|
|
SOME
FEW TESTIMONIES OF THE ANCIENTS.
I.
THE confession of the holy CHURCH of SMYRNA, a little after
the commendation given it by the Holy Ghost, Revelation 2:9, upon
the martyrdom of Polycarpus: — {Ote ou]te to<n
Cristo>n pote katalei>pein dunhsa>meqa to<n uJpe<r
th~v tou~ ko>smou tw~n swzwme>nwn dwthxi>av paqo>nta,
ou[te e{teron timh~| se>zein. — Euseb. Hist. Eccles.,
lib. 4: cap. 15. — “Neither can we ever forsake Christ,
him who suffered for the salvation of the world of them that
are saved, nor worship any other.” [It is an extract
from a letter of the church of Smyrna to the churches of Pontus,
giving an account of the martyrdom of Polycarp.]
II.
The witness of holy IGNATIUS, as he was carrying to Rome from
Antioch, to be cast to beasts for the testimony of Jesus, Epist.
ad Philad. [cap. ix., A.D. Ou+to>v ejstin hJ pro<v to<n
Pate>ra a]gousa ojdo>v, hJ pe>tra, oJ fragmo>v, hJ
klei>v, oJ poim>h>n, to< iJerei~on, hJ zu>ra th~v
gnw>sewv di j h=v eijsh~lqon Azraa<m kai< jIsaa<k
kai< jIakw>z, Mwsh~v, kai< oJ su>mpav tw~n profhtw~n
coro>v, kai< oiJ stu>loi tou~ ko>smou oiJ
apo>stoloi kai< hJ nu>mfh tou~ Cristou~, uJpe<r h+v, fernh~v
lo>gw|, ejxe>cev to< oijkei~on ai=ma i[na aujth<n
ejxagora>sh|. — “This is the way leading to the
Father, this the rock, the fold, the key; he is the shepherd, the
sacrifice; the door of knowledge, by which entered Abraham, Isle,
Jacob, Moses, and the whole company of prophets, and the pillars
of the world, the apostles, and the spouse of Christ; for whom,
instead of a dowry, he poured out his own blood, that he might
redeem her.” Surely Jesus Christ gives not a dowry for any
but his own spouse.
III.
CLEMENS, “whose name is in the book of life,”
Philippians 4:3, with the whole church at Rome in his days, in
the epistle to the church of Corinth: — Dia< th<n
ajga>phn h{n ejscen pro<v hJma~v to< ai=ma aujtou~
ejdwken uJpe<r hJmw~n ejn zelh>mati aujtou~ kai< th<n
sa>rka uJpe<r th~v sarko<v hJmw~n kai< th<n
yuch<n uJpe<r yucw~n hJmw~n. — “ For the love
which he had unto us, he gave his blood for us, according to his
purpose, and his flesh for our flesh, and his life for our
lives.” Where you have assigned,
1.
The cause of Christ’s death, — his love to us;
2.
The object of it, — us, or believers;
3.
The manner how he redeemed us, even by commutation. This
triple testimony is taken from the very prime of undoubted
antiquity.
IV.
CYPRIAN, Epist. 62. to Caecilius, a holy, learned, and famous
martyr, A.D. 250: — “Nos omnes portabat Christus, quiet
peccata nostra portabat.” — “He bare all us, who
bare our sins;” that is, he sustained their persons on the
cross for whom he died.
The
same to Demetrian: — “Hanc gratiam Christus impertit,
subigendo mortem trophaeo cracis, redimendo credentem pretio
sanguinis sui.” — “This grace hath Christ
communicated, subduing death in the trophy of his cross,
redeeming lievers with the price of his blood.” The same, or
some other ancient and pious writer of the cardinal works Christ,
Serm. 7, secund. Rivet. Crit. Sac. in Cyp. [lib. 2:cap. 15]
Scultet. Medul. Pat. Erasm. praefat, ad lib.
