The Following Sermon can be purchased from the following Link on CD.

 

THE SERMONS OF JOHN BRINE

 The True Sense of Atonement for Sin, By Christ’s Death, Stated and Defended; In Answer to a Pamphlet intitled 'The Scripture Doctrine of Atonement Examined' by Mr. Taylor of Norwich

 by John Brine

(London: John Ward, 1752)

 SERMON 17

THE TRUE SENSE OF ATONEMENT FOR SIN, BY

CHRIST’S DEATH,

 

STATED AND DEFENDED; IN ANSWER TO A PAMPHLET, INTITLED, 'THE SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT EXAMINED' BY MR. TAYLOR, OF NORWICH

WITH An APPENDIX, CONTAINING

An ANSWER to the OBJECTIONS of an anonymous Author to the Doctrine of SATISFACTION, in a Pamphlet, intitled, Second Thoughts concerning the Sufferings and Death of CHRIST, etc.

Printed by DAN. NOTTAGE, for JOHN WARD, at the King’s Arms, in Cornhill, against the Royal-Exchange: And Sold by GEORGE KEITH, at Mercers’ Chapel, Cheapside; and by JOHN EYNON, at a Print-Shop, on the North Side of the Royal-Exchange. London

1752

 THE PREFACE

 As some Remarks on Mr. Taylor’s Piece have been published very lately, the Reader may reasonably expect an Account from me why I now appear, wherein I am willing to gratify him. The Author of those Remarks, is not fond of the Use of the Word Imputation, on the Subject of Christ’s Obedience and Sufferings; though he thinks it may be safely applied to both, as Dr. Doddridge hath explained it, i.e. explained it away. f1 He consents to the Truth of false Representation of our Opinion by Mr. Taylor, viz. that we think the Death of Christ made God merciful; and wishes, that what he has said, to correct that Mistake, may not be without Effect. f2 I am not sensible, that any Person ever imagined this. Mr. Hampton grants, that the Sufferings of Christ were not penal, and that there is not a natural Connection between his Death and Remission of Sin; but that his Death is a Ground of our Redemption from Death, through the Will and Appointment of God; f3 as any insignificant Action might have been. This is plainly giving up the Doctrine of proper Satisfaction for sin, or of real Atonement for it. I have some other Reasons for my Dissatisfaction, with Mr. Hampton’s Remarks; but I shall not trouble the Reader with them. I suppose, enough is mentioned to convince, that, if our Opinion on this important Point is to be defended, no Occasion was administered by these Remarks, to stifle what I had prepared in answer, to Mr. Taylor. I chearfully refer my Thoughts on this glorious Subject to the Approbation, or Censure of such Persons as have a proper Conviction of the evil Nature and just Demerit of Sin, a true Sense of the Holiness of God, and his righteous Displeasure with moral Evil; who are willing to be determined by the Holy Scriptures, without wresting them, in their Sentiments concerning this Doctrine, of which we can know, nothing at all, but by Revelation.

 CHAPTER 1 ¾ SOME THINGS PREMISED,

RELATING TO THE SUBJECT

 I FREELY grant, that the Doctrine of Atonement, or Satisfaction for Sin, by the Death of Christ, is not to be explained, by any Judicial Procedures among Men. If it might be illustrated and confirmed by Rules, which do, or can lawfully obtain in human Conduct, towards the Innocent in a Way of Penalty, and towards the Innocent in Consequence thereof: That Doctrine could not reasonably be represented, as a Mystery, which it is by the Sacred Writers. It is called the Wisdom of God in a Mystery, the hidden Wisdom: And the deep Things of God. I will allow, that human Governments have no Power, or Right, to charge an innocent Person with the Crimes of any Offender, and inflict Punishment on him in his Stead. And that no Man hath Power over himself, either in his Members or his  Life, lawfully to consent to suffer Mutilation, or Death, or any kind of corporal Punishment, in the Room of a guilty Person. The Reason of both is very clear to me; Rulers as well as Subjects are under a Law, which is superior to any they have Power to enact, and by which their Constitutions ought, in all Instances, to be directed; viz. natural Justice, according to which, Innocency ever is to be protected, and Guilt alone punished. And, as a Power to punish results from Guilt only, the infliction of Penalty is, in Equity, limited to its own proper Subject, and never ought to be extended farther, it is as just to punish without the Being of Guilt at all, as it is to punish, in any Degree, a Person wholly clear of that Guilt, for which the Law directs unto the Infliction of Penalty. Nor is Guilt transferable from one Man to another, as pecuniary Debts are. This is not pretended.

 II. As various of the Terms, which are sometimes used on the Subject of the Atonement of Christ, are borrowed from the Civil Law; it may not be improper to enquire into the Sense of them.

1. Novation: That designs taking away a former Obligation, by a new Stipulation or Agreement, wherein the Consent of the Creditor is required and given. This hath Place in the Affair of Christ’s Death. For, according to the Law, we, the Transgressors, were bound over to Punishment for our Crimes; but God, of his infinite Mercy, freed us from that Obligation, by admitting Christ to be our Surety: Or, in virtue of his Stipulation, we are let free, and he became responsible unto God for us. This was an Act of Sovereignty in God.

 2. Satisfaction: This is a Term, that is also borrowed from the Civil Law, and it intends a Creditor’s accepting what is offered and paid to him, by, or in Behalf of a Debtor, though it is not what he might, according to the Obligation, have demanded. Satisfaction, therefore, does not necessarily imply a full Payment, for that may be, where the latter is not. When we use the Word on this Subject, we mean, that no Demand will, or can be made upon us, because God agreed to accept of the Payment of our Debt by Jesus Christ, and he hath discharged it, or made good his Engagement in our Behalf. The Death of Christ is to be considered, as the procatarctic Cause; and Satisfaction, as the Effect.

 3. Acceptilation: That imports a Creditor’s agreeing to accept another Thing, or less than what is in the Obligation, whereby the Debtor is no less freed from the Obligation he was under, than if the Idem, or same, was paid, that the Obligation expresses. This is, indeed, understood of Obligation by Words among Civilians, and is not properly applicable to this Affair. But some do at least allude unto it: Yet they allow not that Force unto Acceptilation in this Matter, which, according to the Opinion of Civilians, it contains in it, viz. The Removal of the Obligation. If it should not so do, in this Business, Christ would be injured; for it is not just to require an innocent Person to die in the Room of the Guilty, and suffer the Obligation to remain on him.

 4. Solution: This is the Payment of what is in the Obligation, from whence Satisfaction, by Right, follows. Satisfaction, as has been observed, may be, where Solution is not, because the Creditor may be content with receiving less than he had a Right to require: But Satisfaction must needs be, where there is Solution, because, in Right, the Creditor can make no farther Demand. And this is the Case, in this Affair. For Christ paid the Idem, or the same that was in our Obligation. We stood obliged to suffer the Curse of the Law, and that includes the whole Penalty our Sins demerit; no farther Punishment is due to Sin, than what is contained in the Law’s Curse: And, therefore, the Death of Christ was a proper and full Payment of our Debt; consequently, it must be satisfactory to God, our righteous Judge. God might have insisted upon Payment from us, and not have accepted of the Engagement of another for us; but since, by Novation, he dissolved our Obligation, or admitted of a Surety, his Payment of what was required in the Obligation upon the Ground of Justice, gives us a Right to Impunity. And, therefore, when it is said that the Satisfaction of Christ was refusable, we must be careful, that we understand it in a right Sense.

 (1.) If by it is meant, that God was at Liberty to admit, or not admit of his Sponsion, or Engagement for us, it is true. For he might justly have retained us under the Obligation, and not have allowed of the Payment of our Debt by a Surety. The Acceptation of his Undertaking for us was an Act of sovereign Favour, and, therefore, it is, that we are said to be freely forgiven, although our Surety discharged our whole Debt. But,

 (2.) If by it is intended, that what Christ suffered for us was refusable, or might not have been accepted, or allowed to be the Solution of our Debt, it is most false; because he suffered that Curse which the Law threatened, and he was, in his Person, such as gave that Worth unto his Death, which the Justice of God required, unto Sufferings satisfactory for Guilt. The Appointment of Christ to suffer, in our Stead, was an amazing Act of sovereign Mercy, Kindness, and Grace; but the Acceptation of his Sufferings, for our Discharge, was an Act of Justice, because they were, both in Kind and Value, what that required, in Case of a Violation of the Law.

