trinity, as it is delivered in the Scriptures, and hath already been explained, hath no Absurdity or Contradiction ei∣ther involved in it, or necessarily consequent upon it: But the Do∣ctrine of Transubstantiation is big with all imaginable Absurdity and

Contradiction. And their own Schoolmen have sufficiently exposed it; especially Scotus, and he design∣ed to do so, as any man that atten∣tively reads him may plainly disco∣ver: For in his Disputation about it he treats this Doctrine with the great∣est contempt, as a new Invention of the Council of Lateran under Pope Innocent III. To the Decree of which Council concerning it he seems to pay a formal submission, but really de∣rides it as contrary to the common Sense and Reason of Mankind, and not at all supported by Scripture; as any one may easily discern that will carefully consider his manner of handling it and the result of his whole Disputation about it.

And now Suppose there were some appearance of Absurdity and Contradiction in the Doctrine of the Trinity as it is delivered in Scripture, must we therefore believe a Do∣ctrine

which is not at all revealed in Scripture, and which hath cer∣tainly in it all the absurdities in the World, and all the Contradictions to Sense and Reason; and which once admitted, doth at once de∣stroy all Certainty, Yes, say they, why not? since we of the Church of Rome are satisfied that this Doctrine is revealed in Scripture; or, if it be not, is defined by the Church, which is every whit as good. But is this equal, to demand of us the belief of a thing which hath always been controverted, not on∣ly between us and them, but even among themselves, at least till the Council of Trent? And this upon such unreasonable terms, that we must either yield this Point to them or else renounce a Doctrine agreed on both Sides to be revealed in Scripture.

To shew the unreasonableness of this proceeding, Let us suppose a Priest of the Church of Rome pres∣sing a Jew or Turk to the belief of Transubstantiation, and because one kindness deserves another, the Jew or Turk should demand of him the belief of all the Fables in the Talmud, or in the Alchoran; since none of these, nor indeed all of them toge∣ther, are near so absurd as Transub∣stantiation: Would not this be much more reasonable and equal than what they demand of us? Since no Absurdity, how monstrous and big soever, can be thought of, which may not enter into an Un∣derstanding in which a Breach hath been already made wide enough to admit Transubstantiation. The Priests of Baal did not half so much de∣serve to be exposed by the Prophet for their Superstition and folly, as the Priests of the Church of Rome do

for this sensless and stupid Doctrine of theirs with a hard Name. I shall only add this one thing more, That if this Doctrine were possible to be true, and clearly prov'd to be so; yet it would be evidently useless and to no purpose. For it pretends to change the substance of one thing into the substance of another thing that is already and before this change is pretended to be made. But to what purpose? Not to make the Body of Christ, for that was al∣ready in Being; and the Substance of the Bread is lost, nothing of it remaineth but the Accidents which are good for nothing, and indeed are nothing when the Substance is destroy'd and gone.

All that now remains is to make some practical Inferences from this Doctrine of the Unity of the Divine Nature. And they shall be the same

which God himself makes by Moses, * 1.20which Text also is cited by our Sa∣viour, Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: And thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self. So that according to our Saviour the whole Duty of Man, the love of God and of our neighbour is founded in the Unity of the Divine Nature.

I. The love of God; The Lord thy God is One Lord, therefore thou shalt love Him with all thy heart, &c. this is the first and great Commandment: And it comprehends in it all the Duties of the first Table as naturally flowing from it. As that we should serve him only, and pay no Religious Worship to any but to Him. For to pay Re∣ligious Worship to any thing is to make it a God and to acknowledge it for

such: And therefore God being but One we can give Religious Worship to none but to Him only. And among all the parts of Religious Worship none is more peculiarly appropriated to the Deity than solemn Invocation and Prayer. For he to whom men ad∣dress their Requests, at all times, and in all places, must be supposed to be always every where present, to understand all our desires and wants, and to be able to supply them; and this God only is, and can do.