The
same author also, in express terms, mentions the sufficiency of
the ransom paid by Christ, arising from the dignity of his
person: — “Tantae dignitatis illa una Redemptoris
nostri fuit oblatio, ut una ad tollenda mundi peccatum
sufficeret.” — “Of so great dignity was the
oblation of our Redeemer, that it alone was sufficient to take
away the sins of the world.”
V.
CYRIL of Jerusalem, Cataches. 13. [A.D. 350]: — Kai<
mh< qauma>sh|v eij ko>smov o[lov ejlutrw>qh, ouj
ga<r h+n a]nqrwpov yilo<v ajlla< uiJo<v Qeou~
menogenh<v oJ uJperapoqnh>skwn—kai< eij po>te
dia< pisteu>ontev eijv para>deison oujk
eijseleu>sontai; — “ Wonder not if the whole world
be redeemed; for he was not a mere man, but the only-begotten Son
of God that died. If, then, through the eating of the tree”
(forbidden) “they were cast out of paradise, certainly now
by the tree” (or cross) “of Jesus shall not believers
more easily enter into paradise?”
So
also doth another of them make it manifest in what sense they use
the word all.
VI.
ATHANASIUS, of the incarnation of the Word of God [A.D. 350]:
Ou+to>v ejstin hJ pa>ntwn zwh>, kai< wJv pro>Zaton
uJpe<r, th~v pa>ntwn swthri>av ajntik>yucon to<
eJautou~ sw~ma eijv za>naton paradou>v. — “He is
the life of all, and as a sheep he delivered his body a
price for the souls of all, that they might be
saved.”
All
in both places can be none but the elect; as, —
VII.
AMBROSE de Vocat. Gen., lib. 1: cap. 3; or rather, PROSPER,
lib. 1:cap. 9, edit. Olivar. [A.D. 370]: — “Si non
credis, non descendit tibi Christus, non tibi passus est.”
— “If thou believe not, Christ did not descend for
thee, he did not suffer for thee.”
Ambr.
de Fide ad Gratianum: — “Habet populus Dei plenitudinem
suam. In electis enim et praescitis, atque ab omnium generalitate
discretis, specialis quaedam censetur universitas, ut de toto
mundo totus mundus liberatus, et de omnibus hominibus omnes
homines videantur assumpti.” — “The people of God
hath its own fullness. In the elect and foreknown, distinguished
from the generality of all, there is accounted a certain special
universality; so that the whole world seems to be delivered
from the whole world, and all men to be taken out of all
men.”
In
which place he proceedeth at large to declare the reasons why, in
this business, “all” and “the world” are so
often used for “some of all sorts.” These that follow
wrote after the rising of the Pelagian heresy, which gave
occasion to more diligence of search and wariness of expression
than had formerly been used by some.
VIII.
AUGUSTINE, de Cor. et Grat. cap. 40: [A.D. 420]: —
“Per hunt Mediato-rem Deus ostendit eos, quos ejus sanguine
redemit, facere se ex malis in aeternum honos.” —
“By him the Mediator, the Lord declareth himself to make
those whom he hath redeemed with his blood, of evil, good to
eternity.” “Vult possidere Christus quod emit; tanti
emit ut possideat.” — “Christ will possess what he
bought; he bought it with such a price that he might possess
it.”
Idem,
Serm. 44: de Verbis Apost.: — “Qui nos tanto pretlo
emit non vult perire quos emit.” — “He that bought
us with such a price will have none perish whom he hath
bought.”