 And, therefore, it is a Mistake to think, that, God having required his Son to die for us, he may, that notwithstanding, only grant unto us Terms, or Conditions of Pardon, and, for Want of our Performance of those Conditions, impute our Guilt to us, and inflict upon us the Penalty our Sins deserve. It is Matter of Favour to be content with the Payment of less than is due; but of Right to be satisfied with the Payment of the Whole, which can in Justice be demanded, whether it be by the Principal or Surety. The Agreement between God and Christ, as our Surety, did not render his Sufferings available to procure the Pardon of Sin; if so, then, their Value is not intrinsic; but is extrinsical only, or it is of arbitrary Appointment. His Death was the Result of the sovereign Decree of God, and of his own free and voluntary Engagement to submit to the sovereign Pleasure of the Father. But the Merit, Virtue, and Efficacy of his Sacrifice to take away Sin, or attone for our Guilt, spring not from any Agreement between God, our righteous Judge, and Christ, our Surety. The Merit of it arises wholly from the Nature of his Sufferings, as they were properly penal, and the infinite Dignity of his Person. As the infinite Demerit of Sin is not the Effect of the Divine Will, but results from the infinite Greatness of God, against whom it is committed: So the Value of Christ’s Sufferings is not of Divine Constitution and Appointment; but it is the proper and necessary Result of the infinite Dignity of the Person of the Sufferer. Hence it follows, that the Compact between God and Christ did not give Merit to his Death and Sacrifice, nor constitute how far, and unto what Ends, it should be accepted, on our Account: But merely his Act of offering himself a Sacrifice for our Sins. Sovereign Love to our Persons determined upon his becoming a Sacrifice for us, and Justice grants those Effects, which that Sacrifice, because of its intrinsic Worth without an arbitrary Appointment, merits at the Hand of God, our Lawgiver and Judge.

 III. It is a Consideration of great Importance, that God acted in this Business, merely in a sovereign Manner, both towards us, and towards our Saviour.

 1. Towards us. His Resolution to pardon and save us was an Act of his Goodness; but it was his Goodness acting in an arbitrary Way: For it is not Goodness merely that ordains the Salvation of a criminal Creature; if it was, it would be contrary to Divine Goodness to inflict Punishment on Sinners, which certainly it is not, and, therefore, this was a free Act of God’s Will: Or a Purpose of Grace, which is wholly to be attributed to his absolute Pleasure. It was not a natural Act of his Goodness, as his rewarding Innocence is; but a free and sovereign Act of Clemency and Favour.

 2. Towards Christ. The Divine Decree to punish Sin was an Act of Justice; but the Decree of punishing it in him was an Act of Sovereignty. The Justice of this Decree is apparent, in that Respect was had unto Sin, as the meritorious Cause of Penalty: And the Sovereignty of that Divine Purpose clearly shines, in fixing upon Christ to be the Subject of the Punishment Sin demerits. It was not a free Act of the Divine Will to decree to punish Sin; if it was, God might have decreed to permit the Creature eternally to sin against him, without suffering any Punishment for his Rebellion. But it was a free and sovereign Act of his Will to decree, that Christ should bear Sin, and suffer the Penalty due unto it. Justice directs to the Punishment of Sin, as what is fit and proper. Sovereignty appointed and provided the innocent subject, on whom Penalty was inflicted, in order to our Pardon and Impunity. So that Sovereignty is that, from which our Salvation originally springs, into which it must be entirely resolved, and whereupon it absolutely rests. And, if we deprive God of his Sovereignty, we must inevitably damn ourselves. For that alone could provide for our Recovery and Salvation. Hence,

 (1.) We see the Reason why no finite Mind could ever have thought of this Method of saving Sinners. All Acts of Goodness and Justice which proceed not naturally from those Attributes in God, but are free and sovereign Acts of his Will, must be undiscoverable by Reason; because it hath no Rule to guide it into the Knowledge of such Acts as spring from Sovereignty alone. And, therefore, it is proper to infinite Wisdom to contrive the Way of our Salvation. And such a Mystery this is, as will eternally fill the Minds of Angels and Saints, with holy Adoration.

 (2.) This will enable us to discern, why our Lord put his Sufferings wholly upon the Will of God, and why his Sacrifice was so pleasing unto him. He put his Sufferings wholly upon the Will of God; because, tho’ it was natural to God to will to punish Sin, it was a free Act of his Will to impute Sin to him, and punish him for it. The Sacrifice of Christ was infinitely pleasing unto God; because his Will was therein subjected to the Will of God, in such Sort, as the Will of no Angel or Saint is, or ever will be. This was such an Act of Obedience, as never was, nor ever will be required of any Creature. And herein God was more honoured by our blessed Lord, in all his glorious Perfections, than he will be, by the Sufferings of the Damned, or the Obedience of Angels and Saints unto Eternity. This, among other Considerations, is the Reason why the Sacrifice Christ offered, was of a sweet-smelling Savour unto God; not merely as Sufferings, but as submitted unto, with his whole Soul, out of a Regard unto his Glory, as a gracious, holy, and just God.

 (3.) Hence we also discern, that there was an intrinsic Worth and Efficacy in the Sacrifice of Christ. According to Mr. Taylor, what Virtue it had, or which he is pleased to allow unto it, (that I intend to consider, with the Assistance of the Grace of him, whose this Sacrifice is) arose from the Will and Appointment of God. If so, then there was no intrinsic Virtue in it to answer any important End, either respecting God, to whom it was offered, or Men for whom it was offered. And, consequently, God is no more honoured in any of his Attributes, in the Salvation of Men, than if he had saved them, without requiring this Sacrifice; nor do any Advantages accrue to Men from it, that they might not as well have enjoyed without it. Which Supposition is such a Reflection on the Wisdom of God, who appointed Christ to suffer and die, as would certainly cause Men to blush who advance it, if they were not wholly given over to Blindness and Stupidity. As our Saviour, in his Sufferings, was, in such an unparalleled Manner, obedient to the Father’s Will, his Death hath Virtue and Efficacy in itself, independent of any Act of the Divine Will, to attain the great Ends whereunto it was designed. This Transaction was the Effect of the sovereign Will of God; but the Worth, Virtue, and Efficacy of his Death and Sacrifice are intrinsic, and not of arbitrary Appointment. If it was, God might have willed his Death, without decreeing it should answer any important End, either respecting himself, or Men; and he certainly did, for aught we know, Besides, was it possible for infinite Goodness, Holiness, and Wisdom, to will the Sufferings of the innocent Jesus to an End, which they, in their own Nature, had no Virtue or Efficacy at all to answer? but it is wholly of arbitrary Appointment, that such an End is answered by his Sufferings and Sacrifice.

 They are but swelling Words of Vanity which those Men use, concerning the Goodness of God, in this Affair, who deny the real Merit of the Sacrifice of Christ. If Divine Goodness is, as they say it is, exalted gloriously, in freely pardoning Sin, without Satisfaction for it, and the Death of Christ could not, nor was intended to satisfy for Sin, nor had any Virtue in itself; but, what Efficacy soever it hath, it is extrinsical, and of Divine Appointment only; then how is Goodness displayed in delivering him up to Suffering and Death for us? Towards Christ it was an Act of Severity, and to us no Instance of Goodness, which was at all necessary to our Pardon and Salvation. For the Death of Christ could not be necessary to our Remission, if it had no intrinsic Worth in it, meritorious of Forgiveness. There was no Goodness manifested to us Sinners, in the Gift of Christ for us, if his Death had no intrinsic Virtue in it: All the Kindness, which can be pretended in this Matter towards us, is God’s Decreeing, that his Death shall be a Condition, or Reason of our Pardon, without any Virtue in it to take away, or atone for our Guilt. And such a Virtue as this, God might have assigned unto the Death of any Martyr, or even of a Beast offered to him in Sacrifice, if that had been his Pleasure. For such Virtue is assignable to another Person or Thing, if it is assignable unto Christ.

 IV. The Government of the Jews was Theocratical, or a Theocracy: God took upon himself the Government of that People. And,

 1. He gave them a perfect Law, which required the Practice of all Holiness, and forbid every Sin. God, who is infinitely holy, cannot require less than perfect Purity, however depraved the Subjects of his Rule are. He can make no Allowance for their Weaknesses, Temptations, or Occasions to Evil.

 2. His Law threatened Sin with Death. The Soul that sins shall die. And this Threatening respected every Sin, and all Degrees of Sin. So that every Deviation from the Rule of Duty, and the Want of perfect Conformity to the Law, in the Manner of the Performance of it, subjected to that awful Menace. If, as their King, he had proceeded according to this Law, no Man among them could have enjoyed any Favour, or even Life; and therefore,

 3. God appointed the Offering of Sacrifices to make Atonement for Sin, in many Cases. Wherein we may observe,

 (1.) He did not charge or impute Guilt unto the Offerer of those Sacrifices, as the Governor of that People.

 (2.) Nor were they subject unto the Commination of Death, upon their Offering those Sacrifices. But,

 (3.) Were to be continued in Life, and in the Enjoyment of such Favours and Privileges, as were granted unto them by God, who took upon himself the Rule over them, as a Nation. The Law of Sacrifices was, therefore, political; but intended of God, if the divine Writer to the Hebrews mistakes not their Meaning, as Types of far greater Things than any they really contained, viz. the actual Removal of Guilt, Freedom from the Condemnation, and Curse of the Law, and Escaping Divine Vengeance.