So likewise from the Unity of the Divine Nature may be inferr'd, that we should not worship God by any sensible Image or Representation: Because God being a singular Being there is nothing like Him, or that can without injuring and debasing his most spiritual and perfect and im∣mense Being be compared to Him: As He himself speaks in the Pro∣phet,

* 1.21 To whom will ye liken me, saith the Lord, and make me equal? And there∣fore with no Distinction whatsoever can it be lawful to give Religious Worship, or any part of it, to any but God: We can pray to none but to Him, because He only is every * 1.22where present, and only knows the Hearts of all the children of men; which Solomon gives as the reason why we should address our Suppli∣cations to God only, who dwelleth in the Heavens.

So that the Reason of these two Precepts is founded in the Unity and Singularity of the Divine Nature, and unless there be more Gods than One, we must worship Him only, and pray to none but Him: Because we can give Invocation to none but to Him only whom we believe to be God; as * 1.23St. Paul reasons, How shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed?

II. The love likewise of our Neighbour is founded in the Unity of the Divine Nature, and may be in∣ferr'd from it: Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is One Lord, therefore thou shalt love thy Neighbour as thy self. And the Apostle gives this reason why Christians should be at unity among themselves; There is One God and Fa∣ther * 1.24of all, and therefore we should keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace, that is, live in mutual love and peace. The Prophet likewise as∣signs this reason why all Mankind should be upon good terms with one another, and not be injurious one to another, Have we not all One Father? * 1.25hath not One God created us? Why do we then deal treacherously every man a∣gainst his brother.

And therefore when we see such hatred and enmity among Men, such divisions and animosities among Christians, we may not only ask

St. Paul's question, Is Christ divided? that we cannot agree about serving him; either all to serve him in one way, or to bear with one another in our differences: I say we may not only ask St. Paul's question, Is Christ divided? but may ask further, Is God divided? Is there not One God, and are we not all his Offspring? Are we not all the Sons of Adam, who was the Son of God? So that if we trace our selves to our Original, we shall find a great nearness and equality among men: And this equality that we are all God's crea∣tures and Image, and that the One only God is the Father of us all, is a more real ground of mutual love, and peace, and equity in our dealings one with a∣nother, than any of those petty diffe∣rences and distinctions of strong and weak, of rich and poor, of wise and fool∣ish, of base and honourable, can be to en∣courage men to any thing of insolence,

injustice, and inequality of dealing one towards another. Because that where∣in we all agree, that we are the Crea∣tures and Children of God and have all One common Father, is essential and constant; but those things wherein we differ are accidental and muta∣ble, and happen to one another by turns.

Thus much may suffice to have spoken concerning the first Propositi∣on in the Text, There is one God: To Him, Father, Son, and H. Ghost be all Honour and Glory, Dominion and Power, now and for ever.

Amen.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  John 3. 16.
• * 1.2

  Heb. 4. 15.
• * 1.3

  Joh. 8. 29.
• * 1.4

  1 Pet. 2. 22.
• * 1.5

  Heb. 7. 26, 27.
• * 1.6

  Heb. 9. 14.
• * 1.7

  1 Pet. 1. 18, 19.
• * 1.8

  2 Cor. 5. 21.
• * 1.9

  Eph. 5. 10.
• * 1.10

  1 Pet. 1. 18.
• * 1.11

  Joh. 15. 12.
• * 1.12

  V. 13.
• * 1.13

  Rom. 6. 6, 7, 8.
• * 1.14

  1 Cor. 5. 7.
• * 1.15

  Lev. 1. 4.
• * 1.16

  Heb. 9. 28.
• * 1.17

  v. 28.
• * 1.18

  Joh. 15. 1.
• * 1.19

  Eph. 1. 23.
• * 1.20

  Deut. 6. 4. Mark. 12. 29. 30, 31.
• * 1.21

  Isa. 46. 5.
• * 1.22

  1 Kings 8. 39.
• * 1.23

  Rom. 10. 14.
• * 1.24

  Eph. 4. 6.
• * 1.25

  Mal. 2. 10.