Idem,
Tract. lXXXvii, in Johan.: — “Ecclesiam plerumque etiam
ipsam mundi nomine appellat; sicut est illud, ‘Deus erat in
Christo mundum reconcilians sibi;’ itemque illud, ‘Non
venit Filius hominis ut judicet mundum, sed ut salvetur mundus
per ipsum;’ et in epistola sua Johannes ait, ‘Advocatum
habemus ad Patrem, Jesum Christum justum, et ipse propitiator est
peecatorum nostrorum, non tantum nostrorum sed etiam totius
mundi.’ Totus ergo mundus est ecclesia, et totus mundus odit
ecclesiam. Mundus igitur odit mundum; inimicus reconciliatum,
damnatus, salvatum, inquinatus mundatum. Sed iste mundus quem
Deus in Christo recon-ciliat sibi, et qui per Christum salvatur,
de mundo electus est inimico, damnato, contaminato.” —
“He often calleth the church itself by the name of the
world; as in that, ‘God was in Christ reconciling the
world unto himself;’ and that, ‘The Son of man came not
to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be
saved.’ And John in his epistle saith, ‘We have an
Advocate, and he is the propitiation for [our sins, and not for
ours only, but also for] the sins of the whole world.’ The
whole world, therefore, is the church, and the world hateth the
church. The world, then, hateth the world; that which is at
enmity, the reconciled; the condemned, the saved; the polluted,
the cleansed world. And that world which God in Christ
reconcileth to himself, and which is saved by Christ, is chosen
out of the opposite, condemned, defiled world.”
Much
more to this purpose might be easily cited out of Augustine, but
his judgment in these things is known to all.
IX.
PROSPER [A.D. 440], Respon. ad Capit. Gall. cap. 9.: —
“Non est crucifixus in Christo qui non est membrum corporis
Christi. Cum itaque dicatur Salvator pro totius mundi redemptione
crucifixus, propter veram humanse naturae susceptionem, potest
tamen dici pro his tantum crucifixus quibus mors ipsius profuit.
Diversa ab istis sors eorum est qui inter illos censentur de
quibus dicitur, ‘Mundus enim non cognovit.’“—
”He is not crucified with Christ who is not a member of the
body of Christ. When, therefore, our Savior is said to be
crucified for the redemption of the whole world, because of his
true assumption of the human nature, yet may he be said to be
crucified only for them unto whom his death was profitable.
Diverse from these is their lot who are reckoned amongst them of
whom it is said, ‘The world knew him not.’“
Idem,
Resp. Object. Vincen. Res. i.: — “Redemptionis
proprietas, haud dubie penes illos est, de quibus princeps mundi
missus est foras. Mors Christi non ita impensa est humano generi,
ut ad redemptionem ejus etiam qui regenerandi non erant
pertinerent.” — “Doubtless the propriety of
redemption is theirs from whom the prince of this world is cast
out. The death of Christ is not to be so laid out for human-kind,
that they also should belong unto his redemption who were not to
be regenerated.” Idem, de Ingrat., cap. 9.: —
“Sed tamen haec aliqua sivis ratione tueri Et credi tam stulta cupis; jam pande quid hoc sit, Quod bonus omnipotensque Deus, non omnia subdit Corda sibi, pariterque omnes jubet esse fideles? Nam si nemo usquam est quem non velit esse redemptum, Haud dubie impletur quicquid vult summa potestas. Non omnes autem salvantur” —.
“If
there be none whom God would not have redeemed, why are not all
saved?”
X.
CONCIL. VALEN., can. 4:— “Pretium mortis Christi
datum est pro iIlis tan-turn quibus Dominus ipse dixit,
‘Sicut Moses exaltavlt serpentem in deserto, ita ex-altari
oportet Filius hominis, ut omnis qui credit in ipso non pereat,
sed habeat vitam eternam.’“ — “The price of
the death of Christ is given for them alone of whom the Lord
himself said, ‘As Moses lifted up the serpent in the
wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever
believeth on him should not perish.’“
AN
APPENDIX UPON OCCASION OF A LATE BOOK PUBLISHED
BY
MR JOSHUA SPRIGGE, CONTAINING ERRONEOUS DOCTRINE.
READER,
I
DO earnestly entreat thy serious perusal of this short appendix.