 4. Some Sins were not to be atoned for by Sacrifices, in this political and typical Sense; but the guilty Persons must suffer corporal Death for those Crimes, viz. Murder, Adultery, Blasphemy, etc.

 5. Sacrifices were appointed for some atrocious Crimes, viz. Defiling a Servant-maid, Theft, and Perjury; and therefore it is not true, that they were instituted only for common Frailties, and Sins of Ignorance. (Leviticus 5:1, Leviticus 6:4, 5, Leviticus 19:20.)

 6. The anniversary Sacrifice was offered for Sins of all Sorts, as the Terms used concerning it do clearly and abundantly evince, Iniquities and Transgressions in all their Sins. Those Terms include all Sorts of Sins, which was intended to signify, that a spiritual Atonement was to be made even for such Offences, on Account of which, the guilty Person must suffer corporal Death, according unto that Law, which was the Instrument of the Jewish Polity. As to the temporal Life of that People, it was preserved or forfeited, as they were innocent or guilty of such Crimes, for which no Sacrifices were appointed of God: But that was not the Rule according to which God proceeded in the Business of Salvation. If it had been so, no Murderer, etc. could have been pardoned and saved.

 It was the Design of the Institution of Sacrifices for lesser Crimes, to teach that People, that the Remission of them, small, as they might be inclined to esteem them, could not be without Atonement made: And the Institution of the anniversary Sacrifice furnished them with a Ground of Hope of the Pardon of such Crimes, for which those, who were guilty of them, must suffer corporal Death. And this seems to be one Reason, why the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews particularly observes, that that anniversary Sacrifice could not take away Sin, in order to prove the Necessity of another. That being more comprehensive than the others, it was most apposite to his Purpose to instance in that, for that Reason; and for that Reason, chiefly, it was so, (Leviticus 16:16, 21.) Yet, it also seems to be instanced in, with a farther View, viz. to prove the Necessity of another Sacrifice to be offered for lesser Sins, than what the Levitical Law required. For, in this anniversary Sacrifice, there was a Remembrance even of such Sins, for which other Sacrifices had been before offered. And, therefore, tho’ the Offerer was not liable to Penalty, by the political Law, yet he could not plead his Pardon in a higher View, by Virtue of that Sacrifice which he offered before unto God; neither could he by Virtue of this anniversary one, for that must be repeated at the Return of the Year.

 7. That Law, Commandment, or Covenant which consisted of the Moral, Ceremonial, and Judicial Laws given unto that People, did not contain, promise, or convey real, spiritual Remission, Peace, and Reconciliation to Sinners. It was impossible, that those Blessings should be enjoyed by Virtue of that Constitution, wherein there was neither a Priest fit to make real spiritual Atonement for Sin, nor any Sacrifice offered, which could be of Efficacy unto so important an End. The Law made nothing perfect, neither Persons nor Things; neither those who officiated in Divine Service, nor them for whom they acted, in the Execution of the sacerdotal Office. Hence the inspired Writer speaks of the Whole of their Service in such depreciating Terms as he does, viz. carnal Ordinances, weak and beggarly Elements; the Rudiments of the World; a Shadow, and not the Image. The highest Excellency and Glory of all that Apparatus of Service was its typical Relation unto the glorious Things promised, exhibited, and conveyed in another, and infinitely better Covenant, which is abundantly proved in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

 8. The new Covenant promises, contains, and conveys those glorious Things themselves, which the Law was a typical Representation of, and no more: Nothing greater or nobler, can be attributed unto it. And those Things are real spiritual Remission, eternal Redemption, Reconciliation, Freedom of Access unto God, and the everlasting Enjoyment of him, by Virtue of the Blood of this Covenant. As it was not an Offer of political Pardon that was obtained by legal Sacrifices, but Pardon itself, in that Sense: So the Blood of Christ procured not an Offer of Remission, but Remission itself, taken in that Sense which is proper and peculiar unto the new Covenant, wherein his Sacrifice was appointed and provided. The Blood of Bulls and of Goats availed unto the Procurement of political Pardon of Sin, according to the old Covenant, and not unto an Offer of Forgiveness: And the precious Blood of our dear Lord Jesus obtained for us real Pardon in a spiritual Sense, and not an Offer of it, according to that better Covenant, which is established upon better Promises. These Things serve fully to discover the Fallacy and inconclusive Nature of the Reasoning of the Socinians, on the momentous Subject of the Satisfaction of Christ. What Force is there in those Arguments, which are drawn from the Levitical Sacrifices, to prove the Non-imputation of Sin to him? That he did not suffer the Penalty our Guilt demerits? And that real spiritual Remission results not from his Death? None at all. Since that whole Oeconomy only was a Shadow and obscure Representation of these Matters, it is not to be expected, that we can find the Things themselves therein. And, because they were only typical of those Things, therefore was it necessary, that there should be another Priest to act for us, in Things pertaining to God. Another Sacrifice was absolutely needful to be offered, in order to make proper, real, and spiritual Atonement for Sin. Real Spiritual Atonement was not, nor could be made by any, or all the Rites of the first Covenant; nor was it the Intention of that Covenant to supply the Federates with real spiritual Pardon. That Pardon was not spiritual, but typical only of such Remission; and that Atonement was homogeneous, or typical only. As the new Covenant dispenses real spiritual Pardon, so real spiritual Atonement is made by the Sacrifice, which that Covenant provides.

 

CHAPTER 2 ¾ OF CHRIST’S BEARING SIN

 

I. AS I intend, in this Chapter, to prove the Imputation of our Sins to Christ, I would first enquire into the Ground of the Charge of our Guilt to him, and of his Bearing it for us. If no Foundation can be shewn, whereon our Crimes might, in Justice, be placed to his Account, I readily acknowledge, that the Opinion of his bearing our Sin is indefensible, and it must necessarily sink, together with our Hope of Salvation by him. But, blessed be God, our Hopes of Remission, by Virtue of his Sacrifice, are built upon a most solid Basis. For, Christ and the Church constitute one mystical Person. He is the Head, and his People are the Members: Or such a Union subsists between him and them, as is a proper Foundation for the Act of the Imputation of their Sins to him. And he is their Surety. By so much was Jesus made the Surety a better Testament (Hebrews 7:22). A Surety is one who undertakes to pay, suffer, or do something for others, either because they are defective in Credit, or Ability. Thus Judah became Surety to his Father for his Brother Benjamin: I will be Surety for him; of my Hand shalt thou require him; if I bring him not unto thee, and set him before thee, then let me bear the Blame, (or I will be Sin, i.e. accounted guilty) for ever (Genesis 43:9). And the Apostle Paul undertook to satisfy Philemon both for Wrong and Debt, in Behalf of Onesimus: If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee aright, put that on mine Account, I will repay it (Philemon 1:18, 19). Judah’s Sponsion respected the Security of the Person of his Brother: The Apostle’s related unto the Satisfaction of Philemon, for Wrong and Debt. The Suretyship of Christ includes both: The Safety of the Persons of his People, and the Payment of their Debt, or making Satisfaction for that Wrong which they have done.

 The latter is here principally intended, which was Christ’s undertaking to accomplish the Will of the Father in our Redemption: Then said I, Lo, I come, in the Volume of the Book it is written of me: I delight to do thy Will, O my God: yea, thy Law is within my Heart (Psalm 40:7, 8). The Father’s Will, and his own voluntary Engagement, brought upon him an Obligation to suffer and die: Ought not Christ to have suffered these Things (Luke 24:26)? And, therefore, it is false, which one asserts, viz. that Christ was not under a moral Obligation to suffer for us. This Sponsion is the Ground of the Imputation of our Sins to him, and of the Infliction of Penalty upon him. Mr. T. objects several Things to evade the Evidence, which is given unto this important Truth, where Christ is expressly called a Surety. Says he, 1. This is the only Place where he is so called. He is no less truly a Surety, than if he had been so called in a thousand Places. One express Testimony from God is a sufficient Evidence of Truth. 2. Not our Surety. It is not difficult to determine whole Surety he is, and must be. He is the Surety of the defective Party in the Covenant, which is not God, but us. 3. A Surety is one who undertakes for the Performance of a Promise. 1. This is but an imperfect Account of a Surety. Judah was a Surety for his Brother unto his Father, but did not undertake for the Performance of any Promise of his. 2. It is blasphemous to imagine, that God had Need of a Surety, to secure the Performance of his Promises, or to assure us by his Sponsion of their Fulfilment. No Creature can be of equal Credit or Ability, with God. And such only Mr. T. thinks Christ is. 3. He confounds Mediation and Suretyship. f4 A Person may be a Mediator, and yet not be a Surety. Moses was the former, but not the latter. Christ is both Mediator and Surety.

