« السابقةمتابعة »
or stead, but for us, as the apostle expressly speaks, 1 Cor. viii. 11. which also alike places do shew, where the Scripture saith, that Christ died for our sins; which word cannot have this sense, that Christ died instead of our sins, but that he died for our sins, as it is expressly written, Rom. iv. 25. Moreover these words, Christ died for us,' have
this sense, that he therefore died, that we might embrace and obtain that eternal salvation which he brought to us from heaven, which how it is done you heard before.'
Ans. Briefly to state the difference between us about the meaning of this expression Christ died for us,' I shall give one or two observations upon what they deliver, then confirm the common faith, and remove their exceptions thereto.
1. Without any attempt of proof they oppose 'vice nostri,' and 'propter nos,' as contrary and inconsistent; and make this their argument, that Christ did not die 'vice nostri,' because he died propter nos.' When it is one argument whereby we prove that Christ died in our stead, because he died for us, in the sense mentioned, 1 Cor. viii. 11. where it is expressed by dià, because we could no otherwise be brought to the end aimed at.
2. Our sense of the expression is evident from what we insist upon, in the doctrine in hand. Christ died for us;' that is, he underwent the death and curse that was due to us, that we might be delivered therefrom.
3. The last words of the catechists are those wherein they strive to hide the abomination of their hearts in reference to this business. I shall a little lay it open.
1. Christ, say they, 'brought us eternal salvation from heaven; that is, 'he preached a doctrine in obedience whereunto, we may obtain salvation.' So did Paul.
2. He died that we might receive it;' that is, rather than he would deny the truth which he preached, he suffered himself to be put to death. So did Paul; and yet he was not crucified for the church.
3. It is not indeed the death of Christ, but his resurrection that hath an influence into our receiving of his doctrine, and so our obtaining salvation. And this is the sense of these words, 'Christ died for us.'
For the confirmation of our faith from this expression, Christ died for us,' we have,
1. The common sense, and customary usage of human kind as to this expression. Whenever one is in danger, and another is said to come and die for him, that he may be delivered, a substitution is still understood. The avτífvxoi of old, as Damon and Pythias, &c. make this manifest.
2. The common usage of this expression in Scripture confirms the sense insisted on. So David wished that he had died for his son Absolom, that is, 'died in his stead,' that he might have lived; 2 Sam. xviii. 33. And that supposal of Paul, Rom. i. 11. of one daring to die for a good man, relating (as by all expositors on the place is evinced) to the practice of some in former days, who to deliver others from death, had given themselves up to that whereunto they were obnoxious, confirms the same.
3. The phrase itself, of ἁπέθανε, or ἁπέθανεν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, which is used, Heb. ii. 9. 1 Pet. i. 21. Rom. v. 6-8. 2 Cor. v. 14. sufficiently proves our intention, compared with the use of the preposition in other places; especially being farther explained by the use of the preposition avrì, which ever denotes a substitution, in the same sense and business, Matt. xx. 28. x. 45. 1 Tim. ii. that a substitution and commutation is always denoted by this preposition (if not an opposition which here can have no place); 1 Pet. iii. 9. Rom. xii. 14. Matt. v. 38. Luke xi. 13. Heb. xii. 16. 1 Cor. xi. 15. amongst other places are sufficient evidences.
4. Christ is so said to die ȧvrì nuov, so as that he is said in his death to have 'our iniquities laid upon him,' to 'bear our sin in his own body on the tree,' to be made sin and a curse for us, to offer himself a 'sacrifice for us,' by his death, his blood, to pay a price or ransom for us, to redeem, to reconcile us to God, to do away our sins in his blood, to free us from wrath, and condemnation, and sin. Now whether thus to die for us,' be not to die in our place and stead, let angels and men judge.
5. But, say they, this is all that we have to say in this business. 'Yet we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren;' and Paul saith, 'that he filled up the measure of the affliction of Christ, for his body's sake the church,' but nei
ther the one, nor the other did make satisfaction to God by their death, or affliction. But,
1. If all we had to plead for the sense of this expression, 'Christ died for us,' depended solely on the sense and use of that word vπèo, then the exception would have this force in it. The word is once or twice used in another sense, in another business; therefore the sense of it contended for in this business, cannot be such as you seek to maintain. But,
1. This exception at best, in a cause of this importance, is most frivolous, and tends to the disturbance of all sober: interpretation of Scripture.
2. We are very far from making the single sense of the preposition, to be the medium, which in the argument from the whole expression we insist on.