The total finishing and printing, not only of the body of the
discourse, but also the preface, before occasion was given to
those thoughts which I now desire to communicate, is the rise of
this ataxy. This, being irrecoverable, will admit of no farther
apology. In the third division of this treatise there are sundry
chapters, namely, 7–9, etc., about the satisfaction of
Christ, in which the doctrine is cleared and vindicated from the
objections of some. The first aim I had therein was, to show the
inconsistency of that with the general ransom, principally now
opposed. In handling of it my eye was chiefly on the Socinians,
the noted known opposers of the person, grace, and merit of
Christ, the most wretched prevaricators in Christian religion
which any age ever yet produced. In the manner of asserting it, I
looked not beside the scriptural proposal of it, nor turned to
any controversials, but only for the remarking some parora~mata and
(I fear willful) failings and mistakes of Grotius in stating this
business. His wretched apostasy into the very dregs of the error
by himself (in the judgment of some) strongly opposed,
sufficiently authorizeth any to lay open his treacherous dealing
in his first undertaking. If any doubt of this, let him but
compare the exposition of sundry texts of Scripture in that book
against Socinus with those which the same person hath since given
in his so much admired (indeed, in very many things, so much to
be abhorred) Annotations on the Bible; and, by their
inconsistency he will quickly perceive the steadfastness of that
man to his first principles. Great as he was, he was not
big enough to contend with truth. Moreover, I had it in my
thoughts to endeavor the removal of (as I then thought) a scruple
from the minds of some well-meaning persons, who weakly apprehend
that the eternal love of God to his elect was inconsistent with
the satisfaction of Christ, and therefore began to apprehend, and
instantly to divulge abroad (for that is the manner of our days,
for every one to cast upon others the crudities of their own
stomach, and scatter abroad undigested conceptions, waiting for
some to lick their deformed issues, and to see what other
capricious brains can make of that which themselves know not how
to improve) that Christ came only to declare the love of the
Father, and to make it manifest to us, that we, in the
apprehension thereof, might be drawn to him; so that as for
satisfaction and merit, they are but empty names, obscuring the
gospel, which holds out no such things. Now, concerning this I
know, —
1.
That this new-named free grace, this glorious height
and attainment, this varnished deity, was at first in its
original “truncus ficulnus,” — an old, rotten,
over-worn, Arminian objection, raised out of the obs. and sols.
of the old schoolmen, to oppose the doctrine of effectual
redemption by Christ, or else to overthrow the doctrine of
eternal election; for they framed it to look both ways (either we
are not so chosen, or not so redeemed), not caring which part of
their work it did, so it were in any measure useful. This was the
birth and rise of this glorious discovery.
2.
That of its own accord it tends to the very bottom of
Socinian folly, yea, indeed, is the very same opinion, for
substance, with that whereby they have so long vexed the churches
of God, and are themselves deservedly by them all esteemed
accursed, for preaching another gospel. Doth not the sum of this
discovery come hither, that there is no vindicative justice in
God, no wrath or anger against sin, nothing requiring
satisfaction for it; that Christ came to declare this, and to
make known the way of going to the Father? And is not this that
very Helena for which the Socinians have, with so much fraud and
subtlety, with so many Sinonian arts, so long contended?
3.
That it is extremely to the dishonor of Jesus Christ,
destructive to the gospel faith and all solid consolation, and
forces men either to a familistical contempt or sophistical
corrupting of the word of God in its defense. Upon these and the
like considerations and apprehensions, I deemed it might not be
in vain to disprove the main assertion, as also to manifest the
miserable inconsequence, from the asserting of God’s eternal
love to the denial of satisfaction; which in what manner the Lord
enabled me to perform, you must know, reader, in the place above
mentioned. At that time I had only had one conference with one
about it; and for books I had only seen some few, and those so
exceedingly inconsiderable, and so fully familistical, forced
with so much contempt of the word, that I was not willing to cast
away the least moment on them.
But
now, some few days ago (to come to the occasion of this
appendix), there came to my hands a book written by Mr Sprigge
who, both in his preface to the reader and in divers passages in
the treatise itself, labors to commend to the world this glorious
discovery, that Christ did not purchase, but only preach, peace
unto us; that he came only to reveal and declare the love of God,
not to procure it; that we only are reconciled to God by him,
which he proves from Romans 5:11; that no reconciliation with God
is procured; that this discovery, and the like, are that which we
have prayed for all this while. — Preface to the Reader. So
also in many places of the treatise itself, pp. 65,101. Indeed,
everywhere it is his main scope. He bids us not think the heart
of God was set upon the having a little blood (see Ephesians 5:2)
for the sins of his people, p. 59. These things are but pleasant
tales and childish things to allure us withal, p. 46. In short,
one main aim of the book is to make the whole ministration of
Christ to be the discovery of a mystery nowhere revealed in the
word. It is not my purpose here to view the whole, or to separate
the chaff from the wheat in it, to distinguish between the
spiritual truths and smoky vapors that are interwoven in it, but
only to cautionate the reader a little about that one thing I
before intimated, with some brief expostulations about it.