Again, Christ is a Surety in the Discharge of his sacerdotal Office, as the Words evidently suppose. And, therefore, he offered himself a Sacrifice, as a Surety: Or that Act was a Fulfilment of his Sponsion. Schilctingius was aware of this, and endeavours to enervate the Force of the Argument, taken from hence to prove, that Christ is our Surety; but it is in a very weak and frivolous Manner. His Reason, that we did not send Christ, is trifling. For, not his Mission, but his Undertaking makes him a Surety. f5 If Christ acted as a Surety, in the offering of himself a Sacrifice for Sin, that was the Matter of his Undertaking, in his Sponsion, and he must be our Surety, and not God’s: And that he did so, is evident, because he is a Surety, as he is inverted with, and acts in the priestly Office.

 II. In his bearing Sin, we may observe the Act of the Father, which was the Imputation of our Sins to him, or placing that Wrong we have done to his Account. This is clearly expressed: The Lord hath laid on him the Iniquities of us all. Iniquities mean sinful Actions, the same as Transgressions, for which he was wounded. No Instance can be produced, where (zy[) Iniquity intends Suffering, merely, or in an abstracted Consideration from Guilt, as the Cause of Suffering. He made our Iniquities to meet, or fall upon Christ; so ([gp) is sometimes rendered. f6 The same Thought is expressed in these Words: When thou shalt make his Soul (µça) Guilt, or Sin, as it is sometimes translated. f7 Christ could not become a Sacrifice for Sin, without a Charge of Guilt or Sin to him. And this Point of Doctrine is asserted by the Apostle: He hath made him to be Sin for us, who knew no Sin. The Sufferings of Christ were the Consequence of the Imputation of Sin unto him; hence, in Suffering, he was made a Curse, which he could not be, in Justice, considered as innocent.

 III. Two Acts of Christ are observable, with Respect to his bearing Sin.

 1. The Susception of it. He took it upon himself: Or fully and freely consented unto the Charge of our Guilt to him. This Act is expressed by the Word (açn); he bare the Sin of many. In various Places the Septuagint render this Word by, (lamba>nw) which is used to express Taking upon, or Receiving, as may be seen in the Margin. f8 Our blessed Saviour received our Guilt, by consenting unto the Imputation of it to himself.

 2. He bare it as a Burden; so the Word (lks) whereby his Bearing of Sin is expressed, properly signifies: He shall bear (lksy) their Iniquities (Isaiah 53:11). He stood under the heavy Load of our Guilt, until it was fully atoned for, which would have sunk us deeply into the infernal Pit. The former Word expresses his Taking Sin upon him, and this represents his Standing under that massy Weight. Several Things may be observed, which confirm the Thought of Christ’s bearing the Guilt of Sin, in Suffering for it.

 (1.) Making his Soul Guilt, and causing our Iniquities to meet in, or fall upon him, express an Act of God, which is distinct from Bruising and Putting him to Grief; and, therefore, they design an Imputation of Sin, in order to suffering Punishment.

 (2.) He bare that which we have Conscience of, which must be Guilt. That which our Consciences are purged from, by the Blood of Christ, he bare in his Sufferings for us, which is Sin or Guilt.

 (3.) He bare that for which Sacrifices were offered, and that must be Sin committed. Hence, in Opposition to the legal Sacrifices, it is said of him, that he was once offered to bear the Sin of many, without which he will appear the second Time.

 (4.) Christ bare that which there was a Remembrance of in the anniversary Sacrifice, which was Guilt contracted.

 (5.) He bare that, which, the Blood of Bulls and Goats could not take away, viz. our Guilt, or Sin, which we have committed. I think, that a proper Consideration of the Scope and Connexion of the Divine Writer, in the 9th Chapter of Hebrews, and the Beginning of the 10th, will be sufficient to convince of the Truth of these Things.

 (6.) The Death of Christ could not be penal, without an Imputation of Guilt to him, as the meritorious Cause of his suffering and Death. For, where no Charge of Sin is, no Penalty can be inflicted, in Justice. And, therefore, when Christ suffered Punishment, or was made a Curse for us, he was made Sin, by the Imputation of our Sins to him.

 IV. Mr. Taylor is pleased to observe, That there are nine Bearers of Sin.

 I. God (Exodus 32:32; Exodus 34:7; Numbers 14:18; Joshua 24:19; Psalm 25:18; Psalm 32:1, etc.). i.e. he forgives it. 1. He imputed it to Christ. 2. Punished Sin in him, when he was made a Curse. 3. Acquits us of our Guilt. 2. Christ (Isaiah 53:11, 12). How he bare Sin hath been shewn, 1. Our Lord took upon himself, or received our Guilt, in consenting unto the Charge of it to him. 2. Bare it as a Burden, laid on him by God. 3. The Angel who was with the Israelites in the Wilderness (Exodus 18:21). This was Christ. And Pardoning Sin is intended, as we translate the Word. 4. The Priests and Levites (Exodus 28:38; Leviticus 10:17; Numbers 17:1-23), i.e. ministerially, or as they performed those sacrificial Services, which were appointed to take away Sin, in a typical Sense. 5. Such who were offended (Genesis 50:17; Exodus 10:17; 1 Samuel 15:25-1; Samuel 25:28). This designs Forgiveness. 6. The Scape-Goat (Leviticus 16:22). That is to say, typically. 7. The Criminals themselves (Leviticus 7:18, etc.). 1. Sin was imputed to them. 2. They suffered Punishment. 8. The Children of the Israelites bore the Sins of their Parents (Numbers 14:33; Lamentations 5:7). 1. They were not, nor could be considered innocent. 2. It was Punishment which they suffered. 9. The Prophet Ezekiel. f9 Unto what Purpose this last Instance is produced, it is difficult to conjecture, and he seems to be entirely at a Loss, how to improve it to his Advantage.

 V. The Author proceeds to make Observations, on his laboured Collection of Texts, wherein Bearing Sin is mentioned.

 1. No Levitical Sacrifice is ever said to bear Sin. The Scape-Goat did bear Sin; but it was not sacrificed, or slain. f10

Answ. 1. The Imposition of Hands on the Sacrifice, there is Reason to think, was attended with an Acknowledgment of Guilt. 2. If those Sacrifices did not bear Sin, why are they called (µça) Guilt, or Sin? 3. The Scape-Goat, which he allows bore Sin, belonged unto the anniversary Sacrifice, and by that was Atonement made (Leviticus 16:10) 4. Not to mention any of the Stories which the Jewish Writers, relate, concerning the Scape-Goat, two Things are to be observed in real spiritual Atonement for Sin, viz. the Punishment of it in Christ, and its Removal. The slain Goat typically represented the former, and the Scape-Goat the latter. As the anniversary Sacrifice was more comprehensive, or of greater Extent than the other Sacrifices, in that Atonement which was made by it for Sin: So there was in it a fuller typical Representation of spiritual Atonement than in any other. The slain Goat typified Christ’s Sufferings, and the Scape- Goat his Removal of our Guilt, thereby, from us, and out of the Sight of God as a Judge.

 2. When the great God is said to bear Sin, the Meaning, I apprehend, must be that he took or carried it away, for this is a common and current Sense of the Word (açn) f11

 Answ. 1. I grant that the Word is often to be understood in that Sense. But, 2. He must allow, that it is also used to express Taking up and Bearing. 3. Let us consider, how God takes or carries away Sin. Is it making that undone, which is done? No, for that implies a Contradiction. Is it taking away the criminal Action, physically considered? No, that is impossible. Is it reckoning or accounting the Sinner not to have committed the criminal Acts, which are taken away? No, for that is contrary to Truth. It is not imputing, or not reckoning those Actions to him, as relatively considered, or as Breaches of his holy Law. Hence, the Apostle expresses Pardon thus: Blessed is the Man to whom the Lord will not impute Sin. 4. Though God cannot otherwise bear Sin, than by pardoning it; Christ could, and did take it upon himself, and bear it as a Burden, in order to take it away, by making Satisfaction for it. He adds, lks, too, Isaiah 53:11, will admit the Sense of carrying off, or away, Isaiah 46:4. Even I will carry you off and I will deliver you. This Word is also used, Isaiah 53:4. He hath carried our Sorrows; which, doubtless, St. Matthew (Matthew 8:17.) understood in the Sense of removing, or carrying off, when he saith, himself took [away] our Infirmities, and bare [carried off] our Sicknesses. f12

