|
|
CHAPTER
3
CONTAINING, TWO OTHER ARGUMENTS FROM THE PERSON CHRIST SUSTAINED IN THIS BUSINESS.
Arg.
6. For whom Christ died, he died as a sponsor, in their
stead, as is apparent, Romans 5:6-8,
“For
when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for
the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet
peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God
commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet
sinners, Christ died for us” Galatians 3:13,
“He
was made a curse for us.” 2 Corinthians 5:21, “He hath
made him to be sin for us.” All which places do plainly
signify and hold out a change or commutation of persons, one
being accepted in the room of the other.
Now,
if he died as the sponsor or surety of them for whom he died, in
their stead, then these two things at least will follow: —
First, That he freed them from that anger, and wrath, and guilt
of death, which he underwent for them, that they should in and
for him be all reconciled, and be freed from the bondage wherein
they are by reason of death; for no other reason in the world can
be assigned why Christ should undergo anything in another’s
stead, but that that other might be freed from undergoing that
which he underwent for him. And all justice requires that so it
should be; which also is expressly intimated, when our Savior is
said to be e]gguov, “ a surety of a better testament,”
Hebrews 7:22; that is, by being our priest, undergoing the
“chastisement of our peace,” and the burden of our
“iniquities,” Isaiah 53:5, 6. He was “made sin for
us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,”
2 Corinthians 5:21, But now all are not freed from wrath and the
guilt of death, and actually reconciled to God, — which is
to be justified through an imputation of righteousness, and a
non-imputation of iniquities; — for until men come to Christ
“the wrath of God abideth on them,” John 3:36; which
argueth and intimateth a nonremoval of wrath, by reason of not
believing. He doth not say, it comes on them, as though by
Christ’s death they were freed from being under a state and
condition of wrath, which we are all in by nature, Ephesians 2:3;
but me>nei, “it remaineth,” or abideth: it was never
removed. And to them the gospel is a savor of death unto death,
— bringing a new death and a sore condemnation, by its being
despised, unto that death the guilt whereof they before lay
under. Some have, indeed, affirmed that all and every one are
redeemed, restored, justified, and made righteous in Christ, and
by his death; but truly this is so wretched, I will not say
perverting of the Scriptures, which give no color to any such
assertion, but so direct an opposition to them, as I judge it
fruitless, and lost labor, to go about to remove such exceptions
(More, p. 45). Secondly, It follows that Christ made satisfaction
for the sins of all and every man, if be died for them; for the
reason why he underwent death for us as a surety was to make
satisfaction to God’s justice for our sins, so to redeem us
to himself, neither can any other be assigned. But Christ hath
not satisfied the justice of God for all the sins of all and
every man: which may be made evident by divers reasons; for,
—
First,
For whose sins he made satisfaction to the justice of God, for
their sins justice is satisfied, or else his satisfaction was
rejected as insufficient, for no other reason can be assigned of
such a fruitless attempt; which to aver is blasphemy in the
highest degree. But now the justice of God is not satisfied for
all the sins of all and every man; which also is no less apparent
than the former: for they that must undergo eternal punishment
themselves for their sins, that the justice of God may be
satisfied for their sins, the justice of God was not satisfied
without their own punishment, by the punishment of Christ; for
they are not heated by his stripes. But that innumerable souls
shall to eternity undergo the punishment due to their own sins, I
hope needs, with Christians, no proving. Now, how can the justice
of God require satisfaction of them for their sins, if it were
before satisfied for them in Christ? To be satisfied, and to
require satisfaction that it may be satisfied, are contradictory,
and cannot be affirmed of the same in respect of the same; but
that the Lord will require of some “the uttermost
farthing” is most clear, Matthew 5:26.