Only
let me inform thee a little, also, that my motive hereunto is not
only from the book itself, but also from the pretended
“imprimatur” annexed to it. The truth itself, in
opposition to this dangerous notion (with a discovery of the
whole fallacy), thou wilt find sufficiently confirmed from the
Scripture in the foregoing treatise; and Christians will not
easily, I hope, be shaken from the truth of the word by any
pretended revelations whatsoever. Only, whereas tantum nomen (as
is that of the reverend and learned licenser)is (I know not
whether duly) affixed to the treatise I speak of, until he shall
have vindicated himself, lest it should insinuate itself by the
help of his name into others (as upon that score, without farther
view, it was left with commendation by myself in the hand wherein
I first saw it), I desire to give thee these few observations
here as a foretaste, reserving thee for full satisfaction unto
what is held out from the word herein in the foregoing treatise.
First,
then, observe that that absurd consequence, deduced from this
position, that Christ is not the cause but the effect of love,
— namely, ergo, he did not purchase life, peace, and
salvation for us, — flows merely from ignorance of the love
of God, and confounding those things which ought to be
distinguished. Some look upon love in God as an unchangeable
affection, when the truth is, as an affection or passion, it hath
no place in God at all. All agree that love in spirits, yea
partly in men, is in appetitu intellectivo, in the will,
the intellectual appetite; and there defined to be qe>lein
tini< to< ajgaqo>n, “to will good to any one.”
Certainly, then, in God his love is but a pure act of his will.
That love which was the cause of sending his Son is, I say, an
act of his will, his good pleasure, — not a natural
affection to the creature. No such affection is there in God, as
I have abundantly proved in this treatise. Now, this love, this
act of God’s will, was not purchased, not procured by
Christ. Very true; who ever was so mad as to affirm it? Can a
temporal thing be the cause of that which is eternal? This is not
at all the sense of them who affirm that Christ procured the love
of his Father for us. No; but the effects of this purpose, the
fruits of this love, commonly called in the Scripture love, as
affections are ascribed to God in respect of their effects. Now,
that Christ purchased these for us, see afterward. This eternal
act of God’s will, this love, which was the rise of sending
Jesus Christ, tended to his glory in these two acts: — first,
The removing of wrath, death, curse, guilt, from them for
whom he was sent, by satisfaction to his vindicative justice; secondly,
The actual procuring of grace and glory for them, by merit
and impetration. These things, though they are not the love of
God, which is immanent in himself, yet they are those alone
whereby we enjoy his love, and are purchased by Christ; which
here I must not prove, lest I should actum agere.
Secondly,
An eternal act of God’s will, immanent in himself, puts no
change of condition into the creature. See what the Scripture
says of the elect notwithstanding this, Ephesians 2:3; John 3:36.
Let not the word be despised nor corrupted. Be not wise above
what is written. “Though an angel,” etc., Galatians
1:8. Until he draws us, the fruit of his death is kept for us in
the justice and fidelity of God.
Thirdly,
These things being premised, to clear the truth in this point, I
desire a fair and candid answer to these queries: —
First,
What is the meaning of that phrase, Hebrews 2:17, Eijv to<
iJla>skesqai ta<v aJmarti>av tou~ laou~, “To make
reconciliation for the sins of the people,” and this being
done as a priest towards God, Hebrews 5:1, — whether the
meaning of it be declared love from God to man?
Secondly,
Is not the end of sundry typical sacrifices to make an
atonement with God on their behalf for whom they were sacrifices?