 Answ. 1. He well knows, that this Word properly signifies to bear, sustain, or carry, as a Man bears a Burden; nor can he produce an Instance, where it is used in a different Sense. 2. Bearing in Isaiah 46:4, is a distinct Act from delivering, which is afterwards promised, and therefore the Sense of carrying off, cannot be admitted in that Place. 3. That Sense cannot be allowed in Isaiah 53:4, because it is evidently the Design of the Prophet to represent, or express what our Saviour endured, or underwent for us. 4. Matthew did not understand the Term in that Sense, for he renders it by a Greek Word, which signifies to bear, (o airwn) as a Man bears a Load. 5. Christ’s Curing bodily Sicknesses was an Evidence and Effect, of his Bearing our Sins, and that Penalty which they demerit, and, therefore, he applies, or accommodates the Thing unto its Evidence and Effect, which is not unusual with the New Testament Writers. A plain Instance of this we have: And gave Gifts unto Men: in the Prophet, it is, received Gifts for Men. f13

 3. And in the same Sense, or one near akin to it, our Blessed Lord, and the Jewish High-Priests, Priests, and Levites, bare Sin, as they made Atonement for Sin, or suffered or in those Things which God was pleased to appoint, as proper, on their Part, either for the Removal, or to signify the Removal, or Taking away of Guilt. In the Margin, says he: This Idea the Writers of the New Testament give us of Atonement and Pardon; particularly, in Relation our to Lord.John 1:29. The Lamb of God, (o airwn) which taketh away the Sin of the World. 1 John 3:5. He was manifested that he (arh) might take away our Sins. Romans 11:27. When (afairein) I shall take away their Sins. Hebrews 10:4. It is not possible that the Blood of Bulls and Goats should (perielein) take away Sins. Put way Sin, and bear the Sins of many, signify the same Thing,Hebrews 9:26, 28. f14

 Answ. 1. In Levitical Services, there was a typical Bearing of Sin. 2. As the Effect of that, a typical and political Pardon of Sin, or Removal of Guilt. 3. What Christ took away, he bare, and was made, if we may believe the New Testament Writers: He bore our Sire in his own Body on the Tree: He hath made him to be Sin for us who knew, no Sin. 4. That he took away our Guilt, is a certain and precious Truth; but not believed by Mr. Taylor, for, according to his Opinion, Christ obtained nothing more, than an Offer of Forgiveness, and it is left to us to do that, where upon follows the Removal of our Guilt. In his Opinion, Christ neither bare, nor bare away our Sin. 5. In Romans 11:27, God’s Act of Pardon is expressed, and not what our Saviour did and suffered, in order to the Removal of our Guilt. 6. It is false, which he affirms, that to put away Sin, and bear the Sins of many, signify the same Thing, in Hebrews 9:26, 28. For putting away Sin, by the Sacrifice of himself, is the Effect, and his bearing Sin, in the offering of himself, is the Cause. Therefore, they differ as a Cause, and its Effect resulting from it, do differ, and are not the same Thing. 4. His fourth Observation not being to the Purpose, I shall take no Notice of it, viz. Forbearing, for a Season, to inflict deserved Punishment. f15

 5. Says he, The Word also denotes to bear a Burden; and so metaphorically to bear, or to be liable to bear, or endure Punishment and Suffering. Thus Criminals bore their own Iniquities. f16

 Answ. 1. He allows that the Word denotes to bear a Burden, and, therefore, when it is used to express Christ’s Bearing our Sin, it may intend his Bearing it upon himself, as a Load. But, 2. He will never be able to prove, that the Word (lks) bear, hath any other Signification, which is used to express Christ Bearing our Sin, or Guilt. 3. When Descendants bore the Whoredoms or Iniquities of their Parents, which he mentions, we must observe, (1.) They were not innocent, but guilty, and guilty of the same Sins, as their Fathers were. (2.) Guilt was charged on them. And, (3.) They suffered Punishment. Therefore, (4.) The Terms used in Relation unto the Sufferings and Death of Christ, or his Bearing Sin, are properly expressive of a Charge of Guilt, of Bearing it, and of suffering Punishment, in Consequence of that Imputation of Sin or Guilt. No unnatural and forced Sense is put upon them, when we interpret them to such a Meaning. This is well worthy of Observation.

 6. He seems conscious to himself, that his sixth Observation, which relates unto Ezekiel’s Bearing the Iniquities of the Children of Israel, cannot convey any Light to us on this Subject: And, therefore, I may justly pass that over. Now he comes to his Conclusion.

 7. Upon the Whole, says he, It is abundantly evident, no Proof can be drawn from Scripture, that Bearing Sin includes the Notion of transferring Guilt from the Nocent to the Innocent. f17

 Answ. 1. According to the Scripture all Men universally, are become guilty before God. There is no innocent Person among the Race of Adam, who naturally descend from him; how, therefore, can we expect to find any Account, in Scripture, of transferring Guilt from the Nocent to the Innocent: All this Labour of Mr. Taylor’s is but solemn Trifling on this momentous Subject. Nor, 2. Is it to be proved from Scripture, that God ever did, or will decree, that the Innocent shall suffer, on Occasion of the Crimes of the Nocent; will Mr. Taylor for that Reason deny, that Christ suffered, on Occasion of our Sins? He cannot, if he really thinks, that the Death of Christ is a Condition, Reason, or Motive with God to forgive sin. 3. The Affair of Christ’s Death is a singular and unparalleled Case, and, therefore, it is preposterous and absurd to argue, that, that cannot be in this Case, which is not to be found in other Cases, which cannot be compared with it.

 In another Place, he farther objects unto the Transferring of our Guilt to Christ, and recommends a Pamphlet, intitled, Second Thoughts concerning the Sufferings and Death of Christ. I shall consider briefly what that Author offers on the Subject, in an Appendix to these Sheets. Says Mr. Taylor, Guilt is my doing Wrong, whereby I become obnoxious to Punishment. And, therefore, Guilt in its own Nature cannot be transferred. For Punishment is necessarily connected with the Wrong done, and the Wrong is done by none but myself: Therefore Punishment can be due to none, and, consequently can possibly be inflicted upon none but myself. f18

 Answ. 1. Actions good or bad, physically considered, cannot be transferred. But, 2. Actions relatively considered, or in their Relation to the Law, may be transferred, or reckoned, or imputed to others, when there is a proper Foundation for it, as there is in the Affair of the Imputation of our Sins to Christ, viz. his Sponsion, or his becoming a Surety to God for us. 3. It is not supposed, that he did the Wrong, nor was Christ reputed to have done the Wrong; but the Wrong done by us was put to his Account. As the Apostle Paul desired, that the Wrong as well as Debt of Onesimus, might be imputed to him, or placed to his Account. And, 4. Hence Punishment, in Justice, was inflicted on Christ, upon the Ground of his Suretyship-Engagement to God for us. 5. The Reason, why nothing parallel to this may be acted among Men in criminal Cases, is, Rulers and Subjects are equally bound by natural Justice, and, therefore, Lawgivers have no Power to require, or accept of the Sponsion of an innocent Person for the Guilty, in criminal Cases; nor hath any innocent Man Power over himself, or a Right to put himself under the Obligation of any Criminal, if he would. 6. The Righteousness of God’s Nature will not permit him to suffer Sin to go unpunished. His Will to punish Sin is necessary, though free; if it were not, he might have willed to permit the Creature to fin for ever, without suffering Punishment. But, 7. As God is above the Law, wherein it is constituted or appointed, that Punishment shall be inflicted on the Guilty, by Perpetration of Offence; he can dispense with it in that Particular, and admit of the Sponsion of another, who hath Power over himself, to put himself under our Obligation. We know, full as well as any Socinian whatever, that nothing like this may be transacted among Men; but, if we are not greatly mistaken, the Judicial Procedures of God, in the Imputation of Sin to Christ, and punishing it in him, and pardoning Sin to the Guilty, are not to be measured by, compared with, or accommodated unto the Judicial Proceedings of Men, in criminal Cases. And herein consists much, both of the Glory and Mystery of our Redemption, by the Death of Christ. If there was not something singular and unparalleled in this Affair, there would be neither Mystery nor Glory in it. And this is what some Men are labouring to prove, out of Hatred to the Glory of God, as it shines through Jesus Christ, in the fulness of our Salvation, by his Death, as me meritorious Cause thereof. Mr. Taylor elsewhere speaks thus: It may be alledged, that the Lord laid on him the Iniquities of us all,Isaiah 53:6. But who knows not, that our Redemption is imaged by various figurative Expressions? As, healed by his Stripes; washed from our Sins in his Blood; he was made Sin for us: Which, if understood literally and strictly, would supply very strange Doctrine. f19

