It is evident then from fcripture, that Chrift died, not only for our advantage, but in our ftead; as truly and really as any man ever did or can die for another, who lays down his own life to fave another from death. For if Chrift had not died, we had perifhed everlaftingly; and because he died, we are faved from eternal death and mifery.

And though this be no where in fcripture fpoken of by the name or term of fatisfaction, yet it is faid to be the price of our redemption; which furely is the fame in effect with fatisfaction. For as we are finners, we are liable, and, as I may fay, indebted to the juftice of God; and the Son of God, by his death and fufferings in our nature, hath difcharged this obligation, and paid this debt for us. Which difcharge, fince it was obtained for us by the fhedding of Chrift's blood, and the fcripture tells us, that without fhedding of blood there is no remif fion of fins and fince God is gracioufly pleafed to accept of it for the debt which we owed to his justice, and to declare himself fully pleafed and contented with it; why it may not properly enough be called payment or fatisfac tion, I confefs I am not able to understand. Men may eternally wrangle about any thing; but what a frivolous contention, what a trifling in ferious matters, what barratry in divinity is this?

;

Not that God was angry with his Son when he thus laid on him the iniquities of us all: no; he was always well pleafed with him; and never better than when he became obedient to death, even the death of the cross, and bore our fins in his own body on the tree.

Nor yet that our Saviour fuffered the very fame that the finner fhould have fuffered, namely, the proper pains and torment of the damned; but that his obedience and fufferings were of that value and efteem with God, and his voluntary facrifice of himfelf fo well pleafing to him, that he thereupon entered into a covenant of grace and mercy with mankind, wherein he hath engaged himself to forgive the fins of those who believe and repent, and to make them partakers of eternal life. And hence the blood of Chrift, which was fhed for us upon the cross, is called the blood of the covenant, as being the fanction of that new covenant into which God is entered with man

kind; and not only the fanction and confirmation of that covenant, but the very foundation of it; for which rea fon the cup in the Lord's fupper is called the new teftament (or, as the word fhould rather be rendered, the new covenant) in his blood, which was shed for many for the remiffion of fins. I proceed now to the

II. Second thing propounded; which was, to fhew, that the expiation of our fins was made by the fufferings of Christ, from the nature and intention of expiatory facrifices, both among the Jews and Heathens; to which the death of Chrift is in the New Teftament fo frequently compared, and, in point of virtue and efficacy to take away fin, infinitely preferred to them.

Now, the nature and defign of expiatory facrifices was plainly this, to fubftitute one living creature to fuffer and die instead of another; fo that what the finner deferved to have suffered, was fuppofed to be done to the facrifice; that is, it was flain to make an atonement for the finner.

And though there was no reafon to hope for any fuch effect from the blood of bulls, or goats, or of any other living creatures that were wont to be offered up in facrifice; yet that both Jews and Heathens did expect and hope for it, is fo very evident, that it cannot, without extreme ignorance or obftinacy, be denied.

But this expectation, how unreasonable foever, plainly fhews it to have been the common apprehenfion of mankind in all ages, that God would not be appeafed, nor fhould fin be pardoned, without fuffering: but yet: fo, that men generally conceived good hopes, that upon the repentance of finners, God would accept of a vica-rious punishment; that is, of the fuffering of fome other in their ftead. And very probably, as I faid before, in: compliance with this apprehenfion of mankind, and in condefcenfion to it, as well as for other weighty reasons. best known to the divine wisdom, God was pleafed to find out fuch a facrifice as fhould really and effectually procure for them that great bleffing of the forgivenefs of fins, which they had fo long hoped for from the multitude of their own facrifices.

And the Apostle to the Hebrews doth, in a large dif courfe, fhew the great virtue and efficacy of the facrifice:

K. 3

oft

of Chrift, to the purpose of remiffion of fins, above that of the facrifices under the law; and that the death of Chrift is really and effectually to our advantage all that which the facrifices under the law were fuppofed to be to the finner: But now once (faith the Apoftle here in the text) in the end of the world, hath he appeared to take away fin by the facrifice of himself. This is the great virtue and efficacy of the facrifice of Chrift, that whatever was expected from any other facrifices, either by Jews or Heathens, was really effected by this.

This was plainly fignified by the Jewish paffover; wherein the lamb was flain, and the finner did escape, and was paffed by. In allufion whereto, St Paul makes no fcruple to call Chrift our paffover, or pafchal lamb, who was flain that we might efcape: Chrift our passover (fays he, 1 Cor. v. 7.) is flain, or offered, for us; that is, he, by the gracious appointment of God, was fubftituted to fuffer all that in our ftead which the paschal lamb was fuppofed to fuffer for the finner.