2. The passage in 1 John iii. 16. being a part of the apostles persuasive to love, charity, and the fruits of them, tending to the relief of the brethren, in poverty and distress, disclaims all intendment and possibility of a substitution or commutation, nor hath any intimation of undergoing that which was due to another, but only of being ready to the utmost to assist and relieve them. The same is the condition of what is affirmed of Paul; of the measure of affliction, which in the infinite wise providence, and fatherly care of God, is proportioned to the mystical body of Christ's church, Paul underwent his share for the good of the whole. But that Paul, that any believers were crucified for the church, or died for it, in the sense that Christ died for it, that they redeemed it to God by their own blood, it is notorious blasphemy once to imagine. The meaning of the phrase, 'He died for our sins,' was before explained. Christ then dying for us, 'being made sin for us,'' bearing our iniquity,' and 'redeeming us by his blood,' died in our place and stead, and by his death made satisfaction to God for our sin.
Also that Christ made satisfaction for our sin, appears from hence, that he was our Mediator. Concerning this, after their attempt against proper redemption by his blood, which we have already considered, Q. 28. they inquire,
'Q. What say you to this, that Christ is the Mediator the new covenant between God and man? and answer.
'A. Seeing it is read, that Moses was a mediator, Gal. iii. 19. (namely of the old covenant between God and the people of Israel) and it is evident, that he no way made satisfaction to God; neither from hence, that Christ is the Mediator of God and man, can it be certainly gathered, that he made any satisfaction to God for our sin.'
I shall take leave before I proceed, to make a return of this argument to them from whom it comes, by a mere change of the instance given. Christ, they say, our high-priest, offered himself to God in heaven. Now Aaron is expressly said to be a high-priest, and yet he did not offer himself in heaven, and therefore it cannot be certainly proved, that Christ offered himself in heaven, because he was a highpriest. Or thus: David was a king, and a type of Christ; but David reigned at Jerusalem, and was a temporal king: it cannot therefore be proved, that Christ is a spiritual king from hence, that he is said to be a king. This argument I confess Faustus Socinus could not answer when it was urged against him by Sidelius. But for the former, I doubt not but Smalcius would quickly have answered, that it is true; it cannot be necessarily proved, that Christ offereth himself in heaven, because he was a high-priest, which Aaron was also, but because he was such a high-priest, as entered into the heavens to appear personally in the presence of God for us, as he is described to be. Until he can give us a better answer to our argument, I hope he will be content with this of ours to his. It is true, it doth not appear, nor can be evinced necessarily, that Christ made satisfaction for us to God, because he was a mediator in general, for so Moses was who made no satisfaction; but because it is said, that he was such a mediator between God and man, as gave his life a price of redemption for them for whom with God he mediated, 1 Tim. ii. 6. it is most evident and undeniable; and hereunto Smalcius is silent.
What remains of this chapter in the catechists, hath been
* Quid ad hæc dicis, quod Christus sit Mediator inter Deum et homines, aut N. fœderis?-Cum legatur Moses fuisse Mediator, Gal. iii. 19. (puta inter Deum et populum Israel aut prisci fœderis) neque eum satisfecisse Deo ullo modo constet, ne hinc quidem quod mediator Dei et hominum Christus sit, colligi certo poterit, eum satisfactionem aliquam, qua Deo pro peccatis nostris satisfieret peregisse.
already fully considered; so to them and Mr. B. as to his 12th chapter about the death of Christ, what hath been said may suffice. Many weighty considerations of the death of Christ in this whole discourse, I confess are omitted; and yet more perhaps have been delivered, than by our adversaries' occasion hath been administered unto. But this business is the very centre of the new covenant, and cannot sufficiently be weighed. God assisting, a farther attempt will ere long be made for the brief stating all the several concernments of it.
Of election and universal grace: Of the resurrection of Christ
MR Biddle's intention in this 13th chapter, being to decry God's eternal election, finding himself destitute of any Scripture that should to the least outward appearance speak to his purpose, he deserts the way and method of procedure imposed on himself, and in the very entrance falls into a dispute against it, with such arguments as the texts of Scripture after-mentioned, give not the least colour or countenance unto. Not that from me he incurs any blame for using any arguments whereby he supposeth he may further or promote his cause, is this spoken; but having at the entrance professed against such a procedure, he ought not upon any necessity to have transgressed the law, which to himself he had prescribed. But as the matter stands, he is to be heard to the full, in what he hath to offer. Thus then he proceeds:
Q. Those Scriptures which you have already alleged, when I enquired for whom Christ died, intimate the universality of God's love to men : yet, forasmuch as this is a point of the greatest importance, without the knowledge and belief whereof, we cannot have any true and solid ground of coming unto God (because if he from eternity intended good only to a few, and those few are not set down in the Scriptures, which were written, that we through the comfort of