 Answ. 1. The Stripes and Blood of Christ are the meritorious Cause. 2. Our Healing, Peace, and Pardon are the Effect. 3. He was made Sin, by a Charge of our Guilt to him. Which Things are not strange, but glorious, and will eternally be so esteemed by those who are the subjects of Redemption. He adds, Taking the Passage, as it stands in our Translation, we ought in Reason to interpret it agreeably to the preceding Phrases, which relate to the same Thing. Isaiah 53:5, He was wounded for our Transgressions, he was bruised for our Iniquities; the Chastisement of our Peace was upon him, and with his Stripes we are healed. — And the Lord hath laid on him, (it is in the Margin, hath made to meet on him) the Iniquities of us all; that is, the Sufferings by which we are all redeemed. f20

 Answ. 1. Let an Instance be produced, where (zw[) signifies merely Suffering, or Suffering without Relation to Guilt, and take what is contended for. 2. In Isaiah 53:5 the Prophet declares for what he suffered, viz. our Transgressions: And, in these Words, he expresses God’s Act of charging our Sins to him, when he suffered, and in order to his Suffering. 3. He opposes the Imputation of our Sins to him unto that false Opinion the Jews had of Christ’s being stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted, for his own Guilt. And, therefore, it is not his Suffering, which is meant, but the meritorious Cause of his Sufferings, Guilt, not his own, but ours. He subjoins, But, considering the Metaphor of Sheep going astray, by which the Wanderings of Mankind are represented, and the Turn which St. Peter gives to this Passage, I am inclined to think, that the Spirit of God, in Isaiah, has Reference to the Meeting of stray Sheep, in order to bring them back again to the Shepherd,1 Peter 2:24, 25; Isaiah 53:6. — And the Lord hath made to meet (occursare) by him the Iniquities of us all. That is to say, by him the Lord hath caused to meet and stop the Iniquities of us all, wherein we have wandered from him, to turn us back to himself, who is the Shepherd of our Souls.

 Answ. 1. The Word signifies to meet, without including the Idea of Stopping. 2. Christ is the Subject, in, upon, or against whom our Iniquities, were made to meet, as the whole Scope of the Place fully proves. 3. The Prophet speaks not of our Persons, but of our Crimes. And, 4. He speaks of Crimes committed, or of Guilt already contracted. 5. Stopping us in a sinful Course, and making us to turn back to the Shepherd of our Souls, is not stopping our Sins which we have before committed. He observes, that the Word we translate, hath laid, is, in Hiphil, which only adds the Idea of causing or making, the same that we render meet, Exodus 23:4. If thou meet thine Enemy’s Ox or Ass going, astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again; to no other Purpose, which I can discern, than letting the Reader know, that he is acquainted with the different Sense of Verbs, in different Conjugations, in the Hebrew Language; and that is a Matter of no great Importance. However, this Instance proves, that the Word ([gp) does not necessarily include in it the Idea of Stopping, for a Man might meet his Enemy’s Ox or Ass, and not stop either. Whether Men act with upright and sincere Intentions, who thus shamefully pervert the Scripture, Mr. Taylor, and others, will do well, in a most serious Manner, to consider, lest they continue to wrest it unto their own Destruction. Thus far of Christ’s Bearing Sin.

 

CHAPTER 3 ¾ OF THE GREATNESS OF CHRIST’S SUFFERINGS, AND OF THE EVIDENCES, THAT THEY WERE VICARIOUS.

 

I. IF our Saviour really bore the Sins of the many, who obtain eternal Salvation, through the Merit of his Sacrifice, his Sufferings, certainly, were exceedingly great. For the Imputation of such a Mass of Guilt must be followed with Sorrows, Grief and Distress of Soul, inexpressible.

 1. Let us consider several Expressions of his, in Relation to this Matter. And, our blessed Lord speaks thus: Now, is my Soul (tetaraktai) troubled, and what shall I say? The Word, which we render troubled, is very significant, and expressive of Terror (John 12:27; Esther 7:6), Consternation (Genesis 41:8), Trembling (Isaiah 64:2), and Bowing down (Psalm 42:6) through Grief and Fear, in each of these Senses, the Septuagint use it, as the Reader will see by examining the Places referred unto. And, therefore, the Anguish and Distress, which our Saviour was now the Subject of, must be extremely great. Add to this: My Soul is (perilupov) exceeding sorrowful even unto Death. The Word signifies to be surrounded, or encompassed with Sorrow on every Side. And the Septuagint use it to express a Dejection and Casting down of the Mind, through overwhelming Grief (Matthew 26:38; Psalm 43:5; Matthew 26:37). This our Lord said, to express the Sorrow and most grievous Anguish which then attended him: He began to be sorrowful, and (adhmonein) very heavy, or exceedingly full of Anguish, insomuch that he was ready to faint.

 2. The Prostration of our Lord shews both his Humility, and the depressing Weight of Sorrow, which his holy Soul laboured under. He fell on his Face to the Earth (Matthew 26:39), and lay in the Dust, through the Force of that pungent Grief, which took deep and firm Possession of his pure Mind. And he became thus prostrate three Times (Matthew 26:44).

 3. His Agony is an Evidence unto what Height the afflictive Passions of Fear and Sorrow role in him: And, being in an Agony, be prayed more earnestly (Luke 22:44). The Word (agwnia) Agony, signifies great Anxiety, or Perturbation of Mind.

 4. The Tears be shed, and the strong Cryings be poured forth, prove the inconceivable Anguish, Grief, and Sorrow, his whole Soul was filled with (Hebrews 5:5) His Supplication unto the Father, is called Roaring (Psalm 22:1), because of the vehement and intense Manner, wherein he addressed him, through the Greatness of that prevailing Sorrow, which overwhelmed his Heart.

 5. The extraordinary Effect, which the Distress of his Soul produced in his animal Frame, is a full Evidence of its unparalleled Greatness. Through the extreme Anguish of his Mind, he sweat as it were great Drops of Blood falling down to the Ground (Luke 22:44) Instances of the like are not at all needful to be produced, to prove the Credibility of the Fact; because, as there never was such a Subject of Suffering, in this World, so never did any one, upon Earth, suffer like him: His Visage was so marred, more than any Man’s, and his Form more than the Sons of Men (Isaiah 52:14).

 II. We shall be at no Loss, in accounting for the extreme Dolors of our Saviour, if we duly consider the positive Acts of God, which he, as a righteous Judge, taking Vengeance on Sin, put forth, upon the Soul of Christ immediately. Men wounded him in his Body; but his Father bruised and put him to Grief, in his Soul, when he made that an Offering for Sin. Wherein the Particulars following, are observable:

 1. The Father made him Sin for us, and caused our Iniquities to meet in, or fall upon him. Not that the Father accounted him to have committed those Sins, or Iniquities, or produced a Consciousness in him of the Perpetration of those Crimes, which he bore, in order to atone for them; but he impressed his Mind with a piercing Sense of the Charge of our Guilt to him, and excited a most painful Sensation, in his Soul, of the dreadful Malignity and Demerit of Sin, wherewithal he stood charged, as the Surety of his People.

 2. He made him a Curse: Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law, being made a Curse for us (Galatians 3:13). Our Saviour was as really made a Curse for us, as we are, in Fact, delivered from the Law’s Curse, in Consequence of his Sufferings and Death. To say, as the Socinians do, as it were, he was made a Curse, or he seemed to be made a Curse, is an impious Contradiction of the express Assertion of the holy Spirit, and not an Interpretation of it. This was not the Act of Men, for they could not make our blessed Lord a Curse; nor the Act of infernal Spirits. It was the Act of God, which he put forth, immediately upon the Soul of our Redeemer, whereby he most deeply pierced and put him to Grief.

 3. The Father withdrew from him, or forsook him. This Dereliction affected not his Union to, or with the Father, for no Breach was made on that: Nor the Interest he had in his Approbation and Delight: Neither that Sustentation under his Sorrows by the Father, which he had promised to him; but it was the Want of the Enjoyment of his ravishing and delightful Presence. As in his Crucifixion he enjoyed not the chearing Rays of the natural Sun: So in that most awful Season, he suffered the Loss of the comforting Rays of heavenly Light, by the thick Cloud of our Guilt, interposing, between his holy Soul and the Father of Glory. He was encompassed by Darkness without, and deprived of the Light of Divine Favour within. And, therefore, he uttered that sore Complaint: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me (Psalm 22:1)? This was the Punishment the Loss, which he endured. Farther,

 4. The Father impressed his Mind with a Sense of his vindictive Displeasure against Sin. As he had decreed, that Christ should suffer for us, and he had consented to become a Victim for our Guilt: He (ouk efeisato) did not spare him (Romans 8:32), or deal tenderly with him; but commanded the Sword of Justice to awake against, and smite him: Awake, O Sword against my Shepherd, and against the Man that is my Fellow, smite the Shepherd (Zechariah 13:7). Sovereign Mercy towards us provided and presented the Victim before Divine Justice, with his free Consent; and God, as a Judge, calls upon Justice to execute Vengeance: Justice, armed with all its flaming Terrors, rises, and falls upon the willing Sacrifice, and his Soul is absorpt of Grief and Anguish, in Consequence thereof.