And this was likewife fignified by the finner's laying his hand upon the facrifice that was to be flain, thereby, as it were, transferring the punishment which was due to himself, upon the facrifice that was to be flain and offered up. For fo God tells Mofes, that the finner, who came to offer an expiatory facrifice, fhould do, Lev. i. 4. He fhall put his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make an atonement for him. And the Apoftle tells us, that it was an established principle in the Jewish religion, that without hedding of blood there was no remiffion of fins. Which plainly ihews, that they expected this benefit of the remiffion of fins, from the blood of their facrifices..

And then he tells us, that we are really made partakers of this benefit by the blood of Chrift, and by the virtue of his facrifice. And again, Chrift (fays he, Heb. ix. 28.) was once offered to bear the fins of many; plainly alluding to the facrifices under the law, which did, as it were, bear the faults of the finner.

And that this expreffion, of Chrift's being offered to bear our fins, cannot be meant of his taking away our fins by his holy doctrine, which was confirmed by his death, but of his bearing our fins by way of imputation,

and

and by his fuffering for them in our ftead, as the facrifice was fuppofed to do for the finner; this, I fay, is evident beyond all denial, from the oppofition which follows after the text, between his first appearance and his fecond: Chrift (fays our Apostle, ver. 28.) was once offered to bear our fins; but unto them that look for him he fhall appear the fecond time, without fin, unto falvation. Why did he not appear the first time without fin? Yes, certainly, as to any inherent guilt: for the fcripture tells us, he had no fin. What then is the meaning of the oppofition, that at his firft coming he bore our fins, but at his fecond coming he shall appear, without fin, unto falvation? Thefe words can have no other imaginable fenfe but this, that at his first coming he sustained the perfon of a finner, and suffered instead of us; but his fecond coming fhall be upon another account, and he fhall appear without fin, unto falvation; that is, not as a facrifice, but as a judge, to confer the reward of eternal life upon thofe who are partakers of the benefit of that facrifice which he offered to God for us in the days of his flesh. I proceed to the

III. Third thing I propofed, and which yet remains to be spoken to, namely, to vindicate this method and difpenfation of the divine wisdom, from the objections which are brought against it; and to fhew, that there is nothing in it that is unreasonable, or any wife unworthy of God. I fhall mention four objections which are commonly urged in this matter, and I think they are all that are confiderable.

1. That this method, of the expiation of fin by the fufferings of Christ, seems to argue fome defect and want of goodness in God, as if he needed fome external motive, and were not of himself difpofed to forgive finners.

To which I think the answer is not difficult, namely, That God did not want goodness to have forgiven fin freely, and without any fatisfaction; but his wifdom did not think it meet to give encouragement to fin by too eafy a forgiveness, and without fome remarkable teftimony of his fevere difpleasure againft it: and therefore. his greater goodness and compaffion to mankind devised this way to fave the finner, without giving the least countenance and encouragement to fin.

For

For God to think of faving us any way, was exceffive goodness and mercy; but to think of doing it in this way, by fubftituting his dearly beloved Son to fuffer in our ftead, is a condefcenfion fo very amazing, that if God had not been pleafed of his own goodness to stoop to it, it had almost been blafphemy in man to have thought of it, or defired it.

2. How can our fins be faid to have been forgiven freely, if the pardon of them was purchased at fo dear a rate, and fo mighty a price was paid for it?

In anfwer to this, I defire thefe two things may be confidered. ift, That it is a wonderful grace and favour of God, to admit of this translation of the punishment which was due to us, and to accept of the fufferings of another in our ftead, and for our benefit, when he might justly have exacted it of us in our own perfons: fo that, even in this refpect, we are, as St Paul fays, juftified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Fefus Chrift and freely too, in refpect of any neceffity that lay upon God to forgive us in this or any other way.. It was a free act of his goodness to fave us, even by the fatisfaction and fufferings of his own Son. 2dly, It was in effect freely too, notwithstanding the mighty price: which was paid for our redemption: because this price was not of our own procuring, but of God's providing; he found out this ranfom for us. And will any man fay, that a prince who prevails with his fon to intercede for the pardon of a rebel, yea and to fuffer fome punish, ment, or to pay a fine for the obtaining of it, does not in effect, and in all equitable and grateful construction, forgive him freely?

3. It is yet further objected, That this feems to be more unreasonable than the facrificing of beafts among. the Jews, nay than the facrificing of men among the Heathen, and even of their own fons and daughters; because this is the offering up of the Son of God, the most innocent and the most excellent perfon that ever

was.

To which I anfwer, That if we confider the manner and the defign of it, the thing will appear to be quite otherwise.

As to the manner of it, God did not command his Son