Exodus 29:33,36, 30:10,15,16; Leviticus 6:7; Numbers 16:46, and
very many other places; — and whether this were to turn away
the wrath of God, or to reconcile men to him?
Thirdly,
Is not the death of Christ a proper sacrifice? Ephesians 5:2;
Hebrews 9:26,28; John 1:29; the antitype of all sacrifices, in
which they have their accomplishment? And did it not really
effect what they carnally and typically figured? Hebrews 9:11-14,
etc., 10:1-7, etc. And was it not offered to God?
Fourthly,
Was not Jesus Christ a priest for his people, in their behalf
to deal with God, Hebrews 2:17, 5:1,2, 7:26,27; as well as a
prophet, to deal with them in the behalf of God? and whether the
acts of his priestly office do not all of them immediately tend
towards God for the procuring good things for those in whose
behalf he is a priest?
Fifthly,
Whether Christ by his intercession doth appear before God to
declare the love of God to his? or whether it be to procure
farther fruits of love for his? Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25, 9:24.
Sixthly,
Did not Christ, by and in the oblation of himself, through
the eternal Spirit, pay a ransom, or valuable price of
redemption, into the hand of his Father for the sins of the
people? Matthew 26:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:6; Ephesians 5:2;
Job 33:24. And whether a ransom be a price of deliverance,
arguing a commutation? Exodus 21:30, 30:12.
Or
whether Christ paid a ransom to his Father for the souls and sins
of his people, thereby to declare to his people that there was no
need of any such thing? And what think you of the old saying of
Tertullian, “Omnia in imagines vertunt, imaginarii ipsi
Christiani?”
Seventhly,
Did not Christ in his death bear our sins? John 1:29; 1 Peter
2:24; Isaiah 53:6,11; 2 Corinthians 5:21. And whether to bear sin
in the Scripture be not to bear the punishment due to sin?
Leviticus 5:1, etc. And is not to undergo the punishment due to
sin, to make satisfaction for sin?
Eighthly,
Did not Christ, as our surety, undergo all that is anywhere
threatened against sin, and by the justice of God is due unto it?
Hebrews 7:22, 4:15; Galatians 3:13; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews
5:7; Luke 22:44, etc.
Ninthly,
Is there not a purchase and procurement of good things
assigned to the death of Christ? Isaiah 53:5; Hebrews 9:12; Acts
20:28; 1 Thessalonians 5:9; Luke 1:74; Romans 5:10; Ephesians
2:16, etc.
Tenthly,
Seeing that place of Romans 5:11, “By whom we have now
received the atonement,” is urged to disprove the purchase
of peace and reconciliation with God for us, whether by “the
atonement” there be meant our reconciliation to God? and
whether it be proper to say we have received or accepted of our
conversion or reconciliation?
Eleventhly,
Whether to affirm that all that was done in and by Christ was
but a sign and representation of what is done spiritually in us,
be not to overthrow the first promise, Genesis 3:15, yea, the
whole gospel, and to make it, as it is called, a “childish
thing?”
Twelfthly,
Whether it be fair and allowable, for men professing the name
of Christ, in the trial of truth, to decline the word of God? And
whether such declension be not an invincible demonstration of a
guilt of falsehood? Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32; Joshua 1:7; Psalm
19:7; Proverbs 30:6; Isaiah 8:20; Luke 1:4, 16:29; John 5:39,
20:30,31; Galatians 1:8,9; 2 Thessalonians 2:2; 1 Timothy 6:20; 2
Timothy 3:16,17; 2 Peter 1:19, etc.
Thus
much, courteous reader, I thought good to premise unto thee,
though something out of order, upon the discovery of a new
opposition made to a precious truth of God, which thou wilt find
explained and asserted in the foregoing treatise; and this
liberty I hope I have assumed without the offense of any. It is
not about trifles that I contend (I abhor such ways), but for the
faith once delivered to the saints. Now, “Peace be to the
brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord
Jesus Christ. Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus
Christ in sincerity. Amen.”
COGGESHALL,
APRI 25, 1648.