 III. The Sufferings of our blessed Lord from Men, previous unto, and in his Crucifixion, were extremely great. What Indignity and Reproach were cast upon him! Unto what Scorn, Derision, and Shame was he exposed! How cruelly and inhumanly was he used, in his Examination and Trial! Men do not treat the most villainous Malefactor, in such a Manner, as the innocent and meek Jesus was treated! He was the Subject of the most contemptuous Speeches: Spit upon: Buffeted: Blindfolded, and struck in the Face, taunted at, and called upon to prophesy, or declare who smote him: He gave his Back to the Smiters, and his Cheeks to them that plucked off the Hair, and hid not his Face from Shame and Spitting: Scourged: Delivered by the Governor, convinced of his Innocency, and of the Malice of his Enemies, into the Hands of barbarous, rude, and merciless Soldiers to be mocked, derided, and crucified. They stripped him of his Garments, arrayed him in Robes of mock Majesty: Platted a Crown of Thorns, and put it on his Head, and smote him with a Reed, whereby his sacred Flesh was torn, and Veins pierced: And, in Derision, bowed the Knee before him, crying, Hail King of the Jews. They led him forth to the Place of Execution, he bearing his Cross, until, as they might reasonably suppose, he was ready to faint, through the cruel Usage he had received: His Limbs were violently stretched, which must put him unto great Torture, and his Hands and Feet were nailed to the accursed Tree; and, by how much more tender and curious the Texture of his Body was, by so much the more, he was sensible of Pain, and, therefore, the Piercing of his Hands and Feet must be attended with exquisite Sensations of Pain. In these dreadful Circumstances, he was forsaken by his Friends, and unpitied by the relentless Number of inhuman Spectators, who surrounded his Cross.

 Every tender Passion was banished from the Breasts of the Beholders of him, in his Sufferings; nothing but a savage Disposition possessed them. Hence, instead of Pity, he met with Reviling, Insult, and Blasphemy. They wagged their Heads, and cried out, He saved others, himself he cannot save. Let him come down from the Cross, and we will believe on him; he trusted in God, let him deliver him now, if he will have him.

And when the Extremity of his Pains, thro’ the Dislocation of his Bones, and the Piercing of his Hands and Feet, had brought on him a scorching Fever, which was attended with extraordinary Thirst; there bloody Miscreants presented to him Gall and Vinegar to drink, a most bitter and biting Potion. Thus the innocent Jesus was delivered up into the Hands of Sinners, according to the determinate Counsel and Foreknowledge of God, to be crucified and slain. When we consider there Things, surely, we can’t but say: Oh, what Wickedness is in the Mind of Man! Oh, what intense Love to poor Sinners filled the Soul of our blessed Lord, that made him willing to undergo such Sufferings, in order to save them from deferred Destruction! Oh, what an evil Thing is Sin, that was the procuring Cause of all the Ignominy, Reproach, Dolors, and Agonies, which our Saviour was exposed unto, and expired under, on the Cross! Oh, how hard are our cursed Hearts, that they are not broken, dissolved, and melted within us, by the Consideration of his agonizing Pains, unparalleled Reproaches, and taunting Insults from his Enemies, when he suffered for us, to redeem our Souls from Hell and Destruction! And, surely, we must be convinced, if we duly consider what our Lord suffered from the Hand of the Father, what he underwent from Men, by his Appointment and Decree, with a View to our Redemption from Sin, and its penal Effects, that the Transaction of his Death was necessary in order to our Salvation. Can we possibly persuade ourselves to think, that this Affair was willed and decreed of God, without any Necessity, or with no View to the Vindication of his Authority, and Satisfaction of his Justice, in saving us from Misery? Or, that there is no Fitness in the Death of Christ to atone for our Guilt, and procure the Remission of our Sins, for which he suffered, both in his Soul and Body, in this amazing, Manner? Surely, no such Imagination can find Admittance in our Minds, if we will allow ourselves seriously to consider of those Things.

 IV. Christ suffered in our Stead: Or, his Sufferings were vicarious and in our Room.

 1. This is evident from what is observed above. For, if he was made Sin, if he was made a Curse, and if he suffered from the Hand of God immediately, or if God himself, by positive Acts, put forth upon him, did bruise and put him to Grief, or make his Soul an Offering for Sin, his Sufferings were penal, and, consequently, vicarious. Because no innocent Person can be the Subject of Penalty, for Sins of his own, by Reason he hath committed none; therefore, his penal Sufferings must be the Effect of the Guilt of others, and he must endure those Sufferings, in their Place and Stead. It hath not yet been proved, nor ever will be, that the Sufferings of Christ were not penal, since in Suffering he was made a Curse.

 2. He suffered for our Crimes: Says the Prophet: But he was wounded for Transgressions, and bruised for our Iniquities. And the Apostle asserts, that he died for our Sins, that he was delivered for our Offences: The unbelieving Jews thought he was stricken, smitten of God and afflicted, for Guilt of his own: But he was wounded for our Transgressions, etc. This is spoken in Opposition to the false Opinion of the incredulous Jews, who imagined, that he had contracted Guilt, which rendered him worthy of Death, and very clearly suggests, that it was not without a meritorious Cause he so suffered, but that, that Cause were not Sins of his own, but those of others.

 3. Our blessed Saviour died for us: God commended his Love towards us, in that, while we were yet Sinners, Christ died for us. That is to say, not for our Good only, but in our Room, and so for our Profit, as is clear from the Use of the Preposition, and the Scope of the Place. The Preposition is used to express in the Place or Stead of another. That (uper sou) in thy Stead, and (uper Cristou) in Christ’s Stead. The Scope of the Place evidently evinces, that this is the Sense intended. For, the Apostle supposes, that for a good Man some might dare to die (Romans 5:7). Not hazard Life, to preserve a good Man in imminent Danger, as Mr. Taylor paraphrases the Text; but actually to resign Life for him, or to die in his Stead. A Man may hazard his Life, and yet preserve it. The Apostle designs an actual Resignation of Life, and not Exposing Life to Danger, which may be, and often is done, without Dying. And Christ is said to give his Life (anti pollwn) for many, i.e. in their Stead.

 4. The Life of Christ was given as a Ransom, (lutron) a Price of Redemption for many (Matthew 20:28), which necessarily supposes, that he died in their Stead. For they were obnoxious unto Death, on Account of Guilt, and he gave his Life to redeem them from that Obnoxiousness to Death, and, therefore, his Death was vicarious, or, he died in their Stead.

 5. All those Effects are ascribed unto the Death of Christ, which it may be thought to procure for us, as taken in that Point of Light. (1.) Expiation of Sin. (2.) Peace and Reconciliation. (3.) Redemption from the Curse of the Law. (4.) Security from suffering Divine Wrath and Vengeance. There are such Effects as might be expected to arise from his Death, if he died in our Room; and, therefore, there is clear and cogent Reason to conclude, that he not only died for our Good, but in our Stead, considered as Criminals, and for that Reason obnoxious to Death.

 6. Our Forgiveness, on the Foundation of Christ’s Death, is an Act of Righteousness. God set forth his Son to be a Propitiation, — to declare his Righteousness: Not his saving Grace and Mercy, as Mr. Taylor speaks, f21 but his Holiness and Justice. If God is just in forgiving Sin, his Justice must be satisfied for the Sin pardoned, which it could not be by the Death of Christ, if he died not in our Stead.

7. This Method of Pardon and Salvation became God: It became him, for whom are all Things, and by whom are all Things, in bringing many Sons to Glory, to make the Captain of their Salvation perfect through Sufferings (Hebrews 2:10). The Condecency of this Procedure respects the Righteousness of God’s Nature, and, therefore, Christ’s Sufferings must be referred unto Justice, and, consequently, in Suffering, he was our Substitute.

 CHAPTER 4 ¾ OF ATONEMENT, OR RECONCILIATION FOR SIN

 MR. Taylor apprehends, that the Sense of Atonement hath not yet been understood. Let us; therefore, see what additional Light he strikes upon this Subject. If he discovers any Thing of Importance relating to this Matter, which we did not discern before, I promise to give him those Praises, which such a Discovery demands.

 I. Spiritual Atonement for Sin, as it hath been understood, includes there Things in it: The Expiation of Guilt. Reconciliation, or Peace with God. And the Sinner’s Impunity, or Deliverance from an Obnoxiousness to Suffering Punishment, for his Guilt. Our Author’s Design, is, if possible to explain away this Notion of Atonement, or Reconciliation for Sin by the Death of Christ. The Reader ought carefully to observe, that the Atonement made by Sacrifices was not followed with real, spiritual Remission of Sin, as the proper Effect of those Sacrifices, by whomsoever they were offered. Sacrifices were not required unto that End, nor was it possible, that such an End could be brought about by them, which is clearly asserted, and abundantly proved in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

 II. Mr. Taylor opposes the Opinion of the Substitution of the Sacrifice, in Stead of the Offender, and offers various Reasons against it, which I shall take into Consideration.