Secondly,
Christ by undergoing death for us, as our surety, satisfied for
no more than he intended so to do. So great a thing as
satisfaction for the sins of men could not accidentally happen
besides his intention, will, and purpose; especially considering
that his intention and good-will, sanctifying himself to be an
oblation, was of absolute necessity to make his death an
acceptable offering. But now Christ did not intend to satisfy for
the sins of all and every man for innumerable souls were in hell,
under the punishment and weight of their own sins; from whence
there is no redemption before, nor actually then when our Savior
made himself an oblation for sin. Now, shall we suppose that
Christ would make himself an offering for their sins whom he knew
to be past recovery, and that it was utterly impossible that ever
they should have any fruit or benefit by his offering? Shall we
think that the blood of the covenant was cast away upon them for
whom our Savior intended no good at all? To intend good to them
he could not, without a direct opposition to the eternal decree
of his Father, and therein of his own eternal Deity. Did God send
his Son, did Christ come to die, for Cain and Pharaoh, damned so
many ages before his suffering? “Credat Apella?” The
exception, that Christ died for them, and his death would have
been available to them if they had believed and fulfilled the
condition required, is, in my judgment, of no force at all; for,
— First, For the most part they never heard of any such
condition. Secondly, Christ at his death knew full well that they
bad not fulfilled the condition, and were actually cut off from
any possibility ever so to do, so that any intention to do them
good by his death must needs be vain and frustrate; which must
not be assigned to the Son of God. Thirdly, This redemption,
conditionate, if they believe, we shall reject anon.
Neither
is that other exception, that Christ might as well satisfy for
them that were eternally damned at the time of his suffering (for
whom it could not be useful), as for them that were then actually
saved (for whom it was not needful), of any more value. For
— First, Those that were saved were saved upon this ground,
that Christ should certainly suffer for them in due time; which
suffering of his was as effectual in the purpose and promise as
in the execution and accomplishment. It was in the mind of God
accounted for them as accomplished, the compact and covenant with
Christ about it being surely ratified upon mutual, unchangeable
promises, (according to our conception); and so our Savior was to
perform it, and so it was needful for them that were actually
saved: but for those that were actually damned, there was no such
inducement to it, or ground for it, or issue to be expected out
of it. Secondly, A simile will clear the whole: — If a man
should send word to a place where captives were in prison, that
he would pay the price and ransom that was due for their
delivery, and to desire the prisoners to come forth, for he that
detains them accepts of his word and engagement; when he comes to
make payment, according to his promise, if he find some to have
gone forth according as was proposed, and others continued
obstinate in their dungeon, some hearing of what he had done,
others not, and that according to his own appointment, and were
now long since dead; doth he, in the payment of his promised
ransom, intend it for them that died stubbornly and obstinately
in the prison, or only for them who went forth? Doubtless, only
for these last. No more can the passion of Christ be supposed to
be a price paid for them that died in the prison of sin and
corruption before the payment of his ransom; though it might full
well be for them that were delivered by virtue of his engagement
for the payment of such a ransom. Thirdly, If Christ died in the
stead of all men, and made satisfaction for their sins, then he
did it for all their sins, or only for some of their sins. If for
some only, who then can be saved? If for all, why then are all
not saved? They say it is because of their unbelief; they will
not believe, and therefore are not saved. That unbelief, is it a
sin, or is it not? If it be not, how can it be a cause of
damnation? If it be, Christ died for it, or he did not, If he did
not, then he died not for all the sins of all men. If he did, why
is this an obstacle to their salvation? Is there any new shift to
be invented for this? or must we be contented with the old,
namely, because they do not believe? that is, Christ did not die
for their unbelief, or rather, did not by his death remove their
unbelief, because they would not believe, or because they would
not themselves remove their unbelief; or he died for their
unbelief conditionally, that they were not unbelievers. These do
not seem to me to be sober assertions.
Arg.
7. For whom Christ died, for them he is a mediator: which is
apparent; for the oblation or offering of Christ, which he made
of himself unto God, in the shedding of his blood, was one of the
chiefest acts of his mediation. But he is not a mediator for all
and every one; which also is no less evident, because as mediator
he is the priest for them for whom he is a mediator. Now, to a
priest it belongs, as was declared before, to sacrifice and
intercede, to procure good things, and to apply them to those for
whom they are procured; as is evident, Hebrews 9., And was proved
before at large: which confessedly, Christ doth not for all. Yea,
that Christ is not a mediator for every one needs no proof.
Experience sufficiently evinceth it, besides innumerable places
of Scripture. It is, I confess, replied by some, that Christ is a
mediator for some in respect of some acts, and not in respect of
others; but truly, this, if I am able to judge, is a dishonest
subterfuge, that hath no ground in Scripture, and would make our
Savior a half mediator in respect of some, which is an unsavory
expression. But this argument was vindicated before.