 1. The Sins for which Sacrifices were generally offered were Sins of Ignorance, and ceremonial Uncleanness, which were not capital by Law. The Victim therefore could not die in the Offender’s Stead, when his Offence was not punishable with Death. f22

 Answ. 1. According to the moral Law, all and every Sin was punishable with Death: “The Soul that sins shall die. Death, therefore, is the Wages of every Transgression of that Law. 2. As all Men are degenerate and guilty, the moral Law cannot be the Rule of Judgment, as to Life and Death, in human Societies, because there is no Man but hath forfeited his Life, according to that Law. For it allows no Sinner to live. 3. The political Law, given to the Jews, made some Breaches of the moral Law capital; as Murder, Blasphemy, and Adultery: And other Breaches thereof it did not make capital: As Theft, Uncleanness, in one Instance, and Perjury. And, therefore, some atrocious Crimes did not subject a Man guilty of them to Death, in a political Sense. 4. Sacrifices were not instituted for any Breach of the moral Law, which the political Law made capital. Hence, David, in Relation unto a capital Offence, whereof he had been guilty, says: Thou desirest not Sacrifice, i.e. for this Sin of mine, else would I give it (Psalm 51:16). But it follows not, that those Sins for which they were instituted, were not capital by the moral Law, or that those Breaches of the moral Law, did not render a Person worthy of, and subject him to Death, according to that Law. Therefore, 5. The Author’s Reason, why the Victim could not die in the Offender’s Stead, entirely vanishes, viz. that it was offered for Crimes not punishable with Death. 6. The political Law required the Shedding of Blood for Transgressions of the moral Law, which were not capital, in a political Sense; and, if the Sinner willfully neglected to offer Sacrifice for his Offence, he was to die without Remedy. And, therefore, 7. The political Law, or God, as the Governor of that People, accepted of the Death of the Victim, as an Atonement for the Sin of the Offerer of it, and allowed him to live, though by his Crime he had forfeited his Life; and the Death of the Beast offered in Sacrifice was vicarious. 8. This was a lively Type of the Substitution of Christ in our Room, and of his Sufferings and Death in our Stead, to make real spiritual Atonement for our Sins, in order to deliver us from that Curse, whereunto they subjected us. The Socinians, as they are Enemies to the Whole of real Christianity: So (dicam quod fentio) they are the greatest Triflers, where they seem to reason most, in objecting against it.

2. If the Virtue or Efficacy of every particular Sacrifice consisted in Suffering n vicarious Punishment, then, whereas that Punishment was the same in all such Sacrifices, by whomsoever offered, it must have had its Effects in all those Sacrifices; and they must all have been equally acceptable to God, as such. Which is well known to be false. f23

Answ. 1. Who says, that proper Punishment was inflicted on those Sacrifices? 2. Those Sacrifices were offered, that the Offender might not die. 3. The Offering of those Sacrifices, as Mr. Taylor allows, did discharge the Sinner from political Penalties: Let him prove, if he is able, that, that Penalty was not Death. f24 Yet, 4. It is not pretended, that these Sacrificial Services were equally acceptable to God, whether performed in Faith, or not.

 3. Indeed, the Victim might, and, I suppose, did, represent the Person who offered it; whatever was done to that, was to be applied to himself. Then, observe, 1. As the Beast was slain, surely, it signified to him, that he deferred to be slain, or to die for his Sin. 2. It was Sin committed, or Guilt already contracted, on Account whereof he offered Sacrifice. To shew him, adds he, the Demerit of Sin in general; how he ought to slay the Brute in himself, and devote his Life and Soul to God, etc. f25 — But this is very remote from the Victim’s Suffering, in his Stead, the Death which be deserved to die for his Sins, or Suffering a vicarious Punishment. f26 How does this appear? He gives no Evidence of it. Hereby the Offender was discharged from political Penalties, he grants; and that those Penalties were not Death, he will never prove. — 1. The Death of the Beast was not, properly speaking, Punishment. But, 2. That typically represented the vicarious Punishment, which the Lamb of God was to bear, in order to make real, spiritual Atonement for Sin. With him, vicarious Punishment is a Contradiction in Terms. For as there cannot be a vicarious Guilt, or as no one can be guilty in the Stead of another; so there cannot be a vicarious Punishment, or no one can be punished instead of another. f27

 Answ. 1. No one can contract Guilt instead of another. But, 2. One may bear Guilt which is contracted, instead of another. And, 3. Suffer Punishment in the Place of another. Because, says he, Punishment, in its very Nature, connotes Guilt in the subject which bears it. f28

 Answ. 1. Guilt is not an inherent Quality, but a Charge of Sin, and an Obnoxiousness to Condemnation on that Account. 2. An innocent Person may come under such a Charge, for it is not a Transfusion of a sinful Action, or of the corrupt Habits of the guilty Person but only an Imputation of his Sin, or Guilt. Thus, 3. He may bear it, though he becomes not the Subject of Sin, as an inherent Quality.

 4. He asks a very surprising Question, But is not vicarious Punishment, or the Victim’s suffering Death in the Offender’s Stead, as an Equivalent to Divine Justice, included in the Notion of Atonement? Answ. No. f29 1. Why is this Query put? Did ever any Person think so? Is it possible that a Man in his Sense can imagine, that the Death of a Brute, is an Equivalent for Sin committed against God? But, 2. This is no Objection unto an Equivalent being required and given, in order to real, spiritual Remission. He seems to proceed as gravely to prove the Negative, as if the Affirmative was believed and professed, whereas, I suppose, it was never dreamt of, by any Man professing Christianity, in the World. But some Men must be allowed solemnly to trifle, when, and where, they find themselves unable to reason. He goes on to say,

 (1). Atonement was made with the Scape-Goat, though he was not slain. f30

 Answ. 1. That belonged unto the Sacrifice,Leviticus 16:5. 2. The slain Goat typified the Sufferings of the Lamb of God. 3. The Scape-Goat represented, in the same Manner, the Removal of Guilt, as the Effect, of his Sufferings and Death.

 (2). Says he, If the Offender was not able to bring a Lamb, etc. — he was allowed to bring the tenth Part of an Ephah of fine Flour for a Sin- Offering, etc. — Which could never suggest the Idea of vicarious Punishment. f31

 Answ. 1. This Exception did not weaken, but strengthen the general Law. 2. Inasmuch as Bread is the Staff of Life, the Burning of the Flour may well be thought to represent to the Offender, that he deserved to die. And, 3. That, in order to real spiritual Remission, a Life must be parted with. Farther, 4. Though this Change was allowed because of the Poverty of the Offender, it follows not that his Thoughts were to be taken off from the Sacrificing of an Animal for his Sin, which, but for his Poverty, he stood obliged unto. 5. Nor did the Shedding Blood, in itself, imply Atonement by vicarious Punishment. For it is never said, that Atonement was made for Sin by, Peace-Offerings, etc. f32

 Answ. 1. In legal Sacrifices, proper Punishment was not inflicted. But, 2. Shedding of Blood was fitly typical of taking away Life, in a Way of Punishment for Sin. 3. Though in some Instances Blood might be shed, when Atonement was not made for Sin, it is not to be concluded from thence, that Shedding Blood, in typical Atonement, was not a Type of that vicarious Punishment, which Christ the Anti-type was to bear. 6. — It is the Blood that maketh Atonement for the Soul. But how? By Way of vicarious Punishment? Not a Word of that. f33

 Answ. 1. That Atonement was typical only. 2. Proper Punishment was not borne. Yet, 3. It fitly represented Christ’s Shedding his Blood, in order to make spiritual Atonement.

 III. Mr. Taylor proceeds unto an elaborate, but very trifling Enquiry, into the Sense of Atonement. After a Collection of all the Places in the Old Testament, where the Term expressing Atonement is used, as a Verb and Noun, seemed good to him to employ himself in examining into the Sense of the original Word, (rpk) where it is used without any Relation, unto the Offering of Sacrifices, for Sin. Not to find out Truth, but to amuse and mislead his Reader, and prevent his discerning what Atonement for Sin, by the Death of Christ, includes in it. In this Labour he spends almost twenty Pages, wherein it is entirely needless to follow him. If he had been disposed, as he ought, to have learned what Atonement signifies, or contains in it, he might without any Difficulty. For, 1. The Word, actively used, signifies to appease, pacify, reconcile, or make Reconciliation (Genesis 32:20;Proverbs 16:14). 2. When used passively, it imports, that